How to Prove Locke, Berkeley, and Hume Wrong

In my PHI 100 class we are currently sutdying Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. One example our professor mentioned was this: if a tree fell on the ground and no one was there to see/hear it, would it make a sound? He said that these three would argue that there would be no sound. How do you correctly prove this wrong?

[lastchance]

You can't. Quantam Mechanics says that if an event is not observed, no one can know whether or not it really exists.

[kbfc]

Well, this question is pretty silly. I don't agree that Hume would say there was no sound. He wouldn't say anything definite like that. For Berkeley, the question is sorta nonsensical. Since, for him, basically everything exists in the mind as provided by God, the notion of an event that doesn't get experienced is contradictory. I guess the 'proof' you'd want against his position could be easily summed up as, "Berkeley is full of [censored] on everything, so why should this be any different?"

[ QUOTE ]
Well, this question is pretty silly. I don't agree that Hume would say there was no sound. He wouldn't say anything definite like that. For Berkeley, the question is sorta nonsensical. Since, for him, basically everything exists in the mind as provided by God, the notion of an event that doesn't get experienced is contradictory. I guess the 'proof' you'd want against his position could be easily summed up as, "Berkeley is full of [censored] on everything, so why should this be any different?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree - Hume would say that. He says that there are relations of ideas and matters of fact, and ideas are only memories. Matters of fact are impressions or direct sense experiences; thus, if someone does not experience the sound of the tree falling, he could not say it was fact that it made sound.

I agree that this is silly, but just want to prove it wrong philisophically.

[kbfc]

I think our disagreement is due to the unclear definition of 'sound.' I'm taking it as just an example of 'some unexperienced event.' That said, I agree with your analysis of Hume for positive statements, but not for negative ones, such as "the tree made NO sound." I don't find Hume's philosophy to include any provisions that would explicitly deny the possibility of something unexperienced (if we can even narrow down what that means).

Just because he cannot say for a fact that it made a sound, that doesn't mean he can say for a fact that it did not.

[bearly]

hi, well, when you throw physics, and philosophy (the historical stuff) and modern metaphysics (philosophy of mind---most places) and linguistics/semiotics together in a blender, you get quite an unpleasant smoothie. from a strictly philosopical (conceptual analysis, etc.) perspective, it would seem the 'lesson' of the gordian knot would be helpful. after all it (the op question) is kind of a goofy thing to play w/, but like all linguistic ladders, it can be thrown away as you climb higher or in a different direction. debt here to the gospel according to st. wittgenstein. but, seriously, i doubt anyone doing philosophy, as opposed to studying the history of the subject, would give this much time.................b

[Robk]

the combination of your name and the subject of this thread is hilarious to me.

[bearly]

hi. oh, i appreciate the fact that all of us must go thru 'basic training'---no attempt on my part to minimize that. i guess we all have our 'work', and my way of helping is to keep things moving and fresh. i wish someone would have been there to do it for me in those musty old dens of the oxford-educated 'dons'..................b

It would make a sound. Sound is physical. It is molecules pushing against other molecules. Theoretically, you should be able to walk into the forest after the fact with very sensitive instruments and tell which sounds have been made and where they came from.

Hi guys,

I'm a long time lurker on here but this is my first post. I had to say something as I know a little about this stuff.

Firstly to define how the "sound" would be made:
The vibrations in the air made by the tree falling cause the ear drum to vibrate, which passes a signal to the brain making the sound in the head of the listener.

For a "sound" to be "heard" there needs to be an ear and a brain to hear it. Sounds only exist inside the head of the listener, the sound is not "out there" in the external world.

So in my opinion the answer is no. When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it makes no sound.

I guess the ultimate answer to this is "THERE IS NO TREE" but thats another story.

[housenuts]

why not just put an audio recorder in the forest and check it later.

i'm gonna lean towards the side that says a sound would be made

[jthegreat]

Obviously it makes a sound.

Obviously it is not possible to answer this question.

By definition, assuming something that is inperceivable is called faith. Others may tell you something like, "well we could just leave a tape recorder next to the tree and then listen to the tape." But this proves nothing. A tape recorder is an instrument of perception, exactly like your brain. So if the tape recorder did catch a noise from the falling tree, then the event was indeed perceieved at the moment of the event, no different than if someone had been standing there.

This could lead into my main criticizm of Objectivism, but that's for another thread.

[jthegreat]

There are many ways in which you could verify this. Tape recorder, video camera, seismograph, etc...

If you're allowing no means of verification, but then demanding proof, you're asking a meaningless question to begin with.

However, the original question only stipulates that no person is around. We can prove that it does make a sound without having a person present.

Case closed.

[atrifix]

Have fun. If you succeed, you'll win international recognition (perhaps the Schock prize) and your name will be immortalized in the history of philosophy.

[jthegreat]

As I explained in my above post, it's a bullshit loaded question to begin with. If you cite physical laws that would generate sound, people demand verification. If you attempt to set up a system of verification, they say you aren't allowed to verify it.

It's bullshit. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[atrifix]

What if the physical laws themselves change when you attempt to verify it? That is, after all, what quantum mechanics is all about.

The question, I think, is really not so interesting. A definitive proof would be, but it would also be practically impossible to obtain.

"So if the tape recorder did catch a noise from the falling tree, then the event was indeed perceieved at the moment of the event, no different than if someone had been standing there."

Nothing need be present at the moment of the event to deterimine if a sound was made. A hurricane leaves a path of destruction that can be seen after the event. A hurricane is just molecules pushing other molecules. At the microscopic level, sound would do the same thing - leave a path of destruction. Therefore, you should be able to walk in after the fact and examine the evidence of sound being made, if you had the right instruments.
Unless you want to define sound differently.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
He said that these three would argue that there would be no sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, who could disagree. Nothing external to our minds creates sound, there are external actions that stimulate us into creating sounds but they are not necessary for it's creation.

All a falling tree does is create compression waves, for most humans our minds will use that input to create 'sound' but in some it may stimulate visual effects and in others it may stimulate taste or smell effects.

When the doc hooks me up to the EKG and wiggly lines appear on the screen it'd be foolish to say my heart creates squiqly lines on a screen. They appear only because the raw output from the heart has been manipulated to do so.

I'm actually thinking of getting rewired so the compression waves stimulate in me those neat visual effects I get from my Real Player screen when I play music. Visual Bach.

Good luck proving the boys wrong,

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

I really wasn't trying make a deal out of this question. I realize it is a silly question, but we talked about it in philosophy class and I just wanted to see what everyone else had to say.

[ QUOTE ]
It would make a sound. Sound is physical. It is molecules pushing against other molecules. Theoretically, you should be able to walk into the forest after the fact with very sensitive instruments and tell which sounds have been made and where they came from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Molecules pushing don't make sound -- an eardrum vibrating (and the brain interpreting) based on those waves creates the sound. No observer = no sound (if sound is defined as interpreting a "noise").

Conceded.
I was defining sound as a compression wave and nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]
Conceded.
I was defining sound as a compression wave and nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

concur in that case