Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

if you read my previous post before that, what i am saying is what you're hearing isn't how it really is
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e n/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

That's a philosophy of mind, hardly rooted in fact so much as an individual's interpretation, hence why there are more than one philosophy of mind.

well... it's five in the morning and I'm going to go to bed now. this has been alot of fun actually. Thanks for everyone who participated in this discussion. If this thread made you think, then that's good enough for me. It certainty gave me some brainxercise. If anyone wants to continue discussing this, feel free, I'll probably be back later.

Till then, stay handsome, Newgrounds.

At 7/6/11 04:55 AM, Emarius wrote: That's a philosophy of mind, hardly rooted in fact so much as an individual's interpretation, hence why there are more than one philosophy of mind.

except it is true, perception is reality. verified by the quantum mechanics section in that article

At 7/6/11 05:01 AM, unowned wrote:

At 7/6/11 04:55 AM, Emarius wrote: That's a philosophy of mind, hardly rooted in fact so much as an individual's interpretation, hence why there are more than one philosophy of mind.

except it is true, perception is reality. verified by the quantum mechanics section in that article

Actually, from my reading of the quantum mechanics section, it says that naive realism fails with microscopic systems, kind of going against your point.

A quote from the section. "[W]e have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today." (Anton Zeilinger)... By realism, he means the idea that objects have specific features and properties - that a ball is red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, or that an electron has a particular spin... for objects governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, like photons and electrons, it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may depend on how we look."

That seems to disagree with it to me. There's also a more direct quote in their saying "Quantum Mechanics forces us to abandon naive realism".

Anyways, as Arch-Angel said, it's 5 am and I now really need sleep.

and i've provided an example earlier with audio

So by your logic, if I became blind or closed my eyes, then the whole world would dissapear, right?

brb cl..

It will still make a sound. Nobody hears it, though.

At 7/6/11 08:33 AM, Asandir wrote: It will still make a sound. Nobody hears it, though.

As it says in the thread, sounds have to exist by people hearing them. If nothing that hears sound is there, the vibrations don't get turned into the crunching-crashing sound it would make. They'd just be vibrations.

So if there was a rape in the woods and no one was around to hear it, then did it really happen?

At 7/6/11 10:46 AM, Banziafy wrote:

At 7/6/11 08:33 AM, Asandir wrote: It will still make a sound. Nobody hears it, though.

As it says in the thread, sounds have to exist by people hearing them. If nothing that hears sound is there, the vibrations don't get turned into the crunching-crashing sound it would make. They'd just be vibrations.

And in other places in the thread there are definitions of sound provided that say that sound can be the mechanical wave itself. The author agreed with me that there is no answer because there is no single authoritative answer on the definition of sound.

At 7/6/11 11:30 AM, Emarius wrote:

At 7/6/11 10:46 AM, Banziafy wrote:

At 7/6/11 08:33 AM, Asandir wrote: It will still make a sound. Nobody hears it, though.

As it says in the thread, sounds have to exist by people hearing them. If nothing that hears sound is there, the vibrations don't get turned into the crunching-crashing sound it would make. They'd just be vibrations.

And in other places in the thread there are definitions of sound provided that say that sound can be the mechanical wave itself. The author agreed with me that there is no answer because there is no single authoritative answer on the definition of sound.

to be honest, you'd have to ask an expert. My research thus far has shown that sound is the perception of vibrations and not the physical vibrations themselves. I guess the question is, if a sound cant be heard, is it really a sound? by most definitions a sound is something you can hear. and if no one can hear it, it doesn't meet the definition of the word sound.

Obviously there is a sound. Deny all you want, but I'm sure if there was a scientist in this BBS, he'd prove Arch-Angel wrong in an instant. But guys, he has achieved something that's a little hard to obtain.

At 7/6/11 05:11 PM, EDylan wrote: Obviously there is a sound. Deny all you want, but I'm sure if there was a scientist in this BBS, he'd prove Arch-Angel wrong in an instant. But guys, he has achieved something that's a little hard to obtain.

I find it interesting that you:

1. obviously havent read the thread before posting
2. have contributed nothing to the discussion
3. post with the sole intention of derailing this tread
4. back up your argument with no scientific argument other than what you "obviously" believe.
5. wright a useless post complete with spam pic.

and you call me a troll? silly, silly man. please go away.

At 7/5/11 10:06 PM, TrueLAD wrote: YES it will make a fucking sound!

That's some eloquent argument you got there asshat.

It will make a sound, it's just no-one will hear it.

At 7/6/11 06:13 PM, Ragnarokia wrote:

At 7/5/11 10:03 PM, Arch-Angel wrote: If a tree falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? No it does not.
The answer is NO. If a tree falls in the forest and there are no living animals within auditory range of it, it does NOT make a sound.
Any thoughts?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you OP, but Steven Fry explains why "No" is incorrect on QI
Link 12:00 in.
Question continues into part 2.

No and Yes are both incorrect, watch this episode.

No need to apologize, John loyd basically confirms my point and the host guy argues everyone elses point. they're not both incorrect, it all just depends on how you define sound. this is essentially this entire thread in a nutshell. If you believe that sound is the vibration of the eardrum then the answer is no, but if you believe hat sound is the mechanical propagation of waves through a medium ( Which I call vibrations) then the answer is yes.

it all depends on whether you ask an audiologist or a physicist.