---

It still produces a sound. Even if no people are there, I'm sure a bunch of tiny little woodland critters can vouch for me.

---

---

1) Well, the question is not "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does someone hear it?" It is "...does it make a sound". If we define "sound" by its physical nature, then sound is a longitudinal wave propagated, in this case, by the wave created by the force of snapping wood. In this way, yes, it makes a sound, and if nothing --NOTHING-- is there to perceive the sound, then that is their problem.

---

How do you know that sound is made at all? You are not there to perceive the sound.

---

2) come on...If i put a pencil on my desk and turn the lights out, does it cease to exist? hardly, to assert that it only exists upon direct visual or sensory contact is silly indeed --especially if you are proposing that a HUMAN presence is needed.  

---

I'm not saying that a human presence is required. However, who's to say that in that period of time that it is not perceived, that it still exists? It could very well vanish and be replaced with an identical object, and you would not know the difference.

---

I would say also that the effects of the event of "falling" would effect the tree's environment, which, then being altered, effects the environment surrounding that, etc etc. So that any action can be seen to be "perceived" in the sense that "it's effects become noticed by something or some agent of perception".

---

Say that a tree falls in the middle of 'nowhere'. It affects nothing besides the ground it fell on. Can it still be said to be perceived as falling?

-------
♥Kayla/Sarah/Allie
I've got a feeling
That I was put here
For you

As for the more traditional understanding of the question, subjectivism is not nearly as recondite or profound as you think it is, and discussion of such generally boils down to the subjectivist dancing in pedantic glee at everyone's inability to conclusively prove we aren't living in the Matrix.

---

Whether or not a vibration at a potentially audible frequency constitutes a sound is relevant to nothing but a dictionary; semantic bickering is both boring and pointless.

---

Word. Why does this thread even exist, I couldn't think of a more boring or meaningless thing to debate. At least those inane 'Does God exist' threads have some sort of serious implication.

---

As for the more traditional understanding of the question, subjectivism is not nearly as recondite or profound as you think it is, and discussion of such generally boils down to the subjectivist dancing in pedantic glee at everyone's inability to conclusively prove we aren't living in the Matrix.

---

Can you prove the existence of anything outside your consciousness, without first bringing it into your consciousness?

If not, doesn't it follow that your consciousness is reality itself?

Post edited at 3:41 am on Oct. 31, 2008 by Radon

-------
Pragmatism is all.

Sound is merely the vibrations of a medium. If a tree fell in a vacuum, there would be no sound.

This question is utter bullocks.

-------
Winner of the Monthly Comic Award Goes To:

TheLastMagister!!! Congrads!

---

Sound is independent of our existence.

---

---

Sure, we can easily ridicule those kind of people. But the problem remains. Subjectivism is something most people (emotionally) would like to falsify, and it is done almost invariably by assuming a material universe a priori. This is circular.

---

---

Of course we "act as if" we were operating within a perfectly objective universe because it's a useful paradigm. But we have to admit it's just a giant assumption, until we falsify it.

---

---

So now, without succumbing to existentialist angst:

Can you prove the existence of anything outside your consciousness, without first bringing it into your consciousness?

---

---

If not, doesn't it follow that your consciousness is reality itself?

---

---

As for the more traditional understanding of the question, subjectivism is not nearly as recondite or profound as you think it is, and discussion of such generally boils down to the subjectivist dancing in pedantic glee at everyone's inability to conclusively prove we aren't living in the Matrix.

---

Going by what you seem to endorse as the definition of "sound," then the matrix would have little to no relevance; if we were in the matrix, the sound would still exist independently of our own existence.

---

It is not circular to declare something axiomatic.

---

Well, it's either circular or completely unsupported.

-------
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yatapys-support-a.html

---

No, sound is a part of our existence. Sound is something we hear, something we feel as senstation, something we see as numbers on a decibel measuring device, or something we detect with laser. In short, "sound" is a label for a series of perceptions. In order for it to exist, it must be contained within our consciousness.

---

Come again? Sound exists whether or not we exist.

-------
Winner of the Monthly Comic Award Goes To:

TheLastMagister!!! Congrads!

---

Going by what you seem to endorse as the definition of "sound," then the matrix would have little to no relevance; if we were in the matrix, the sound would still exist independently of our own existence.

---

---

Well, it's either circular or completely unsupported.

---

Reality is doing just fine, and, in my humble opinion, is about as self-evident as it gets.

---

I had moved on from the "sound" debate, and was acknowledging the impossibility of conclusively proving objective external reality exists. Personally, I find this no more significant than my inability to conclusively prove invisible unicorns are not prancing around my head.

---

---

I fail to see your reasoning here.

---

There appears to be a constant shift in consciousness. but you can't access anything outside your consciousness. Simply because there's no such thing as "outside". By definition, consciousness is reality itself.

Post edited at 8:03 am on Nov. 1, 2008 by Radon

-------
Pragmatism is all.

---

Yet it is more significant. We operate every day on the assumption of an objective universe. We "act as if". Very seldom do we act as if unicorns existed. The assumption of materialism is just something we keep because it's turned to be useful.

---

---

Let's break this down differently. Start with the present moment. You're sitting at your computer, staring at your monitor. You see avatars, graphics and text, and behind all this visual data you assume there are other people sitting in front of computers. Using the axiom of an objective universe, you construct a mental picture. Maybe you imagine Radon as some blond haired, blue eyed boy sitting in his apartment in Stockholm. Now shift your attention to the sounds in your environment. Maybe you weren't paying attention to them a second ago, but suddenly they're crisp. You may hear some distracting noise from next door. Then you focus on the text again, and your mental picture.

There appears to be a constant shift in consciousness. but you can't access anything outside your consciousness. Simply because there's no such thing as "outside". By definition, consciousness is reality itself.

---

---

An assumption is only significant if the antithetical assumption is viable. I am absolutely a determinist, but it bothers me not a jot that we all go through life as though we had free will.

---

---

Similarly, if external reality is illusory or shaped by our perception, it is an illusion too persistent to break away from.

---

---

Of course I cannot be aware of anything that is outside my awareness. I do not see how it logically follows that there is nothing outside of my awareness.

---