If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Discuss. You might want to define what you mean by a "sound," by "nobody," and perhaps even a "tree."
This concept is the product of Berkeley’s thought experiment that perception creates reality. If a tree in the woods falls and no one is there to perceive it, does it make a sound? Does the tree even exist? Backing up a couple of steps it is important to note that Berkeley believed that an idea had to be contained in a mind in order for it to exist. This is better referred to as “esse est percipi,” to be is to be perceived. Therefore everything humans see are just the ideas they are creating. If a person cannot see something using just their mind, then the object does not exist according to Berkeley. So if a human is not there to witness the tree, it would not exist (in the context of this set up). What would happen if we brought God into this argument? One could easily argue that God would hear it because he perceives everything since he is an infinite being. Since God is an infinite being, it is because of him that we are able to have ideas. This is because the theory says that everything one perceives is just a bundle of thoughts that God then turns into ideas. The world we perceive is just a collection of ideas from our mind, the physical world does not exist according to Berkeley. The things we perceive to be physical are just a collection of perceptions in our mind. Getting back to the tree it is now, according to the definition of what it means to be an object, just a collection of perceptions. Therefore the sound that would be “heard” would not be heard by our ears, “There are two sorts of sound, the one vulgar, or that which is heard, the other philosophical and real” (18). It is up to the individual’s mind to accept the vibrations the “tree” is producing once it falls since, “Real sounds are never heard” (19). What if someone was not in the forest, yet was perceiving the thought of this very tree? If this were the case and they allowed their mind to accept the vibrations the tree produced from the fall, then someone would technically be able to hear the tree. In conclusion, if this instance were to happen, the tree would have made a sound for, “Sounds…have no real being without the mind” (19).
The instinctive answer to the age old question, “if a tree falls in the middle of the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it still make a sound?” is an obvious, “of course!” But IS that answer as obvious as it seems? Is it even true?
In order to respond, it is essential to define a few important words. The “tree” can be defined as what we perceive as a large, usually heavy plant that grows from the ground. We can define “somebody” as an animal or human and subsequently define “nobody” as a lack of any animal or human presence. Lastly, we arrive at the controversial definition of “sound”. Scientists may argue that sounds are waves and motion, but since motion belongs to the senses of sight or touch, that assumption would bring us to the conclusion that, “real sounds may possibly be SEEN or FELT but never HEARD” (18). This statement is clearly contradictory to the nature and truth of things, as we know that sound is something that is perceived by the ears, not the eyes or hands (19). Thus, sound waves may exist as motion, but SOUND ITSELF is something that is heard.
Now that we know what each word refers to, answering the question is simple. If sound is defined as something that is heard, IN THE ABSENSE of someone to hear it, it cannot exist. Thus, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest, and there is a lack of any human or animal presence, no one can perceive the sound waves, and it does not make a sound. Simply put, sound is created between the system of the tree and the perceiver, not just the system of the tree. Without somebody to perceive the sound waves with their ears, nothing is heard, and sound is not made.
Berkeley argues that, given the truth of idealism, God must exist. Is he correct? If so, how valuable is this argument? Does this argument give theists anything to cheer about? Or can we get something less than the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God that Berkeley believes in?
Through his Three Dialogues and the truth about idealism, George Berkeley attempts to prove that God exists. He begins with his idealistic premise that everything exist as ideas in his mind. However, these things are not solely his own, since he is not the author of them. So these things are externally existent and must be born from another mind. He goes on to state that he experiences many new ideas that he did not author on a constant basis. Thus, there must be a mind that allows him and others to access these ideas. Therefore, since only an infinite being like God could keep an infinite number of ideas consistent, Berkeley concludes that God must exist.
While this argument for God proves that He is omnipotent (he authored all external ideas) and omnipresent (he perceives everything), it fails to suggest a reason that God is benevolent. Instead it suggests that this all perceiving mind is neutral in all matters and just is. This makes it seem like this mind is just a mechanism to ensure that things exist as they do. Thus, it is quite possible and even understandable that this mind merely be described by the laws of the universe and science, which is by no means a way to prove God exists. In conclusion, Berkeley’s argument fails to answer the question: “Does God exist?”
The question of whether or not the tree makes a sound depends on how we define a sound. If sound is the perception itself rather than whatever is responsible for the perception than it is simple to so no the sound doesn’t exist without a mind to perceive it. This applies whether the physical manifestation of the tree falling is considered to exist or not because either there is some physical occurrence that would ordinarily be responsible for sound if a perceiver were present or there isn’t and in either case the sound does not exist. If instead we consider that physical manifestation to be the sound rather than the perception of that manifestation being sound the result changes. Now the observer is irrelevant to the situation. Even though it will be impossible to know that the tree fell the sound will still exist since the physical formation that is sound is present. The more interesting argument occurs if we consider idealism. For the question even to be asked we must assume that there is in fact no universal observer who holds all of the ideas of the universe, or else a tree could not fall without something being around to hear it. This however brings about a new problem, if a tree is only made up of ideas then it does not exist when nothing is around to perceive it. So the tree not only does not make any sound but it also can’t fall since it must exist to fall. This means that the question itself can only apply in a materialist worldview where it is clear that the physical manifestation definition of sound exists while the perception definition does not.
The noun form of "sound" denotes any one of the group of vibrations that travel through air and all other physical substances, and which are emitted from a source and can be heard by living organisms such as humans.
In the context of the question, "nobody" refers to the absence of living organisms capable of perceiving sound.
Different organisms are capable of perceiving different sound frequencies. While human ears can hear one group of sounds, some animals, such as bats, can hear higher pitches, while others, such as elephants, can hear lower pitches. Additionally, the ears are not the only organ that perceives sound. When the average human is at a rock concert, the lowest bass notes are outside the range of perception of their ears: they cannot be heard. However, due to powerful speakers, the bass is amplified so much that the human's body begins to vibrate. This vibration is still perceived as being caused by sound, even though it is not felt exclusively by the ears. Although this may sound contradictory to the definition of sound as something that can be heard, it is important to remember that human ears themselves rely on the vibration of ear drums, bones and fluid to function properly. These vibrations directly stimulate nerves which then send the corresponding information to the brain; when sound is felt by the rest of the body, exactly the same process occurs: vibrations stimulate nerves, which send information to the brain. Ears are a very useful and sensitive organ for *interpreting* sound, but they are not the only organ capable of feeling it. Thus, "sound" includes all vibrations which can be felt by living organisms. This statement raises another question: if the largest organism, capable of perceiving the lowest sound frequency on earth, dies, does that lowest-perceivable frequency cease to be considered to be sound? It is my view that the scope of sound should depend not on exactly which organisms are alive at the moment, but rather on which organisms *could be* alive. In our universe, the laws of which we do not fully-understand, there could theoretically be an organism of any enormous size. In a multiverse (if there is one), there is no maximal size that any animal could achieve. Thus, sound must encompass all vibrations.
It follows that, since all trees on Earth contain living foreign organisms such as bacteria and parasites within themselves, no tree can conceivably fall in such a way that "nobody" is around to hear it. In a forest, other plants would feel the vibration of the ground caused by the dive. Even if a tree were to be shipped to a lifeless planet and allowed to fall there, the organisms inside the tree would still feel the vibration.
Since it would be exceedingly difficult to somehow kill off every single foreign organism inside a real tree, perhaps a cleaner, analogous question should be asked: If two completely-lifeless, barren rocks collide in outer space, do they make a sound?
The answer is a resounding "yes". Although the collision *does not sound like anything* to anyone, this is only because there is not anyone there to perceive and judge the sound. The sound itself exists. If the same exact rocks were vibrating in the same way near a living organism of the right size, that organism would hear the sound. The collision *does not sound*, but it does *make a sound*.
This concept is the product of Berkeley’s thought experiment that perception creates reality. If a tree in the woods falls and no one is there to perceive it, does it make a sound? Does the tree even exist? Backing up a couple of steps it is important to note that Berkeley believed that an idea had to be contained in a mind in order for it to exist. This is better referred to as “esse est percipi,” to be is to be perceived. Therefore everything humans see are just the ideas they are creating. If a person cannot see something using just their mind, then the object does not exist according to Berkeley. So if a human is not there to witness the tree, it would not exist (in the context of this set up). What would happen if we brought God into this argument? One could easily argue that God would hear it because he perceives everything since he is an infinite being. Since God is an infinite being, it is because of him that we are able to have ideas. This is because the theory says that everything one perceives is just a bundle of thoughts that God then turns into ideas. The world we perceive is just a collection of ideas from our mind, the physical world does not exist according to Berkeley. The things we perceive to be physical are just a collection of perceptions in our mind. Getting back to the tree it is now, according to the definition of what it means to be an object, just a collection of perceptions. Therefore the sound that would be “heard” would not be heard by our ears, “There are two sorts of sound, the one vulgar, or that which is heard, the other philosophical and real” (18). It is up to the individual’s mind to accept the vibrations the “tree” is producing once it falls since, “Real sounds are never heard” (19). What if someone was not in the forest, yet was perceiving the thought of this very tree? If this were the case and they allowed their mind to accept the vibrations the tree produced from the fall, then someone would technically be able to hear the tree. In conclusion, if this instance were to happen, the tree would have made a sound for, “Sounds…have no real being without the mind” (19).
ReplyDeleteThe instinctive answer to the age old question, “if a tree falls in the middle of the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it still make a sound?” is an obvious, “of course!” But IS that answer as obvious as it seems? Is it even true?
ReplyDeleteIn order to respond, it is essential to define a few important words. The “tree” can be defined as what we perceive as a large, usually heavy plant that grows from the ground. We can define “somebody” as an animal or human and subsequently define “nobody” as a lack of any animal or human presence. Lastly, we arrive at the controversial definition of “sound”. Scientists may argue that sounds are waves and motion, but since motion belongs to the senses of sight or touch, that assumption would bring us to the conclusion that, “real sounds may possibly be SEEN or FELT but never HEARD” (18). This statement is clearly contradictory to the nature and truth of things, as we know that sound is something that is perceived by the ears, not the eyes or hands (19). Thus, sound waves may exist as motion, but SOUND ITSELF is something that is heard.
Now that we know what each word refers to, answering the question is simple. If sound is defined as something that is heard, IN THE ABSENSE of someone to hear it, it cannot exist. Thus, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest, and there is a lack of any human or animal presence, no one can perceive the sound waves, and it does not make a sound. Simply put, sound is created between the system of the tree and the perceiver, not just the system of the tree. Without somebody to perceive the sound waves with their ears, nothing is heard, and sound is not made.
Ta da!
Berkeley argues that, given the truth of idealism, God must exist. Is he correct? If so, how valuable is this argument? Does this argument give theists anything to cheer about? Or can we get something less than the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God that Berkeley believes in?
ReplyDeleteThrough his Three Dialogues and the truth about idealism, George Berkeley attempts to prove that God exists. He begins with his idealistic premise that everything exist as ideas in his mind. However, these things are not solely his own, since he is not the author of them. So these things are externally existent and must be born from another mind. He goes on to state that he experiences many new ideas that he did not author on a constant basis. Thus, there must be a mind that allows him and others to access these ideas. Therefore, since only an infinite being like God could keep an infinite number of ideas consistent, Berkeley concludes that God must exist.
While this argument for God proves that He is omnipotent (he authored all external ideas) and omnipresent (he perceives everything), it fails to suggest a reason that God is benevolent. Instead it suggests that this all perceiving mind is neutral in all matters and just is. This makes it seem like this mind is just a mechanism to ensure that things exist as they do. Thus, it is quite possible and even understandable that this mind merely be described by the laws of the universe and science, which is by no means a way to prove God exists. In conclusion, Berkeley’s argument fails to answer the question: “Does God exist?”
The question of whether or not the tree makes a sound depends on how we define a sound. If sound is the perception itself rather than whatever is responsible for the perception than it is simple to so no the sound doesn’t exist without a mind to perceive it. This applies whether the physical manifestation of the tree falling is considered to exist or not because either there is some physical occurrence that would ordinarily be responsible for sound if a perceiver were present or there isn’t and in either case the sound does not exist. If instead we consider that physical manifestation to be the sound rather than the perception of that manifestation being sound the result changes. Now the observer is irrelevant to the situation. Even though it will be impossible to know that the tree fell the sound will still exist since the physical formation that is sound is present. The more interesting argument occurs if we consider idealism. For the question even to be asked we must assume that there is in fact no universal observer who holds all of the ideas of the universe, or else a tree could not fall without something being around to hear it. This however brings about a new problem, if a tree is only made up of ideas then it does not exist when nothing is around to perceive it. So the tree not only does not make any sound but it also can’t fall since it must exist to fall. This means that the question itself can only apply in a materialist worldview where it is clear that the physical manifestation definition of sound exists while the perception definition does not.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe noun form of "sound" denotes any one of the group of vibrations that travel through air and all other physical substances, and which are emitted from a source and can be heard by living organisms such as humans.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of the question, "nobody" refers to the absence of living organisms capable of perceiving sound.
Different organisms are capable of perceiving different sound frequencies. While human ears can hear one group of sounds, some animals, such as bats, can hear higher pitches, while others, such as elephants, can hear lower pitches. Additionally, the ears are not the only organ that perceives sound. When the average human is at a rock concert, the lowest bass notes are outside the range of perception of their ears: they cannot be heard. However, due to powerful speakers, the bass is amplified so much that the human's body begins to vibrate. This vibration is still perceived as being caused by sound, even though it is not felt exclusively by the ears. Although this may sound contradictory to the definition of sound as something that can be heard, it is important to remember that human ears themselves rely on the vibration of ear drums, bones and fluid to function properly. These vibrations directly stimulate nerves which then send the corresponding information to the brain; when sound is felt by the rest of the body, exactly the same process occurs: vibrations stimulate nerves, which send information to the brain. Ears are a very useful and sensitive organ for *interpreting* sound, but they are not the only organ capable of feeling it. Thus, "sound" includes all vibrations which can be felt by living organisms. This statement raises another question: if the largest organism, capable of perceiving the lowest sound frequency on earth, dies, does that lowest-perceivable frequency cease to be considered to be sound? It is my view that the scope of sound should depend not on exactly which organisms are alive at the moment, but rather on which organisms *could be* alive. In our universe, the laws of which we do not fully-understand, there could theoretically be an organism of any enormous size. In a multiverse (if there is one), there is no maximal size that any animal could achieve. Thus, sound must encompass all vibrations.
It follows that, since all trees on Earth contain living foreign organisms such as bacteria and parasites within themselves, no tree can conceivably fall in such a way that "nobody" is around to hear it. In a forest, other plants would feel the vibration of the ground caused by the dive. Even if a tree were to be shipped to a lifeless planet and allowed to fall there, the organisms inside the tree would still feel the vibration.
Since it would be exceedingly difficult to somehow kill off every single foreign organism inside a real tree, perhaps a cleaner, analogous question should be asked: If two completely-lifeless, barren rocks collide in outer space, do they make a sound?
The answer is a resounding "yes". Although the collision *does not sound like anything* to anyone, this is only because there is not anyone there to perceive and judge the sound. The sound itself exists. If the same exact rocks were vibrating in the same way near a living organism of the right size, that organism would hear the sound. The collision *does not sound*, but it does *make a sound*.