PHILOSOPHY THREAD

[genefoley]

http://academicearth.org/



Great philosophy lectures from Harvard and the likes.



Philosohy has always been something that always interested me tremendously but was I never able to get into a philosophy class in college and now I'm out of Gen Eds so I probably never will.



This could be a great thread but I feel god will come into it thereby ending it.

 

[Tbird]

http://academicearth.org/



Great philosophy lectures from Harvard and the likes.



Philosohy has always been something that always interested me tremendously but was I never able to get into a philosophy class in college and now I'm out of Gen Eds so I probably never will.



This could be a great thread but I feel god will come into it thereby ending it.

No he won't Godammit!..............oops

 

[LordKOTL]

Rosh: If we hold that "sound" is a experienced human perception of a pressure wave in a fluid, then yes, you're right. But if we hold it true that:

• Trees will almost universally grow in the opposite direction of gravity from their perceived viewpoint (I can explain this more if necessary)
  
• When a tree falls, it creates a pressure wave in air (a fluid).
  
• Any felled tree must have then created said pressure wave.
  

The seeing of a felled tree means that when it fell it would be nigh-impossible for it to have not created a pressure wave based on what humans have observe. Thus, if we define "sound" as a pressure wave that could be interpreted by humans as sound, not was interpreted by humans as sound, then yes it does.



Thus, it all goes back to personal definition.

 

[genefoley]

Lord, I see what you're saying but, isn't it a given that if a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound? People being there shouldn't have any affect on the sound resulting from the crash.



What I'm trying to say is... what is the philosophical topic that is trying to be brought forth by bringing up this question? If that makes sense?

 

[the canadian dream]

If sound were a human experience only why do animals react to it and why do plants alike? Or does that take us to the thought that animals and plants too are only human experiences we may make up in our individual minds?



I like Philosophy even though I have never studied it. The problem I do have with philosophy is it seems very ego-centric as it too like many disciplines always places humans first in all equations.



I think we think too much therefor we aren't.

 

[Tater]

Couldn't someone just leave a tape recorder running in the trees during a windstorm to see if they make noise when they fall?



Edit: I guess I did need to use purple here.

 

[LordKOTL]

The only reason I use human experience, specifically, is that it's the only experience guarenteed to be recorded for analyzation.



For me it goes back to the definition of sound--is it the experienced manifestation of said pressure wave, or the wave itself?



Personally, I think it's the wave itself. Perception to me is limited--not all-encompassing.

 

[LordKOTL]

...and here's one for more food for thought:



do Noumena exist?

 

[MassHavoc]

The only reason I use human experience, specifically, is that it's the only experience guarenteed to be recorded for analyzation.



For me it goes back to the definition of sound--is it the experienced manifestation of said pressure wave, or the wave itself?



Personally, I think it's the wave itself. Perception to me is limited--not all-encompassing.

The sound is there whether or not a person hears it, therefore it exists. You putting the person there doesn't effect anything to create the sound, merely receive the response that is already there. It's like saying is a car a car if no one is driving it. Or if it doesn't run anymore. Yes it's still a car, it exists. It's part of the environment. Does the fish at the bottom of the ocean not exist because we don't see them? Do species not exist until we discover them? Human interaction is not the logical place to start when discussing existence.

 

[Ymono37]

The sound is there whether or not a person hears it, therefore it exists. You putting the person there doesn't effect anything to create the sound, merely receive the response that is already there. It's like saying is a car a car if no one is driving it. Or if it doesn't run anymore. Yes it's still a car, it exists. It's part of the environment. Does the fish at the bottom of the ocean not exist because we don't see them? Do species not exist until we discover them? Human interaction is not the logical place to start when discussing existence.

I think some of it comes down to perception just like Schrodinger's Cat. Putting a recorder in the woods to "capture" the sound(s) could be akin to opening up the lid - in that our very attempt to perceive an action without seeing said action negates the actual perception itself.



So there.































By the way, there's a very good chance I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[MassHavoc]

By the way, there's a very good chance I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

haha good, because you lost me there at the end!

 

[genefoley]

...and here's one for more food for thought:



do Noumena exist?

I don't see how they don't. There are things throughout the universe that we lack the technology currently to observe. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No, it means we are simply incapable of seeing these things.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

I don't see how they don't. There are things throughout the universe that we lack the technology currently to observe. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No, it means we are simply incapable of seeing these things.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Albert Einstein.

 

[LordKOTL]

Gene: you missed the point of Noumenon vs. Phenomenon. If something is sensed or perceived, it's not a noumenon. A noumenon can only be known as a thing unto itself--which takes perception out of the picture.



Basically, can something be known without perception of the thing?



Mass: you're basically arguing my point. Either sound is the pressure wave itself or the perception of the sound wave:



Those who say the tree does make a sound define sound to be the pressure wave itself.



Those who say the tree does not make a sound define sound to be the perception of the pressure wave.



I personally believe the former--sound is the pressure wave and not the perception thereof.

 

[jakobeast]

"What is the mind? No matter. What is matter? Nevermind"- Homer Simpson.

 

[ginnie]

I personally believe the former--sound is the pressure wave and not the perception thereof.

Exactly. And everyone knew that.

 

[supraman]

My Philosophy - boobs are awesome.





That is all carry on.

 

[MassHavoc]

My Philosophy - boobs are awesome.





That is all carry on.

How would you know.



/burn

 

[LordKOTL]

To the tree falling in the forest question, my stance is that if no one is there to hear it then there is no sound. The physical manifestation of "sound" exists, but it only becomes a sound if there is someone that interprets the fluctuating air pressure to what we perceive as sound.

Ginnie: Rosh doesn't think so.



And not all boobies are awesome...Saggy, depeleted butterbags are not awesome.

 

[supraman]

How would you know.



/burn

BAN!