If a Tree Falls in the Forest...

[Gribble]

... and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Age old question. I think I may have the answer. But first, what do you all think?

[vashti]

I vote no. I think there needs to be an ear (human or animal) to receive the sound waves before sound can be heard, right?

[vashti]

To BE is to be percieved by me. I am the center of the universe. If I didn't hear it, it didn't happen.

Anyway, I think sound requires a receiver to exist.

[lovesjoyajm]

I think the entire question is a little silly.

Unperceived existence is still reality.

Of course. But it's more about the nature of sound. Is sound dependent on the listener? Of course the physical vibrations are still present whether or not there is an ear to hear them, but isn't sound defined by the hearers?

I agree with Vashti.

[Gribble]

To BE is to be percieved by me. I am the center of the universe. If I didn't hear it, it didn't happen.

Be still my heart!

And you were right on the money. What we perceive as sound is merely a vibration. It is sound only to our nerve centers. No ear, no sound.

Shame on you for answering that so quickly!

[lovesjoyajm]

Wrong.

Just because there isn't an ear to receive the vibrations doesn't mean the vibrations aren't there.

lulz. That's exactly what I said:

Of course the physical vibrations are still present whether or not there is an ear to hear them

But without a hearer, they are just that: vibrations.

[Gribble]

But without a hearer, they are just that: vibrations.

^^^ That.

We never said there were no vibrations. Sound is what our brains make of the vibrations.

[DoesntMatter]

Can we just agree that this is a question of semantics and then compare definitions of "hear" and "sound" ? Instead of half-assing and being imprecise as to what it means to hear and what a sound is?

[Gribble]

Can we just agree that you're an annoying dickmouth and you rarely offer up anything tangible in your rebuttals?

Please, if the above is wrong elucidate.

[DoesntMatter]

Can we just agree that you're an annoying dickmouth and you rarely offer up anything tangible in your rebuttals?

Please, if the above is wrong elucidate.

Yeah, I just offered up something tangible you fuccking idiot. It's called open the dictionary and put the two definitions next to each other and THEN discuss them, instead of spending an entire page of posts trying to figure out what the words precisely mean. And since this is a question of semantics it's kind of important to have a precise definition

Understand now?

[Gribble]

Look, I know it's tough being a virgin and all, but take your ****ing meds, man. Look the definition up yourself and post it if you think necessary. That's what I meant about offering up something tangible.

In the interest of skirting a bitchfest, though, I'll go ahead and do the work for you:

Courtesy of Dictionary.com:
Sound : the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

Hear: to perceive by the ear

Happy?

[DoesntMatter]

A few more of the alternative definitions would probably give different answers to the question. But either way, giving the definition is only slightly more tangible than telling someone to use a reference, which is obvious

[Indignant]

hmmm, so if someone is listening to music in the next house to me, and i am not hearing it. am i to understand that it does not make a sound but vibrations?

[misombra]

geez. i thought this was supposed to be one of those zen questions.

[lovesjoyajm]

hmmm, so if someone is listening to music in the next house to me, and i am not hearing it. am i to understand that it does not make a sound but vibrations?

No. Not at all.

Someone else is hearing it, so it IS sound.