Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// So if you leave a tape recorder in the forest and a tree falls...the tape recorder won't record any sound? //
Interesting point, but I'd say what you're doing by leaving a tape recorder there is just leaving a substitute person with a mechanical ear and brain to interpret the energy into a sound. Even then it's not really a sound until someone plays it back and hears it, which I think is Mibs point.
It's the recorder speaker\ear\brain combination that makes the sound isn't it? All you had up until that point was magnetic blips on a tape caused by the energy of the tree falling.
Interesting point, but I'd say what you're doing by leaving a tape recorder there is just leaving a substitute person with a mechanical ear and brain to interpret the energy into a sound. Even then it's not really a sound until someone plays it back and hears it, which I think is Mibs point.
It's the recorder speaker\ear\brain combination that makes the sound isn't it? All you had up until that point was magnetic blips on a tape caused by the energy of the tree falling.
"It's the recorder speaker\ear\brain combination that makes the sound isn't it?"
Well no it isn't, like I've said before. Things don't need a conscious observer in order to exist or to have made sounds. The most obvious illustration of this ( I hope) is the follow-up question: "If a tree falls in the forest and the closest person is a hundred yards away, did it make a sound in the first hundred yards?" The answer is clearly yes, because the sound had to travel between the tree and the person listening -- and, therefore, existed there even though it wasn't "heard" there.
In terms of mibn's post: "Until someone observes the tree and/or plays back the tape, the tree is in a superposition of being both erect and fallen."
Well, no. That's a Quantum-Mechanical statement and doesn't therefore apply to the world of things as large as trees. And indeed, the nature of a Quantum observation is nothing to do with consciousness either -- so another atom nearby is able to make the determination. Such as the nearby tree that the falling tree crashed into, and so on. You don't need a human to make the tree decide if it fell or not. And you shouldn't really be using Quantum Mechanics to describe the system anyway.
Well no it isn't, like I've said before. Things don't need a conscious observer in order to exist or to have made sounds. The most obvious illustration of this ( I hope) is the follow-up question: "If a tree falls in the forest and the closest person is a hundred yards away, did it make a sound in the first hundred yards?" The answer is clearly yes, because the sound had to travel between the tree and the person listening -- and, therefore, existed there even though it wasn't "heard" there.
In terms of mibn's post: "Until someone observes the tree and/or plays back the tape, the tree is in a superposition of being both erect and fallen."
Well, no. That's a Quantum-Mechanical statement and doesn't therefore apply to the world of things as large as trees. And indeed, the nature of a Quantum observation is nothing to do with consciousness either -- so another atom nearby is able to make the determination. Such as the nearby tree that the falling tree crashed into, and so on. You don't need a human to make the tree decide if it fell or not. And you shouldn't really be using Quantum Mechanics to describe the system anyway.
// "If a tree falls in the forest and the closest person is a hundred yards away, did it make a sound in the first hundred yards?" The answer is clearly yes, because the sound had to travel between the tree and the person listening -- and, therefore, existed there even though it wasn't "heard" there. //
With respect jim, you're missing the fundamental point. It's the act of 'hearing' that creates the 'sound', so no - it didn't exist before it reached the person.
Something existed, but it wasn't a sound. It was air waves. They didn't become a sound until the observers ear/brain converted them to one.
With respect jim, you're missing the fundamental point. It's the act of 'hearing' that creates the 'sound', so no - it didn't exist before it reached the person.
Something existed, but it wasn't a sound. It was air waves. They didn't become a sound until the observers ear/brain converted them to one.
I don't think I am missing the point. Your definition of a sound as "something heard" is an odd one and I don't recognise or agree with it, and certainly don't see where it comes from. It would be as bizarre as defining objects as "things that are seen". Sounds are defined, at least scientifically (and this is a thread in Science, after all), in terms of their frequencies and mechanical properties, not in terms of the person or animal listening to them.
// Your definition of a sound as "something heard" is an odd one and I don't recognise or agree with //
Fair enough. That's really the question isn't it - how do you define sound, and we disagree.
// It would be as bizarre as defining objects as "things that are seen". //
It's not the same. The equivalent is a view. The act of seeing creates the view. If there's no-one around to see the mountain, the view of the mountain doesn't exist - that's not the same thing as saying that the mountain ceases to exist when there's no-one around, and comes back into being again when there is.
But then you probably also have a different definition of what constitutes a view, so would disagree with me on that also.
As I said before, the question is simply a device to provoke a philosophical discussion about the nature of reality. Sorry if I sullied the science section with such airy fairy nonsense.
Fair enough. That's really the question isn't it - how do you define sound, and we disagree.
// It would be as bizarre as defining objects as "things that are seen". //
It's not the same. The equivalent is a view. The act of seeing creates the view. If there's no-one around to see the mountain, the view of the mountain doesn't exist - that's not the same thing as saying that the mountain ceases to exist when there's no-one around, and comes back into being again when there is.
But then you probably also have a different definition of what constitutes a view, so would disagree with me on that also.
As I said before, the question is simply a device to provoke a philosophical discussion about the nature of reality. Sorry if I sullied the science section with such airy fairy nonsense.
Lood Vul and thingey - you are all contrasting without identifying the Newton view of sound and colour - photons set on stun and pressure waves
and the psychological percept... Goethe's view
Have fun boys - they are two view and you can really get a synthesis but this clearly doesnt stop you trying....
and who said Red was always red ? mm no How now Brown Cow - the Red Cow wasnt really red anytimg - it was the usual brown (but redder)
It was only when Perkins Carmine (bright red) became available that the percept changed.
And in terms of Homer - we know what rosy fingered dawn looks like ( porphyro-dactylos)
but no real idea about his wine dark seas - ught did they really drink wine that colour ?
which backs up my contention that red has not always been red.....
and the psychological percept... Goethe's view
Have fun boys - they are two view and you can really get a synthesis but this clearly doesnt stop you trying....
and who said Red was always red ? mm no How now Brown Cow - the Red Cow wasnt really red anytimg - it was the usual brown (but redder)
It was only when Perkins Carmine (bright red) became available that the percept changed.
And in terms of Homer - we know what rosy fingered dawn looks like ( porphyro-dactylos)
but no real idea about his wine dark seas - ught did they really drink wine that colour ?
which backs up my contention that red has not always been red.....
sound/sound/
Noun: 1.Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear
2.A long surgical probe, typically with a curved, blunt end
3.A narrow stretch of water forming an inlet or connecting two wider areas of water such as two seas or a sea and a lake
so there we go :-)
Noun: 1.Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear
2.A long surgical probe, typically with a curved, blunt end
3.A narrow stretch of water forming an inlet or connecting two wider areas of water such as two seas or a sea and a lake
so there we go :-)
I agree with ludwig; there really is no 'sound' as such, we have developed through evolution an instrument (ear) as a means of survival, enabling us to detect movement, without the ear (feeding information to the brain) there would be no sound. Had we evolved more robotically rather than organically we might be fitted with a different instrument altogether, such as an oscilloscope to detect the waves created by movement of things.
On what basis do you agree with ludwig?
This is, by the way, half of my problem. Philosophers seem to spend half their time making up definitions that presume the results they want. Thus, here, a sound is "something heard", and therefore of course it can't exist if it's not heard, because the hearing is intrinsically part of the definition. But, at the same time, there is no basis in physical reality for that definition, because a sound is more accurately defined as a "(usually) longitudinal pressure wave propagating through a medium".
I suppose it could be argued the other way, that I've made a definition that answers its own question. Still, we need to agree on starting points, and ones that have the ability to be agreed on by all observers, everywhere and at every time, and whether or not they were paying attention, are surely the best ones, because they lead to things that are replicable and testable.
Anyway, any definition of sound that requires a listener is in a bit of trouble, because what constitutes a listener is the next question. Animals can hear things, even if they don't necessarily understand them. Plants can "feel" the vibrations of the sound, but don't have the capacity to interpret them, and so on. Even some deaf people can still be aware of sounds -- I think Beethoven would use some sort of rod get-up to listen to his piano even as he went deaf. So sound doesn't even require an ear...
It can just get silly, anyway, if you base definitions on the observer, as the number of definitions required starts to grow as the number of potential observers, of which there have been maybe 100 billion humans alone! That's 100 billion-odd separate definitions for every sound you can care to imagine, and several you can't, and many billions and billions more once you allow for animal and insect life. And maybe trillions more, still, if there are aliens.
Or, you could define sound as a particular type of wave, and you are reduced to a single definition. Which is much neater and easier, no?
This is, by the way, half of my problem. Philosophers seem to spend half their time making up definitions that presume the results they want. Thus, here, a sound is "something heard", and therefore of course it can't exist if it's not heard, because the hearing is intrinsically part of the definition. But, at the same time, there is no basis in physical reality for that definition, because a sound is more accurately defined as a "(usually) longitudinal pressure wave propagating through a medium".
I suppose it could be argued the other way, that I've made a definition that answers its own question. Still, we need to agree on starting points, and ones that have the ability to be agreed on by all observers, everywhere and at every time, and whether or not they were paying attention, are surely the best ones, because they lead to things that are replicable and testable.
Anyway, any definition of sound that requires a listener is in a bit of trouble, because what constitutes a listener is the next question. Animals can hear things, even if they don't necessarily understand them. Plants can "feel" the vibrations of the sound, but don't have the capacity to interpret them, and so on. Even some deaf people can still be aware of sounds -- I think Beethoven would use some sort of rod get-up to listen to his piano even as he went deaf. So sound doesn't even require an ear...
It can just get silly, anyway, if you base definitions on the observer, as the number of definitions required starts to grow as the number of potential observers, of which there have been maybe 100 billion humans alone! That's 100 billion-odd separate definitions for every sound you can care to imagine, and several you can't, and many billions and billions more once you allow for animal and insect life. And maybe trillions more, still, if there are aliens.
Or, you could define sound as a particular type of wave, and you are reduced to a single definition. Which is much neater and easier, no?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Who Provide An Extensive Range Of...
How it Works14 mins ago
Use Of A Machine That Would Then...
News42 mins ago
