Seeing as transition is in the mood for pointless philosophical discussions (:)), on QI last night they raised the ancient question of whether a falling tree in a forest makes a sound, if there is no-one there to hear it.

The answers “no” and “yes” were both judged to be wrong.

This annoyed one of the guests (whose name I forget), who reckoned that vibrations do not become “sound” until they enter an ear, vibrate an ear-drum, and are registered as a sound by a human brain.

I think that’s quite wrong, Even ignoring the fact that there would be loads of non-human animals that would hear the tree fall, I suggest that any vibration in the air that could be heard if there was a human there to hear it, and any vibration in a solid or liquid that could generate audible vibrations in the air, is a sound wave, whether there is a human around or not.

The answer then is indisputably “yes”, and Stephen (and/or his advisors) got it wrong.

What do you think?

i saw that episode and agree with you. sound waves are there before you hear them. i think they’re getting quantummy in there thinking and comparing them with light. which only has an emitter and receivers concept.

I agree.
Otherwise the argument could be extended to temperature, pressure & most other physical phenomena.

The Rev Dodgson said:

What do you think?

Can you not hear my applause?

A somewhat staid discussion here:

http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=20047&start=0&sid=0e21e1fe37d192f56e50fcb6c54b1400

I only read the first page; then someone mentioned oranges in the dark, with a link to some Australian science forum.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What do you think?

Can you not hear my applause?

All I know is that thunder caused by lightning during a storm doesn’t make any noise if there are no humans around to hear it.
Also the lighting is invisible as well.

:) @ R-I-T.

>Seeing as transition is in the mood for pointless philosophical discussions

Provocative invitation accepted.

It depends if you are talking about the ‘signature sound’ you associate with tree falling, which may involve a ‘choice to associate’ for a purpose. It can be recorded also, and the same thing applies.

Minus all intention and animal reactions to etc, does a falling tree physically cause air etc to move and ‘vibrate’ (as we describe it), well yes.

Peak Warming Man said:

All I know is that thunder caused by lightning during a storm doesn’t make any noise if there are no humans around to hear it.
Also the lighting is invisible as well.

Well why do the dogs freak out then?

Peak Warming Man said:

All I know is that thunder caused by lightning during a storm doesn’t make any noise if there are no humans around to hear it.
Also the lighting is invisible as well.

Yes, the bloke who thought the answer should be no also reckoned that light is invisible.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

All I know is that thunder caused by lightning during a storm doesn’t make any noise if there are no humans around to hear it.
Also the lighting is invisible as well.

Yes, the bloke who thought the answer should be no also reckoned that light is invisible.

New theory. Lightning only strikes a spot someone has looked at………

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

All I know is that thunder caused by lightning during a storm doesn’t make any noise if there are no humans around to hear it.
Also the lighting is invisible as well.

Yes, the bloke who thought the answer should be no also reckoned that light is invisible.

Light may be invisible under special circumstances but lightning never encounters these circumstances so it is always capable of being seen even if there is no one to see it.

if light is not shone directly into your eye and is not reflected off anything then it is invisible.

:-)

JudgeMental said:

if light is not shone directly into your eye and is not reflected off anything then it is invisible.

:-)

That’s what the QI bloke reckoned, but I’d say that if it was EMR in the visible range, it’s still visible, even if no-one sees it.

That’s what the QI bloke reckoned, but I’d say that if it was EMR in the visible range, it’s still visible, even if no-one sees it.

don’t forget that photons are quantum things. as i said earlier i believe that with photons there is only an emitter and a receiver and the bit between the two is unknown. so unlike sound until it is detected it doesn’t exist.

Eyes are part of a somewhat active antenna system (rods and cones), a transducer + focus adjustment and iris/pupil light adjustment. Swivel adjustment also + tracking system. Do we see light itself? Probably not, no more than we feel it on our skin, and probably the latter is somewhat more direct, of the indirect.

JudgeMental said:

That’s what the QI bloke reckoned, but I’d say that if it was EMR in the visible range, it’s still visible, even if no-one sees it.

don’t forget that photons are quantum things. as i said earlier i believe that with photons there is only an emitter and a receiver and the bit between the two is unknown. so unlike sound until it is detected it doesn’t exist.

I think I disagree, but that’s certainly a point worthy of debate.

(I disagree because it doesn’t need to be “detected” (which implies an “observer”), it just needs to be emitted and received.)

When God created the Big Bang there was no one there to hear or see it.

transition said:

Eyes are part of a somewhat active antenna system (rods and cones), a transducer + focus adjustment and iris/pupil light adjustment. Swivel adjustment also + tracking system. Do we see light itself? Probably not, no more than we feel it on our skin, and probably the latter is somewhat more direct, of the indirect.

It is light itself that starts the complex process by which we “see” it, so I would say yes we do see light itself.

(I disagree because it doesn’t need to be “detected” (which implies an “observer”), it just needs to be emitted and received.)

detected, received, seen = the same thing.

Peak Warming Man said:

When God created the Big Bang there was no one there to hear or see it.

Was God deaf and blind at the time then?

Peak Warming Man said:

When God created the Big Bang there was no one there to hear or see it.

Unlike God, who was created by people.

JudgeMental said:

(I disagree because it doesn’t need to be “detected” (which implies an “observer”), it just needs to be emitted and received.)

detected, received, seen = the same thing.

No, a lump of rock absorbing a photon “receives” it, but does not “detect” or “see” it.

It is light itself that starts the complex process by which we “see” it, so I would say yes we do see light itself.

yes. all detectors work on the same principle.

Was God deaf and blind at the time then?

and was the BB really a mean pinball game?

(sigh)

JudgeMental said:

Was God deaf and blind at the time then?

and was the BB really a mean pinball game?

Let’s leave Doctor Who out of this shall we? :)

No, a lump of rock absorbing a photon “receives” it, but does not “detect” or “see” it.

sorry but you miss the point. the photon no longer exists because it has interacted with an atom/electron/whatever, so in this example what i said is correct.

>It is light itself that starts the complex process by which we “see” it, so I would say yes we do see light itself.

Well it’s reliable, particularly with a composite of sensations supporting its existence.

We call it ‘light’, attribute a word-concept etc, have experience of how whatever it feels (sensations), for the organism.

But of what we see and feel, the experience, the sensations, perceptions and conceptions. Is it as we experience it, well its knowledge of it unlikely being so that contributes to insight about it.

Peak Warming Man said:

When God created the Big Bang there was no one there to hear or see it.

must have been an Orange Carpet event…….

yes

JudgeMental said:

No, a lump of rock absorbing a photon “receives” it, but does not “detect” or “see” it.

sorry but you miss the point. the photon no longer exists because it has interacted with an atom/electron/whatever, so in this example what i said is correct.

I think this could well go on all day, so I think I’d better go and earn some money instead.

think of it like the term “observer” in quantum experiments. this doesn’t, always, mean an eyeball. it could be a geranium crystal, a lump of “rock” if you like, is the “observer”. it is just the “thing” that collapses the wavefunction. i think.

JudgeMental said:

think of it like the term “observer” in quantum experiments. this doesn’t, always, mean an eyeball. it could be a geranium crystal, a lump of “rock” if you like, is the “observer”. it is just the “thing” that collapses the wavefunction. i think.

I don’t like the “observer” terminology though.

If work calls, and no-one hears it, can you still miss the deadline?

(No argument about the answer to that one, unfortunately)

I often hear trees falling in the forest. They make an hell of a crashing noise, but sometimes I can’t find them, as they might be in thick undergrowth in the National Park next door.

So did they fall?

I don’t like the “observer” terminology though.

it just covers everything when talking generally.

morrie said:

I often hear trees falling in the forest. They make an hell of a crashing noise, but sometimes I can’t find them, as they might be in thick undergrowth in the National Park next door.

So did they fall?

An interesting question morrie.
They fall because we hear then but don’t fall because we don’t see them.
A botanical Schrodinger’s cat.

It’s elementary that the answer is “yes”. The question itself establishes that the tree falls, and when trees fall they make a sound. They don’t magically do it silently just because there’s no-one there from QI to hear them.

JudgeMental said:

I don’t like the “observer” terminology though.

it just covers everything when talking generally.

“Interaction” is a better name for that, IMO.

maybe, but observer is the word we use.

JudgeMental said:

maybe, but observer is the word we use.

Not always, and when the “observer” term is used, people understand different things by it, so it seems better to use a less ambiguous term.

people understand different things by it, so it seems better to use a less ambiguous term.

one would hope that quantum mechanic scientists are all on the same page when they use the word.

JudgeMental said:

people understand different things by it, so it seems better to use a less ambiguous term.

one would hope that quantum mechanic scientists are all on the same page when they use the word.

I don’t think they are.

I probably shouldn’t say that, as I don’t have time to back it up, but it just slipped out.

“ really gone “

JudgeMental said:

people understand different things by it, so it seems better to use a less ambiguous term.

one would hope that quantum mechanic scientists are all on the same page when they use the word.

What page? Is there such a thing if it is indecipherable?

what is indecipherable?

JudgeMental said:

what is indecipherable?

the same page.

Nobody is on it.

you know what happens when you start posting crap in interesting science threads roughie. so if i were you i would desist and find some other thing to entertain myself.

JudgeMental said:

you know what happens when you start posting crap in interesting science threads roughie. so if i were you i would desist and find some other thing to entertain myself.

Ha Ha. :)

Hearing a tree fall is, I suggest, insufficient evidence to prove that it has fallen. It might be a large branch or a small landslide or thunder mistaken for the sound of a tree falling. In fact the last tree that fell woke me up and at first I thought it was the sound of thunder. It was only my prior experience that allowed me to recognise that the sound was probably a tree. Another time when we were in the shed we heard the noise, but were not sure what it was and thought it might have been a large sheet of tin blowing in the wind. Only a few days later did I find the tree.

morrie said:

Hearing a tree fall is, I suggest, insufficient evidence to prove that it has fallen. It might be a large branch or a small landslide or thunder mistaken for the sound of a tree falling. In fact the last tree that fell woke me up and at first I thought it was the sound of thunder. It was only my prior experience that allowed me to recognise that the sound was probably a tree. Another time when we were in the shed we heard the noise, but were not sure what it was and thought it might have been a large sheet of tin blowing in the wind. Only a few days later did I find the tree.

Yes. It is true that we learn to associate sounds with their most common reality.

An example would be that the sharp indrawing of breath that everyone makes when confronted by a close encounter with a snake, is instantly recognisable.

The thing about this thought experiment though is that the question answers itself. It’s basically asking “if something does something that makes a sound, does it make a sound?” Whether there’s anyone there or not is a red herring.

Bubblecar said:

The thing about this thought experiment though is that the question answers itself. It’s basically asking “if something does something that makes a sound, does it make a sound?” Whether there’s anyone there or not is a red herring.

Or an even more basic reduction of the tree question: “If an event of this kind occurs, is it an event of this kind?”

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

The thing about this thought experiment though is that the question answers itself. It’s basically asking “if something does something that makes a sound, does it make a sound?” Whether there’s anyone there or not is a red herring.

Or an even more basic reduction of the tree question: “If an event of this kind occurs, is it an event of this kind?”

The thing is it would depend upon whom you are asking.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it.. Is it logical to assume that the other trees did not notice?

I propose a thought experiment. There are several huge trees that are due to fall on my place. I could set up a movement sensor and a sound recorder.

After the evnt, I could play back the sound recorder using Audacity and simply view the waveform, without listening to it.

Has the tree made a sound yet?

Now I play it back through a speaker. Has it made a sound now?

morrie said:

I propose a thought experiment. There are several huge trees that are due to fall on my place. I could set up a movement sensor and a sound recorder.

After the evnt, I could play back the sound recorder using Audacity and simply view the waveform, without listening to it.

Has the tree made a sound yet?

Now I play it back through a speaker. Has it made a sound now?

Schroedinger’s tree.

>The thing is it would depend upon whom you are asking.

It really depends on what physical event is represented by the phrase “a tree falls”. If its physical characteristics are adequately described, we know that the phrase itself signifies an event that releases energy in the form of sound. So the question becomes “If something releases sound, does it release sound?” Whether there’s anyone there to hear is of no significance, because the question itself establishes that we are talking about an event that DOES release sound.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

The thing about this thought experiment though is that the question answers itself. It’s basically asking “if something does something that makes a sound, does it make a sound?” Whether there’s anyone there or not is a red herring.

Or an even more basic reduction of the tree question: “If an event of this kind occurs, is it an event of this kind?”

The thing is it would depend upon whom you are asking.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it.. Is it logical to assume that the other trees did not notice?

It should be logical to assume that any soft bodied insects that happened to be in the path of the fallen, contributed to a reduction in the decibel potential present in this event……

morrie said:

I propose a thought experiment. There are several huge trees that are due to fall on my place. I could set up a movement sensor and a sound recorder.

After the evnt, I could play back the sound recorder using Audacity and simply view the waveform, without listening to it.

Has the tree made a sound yet?

Now I play it back through a speaker. Has it made a sound now?

The problem with that is that you are using a sound recorder.

Bubblecar said:

>The thing is it would depend upon whom you are asking.

It really depends on what physical event is represented by the phrase “a tree falls”. If its physical characteristics are adequately described, we know that the phrase itself signifies an event that releases energy in the form of sound. So the question becomes “If something releases sound, does it release sound?” Whether there’s anyone there to hear is of no significance, because the question itself establishes that we are talking about an event that DOES release sound.

Yeah.. We know it releases sound and we know that it isn’t only ourselves who can recognise that fact.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

>The thing is it would depend upon whom you are asking.

It really depends on what physical event is represented by the phrase “a tree falls”. If its physical characteristics are adequately described, we know that the phrase itself signifies an event that releases energy in the form of sound. So the question becomes “If something releases sound, does it release sound?” Whether there’s anyone there to hear is of no significance, because the question itself establishes that we are talking about an event that DOES release sound.

Yeah.. We know it releases sound and we know that it isn’t only ourselves who can recognise that fact.

this is not true. sound is absorbed into the environment it occurs in. if there were a stylus capable of playing the track the passing of the sound would somehow be evident

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

>The thing is it would depend upon whom you are asking.

It really depends on what physical event is represented by the phrase “a tree falls”. If its physical characteristics are adequately described, we know that the phrase itself signifies an event that releases energy in the form of sound. So the question becomes “If something releases sound, does it release sound?” Whether there’s anyone there to hear is of no significance, because the question itself establishes that we are talking about an event that DOES release sound.

Yeah.. We know it releases sound and we know that it isn’t only ourselves who can recognise that fact.

sound is absorbed into the environment it occurs in. if there were a stylus capable of playing the track the passing of the sound would somehow be evident

fixed

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Or an even more basic reduction of the tree question: “If an event of this kind occurs, is it an event of this kind?”

The thing is it would depend upon whom you are asking.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it.. Is it logical to assume that the other trees did not notice?

It should be logical to assume that any soft bodied insects that happened to be in the path of the fallen, contributed to a reduction in the decibel potential present in this event……

Now there’s an experiment. set up two trees to fall. One with and one without insects to land upon.. or indeed scream all the way down. Set up measuring devices to note any differences.

But again, it doesn’t matter whether anyone or anything notices the sound in any way, because the event is already defined as an event that releases sound. So we already know the question is of the form: “if something makes a sound…” and ends with “…does it make a sound”? and that’s really all the question is :)

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

The thing is it would depend upon whom you are asking.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it.. Is it logical to assume that the other trees did not notice?

It should be logical to assume that any soft bodied insects that happened to be in the path of the fallen, contributed to a reduction in the decibel potential present in this event……

Now there’s an experiment. set up two trees to fall. One with and one without insects to land upon.. or indeed scream all the way down. Set up measuring devices to note any differences.

Might be important to the future of documentary and horror film soundtracks………

Bubblecar said:

But again, it doesn’t matter whether anyone or anything notices the sound in any way, because the event is already defined as an event that releases sound. So we already know the question is of the form: “if something makes a sound…” and ends with “…does it make a sound”? and that’s really all the question is :)

Trees don’t need to fall over to transfer energy into sound.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

But again, it doesn’t matter whether anyone or anything notices the sound in any way, because the event is already defined as an event that releases sound. So we already know the question is of the form: “if something makes a sound…” and ends with “…does it make a sound”? and that’s really all the question is :)

Trees don’t need to fall over to transfer energy into sound.

I hope this philosophical question wasn’t posed by a buddhist now that it is so obviously a violent act…….

Another example: “If an object is blue but there’s no-one there to see it, is it blue?” The observer is a red herring because the question has already stated that the object is blue. So the question is really “If an object is blue, is it blue?”

Bubblecar said:

Another example: “If an object is blue but there’s no-one there to see it, is it blue?” The observer is a red herring because the question has already stated that the object is blue. So the question is really “If an object is blue, is it blue?”

As the question was originally posed as a philosophical one intended to expose the limitations of the individual truth and the reality of the ultimate truth, applying scientific reasoning to it is indulging in rhetoric.

Bubblecar said:

Another example: “If an object is blue but there’s no-one there to see it, is it blue?” The observer is a red herring because the question has already stated that the object is blue. So the question is really “If an object is blue, is it blue?”

Sound doesn’t have to be round but there are many hues of blues.

>As the question was originally posed as a philosophical one intended to expose the limitations of the individual truth and the reality of the ultimate truth, applying scientific reasoning to it is indulging in rhetoric.

I’m applying basic logic (as used by philosophers), not “scientific reasoning”.

roughbarked said:

Sound doesn’t have to be round but there are many hues of blues.

Sounds like a celtic war chant…..

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Sound doesn’t have to be round but there are many hues of blues.

Sounds like a celtic war chant…..

rolling thunder.

Bubblecar said:

>As the question was originally posed as a philosophical one intended to expose the limitations of the individual truth and the reality of the ultimate truth, applying scientific reasoning to it is indulging in rhetoric.

I’m applying basic logic (as used by philosophers), not “scientific reasoning”.

I’m not criticising your logic. I find it amusing that there was found a way to assign a negative answer to the question. Amusing that there seemed to be a perverse motivation to it….

roughbarked said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Sound doesn’t have to be round but there are many hues of blues.

Sounds like a celtic war chant…..

rolling thunder.

have ye nay heard the sound of te spear on my shield previously laddie???

Again, in the tree question, everything depends on precisely what event is represented by “a tree falls” If it’s defined as an event that releases energy in the form of sound, we already know that it makes a sound, observer or no observer.

But you could define it as “an event that may or may not release energy in the form of sound”, in which case the answer to the question would be “maybe, maybe not”, again regardless of whether or not there’s anyone there.

Bubblecar said:

Again, in the tree question, everything depends on precisely what event is represented by “a tree falls” If it’s defined as an event that releases energy in the form of sound, we already know that it makes a sound, observer or no observer.

But you could define it as “an event that may or may not release energy in the form of sound”, in which case the answer to the question would be “maybe, maybe not”, again regardless of whether or not there’s anyone there.

I guess that my point is, why ask the question?

>I find it amusing that there was found a way to assign a negative answer to the question

That could only be the right answer if you define “a tree falls” as “an event that will only release energy in the form of sound if there’s someone there”. But it’s only fair to warn people that you’re defining the event in this peculiar (and from the pov of physics, inaccurate) way :)

Bubblecar said:

Another example: “If an object is blue but there’s no-one there to see it, is it blue?” The observer is a red herring because the question has already stated that the object is blue. So the question is really “If an object is blue, is it blue?”

Indeed, I did ponder asking the question: “what colour is an orange when no-one is looking at it?”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Another example: “If an object is blue but there’s no-one there to see it, is it blue?” The observer is a red herring because the question has already stated that the object is blue. So the question is really “If an object is blue, is it blue?”

Indeed, I did ponder asking the question: “what colour is an orange when no-one is looking at it?”

~ 635–590 nm

I tend to think the answer is no.

If a deaf person reacted to a tree falling that he didn’t see fall, we wouldn’t say he heard it or felt the sound, we would say he felt he vibration.

Sound is really just an interpretation of the vibrations.

QI was probably right to say there’s no definitive answer.

Anywho said:

I tend to think the answer is no.

If a deaf person reacted to a tree falling that he didn’t see fall, we wouldn’t say he heard it or felt the sound, we would say he felt he vibration.

Sound is really just an interpretation of the vibrations.

QI was probably right to say there’s no definitive answer.

there is also the shock wave and flying debris.

I didn’t have a camera with me on the day but it still wouldn’t have described the incident as well anyway. Walking on the banks of the murrumbidgee in dense redgum forest, I noticed a portion(the majority) of the trunk of a tree, shoved right through the trunk of another. At least 10 m from the ground and speared through the tree.

There’s a point in which a physical vibration becomes something people may generalize to be ‘sound’, which is a ‘denotation’ perhaps. Further a characteristic or ‘signature experience’ may be attributed that both uses and supports the denoted or denotation process, both the word-concept relational aspects.

Worth noting is that qualia tend to filter and shape input, much of which is narrow band in a way (of light, and maybe sound too though of the latter the spectral limitations may be seen as less).

So the structure added by way of processing the ‘sound’ is injected into the experience of the physical force or object or happening being experienced.

So really people are to great extent experiencing the workings of their minds.

Just like a joke you know, the joke isn’t the funny thing, it’s what your mind does that is funny.

an oldie but a goodie:

http://www.scq.ubc.ca/papers/TimberPaper.pdf

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/article/318

>>>>This annoyed one of the guests (whose name I forget),

>>>>>Yes, the bloke who thought the answer should be no also reckoned that light is invisible.
————————————-

The bloke/guest whose name you forget is John Lloyd, the creator/producer of QI. So Stephen Fry is basically telling his boss that he is wrong and knows nothing. I am sure we would all like to be able to do that from time to time…

This would appear to not be a philosophical problem, but a terminological one.

If your definition of “sound” involves cognition, then it makes no sound until and unless it is heard.

If your definition of “sound” is compressive vibrations transmitted by material media (esp in the range of freqs audible by humans), then it makes a sound even if no one hears it.

There is no means of determine which of these definitions is superior.

Next

dv said:

Next

dv said:

This would appear to not be a philosophical problem, but a terminological one.

If your definition of “sound” involves cognition, then it makes no sound until and unless it is heard.

If your definition of “sound” is compressive vibrations transmitted by material media (esp in the range of freqs audible by humans), then it makes a sound even if no one hears it.

There is no means of determine which of these definitions is superior.

Next

Sure there is.

You just batter your opponents over the head with old QI scripts until they agree to accept your terminology.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

dv said:

Next

well there goes my childhood.

If your definition of “sound” is compressive vibrations transmitted by material media (esp in the range of freqs audible by humans), then it makes a sound even if no one hears it.
———————-
That bit is not proveable.

>That bit is not proveable.

It doesn’t have to be proved, it just has to be specified. It’s a hypothetical question, so it’s up to the questioner to specify whether or not the event he’s postulating involves the release of that kind of energy.

Stealth said:

If your definition of “sound” is compressive vibrations transmitted by material media (esp in the range of freqs audible by humans), then it makes a sound even if no one hears it.
———————-
That bit is not proveable.

Of course it is, it’s basic materials science. You can find evidence of the vibration in any number of ways that don’t require anyone to hear it.

…just as it’s up to the questioner to specify exactly what he means by “sound”.

dv said:

Stealth said:

If your definition of “sound” is compressive vibrations transmitted by material media (esp in the range of freqs audible by humans), then it makes a sound even if no one hears it.
———————-
That bit is not proveable.

Of course it is, it’s basic materials science. You can find evidence of the vibration in any number of ways that don’t require anyone to hear it.

Such as?

dv said:

Stealth said:

If your definition of “sound” is compressive vibrations transmitted by material media (esp in the range of freqs audible by humans), then it makes a sound even if no one hears it.
———————-
That bit is not proveable.

Of course it is, it’s basic materials science. You can find evidence of the vibration in any number of ways that don’t require anyone to hear it.

Well we can’t be certain that the people who run the simulation in which we live play the sound track when there is no-one listening.

But I agree it is a reasonable assumption that they do.

Such as a seismograph???

>Such as?

Anything that can serve the same function as an eardrum (i.e., be caused to vibrate by the soundwaves).

Stealth said:

dv said:

Stealth said:

If your definition of “sound” is compressive vibrations transmitted by material media (esp in the range of freqs audible by humans), then it makes a sound even if no one hears it.
———————-
That bit is not proveable.

Of course it is, it’s basic materials science. You can find evidence of the vibration in any number of ways that don’t require anyone to hear it.

Such as?

Seismometer output

The Rev Dodgson said:

Stealth said:

dv said:

Of course it is, it’s basic materials science. You can find evidence of the vibration in any number of ways that don’t require anyone to hear it.

Such as?

Seismometer output

DV, Mr car and Rev all of your answers involve the system to be present to record the incident. And I agree the a) is would be a very safe assumption that it made a sound, b) if you suggestions were present when the tree fell then they could prove it without it being ‘heard by a human’, but the question was “If you found a fallen tree, that fell down before you arrived, did it make a sound as it fell” you can’t prove that it did with adding to the question.

Stealth said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Stealth said:

Such as?

Seismometer output

DV, Mr car and Rev all of your answers involve the system to be present to record the incident. And I agree the a) is would be a very safe assumption that it made a sound, b) if you suggestions were present when the tree fell then they could prove it without it being ‘heard by a human’, but the question was “If you found a fallen tree, that fell down before you arrived, did it make a sound as it fell” you can’t prove that it did with adding to the question.

Without adding to the question…

>“If you found a fallen tree, that fell down before you arrived, did it make a sound as it fell”

Do you, the one formulating the question, know whether it did or not? If so, just tell us :)

Stealth said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Stealth said:

Such as?

Seismometer output

DV, Mr car and Rev all of your answers involve the system to be present to record the incident. And I agree the a) is would be a very safe assumption that it made a sound, b) if you suggestions were present when the tree fell then they could prove it without it being ‘heard by a human’, but the question was “If you found a fallen tree, that fell down before you arrived, did it make a sound as it fell” you can’t prove that it did with adding to the question.

You don’t need evidence for every tree.

You just need the evidence to be consistent, for every falling tree for which there is evidence available.

Divine Angel said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

dv said:

Next

well there goes my childhood.

“the force surrounds and penetrates all things, binding the galaxies together…….”

The question Stealth is posing seems to be: “If it’s unknown whether a sound was produced, was a sound produced?” which is another question that answers itself.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Stealth said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seismometer output

DV, Mr car and Rev all of your answers involve the system to be present to record the incident. And I agree the a) is would be a very safe assumption that it made a sound, b) if you suggestions were present when the tree fell then they could prove it without it being ‘heard by a human’, but the question was “If you found a fallen tree, that fell down before you arrived, did it make a sound as it fell” you can’t prove that it did with adding to the question.

You don’t need evidence for every tree.

You just need the evidence to be consistent, for every falling tree for which there is evidence available.

True, you can make a very safe assumption based on existing evidence. But that existing evidence does not make it impossible for a particular unrecorded tree to fall without a sound.

Bubblecar said:

The question Stealth is posing seems to be: “If it’s unknown whether a sound was produced, was a sound produced?” which is another question that answers itself.

Or maybe more accurately, “If it’s unknown whether a sound was produced, is it known whether a sound was produced?”

Bubblecar said:

The question Stealth is posing seems to be: “If it’s unknown whether a sound was produced, was a sound produced?” which is another question that answers itself.

I think the question is more like:

“If there is no direct evidence if sound was produced, is it nonetheless reasonable to assume that sound was produced, based on the evidence from every falling tree for which evidence is available, and the generally accepted physics of sound generation and transmission?”

Stealth said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Stealth said:

DV, Mr car and Rev all of your answers involve the system to be present to record the incident. And I agree the a) is would be a very safe assumption that it made a sound, b) if you suggestions were present when the tree fell then they could prove it without it being ‘heard by a human’, but the question was “If you found a fallen tree, that fell down before you arrived, did it make a sound as it fell” you can’t prove that it did with adding to the question.

You don’t need evidence for every tree.

You just need the evidence to be consistent, for every falling tree for which there is evidence available.

True, you can make a very safe assumption based on existing evidence. But that existing evidence does not make it impossible for a particular unrecorded tree to fall without a sound.

No, but the question does not require 100% certainty to be answered with reasonable certainty.

Just like any other question about anything.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Stealth said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seismometer output

DV, Mr car and Rev all of your answers involve the system to be present to record the incident. And I agree the a) is would be a very safe assumption that it made a sound, b) if you suggestions were present when the tree fell then they could prove it without it being ‘heard by a human’, but the question was “If you found a fallen tree, that fell down before you arrived, did it make a sound as it fell” you can’t prove that it did with adding to the question.

You don’t need evidence for every tree.

You just need the evidence to be consistent, for every falling tree for which there is evidence available.

Further to that, the way the sound wave is generated is well understood, and is understood to be independent of the human observer. Any theory that a falling tree does under some circumstances not make any sound waves would need to explain how that that happens, and explain the interaction with the presence or absence of a human observer.

I’d imagine in many cases a careful analysis of the site would be able to tell you with 100% confidence that sounds must have been produced.

On a planet with no atmosphere if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seeing as transition is in the mood for pointless philosophical discussions (:)), on QI last night they raised the ancient question of whether a falling tree in a forest makes a sound, if there is no-one there to hear it.

If there was no one there to hear it then there was no one there to see it, touch it or detect it in any way whatsoever. Therefore there was no falling tree and there was no forest, there is only a question. There was no sound.

Skunkworks said:

On a planet with no atmosphere if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

Sounds would be transmitted through the ground when it hits.

Skunkworks said:

On a planet with no atmosphere if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

On current evidence the lack of an atmosphere rules out the existence of a forest.

>Therefore there was no falling tree and there was no forest, there is only a question

Yes, it’s a hypothetical question. So it’s really up to the questioner to specify whether or not there was any sound.

I tend to agree that it is not a question about the physics of falling trees but the nature of reality and perception. I think therefore I am gear and is the world external or internal or external and how much influenced by the internal.

Skunkworks said:

On a planet with no atmosphere if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

On a planet with no atmosphere there can be no forest.

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

On a planet with no atmosphere if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

On current evidence the lack of an atmosphere rules out the existence of a forest.

meh, I can think of some scenarios for spooky silent forests on planets with no atmosphere.

>I think therefore I am gear

“You think, therefore you are what?”

“I dunno, just some kind of gear”

>On a planet with no atmosphere there can be no forest.

There could be a long dead forest. Which is why it’s falling down.

roughbarked said:

Skunkworks said:

On a planet with no atmosphere if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

On a planet with no atmosphere there can be no forest.

I can probably think of a scenario for a living forest on a planet with no atmosphere but no impediments to old dead forests and trees would still fall.

But the question was a pisstake anyway.

Skunkworks said:

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

On a planet with no atmosphere if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

On current evidence the lack of an atmosphere rules out the existence of a forest.

meh, I can think of some scenarios for spooky silent forests on planets with no atmosphere.

Well, in that case, it would create vibrations in the ground, which an astronaut might feel through his or her feet if standing nearby.

Bubblecar said:

>On a planet with no atmosphere there can be no forest.

There could be a long dead forest. Which is why it’s falling down.

An old gwowth fowest?

This is like some of the worst stoner nights I ever had to endure :/

Skunkworks said:

But the question was a pisstake anyway.

Sometimes I like a to answer pisstake questions with a serious answer, as a sort of reverse pisstake.

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

party_pants said:

On current evidence the lack of an atmosphere rules out the existence of a forest.

meh, I can think of some scenarios for spooky silent forests on planets with no atmosphere.

Well, in that case, it would create vibrations in the ground, which an astronaut might feel through his or her feet if standing nearby.

“OR A ELEPHANT!!”

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

But the question was a pisstake anyway.

Sometimes I like a to answer pisstake questions with a serious answer, as a sort of reverse pisstake.

But what if the questioner takes your reverse pisstake response seriously? Where does that leave you?

If a man pisses on a cat in a box in a fallen forest but there is no atmosphere, does the cat get wet?

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

But the question was a pisstake anyway.

Sometimes I like a to answer pisstake questions with a serious answer, as a sort of reverse pisstake.

But what if the questioner takes your reverse pisstake response seriously? Where does that leave you?

I don’t care because I’m not them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

But the question was a pisstake anyway.

Sometimes I like a to answer pisstake questions with a serious answer, as a sort of reverse pisstake.

But what if the questioner takes your reverse pisstake response seriously? Where does that leave you?

Camelot!

Bubblecar said:

If a man pisses on a cat in a box in a fallen forest but there is no atmosphere, does the cat get wet?

One would have to open the box to check, which would ruin the experiment. The cat would have to be considered in a simultaneous state of both wet and dry.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

If a man pisses on a cat in a box in a fallen forest but there is no atmosphere, does the cat get wet?

One would have to open the box to check, which would ruin the experiment. The cat would have to be considered in a simultaneous state of both wet and dry.

or a general state of pissed……

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

If a man pisses on a cat in a box in a fallen forest but there is no atmosphere, does the cat get wet?

One would have to open the box to check, which would ruin the experiment. The cat would have to be considered in a simultaneous state of both wet and dry.

You would have to be very brave indeed to let a cat, that you have just pissed on, out of a box.

It would probably help if we could prove if a tree could fall without a sound. How about:-

We have a tree in a forrest, a very cold winter happens, heavy snowfall completely covers the tree, the snow compacts down to form a glacier, the galcier very slowly slides down the mountain, Tony Abbott causes global warming, glacier melts, tree is revealed to be on it side.

Bubblecar said:

If a man pisses on a cat in a box in a fallen forest but there is no atmosphere, does the cat get wet?

depensds if the man was eating oranges?

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

If a man pisses on a cat in a box in a fallen forest but there is no atmosphere, does the cat get wet?

depensds if the man was eating oranges?

Also depends if the box is transparent.

………if the guy your burying emits a gaseous belch as the coffin is lowered into the turf, do you quarantine the site and turn it into an existential experiment or do you let the guy R.I.P?

On a planet with no atmosphere if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?
—

yes, because sound is also transmitted by solids and liquids.

>does the cat get wet?

I’ve seen something like this in german adult entertainment, wet pussies, golden showers and all that

Can’t this simply be tested by putting a tape recorder in the forest and waiting until a tree has fallen?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

the tree and forest are only constructs in our mind

there is no tree

no forest

only the sound of one hand clapping

>no-brainer

It’s alright. That a tree can fall and that they do fall and disturb the air around them makes for a reassuring certainty when you observe it happen.

Skeptic Pete said:

Can’t this simply be tested by putting a tape recorder in the forest and waiting until a tree has fallen?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I have several trees that are due to fall within the next couple of years. I could set up a recording system.

But consider now that I retrieve the recorder from the vicinity of the fallen tree.

I can determine that there is a sound on it by viewing the contents with Audacity as a waveform with sound muted.

Does that mean it made a sound?

Or I could listen to it and hear the recording of the sound.

When did it make the sound? When it fell, or when I played it back?

morrie said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Can’t this simply be tested by putting a tape recorder in the forest and waiting until a tree has fallen?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I have several trees that are due to fall within the next couple of years. I could set up a recording system.

But consider now that I retrieve the recorder from the vicinity of the fallen tree.

I can determine that there is a sound on it by viewing the contents with Audacity as a waveform with sound muted.

Does that mean it made a sound?

Or I could listen to it and hear the recording of the sound.

When did it make the sound? When it fell, or when I played it back?

Stop messing with my mind!!!!

Peronally I can’t see how the question ever became even remotely entertaining.

Skeptic Pete said:

morrie said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Can’t this simply be tested by putting a tape recorder in the forest and waiting until a tree has fallen?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I have several trees that are due to fall within the next couple of years. I could set up a recording system.

But consider now that I retrieve the recorder from the vicinity of the fallen tree.

I can determine that there is a sound on it by viewing the contents with Audacity as a waveform with sound muted.

Does that mean it made a sound?

Or I could listen to it and hear the recording of the sound.

When did it make the sound? When it fell, or when I played it back?

Stop messing with my mind!!!!

Did the tree fall? or did the ground rise up and knock the tree over?

transition said:

Peronally I can’t see how the question ever became even remotely entertaining.

Seems to have provided a entertainment today though.

Hummm

I guess the answer is no. If only humans hear sounds…

Sound (change in air pressure) is a human construct so if we don’t hear it… there is no sound.

Ever been woken up by a middle sized Sun exploding and imploding away?

Well yes, you have seen and been woken by the events but are yet to hear a peep…

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Peronally I can’t see how the question ever became even remotely entertaining.

Seems to have provided a entertainment today though.

Insert “fair bit of” at an appropriate location.

Mr Ironic said:

Sound (change in air pressure) is a human construct.

No it isn’t.

No it isn’t.
———————

OK, where oh where oh where… did my statement sound wrong?

Mr Ironic said:

No it isn’t.
———————

OK, where oh where oh where… did my statement sound wrong?

The bit where you said “Sound (change in air pressure) is a human construct.”

The bit where you said “Sound (change in air pressure) is a human construct.”
—————————————————————-

OK, so where else did we decide to name what we were hearing… Sound?

I think the important thing is the relationship between the tree and the forest.

>I think the important thing is the relationship between the tree and the forest.

….as in can’t see the whatnot for the whatnot.

Skeptic Pete said:

morrie said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Can’t this simply be tested by putting a tape recorder in the forest and waiting until a tree has fallen?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I have several trees that are due to fall within the next couple of years. I could set up a recording system.

But consider now that I retrieve the recorder from the vicinity of the fallen tree.

I can determine that there is a sound on it by viewing the contents with Audacity as a waveform with sound muted.

Does that mean it made a sound?

Or I could listen to it and hear the recording of the sound.

When did it make the sound? When it fell, or when I played it back?

Stop messing with my mind!!!!

I was going to say that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Peronally I can’t see how the question ever became even remotely entertaining.

Seems to have provided a entertainment today though.

Insert “fair bit of” at an appropriate location.

a fair bit of displacement was involved.

Glance Fleeting said:

I think the important thing is the relationship between the tree and the forest.

Yes, it needs to be a sound one.

morrie said:

Glance Fleeting said:

I think the important thing is the relationship between the tree and the forest.

Yes, it needs to be a sound one.

Soundly rooted?

>Seems to have provided a entertainment today though.

I’m indifferent bordering masochistic today, so you helped me cross the line a bit. If you were female, you might have done it sooner with a whip.

transition said:

>Seems to have provided a entertainment today though.

I’m indifferent bordering masochistic today, so you helped me cross the line a bit. If you were female, you might have done it sooner with a whip.

If she blindfolded you, how would you know it was a whip?

morrie said:

I propose a thought experiment. There are several huge trees that are due to fall on my place. I could set up a movement sensor and a sound recorder.

After the evnt, I could play back the sound recorder using Audacity and simply view the waveform, without listening to it.

Has the tree made a sound yet?

Now I play it back through a speaker. Has it made a sound now?

One could argue that the sound you hear is not the sound of the tree falling but simply an imperfect simulation of the sound the tree would have made if someone was there to hear it, based on the restricted data captured by your recording device.

Soso said:

morrie said:

I propose a thought experiment. There are several huge trees that are due to fall on my place. I could set up a movement sensor and a sound recorder.

After the evnt, I could play back the sound recorder using Audacity and simply view the waveform, without listening to it.

Has the tree made a sound yet?

Now I play it back through a speaker. Has it made a sound now?

One could argue that the sound you hear is not the sound of the tree falling but simply an imperfect simulation of the sound the tree would have made if someone was there to hear it, based on the restricted data captured by your recording device.

That’s so very SoSo.

There does exist a case for the fact that people who get hit by falling trees, may not have heard them coming.

roughbarked said:

Soso said:

morrie said:

I propose a thought experiment. There are several huge trees that are due to fall on my place. I could set up a movement sensor and a sound recorder.

After the evnt, I could play back the sound recorder using Audacity and simply view the waveform, without listening to it.

Has the tree made a sound yet?

Now I play it back through a speaker. Has it made a sound now?

One could argue that the sound you hear is not the sound of the tree falling but simply an imperfect simulation of the sound the tree would have made if someone was there to hear it, based on the restricted data captured by your recording device.

That’s so very SoSo.

There does exist a case for the fact that people who get hit by falling trees, may not have heard them coming.

Some of them would be asleep I guess. And so they should at this time of night.

If my alarm clock goes off in a forest and no one is there to hear it, is it still annoying?

Soso said:

If my alarm clock goes off in a forest and no one is there to hear it, is it still annoying?

Only if you are trying to dream.

Anyway, are there devices that can record whatever sound was generated, by it’s ghostly remains?

If there’s a chocolate bar in the forest and no-one is there to eat it, is it still fattening?

Soso said:

If there’s a chocolate bar in the forest and no-one is there to eat it, is it still fattening?

Not by the time you find the waated wrapper.

wasted.. hate blowing a good line.

Soso said:

If there’s a chocolate bar in the forest and no-one is there to eat it, is it still fattening?

Funny you should mention that. Here I am in the forest eating a chocolate bar.

roughbarked said:

Anyway, are there devices that can record whatever sound was generated, by it’s ghostly remains?

A pay tv show with the word paranormal in the title might have the answer to that.

morrie said:

Soso said:

If there’s a chocolate bar in the forest and no-one is there to eat it, is it still fattening?

Funny you should mention that. Here I am in the forest eating a chocolate bar.

ironing.. ;)

Soso said:

roughbarked said:

Anyway, are there devices that can record whatever sound was generated, by it’s ghostly remains?

A pay tv show with the word paranormal in the title might have the answer to that.

We can record the passing of light that has passed.

There lies a reasonable doubt that maybe the sound waves generated by a nuclear blast could leave their mark.

You might be able to estimate how loud a explosion was from the damage it caused.

The time I saw the trunk of a tree speared through another. I could hear the sounds made by whatever blasted the bit of tree trunk at right angles, probably lighting? Then the ripping apart of the fibres of one of the densest timbers out there, to accommodate the T piece of another tree into the morphology.. and then the closing of the sprung fibres to stop it passing all the way through.

Soso said:

You might be able to estimate how loud a explosion was from the damage it caused.

That’s the kind of thing I was thinking.

Of temporal experience, clocks being one example of more regular change we reference for this, but of all the change (including the possibility of), do the falling trees any individual doesn’‘t know of, do the possibility they may fall or be falling (and any similar contributing change one can imagine or not imagine) contribute to time perception.

Meaning does the or all the ‘possibilities’ of physical change that make time possible and time reference from them need to be known to us, and if every change and every possible change were known to us would time perception (a workable temporal experience) be possible.

If I knew absolutely everything would time perception be possible?

Are the trees falling that I don’t know about contributing to my present reality.

transition said:

Are the trees falling that I don’t know about contributing to my present reality.

Yes. Because there are numerous ways in that this is effected, without you needing to hear a thing or bother measuring the timeframe.

So what you reckon RB, if you knew absolutely everything would you be capable of a workable temporal experience making for some ‘reality’? And what part of consciousness is somehow derived from this?

transition said:

So what you reckon RB, if you knew absolutely everything would you be capable of a workable temporal experience making for some ‘reality’? And what part of consciousness is somehow derived from this?

Not sure I have any comprehension of what knowing absolutely everything, actually means.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

So what you reckon RB, if you knew absolutely everything would you be capable of a workable temporal experience making for some ‘reality’? And what part of consciousness is somehow derived from this?

Not sure I have any comprehension of what knowing absolutely everything, actually means.

I could presume that it meant that since you knew everything, by then it would be Sunday and time for a day off that lasts forever.

>Not sure I have any comprehension of what knowing absolutely everything, actually means.

That is probably an answer, hiding in an answer.

transition said:

>Not sure I have any comprehension of what knowing absolutely everything, actually means.

That is probably an answer, hiding in an answer.

there does seem a probability clause.

transition said:

If I knew absolutely everything would time perception be possible?

If you couldn’t perceive time you wouldn’t know everything.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

If I knew absolutely everything would time perception be possible?

If you couldn’t perceive time you wouldn’t know everything.

yes but that seemed too easy.

Surprised this thread is going, given that I sorted it all out for youse.

>If you couldn’t perceive time you wouldn’t know everything.

Was tossing around the idea of clocks having a timebase reference employing falling trees, might be an interesting lesson in that. Not sure how many cascaded dividers you’d have to have for the present rate of falling, felled and dieing trees to come near equalling today’s second. Or we could have trees planted that survive as an offset, so if there were 100% replacement a second comes near the present second. Which way would you like it, rev, that a greater rate of felled, falling and dieing trees makes the clock go faster or slower. It can be inverted so ‘progress’ makes the day longer.

My only real point being the part physical change and the possibility of being involved in time perception, but get back to me about the clock timebase operating from an approximation of net tree survival.

transition said:

>

My only real point being the part physical change and the possibility of being involved in time perception, but get back to me about the clock timebase operating from an approximation of net tree survival.

I’m afraid you totally lost me on that one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>

My only real point being the part physical change and the possibility of being involved in time perception, but get back to me about the clock timebase operating from an approximation of net tree survival.

I’m afraid you totally lost me on that one.

Perhaps he was referring to the dead beat escapement.

dv said:

Surprised this thread is going, given that I sorted it all out for youse.

It is an interesting question why this is considered to be an interesting question (or even just Quite Interesting).

I think the main features are:

1) There are two contradictory answers, depending on how the words used in the question are defined.
2) The words are in such wide and common use that people think their understanding of their meaning is the only possible correct one.
3) The question can be linked to broader philosophical issues, so that the essentially trivial resolution of the discussion as one of carefully defining the meaning of the words can be hidden under a wider discussion, that also has two or more contradictory answers.

It comes down to the universal preference for one clear cut answer to any question, even when there are multiple equally satisfactory answers.

The famous “orange in the dark” (which is essentially the same question) and “classic probability” questions shared these same three features.

Anyway I’ve got a stack of printing to do so I’ll go into the office.
Better to use the bosses consumables than mine, I’m from Scotland you know.

Peak Warming Man said:

Anyway I’ve got a stack of printing to do so I’ll go into the office.
Better to use the bosses consumables than mine, I’m from Scotland you know.

Somehow or other.. user pays.

>I’m afraid you totally lost me on that one.

Consider an algorithm for processing the sound waves of a tree falling input structure and clock the experience at the rate required to do what re/cognition does.

transition said:

>I’m afraid you totally lost me on that one.

Consider an algorithm for processing the sound waves of a tree falling input structure and clock the experience at the rate required to do what re/cognition does.

OK

…

What now?

transition said:

>I’m afraid you totally lost me on that one.

Consider an algorithm for processing the sound waves of a tree falling input structure and clock the experience at the rate required to do what re/cognition does.

Yep.. the dead beat escapement.

Wouldn’t the grasshopper have been more appropriate?

>What now?

Back to gardening. Watering trees.

transition said:

>What now?

Back to gardening. Watering trees.

Yeah.. the proposed 20-40 mm stopped at 1.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>What now?

Back to gardening. Watering trees.

Yeah.. the proposed 20-40 mm stopped at 1.

0.4 here :(

*******************************
I think the main features are:

1) There are two contradictory answers, depending on how the words used in the question are defined.
2) The words are in such wide and common use that people think their understanding of their meaning is the only possible correct one.
3) The question can be linked to broader philosophical issues, so that the essentially trivial resolution of the discussion as one of carefully defining the meaning of the words can be hidden under a wider discussion, that also has two or more contradictory answers. *******************************

Fairly much it, rev, experience of ‘sound’ (excluding the voices etc in my head, the ones that worry me:) is pressure changes or vibration + processing. Not necessarily entirely in that order.

Now, to the voices and noises in my my head I ‘hear’, are they “sound”?

Now, to the voices and noises in my my head I ‘hear’, are they “sound”?
———————————————————

Yes, well the few that make sense…

Let me pop a smiley on that for you.

>Yes, well the few that make sense… :)”

What I was wondering is of the store of ‘templates’ or signatures for recognition of what become sounds. These must pre-exist, which would have thought makes the question of when a sensed vibration becomes a sound, or recognized sound.

Ta, I’m not much into those emoto-cons that may or may not convey a friendly heartfelt feeling across the net, yet take next to no time to punch out…
———————————————————

What I was wondering is of the store of ‘templates’ or signatures for recognition of what become sounds.
——————————————————-

Interesting.

There is certainly the ability for words and sounds to be duplicated/replicated (Meh made) without the ears being involved in pressure changes.

Flashes of light also.

Remember they say someone is ‘Mad’ if they are hearing voices

Not that she/he was a liar…

>Ta, I’m not much into those emoto-cons that may or may not convey a friendly heartfelt feeling across the net, yet take next to no time to punch out…

Likewise.

>There is certainly the ability for words and sounds to be duplicated/replicated (Meh made) without the ears being involved in pressure changes.
Flashes of light also.

Sometimes we hear a noise (source unknown) and it hangs as if can’t be easily resolved. The processing seems to be flicking through a bunch of signature templates. Not sure where it would start, short duration noises would probably have a different approach than longer duration noises, but frequency may be a good starting point.

Was wondering of the state of preparedness for the application of processing, it unlikely can be a sort of standby mode, though when asleep is perhaps.

transition said:

Now, to the voices and noises in my my head I ‘hear’, are they “sound”?

Good question.

IMO, no, but that’s because for me “sound” is the vibration in the air, and what goes on in our heads is us “hearing” a sound, so I think the sound is entirely external.

You might hear a remembered sound, or an imagined sound, or an actual sound, but I don’t think that what is going on inside your head is a sound.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Good question.

IMO, no, but that’s because for me “sound” is the vibration in the air, and what goes on in our heads is us “hearing” a sound, so I think the sound is entirely external.

You might hear a remembered sound, or an imagined sound, or an actual sound, but I don’t think that what is going on inside your head is a sound.

All depends on how you define ‘sound’ and comes back to the original question about whether sound exists if it isn’t heard.

It would be interesting to know whether the circuitry in the brain that hears sound also lights up when we remember a sound in our head.

Witty Rejoinder said:

All depends on how you define ‘sound’ and comes back to the original question about whether sound exists if it isn’t heard.

It would be interesting to know whether the circuitry in the brain that hears sound also lights up when we remember a sound in our head.

True, but I naturally I think my definition is the only sensible one.

I think the brain probably does “light up” to remembered sounds, not that I know anything about that stuff.

Was wondering of the state of preparedness for the application of processing, it unlikely can be a sort of standby mode, though when asleep is perhaps.
—————————————————————————-

Preparedness I would slash with anxiety level, probably very prominent with those afraid of thunder.

With heavy drinkers you can get the the “Hebe Gebies’. Thats Aussie slang for detoxing after a big long weekend…

Seems like the brain is pissing and farting and cartwheeling.

Probably to blame for most Mondayitis’ess’ss.

heebie geebies is used in other places than aus. it is an american saying and roughly mean anxiety or feeling unwell.

Alright lets choose a subject closer to the forum’s heart.

Or PWM’s loins.

How about that Nigella then hey?

>IMO, no, but that’s because for me “sound” is the vibration in the air, and what goes on in our heads is us “hearing” a sound, so I think the sound is entirely external.

How far into rolling out a word (vocalizing) before the noise becomes a ‘sound’, and does the noise become a sound for the speaker before the other hearer, generally?

If the speaker is rolling the word out from some type of template in his head then at what point does the ‘sound in the head’ constitute a ‘sound out there’?