Philosophical Thread

[nineteen]

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

your answer and reaons pls.

[premiumdancer]

No one hearing doesn't really inhibit its abilty to produce sound.

And, since this is the Philosophical Thread, I'd like to bring up this question: What makes a chair, a chair?

[nineteen]

No one hearing doesn't really inhibit its abilty to produce sound.

And, since this is the Philosophical Thread, I'd like to bring up this question: What makes a chair, a chair?
the answer i expect most people to give.

most people don't properly understand the question. the ture answer is that there is no answer.

a chair is a chair because that's how we've defined that boject, i guess.

[premiumdancer]

the answer i expect most people to give.

most people don't properly understand the question. the ture answer is that there is no answer.

a chair is a chair because that's how we've defined that boject, i guess.

Well, yes, it's a question without an answer. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a philosophical question. But, you can't expect to bring up any philosophical question without people attempting to answer it. Even if there is no real answer, don't I have to say something?

But, how do we define a chair? What makes a chair more chairy than a table? Is a chair with wheels less of a chair because it has those wheels?

[Kyrin]

The tree question isn't really philosophical, I mean, it sort of is, and I understand where it comes from, but it's not one of the greatest questions, you know?

The labeller makes a chair a chair.

[nineteen]

we define objects using our sesnes, in our minds when you say "chair" we conjure up the image of one. somthing is a chair if it closely macthes the description that we know.

but, is it a chair if no-one calls it a chiar? that's the real crux, and there is no answer, as you say. but i dislike that question.

[nineteen]

The tree question isn't really philosophical, I mean, it sort of is, and I understand where it comes from, but it's not one of the greatest questions, you know?

The labeller makes a chair a chair.
it is, as i say few people really get the meaning.

[premiumdancer]

we define objects using our sesnes, in our minds when you say "chair" we conjure up the image of one. somthing is a chair if it closely macthes the description that we know.

but, is it a chair if no-one calls it a chiar? that's the real crux, and there is no answer, as you say. but i dislike that question.

Well, tell me, then. What question do you like? :p

[~[{Gaara*s}{Girl}]~]

And, since this is the Philosophical Thread, I'd like to bring up this question: What makes a chair, a chair?

That's like asking, "What makes something what it is?"

The only real answer that I could think to give that (should there, heaven forbid, be one) is "It just is." You can't really tell what makes something...something. I think I've pondered this question before, and the above answer is the only one I can think of.

Now...I pose a question as well. Can one ever really be doing "nothing?"

[nineteen]

well i like this one:

"as you gaze into the long abyss, the abyss gazes into you"

give that some thought. XD

[nineteen]

~;958014']That's like asking, "What makes something what it is?"

The only real answer that I could think to give that (should there, heaven forbid, be one) is "It just is." You can't really tell what makes something...something. I think I've pondered this question before, and the above answer is the only one I can think of.

Now...I pose a question as well. Can one ever really be doing "nothing?"
quite right, i asked this because i just write a story about phillosophy, the question was "why does the universe exist"

the end answer was "Because it does"

[nineteen]

nothingness is another intersting concept. it does not really exist and, i belive, never can.

[premiumdancer]

~;958014']That's like asking, "What makes something what it is?"

The only real answer that I could think to give that (should there, heaven forbid, be one) is "It just is." You can't really tell what makes something...something. I think I've pondered this question before, and the above answer is the only one I can think of.

Now...I pose a question as well. Can one ever really be doing "nothing?"

The purpose of the question is to start asking why it's a chair. Saying it just is doesn't answer anything, and doesn't lead to more questions, which essentially philosophy is supposed to do. The answers in philosophy are supposed to be questions, or at least statements that one can ask a question from.

Even if you were sitting, holding your breath and doing nothing else, you'd still be doing something. You'd be sitting, first off, and also you'd be not-breathing, which is doing something.

[unloved_forever]

Ooh I like stuff like this. It confuses me :]

[~[{Gaara*s}{Girl}]~]

Even if you were sitting, holding your breath and doing nothing else, you'd still be doing something. You'd be sitting, first off, and also you'd be not-breathing, which is doing something.

Exactly. I pondered that very question one day, and I came up with the exact same answer. And then I went on to prove how there can never "be" nothing (eep, double negative!)...etc. You get the picture.

But I really dislike these kinds of questions. My Computer Applications class was asked "Why do we have a brain?" once when the teacher was out...I hated that assignment with a passion.

[nineteen]

Ooh I like stuff like this. It confuses me :]
then go away?

[premiumdancer]

I'm glad someone said it.

[Kyrin]

Well, tell me, then. What question do you like? :p

Haha...well, as much as I am opposed to math, one of my favorites that takes me out of everything is dividing anything by zero.

Think about it.

Or a chemistry question- Absolute zero is a temperature where there is absolutely no movement or mass. Thus, everything is destroyed at absolute zero. Is there a temperature at which things are created?

There are other, more right-brained ones that I like, but the above two are the only two that come to mind at the moment. I'm in the midst of exams, and all my brain can focus on well is school...

And yeah, I know it's a philosophical question, and I do understand it, nineteen, but it's also a mental disorder. That's why I don't consider it the best. It can lead one to believe that nothing is real by themself, everything is there for them, their own illusion.

[Tracia]

The fact of not hearing the tree doesn't mean it made no sound, it means only that you were out of the range to hear it.

A chair is a chair because of the same reason you're called your name. Somebody said that thing he built for seating was to be named "chair" in english. Names changes depending on the language you're speaking. Chair doesn't mean "silla" in spanish. Chair, is called "Silla" in spanish.

Doing "nothing" is a concept made by man to define the action of not be doing anything with a productive or positive result. To not make/do a thing. "I'm doing no-thing". Oposite to doing something,which obviously has a produced, physical or perceptive result. It's not related to the "No-existance" concept.

Divide anything by zero is an error. If Zero is a number to define a "no-existance", there is no way you can divide anything. Divide means: Separate in equal quantities. Therefore, if there is no-existance, you cannot divide.

Is there a temperature at which things are created?
At proper creation concept... unsure. But, look at it this way. If 'absolute cero' and only 'absolute cero' destroys, things can be created at any other temperature rather than that one.


My thoughts...

[Kyrin]

The fact of not hearing the tree doesn't mean it made no sound, it means only that you were out of the range to hear it.

A chair is a chair because of the same reason you're called your name. Somebody said that thing he built for seating was to be named "chair" in english. Names changes depending on the language you're speaking. Chair doesn't mean "silla" in spanish. Chair, is called "Silla" in spanish.

Doing "nothing" is a concept made by man to define the action of not be doing anything with a productive or positive result. To not make/do a thing. "I'm doing no-thing". Oposite to doing something,which obviously has a produced, physical or perceptive result. It's not related to the "No-existance" concept.

Divide anything by zero is an error. If Zero is a number to define a "no-existance", there is no way you can divide anything. Divide means: Separate in equal quantities. Therefore, if there is no-existance, you cannot divide.

Is there a temperature at which things are created?
At proper creation concept... unsure. But, look at it this way. If 'absolute cero' and only 'absolute cero' destroys, things can be created at any other temperature rather than that one.


My thoughts...

Actually, dividing by zero gets you zero and infinity. The typical mathematician's response to that, because math is unimaginative, would be to say you can't do it. But really, you get infinity and zero. Which, if you think about it, are really the same. Because zero is infinitely nothing, and infinity has zero parameters.

Also, absolute zero (0 Kelvin, -274 degrees Celsius, don't remember the number in empirical/Fahrenheit, even though that's my measuring system in this country) is the only thing that destroys perfectly, leaving no remnant of the destruction. Other destructions tear apart things, changing their identity, like the chair question.

Fun how these things get you thinking in circles and all connect, isn't it?

[Tracia]

No it's not fun.. I don't like to think about things I'm not interested into, but for some reason my brains do it anyways...

[unloved_forever]

then go away?
Erm...no.
I said that I liked it.

[premiumdancer]

A chair is a chair because of the same reason you're called your name. Somebody said that thing he built for seating was to be named "chair" in english. Names changes depending on the language you're speaking. Chair doesn't mean "silla" in spanish. Chair, is called "Silla" in spanish.

But the question wasn't why we call certain things chairs, or why we use that certain word, it was what is the definition of a chair? How can you define chairness? If only by something you sit on, well then can't most things be defined as chairs? (I'm going to keep persisting with the chair question until someone else cares enough to discuss it with me.) I sit on the floor. Why isn't the floor a chair? Or the ground?

[Tracia]

Because the floor is the floor and the ground is the ground. If they were the same thing, they'd be called the same.

I think I covered that.
A chair (or whatever is called in your mothertongue) is that object created by man used for sitting above the floor level. Unlike a bench, a chair is created to support one person at a time and unlike a bank, it has the characteristic to support the back by another piece on one side, making it have an angle around 90º straight.
Due to modernity and the science of comfort, the shape of the chair has suffered changes, creating more ergonomic models that give support and comfort at the same time without losing the basic idea of what it was created for: To seat in a level above the floor.
Newest modifications include the weel-chair, to which has been aded wheels to move about without losing the "sitting position" and that is used for minusvalid people, or in a lighter version, in the office.

[Charmless_Anachronism]

I think the better question is, What chair?

My World History teacher taught us a bit about philosophy earlier in the year during our Greek section. He was taking a philosophy exam in college and the professor asked them to describe the chair in the exam. It was the only question on the exam for that matter. One student only wrote two words. It was What Chair? And he got an A+. Thought that was neat.

And, since sound is really vibrations in the air then, I'd have to say if the tree hitting the ground made such vibrations then, yes. It made sound, but sound is also defined as these such vibrations being heard. Philosophy is quite confusing.

[scorpio grl]

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

your answer and reaons pls.
(The whole question is: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?)

Well, my science teacher asked that question at the beginning of the year. Most people said yes because (their reasoning) when anything falls, it always makes a sound.

My teacher contradicted this by saying no. It doesn't because the definition of sound is (and this is Dictionary.com's deff.):

1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

So, if no one is around to hear it, then the organs in the ear are not stimulated by the vibrations meaning there is no sound.

[dark_angel_56]

yes, because it falls
but no because there is no one there to hear it

[7000dominos]

No one hearing doesn't really inhibit its abilty to produce sound.

And, since this is the Philosophical Thread, I'd like to bring up this question: What makes a chair, a chair?

I go to a Christian school, and for my extra credit in a science class, we read this book about the orgins of man/the earth, and the authors brought up that question. Not exactly, of course, but kind of. They were talking about how archeologists find things from ancient civilizations and make assumptions based on todays culture. For example, they might dig up some bowl shaped thing and say, "Look! A bowl!" when in actuality, it's a shovel or something. My point is I think it is as much the creator's purpose/intent for the item as actual ability to do said purpose and appearance and all those other superficial things.

And, in response to the original question, I am very much a science-chick at heart. The first law of thermodynamics (or the law of conservation of energy) states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The implications of this are that evergy is constant, it merely changes form.

A standing tree had potential energy, or stored energy. Potential energy is also called energy of position. Potential energy is generally realeased in the form of kinetic energy, or the energy of movement. When the tree falls, it is losing it's potential (stored) energy and gaining kinetic (moving) energy. When the tree strikes the ground, the movement creates vibrations. Vibrations create sound waves, which produce sound.

The absence or prescence of a person will not inhibit these laws of nature: otherwise they wouldn't be laws. Therefore, when a tree falls in a forest, it does make a sound, regardless of whether there are people to hear said sound or not.

Besides. It a forest. When is a forest ever empty? :rolleyes:

[7000dominos]

(The whole question is: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?)

Well, my science teacher asked that question at the beginning of the year. Most people said yes because (their reasoning) when anything falls, it always makes a sound.

My teacher contradicted this by saying no. It doesn't because the definition of sound is (and this is Dictionary.com's deff.):

1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

So, if no one is around to hear it, then the organs in the ear are not stimulated by the vibrations meaning there is no sound.


Touche, freshman, touche.

But there are like.....twenty billion other definitions. "Sound" is a very confusing word.

Here's one: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.

[7000dominos]

Haha...well, as much as I am opposed to math, one of my favorites that takes me out of everything is dividing anything by zero.

Think about it.

Or a chemistry question- Absolute zero is a temperature where there is absolutely no movement or mass. Thus, everything is destroyed at absolute zero. Is there a temperature at which things are created?

There are other, more right-brained ones that I like, but the above two are the only two that come to mind at the moment. I'm in the midst of exams, and all my brain can focus on well is school...


And yeah, I know it's a philosophical question, and I do understand it, nineteen, but it's also a mental disorder. That's why I don't consider it the best. It can lead one to believe that nothing is real by themself, everything is there for them, their own illusion.

Chemistry makes me vomit and writhe on the ground with such an intense physical and mental pain that I want to die, but how is that possible? Mass cannot be destroyed.

I had thought absolute zero was the hypothetical degree at which all molecular activity "stops." (That "stops" bit is also hypothetical, but I refuse to delve further into that. I don't want to think about chemistry anymore...Thermodynamics is/are dumb.)

[Kyrin]

Chemistry makes me vomit and writhe on the ground with such an intense physical and mental pain that I want to die, but how is that possible? Mass cannot be destroyed.

I had thought absolute zero was the hypothetical degree at which all molecular activity "stops." (That "stops" bit is also hypothetical, but I refuse to delve further into that. I don't want to think about chemistry anymore...Thermodynamics is/are dumb.)

Molecular activity stops, sure. But what happens when you cool something? The particles condense. At absolute zero, the particles would be so condensed that they try to fit into the same space, which you can't do. So they are destroyed perfectly. They'd have condensed into a point of matter that doesn't actually exist, seeing as points are infinitely small and you can fit an infinite number into any given place.

[7000dominos]

If a given point is infinity small, how does it not exist? It does exist. It's just....really small. Like an asmyptotic curve.

Anyway. I guess that's why it's hypothetical.

[Tracia]

I thought you were talking about Philosophy, not Chemistry nor physics or else...


What chair?
I wouldn't have given that student an A+. AS I Said before, a chair is a chair despite of the design developed from the original. In all of the cases, it's a chair: an object used to seat above the floor level.

What's this obsession for a damn chair anyway?

[7000dominos]

Which is why I stated initially I am very much a science kinda person.

But I did answer the question.

[scorpio grl]

*Sigh* Touche and checkmate, eh Z? lol

You're right- "sound" is a fairly confusing word, for it has more than one definition. I am just stating my science teacher's reply to the question.

As I explained in my earlier post {again, teacher's reasoning}, if no one is around to hear it, then the organs in the ear are not stimulated by the vibrations meaning there is no sound. When students disputed this, she brought up the definition of the word "hear".

Definitions 1. {to perceive by the ear} and 9. {to be capable of perceiving sound by the ear; have the faculty of perceiving sound vibrations.} from Dictionary.com best sum up what she said. To be able to hear, the organs in the ear must be able to pick up the sound vibrations, and if there is no sensation of this, the person does not hear.

So, if the sound vibrations do not stimulate the inner ear organs, then the sound is not heard and technically is not there, or something. Like I said, this is all what my teacher said, not my personal opinion.

Also, since this is a philisophical thread, I am genuinely surprised that no one has brought up the other "famous" question of philosophy: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[RisingDemon]

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

your answer and reaons pls.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound. If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, how can we be sure it has fallen, surely someone must be there to observe it's fall, and surely, if someone is there to observe it's fall, the minute vibrations of sound would ventually reach there audibility, however low an amplitude.

[RisingDemon]

No one hearing doesn't really inhibit its abilty to produce sound.

And, since this is the Philosophical Thread, I'd like to bring up this question: What makes a chair, a chair?

A chair is made a chair, only by the title, the perception of it's use, makes it not a chair, the title however does. I could use said 'Brick' to sit on, however, said 'Brick' was only titled that. It only makes itself a brick by the perception of its user, as is the same for a chair.
By all means, if you wished to call your chair glagnark, then do so, for you would not be incorrect, you would merely be showing a different perception to that of your predecessors.

[scorpio grl]

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound. If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, how can we be sure it has fallen, surely someone must be there to observe it's fall, and surely, if someone is there to observe it's fall, the minute vibrations of sound would ventually reach there audibility, however low an amplitude.
True, but say that a person found the tree after it had fallen. Then, they would know for a fact it had fallen, but they do not know if it made a sound {for they had not heard it themselves}, nor do they know if anyone else heard it. They could not be sure if it had made a sound or not because there would be no proof.

[RisingDemon]

~;958014']That's like asking, "What makes something what it is?"

The only real answer that I could think to give that (should there, heaven forbid, be one) is "It just is." You can't really tell what makes something...something. I think I've pondered this question before, and the above answer is the only one I can think of.

Now...I pose a question as well. Can one ever really be doing "nothing?"

The real paradox my friends, is the concept of this one phrase, it shuns all concept of reality, by at the same time denying and accepting itself, the phrase of course is 'Nothing exists.' By using this phrase, you accept the usage of 'Nothing' as a concept, however, you represent that conept, as nothing, the ideological value of emptiness, lack thereof, absolution unto itself.
It exists as a concept, yet a the same time, is not a concept whatsoever, it is 'nothing'. Surely, 'nothing', must exist as 'something' otherwise why do we deny the concept of it having a value. Surely it must have the value of the concept of the paradox which lies therein.

[RisingDemon]

Haha...well, as much as I am opposed to math, one of my favorites that takes me out of everything is dividing anything by zero.

Think about it.

Or a chemistry question- Absolute zero is a temperature where there is absolutely no movement or mass. Thus, everything is destroyed at absolute zero. Is there a temperature at which things are created?

There are other, more right-brained ones that I like, but the above two are the only two that come to mind at the moment. I'm in the midst of exams, and all my brain can focus on well is school...

And yeah, I know it's a philosophical question, and I do understand it, nineteen, but it's also a mental disorder. That's why I don't consider it the best. It can lead one to believe that nothing is real by themself, everything is there for them, their own illusion.


Nothingness is not a mental disorder kyrin, it's what we call ideology, and I chose that ideology many years ago, please, do not disrespect it.

[RisingDemon]

True, but say that a person found the tree after it had fallen. Then, they would know for a fact it had fallen, but they do not know if it made a sound {for they had not heard it themselves}, nor do they know if anyone else heard it. They could not be sure if it had made a sound or not because there would be no proof.

However, the echos of the sound would, in theory remain throughout the universe for all eternity, never as audible as once they were, but there, nonetheless. The ghosts of all ever created, Mankind, and animals. All echoing throughout your ears, if only, you could single out there voices, there footsteps, and turn up the amplitude, all of history, echoing, throughout this empty universe.

It is an infinite paradox, I beg you not to go into any more depth.
It is far easier to lose your sanity over these ideologies than is generally believed. I have done before, and I never truly recovered.

[scorpio grl]

However, the echos of the sound would, in theory remain throughout the universe for all eternity, never as audible as once they were, but there, nonetheless. The ghosts of all ever created, Mankind, and animals. All echoing throughout your ears, if only, you could single out there voices, there footsteps, and turn up the amplitude, all of history, echoing, throughout this empty universe.

It is an infinite paradox, I beg you not to go into any more depth.
It is far easier to lose your sanity over these ideologies than is generally believed. I have done before, and I never truly recovered.
Since nothing can ever be destroyed or created, technically you are correct; the vibrations would echo around forever until they are changed into something else. BUT, if the vibrations are too soft/low that the organs in the ear could not pick them up for it to register in your brain then they aren't really heard, are they?

I must ask you though, what exactly does the echoes of everything created have to do with this question? I mean, I can understand that all of those past vibrations from everything could still be floating around everywhere, but since nothing can be destroyed or created, wouldn't those past vibrations have already turned into something else entirely? Or does that logic only apply to mass??

And sure, OK, I shall valiently restrain my natural curiosity for this subject so as not to lose the sanity I'm not sure I quite believe in.

[zippythewild]

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

your answer and reaons pls.

Einstein said that when there is no matter in an environment, and it is complete nothingness then there is no way of measuring time, therefore there is no time.

If there is no way of measuring that the tree made sound, then it made no sound, and even if it did make a sound, it didn't effect anything and therefore the sound of the tree falling is irrelevant

scientifically speaking though, yes it did make a sound

[zippythewild]

And sure, OK, I shall valiently restrain my natural curiosity for this subject so as not to lose the sanity I'm not sure I quite believe in.

It is an infinite paradox, I beg you not to go into any more depth.
It is far easier to lose your sanity over these ideologies than is generally believed. I have done before, and I never truly recovered.

restraining curiousity in attempt to maintain sanity is not a valiant act but simply one of stupidity in my opinion. You both show great amounts of intelligence, and you should exercise it before it deteriorates away in the mindless drum of daily life.

[scorpio grl]

restraining curiousity in attempt to maintain sanity is not a valiant act but simply one of stupidity in my opinion. You both show great amounts of intelligence, and you should exercise it before it deteriorates away in the mindless drum of daily life.
Lol. That was actually sarcasm...But thank you for the intelligence compliment {at least I hope it was a compliment}, and that's what I intended to do in the first place.

[zippythewild]

On the contrary, although it was a compliment it was not one of great stature considering the modern average mind capacity. I hate when people say lets stop this stuff gives me a head ache. I other words their saying... "Sorry my mind is closed and I'd like to keep it that way"

[scorpio grl]

Ah, though the average mental capacity is small, the potential is quite great. So, if you say "you both show great amounts of intelligence", it is still a compliment that should give the person a considerable amount of self-pride for actually impressing another person with their intellect {no matter if they impressed the person only in a small way or large way}. Here's another question: Why are we disputing whether or not it was compliment?

Also, I dislike the narrow-mindedness of the average person, too, but I can't see how we hopped subjects to get here.

[zippythewild]

the subject hopping was just me voicing my great disappointment in human kind. (i know its really man kind but thats sexist) and i never said it wasnt a compliment.

[scorpio grl]

Ahh. {It can be both ways} You said 'On the contrary', which is basically contradicting the statement before saying that it's different, then you agreed that it was a compliment after you said that. It just seemed to me like you kind of were disputing it..

[zippythewild]

i was disputing whether or not it was a good compliment

[scorpio grl]

Oh, OK. It could viewed as both good and bad; it just depends on the person's perspective, I suppose.

[7000dominos]

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound. If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, how can we be sure it has fallen, surely someone must be there to observe it's fall, and surely, if someone is there to observe it's fall, the minute vibrations of sound would ventually reach there audibility, however low an amplitude.

Can't we just....see that it has fallen? I mean, there has to be some evidence. Like...a tree that is on its side.

Or, if you don't like comedy, I imagine that some CSI fold would be able to tell you how fast it fell and with what force it his the ground, by looking at the idention marks it would leave when it struck the ground.

And Scorpio: Crap. I forgot what you said....but...um...yeah. Good point.

[7000dominos]

A chair is made a chair, only by the title, the perception of it's use, makes it not a chair, the title however does. I could use said 'Brick' to sit on, however, said 'Brick' was only titled that. It only makes itself a brick by the perception of its user, as is the same for a chair.
By all means, if you wished to call your chair glagnark, then do so, for you would not be incorrect, you would merely be showing a different perception to that of your predecessors.

Interesting. And here I was thinking that it was the creator's perception. Like, what he/she/they wanted their creation to be used for that made it what it was meant to be.

[7000dominos]

Doesn't nothing exist in a black hole? I don't know much about physical science: I prefer biology. But that seems such elementary knowledge to me that I fiugre someone must have already mentioned it, and the idea was shot down?

Also...no one is here. And I'm having fun....:(

Fun. What is "fun?" Eh? Anybody?

[goobe]

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

your answer and reaons pls.

yes - it does but no one's there to hear it.