If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around

>>8683666
>if mirrors aren't real how can our eyes be real

File: Screenshot_2017-02-18-17-05-38~01.png (71KB, 1440x593px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1440x593px

No.

>>8683672
How do I know this post is real

File: yes.jpg (16KB, 593x85px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 593x85px

>>8683666
yes

>>8683666
Sound is just propogating particle vibrations.

Are you suggesting that nature breaks the laws of physics when we're not observing it?

>>8683701
So now it's just a stalemate due to the vagueness of the word "sound".

George Berkely famously said "esse est percipi", "to be is to be perceived". He believes that things (such as sounds) only exist when they are being perceived. This idea is considered somewhat untenable in modern philosophy.

>>8683681
But the vibrations are still produced

Assuming there is an end to time, let P be a falling tree that is never observed through the length of time, isolated enough that it has no observable consequences. Then there is no empirical way to prove that P made a sound, because proving it means observing it and that breaks the premise.

So I can tell you that, assuming time has an end, you can't know.

In this case you should follow Occam and say that it does make a sound because there is no reason to believe it doesn't.

>>8683727
>He believes that things (such as sounds) only exist when they are being perceived
Does he mean sound as defined by >>8683701's pic, or does he mean the phenomenon itself, i.e. qualia? I assume the latter because the former is pants-on-head retarded, but you never know.

Assuming it's the latter, why is this idea considered somewhat untenable in modern philosophy?

>>8683729
>the sensation
what a thread

>>8683666
I think the vibrations will still startle animals and affect the environment, though likely to an extremely insignificant degree.

>>8683666
No, of course it doesn't. Anyone who says it does is one of those STEMLord cunts who thinks their scientific models """are""" reality.

>>8683730
>proving it means observing it
No.
Have you ever done a proof that required a demo?

File: sound.png (13KB, 672x156px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 672x156px

What a profound question..

File: 1349742614451.jpg (9KB, 234x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 234x250px

Thats like asking if earth existed before you were born to perceive it.

>does it still make a sound
Unknown because there's noone there to hear it.

Agnostic Anthropocentrism is the only correct answer

>>8683666

>does it still make a sound?

No, sound is a word for abstracting the behavioral responses biological organisms exhibit when certain sensory organs of theirs is influenced by certain ranges of vibrations so that people can speak in terms of that abstract concept instead of having to deal with the reality of behaviorism.

>>8684760
>can't read
>>8684416

>>8683666

Yes.

The tree didn't fell just because it did, it did because there was a chain of natural consequences that ended up in the tree falling, if you were to track the chain of consequences you would find out that the whole thing falling is due to the natural processes that happen in Earth through energy differentials of pressure and heat.

So, the tree not only really fell off, when it did it transmited its energy in the form of soundwaves, and those soundwaves affected other things in their surroundings in very minor ways.

Thinking that the only thing that can "perceive" in this world are humans is a fallacy, nature is alwways "perceiving" itself through natural laws.

The real question here is if we could tell the difference, but anything out of our perception is inconsequential, irrelevant and unknowable, so is kind of an idiotic question from a time were everything seeemed more antropocentric.

I honestly don't get why this question is such a meme. It's not interesting, deep or meaningful at all, just comes down to how you define "sound".