- NEW!
by Highlander is semi-retired from AB on July 25th, 2007
No. Only if there are ears to hear the sound. The fall creates vibrations not sound. The tymphanic membrane transfers these vibrations to the middle ear which registers what we know as sound. Without the ear, there is no sound.
Letting go of desires ? Many are into eating junk food,obsess with sex,endless sensual pleasures. Yet those are known to cause suffering.
by shunyata on October 30th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Is there really a thing called freedom or all we all trapped towards death?
by Kimi_T on February 4th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If you define your own morality, then what compels you to be constant in what you currently deem to be "evil" (or "good")?
by PhileoTruth on December 8th, 2010
| 2 people like this
Which is the better existential novel, Camus' The Outsider, or Sartre's Nausea?
by nest on November 26th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who is a better leader a man of "wisdom" or a man of "Intellect"?
by andy11-11 on December 4th, 2010
| 2 people like this
You're reading If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
That doesn't make sense. What if a sound recorder is on when the tree falls? Obviously it would record the loud noise, regardless of whether anyone will ever listen to the recording.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on May 23rd, 2008
The question is philosophical; and how would you know that the sound recorder would record the sound? If no sound was recorded, how would this prove that a tree did not fall?
by Highlander is semi-retired from AB on May 24th, 2008
Because that's what they do...it really is as simple as that. The philosophical arguments only serve to complicate things.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on May 24th, 2008
Perhaps the philosophical questions are overly complicated for you... :-)
by Highlander is semi-retired from AB on May 26th, 2008
On the contrary. It's not that I don't understand them, I just consider myself a pragmatist; [most] questions or answers that don't make literal sense, are either incomplete or just wrong in my opinion.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on May 26th, 2008
Thanks for your opinion.
by Highlander is semi-retired from AB on May 27th, 2008
I agree, sound is what you hear. If no one hears it then its 'vibration' due to friction was never converted to 'sound'.
by dashkevichm on July 1st, 2008
Sound recorders don't record sound. They record encoded data that corresponds to a fluctuating current induced by the movement of the microphone diaphragm's magnet along an induction coil, caused by the pressure variations of the air impinging on the diaphragm. When that data is later read, decoded, amplified and fed to a loudspeaker, the cone of the loudspeaker moves and creates pressure waves that reconstruct (more or less) the ones that hit the mic during recording. Only when those pressure waves hit our ears do we interpret them in our heads as sound - so the argument is the same whether or not we put a recording device in the chain of events or not.
by Kiku on October 28th, 2011