From
Serendip
An ongoing conversation on brain and behavior, associated with Biology 202, spring, 2000, at Bryn Mawr College. Student responses to weekly lecture/discussions and topics.
TOPIC 10:
If a tree falls in the forest when there's no one there, does it make a sound? What sound does it make?
Name: pgrobste
Username: Paul Grobstein
Subject: week 11
Date: Sun Apr 16 08:50:22 EDT 2000
Comments:
We've just a little bit to go yet on the input side of the nervous system, but I suspect the shape of where we'll come out is already emerging. So here's an old but no less interesting question to write about, if you need something to get you started (as always, you're free to write instead about whatever else intrigued you this week):
If a tree falls in the forest when there's no one there, does it make a sound?
Name: hillary bobys
Username: hbobys@haverford.edu
Subject:
Date: Sun Apr 16 21:31:43 EDT 2000
Comments:
jennifer webster's paper was an interesting look at memories and the neural pathology of such an elusive concept. i agree with her assertion that memories define a person, but it is a scary idea that who and what we are is contained in such a nebulous concept. i am currently taking a memory and cognition class where we have delved into to ideas concerning storages of memories, memory deficits, and kinds of memory. for those of you who are interested in this topic and biopsychological stuff, you should check out oliver sack's book "the man who mistook his wife for a hat." one anecdote from the book is about a man with anterograde amnesia. he cannot transfer new information into long term memory, and therefore lives in the past. he still thinks he is 20 even though he is much older and is terribly frightened when he looks in a mirror. luckily, he soon forgets the traumatic instance. what can we make of the i-function for this man ("the lost mariner")? how is self-identity disrupted by this type of amnesia and what can we learn about how the i-function affects subsequent behaviors?
imagnig studies are quickly becoming an accessible means of investigeting memory and may unlock some of the mysteries surrounding it.
Name: Soo Yi
Username: syi@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Weekly Essay #10
Date: Sun Apr 16 23:21:53 EDT 2000
Comments:
Oooh! I love a good philosophical challenge! To answer Prof. Grobstein's question, I think it depends on how you perceive reality. If the external world precedes perception, then the tree falling down does make a sound regardless of whether or not someone is there to perceive it. But if reality is no more than just perceived info, then the tree didn't make a sound since no one was there to hear it.
It's frustrating to think of the world as just "what we make of it". If the world is the way it is because by convention, we've decided to make it that way, then there is really no "Truth" since understanding is no more than our perceptions.
But then it also makes sense that the world is just the majority of perceptions because imagine what the world would be like for you if you had 6 or 7 senses. It would be incomprehensible to us what your perception of reality is. We would be living in the same world yet our realities would be so different. I guess we can think of people who were born deaf or blind...their realities must be so different from ours. They can't possibly know, to the full extent, what sound is or what color is.
But I digress... I think that when the tree falls, there is some kind of disturbance caused and we call that sound waves. So there is an external world that presupposes perception. But then, if we're not there to perceive it, then the sound waves are just waves and not sound.
I guess the question that Prof. Grobstein asked has to do with what he said in class about how the colors we see are colors only because that's how we perceive it...in actuality, there are no colors. But if reality is just what we perceive then, there really are colors. But if there is reality even without people to perceive it, then the colors we think we see are just different wavelengths of light waves. Hmmm...definitely mind boggling...
Name: Maria
Username: mvasilia@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Mon Apr 17 11:24:25 EDT 2000
Comments:
Hmmm, interesting question. My first reaction to this is yes; of course it makes a sound. I quickly come to this conclusion due to the fact that if I am actually in the forest and see a tree fall down I also hear it make a sound. So using prior knowledge and experience I still think the tree will make noise even if I am not there to hear it. The important part here is that it is what I think and what I perceive. Another creature who doesn't have the capability of hearing or catching the particular wave sounds a tree makes when it falls might not believe that the tree does or does not make a sound. The question may even sound silly, I mean why would noise or sound depend on me? Just because I am not there doesn't mean sound will not be heard? Ok maybe I am thinking totally wrong about this and getting out of the loop.
An important part of neuroscience and a central problem I think of it is the understanding of cognitive functions of the human mind, such as perception, action, emotion, language, learning and memory. Perception and reality especially where self-realization comes into play-where reality is then absolute, and infinite. At the state of consciousness, on the other hand, reality is finite, relative and concrete. So one's reality is being determined and validated by one's perception or perspective. So when one's own perception is infinite than reality is infinite but when we block our minds and our perception is finite then we are bounded and reality becomes concrete. The way we know reality and its nature is by perceiving it. Reality outside a perception is meaningless and useless. I mean there is no way to relate an unperceived reality and there is no way to know whether there is a reality outside our perception.
So even my last reaction is to say yes, the tree makes a sound.
Name: Elissa Braitman
Username: ebraitma@brynmawr.edu
Subject: aspartame
Date: Mon Apr 17 12:49:29 EDT 2000
Comments:
This week I decided to read another web paper. I recently got into an argument with a friend about artificial food products and how harmful they really are/aren't so I thought I'd see what Laura Chivers discovered about aspartame.
Reading her paper, I learned why people think this substance is harmful (it contains three ingredients that have negative effects, usually, in high enough levels) and the studies that have been done to suggest it is not (these substances are found in other natural foods, too).
I thought her theories on why phenylalanine might slow brain function were intriguing (presence of too much phenylalanine prevents precursors to other neurotransmitters from being able to cross into the brain and a decrease in the number of neurotransmitters produced results in slower processing).
And, the bit about how phenylalanine in high concentrations lowers serotonin levels and has been linked to depression made me curious to learn more about that particular aspect.
After having read her paper with a conclusion that no long term harmful effects of aspartame have been proven in a laboratory setting, I'll have to tell my friend he was not entirely wrong. But I still think I'll limit my intake for now. Just because the chemicals that make up aspartame are found in natural food (like eggs) doesn't necessarily mean that people who eat a lot of those substances don't have problems later in life. But there are so many factors that cause various diseases that it would probably be impossible to blame one particular substance.
Name: Andrew Jordan
Username: ajordan@haverford.edu
Subject: Trees...
Date: Mon Apr 17 13:22:19 EDT 2000
Comments:
When a tree falls in the forest and noone/nothing hears it, does it make a sound? I want to say yes and no. The tree makes a potential sound, but the sound is not actualized untill someone hears it. Without the world, there are no perceptions, and without the ability to percieve, phenomenon are not part of "the world". We are at present not able to sense certain wavelengths of light, they exist as merely potentially perceivable. Supposing that one day we can sense ultraviolet light then this perception would be actualized.
Having said that, one thing that occurred to me was how different our five senses are from other mechanical methods we have for sensing things (for instance a device that can sense ultra violet light). Both our natural senses, and that which we can mechanically sense are representations of an external reality. By this i mean that they provide us with a particular picture of the world based upon the light/sound/etc. that effects our sensory faculties (both natural and mechanical), and that that picture could very well be otherwise. I guess one difference between natural and mechanical representations of sensible phenomenon is that we can more actively control how the mechanical aparatus draws the picture of reality for us (i'm thinking here of things like radio telescopes for instance).
I also found our discussion in class concerning how our eyes fill in the spaces interesting especially when professor grobstein brouhgt up the point about how this filling in of the spaces is what allows us to percieve reality as fixed. Certainly the accidental qualities of things change now. For instance if i shine a red light on a white object it looks red. However, that change doesn't lead me to call into question the fact that it is the same object. I guess this is a psychological point, but how much change would there have to be for us to actualy be concerned about whether reality was fixed.
How fixed is reality actually? If reality is actually fixed, then wouldn't the picture which displays it as such be a more accurate representation of the world even if in this picture our brains were filling alot of things in?
Name: Ann Mitchell
Username: amitchel@haverford.edu
Subject: ifatree
Date: Mon Apr 17 16:11:55 EDT 2000
Comments:
If a tree falls in a deserted forest, does it make a sound? Well, that depends on if the same rules apply to auditory neuronal function as do for visual. If it is the case that, as has been argued with eyes, the fact that we can only hear things at certain frequencies indicates that those frequencies exist because we were evolutionary geared to hear those frequencies, then yes, it does make a sound. Regardless of whether we are there or not, there are frequencies that are created when the tree hits the ground. If on the other hand, we find that sound is a perception, like color, then no it does not make a sound. This also depends on how sound is defined. If it is defined as only something humans or other animals can hear, than no, the tree does not make a sound. If, however, we define sound as something outside of human or other animal perception, than yes, the sound occurs. Personally, my vote is yes, based on the same line of argument for eyes. There is most likely an evolutionary reason for why we need to hear certain frequencies that has to do with survival. ALSO sound is not only heard, it is felt in vibrations. I was just trying to think of what a deaf person might make of this situation, and it occurred to me that although they would not hear what we call a sound, they would feel a vibration. This might then serve as another piece of evidence that there are waves of energy that exist despite our limited perceptual abilities.
Name: Stephanie
Username: swall@brynmawr.edu
Subject: reality
Date: Mon Apr 17 19:43:26 EDT 2000
Comments:
I am intrigued by what we are learning about the eye, particularly about the relation between the information the eye
takes in and "reality". Not only do we have a blind spot, but we see only the points of light contrast in the world, the edges
(between dark and light) of the world. The brain fills in the majority of what we see. It makes sense that this phenomenon
called "lateral inhibition" gives us a more stable sense of reality. As we said in class, if the ganglion cells reported light
intensity to the brain, the world that we would see would be constantly changing to the point of chaos. The lateral inhibition
network gives us a stable sense of reality. A "sense", that is.
So that leaves the question of what is reality? Reality seems to me to be a reflection of who we are, as humans. That is, we
are not nocturnal, for example, so we lack the necessary receptors for clear night vision. Our eyes have clearly evolved to be
most effective in the daytime. Other animals have eyes that allow them to survive in much different
environments. So who has the clearer picture of reality? The snake with infrared vision? The fish under water? It seems that
reality is simply determined by the types of receptors a species has. When we "hallucinate", it seems to me that we are
getting a glimpse of a reality we would experience if we didn't have the mediators in our eye (or had different mediators).
So we can say at least one thing about reality now, that it has things in it that are well-defined, for humans, by their edges,
and that what is "filled in" by the brain is not a defining feature. The snake would say that reality is well-defined by the
amount of heat coming off or not from another thing. So, again, I wonder, who (what animal) has the picture of reality that is
most like actual reality? Can we know this? Our picture of reality seems to serve us well, but clearly we are missing a lot.
What we are missing could be the missing links in answering the questions that have dogged us for centuries - everything
from the nature of consciousness, to the existence of extraterrestrial life, to the possibility for world peace. (!) Perhaps the most
human trait of all is the desire to go beyond what evolution has given us to get a more complete picture of reality than what
our limited senses can provide.
So, does a tree falling in a forest make a sound? If a human being is nearby and hears the tree falling, it makes a sound because our ears have the appropriate receptors for that frequency of sound. If no human being is around to hear it, then we cannot know if the tree actually makes a sound (independent of our hearing it), just as we cannot know the actual nature of reality.
Name: Cammie
Username: cbraswel@brynmawr.edu
Subject: reality
Date: Mon Apr 17 20:34:14 EDT 2000
Comments:
So what happens when a squirrel, or a dog, or a fox hears the tree in the forrest? If they have different sound perceptors then does it still make a sound even though humans arent there to hear it? The laws of physics stat that the movement of the tree on the ground will produce waves of motion that can also be "perceived" as sound waves if an animal capable is in the area but because the animals would hear a different sound than what humans might does this mean that there is an alternate reality for them, or for us?
It is supposed that reality is based on the inputs any creature with a brain receives and the outputs that corrospond to those inputs. Which means there is a different reality for each creature alive because each person perceives differently or reacts differently to even the same input or stimulus. THis is a mind boggling concept to think that reality is as pliable as two people "knowing" what there is to know about a certain place, object, person, or time. Which reminds me...
Time is an excellent example of the reality/input/does it actually happen argument going on. One person can say it is "a quarter till 2" and those receiving that input for processing come to the output of "great its almost two we are almost done." To a group just to the left the same person says "It's 1:45." Not nearly exciting as the first statement and does not provoke the same output from the verbal input. So should the quarter till 2 people really think it was no big deal or should the 1:45 people really be excited that the time is almost up. Each reality creates a different output and this lends one more arguement to the perception equals reality arguement. In a society with norms however there are "mass perceptions" that have been in place long enough for everyone's realities to overlap sometimes.As in everyone at Bryn Mawr knows that Thomas is Thomas and Taylor is Taylor and so on and so forth. These kinds of concrete knowledge are not proof that there is one reality that we all live in. Just proof that we have all been given the same input at one time or another and chose to process it as fact based on years of training to do so. I would like to say that everything I have just stated and thought about is really odd and it is hard to think about the possibility of there not being one reality we all live in. We should definetely talk about what reality is more.
Name: Mridula Shrestha
Username: mshresth@brynmawr.edu
Subject: define terms please!
Date: Mon Apr 17 21:08:20 EDT 2000
Comments:
Like a well trained liberal arts student, let me first acknowledge the need to define the terms of our debate: the most crucial definition, of course, being that for sound.
While writing my paper on subliminal perception it became startingly clear that a lot more is going on out there (and in us) than we might think. From numerous class discussions, too, especially this recent topic of visual systems and perception, it becomes clearer still that our unawareness exceeds our awareness. The more I think about it, the more reasonable and obvious that idea seems; and a wise man like Socrates would probably have agreed too ("Only one thing I know; that is that I don't know."). Almost all of us have unreasonable, almost ridiculous, underestimations of our ignorance. But perhaps this is a necessary aspect of us: something's got to give in order for us to make sense of the world, at least to ourselves. So it shouldn't surprise us to think that there is a very small range of waves that we call visible, that we can only a particular sound wave within a certain range, that we can think about only so much. We can draw an analogy to ourselves as a radio that only catches some stations and not others, or a cordless phone that ceases to work when you walk out of range, or a pair of eyes behind polaroid sunglasses. It doesn't mean there aren't other stations, or the person you were talking to just disappeared, or there isn't light at other angles. The physical world, shall we say, remains intact and infinitely complex, and only our awareness of it is incomplete. (this is totally random, but maybe that's why we've never found aliens--maybe they don't fall into our narrow perceptual fields and so we've never been able to notice!)
so, as has been discussed, (i know i'm being redundant--sorry :) )if we're calling sound the human awareness of sound waves then there is no sound. but then if there were other animals that "heard" it, do we count that as sound? if there was a deaf person there who shuddered when it fell(i.e., experienced the fall through other sensory pathways) was there sound? if we slept through our alarms did it not ring? etc., etc., etc. The impulse, like Maria said, is to say there was sound because the physical world experienced a sound wave disturbance. But that's my definition of sound. What's yours?
Name: Melissa
Username: mwachter@haverford.edu
Subject:
Date: Mon Apr 17 22:17:31 EDT 2000
Comments:
I found reading other people's postings on the question of the tree to be a
very interesting read. I was really interested by the way that Andrew
analyzed the question about the tree. The phrase "potentially perceivable"
sticks out in my mind (his phrase)...this then ties in with Cammie's
explanation that, according to the laws of physics, the falling of the tree
will produce waves of motion that can be perceived as sound..."can" is the
operative word which takes us back to Andrew's notion of the "potentially
perceivable"...so i guess based on the insight of these two postings, I am
led to conclude that if a tree falls, it will make waves of motion, but
that since sound is a perception-based phenomenon, it will depend on not
only the tree but whether there is someone or something there to perceive
the motion waves as sound...so I guess since you said there was no one
there, my short answer is NO...the general thing that can be said is that
"things" do not have the ability to produce "sound" per se...they have the
ability to cause physical changes in the world, but sound, if it is like
"seeing" is a perception-based phenomenon that takes someone or something
doing the perceiving...since we studied more about vision, the analogy is
that light waves are physical in nature and follow certain standard
properties regardless of anything else...BUT it takes higher order
per
Name: Anna
Username: aarnaudo@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Other Systems of Perception
Date: Mon Apr 17 23:57:58 EDT 2000
Comments:
It is interesting to ponder the question about the tree falling in the forest. Whenever I hear that question, I automatically say that there is sound. Although there are not human ears there to catch (perceive) the sound waves, there are still waves being produced. Intuitively, it does not seem possible that such an event can be so easily ignored by the earth and its various inhabitants.
The fact that I found the most interesting was that our ganglion cells are edge detectors. The idea that it is evolutionarily adaptive to our environment is quite amazing and intriguing. It is particularly interesting when thinking about life on other planets. I am not a sci-fi person, yet after going to New Mexico and taking astronomy, I cannot help but ponder the existence of life on other planets. It seems entirely possible that there is another planet circling a star in a similar stage of life as our sun. Knowing about how our visual perception raises so many questions about what other systems could have developed evolutionarily in other environments on other planets. Particularly, whether they are capable of a better sense of reality.
Name: shigeyuki ito
Username: sito@haverford.edu
Subject: tree falling in the middle of nowhere
Date: Tue Apr 18 00:25:03 EDT 2000
Comments:
So if a tree falls in the middle of nowhere does it make a sound....
hmm... good question. Truthfully, I don't know. I guess there are two ways to confront this question, both centered on how you define sound. Though many have already mentioned similar views, I would like to lay out my views. If one were to define sound as mere "waves" then whether a person is there or not that "sound" is made. If one were to place some sort of machine in the forest, then it would be proven that a "sound" was made. But perhaps that is sort of cheating. If you think sound is first made only when these "waves" are picked up by receptors, then yeah if nobody is there, then there is no sound. Right? I guess it has to do with how we view the world (yes others have said similar things). If we center the world around "us" then no sound was made, because if there is no one to listen to it. If we just see ourselves as being members of a bigger world, then a sound was made whether we heard it or not.
Put it this way, if we are there in the forest we will hear a sound every time. But do you think this is "sound" is being made for us?? What makes us so special that something out of the ordinary has to occur just because we are or not there?
Name: Jennifer
Username: jwebster@brynmawr.edu
Subject: tree
Date: Tue Apr 18 01:23:26 EDT 2000
Comments:
I have to say that of course the tree makes a sound. There is no reason that different laws of physics should apply to a situation depending on whether or not there is a person present. However, there is no way that we can ever know for sure if the tree makes a sound or not. By observing it we change the situation. I think this is an important metaphor for many questions in science. We can pose questions and work to answer them, but our means of observation can, in many cases change the situation we are observing, and there is therefore no possible way to know the absolute truth about a situation.
Name: christina
Username: cpili@haverford.edu
Subject: tree
Date: Tue Apr 18 01:42:02 EDT 2000
Comments:
Is a sound only a sound when someone hears it? If I go by a conventional, daily,common definition of sound as in something one hears and not the physical (waves) characteristics of it, then I would bave to say no, there is no sound to those who did not witness. We can conjure up what the might have sounded like. I would presume a large creeking noise, followed by a loud thump. This is what my imagination has filled in for me based on what reality I have fixed in my brain. But if I compare the sense of sound to vision, then our brains would have to fill in sounds, so that reality is fixed, that appear to be what would resemble a falling tree. But if we are not there to witness a tree fall,the physics and motions of sound do occur, but we do not hear it.
My thoughts keep on on leading me down the same path...the difference between hearing and sound occuring. Silence really cannot exist since radiowaves and soundwaves always exist. Silence is just an explanation for what we can't perceive. Trees do not produce sounds alone but rather they induce a change for something new to occur. In this sense, we have to distinguish between what we pick up on and what is always going on but not perceivable.
Name: Anjali
Username: apatel@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Tue Apr 18 02:10:43 EDT 2000
Comments:
"If a tree falls in the forest when there's no one there, does it make a sound?" I remember my elementary school teachers asking us that question. Believe it or not I still have the same answer to that question. I think the tree will still make a sound even if I'm not there to here it. Why does it have to depend on me? The potential for the falling tree to make a sound is there even if I'm not there to hear it. I guess it matters what one perceives to be their reality and how they want to define what sound is.
Name: Hajira Amjad
Username: hamjad@brynmawr.edu
Subject: tree
Date: Tue Apr 18 02:21:26 EDT 2000
Comments:
The answer to this question depends on the perception of sound. This question mainly addresses what people would percieve to be a sound: whether it is made up of sound waves or if it is based on whether there is someone to hear the resulting sound. According to the laws of physics, sound waves would be produced regardless of whether or not someone is there to percieve it. If it depends on if there is someone to recieve the sound waves and translate it into a sound, then the tree does not make a sound
My feelings are that the tree does make a sound. Another way we can question our sense of perception is with the following question: If someone kills a person and there are no witnesses, evidence, or body, was a murder committed?
Name: hiro
Username: htakahas@haverford.edu
Subject: tree
Date: Tue Apr 18 03:27:13 EDT 2000
Comments:
before getting to the tree question, i'd like to get back to "color and reality". let's talk about a flower. normal people look at a California poppy (my favorite flower) and say that it is bright orange. However, a color-blind person may look at the same flower and say that it is not orange at all because his perception of color is very different. Similarly, bees, whose different photoreceptors can detect ultraviolet light, see very different colors and patterns on the plant. So, the color of the poppy varies depending on who is looking at it. Thus, the color is not a property of reality. The reality in this case is that a person/insect is looking at a California poppy.
i think colors and sounds work in the same way. as so many people have mentioned already, the perception of sounds differs from species to species, or even from individual to individual. so, sound is also not a property of reality. however, the actual event of the tree falling is real. it doesn't matter whether anyone is present to witness the event. the tree falls when it does so.
now, does the falling tree make a sound when nobody is there to hear it? well, my answer is no. it doesn't matter if there's a witness or not because, in my opinion, the tree CANNOT make a sound. it is true that the falling of a tree produces sound waves (and, that is a reality). however, that is not the same thing as a sound. sound is something detected by an individual just like color. in another word, the brain, not the tree, produces a sound.
can we maybe apply this idea of "reality" to the race questions? if the color is not the property of reality, what features really separates all the racial groups? what does it mean to be "black", "white", "yellow", etc.?
Name: rebecca
Username: rjones@brynmawr.edu
Subject: tree
Date: Tue Apr 18 06:36:42 EDT 2000
Comments:
The last comment really got me thinking. I thought it was obvious that when a tree falls it makes a sound becuase the falling of a tree produces sound waves and regardlesss of weither or not they are heard they are there. Similar to x-rays or any other type of wave we can not perceive but know is there. For instance we have no proof other than being told by others that an x-ray machine produces electromagnetic waves that are harmful to use, but we believe it and treat they waves as real wearing lead to prevent harm.
However, if sound is not the waves but the perception of them which must be different for each person then when the tree falls if they are not percieved by me then the tree did not make a sound.
Name: Laura Chivers
Username: lchivers@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Estrogen and Alzheimer's
Date: Tue Apr 18 16:30:43 EDT 2000
Comments:
I have just come from reading Hillary Bobys' paper on estrogen's role in preventing Alzheimer's. Having a family history of Alzheimer's ways to prevent it are welcome news to my family and myself. For instance, we have stopped using aluminum cookware and try not to drink soda out of aluminum cans because of the evidence that aluminum can be harmful. Hearing that increasing estrogen levels can help is good news. (Hillary stated that estrogen does things lke stimulate the growth of neurons. She also said that only 6% of people on estrogen therapy develop Alzheimer's where as 16% who are not taking estrogen develop the disease.)
I think however, that the most important line in her paper was "Must it come down to choosing which ailment to die from?" Estrogen has been linked to an increase in breast cancer, and many women who were on hormone replacement therapy. Evidence that estrogen therapy may reduce osteoporosis and this evidence that it may reduce chances of developing ALzheimer's may be reasons to stay on teh drug. It is difficult to choose between risk of cancer and risk of Alzheimers and Osteoporosis, especially if yu are like me and have a family history in all three. Because of this, I will be interested to see what further research finds and if science can create a hormone replacement therapy without these cancer risks.
Name: Vandana
Username: vandnam@yahoo.com
Subject: timber
Date: Tue Apr 18 21:32:37 EDT 2000
Comments:
i agree with many others that, despite a human not being there at the scene, the tree that falls in a forest still makes a sound. as mentioned previously by hajira, cammie and many others, the laws of physics imply that the tree that falls will make a sound no matter if a person is there or not to experience or perceive it. my answer to the question is yes, but it all depends on one's definition of sound.
Name: Richard Cruz
Username: rcruz@haverford.edu
Subject: Arboreal Musings
Date: Wed Apr 19 21:13:35 EDT 2000
Comments:
I think the problem with the tree problem is that all we can get are approximations of slivers of reality. We can never prove that the tree create waves, or makes a sound when we are not observing, because we must observe something to prove anything. We can draw on all previous experience of trees falling, and be fairly sure that this tree falling will result in sound as all the others have, but we can't be absolutely certain.
This doesn't mean that it didn't make a sound, just as x-rays, and ultraviolet light are there, even though we can't see it.
Name: Andrew
Username: aholland@haverford.edu
Subject: tree
Date: Thu Apr 20 00:59:53 EDT 2000
Comments:
I would argue that it does make a sound, but does it really matter? Is everything "in the eye of the beholder", or more appropriately, "in the brain of the beholder"? If a tree falls and people are around to hear it, do all people hear the same noise? How could someone prove that people hear the same noise? It has to be impossible. People might describe that noise in a similar way, but even if it is similar, it does not have to be the same. This question is interesting to think about, but how can a definite answer exist? If no one can witness the sound, how can it be proved? What if a tape recorder were put in a forest near a tree that is falling? The sound made by the tree would be recorded, so there is a sound. No one is there to witness it, but they are able to hear the sound, reproduced at a different time and place. So, can the original sound of the falling tree not exist, but the replication of the (nonexistent?) sound be heard on tape?
|
Course Home Page
|
Back to Brain and Behavior
|
Back to Serendip |
Send us your comments at www@serendip.brynmawr.edu
© by Serendip '96 - Last Modified: Wednesday, 02-May-2018 10:53:14 CDT
