Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login

If a tree falls... Your theory.

last reply
219 replies
12.1k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Guest
Lurker
Quote by patokl
There are four things that are defined as sound. Numbers three and four have nothing to do with this subject, but one and two do.
The primary definition almost invariably states, that sound is waves, that can be heard, traveling through a medium. In other words, if those waves exist, sound exists. No way around that.
The second definition mostly states, sound also is how our brains interpret the signals our sensory and nervous systems generate upon reception of those waves. This definition does in no way undermine the primary definition of sound, on the contrary, it depends on it.
So, that physical reaction, as you call it, IS what we call sound.
And yes, we also call the interpretation of it by our brains sound. But saying noise and sound are the same thing is like saying cows and animals are the same thing. Noise is just one of the many ways we classify sound. And that will not happen when a sound is not heard, so noise does not exist, when no one is there to hear and classify the sound. And that is the answer to the original question in this thread.


No, there isn't. Sound is the perception of these 'waves'. That's the definition. Hence one of the greatest minds in the world posed the question.

You can keep changing what sound is, or refuse to believe what I'm telling you, but I have neither the time or patience to keep making the same point. We both agree, without doubt, that the same physical process would happen regardless of who is around. But that isn't sound. If we hadn't have evolved ears, we wouldn't even know that sound was possible to ever experience.

But we did evolve the ability to convert different pressures, that hit the ear, and convert that into something that we experience as sound.

That's what sound is. It's a perception. It's an experience. It's a bit like taste- it only exists because we evolved to experience it. Does taste really exist? Or does it only exist because or taste buds tell us that something tastes like chicken?

Sound is an important evolutionary trait because it protects us. It helps keep us alive. If we are close enough to hear a tree falling, then we are close enough to potentially have to get out of the way. That's why we experience it as a sound. Our brain takes the information, through waves, and tells us how close something is, where it is (your brain calculates the difference in time between the wave, or pressure difference, in hitting one ear versus the other, and then calculates where the sound came from), and makes you react accordingly.

Audible means that we are able to hear it, even if we don't. There are some pressures/waves that we just can't hear- does that mean that the pressures don't exist? No, it just means we haven't evolved to be able to hear those pressures/waves- hence no sound

There you go, that's my last input on this thread as I really am just going over and over and over again and you either can't get it, or refuse to. But there we go. If you can read definitions and completely overlook the part which tells you exactly what I'm saying, then it tells me that it doesn't matter what I say, you'll believe yourself to be correct anyway.
SensuousCosmos
Rookie Scribe
So you want noise to be a subset of sound? Sound that is there whatever where you now appear to be arguing about the categorisation of that sound. How many angels are there on a pinhead by the way?

If you are actually saying that the lack of categorisation of a sound being a noise or not eliminates its existence - good luck with that one!

I have already explained that the 'tree in a vacuum' argument is fatuous as sound (noise) will propagate through the wood as branches collide together even if there is no fluid (air or similar [air is considered a fluid by physicists]) present around the tree.

Following your assertion: If nothing exists until perceived by YOU, you are ALONE in "???", we can't even call it the Universe! Perhaps there really is nothing at all but, where is the fun in that? Personally I prefer the illusion of existence!
trinket
Convict
Quote by patokl
The question was, if that tree made a noise. Assuming it wasn't in a vacuum, the event did make a sound, it created the waves we decided to call sound. Whether that sound was beautiful or noise, is something subjective. It could only be determined by someone who actually heard the sound. So, with no one to hear it, there was sound, but no noise.


Are you trying to baffle me with BS? I can't even understand what you said in that post.
SensuousCosmos
Rookie Scribe
"Are you trying to baffle me with BS? I can't even understand what you said in that post. "

I'm afraid that is the nature of this sort of topic and exactly my point!

In any meaningful discussion we have to agree terms and the meaning of words. The problem here is that many appear to be using their own private definitions thus defeating any productive exchange.

Frankly, I'd prefer the tree to remain standing!
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by TheAngryishLover
Sound is the perception of these 'waves'. That's the definition.
If you read back you'll find, that I never ignored that definition. It is however not THE definition of sound, but a definition of one aspect of sound, namely, that we can perceive its existence by hearing. This definition is always preceded by another one, one you persistently leave out of your replies, but which defines "these waves" and labels them with the name sound. You can ignore, that we chose to call these waves sound, but every dictionary I've seen so far, including the ones you quoted, says we did.

Quote by TheAngryishLover
Hence one of the greatest minds in the world posed the question.
Though the question posed in this thread was not if there was a sound, but if there was noise, the original question was indeed about sound. If it was indeed Berkeley who posed it is uncertain, but it certainly was inspired by his questioning the existence of an unperceived reality.

Does the moon exist, if nobody looks at it? Do those waves we call sound exist, if nobody hears them. Does the sun still shine, once the earth has been consumed by it and all life has disappeared? Basically they all ask the same thing: does anything exist, if it is not perceived. Your view to that obviously is, that it does not. Your bathroom only exists as long as someone sees it. Common sense however says, that your bathroom does in fact exist when nobody's there. And as far as I'm concerned so does sound. If that tree falls, it produces sound. We may not hear it, but we would, if we were there.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
Guest
Lurker
Like an echo of stereo ringing my ears
noll
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
If we'd record the sound of the falling tree and replay it while running it through a pitch shifter, changing its frequencies to a range that no known creature can hear. Are the resulting inaudible vibrations sound?


===  Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER  ===
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73
If we'd record the sound of the falling tree and replay it while running it through a pitch shifter, changing its frequencies to a range that no known creature can hear. Are the resulting inaudible vibrations sound?
Nowadays we tend to interpret audible a bit wider than perceivable by the human ear. Being audible to a technical device is sometimes enough. We invented terms like ultrasound for those inaudibly high frequencies and infrasound for frequencies that are too low for us to hear. Not entirely unjust, because we ARE able to perceive them, albeit with the help of technology.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
noll
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by patokl
Nowadays we tend to interpret audible a bit wider than perceivable by the human ear. Being audible to a technical device is sometimes enough. We invented terms like ultrasound for those inaudibly high frequencies and infrasound for frequencies that are too low for us to hear. Not entirely unjust, because we ARE able to perceive them, albeit with the help of technology.


That's why I didn't refer to humans, but to any known creature. Is there a point at which it stops being (ultra)sound?


===  Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER  ===
Guest
Lurker
Usually to avoid it.
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73


That's why I didn't refer to humans, but to any known creature. Is there a point at which it stops being (ultra)sound?
I'm not sure, I think the frequency could become so high, that even our most advanced technology cannot detect it anymore. That frequency will probably become higher over time, as technology advances. I guess thd same goes for infrasound.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by trinket


Are you trying to baffle me with BS? I can't even understand what you said in that post.

I would not dare to you.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
Guest
Lurker
I've just fallen.... ;)
Did anyone hear or even notice ? :P
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Peri
I've just fallen.... ;)
Did anyone heard or even notice ? :P
I wish I had; i would have caught you.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
MaryanneB
Active Ink Slinger
Well, I'm not sure about the answer to the question but when a tree came down in my back property last week, it sounded like a bomb and shook the whole house. Scared the crap out of me.
noll
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by patokl
I'm not sure, I think the frequency could become so high, that even our most advanced technology cannot detect it anymore. That frequency will probably become higher over time, as technology advances. I guess thd same goes for infrasound.


But would it still be considered sound then, even when it can't be detected anymore?


===  Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER  ===
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73


But would it still be considered sound then, even when it can't be detected anymore?

No. Every definition of sound as a physical phenomenon states that it can be heard. If that, even with the help of technology, is not possible, it is no longer sound.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
noll
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by patokl

No. Every definition of sound as a physical phenomenon states that it can be heard. If that, even with the help of technology, is not possible, it is no longer sound.


If the capability to be heard is one of the defining features of sound, doesn't that imply that it's not sound if there's no agent (whether that's a being or a technology) capable of hearing it?


===  Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER  ===
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73


If the capability to be heard is one of the defining features of sound, doesn't that imply that it's not sound if there's no agent (whether that's a being or a technology) capable of hearing it?
In simple terms? No! CAN be isn't the same as MUST be. We're talking about a physical phenomenon, that CAN cause a sensation, if it hits a sensory system. To have the ability to hit anything, it must exist.

Unless we're back at the question, if there is a reality, if there is no one to perceive it. Because that was, what the original question about that tree, posed in eighteen-eighty-something, was about, not about the semantics or the definition of the word sound, or noise.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
Guest
Lurker
Quote by patokl
In simple terms? No! CAN be isn't the same as MUST be. We're talking about a physical phenomenon, that CAN cause a sensation, if it hits a sensory system. To have the ability to hit anything, it must exist.

Unless we're back at the question, if there is a reality, if there is no one to perceive it. Because that was, what the original question about that tree, posed in eighteen-eighty-something, was about, not about the semantics or the definition of the word sound, or noise.


You do know that your ear isn't just a hole in your head that funnels 'sound' straight to the brain?

There is this thing inside of your ear that takes vibrations, and converts them into sound.

Hence, no conversion, no sound
noll
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by patokl
In simple terms? No! CAN be isn't the same as MUST be. We're talking about a physical phenomenon, that CAN cause a sensation, if it hits a sensory system. To have the ability to hit anything, it must exist.


Well, it MUST be able to be heard, because that's part of the definition. If there's no agent available that's able to hear it then there's no ability to be heard. Hearing is not a property of sound, it's a property of the hearer. So the definition of sound has a dependency on a property of a hearing agent. That assumes that sound has a dependency on a hearing agent and that no hearer means no sound.
To have the ability to hit a sensory system, there must exist a sensory system to hit.

I can swim, but I can not swim when there's nothing to swim in. So, can I swim? Well, depends ;)


===  Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER  ===
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by TheAngryishLover


You do know that your ear isn't just a hole in your head that funnels 'sound' straight to the brain?

There is this thing inside of your ear that takes vibrations, and converts them into sound.

Hence, no conversion, no sound

Do you know, dictionaries aren't just random collections of words? What you say, may be true about the sensation of sound, but not about the physical phenomenon, that mankind decided to call sound. A phenomenon btw, that has to exist to enable the sensation. We can hear A sound.

But all of this is off-topic actually. The question that started this thread originally was not about whether we should CALL it a sound if we did not hear it, it was about whether the physical phenomenon actually existed, if it was not heard. Einstein once asked Niels Bohr, if he actually believed that the moon did not exist, as long as nobody was looking at it. That is basically the same question. Does an unperceived reality actually exist?
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73


Well, it MUST be able to be heard, because that's part of the definition. If there's no agent available that's able to hear it then there's no ability to be heard. Hearing is not a property of sound, it's a property of the hearer. So the definition of sound has a dependency on a property of a hearing agent. That assumes that sound has a dependency on a hearing agent and that no hearer means no sound.
To have the ability to hit a sensory system, there must exist a sensory system to hit.

I can swim, but I can not swim when there's nothing to swim in. So, can I swim? Well, depends ;)
It only depends on which "can" you use. Do you have the skills to swim? Is there an opportunity to use the skills? For both questions "can you swim" is a valid synonym.
And for the possibility to hit a sensory system, that system does not actually have to exist. Its existence only has to be possible.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
noll
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
Quote by patokl
It only depends on which "can" you use. Do you have the skills to swim? Is there an opportunity to use the skills? For both questions "can you swim" is a valid synonym.
And for the possibility to hit a sensory system, that system does not actually have to exist. Its existence only has to be possible.


Exactly, it depends on which meaning one uses, and the same goes for sound and for ability to be heard.

From the Wikipedia page on Sound:
Sound is defined by ANSI/ASA S1.1-2013 as "(a) Oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle velocity, etc., propagated in a medium with internal forces (e.g., elastic or viscous), or the superposition of such propagated oscillation. (b) Auditory sensation evoked by the oscillation described in (a)."


You use (a) in your arguments, while TheAngryishLover uses (b). And in everyday speech most people will probably use them interchangeably.


===  Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER  ===
patokl
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73
You use ( a ) in your arguments, while TheAngryishLover uses ( b ). And in everyday speech most people will probably use them interchangeably.

I disagree. TheAngryishLover does indeed use ( b ), but refuses to acknowledge that ( a ) is true. I believe I have never said ( b ) was not true, I have pretty consistently used the word ALSO when I referred to those two definitions, regardless of how they were worded.

The definition you've just quoted btw, happens to be the internationally accepted standard definition. If you read ( a ) carefully, it does not even mention that it can be heard. Sound simply is that oscillation it describes.
A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
Guest
Lurker
Quote by patokl

Do you know, dictionaries aren't just random collections of words? What you say, may be true about the sensation of sound, but not about the physical phenomenon, that mankind decided to call sound. A phenomenon btw, that has to exist to enable the sensation. We can hear A sound.

But all of this is off-topic actually. The question that started this thread originally was not about whether we should CALL it a sound if we did not hear it, it was about whether the physical phenomenon actually existed, if it was not heard. Einstein once asked Niels Bohr, if he actually believed that the moon did not exist, as long as nobody was looking at it. That is basically the same question. Does an unperceived reality actually exist?


You're confusing two intellectual arguments and I no longer have it in me to argue with you

Go forth and believe whatever it is that you want to believe. I'm happy knowing what it is I know, and am content for you to believe in anything that you want to
Frank
Classified
A bonsai tree falling on soft wet vegetation, no.

Of all our inventions for mass communication,
pictures still speak the most universally understood language.

Walt Disney
AGreyFoxxx
Active Ink Slinger
If a tree falls in the forest, and you're a guy, no matter what you think....it's wrong! Just ask any woman! She'll tell you!
Finnegan
Active Ink Slinger
I could care less, Shit happens! I bought my house 18 years ago, there were 20 evergreen trees (pine) on all sides of the property, there had been here for years, 60 to 80 feet tall. The wind has blowed over 10 of them since then, as the roots are not very deep. I have been very lucky, as none have hit the house or cars. So it's nature Why God designed it.