Why do people keep asking the question: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around, does it make a..."

Question

"... sound?" When the answer to me has always been obvious.

Sound is defined as: "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium"

Based on that definition, it is clear that with no one or no animal around to register the vibrations in the air, the tree has not made any sound at all.

There, I have just answered one of life's great mysteries for you. You're welcome.

Wow this got more answers than I thought it would. I mostly put it up to settle a bet with a friend.

To Dylan: I understand the metaphorical aspect of the question. But when most people ask it they seem to mean it in the literal sense. Hence my answer.

To kessie and others whose answers worked on the same vein: My understanding of 'sound' is as one of the 5 senses (6 for some people and over 100 for others it seems). Correctly speaking, if the tree were to fall in a vacuum, no vibrations would be produced for the brain of a living organism to act on. This is besides the point, though.
Can vibrations in air really be called 'sound' if there is no one or no animal to perceive it as such? A lemon cannot really taste sour until someone tastes it. Until then it is only a yellow-y, slight oblong fruit with the curious ability to aid in electrolighting.

Can't do a best answer. The ones with the most thought have included condescending statements that lend nothing to the discussion.

Answer 1

Berkeley's immaterialist version of the question is better... "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody perceives it... did it exist?"

Answer 2

Yes, I see this question quite often...along with "What is the meaning of life?" If people really want to know, all they need to do is type the question in the search field and they can spend literally days on end reading thousands of answers to those questions.

However, the point of disagreement is with the definition of the word *sound*.

"Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing." American Heritage Dictionary

Notice, the definition does *NOT* say "detected by human organs of hearing;" it says **CAPABLE** of being detected...

We know through physics that if a tree falls, there should be sufficient atmospheric vibrations to produce sound. Hence, sound exists whether or not it is detected by human beings.

So-called philosophers who believe otherwise are deliberately changing the definition of the word 'sound' for reasons known but to them. Since philosophy is about truth, this doesn't even come close to being a philosophical question.

The only possible way this question, in the context in which it is asked, can make sense is if you intend 'sound' to mean, "atmospheric vibrations which are *heard*." This is an alternate definition, but how does that present a philosophical quandary? When you define 'sound' as *something heard*, then there isn't any sound if nobody is there to hear it. So what? It is substantively no different than asking, "Can sound be heard if nobody is there to hear it?" What about, "Can something be eaten if nothing is there to eat it?" And on and on it goes.

The implied or underlying argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. One must play with the word 'sound' in order to sustain the discussion.

Best wishes,
Scalia

**EDIT**
The lemon illustration doesn't work because sourness and sound are defined differently. Again, one must twist word meaning to make the point. No rational person can accept that.

Answer 3

Wow, it's a good thing you were born, otherwise we might never have gotten that cleared up.

But seriously...I think the purpose of the question is to ascertain if anything exists outside of perception. The age-old rationalist-materialist debate, which asks, "Which is the basic reality, mind or matter?". The tree question is really asking, "Would anything exist if there were no one around to experience it?" Which may sound like a dumb question to us, but only because we think we can imagine such a state of affairs. But we really can't, because we ourselves are always part of the picture we're imagining. We're the viewer of the picture. We can't really imagine no one existing, because we can't really imagine ourselves not existing. So the answer to the question is, consciousness always is. And both mind and matter are part of consciousness. So the tree is, and mind is; there's no such thing, really, as "no one around", because consciousness is everpresent.

Answer 4

That would be accurate only if it occurred in a vacuum - you only gave a definition of sound - how it works - which doesn't prove if you don't hear the falling tree there is no sound.

Sounds don't exist only if heard. It occurs whether there's something with hearing around or not.

Answer 5

In a deeper sense the question refers to the whole perceived universe. If there is no perception of it does the universe exist. To the sleeper it does not. If one dreams, for the duration that is the reality.

For one that completely internalizes, with all thought stilled, the universe does not exist.

Answer 6

It does not matter if anyone is around or not the tree would make a sound. People might not be there to hear it but it certainly would make a sound.

Answer 7

Does it or does it not take energy for the tree to fall..

And isn't it stated that energy can not die, it can only transform?

Well with that said.. the energy it takes for a tree to fall in the forest WOULD in fact make energy, sound, vibrations.. etc.. as there is NEVER NO ONE around.. there is ALWAYS something.. around isn't there?

-smiles-

Answer 8

It is metaphorical. Well, its something like this;can u get away with your action, What ever good or bad???? No. Whether anyone sees or not, its gonna get u oneday or the other.That's all to it.

Answer 9

OK, you made a valid point. But, you missed it's cousin question. If a man says something in the woods, and there are no women there, is he STILL WRONG???

Answer 10

It's one of those Buddhist stories...the point being, obviously if no one could see the nasty you're doing does it mean its wrong?