|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If a tree falls | |||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
To hear something, it must first pass thrugh the eardrum, auditory nerve, and be processed in the auditory lobe of our brain.
That is how we process sounds that travel through our surroundings. What is the difference if we generate the sound from a guitar, or from the front part of our brain. We are still hearing it in our heads? BTW, that exploding head is just gross
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
What is the difference if we generate the sound from a guitar, or from the front part of our brain. We are still hearing it in our heads?
major difference, one is processed through a part of our head that's job is to filter sound, the other is a part of the brain that has nothing to do with processing sound
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
You know that the Bible says that it was MAN who fell in the "Forest" of Eden, not some tree!
You ToErs are all the same! Always attacking Creationists every chance you get!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Yaro writes:
quote: Incorrect. Sound is the vibration of molecules. It doesn't require anybody to be there to hear it. By your definition, deaf people negate all sound around them since they aren't capable of hearing it. How can the exact same vibration of molecules be both sound and silence when a hearing and deaf person are present? How can the tree falling both make and not make any sound simply because there is both a hearing and a deaf person present? "Hearing" is the sensory interpretation of molecular vibration. You hear sound. But notice, those are two different things: There is a stimulus (sound) and a response (hearing). But the stimulus is not the same as the response. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
quote: Close. It's "If a man speaks in the woods and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?" Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
1.61803 writes:
quote: I'm confused. What is "a disturbance of air forming waves which affect the surroundings as a pressure differential" if not the definition of "sound." Sound doesn't require somebody there to hear it. HEARING requires someone (or something) to be there to detect it, but the actual sound doesn't require a detector. Sound is the vibration. Hearing is the detection of the vibration. By the same token: Did the sun shine before there was anybody there to see it? By your logic, there is no such thing as light unless there is somebody there to see it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Actually, after reading thrugh the thread it seems both positions are correct. I think we are basically saying the same thing in a different way.
For example, arabic looks like a bunch of squiggles to me, and pretty much that's all they are till someone who can interpret the stuff comes along. The stimulus exists at all times, but it only becomes writing in the mind of someone who knows arabic. Same with sound. The stimulus is there, but someone/something needs to interpret it to call it sound. I think it's just a matter of what you are calling sound, the data or the interpretation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
riVeRrat writes: there are frequencies that no creature can hear, but it would still be sound. It is sound because it travels at the speed of sound and has frequency, wavelength, amplitude, and velocity. Are earthquakes but very low frequency sound? Sounds are just waves which happen to be interpreted a certain way by certain observers. I don't see why something should be labeled sound if it can't be heard.
Radio waves exist wether we "hear" them or not. But but what you're doing is calling a radio wave with a frequency of 1Hz "visible light", even though it cannot be percieved by any creature's eyes.
This question has nothing to do with the OP It is only a question to determine if I understand science as we know it. No, it was a question directly related to the tree falling question, which was going to lead to another question if you answered a certain way. But apparently we largely agree on the question of the tree in the forest, so it doesn't matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Yaro responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. The stimulus is sound. There is no need for anybody or anything to be there to interpret it in order for it to be sound. The sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules. By your logic, the sun doesn't shine unless there is somebody there to see it.
quote: Indeed. And it is silly to claim that the detection of sound is sound. Detection of auditory stimuli is called "hearing," not "sound." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bobbins Member (Idle past 3613 days) Posts: 122 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
try this - run the experiment 1 million times
Chop down the tree and sit near and listen to the impact. Do this 999,999 times. Hear the impact and record the results. Chop the tree down for the millionth time and run away, out of 'hearing distance'. You don't hear it? What has changed? Only the method of reception. The 'sound' is generated the same way, the air vibrates, waves travel, the only difference is the reception. With radio, a program with 1,000,000 listeners has the same output as a program with 1 or 0 listeners. Seriously, what is the point of the question, other than provide fun for a half-semester for a philosophy class?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bobbins Member (Idle past 3613 days) Posts: 122 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
Excellent analysis. I was grasping for the difference between 'hearing' and 'sound'. Did not quite make it, hence my bobbins reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Funkaloyd respodns to riVeRraT:
quote: Sorta. Earthquakes certainly create a lot of sound since they involve the movement of large masses of molecules, slamming them against other masses.
quote: Because there is a difference between a stimulus and the detection of that stimulus. By your logic, the sun doesn't shine unless somebody is there to look at it. Close your eyes, and all the lights go out. Suppose there is a deaf person and a hearing person present when that tree falls. Did it make a sound? The deaf person is incapable of hearing it so by your logic, it didn't. But the hearing person can hear it so by your logic, it did. How can the falling tree both make a sound and be silent at the same time? Since it can't be both, it has to be one or the other. It can't be silent since the hearing person heard a sound. Therefore, it must have made a sound despite the fact that the deaf person didn't hear it.
quote: So by your logic, there is no such thing as radio. Since it can't be seen, it must not have been radiated. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You missed my point.
I understand that there are 2 different paths, but they both end up in the same place, your conscience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Seriously, what is the point of the question, other than provide fun for a half-semester for a philosophy class?
Because it is interesting. It also brought me to the next question, then I have one after that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Well it finally happened. I think we agree on this one rhain.
I would like it if you addresses my next question, about hearing sound in your head, or imagining it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024