If a tree falls

I don't see the problem with that. Nobody says "the Sun is shining" on a cloudy day. Right. Only if the hearing person weren't there, then the tree didn't make much in the way of sound. Hah, "by my logic". Right. By your logic, gamma rays are colourful. Or am I pulling strawmen out my ass.There are many methods of observation other than vision and hearing. That's what I was getting at with my "somebody else heard the tree" question. If an electromagnetic wave interacts with anything, then it exists.

As far as I know, the NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) for audition are not known; they're not known for vision, and vision is certainly more studied than audition. For vision studies, Christopher Koch is a good person to read.One thing I know is that imagining sounds does produce activation in auditory parts of the brain. Imagining using a hammer activates pre-motor and motor areas of the brain. Not sure why you think imagination activates frontal lobes only. Using electrical stimulation you can make people see phosphemes or hear noise. Certainly auditory and visual hallucinations are not due to neurons on the basillar membrane (inner ear) or retina (eye). So I'm not sure what makes you think this is true.Ben

Funkaloyd responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

By your logic, the sun doesn't shine unless somebody is there to look at it.

---

​

I don't see the problem with that. Nobody says "the Sun is shining" on a cloudy day.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Where do you think all the light is coming from on a cloudy day? The clouds?Now, try to respond to the scenario that was given you and not some strawman you created: If there is nobody to see the sun shining, does it still shine? If you close your eyes, do the lights go out? Suddenly the nuclear reactions that result in the release of photons stop releasing photons simply because you've got your eyes closed?

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Right. Only if the hearing person weren't there, then the tree didn't make much in the way of sound.

---

Incorrect. The process of the tree falling hasn't changed. Therefore any sound generated by the tree falling hasn't changed. Why does the presence of the hearing person change it? The sound was there despite the fact that the deaf person didn't hear it. So as far as the deaf person is concerned, everything is identical to what it was before. If there was a sound previously, then there must be a sound now.If you can have a sound without it being heard (the deaf person), then the answer to the question is obvious: The tree made a sound.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So by your logic, there is no such thing as radio. Since it can't be seen, it must not have been radiated.

---

​

Hah, "by my logic". Right. By your logic, gamma rays are colourful.

---

Indeed, they are. Every frequency of light has a color. We just can detect all of them with our retinas.

quote:

---

Or am I pulling strawmen out my ass.

---

Yes. Yes, you are.

quote:

---

There are many methods of observation other than vision and hearing.

---

Indeed. And deaf people are lacking one of them. So if there can be sound in the presence of deaf people who can't hear it, then sound must be independent of the presence of somebody there to hear it.

quote:

---

That's what I was getting at with my "somebody else heard the tree" question.

---

Irrelevant. If a tree falls in front of a hearing and a deaf person, there is sound, yes? So why does anything change with the removal of the hearing person? The process of the tree falling hasn't changed. Any processes that happened that resulted in the generation of sound are still function and still result in sound being generated. Therefore, the removal of the hearing person doesn't change anything. The deaf person still can't hear the sound and yet the sound existed.

quote:

---

If an electromagnetic wave interacts with anything, then it exists.

---

Then by your logic sound exists independently of the existence of people to hear it since sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules. That's why there isn't any sound in space: There is no medium for the vibration to pass through. It's a vacuum.So since sound is the interaction of the medium with itself, sound exists even if there is nobody there to hear it.That's why we have two different words: "Sound" and "hearing." You detect the former with the latter. That you lack the detection equipment doesn't mean the sound isn't there.

---

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.

This is where our disagreement stems from. I view C minor, red and cold as subjective, whereas waves in a medium, electromagnetic waves and thermal energy are objective.Certain waves can cause sound to be perceived by certain creatures, but so can Diphenhydramine. You missed the point. On a 'horrible', cloudy winter day, the Sun isn't considered to be shining as such, even though it's emitting just as much light as it would on a cloudless summer day. The process hasn't changed, yet the perceived brightness has. The lights remain on, even if I leave the room. The Sun still emits radiation, but I've never been acquainted with a yellow photon. From the deaf person's point of view, there wasn't any sound previously. I assume you meant "can't"?Either way, that's a pretty absurd comment. Would you say that water, pure H2O, has taste or odour?

Funkaloyd responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules.

---

​

This is where our disagreement stems from. I view C minor, red and cold as subjective, whereas waves in a medium, electromagnetic waves and thermal energy are objective.

---

Then you have abandoned not just music theory and physics but the English language as well. Cm is defined theoretically, not perceptually: It is the C-major chord with the third dropped by a half-step (augmented is the major with the fifth dropped a half-step and a diminished is the major with both the third and the fifth dropped a half-step.) Red is defined theoretically, not perceptually: It is the range of photons with wavelengths between 625 and 740 nm. You will notice that both of these definitions do not insert a consciousness into the mix. They are defined in terms of the object, itself.Indeed, "cold" is a subjective term. That's why there is no physical definition of "cold." "Sound," on the other hand, does have a physical definition. It is the vibration of molecules. It does not depend upon the existence of a detector of those vibrations. So long as there is a medium that is vibrating, then there is sound.

quote:

---

Certain waves can cause sound to be perceived by certain creatures, but so can Diphenhydramine.

---

Which is why sound is not dependent upon a listener. By your logic, there is no such thing as hallucination. You may be hearing sound, but that doesn't mean sound is there to hear.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where do you think all the light is coming from on a cloudy day? The clouds?

---

​

You missed the point.

---

Nice try. That's my argument to you: Even if there is nobody there to look at the photons given off by the sun, the sun is still giving them off, yes? Stop bringing up strawmen about clouds in front of the sun and focus on the question you were asked:Does the sun give off light even if there is nobody there to see it?

quote:

---

On a 'horrible', cloudy winter day, the Sun isn't considered to be shining as such

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?The sun somehow stops shining due to localized weather patterns on earth? As I asked you directly: Where do you think the photons that are lighting up the area around you are coming from, even on tremendously overcast days: The clouds?That is a serious question asked in all sincerity: If the sun is not shining, where are the photons coming from?

quote:

---

even though it's emitting just as much light as it would on a cloudless summer day.

---

Then how can it not be shining? If it's still giving off just as many photons as it was before, how can light be dependent upon there being somebody there to see it?You're making the argument of solipsism, which is ludicrous.

quote:

---

The process hasn't changed, yet the perceived brightness has.

---

So? What does perception have to do with it? The question is: If the sun shines upon the earth and there is nobody there to see it, does it shine any light?Even on the brightest day, all I need to do is shut my eyes real tight and I don't see any light at all. But there's still light everywhere around, yes? Are you saying that the photons magically disappear simply because I'm no longer seeing them?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If there is nobody to see the sun shining, does it still shine? If you close your eyes, do the lights go out?

---

​

The lights remain on, even if I leave the room.

---

Then you just contradicted yourself. If there is still light, even if there is nobody there to see it, then there is still sound, even if there is nobody there to hear it. Light and sound are not defined by our ability to perceive it. They are defined physically, not perceptually.

quote:

---

The Sun still emits radiation, but I've never been acquainted with a yellow photon.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?The only way your comment could make any kind of sense is if you were completely blind. "Yellow" is defined as those photons with a wavelength of about 565 to 590 nm.

quote:

---

quote:

---

as far as the deaf person is concerned, everything is identical to what it was before. If there was a sound previously, then there must be a sound now.

---

​

From the deaf person's point of view, there wasn't any sound previously.

---

So? We all agreed there was sound, even though the deaf person didn't hear it. Therefore, if there was sound before, even though the deaf person didn't hear it, then there must be sound now, despite the fact that the deaf person didn't hear it.Sound is not dependent upon the existence of someone to hear it. Sound is defined physically, not perceptually.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Every frequency of light has a color. We just can detect all of them with our retinas.

---

​

I assume you meant "can't"?

---

Yes. I am notorious for dropping my "nots." I don't understand how or why it happens. But for some reason every now and again I mean to say "verb + not" and instead it comes out as "verb."

quote:

---

Either way, that's a pretty absurd comment. Would you say that water, pure H2O, has taste or odour?

---

No, because taste and odor cannot be defined physically, per se. The perceptions of taste and odor are based upon chemical reactions. Unlike light which has a discrete unit known as a "photon" and sound which has a discrete unit known as a "waveform," there is no discrete unit of taste or odor. A molecule is not a "taste-on" or an "odor-on."

---

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.

Yeah, I disagree with the definition of words like "liberal", too. Probably my anti-social tendencies.I'm not arguing for solipsism, but I would like to see you prove that it's "ludicrous". Perhaps in another thread?

Rrhain,This post is off-topic. But I felt you've made some erroneous statements, and wanted to make sure that others reading your post would have the correct information available. You're both forceful and very often correct, which means I think most people assume the information in your posts to be correct. You gave a relative definition, which shows nothing. If C-major is defined perceptually, then C minor would be too. C-major can be defined as the sound vibration at 65.4Hz * 2^n, where n is an integer.A minor point.The much bigger problem here is You're using "defined" here as if the definition you gave is sufficient to define red. Absolutely not. It's only one of the definitions. The other is consciousness-based.Clearly the word "red" was first defined as consciousness-based; our knowledge that the conscious "red" in "normal" circumstances correlates with the range of frequencies you described is much newer than the word (it's definitely not before Maxwell's time.I'd copy/paste a definition for red, but the dictionaries I use don't bother giving the scientific definition. They only give the consciousness-based one.But anyway, the proof is in the pudding; the consciousness-based "red" is the one we use every day in our english language. Very few of us have access to the wavelength-based definition via our senses (and would be considered abnormal). Instead, we only have conscious access to downpath processing of color information. And our language reflects that.Apples are red.
With color-filtered glasses, EVERYTHING is red.
You can see red phosphemes.
Blood is considered red.The consciousness-based red is the only one we have access to. You can't possibly eliminate that definition; otherwise, you've removed the everyday power and utility of the word. The scientific definition is but one definition of red. Now this surprises me. First, your request for "discrete units" is ... out of nowhere. There are no "discrete units" for measuring light or sound; they are done via the analog Hz scale. We've put some arbitrary labels on those scales to define ranges as colors, but those arbitrary labels are available in tastes and odors as well--tart, sweet, salty, etc.What gives us the ability to do these mappings, and create scientific definitions of words created to describe conscious states is a correlation between a conscious state and a scientifically measurable state. The real question is, do such states exist.If you had read up on the olfactory system, you would have read that we have on the order of thousands of discrete odor receptors. The chemical reactions of those receptor cells can, just like for light, be described scientifically. Odors can be defined as different combinations of those discrete receptors.Taste is basically the same.I'd suggest that the real answer why we haven't added scientific definitions to taste and odors is because there's both been no easy technology to do so, and no call to do so. I am pretty confident that the technology, and the call, will both come in time.Ben

riVeRratDo you actually hear sound in your head rat, or is it a reconstruction of memories by the brain?

Hey Ben, I'm not a neurologist, obviously you know more on this topic than I. My basic point was simply that 'sound' would be the signals coming from the eardrum, nerve, and finaly brain.The point is moot anyway, as I think Rhain has adequetly refuted my position. And so does the dictionary for that matter

Errr, how does this go? Err, (*blink*)Since when is "yellow" defined like that? It does? And what would be the colour of a 10m wave?This message has been edited by cavediver, 12-30-2005 03:52 PM

Hello Mr. Rrhain, Good point....except that there is the physical definition of sound, and the mental definition. I am sure you know the difference. The tree falling in the absence of a receiver makes sound waves. But to hear the sound requires a tympanic membrane and associated neurological hardware and software. Without such there is no way to interpret the soundwave as sound data. Technically speaking yes soundwaves are produced, if you wish to call that sound then fine. I wont argue the point. Some people call things they can not hear silence. Good point.....except the phenomenon of visable light requires a mechanism to observe it. What you see as the sun or a star as it exist static is meaninless because there is no means to make that observation. All we see is a electromagnetic field or a quantum interaction from the local field and our retina absorbing energy from the field to our eyes and causing a change to the local field. We affect reality by our observation. And did the sun shine before there was a lifeform to observe it. No it did not shine, it eminated electromagnetic radiation and life forms that eventually evolved on Earth precieve this as visable light.I do understand your points though...do you understand mine?
Happy New year !!! **Heh, I just re read this and I sound sort of asshole-ish,,, I did mean it to SOUND that way..ha ha.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-30-2005 05:22 PM

I can only venture that it's similar to the odour of helium.

Howdy Riverrat, Yes it would be soundwaves, but the word sound infers that something heard it. If it is inperceptable then how can one say they hear a sound? The question posed is if a tree falls in an empty forest does it make a sound? NOT if a tree falls in a forest does it produce soundwaves in a frequency that can could be heard. It is a phylosophical point. Half full/ half empty. Tomato, Toe-mat-toe.Do this thought experiment: You are in a vacuum. I drop a large Cymbal in the room. Did it make a sound?Then In a normal room I ask you to tell me what sounds you can hear or if there is any sound while a ultrasonic device is ocillating.Then I turn off the device and ask you to tell me is any sound present?In which instance can you tell me what if any sounds were made? The barrier as you call it was a coined term during a moment in time when aeronautical engineers where trying to make jets travel at a speed that soundwaves travel. It has nothing to do with sound. Save for the word sound in sound barrier. And radio waves exist whether we hear them or not is true. Your liver exist whether you hear it or not. But I do not see anyone recording the best of compilations of they're liver. LOL. **edit typosThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-31-2005 08:15 AM

This is what I am trying to find out.I don't know if my brain is actually constructing the sound, or if it is making the sound that only I can hear.I would think that my brain is reconstructing the sound, and bringing it to the conscience part of my brain, then I am preceiving it.If it is happening that way, then my next question is, does that sound exist? And if it does, does it exist without the sound waves?So far we have described sound, as actualy waves of energy that have amplitude, frequency, and modulation. These waves can only exist if they have something to react with.Some people have said that it is not a sound unless something is there to hear it, but I disagree, sound can exist whether a person hears it or not. The reason being what ever is making the sound, which I think to a bare mininum has to be at least 2 objects interacting with each other, at the very least those 2 objects would experience the sound waves, so the sound does exist.But in our brains, we can clearly preceive sound without sound waves?Oh BTW, rhain is incorrect in saying that there is no sound in space, because if there is no sound in space, then there is no sound on earth either.The correct statment would be that sound waves cannot travel in an absolute vacum.Space is not an absolute vacum, and sound can travel in space. Not only that but if 2 objects collide in space, sound waves will reverberate through them, hence making sound in space.

Of course it made a sound. Did I have a chance to hear it, no.Hearing sound, and sound existing are 2 different subjects. I think you are creating a strawman? (sorry I never used that term before) Doesn't matter if I can hear them or not. In what we preceive to be reality, those sound waves exist, so it is a sound.Try this experiment. All glass has a resonating frequency. If you play the right note loud enough, the glass will break. If you are not around to hear it, or see it break when that note was played, was there a sound? So then by your own logic, sound exists whether you hear it or not.Your trying to take your own personal interaction with sound, to describe whether it exists or not. But what about everything else that had interaction with that sound, including the objects that made the sound. They heard it and felt it.