Tree falls in the forest...

[alexwang32]

These are all effects ?

Of course they are !

 

So is hearing or seeing !

Interesting, I never thought of that. But since hearing and seeing are two main sensations experienced by a subject, through which he/she explores and interacts with the enviroment/world, as well as making observations, saying that they are the effect of a paticular event also requires an observation.

 

Who can observe that one's observation is the effect of an event? The same observer obviously, since the conclusion is about his/her own observation. But then that would be saying something like: " The sky is blue because it is blue." I observe that my observation is cause by... the bird chirping. See what's wrong here? There can't be two "me". Either you're the observer or the observed, you can't be both.

 

[studiot]

 

Either you're the observer or the observed, you can't be both.

 

 

 

Why ever not?

[Robittybob1]

These are all effects ?

Of course they are !

 

So is hearing or seeing !

There is also circumstantial evidence, and chances. Like, if a tree has been observed to make a sound when falling for the last 10 millenium why would it change for this occasion? What were the odds of that?

Edited January 2, 2015 by Robittybob1

[alexwang32]

 

Why ever not?

Well we have to have an independent observer right? To say that I observe myself, you must first objectify yourself. But at the same time in order to observe you must be a subject. It's like using a binocular, you see through it to observe others, but you can't use it to view the binocular itself.

 

The way I view it is that when we say things like: "I hate my life" or something like that, we have inadvertantly divided ourselves into two entities, though this may be subtle and easily overlooked. This of course is not within the discussion realm of this topic.

 

[studiot]

I asked the question because you made the claim that you can't be both observer and observed.

 

But Reality is full to the brim with self referential systems

 

Self replicating autonoma, positive feedback, autocatalysis, self fertile plants,

 

to name but a few.

 

So your claim that this must be so is defeated by counterexample.

[StringJunky]

I asked the question because you made the claim that you can't be both observer and observed.

If we couldn't do both we would have no sense of 'self' because one needs to be able to think in the second-person to do that.

[MigL]

Actually I wasn't trying to be nearly that subtle.

 

The pressure pulses have an effect on the leaves and make them fall, or scare animals away.

The pressure pulses also impinge on your eardrum for your brain to 'hear'.

Both are effects.

Why differentiate between the two ?

[StringJunky]

I think the important thing is to stick to the limit of the question. Because the word 'sound' is used we must address it in that context but if the word 'perturbations' was used instead the answer could be different. Semantics matters in this case otherwise we couldn't share and address the subtleties of the world around us because single words could mean different things, potentially leading us to bark up different trees. In philosophy, this ability to distinguish subtleties with different words is an important skill. This is all imo of course.

Edited January 3, 2015 by StringJunky

[ZVBXRPL]

If a tree falls in a forest, with nobody around, does it make a sound? Yes.

If a deaf person is next to a tree in a forest, with nobody else around and it falls on their head, does it kill them? Maybe. Does it make a sound, Yes. The deaf person just could not detect the sound but the sound still exists.

[Robittybob1]

If a tree falls in a forest, with nobody around, does it make a sound? Yes.

If a deaf person is next to a tree in a forest, with nobody else around and it falls on their head, does it kill them? Maybe. Does it make a sound, Yes. The deaf person just could not detect the sound but the sound still exists.

Can you be sure?

[ZVBXRPL]

Can you be sure?

I can be sure that there is nothing special about me or my ears, I am irrelevant.

[StringJunky]

If a tree falls in a forest, with nobody around, does it make a sound? Yes.

If a deaf person is next to a tree in a forest, with nobody else around and it falls on their head, does it kill them? Maybe. Does it make a sound, Yes. The deaf person just could not detect the sound but the sound still exists.

How do we know there's a sound? He can't hear it. You are not the observer; he is.

Edited January 3, 2015 by StringJunky

[Robittybob1]

I can be sure that there is nothing special about me or my ears, I am irrelevant.

Don't undervalue yourself.

[John Cuthber]

I'm still waiting for someone to define the question fully.

No human existed when the big bang "fell in the forest" and made a lot of noise, but we can hear it now.

So,nobody was there, but it made a noise.

[alexwang32]

I'm still waiting for someone to define the question fully.

No human existed when the big bang "fell in the forest" and made a lot of noise, but we can hear it now.

So,nobody was there, but it made a noise.

Ah, now you're playing with the notion of time difference. First you tried to argue that by staying outside of the forest, or distance in space can isolate the event and the observer, now you're using time. On the surface your arguement seems plausible, yet it negelected the simple constraint that one must observe in order to conclude.

 

We hear sounds that we interpret as originating from the big bang ( although there are many other theroies out there about the orgin of the univerese yet because the big bang is publically accpeted we will adapt it and even go as far as to say some ramdom sound wave came from this imaginary explosion of the universe... fine lets just say that's all correct ), very well.

 

Assuming there was no observer during the big bang, and there was sound created that has been propagating across the universe for billions of years, now thanks to scientific apparatus we've collected that sound and we have come to the conclusion that it came from the big bang. All is correct so far. But let us imagine something else, imagine there was a microphone put next to the big bang, it recorded the sounds and now we listening to it. We say there was no observer at that time. Is that right? Any scientific apparatus that acts as a sensor is basically an extension of an observer's senses, a microphone is essentially the same as an observer who can only hear.

 

See what I'm getting at? Even though "at the time of the big bang" there was no observer, but in the PRESENT time we are hearing there sounds, we're STILL examining the sounds that originated from the big bang. Meaning, we could only conclude that there were sounds during the big bang by means of analysing the sounds in the present day. It like recording the sounds on a tape and listening to it later. Let me point this out again in bold black : Observing an event from a distance in space or after a period of time is ESSENTIALLY the same as observing it right there right now. This really comes down to this simple fact: In order to observe an event there must be interaction between the subject and the event, whether it be direct or indirect interaction. This is something very subtle and can be easily misunderstood.

Edited January 3, 2015 by alexwang32

[studiot]

 

alexwang

Well we have to have an independent observer right?

 

I am still waiting for your proof of your claim that you can't be both observer and observed.

 

I also note that several others have offered views on this.

[alexwang32]

 

I am still waiting for your proof of your claim that you can't be both observer and observed.

 

I also note that several others have offered views on this.

I see that you gave examples of self-replication etc. as a counter example. What you failed to prove is how you were able to deduce plants for example have self-awareness. Scientists have observed that "A plant can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. (from Scientific America)" Yes this may appear to be true, but these are all reasonings. You are not the plant. A plant may just be an entitiy programed to grow, blosom, reproduce etc., whatever deductions made based on its behavior are external.

 

Therefore the only way to answer this question is to analyze ourselves. When you say "I am myself", there exists an observer, and an observed self. Who is the observed self? The body? The mind? Whatever it may be, it is a seperate entity from the consciousness that's observing all this, yet you are too much identified with it that you fail to realize.

 

As I said this is more of a spiritual question and beyond realm of discussion. It would be impossible to understand it intellectually because the way of the intellect is dialectical, dualistic. Intellectual approachs seperates the knower and the known, you can't be science and a scientist at the same time, then how can you be the observer and the observed at the same time? This really comes down to the "Who truley you are" question, but I see you are not open for such question thus I suggest we end the argument right here.

 

[studiot]

I said nothing about awareness, or self awareness, and I certainly can't find reference to it in your opening post.

 

Strictly, an 'observation' is made when any object, animate or inanimate, interacts with the subject in a way that would not have happened if the subject's actions had not taken place. The subject's actions would include merely the presence of the subject if something different would have happened had the subject not been present.

 

Several posters have tried to explain this to you, so there is no call for the rudeness of your last paragraph.

 

As a matter of interest it is the easiest thing to prove that dualism is an incomplete and therefore inadequate universal philosophy.

But that should be the subject of another thread.

 

So I still await a proper discussion concerning my point.

[alexwang32]

I asked the question because you made the claim that you can't be both observer and observed. But Reality is full to the brim with self referential systems".

 

Then what did you mena by self referential? If you mean something that uses itself as a reference point, then you basically saying a radar can detect itself. Please be more specific in your words, manipulating ambiguity is an easy way to defend yourself against possible retorts.

 

I see your constent mentioning of other people's disagreement upon my posts as a method of intimidation as well as to seemingly strengthen your own arguements. As far as I can see most of the "other people" are tangled in their own arguements.

 

 

So I still await a proper discussion concerning my point.

 

You didn't make any useful points. "The subject's actions would include merely the presence of the subject if something different would have happened had the subject not been present." So? How does this support your claim that the observer is the observed? Please forgive me for my failure to understand your highly sophisticated and unfathomable reasoning .

[studiot]

 

Then what did you mena by self referential? If you mean something that uses itself as a reference point, then you basically saying a radar can detect itself. Please be more specific in your words, manipulating ambiguity is an easy way to defend yourself against possible retorts.

 

I can't find any reference to radar in any of my posts, although I suppose I could design a radar system that interfered with itself, whatever use that might be.

 

Nor did I say that all systems were self referential, just that there was an abundance of such systems to be found in reality.

I further tried to offer a wide spread of examples to illustrate the point.

 

My words were particulary specific.

I should not need to defend myself against retorts, since all I have done is ask questions.

So there should be no retorts, just civil answers, politely put.

 

You are the party making the claims so it is encumbent upon you to substantiate them.

Edited January 3, 2015 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

Ah, now you're playing with the notion of time difference. First you tried to argue that by staying outside of the forest, or distance in space can isolate the event and the observer, now you're using time. On the surface your arguement seems plausible, yet it negelected the simple constraint that one must observe in order to conclude.

 

We hear sounds that we interpret as originating from the big bang ( although there are many other theroies out there about the orgin of the univerese yet because the big bang is publically accpeted we will adapt it and even go as far as to say some ramdom sound wave came from this imaginary explosion of the universe... fine lets just say that's all correct ), very well.

 

Assuming there was no observer during the big bang, and there was sound created that has been propagating across the universe for billions of years, now thanks to scientific apparatus we've collected that sound and we have come to the conclusion that it came from the big bang. All is correct so far. But let us imagine something else, imagine there was a microphone put next to the big bang, it recorded the sounds and now we listening to it. We say there was no observer at that time. Is that right? Any scientific apparatus that acts as a sensor is basically an extension of an observer's senses, a microphone is essentially the same as an observer who can only hear.

 

See what I'm getting at? Even though "at the time of the big bang" there was no observer, but in the PRESENT time we are hearing there sounds, we're STILL examining the sounds that originated from the big bang. Meaning, we could only conclude that there were sounds during the big bang by means of analysing the sounds in the present day. It like recording the sounds on a tape and listening to it later. Let me point this out again in bold black : Observing an event from a distance in space or after a period of time is ESSENTIALLY the same as observing it right there right now. This really comes down to this simple fact: In order to observe an event there must be interaction between the subject and the event, whether it be direct or indirect interaction. This is something very subtle and can be easily misunderstood.

Nope, it's not that I am arguing that the fact that the observer is, of necessity, not near the tree,

What I'm doing is pointing out that the question is ambiguous.

Until someone defines what they mean by the question, it's impossible to answer it.

 

That's why I said "I'm still waiting for someone to define the question fully."

[MigL]

That's the difference between Philosophy and Physics.

In Physics we just introduce a postulate that says the laws of Physics must be the same everywhere.

So if a falling tree makes a noise next to an observer, it must, by necessity make a noise in the absence of an observer.

 

Then we don't have to waste our time pondering useless trivia as, it seems, Philosophy does.

( no offence meant to any philosophers )

[StringJunky]

That's the difference between Philosophy and Physics.

In Physics we just introduce a postulate that says the laws of Physics must be the same everywhere.

So if a falling tree makes a noise next to an observer, it must, by necessity make a noise in the absence of an observer.

 

Then we don't have to waste our time pondering useless trivia as, it seems, Philosophy does.

( no offence meant to any philosophers )

You are absolutely being offensive. Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean it isn't for anyone else. I used to think simplistically on this matter, like you, but I wanted to explore this more. If it was such a useless, trivial question, why is it so often repeated? As much as you might like to think it, physics doesn't have all the answers.

[scidata]

If enough trees fall in a Carboniferous forest, we get oil in the present day. Oil and sound are both consequences of trees falling, it's just that oil still echoes after millions of years. These philosophical questions often dissolve when we stop trying to anthropomorphize nature. Trees, oil, sound, and nature just are - with or without us. Get over it.

[MigL]

Don't be so thin skinned StringJunky, it does interest me.

But is it useful ? As another thread failed to resolve, what problem does it solve ?