If a tree falls in the forest...

[Michael]

If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no person there to hear it, did the falling tree make a sound?

[Michael]

Here are a few recovered replies to this thread. The first page was lost.

Just in case anyone is curious, I posted this topic here for a reason. The thread question is a famous one - and for good reasons. Non-philosophers tend to think that the question is hilarious, absurd, silly and/or nonsensical. Philosophers tend to consider the question to be one of the most serious ones.

There are very few clear-cut (pun not intended) questions in philosophy that show the stark difference between philosophy and modern science. This is one of them.

Secondly, there are few questions in philosophy that show that scientists are often as likely as the religious types to insist upon a belief in dogma that stands on nothing more than belief and assumption.

Thirdly, the question illustrates the importance of semantic precision - a key element of an education in philosophy.

And finally, the question serves as a cultural marker in philosophy departments. A quick discussion of the topic with undergrads tends to show which undergrads are likely to be potential grad students and which ones would be better off transfering to another faculty discipline.

Thus, the question is a justifiably famous one. Indeed, the more non-philosophers try to make fun of this question, the more philosopher's appreciate the sublime beauty of the question.

Perhaps I'm a bit late to the game, but I've contemplated this before and always thought the answer was entirely dependent on the definition of 'sound' and whether it constitutes the physical displacement of particles in a medium or whether it constitutes human response to sensory input.

Yes, that's certainly one way people have approached the question.

To me, it is a matter of epistemology. It is all about the 'knowledge' claimed of the sound being made.

One could easily reformulate the question as, "if a God exists in heaven, and no human observes this, is it real?"

Sound is what a human hears. Trees falling in forests actually only produce a certain frequency of a wave of energy. Some classes and various frequencies of energy waves are called "sounds" when humans hear them.
If you had put that definition, your definition, in the OP, there would have been nothing to discuss as it makes the question a tautology.
But that's not the scientific definition. In physics, sound is a form of waves with a defined range of frequencies. This range includes frequencies that can't be heard by humans, but can be heard by e.g. whales or elephants in the subsonic range or by e.g. dogs or bats in the supersonic range. When the scientific defintion is used, human interpretation means squat.

So yes, it all boils down to semantics. If you use the philosophic, anthropocentric definition, the answer may be 'No'. If you use the scientific, objective definition, the answer is 'Yes'.

There's nothing dogmatic, religious, or whatever about the scientific definition. It's a clear-cut definition, that's all. There are no assumptions or leaps of faith, just technicalities.

Your argument here against science is the same you've used many times in the past. You use the scientific definition of an issue, but interpret the consequences of those as having meaning in a philosophical interpretation. But those don't mix that easily.

[Dominick]

To the No-voter:
Some youngsters have ringtones on their cellphones in a range that only young people can hear and us adults not.
Question : do those cellphones emit a sound or not ?
My answer is Yes. What's yours ?

[Michael]

To the No-voter:
Some youngsters have ringtones on their cellphones in a range that only young people can hear and us adults not.
Question : do those cellphones emit a sound or not ?
My answer is Yes. What's yours ?
Ask a kid. :D

Indeed, if a kid's cellphone rings and there is no kid around to hear it, did the phone make a sound?

The real answer is maybe.

But if the dog starts barking and no one is at the door, then yes, one may rationally deduce that a sound was made. ;)

One might also review the 'log' on the computer chip of the cellphone and on that basis, also rationally claim that a sound was emitted. But you can't really know for sure that a sound was made.

[Helene]

I'm not young anymore, but at work I certainly am one of the few people who hear the anti-mouse device from quite far away. It's very annoying.

As for the question: I've never quite understood the significance of the question until Michael so succinctly put it.

For me, it always questioned the importance of human kind's presence to
"reality". Therefore I voted that it does make a sound. I do not think that we are so important that things only exist when at least one of us is there to witness it.

It seems to me now that there's a semantical solution by making it a matter of definition.

[Michael]

For me, it always questioned the importance of human kind's presence to "reality". Therefore I voted that it does make a sound. I do not think that we are so important that things only exist when at least one of us is there to witness it.
No humans = no reality. ;)

It seems to me now that there's a semantical solution by making it a matter of definition.
Yes, that is the only rational solution to the question. That's the key philosophic lesson there.

[Helene]

No humans = no reality. ;)

That comes pretty close to the premise of my "lack of belief" system. Contrary to most people, I don't believe anything. Cause when it comes down to it, we just do not and cannot know anything for certain. I do however, work with a lot of assumptions. Just cause it makes my life a lot easier (if my life actually exists).

Yes, that is the only rational solution to the question. That's the key philosophic lesson there.

It kind of reminds me of what I used to think about gravity. What if somewhere, when we're not around, things fall up?