How quaint! Science is now a psychological process!

It is true the words we use for concepts such as sound and colour are just that - words. These words are meaningless without the physical interaction of the various energies that propagate these phenomena with the organs of the body that are attuned to receive them.

However this does not negate that these phenomena have an existence outside our experience of them. Electromagnetic waves of differing wavelength (generally accepted to be between 700 - 400 or so nanometres) make up the visible spectrum of light we identify with the colours. Sound is a longitudinal wave of energy propagated through a medium such as air, the frequencies of sound waves is much more varied but the range of sound audible to humans is approx. 20Hz - 20kHz although this range does vary according to a variety of factors.

Regardless of whether you use the words 'sound' or 'colour' , or replace sound with 'squiggle' and colour with 'wiggle' the energies these waves correspond to remains the same. An object interacting with these energies will be affected the same no matter what word is used. So use the term sound or use the term energy, the phenomenon exists, it interacts with other things and so has an existence that is independent of our recognition of it.

Must a living organism know of it's existence to exist? Some people here are assigning human consciousness as a condition of awareness.

I personally enjoy the theory that living cells are aware of their own existance... even if there isn't much evidence to support it, there is alot more evidence then there is to support the existance of god.

Yes, just because they don't talk like us, doesn't change the fact that they interact and respond, or talk in their own way. There is a certain type of bacteria that "talks" in a certain way which is visible through luminescence. Through chemical interactions they decide en masse when it is appropriate to shine.

Ok, I gotta hand it to you; great article
I never really knew these microtubules had anything to do with our consciousness, but ofcourse this is still just a theory.

But then again, even if those trees would have a certain consciousness, even if they could communicate with eachother. We will still never know for sure that the tree made a sound, would we?
I'm not saying that it isn't true, i'm just saying that the tree didn't fall. But without observers, with a conscious as advanced as a human's. We won't know for 100%!

There isn't much evidence to support it because we try to apply our own brand of consciousness as the only law of awareness. At this point, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about - it's just coming out of my ass I think!!

There is no way of telling. It is an act of faith.



Only to you because you are viewing it. I have to go by faith.


Only while we consciously perceive it. Otherwise there is no way of knowing.

A good well worded quote from a highly respected psychiatrist goes as follows:

Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.

--- Carl Gustov Jung

I think suffices to illustrate my point.

It may be unconscious or may lack the self-awareness other complex life forms have but it does have consciousness to some degree.

ummmmm........no......not at all......I perfectly understood everything that you were saying.....

Who's consciousness are you talking about? If my consciousness ceases it means I am dead and therefore the universe also ceases to exist but only for me....it's still there in reality for everything else to percieve.

Edit: diabolical spelling

I knooooooooooooooow XD



Yes but unless the tree tells us , humans, that another tree fell we can't know it for sure.
So this is also just an act of faith.



Déjà Vu



Yes, a tree might have a conscious but unless the tree has some way of telling us; to us the tree doesn't exist and so we can never be sure it makes a sound.

I don't think Faith is an issue. I would say logical deduction. I find a fallen tree, through logical deduction based on experience and knowledge of watching trees falling down and speaking to other people who also have tree falling down experience I can then deduce that it would have made a sound unless there was some weird anomaly eg. a vacuum formed around the tree stopping any noise being created. But from logical deduction I can predict that a vacuum did not form around the tree etc.

True. From logical deduction we know the tree will make a sound/noise. There is no reason why it should not. But the problem is that we simply can not proove it.

At instance everyone will say; Yes the tree will make a sound. But if you think more about it... when brave new world keeps spamming te same sentence everytime I ask him something (no offense ). I came to understand that is indeed an act of faith.

I agree

Our ideas of reality are nothing more than a collection of sensory data from which our brain maps out a reality. Data, which in order to get means you violate any doubt and the uncertainty principle. We cant see probabilities, we can only see single outcomes. So our reality is only constructed from those single outcomes.


Reality is a subjective experience. It is a subjective experience limited to our ability to gain data.
I dont claim justice is a real object or honour is a real sensation they are ideas in the mind. Similary reality or what I call reality are also ideas that just exist in my mind.

You make the mistake of thinking that we are really aware of ours.

A classic arguement in philosophy.

However Solipsism says how do you know your own consciousness is not at the centre of the universe. If it is the creator of reality then that includes all objects in reality along with other people.

You look, you feel, you gain data on everything around you so you create an outcome of of what was initially just a probibility. So in that respect you are at the centre of the universe.

I'm sticking with my old answer I gave back on page 2 or 3.

Of course it does, it's a freakin' tree.

There are so many ways a tree tells us its cononsciece.

It makes a sound to ward other life forms around it to other life forms
If you plan on shelter , wood from trees is what is used and therefore isnt that a conscience thing that it can sprout and vegatate from the worst vocanic destion .?
Trees produce our edible friuts for animals birds, insect and humans that supports life.
Without trees , animals wouldnt be exhisting, nor vegation .
Trees also produce shade for the life it supports animal and humans
trees have rings , if you count them it is prooven to be the age of the tree itself.
surface tension, is a science to show how when water expands when frozen as to trees grow upward and need water to grow .
water has a conscience as well , we are made up of 70 water , dont we have a conscience.?

If all things have a conscience , it would mean the senses like sight smell and hearing , touch and taste are present and if nothing elese has purpose from the evidence proving there is a God , jehovah , Our creator , and gives man the free will to be able to choose for themselves to decide what to believe, and what actions they make, even to what they choose to believe. If we were made in his image it makes sense that even if the tree didnt have a concsience its purpose is great and the purpose is strong . I feel God has shown man through awarness and examples of everthing the planet has always been provideing for us, it was created first , proves with thought and then creatures, so The maker put man to have a clean conscienceness but the ability to have a guilty conscience , The tree is life with a way to prove that through science and belief in God it has a place in life and purpose therefor a conscience awaremness to its exhistance. A knowledge that without it we wouldnt be able to thrive. So by either sides it provides those facts and we as humans have to either be conscience of why the purpose outways all that go against preserving trees , and life itself.

That would mean that I am mad and arguing with myself.

I agree. Unlike Berkeley, I am not an idealist and shouldn't pretend that I am. Although the riddle may have been cute in its day, we now have the technology to prove the existence of objects and events without having to perceive them first-hand. In the words of William of Ockham: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

No. Consciousness =/= (doesn't equal) Awareness. There is a distinct difference just as there is a difference between self-awareness and plain awareness.

That logic is quite amusing. I've posted the definition of sound. In a nutshell, sound is transmitted vibrations. Silence doesn't sound. No sound cannot be a defined sound just like no egg cannot be a defined egg, just like no thought cannot be a defined thought.

Again no, not consciousness (and I explained why I disagree with using consciousness) it's more like awareness as a result of never-ending interaction.

Here is the distinction between consciousness and awareness (TheFreeDictionary)...
(my emphasis on the differences) If you drop thought, free-will, sensations and perhaps memory from consciousness then you will arrive at awareness.

Perhaps it is an act of faith but very different to that in religion In science we have faith that something will occur because it has always occurred and if it doesn't occur then we change the theory - no one will ever change the theory of a tree falling in the woods because the non-existence of a sound of a falling tree (by your own admission) cannot be observed by a conscious being. With religion people have faith in something that has never been observed, IMHO.

See above

A single neuron doesn't have thought itself since thought is the result of billions of neurons. IMO, a single neuron doesn't have free-will - it always reacts the same to the same 'stimuli' and is more like an (electro)chemical reactor. A single neuron doesn't have sensations as we have (since sensations that we know are propagated by neurons themselves, neurons don't have neurons to propagate sensations).

Cannot compare to a consciousness of a particle since I disagree with a particle having consciousness but you can compare to awareness - see above definitions and emphasis.

More like a giant reactor with ONE component that forms almost infinite patterns on ever increasing scales.

I'd agree with that only if the god you refer to is not the same as portrayed in biblical writings.

BTW, I am not overly happy with my responses here, not because they may be wrong (they may well be though) but because I like to think things through until there is absolutely no doubt. Unfortunately, the subject of consciousness & philosophical implications takes a lot more thought (pretty close to infinite) to be left with no doubt. Also, definitions have to be precise and concrete but they vary.

Cheers

Hmmmm a woman that speaka my 2am language

The straight dope - http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_236.html

How can you prove that unless you are there to confirm it??????

Define this difference......... Also what is the difference between plain awareness and self awareness?



No egg is the egg of no egg. No thought is the thought of no thought.



So the whole universe is just one awareness?



Consciousness and awareness are one and the same. Both just are. You can drop those with consciousness if you want as well.



Except for awareness which is considered God by the Hindu mystics. No one can deny their own being.



It still has a point of perception (awareness).



Ok man and particles both have awareness. So is the universe just awareness? This awareness more fundamental than anything else?



Sri Bhagavan said the whole Vendanta is contained in two Biblical statements: "I Am that I Am" and "Be still and know I am God."

Sri Bhagavan went on th say that: "I am" is the name of God...God is none other than the self.

How about this take on God:

..The real God is not to be sought in idols and symbols, in temples or churches.
The truth of the matter is that the purified man is God himself, for he has become one with universal life. The purified man is the self-realised man. He has not to await answers from God, for he has no questions to ask. He himself is the answer to all questions; his life itself is a benediction. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988.
p55)

The whole universe is abstract consciousness.





Your responses are very witty and well thought out. But see you have much doubt about philosophical implications....good! So you see the importance of faith! Just know that awareness and consciousness are one and the same.

But there is a difference between abstract consciousness and mind consciousness.

Haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone come to the conclusion that by asking the question "If a tree falls in the woods..." one would acknowledge the existence of some tree that falls in the woods, and so the tree exists. Because the tree exists, as a normal tree as it is not specified as some sort of tree that does not produce sound waves, one can say:

It does make a sound as you have created the existence of the tree by asking that question.

The question only creates the existence of a tree and its action (cause)....it is enquiring as to the effect but does not determine it

hmmm, what determines it i wonder?

The fact that it is a tree. And based on every species of tree we know, they all emit sound waves.

only if you are there to percieve them.

Perhaps we must first ask: Is there a tree in the first place, if no one is around to see it?

But if the tree exists, all that goes along with it exists, the tree exists because the one who had asked the question had brought it into existence, hence, every aspect of the tree is aswell brought into existence. The tree exist, the leaves exist, the smell and sound exist too.

Have we yet established what we mean by sound? Is sound the result of a vibration within a given range, or is it only "sound" when it is perceived as such by a brain. (And I am assuming that animals don't count.)

If no person hears it , it cannot be perceived as sound, yet it retains the physical ability to produce a range of vibration that would correspond to what we define as sound. It has the unrealized potential, but is lacking in the one thing that is needed to make it an actuality. Ergo, it does not produce a sound, but only vibrations.

Unless there is someone there how can we tell whether it produces vibrations or not?

As I read somewhere: no the tree does not make a sound but the squirrel it fell on does.

*sqeak* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But can you be sure? If you wernt there how can you know for sure that an anomaly never occured?

there might just be the smell and no sound. How can ya if you arnt there?

Here's a rare video of an observer who witnessed a tree fall... but never heard it!

Falling Tree

I'm speechless

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

There are two ways of looking at this, the spiritual (believing without seeing) way, and the scientific (proven) way. Based on science, we know sound waves exist. However, sound is the end result of transmission and receiving.

So in the end, the sound waves exist, because the tree exists, and because this is not some magic tree, the sound waves are a proven result of a tree hitting the ground.

However, the sound does not exist, as there is the transmission of sound waves, but being no one there to hear them, then the sound does not exist because no one has experienced this question.

And so, the age-old question's answer:

Sound waves exist.
Sound does not exist.

The tree, does not make a sound.

oh...what was the question?

Q) If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

A) Sound waves exist, sound does not exist

hmmm.

So what do we call it then, "waves"?

Apparently, he failed his physics course in school but looks like he graduated from the school of hard knocks.

LMAO thats funny

No, we call it sound waves. You call french fries french fries, but does that mean they have a French nationality. You need a bit more work on your literacy.

I found an interesting article that may help clear up a few things:

"Berkeley made the radical claim that there is no 'out there', or, more precisely, there is no matter. Berkeley's position, which is called 'idealism', can be summed up in his famous phrase 'esse is percipi': to be is to be perceived. What we call 'bodies', or physical objects, are simply stable collections of perceptions to which we give names such as 'apples', 'trees', and so on. These collections of perceptions have no existence apart from a perceiving mind. The answer to the famous conundrum 'If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?' is that if no one is perceiving it, it not only does not make a sound, the tree does not even exist!

Does this mean that trees go out of existence when no one is left in the forest to perceive them and that they come back into existence when someone enters the forest to perceive them again? It would seem that Berkeley must accept this odd conclusion were it not for one important point: God never leaves the forest and God is always perceiving the trees. By always holding all collections of perceptions in the divine mind, God ensures their continued existence and the perceived regularity in what we call 'nature'."

Source: http://www.whitworth.edu/Academic/Departme...ata/d_berke.htm

I find it extremely fascinating that Berkeley's views almost parallel those mentioned in the following topic:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=90086

And here I was thinking that I was the only crazy nut trying to claim that there is no such thing as matter! What a hoot!

Yes, i dont know what all that was about, but it was quite funny he he....


mmm, my point though, was to show that however true the statements might have been....
They did not actually provide an answer to the "age old" question at all. If someone came to this thread and saw the question as it is, and the answer as you put it, the chances are they would not be able to make any sense out of what you were saying.

Perhaps Knott isnt the only one who needs to do some work on his literacy skill?

NICE ONE!!
nn23

Okay, let's start from scratch:

Q: If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound.

Let's look at the question. If a tree... A tree. So there is a tree. The tree existence, because you have brought it into existence by asking the question. So now, the tree exists, what else exists. Sound must exist, for it is also brought into existence in the question.

But then if no one picks up the sound waves does it exist? Of course not, because sound is the action of transmitting sound waves and receiving sound waves. For instance, if you have your radio turned off, does it make a sound? No. But the DJ broadcasting the sound, is he not making sound waves? Yes.

The same can be said about the tree. We know that trees make sounds when they falls down, of course, for it to be considered a sound, the action of tranmission and receiving must be incorporated. However, the tree is not heard by anyone, so the transmission is there, but the receiving is not.

Sound waves = transmission
Sound = receiving

The tree transmits sound waves. However, since part of the equation to make up sound is missing, there is no sound.

A: The tree does not make a sound.

sound has not been brought into existence by the question...the sounds existence is being questioned by the question.
so if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?....its quite simple...anyway, i'll let you carry on
I like the term "We know" it makes me laugh .
So, what do we know? We know that when we are there to measure a transmission we will recieve it. What if we are not there to measure the transmission, am i right in thinking that we believe that the transmission still takes place because this is what has happened when we were there to measure it? Y/N
And breath