Scientific Question

If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around, does it make a sound? What is the real answer.

Depend on whether or not the lumberjack sticks his hairy fingers in his ears !

Yes. Sounds do not need to be heard, measured or recorded to exist.

Of course it does.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, are its leaves green?

Ask George Berkeley-- he knows the answer--sort of. It is more a philosophical question than a scientific one.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yes. Sounds do not need to be heard, measured or recorded to exist.

It sounds like da Bear wants to revisit a previous thread about God, let's not go there.

Recently, science discovered background "noise" in the cosmos that supports the big bang as its expected aftershock. Did that "noise" only arise when we first "heard" it or were we just deaf to it beforehand?

Not long ago, we "heard" the sun for the first time, and now know it's a very noisy place. Did that noise begin when we heard it or was it always there and we just were deaf to it?

Things that are there, are there. We just have to not be deaf.

Quote: poosmells

If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around, does it make a sound? What is the real answer.

Now you're just trying to start trouble. And I guess I might as well fall for it...

The question is flawed. "No one" implies a person. It says nothing of birds, frogs, squirrels, racoons or any other being capable of hearing. If it was reworded to say "nothing is around to hear it, then...

No, it doesn't. The 10th edition of Meriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines sound as 1 a: a particular auditory impression : TONE b: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing.

The first definition (1a) is impression, as in "this band sounds terrible". It doesn't apply to this question.
2a - "a sensation perceived". If nothing is there with a sense of hearing to perceive it, the sound doesn't exist. It is only...
...3a - mechanical radiant energy. The 3rd definition is even inclusive "AND is the objective cause of hearing".

Sound is a perception. If there is nothing there to perceive it, it does not exist.

Quote: poosmells

If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around, does it make a sound? What is the real answer.

A) - Yes, Sasquatch heard it! Then he came upon some hikers eating Jack Links Beef Jerky . . .
B) - What's a 'noone'? (I think you left out a space there!)

Quote: Face

c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing.

The first definition (1a) is impression, as in "this band sounds terrible". It doesn't apply to this question.
2a - "a sensation perceived". If nothing is there with a sense of hearing to perceive it, the sound doesn't exist. It is only...
...3a - mechanical radiant energy. The 3rd definition is even inclusive "AND is the objective cause of hearing".

Sound is a perception. If there is nothing there to perceive it, it does not exist.

Mechanical radiant energy exists regardless of whether it impacts a life form with the ability to recognize that energy as sound. The energy of sound is related to the application of forces on air, and forces exist regardless of whether they are perceived. Gravity is also a force, and the gravity of a faraway object like Deneb exists despite my inability to perceive it.

Quote: MathExtremist

Mechanical radiant energy exists regardless of whether it impacts a life form with the ability to recognize that energy as sound. The energy of sound is related to the application of forces on air, and forces exist regardless of whether they are perceived. Gravity is also a force, and the gravity of a faraway object like Deneb exists despite my inability to perceive it.

I don't disagree with most of this. The mechanical radiant energy exists, there's no doubt about it. But "sound" isn't mechanical radiant energy, it is the RESULT of the PERCEPTION of mechanical radiant energy. With nothing to perceive it, it does not exist. Can not exist.

Quote: Face

With nothing to perceive it, it does not exist. Can not exist.

With that way of thinking, nothing exists if there is nothing to perceive it.

Quote: EvenBob

With that way of thinking, nothing exists if there is nothing to perceive it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. See, sound is the result of the perception of mechanical radiant energy. That mechanical radiant energy exists whether anyone is there or no one is there, I don't argue that. What I'm saying is sound, specifically, is a perception. A perception is the result of having been perceived, right? So tell me, if it's not perceived, how can there be a perception?

Quote: poosmells

If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around, does it make a sound? What is the real answer.

ask yourself, did the tree hear itself fall? if a child is starving and alone in a room and is crying from hunger but no one is around to hear her, does she still make a sound? you can't ask the tree, but ask the child. the concept of 'if i don't hear anything then there was nothing to hear' reminds me of Schultz from Hogan's Heros.

I hear nottthhhing, I see nottthhhing. of course ignorance is bliss. just ask Schultz.

.

Quote: inap

the concept of 'if i don't hear anything then there was nothing to hear' reminds me of Schultz from Hogan's Heros.

This is not what I was saying. There IS something to hear, of that I make no dispute. And if I, personally, do not hear it, there CAN still be a sound. That wasn't my arguement.

My arguement was that with NOTHING to perceive these vibrations AS SOUND, then the tree produces nothing but mechanical radiant energy. Mechanical radiant energy is the CAUSE of sound, but is not, in fact, sound itself. Sound is but the perception, the sensation, the processing of that energy. With nothing to perceive, to sense, to process, sound cannot exist.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be an asshat, nor do I believe that I am, in fact, THAT batshit crazy that no one can understand what I'm saying. I will fully admit the error of my ways if someone could just point out where in this logic I have gone wrong. Just to be clear, my arguement boils down to 2nd para, 2nd sentence - "Mechanical radiant energy is the CAUSE of sound, but is not, in fact, sound itself."

Quote: Face

"Mechanical radiant energy is the CAUSE of sound, but is not, in fact, sound itself."

This is a semantics argument, and has no right answer.
This falling tree crap was around when I was a kid 50
years ago. Its right up there with the immovable rock
and irresistible force baloney. Semantics..

Quote: Face

My arguement was that with NOTHING to perceive these vibrations AS SOUND, then the tree produces nothing but mechanical radiant energy. Mechanical radiant energy is the CAUSE of sound, but is not, in fact, sound itself. Sound is but the perception, the sensation, the processing of that energy. With nothing to perceive, to sense, to process, sound cannot exist.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be an asshat, nor do I believe that I am, in fact, THAT batshit crazy that no one can understand what I'm saying. I will fully admit the error of my ways if someone could just point out where in this logic I have gone wrong. Just to be clear, my arguement boils down to 2nd para, 2nd sentence - "Mechanical radiant energy is the CAUSE of sound, but is not, in fact, sound itself."

Yes, you are correct. I once read a physicist giving the same answer. Falling object only causes a vibration in the air: there are denser and sparser regions of air, propagating from the source as air waves but no sound unless someone's ear is withing the range to interpret the waves as a sound. So the answer is: yes there are waves but no sound.

Quote: Face

This is not what I was saying.

i was replying to poolsmells question not you.

.

Quote: Nareed

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, are its leaves green?

Well that depends upon the type of tree, the season, if the tree was alive or dead, etc. Lots of factors affect the leaves.

But it still makes a sound when it falls.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yes. Sounds do not need to be heard, measured or recorded to exist.

Nor do they necessarily have to be perceived by a human being to exist or to have an effect, which is the real question here. The philosophers elevate human perception as if no sound exists unless a philosopher can hear it.

Quote: Face

I don't disagree with most of this. The mechanical radiant energy exists, there's no doubt about it. But "sound" isn't mechanical radiant energy, it is the RESULT of the PERCEPTION of mechanical radiant energy. With nothing to perceive it, it does not exist. Can not exist.

You're defining "sound" as only the subset of that mechanical energy which is auditorily perceived? That seems a bit specious, and very inconsistent, to me. You don't make the same distinction with light, for example, and that would lead to the following inconsistent interpretation:

Suppose my bathroom has a door which permits neither light nor sound to pass, and the light switch and the fan switch are on the outside. When I am inside the bathroom and both switches are on, I can see the light and hear the fan. I step outside the room and close the door. Both switches are still on. I submit that there is still light in the room even though I cannot perceive it. I likewise submit that there is still sound in the room even though I cannot perceive it. Do you disagree on both points, or only the sound point?

Another scenario:
A group of deaf people are in a ballroom applauding a signed speech just completed by a deaf presenter on a podium. A security guard, who is the only person in the room who can hear, leaves the room on a call. The applause continues as the guard leaves the room. Does the sound stop?
[Edit: deaf people sometimes applaud by waving their hands rather than clapping, but let's assume for this scenario that they are clapping.]

Or suppose the guard left in such a hurry that he dropped his radio, and a deaf child picks it up and starts playing with the "transmit" button. When depressed, the transmit button enables the other guards to hear the applause in the ballroom; when released, the transmission is cut off. If nobody in the ballroom can hear, does the sound of the applause in the ballroom intermittently pop into and out of existence as a result of the child pressing the transmit button on the radio?

I think Face is misunderstanding c... MW defines sound as mechanical radiant energy in longitundinal waves. It then states it's the cause of hearing. The cause of hearing. Not as a result of hearing/perceiving. The energy is sound (sound waves) and exist at all points between the source and the observers ear. Take away the ear, and the waves are still there, and thus the sound.

Quote: White_House_Press_Secretary_Jay_Carney

The president wasn’t there. I mean, he wasn’t onstage. He didn’t speak for another 20 minutes.

Does that mean Hoffa didn't say those things?

Quote: thecesspit

I think Face is misunderstanding c... MW defines sound as mechanical radiant energy in longitundinal waves. It then states it's the cause of hearing. The cause of hearing. Not as a result of hearing/perceiving. The energy is sound (sound waves) and exist at all points between the source and the observers ear. Take away the ear, and the waves are still there, and thus the sound.

How about an alien race living somewhere in the universe whose evolution has progressed so that they "see" sounds (longitunal air waves) and "hear" lights (photons). The philisophical question they would ask on their planet is: "If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around, does it make a visual pattern? What is the real answer." So the term sound seems to me to be a property of the observer and not the physical quantity (longitunal waves) itself.

Quote: Jufo81

How about an alien race living somewhere in the universe whose evolution has progressed so that they "see" sounds (longitunal air waves) and "hear" lights (photons). The philisophical question they would ask on their planet is: "If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around, does it make a visual pattern? What is the real answer." So the term sound seems to me to be a property of the observer and not the physical quantity (longitunal waves) itself.

At that point, it becomes a definitional question, not a philosophical one. If you define sound as "the pressure waves propagated through air or another medium which is heard by an observer", then if nothing hears the pressure waves, those pressure waves are not sound.

I don't think there's any dispute that if a tree falls in the forest, that event causes pressure waves to propagate through the air. Defining sound as above is, as I previously noted, inconsistent with the intuitive understanding of the energy detected by other senses. Here are two analogous statements:

1) If a tree falls in the forest, and nothing is around to hear it, does it produce sound?
2) If a tree burns in the forest, and nothing is around to see it, does it produce light?

I submit that the answer to #1 must equal the answer to #2.

Quote: Jufo81

So the term sound seems to me to be a property of the observer and not the physical quantity (longitunal waves) itself.

Quote: MathExtremist

At that point, it becomes a definitional question, not a philosophical one. If you define sound as "the pressure waves propagated through air or another medium which is heard by an observer", then if nothing hears the pressure waves, those pressure waves are not sound.

You two have hit the nail on the head of what I am arguing. "Sound is the property of the observer" is a perfect way to say what I have so far failed to convey.

ME, I spent some time thinking of like examples of what you supplied, mainly, how this question can be reworded to fit the other senses. If this Mountain Dew on my desk is open and no one's around to taste it, does it have a flavor? If a pond releases a swamp gas bubble and no one's around to smell it, does it have a scent? If a bathroom light is on but no one is around to see it, is the bathroom bright? In all cases, I would say "no".

This, I think, is similar to the way Doc ended the "hole through the Earth" thread. After determining that Erie would flow into the Indian Ocean, but at a rate defined as "immeasurably small" or "negligible", he asked whether that had meaning. To compare, he supplied a question posted a long while ago, the one with a ball bouncing on an elastic surface where the ball and the surface bounce 90% of the previous bounce, does it ever stop bouncing. In both of these examples, my real life "good enough" answer is "no, the water doesn't flow" and "yes, the ball stops bouncing". But, when arguing a concept, I think the only true answer is "yes, the water does flow" and "no, the ball never stops bouncing".

That's kind of similar to what I am arguing here. The specifics, the concept. Sound, sight, feel, taste, smell, these are all senses. Stimulus is processed by receptors and translated into these senses. Without the receptors, without the processors, you can't have the senses. You can have mechanical radiant energy or electromagnetic energy in the wavelength of visual light, but without ears and eyes, you cannot have sound and light. Splitting hairs? You betcha ;)

If a trillion quadrillion stars are not visible from Earth without a telescope, did they shine before the telescope was invented?

I guess if you simply take propagating longitunal air waves as the definition of word 'sound', then yes you can say that the sound exists without any observer, since you defined it that way. However the alien race who have eyes in place of ears and vice versa would disagree that the word 'sound' is correct here.

Anyway I agree with MathExtremist that this seems to be a question of defining words and not really a philosophical question anymore.

Quote: Face

Quote: Jufo81

So the term sound seems to me to be a property of the observer and not the physical quantity (longitunal waves) itself.

This, I think, is similar to the way Doc ended the "hole through the Earth" thread. After determining that Erie would flow into the Indian Ocean, but at a rate defined as "immeasurably small" or "negligible", he asked whether that had meaning. To compare, he supplied a question posted a long while ago, the one with a ball bouncing on an elastic surface where the ball and the surface bounce 90% of the previous bounce, does it ever stop bouncing. In both of these examples, my real life "good enough" answer is "no, the water doesn't flow" and "yes, the ball stops bouncing". But, when arguing a concept, I think the only true answer is "yes, the water does flow" and "no, the ball never stops bouncing".

That's kind of similar to what I am arguing here. The specifics, the concept. Sound, sight, feel, taste, smell, these are all senses. Stimulus is processed by receptors and translated into these senses. Without the receptors, without the processors, you can't have the senses. You can have mechanical radiant energy or electromagnetic energy in the wavelength of visual light, but without ears and eyes, you cannot have sound and light. Splitting hairs? You betcha ;)

I disagree with you on both subjects, but you do sound like an extremely attractive male with great taste in music.

Quote: Jufo81

However the alien race who have eyes in place of ears and vice versa would disagree that the word 'sound' is correct here.

I occasionally get told that there will be deaf guests at events where I DJ. In those cases, I turn up the bass. They still can't hear it, but they can feel it.


Whether it is heard or not, the sound is there.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I occasionally get told that there will be deaf guests at events where I DJ. In those cases, I turn up the bass. They still can't hear it, but they can feel it.


Whether it is heard or not, the sound is there.

Blimey.

Ok. Say I see poosmells at the burrito shop tomorrow and decide to punch him in the head for the grief he's caused me. But when I arrive, he has already left and is not there. Does he still feel pain? No, he does not. For while the energy of my punch is there, his neurotransmitters are not. There is nothing to process the energy of my punch, it remains only as kinetic energy. Kintetic energy itself is not a feeling, it is the cause of feeling. Without reception, there cannot be a feeling.

What the deaf guests are sensing is low frequency mechanical radiant energy by way of touch. They FEEL the energy. As they have not the processing ability of hearing, they hear nothing. There is no sound for them. There IS sound, in your example, because you and the other guests CAN receive and process the energy. But if every single person there was deaf, I'd argue that there was no sound whatsoever. MRE, the cause of sound, would be there, but sound would not as Sound Is a Perception.

Perception - the result of perceiving
Perceive - to become aware of through the senses.

If the sense is not there, there cannot be a result of being aware through the senses.
If there is no hearing, there cannot be a sound.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I occasionally get told that there will be deaf guests at events where I DJ. In those cases, I turn up the bass. They still can't hear it, but they can feel it.


Whether it is heard or not, the sound is there.

That example exposes the flaw in the "you have to hear it for it to be sound" definition". Technically, wind is also mechanical energy propagating through air (and propagating the air itself), so if you asked the question

"If the wind blows in the forest and nobody is around to feel it, is it still windy?"

then the tautology becomes obvious.

Quote: Face

What the deaf guests are sensing is low frequency mechanical radiant energy by way of touch. They FEEL the energy. As they have not the processing ability of hearing, they hear nothing. There is no sound for them. There IS sound, in your example, because you and the other guests CAN receive and process the energy. But if every single person there was deaf, I'd argue that there was no sound whatsoever. MRE, the cause of sound, would be there, but sound would not as Sound Is a Perception.

Perception - the result of perceiving
Perceive - to become aware of through the senses.

If the sense is not there, there cannot be a result of being aware through the senses.
If there is no hearing, there cannot be a sound.

I still maintain that your definition is inconsistent with the commonly-held understanding of what "sensory perception" is about.

Which of the following are perceptions that do not exist without being perceived?

a) Light
b) Sound
c) Heat
d) Pressure

Unless you answer "all of them", you're faced with reconciling a definitional inconsistency.

Quote: MathExtremist

I still maintain that your definition is inconsistent with the commonly-held understanding of what "sensory perception" is about.

Which of the following are perceptions that do not exist without being perceived?

a) Light
b) Sound
c) Heat
d) Pressure

Unless you answer "all of them", you're faced with reconciling a definitional inconsistency.

OK, let me take a breath and settle down.

In a previous post I referenced Doc and another post. This is were I tried to explain where I was coming from and the explanation of my belief on this topic. In an everyday, general, real life "commonly held understanding" way, yes, a tree falling makes a sound, a bathroom with a light on is lit, fire is hot, swamp gas stinks and Mountain Dew is delicious. All of these go without saying.

But, technically speaking from a view that I don't know the name of, are these things REALLY true? Light is electromagnetic energy. Electromagnetic energy comes in a wide array of wavelengths from radio to gamma. If I had a flashlight that emitted radio waves and shined it in a room, would the room be bright? No, we cannot perceive radio waves visually so the room would only be bombarded with radio frequency electromagnetic energy. Crank up the wavelength to visible light. This light is shone into the room, but now nobody's there. Is the room bright? I would still say no because there's a piece missing, there's no receptor; it would only be flooded with visual frequency electromagnetic energy.

Same goes for taste. My can of Dew has a number of chemical properties, all of which cause a reaction on my taste buds that get processed by my brain into deliciousness. Without the tongue and brain, my can of Dew is simply a solution of chemicals that will CAUSE taste, but are not taste themselves.

Extend this way of thinking onto any of the senses and this is where I'm coming from. Does a sharp pin cause pain? Yup. But what of someone who has broken their neck, does it still cause pain? With no sensory perception, pain (sench of feel/touch) cannot exist. Is the sun bright? Yup. How 'bout to a blind man? He cannot perceive, therefore there is no bright (sight). Does a tree falling make a sound? Sure does. But if there's nothing to hear it.......

Quote: Face

OK, let me take a breath and settle down.

In a previous post I referenced Doc and another post. This is were I tried to explain where I was coming from and the explanation of my belief on this topic. In an everyday, general, real life "commonly held understanding" way, yes, a tree falling makes a sound, a bathroom with a light on is lit, fire is hot, swamp gas stinks and Mountain Dew is delicious. All of these go without saying.

I disagree. I think Mountain Dew is unpleasant. But I digress...

The specific words that you picked are very explicitly sensory perceptions. Brightness, for example, refers to the intensity of light *relative to the retina*. The light from a flashlight at 1 meter is brighter than the light from the same flashlight at 10 meters, not because the light emitted from the flashlight has changed, but because less of it reaches my retina. The same is true of pain: pain is a neurochemical reaction involving the excitation of certain neurons. If those neurons aren't excited, there is no pain. A bullet flying through the air does not cause pain unless it impacts a creature and excites those neurons. It doesn't make any sense to suggest that the bullet wasn't fired unless it hurts someone.

You are classifying the word "sound" in the same way. In other words, you are defining "sound" as "auditory perception" and then arguing that "if a tree falls in the forest but there is no auditory perception of that event, then there is no auditory perception of that event." That's circular.

It is telling that you did not argue, for example, that there is no light in the bathroom when the light is on but nobody's in there. That's because by any sense of the word, "light" is a thing that exists independent of any observation thereof. So does heat, and so does sound.

To use yet another example, suppose you're sitting in front of a roaring fireplace at a ski lodge on a chilly winter's evening. You see the light, hear the sound, and feel the heat of the fire. If you were blind, you would still hear the sound and feel the heat, but you would not see the light. Your perception of light (sight) is gone, but the light itself still reflects off your body and the other items in the room. The light is still there and can be measured, even if it is not perceived by you. There cannot be any dispute about that, I hope.

The same would be true if you had a bizarre physical ailment such that your thermoreceptors (the nerves that sense heat) were inoperative. You would see the light and hear the sound of the fire, but not feel the heat. But the heat energy is still there and can be measured, even if it is not perceived by you. Again, I trust there is no dispute on that.

Similarly, if you were deaf and sitting in front of the same roaring fire, you would see the light and feel the heat but not hear the sound. As above, the sound can be measured even if you do not perceive it.

Light is electromagnetic energy, not the perception of electromagnetic energy -- that perception is called "sight". Similarly, sound is mechanical energy, not the perception of mechanical energy -- that perception is called "hearing". If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, it makes a sound but that sound is not heard.

Quote: Face

Blimey.

Ok. Say I see poosmells at the burrito shop tomorrow and decide to punch him in the head for the grief he's caused me. But when I arrive, he has already left and is not there. Does he still feel pain? No, he does not. For while the energy of my punch is there, his neurotransmitters are not. There is nothing to process the energy of my punch, it remains only as kinetic energy. Kintetic energy itself is not a feeling, it is the cause of feeling. Without reception, there cannot be a feeling.

So what your saying is, if i see face fishing in a creek somehwhere and kiss him on the cheek, if he is not there his cheek will not get wet.

Quote: Face

Extend this way of thinking onto any of the senses and this is where I'm coming from. Does a sharp pin cause pain? Yup. But what of someone who has broken their neck, does it still cause pain? With no sensory perception, pain (sench of feel/touch) cannot exist. Is the sun bright? Yup. How 'bout to a blind man? He cannot perceive, therefore there is no bright (sight). Does a tree falling make a sound? Sure does. But if there's nothing to hear it.......

Than it makes a sound that no one hears...

ME, I am glad you have participated in this. Even though you disagree, you seem to understand the point I'm at least trying to make, and that helps. I thank you, sir.

Anyways...

My post previous to this was hurried, and I didn't post quite to the degree of specification I would have liked. Using "pain" and "bright" wasn't true to my own point. My mistake. But without rehashing past posts, let's move to your fire example. I don't disagree with any of what you wrote, let me say that right out front. Whether it's the heat, light or sound from a fire, light from a bathroom, or the booming crash of a tree in the woods, they all realease types of energy that exist and can be measured, without a doubt. Perhaps the problem arises from me believing in an incorrect definition of the word "sound". I'm looking at this as though sight, smell, feel, taste and sound are senses. I look at senses as being the result of the process of stimuli. By that thinking, without something to process the stimuli, there cannot be a sense. Even if you feel this is incorrect, this makes sense, right?

That's what I was arguing. Believing sound wasn't MRE but the result of MRE being processed, there could not be a sound without a processor. The ingredients are there; there's a tree to put energy out, there's air to transmit it, but without an ear to process it, there couldn't be a sound. To make a bad analogy, there's milk, flour, eggs and sugar in my kitchen, do I have a cake in my kitchen? If I don't have an oven to process the ingredients, then no, I do not. Your final sentence, I think, may have finally made the gong go off in my head. Basically, light is to sight what sound is to hearing. If there can be light without sight, there must be sound without hearing. I think that about sums it up nicely.

BUT...the definition of sound: 2 - "the sensation produced by the sense of hearing".

Half credit, at least? =)

(P.S. kind of unfair using fire, as nothing I know of exists at 0*K, making it impossible for something to exist without heat regardless of being able to sense or measure it =p)

Half-credit, perhaps, but the M-W dictionary also says:

Definition of LIGHT
1
a : something that makes vision possible
b : the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors
c : electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye

The point is not whether your definition was correct or not; the point is that, in order to know *which* definition to use, you should pick an interpretation that is consistent with how you would interpret analogous terms. Senses *are* the result of the process of stimuli; the question is whether "sound" is a sense, or whether "hearing" is a sense. I think, using those terms, "hearing" is the sense and "sound" is the stimulus.

And bonus points for the fire piece -- the way humans sense heat is with thermoreceptors which primarily detect changes in temperature. That's why if you go from a cold room to a hot room, you notice it right away, but if you gradually increase the temperature you have to really be paying attention to catch it consciously. But it sort of re-emphasizes the point: heat is indeed always there, but it's only detectable by humans under certain circumstances.

Quote: poosmells

I disagree with you on both subjects, but you do sound like an extremely attractive male with great taste in music.

Can a person be attractive if he happened to live alone somewhere where no one would ever meet him? Is attractiveness a property of the person itself or does it require an observer?

Quote: Face

Extend this way of thinking onto any of the senses and this is where I'm coming from. Does a sharp pin cause pain? Yup. But what of someone who has broken their neck, does it still cause pain? With no sensory perception, pain (sench of feel/touch) cannot exist.

Actually, the sharp pin does NOT cause pain. It is a stimulus which excites the nerve endings in the area. As long as the nerve itself is alive, the stimulus is transmitted up the nerve. If the signal makes it all the way to the brain, it is perceived as pain.

Whether signal makes it all the way or not, the original stimulus is still there.


The tree DOES make a sound.

Quote: Jufo81

Can a person be attractive if he happened to live alone somewhere where no one would ever meet him? Is attractiveness a property of the person itself or does it require an observer?

Attractiveness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It needs an observer to be attracted.


The tree falling, makes a sound. Whether the sound is loud, soft, high pitched, whatever, needs an observer or instrumentation or something. I.E. The type of sound needs to be heard to be determined. But it makes a sound even if no one hears it.

Quote: Jufo81

Can a person be attractive if he happened to live alone somewhere where no one would ever meet him? Is attractiveness a property of the person itself or does it require an observer?

i didn't want to get in the middle of this anymore but this just compelled me. high five to Jufo81. i give alot of weight to eastern philosophy and this reminds me of a martial arts movie where the beauty of a flower was used as an analogy. i forget the details but basically it goes like this. does the flower need someone to call it beautiful, (or ugly for the don'ts out there), to be beautiful, or ugly? no. it knows what it is, and it just is.

i basically don't believe anything has to be justified, quantified, judged or qualified to exist. it makes the assumption that we are more powerfull or in a higher position.

(and since i am here, let me say that if anyone here feels i have judged, i apologize. i am human and i make mistakes, usually driven by emotion and sometimes from plain lack of thinking. i believe the value of teaching or sharing is more important than judging. with the overall intelegence of this site, i have more to learn here than anyone else, which is why i frequent here. sorry, maybe i should have made this a separate thread but one of my beliefs is to flow with the energy.)

.