To Mr Dabits and Mr Socrate 2012; The tree exists in a context and within that context, everything is affected by it. The pressure wave would be "perceived" by everything within the range of the pressure wave.That does not mean that it made a "sound" however. The two operative concepts in the question are "no one" and "sound". "No one" refers to a person, or a human being, which is different from an elephant, a tiger or a rock... all of which would be affected by the pressure wave in different ways. The word "sound" implies a "knowing", which implies awareness. The animals like tiger/elephant or snake or bat may or may not be "aware", in that what they perceived, understood and are able to relate it to the "self", what the pressure wave was (a tree falling). We don't know. Certainly we can postulate that they were at least able to perceive the "sound" through their senses, but in a very different ways. For the snake, they would feel the sound, while the bat would see it. We might even be able to postulate that they understood it to be a potential threat and therefore allowing them to respond. How they are able to internalize this knowing and relate it to themselves is unknown (consciousness). But is it "sound" to them? Of course it is. How the pressure wave is perceived is irrelevant. Therefore the word "sound" with its implied relationship with hearing is just redirects us back to focus of the question. What about the rock though. It has neither the ability to perceive or understand anything. Though, even it is affected by the pressure wave. The physics of the wave affect everything it touches, even if in the most imperceptible way. But, none of those things are "persons" and the word "sound" is important because, it is not about hearing or sensing a pressure wave in some other way. It is about human consciousness and no other. In the physical sense, the tree falling will obviously makes a sound. But, without human perception and understanding, it does not make a "sound". The question seeks to differentiate between the human mind and the physical world. The mind exists in a box, never experiencing the world directly. It is only through our senses that we come to "know" the world around us. But that "knowing" is/ may be flawed. How can we know the tree made a sound unless we were there to experience it ourselves? Even then, how do we know that what we perceived through our senses was not some how corrupted and our mind tricked us? We could only assume tree made a sound, based upon other knowledge in our possession. Here is the cool part. Our assumptions can be so "real" to us, that we cannot differentiation between what we know and what we assume.
Socrate of 2012, in that last topic I asked you to define your very much preferred word "SELF" in your own mystic way but you didn't. I hope you've discovered it and I'm trying to rediscover it in my own way. Somewhere I read this stuff but can't recall where. When you talk about your "self", to what do you refer? Is it this body of flesh and bone? If so, the body is constantly changing, molecules being added and subtracted. Few people would say that the amputation of my limb would amount to the destruction of my self, so there must be something else I mean by "self" that persists through this. So is it my mind? My memories and tastes and fears and hopes and attitudes. Well, these are constantly changing, too. The question, again, is where does one draw the line? Small changes seem to be incorporated into the idea of the self - I'm still myself if I wake up tomorrow morning and no longer like chocolate. Larger changes are not so easily done, however, such as in the cases where massive head trauma results in sudden, complete changes of personality, or total amnesia. am I still me if this body receives a blow to the head and wakes up unable to ever again recall my name, my history, my experiences to this point? If not, where did "me" go? But to what really does one refer by the words "I" "me" and "self"? Can you picture the "self"? Describe "I" with any words whatsoever? All of the things I can describe about myself are things about this body and this mind, things that change constantly. Wish you can shed some light on self and enlightened me with your mystic thought.
@sid_16: I think you should watch this: WHERE MIND AND MATTER MEET (THE NEW BIOLOGY - By Bruce Lipton Ph.D). Maybe this will shed some light on your quest. To respond your question in a non-mystical way (and this was known 5000 years ago by the initiates of Ancient Schools of Mystery of Egypt): I'm a WAVE.
And one has to consider this, a scientist who's "waking up" so to speak. Einstein was one of them, also. Look at Nassim Haramein for example. He's one of the new scientists, that knows that matter is just low-frequency vibration wave. In the 20th century, the "scientists" "discovered" the string theory. Isn't this a bit odd? Yes, it is. Einstein said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge.Knowledge is limited.Imagination encircles the world." I'm not enforcing anyone opinions or point of view. Look at the Matrix 1999 movie again, and then you'll SEE what I'm talking about.
You keep repeating that only ideas are innately valuable, meaning they have an objective value that does not depend on anyone's subjective opinion. But you haven't justified why this should be true (or even how it makes sense). Your justification consists of saying that it is "blindingly obvious". Clearly it's not obvious since there are a number of people who would disagree with you. You're going to have to provide more of an argument than just stating your opinion if you want to convince me 'like' other people.
I don't know what is about the others when discussing. I quote something that has been written, because it is better expressed than I am able to. And statements which had been important in my personal life for discussion and to share. But I always remember that I am not here to teach. Those quotes are instructive to me, though. Existence of something is also a matter of religions. And Buddhism for instance is very scientific and there is written a lot about existence. sid_16 Imagine there is something in the world that changes its color right after you've started to tell somebody what is the color of the object. So will you be ever able to tell somebody the real present color? How often would you try it anyway until you notice that it cannot be told? The same is with the Self, the Self cannot be verified by thinking about. As soon as 'you' try to explain it, you explain anything, however not the Self. The Self is only a name, you may choose any other you want. It is that what's looking out of your eyes. You will be never able to locate the observer (yourSelf) anyway you are 'it'. The Self cannot describe itself, since it is the only thing that is real. The one without a second. The dilemma: When one tries to describe the reality, the reality has to be separated in 'one' who describes 'it'. 'one' is the idea of 'I' and 'it' is the idea of anything else. So when one starts to describe something then the idea of 'I' is describing the idea of non-'I' (and maybe the idea of 'I' additionally). But the idea of 'I' and the idea of non 'I' are both products of ONE Reality and not different. sid_16 nobody has to convince you about the 'Self'. You exist! You can say I am. And to convince you of the existence of the 'Self' would be the same as to tell you that you exist. This you know already. So 'you' know already about the 'Self'. The fact that lets you say: 'I am' proves your existence. The fact that your idea of 'I' is not your real identity is proved by the fact that you never can locate yourSelf. (That what is looking out of your eyes) Try it! Locate yourSelf!!! Where is it???? You will always locate an idea of you. The observer (Self) can never be seen and never be thought. Anyway you try it, because you ask for explanations for the Self. So how can one tell about the color? About the 'Self', about Reality? One should be quiet, to be calm! Or simply to be! Now. Then there is no more color changing and the truth is revealed. Don't ask for the Self, just be it. Don't try to explain it without to know it cannot be explained. Don't try to talk about the color. One's claim for an explanation shows that one is not one's Self. The truth is silence, pure being, without an idea of that what really IS.
Sound is a subjective interaction with matter. All that sound is, is vibrations through a medium, without humans to perceive it, those vibrations that we call sound, when the tree fell, would make vibrations, but "sound" as we know it, couldn't exist, since no conscious being was there to interpret those vibrations.
Yes. Btw: I have noticed that dabits has in his signature: Nothing unreal exists. That is also the truth. Only the Reality exists. Give it a name / idea and it becomes unreal.
But the vibrations were there so something happened ! As I said before in this same thread, the only thing left up to the mind is the interpretation of the vibrations produced by the event.
"High intellectual development does not equate happiness.It's only when knowledge becomes wisdom, then a person can become happy.Wisdom is knowledge ensouled" P.S. I'm not trying to enforce opinions on anyone. 'cause that's all they are opinions. These are mere vectors to the SELF, not more than that.
I know that personally real is that what one thinks it is. This is to most the common way to think. How do you determine the vibrations? I mean the vibrations are your idea of an idea. First idea: cause and effect Second idea: the meaning of 'sound'. And what is different to the 'interpretation' that you admit is job of the mind? Isn't vibrations=interpretation and interpretation=vibrations. I do not get why your first and second idea should be no job of the mind, you declare them simply to be existent. Let's assume there is somewhere a transmitter. Can you detect it without an (to be an) receiver? When does the assumption come true? And what shall be the difference to the tree's sound? I mean the key question is: Can something exist without somebody who is perceiving it? I think we should go on making this clear.
Let me put it this way, does gravity exist without an observer ? If it didn't exist without an observer then everything in the Universe would fall apart when we were not watching. There are two realities, the one that is dependent on the laws of the Universe to keep it running and the one in your head. The one in your head is your interpretation of what you see. If you want to look at a cow and see an elephant then no one can make you believe otherwise.
Occam's razor says we should not add any unnecessary entities to a theory. An entity is unnecessary if it can't be directly observed and is not needed to explain anything. Basically, there are an infinite number of non-provable. Are you going to believe in something just because you cannot prove that it doesn't exist? What if I told you that there was an Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It is evidenced in this thread that the possibility of misperception exists..What is correct perception one might ask then? I would venture to say that we live under many illusions and a DNA that predisposes us to support those illusions because our ancestors (fight or flight) misperception of the world they lived in..for example is war really necessary? I believe a state of total awareness exists..yes total awareness.. So the tree fell and it was and is experienced by all things through out eternity.. and Fox News missed it
OK. This is the classic newton's way. You think there is an Reality outside which follows the laws of the universe and one reality which is individual (in one's head or mind). The individual mind interprets the reality outside and will be wrong until it matches the universe's reality. I do not try to convince you otherwise. Anyway let me post major flaws. And a short info: Newton's mechanic abolute reality has been disproved many times..... Gravity doesn't exist without an observer's mind. And the universe doesn't also exist without an observer's mind. So what could fall apart? In general, objects don't exist somewhere outside of one's mind since they are a product of objectification of the Reality, which happens by thinking of it. Does the universe say I have gravity? No it is the observer's idea. Gravity exists when you perceive it. "If it didn't exist without an observer then everything in the Universe would fall apart when we were not watching." No! The absence of gravity also exists ONLY when one perceives it. Both are relative and own ideas. No matter what humankind will objectify, it will be always something fantastically 'new', but will be always only a poor illusional idea of Reality which has anything 'in it' already. Try to perceive gravity without thinking about it! Success?
A deaf person walks in a forest, and a tree falls ... but the deaf person is looking the other way ... A deer walks underneath the falling tree ... An owl heard the tree falling down, the deaf person saw the owl but not the deer and therefore could not warn the deer in time ... Is the deer dead, or not? Edit: ... and did it make a sound ...
That is critical to everything. Human thinking is fundamentally flawed, we very rarely think outside the box. Our thinking is clouded by our ignorant past ! That is why things like religion can prevail and hold such sway over our lives. Many of us would be willing to take the life of another simply because they don't agree with "our" views or see "our" god. I am personally sickened by most of humanity, we are so divided on everything from race to religion that the only future I see is destruction. Where we need hive mentality we only have hatred and division, people have totally failed to see the greater purpose. Bugs have greater cohesion than human beings ! Divided we fall ...