If a trees falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Discuss. You might want to define what you mean by a "sound," by "nobody," and perhaps even a "tree."
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This question not only appears in a Geico commercial, but is an actual philosophical debate. George Berkley is a philosopher whose idealist views are expressed through three dialogues. I agree with his analysis of the question, and the tree does not make a sound. Science can prove that sound waves will be made, but I will explain why that does not matter and how the tree does not make a sound. A sound is a noise that is specifically heard by an object. The question asks if nobody is around, however some smartass will mention insects and animals. To rephrase the question and make it clearer, if there were no organisms that can hear, does a tree or any object make a sound? The tree can really be any object which makes a sound it doesn’t really matter. The answer is no, it will not make a sound. This is because if there is no object to hear it then how does sound exist? We need ears and the ability to hear in order for sound to exist. Sound cannot exist because it will be an idea that has never been understood because there is no one to hear it. Another example is if everyone is blind, then color would not exist. The whole idea of color is to be seen therefore it would not exist, and sound was meant to be heard. If no one is there to hear the tree fall it cannot make a sound because it must be heard or else it will not exist.
A tree falls in my backyard while I’m on vacation somewhere in the tropics (I wish): “no one” is around to hear it, so does it make a sound? This is an interesting proposition that seems to incorporate not just philosophy, but also the basic fundamentals of physics. Before we answer this question, we must first define a few terms. A good place to start would be with sound. According to Dictionary.com, sound is defined as “vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.” We must further break down this definition so that we can “clearly and distinctively” understand a very important difference. There is sound, and there are vibrations, or waves. These vibrations make up sound, but in order for sound to be “sound”, there must be something or someone to perceive it. In other words, waves/vibrations are different from our definition of sound. Waves/vibrations are a matter of physics, sound is a matter of perception. Next, we should quickly define what Berkley means by “nobody” or “no one.” By “no one,” he is not only referring to humans, but also to animals, mites – anything that has the ability to perceive with the senses (hearing, in this case). And finally, we must define what a tree is. According to Berkley, a tree exists, but not in the physical sense; rather, a tree exists as a bundle of perceptions formed by our mind. Now that we have defined the terms, we can answer the question simply with a “no.” Initially, I wasn’t convinced by Berkley’s claim that sound exists only when there is someone/something to perceive it, but now it makes sense, from Berkley’s perspective at least, as to why a tree would not make a sound if it fell, so long as there was “no one” around. Berkley uses this idea to form the basis for several other concepts, which he refers to as secondary qualities, like color, extension, taste, intense heat, and smell. Using color as an example, he says that “the red and blue which we see are not real colors, but certain unknown motions and figures which no man ever did or can see are truly so” (First Dialogue, 23). He continues this idea and applies it to the bigger list that we mentioned earlier, saying that “colors, sounds, taste, in a word, all those termed secondary qualities, have certainly no existence without the mind” (First Dialogue, 23). So, just like with the tree situation, the “sound” that it produces when it makes contact with the ground cannot be classified as a “sound,” but rather as waves or vibrations, unless, of course, there is someone or something around to actually perceive it. Therefore, we can conclude that if “nobody” is around, a “tree” does not make a “sound.”
I believe that if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, it makes a sound. This argument is the equivalent of a variety of perception arguments that Berkeley makes. I believe one can answer all of these arguments through proving a sound is heard when no one can hear it. I think the first step to responding to this type of argument is determining the definition of sound. I believe a sound is a collection of mechanical waves and their displacement. Not all sounds are audible to humans, but all of them are perceived by God. I George Berkeley would contradict this saying that if no one or organism can perceive the sound then there is no sound since there is no organism to prove it. I actually agree with Berkeley's argument that someone or something must perceive the sound for it to make a sound. However, there will never be a case in which this will actually happen because something always perceives. Even if the tree fell in a surrounding area that was void of any living organism that could perceive, something could still hear the sound. I actually propose that a divine entity perceives everything at all times, that entity is God. God is simultaneously perceiving and watching everything at once. He is also omnipotent according to previous philosophers such as Descartes. Knowing that God is all-knowing and all-perceiving proves that nothing is left unperceived. Therefore every tree that falls in the woods when there is nobody around makes a sound.
Michael makes a very sound argument in my opinion, but leaves out a very important detail that might cause some parts of his argument to be irrelevant. Before diving into the specifics of what Michael says, let’s first provide a true definition for sound. As the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines it, a sound is “a particular auditory impression,” and nothing more. Therefore, because a sound is an impression, someone has to perceive it or hear it in order for it to exist. That much is simple. Michael agrees with this analysis, but says that the sound would still exist because God, being omnipresent, is there to perceive it. However, the question is not whether God is present or not, but if “nobody” is there to hear it, will the tree still make a sound? The only way to truly answer this question then is to provide a definition for “nobody” as well. Merriam Webster defines nobody as, “no person,” or “a person of no importance or authority.” One would argue that God is most definitely not a person. Therefore, Michael’s argument cannot be considered true to the question because God perceiving the sound is irrelevant. If instead, one leaves out every person of importance and “nobody” is present when the tree falls, then nobody is there to perceive that sound. It must make a particular auditory impression on a person in order for it to be considered a sound. If no person is there, that cannot occur. As a result, it becomes clear that when a tree falls in the woods with nobody to perceive the event, then regardless of God’s presence, it does not make a sound.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? When a tree falls it sends off vibrations through the air in the forest. Yet, it’s not true that these vibrations are necessarily a sound. A common misconception is that sound is the vibration that goes through the air and is heard when it reaches an ear. Sound is really how the vibrations are interpreted by the person. It takes a mind to understand the vibrations and create the sound. Sounds are secondary qualities that do not exist outside the mind. You can’t hear the motions of air particles and vibrations through the air. Motion is something that can be seen of felt but it cannot be heard. Therefore, without someone in the forest the tree makes no sound. There needs to be minds in the forest that can make the sound exist. This could also create the question of; does sound exist in a world with no ears or minds? The answer would be no. If everyone in the world is deaf there cannot be any sounds. There can be vibrations that travel through the air, one might even be able to feel these vibrations if they are strong enough. Yet, there will be no sound. This is because if no one can hear, no sense can be made of these vibrations. No one can hear so no minds can interpret the vibrations to create sounds. Therefore, sound would not exist in a world with no ears or no minds. Subsequently, if a tree falls in the forest and there are no ears or minds present to create a sound, the tree makes no sound.
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, I do believe that it makes a sound. Like most people have said, I would too also define a sound as vibrations that travel in audible waves. What causes these vibrations is physical motion of some sort of particles interacting, so in the case of a tree falling, the impact of the tree's particles hitting the ground. What exactly, then, is the definition of 'no one'? I would argue that 'no one' means no living organism by the biological definitions of living, so everything from animals to plants and even single-celled organisms would count. So when a tree falls in a forest, and there is absolutely no living organism around to audibly hear the sound, does the sound exist? Even though one might argue that the purpose of a sound is to be audibly perceived and that is how it is most useful to us as living organisms, the sound exists and its effects can be measured as primary qualities. Depending on the size of the tree, the sound waves may be enough to change some small features of the environment surrounding it, but not much. The impact of the sound waves would be much more significant if they were able to effect living organisms, but for the sake of answering the question, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to here it, it does in fact make a sound, but the impact of such sound is greatly diminished.
Unfortunately, in order to answer the question of whether or not a tree makes a sound when falling if no one is around to hear it, I must do something seriously cliché: Open with a dictionary definition! So, here we go: Dictionary.com (the go to source for essay/speech opening definitions) defines sound as, “Mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.” For this purpose, the numbers don’t really matter, but the rest of the definition is crucial, because no part of it implies that, for something to qualify as sound, it has to be heard. I think I agree with this definition in that way, though it’s not difficult to find definitions for sound that do not. Next, “no one” or the opposite, “someone”, should be defined, but there really isn’t a need for a dictionary. For this post, “someone” can be any sort of living thing with the capacity to hear a sound, and “no one” can be the absence of such a being. Lastly, it is my belief that “tree” does not need to be defined, so long as there is an understanding that the question doesn’t only pertain to trees, they just represent the variable, the something that is or is not making a sound. With all of that in mind, a conclusion can be reached: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it DOES make a sound, because its ability to make a sound isn’t dependent on a second party to be present. From different definitions would likely come a different answer, but with these, it’s undeniable that, for something to be heard, it has to make a sound, but for something to make a sound, it does not need to be heard.
In George Berkeley’s Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley argues that sound does not exist. The famous “if a tree falls in the forest and “no one” is around to hear it, does it make a sound” question is presented. After reading Berkeley’s argument and arguing in class for 45 minutes, I am still not convinced. Berkeley argues that if no one hears a tree fall, there isn’t a sound. This statement cannot be true. Even if no humans are around, there will be animals and other organisms that will hear the sound. Sound isn’t something only perceived by humans. The human ear only hears sounds between 20Hz-20,000Hz. However, there are many sounds that are higher and lower than that. Just because we cannot hear them does not mean that they don’t exist. For example, there are animals have a broader range of sound perception. So even if we cannot hear something, there is an animal around us that could. The argument could also be made that if ears are not real than sound cannot exist. Berkeley would not agree with this statement because he was a bishop and believed in God, an omnipotent and omniscient being. Because God is all knowing, he will about everything that goes on in the universe. If a star in a distant galaxy explodes, no human would perceive it. However, a theist like Berkeley would have to admit that the exploding star would have to make a sound because God will be there to perceive it. Therefore Berkeley’s argument that sound does not exist is unjustified.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, there is no possible way for a tree to make a sound. Having nobody around means that there are no people, no animals, no bugs and no other living things that have the capacity to hear sound. Although sound is technically the noise you hear when your brain translates vibrations that travel through the air, if no one is around to perceive the vibrations then how can we have sound? Without a person or animal around to perceive the vibrations and turn it into something that makes sense, sound simply cannot exist. This principle does not just apply to a tree, but to anything that cannot perceive sound. This idea can also be applied to all of our other senses. As an example, if no humans or animals are around, color cannot exist. In order to have color their needs to be a mind to see and perceive color then turn it into something that can be understood. In the same way if all animals somehow lost the ability to smell and you decide to bake a pie, the pie will have no scent. This idea can be proven by asking a person with a cold, who cannot smell anything to smell a rose, and then ask them what they smell. They will reply that the flower has no scent. Scent, color and sound are all things that only exist when you have a living thing with the ability to perceive those ideas.
Through three of George Berkley’s dialogues on philosophy, he explores idealism. Berkley essentially comes to the conclusion: esse est percipi, to be is to be perceived. This principle can now be applied to the problem of: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Using Berkeley’s definition of Idealism, we know that everything exists in the mind. All things are simply a collection of ideas being perceived by a mind. So, if a tree falls but no one is there and it is not being perceived, then it does not exist. However, that is what Berkley’s answer would be in its simplest form. There are many other factors that come into play when properly answering this question. We now have to determine what “no one” really means. For Berkley’s Idealist answer to be correct, “no one” means that no mind from any being can observe the tree falling. There can be no omnipresent god or any small organism, or anything that has a mind can be around to observe the tree falling. This seems all well and good, but it brings into question a much bigger issue. Because of what esse est percipi means; if there is no one to perceive it, it would not exist. That means that there would be no sound, no tree, and no forest. So now, once this has situation has been examined in more depth, the answer is actually not what we had originally determined it to be. It is impossible for a tree to fall in the forest with no one around. Unless something perceives the tree falling, then the tree cannot exist. So we are left deciding between the tree not existing, and someone being around to hear it. There is no situation where the tree can fall with no one around.
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This question not only appears in a Geico commercial, but is an actual philosophical debate. George Berkley is a philosopher whose idealist views are expressed through three dialogues. I agree with his analysis of the question, and the tree does not make a sound. Science can prove that sound waves will be made, but I will explain why that does not matter and how the tree does not make a sound. A sound is a noise that is specifically heard by an object. The question asks if nobody is around, however some smartass will mention insects and animals. To rephrase the question and make it clearer, if there were no organisms that can hear, does a tree or any object make a sound? The tree can really be any object which makes a sound it doesn’t really matter. The answer is no, it will not make a sound. This is because if there is no object to hear it then how does sound exist? We need ears and the ability to hear in order for sound to exist. Sound cannot exist because it will be an idea that has never been understood because there is no one to hear it. Another example is if everyone is blind, then color would not exist. The whole idea of color is to be seen therefore it would not exist, and sound was meant to be heard. If no one is there to hear the tree fall it cannot make a sound because it must be heard or else it will not exist.
ReplyDeleteA tree falls in my backyard while I’m on vacation somewhere in the tropics (I wish): “no one” is around to hear it, so does it make a sound? This is an interesting proposition that seems to incorporate not just philosophy, but also the basic fundamentals of physics. Before we answer this question, we must first define a few terms. A good place to start would be with sound. According to Dictionary.com, sound is defined as “vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.” We must further break down this definition so that we can “clearly and distinctively” understand a very important difference. There is sound, and there are vibrations, or waves. These vibrations make up sound, but in order for sound to be “sound”, there must be something or someone to perceive it. In other words, waves/vibrations are different from our definition of sound. Waves/vibrations are a matter of physics, sound is a matter of perception. Next, we should quickly define what Berkley means by “nobody” or “no one.” By “no one,” he is not only referring to humans, but also to animals, mites – anything that has the ability to perceive with the senses (hearing, in this case). And finally, we must define what a tree is. According to Berkley, a tree exists, but not in the physical sense; rather, a tree exists as a bundle of perceptions formed by our mind. Now that we have defined the terms, we can answer the question simply with a “no.” Initially, I wasn’t convinced by Berkley’s claim that sound exists only when there is someone/something to perceive it, but now it makes sense, from Berkley’s perspective at least, as to why a tree would not make a sound if it fell, so long as there was “no one” around. Berkley uses this idea to form the basis for several other concepts, which he refers to as secondary qualities, like color, extension, taste, intense heat, and smell. Using color as an example, he says that “the red and blue which we see are not real colors, but certain unknown motions and figures which no man ever did or can see are truly so” (First Dialogue, 23). He continues this idea and applies it to the bigger list that we mentioned earlier, saying that “colors, sounds, taste, in a word, all those termed secondary qualities, have certainly no existence without the mind” (First Dialogue, 23). So, just like with the tree situation, the “sound” that it produces when it makes contact with the ground cannot be classified as a “sound,” but rather as waves or vibrations, unless, of course, there is someone or something around to actually perceive it. Therefore, we can conclude that if “nobody” is around, a “tree” does not make a “sound.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, it makes a sound. This argument is the equivalent of a variety of perception arguments that Berkeley makes. I believe one can answer all of these arguments through proving a sound is heard when no one can hear it. I think the first step to responding to this type of argument is determining the definition of sound. I believe a sound is a collection of mechanical waves and their displacement. Not all sounds are audible to humans, but all of them are perceived by God. I George Berkeley would contradict this saying that if no one or organism can perceive the sound then there is no sound since there is no organism to prove it. I actually agree with Berkeley's argument that someone or something must perceive the sound for it to make a sound. However, there will never be a case in which this will actually happen because something always perceives. Even if the tree fell in a surrounding area that was void of any living organism that could perceive, something could still hear the sound. I actually propose that a divine entity perceives everything at all times, that entity is God. God is simultaneously perceiving and watching everything at once. He is also omnipotent according to previous philosophers such as Descartes. Knowing that God is all-knowing and all-perceiving proves that nothing is left unperceived. Therefore every tree that falls in the woods when there is nobody around makes a sound.
ReplyDeleteMichael makes a very sound argument in my opinion, but leaves out a very important detail that might cause some parts of his argument to be irrelevant. Before diving into the specifics of what Michael says, let’s first provide a true definition for sound. As the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines it, a sound is “a particular auditory impression,” and nothing more. Therefore, because a sound is an impression, someone has to perceive it or hear it in order for it to exist. That much is simple. Michael agrees with this analysis, but says that the sound would still exist because God, being omnipresent, is there to perceive it. However, the question is not whether God is present or not, but if “nobody” is there to hear it, will the tree still make a sound? The only way to truly answer this question then is to provide a definition for “nobody” as well. Merriam Webster defines nobody as, “no person,” or “a person of no importance or authority.” One would argue that God is most definitely not a person. Therefore, Michael’s argument cannot be considered true to the question because God perceiving the sound is irrelevant. If instead, one leaves out every person of importance and “nobody” is present when the tree falls, then nobody is there to perceive that sound. It must make a particular auditory impression on a person in order for it to be considered a sound. If no person is there, that cannot occur. As a result, it becomes clear that when a tree falls in the woods with nobody to perceive the event, then regardless of God’s presence, it does not make a sound.
DeleteIf a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? When a tree falls it sends off vibrations through the air in the forest. Yet, it’s not true that these vibrations are necessarily a sound. A common misconception is that sound is the vibration that goes through the air and is heard when it reaches an ear. Sound is really how the vibrations are interpreted by the person. It takes a mind to understand the vibrations and create the sound. Sounds are secondary qualities that do not exist outside the mind. You can’t hear the motions of air particles and vibrations through the air. Motion is something that can be seen of felt but it cannot be heard. Therefore, without someone in the forest the tree makes no sound. There needs to be minds in the forest that can make the sound exist. This could also create the question of; does sound exist in a world with no ears or minds? The answer would be no. If everyone in the world is deaf there cannot be any sounds. There can be vibrations that travel through the air, one might even be able to feel these vibrations if they are strong enough. Yet, there will be no sound. This is because if no one can hear, no sense can be made of these vibrations. No one can hear so no minds can interpret the vibrations to create sounds. Therefore, sound would not exist in a world with no ears or no minds. Subsequently, if a tree falls in the forest and there are no ears or minds present to create a sound, the tree makes no sound.
ReplyDeleteIf a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, I do believe that it makes a sound. Like most people have said, I would too also define a sound as vibrations that travel in audible waves. What causes these vibrations is physical motion of some sort of particles interacting, so in the case of a tree falling, the impact of the tree's particles hitting the ground. What exactly, then, is the definition of 'no one'? I would argue that 'no one' means no living organism by the biological definitions of living, so everything from animals to plants and even single-celled organisms would count. So when a tree falls in a forest, and there is absolutely no living organism around to audibly hear the sound, does the sound exist? Even though one might argue that the purpose of a sound is to be audibly perceived and that is how it is most useful to us as living organisms, the sound exists and its effects can be measured as primary qualities. Depending on the size of the tree, the sound waves may be enough to change some small features of the environment surrounding it, but not much. The impact of the sound waves would be much more significant if they were able to effect living organisms, but for the sake of answering the question, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to here it, it does in fact make a sound, but the impact of such sound is greatly diminished.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, in order to answer the question of whether or not a tree makes a sound when falling if no one is around to hear it, I must do something seriously cliché: Open with a dictionary definition! So, here we go: Dictionary.com (the go to source for essay/speech opening definitions) defines sound as, “Mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.” For this purpose, the numbers don’t really matter, but the rest of the definition is crucial, because no part of it implies that, for something to qualify as sound, it has to be heard. I think I agree with this definition in that way, though it’s not difficult to find definitions for sound that do not. Next, “no one” or the opposite, “someone”, should be defined, but there really isn’t a need for a dictionary. For this post, “someone” can be any sort of living thing with the capacity to hear a sound, and “no one” can be the absence of such a being. Lastly, it is my belief that “tree” does not need to be defined, so long as there is an understanding that the question doesn’t only pertain to trees, they just represent the variable, the something that is or is not making a sound. With all of that in mind, a conclusion can be reached: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it DOES make a sound, because its ability to make a sound isn’t dependent on a second party to be present. From different definitions would likely come a different answer, but with these, it’s undeniable that, for something to be heard, it has to make a sound, but for something to make a sound, it does not need to be heard.
ReplyDeleteIn George Berkeley’s Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley argues that sound does not exist. The famous “if a tree falls in the forest and “no one” is around to hear it, does it make a sound” question is presented. After reading Berkeley’s argument and arguing in class for 45 minutes, I am still not convinced. Berkeley argues that if no one hears a tree fall, there isn’t a sound. This statement cannot be true. Even if no humans are around, there will be animals and other organisms that will hear the sound. Sound isn’t something only perceived by humans. The human ear only hears sounds between 20Hz-20,000Hz. However, there are many sounds that are higher and lower than that. Just because we cannot hear them does not mean that they don’t exist. For example, there are animals have a broader range of sound perception. So even if we cannot hear something, there is an animal around us that could. The argument could also be made that if ears are not real than sound cannot exist. Berkeley would not agree with this statement because he was a bishop and believed in God, an omnipotent and omniscient being. Because God is all knowing, he will about everything that goes on in the universe. If a star in a distant galaxy explodes, no human would perceive it. However, a theist like Berkeley would have to admit that the exploding star would have to make a sound because God will be there to perceive it. Therefore Berkeley’s argument that sound does not exist is unjustified.
ReplyDeleteIf a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, there is no possible way for a tree to make a sound. Having nobody around means that there are no people, no animals, no bugs and no other living things that have the capacity to hear sound. Although sound is technically the noise you hear when your brain translates vibrations that travel through the air, if no one is around to perceive the vibrations then how can we have sound? Without a person or animal around to perceive the vibrations and turn it into something that makes sense, sound simply cannot exist. This principle does not just apply to a tree, but to anything that cannot perceive sound. This idea can also be applied to all of our other senses. As an example, if no humans or animals are around, color cannot exist. In order to have color their needs to be a mind to see and perceive color then turn it into something that can be understood. In the same way if all animals somehow lost the ability to smell and you decide to bake a pie, the pie will have no scent. This idea can be proven by asking a person with a cold, who cannot smell anything to smell a rose, and then ask them what they smell. They will reply that the flower has no scent. Scent, color and sound are all things that only exist when you have a living thing with the ability to perceive those ideas.
ReplyDeleteThrough three of George Berkley’s dialogues on philosophy, he explores idealism. Berkley essentially comes to the conclusion: esse est percipi, to be is to be perceived. This principle can now be applied to the problem of: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Using Berkeley’s definition of Idealism, we know that everything exists in the mind. All things are simply a collection of ideas being perceived by a mind. So, if a tree falls but no one is there and it is not being perceived, then it does not exist. However, that is what Berkley’s answer would be in its simplest form. There are many other factors that come into play when properly answering this question. We now have to determine what “no one” really means. For Berkley’s Idealist answer to be correct, “no one” means that no mind from any being can observe the tree falling. There can be no omnipresent god or any small organism, or anything that has a mind can be around to observe the tree falling. This seems all well and good, but it brings into question a much bigger issue. Because of what esse est percipi means; if there is no one to perceive it, it would not exist. That means that there would be no sound, no tree, and no forest. So now, once this has situation has been examined in more depth, the answer is actually not what we had originally determined it to be. It is impossible for a tree to fall in the forest with no one around. Unless something perceives the tree falling, then the tree cannot exist. So we are left deciding between the tree not existing, and someone being around to hear it. There is no situation where the tree can fall with no one around.
ReplyDelete