If a tree falls...

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

That is exactly as I see it. If there is no creature whose organ of hearing is within the range of hearing, and if the mechanical wave that is nothing more than an oscillation of pressure transmitted through the air is not sufficiently strong, then it is ONLY a mechanical wave and not sound.

A disturbance in the air can be interpreted by the brain as some form of sound.
Some plants can also respond to vibrations. Tomato blossoms require vibrations to pollinate. Strawberry plants sense vibrations as insect attack and respond with chemicals to resist the attack. So living things can respond to vibrations.
A sound may be defined as a vibration detected by a brain and interpreted as a sound. Typically, a sound would have some meaning, roar of a lion or call of a bird for example.
A tree falling would create a vibration and possibly a screech if it fell on a rabbit, of course, something would have to "hear" the screech.

[Enoch Root]

If this is purely a SEMANTIC argument it is therefore nearly useless to people and is quite quickly dealt with as you randolph and you smc have demonstrated.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If this is purely a SEMANTIC argument it is therefore nearly useless to people and is quite quickly dealt with as you randolph and you smc have demonstrated.

No, it's not semantic, at least as I see it. Rather, it is about what constitutes "reality" in some circumstances, and whether certain physical phenomena are real in the abstract or only when they are concretized by experience.

[Enoch Root]

That's what I was trying to get at: the argument is only really useful and really interesting if it is used to ponder reality. But from the previous posts everyone seemed to be talking about what the definition of sound is.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That's what I was trying to get at: the argument is only really useful and really interesting if it is used to ponder reality. But from the previous posts everyone seemed to be talking about what the definition of sound is.

I believe you are projecting, at least onto my post, a level of certainty that I don't have. Sound, I believe, is the actuation of the mechanical pressure wave in the vessel of a hearing organ (be it a human, other animal, or plant). But of this I am not certain; it is a scientific definition that hypothesizes. I think the reason that the question of a tree falling in a forest and whether it makes a sound has become a "classic" is precisely because it poses the issue of reality vs. perception, and in a sense synthesizes the general discussion about whether one who has not "seen everything" can make reasonable assumptions to describe reality, including the reality of that which she or he hasn't seen.

I've never been to China. I believe it exists. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. In fact, I am certain. From a philosophical perspective, how one gets there (to the certainty, not to China, which I am pretty sure is by plane these days ), is fascinating.

[TracyCoxx]

If you 'hear' a sound in your mind you are perceiving sound. An fMRI would show the same parts of the brain are active as if you were actually hearing a sound. But is there really a sound? No. Because there were no vibrations through the air or other medium. The vibrations through a medium are the sound.

As for pondering reality, these are macroscopic objects and do not need to be observed to exist or influence the environment unlike subatomic particles in quantum mechanics.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If you 'hear' a sound in your mind you are perceiving sound.

Yes, but that is not the perception of which I was writing. I was writing of the perception that a sound was issued when the tree fell in the forest although you weren't there to hear it. Your point, though, is well taken.