If a Tree Falls in Forest...Am I only one here who can see how profound a question this is?

Question

Most people misinterpret the question to mean: "How can you tell if you're not there..?" (ie a detective kind of question) and often answer by putting animals or tape recorders in the forest. But that's not the point at all...
The question is really aimed at making people realize that the sensations they experience are actually products of their own mind...So no mind present, means no sensation. In particular, when the tree falls it produces a compression wave in the air, of course...but no sensation of sound is produced (since sensations are produced by minds)..And "compression wave in air" and "sensation of sound" are NOT the same thing.

redunicorn..I think we are basically saying the same thing.Only difference is that, to be more precise, I use a different term for the "compression wave" and for the "sensation of sound" (whereas you use same word for both). I think my choice is preferable..since it makes it more clear that these are actually two entirely distinct things

to opinionated kitten: Could you provide me with some references to Eastern versions of the question..with analysis of the question?
I'd like to look them up.

to ignoramusthegreat and naniannie: I am actually quite convinced at this point that, as I said, sensations are absolutely produced by the mind and have NO other existence apart from the mind that produced (and also therefore experienced) them. I realize how counterintuitive this seems at first..but if you analyze different types of sensations carefully, it becomes (at least to me) more and more obvious. A good example is the sensation of smell..Nerve cells in our nose recognize certain molecules by their shape..They then respond by firing electrical impulses to our brain...and our mind PRODUCES and experiences a sensation of smell..Obviously the molecule itself has no "smell"..it only has a shape..and thats the only thing the nerve cell responds to...can you see what I am trying to say?

to Bradley: My feeling is that this particular question will one day be recognized as having a an actual answer (in something like the scientific sense...although its clear to me that the question trancends science) and that this answer will profoundly change our view of what Reality is (it will be revealed to be far weirder than ever supposed by science).

Jeff: You are correct..EXCEPT what you say about the eardrum is a physical response to a compression wave in the air...The eardrum (and in fact anything in all of science) doesn't respond to "sensations" at all but only to physical things (such as a compression wave in the air, the shape of a molecule etc) The "compression wave in air" causes the "sensation of sound" to be produced in our mind. These two things ("compression wave" and "sensation of sound" are NOT the same thing..That is the KEY (but admittedly subtle and difficult) point! Please try and think about what I am trying to say.

further response to redunicorn: I agree that the mind "interprets" the COMPRESSION WAVE ("interpreting the sound sensation" is a meaningless statement, though)..If you really think carefully about this I think you will recognize that it is precisely this "interpretation" that we refer to when we talk about the "sensation of sound". That is what I mean by a "product of the mind" (call it "interpretation of the mind" if you prefer, but "product" emphasizes that the mind is actually creating something that wasn't there before!)

Answer 1

Yes, Yes, & did I say Yes you are right! & no, you are not the only one. There is an answer to that question & it is no. There must be an observer. The latest thing in scientific study now says that there is no such thing as scientific, objective observation, that consciousness is the creator. Have you ever thought about how every time we go hunting for a new subatomic whatever we find it. Science is finally coming to what mystics have said for thousands of years. Thank you for the question, you made my day!

Answer 2

"sensations they experience are actually products of their
own mind"
"So no mind present, means no sensation"
"when the tree falls it produces a compression wave in
the air...but no sensation of sound is produced"
"I agree that the mind "interprets" the COMPRESSION
WAVE "
"call it "interpretation of the mind" if you prefer, but "product" emphasizes that the mind is actually creating something that wasn't there before"

I believe you are searching for the connective between
perception and interpretation; examining the physical
properties as perceptions and the senses as
interpretations. However, the senses are not the
interpretations. The senses are the connective between
perception and interpretation.
Consider that every physical event sends out a wave
and that wave effectively encounters every individual
who is within perceivable proximity of the wave. Which
is to say that the physical event arrives at the physical
body of each individual. The mind hasn't received the
wave yet, but it is still active on other processes and
also awaiting new information. The physical event
enters into the physical body through the eyes, ears,
skin, smell, taste, etc. The physical wave which was
objective becomes partially absorbed as an accumulation
of all the information gathered about the event from all
of the physical receptacles. I state partially because
the physical receptacles do not necessarily pick up
all of the physical wave. Enter the mind, not yet knowing
what it is perceiving, only knowing that new information
has arrived. The mind subjectively interprets the raw
information based on its recognition of associations for the
raw information. Therefore, the mind doesn't produce
the information which it interprets, but rather passively
receives the information and actively decodes the
information.

Answer 3

Actually, any more when I see a question like that, that's been inspired broadly speaking by more Eastern or Asian philosophy, I really do assume, like another poster put it, that it's really an "aid to meditation".

Or....it is a reminder to slow down and remember the clear and obvious. Too often people do get their heads wedged up in odd places courtesy of thinking too much or trying too hard to plan for and plot out everything.

And so, you get "ko an" or questions designed to be nearly impossible to answer clearly until or unless you have a solid grasp of the obvious and/or the big picture.

With the "Tree falls in a Forest..." type of question, really what it all boils down to is, "If you aren't there, are you a witness?" which the Asker noted.

With the old one "What is the Sound of One Hand Clapping?" the only clear, definitive answer is "non-sound", meaning that one hand, by itself, makes no noise. In turn, that could be said to be an extended metaphor for people working alone without anything to resist against....that being in isolation just isn't productive in any real-world sense.

And of course, there is the whole thing with the Yin-Yang symbol. People get caught up in the whole "harmony of opposites" thing or the whole "shades of grey" thing...

and in the process, they fail to see that the symbol is itself a *circle*, and that the *circle* remains regardless.

So....you could say that some of it is a cultural bias. That a lot of the time there is just an historical bias towards seeing life as a holistic, "big picture" sort of gestalt. People see the Forest more than they do the Trees.

In contrast, Western culture studies the Forest by watching not just individual trees, but individual *leaves* on the trees.

And yet there are exceptions too. "God lies in the details" is a translation of a Japanese saying. "Gestalt" is itself German.

So what am I saying here? ^_^

Just this: Profound is as profound does. Sometimes God is in the Details, and sometimes The Profound lies with the Bigger Picture. And either way.....we humans can and *do* freely mess up and make mistakes and overlook the clear and obvious in *both directions*, which is to some degree where philosophy of *all sorts* comes in.

Ko An is profound....until you figure it out, or have it explained to you correctly. So too is syllogism. They are tools meant to help correct a wayward mind, a door wedge meant to get *another wedge* unstuck from under the door.

But the point is not about the door wedges, the point is about getting the *door closed*. ^_^ Or at least that's roughly what Musashi once said (_Book of Five Rings_, rough translation granted).

I hope this helps, and thanks for your time! ^_^

Answer 4

Actually, the question originated in the east, where the practice of philosophy is very different than in the west. Western philosophers have become obsessed with the clarification of concepts and te fabrication of logical models. When asked to a westerner, the question loses much of its sense.
It was meant as an aide to meditation. This is not the kind of question for which a yes or no answer is expected at all. It is simply a means to open up the mind to possibilities.
Your answer is interesting as well, but it should not be interpreted as a final answer. It is simply food for thought, an object of meditation, a way to shield the mind from distractions, if you will.

Answer 5

Let see if I am understanding you correctly. You are saying, we are only subject to what we can detect. If a deaf person were in the forest and the tree fell, there would be no sound registered on the person's mind. Sensations are the interpretations of what we are able to detect.

That is funny because a whole world of events could be taking place all around us and we would be oblivious to them if we could not detect them. For example, radio and television waves, ultra-low or ultra-high sound frequencies, back ground radiation from the universe, and even God (I am a believer).

Answer 6

Sensations are not produced by minds, they are interpreted by minds. Sound exists independent of being heard, actions which we interpret through our senses occur whether we witness them or not: does color cease to exist when one becomes blind? No, only the external view of it ceases for that individual ... just as that tree truly did fall, it didn't matter whether it was witnessed or not. The real aim of the question, to my mind anyway, is to wrap one up in exploring a concept which focuses the mind on an internal exercise sufficiently circular and sufficiently strenuous to block out external interruptions. It's called meditation and it frees the mind from rigorous pathways, allowing it to ramble..

Answer 7

the sensations we experience act as a means to be involved with the environment we exist in. without the mind's ability to interperet what we can understand and filter out what we can't, we would be paralyzed by an overflow of information that means nothing to us. it would be impossible to be aware of whether or not we exist (let alone if a tree makes a sound by falling).
since we all determine our own reality by the sensations we experience from the universe around us. perhaps a better question would be: if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear/see/smell/taste or be crushed by it, did it even fall at all?

Answer 8

Conversely "When a butterfly flaps its wings in Maui, does it cause a hurricane in the Caribbean? Or, a tornado in Kansas? Or, a rainstorm in Shanghai? " All things are relative to the consistency of thought.

Answer 9

actually, sounds are received by your eardrum, which causes small bones in your ear to vibrate and sends a signal to your brain.your interpretation of that sound is from your mind. the sound itself exists, whether you hear it or not

Answer 10

The question does not strike me as profound, although I believe it did at one time. I think the answer is quite clear once one is clear with the semantics.

Study instead the self-reference class paradoxes. I think that is at the core of the profundity.