A tree falls in a forest...

[Tuvok]

May I inquire if I'm even addressing your question? I feel as though I'm sort of responding to the wind here with no feedback, although the way you keep asking the question I feel like I have a very good idea of what you're asking: "We perceive the world. The world exists without our perception, yet our perception is what makes up this world for us. Therefore, what is the world like if not perceived?" This appears to be the kernel of your question, no?

Asking what the world is like without perception is irrelevant and pointless. You need to use human perception to answer that question.

When we think of ourselves, we think of a person. A construct. We neglect to realise that the matter of which are bodies are composed of has existed since time began. The elements that make us up were brewed in stars. Long after we die, the very matter that our brain currently comprises of will continue to exist in some form or another after we die for as long as the universe existed or it gets converted into energy somehow. You separate yourself from the world and everything else as if you're something different, but in physical reality you, me, everyone, the planet, and every piece of matter in the universe are all the same.

Consciousness has given you the illusion that you are separated and alone. You couldn't be any less alone. You are an equal part of the universe. Consciousness aside, you are no more different than a stone is from a tree, than you are to the water of the ocean. I don't even see the need to believe in a god when I know that what I am is the emergence of a consciousness caused by the culmination of the particles that my body is made of. I know that this consciousness is just a fleeting moment, shared by the many atoms my body has comprised of over the years that has become aware of what it actually is. I don't know why or how the laws of the universe have caused this consciousness to emerge, but I still know what I am, and I am comforted by the fact that in physical reality the physical parts of me have existed since the dawn of time and will exist until it ends. Apart from the physical side, we are just temporary consciousnesses, existant for as long as the universe has allowed us to exist through the methods of nature on our planet. Almost like we are simply small, sparse nodes of self-aware matter.

Perception is a matter of the consciousness. In physical reality, things exist regardless of it. You can't imagine things without perception, because imagination requires perception. Intelligent lifeforms are the only form we can think in, we can't think when our atoms are dirt and decomposed rotting flesh, so right now in regard to this thread we need to accept that in this blessed fleeting time we perceive, and when our consciousness dies we no longer will - and regarding that falling tree in the forest, it will happen even though we never realised it, because we were the tree, the Earth it landed on and the air it fell through on the way down.

[Neichus]

Asking what the world is like without perception is irrelevant and pointless. You need to use human perception to answer that question.

It is far from pointless. I don't think you understood the essence of my question. Let me again return to my computer analogy, because it's the best that I've found for illustrating this.

There is code that determines what is displayed on my monitor. It interacts with other code from different parts of the computer and in turn has an effect; it is not arbitrary, and can be reasonably posited to exist. Yet when I look at the monitor I don't see code. I see objects on my screen. I see the different windows. They have properties; color, shape, what layer they exist on, and so forth. Code doesn't have these properties, but it is responsible for them. This is my experience of code ("I don't even see the code anymore. All I see are blonde, brunette, red head.").

So now let's say I turned off my screen. That didn't make the code go away. The code is still there. It still interacts. But the code is no longer "red" or "square" or "in front of" because the method of perception has vanished. This is the question that the OP has. What is the world like when you turn off the monitor? It must still have properties, but what are those properties? Asking whether the code is still "red" no longer has any meaning; what are the true properties of the code if not that it is "red"?

So you say it's a pointless question, but I'd say it's about as far from pointless as you can get in epistemology.

Edit: Skelington quotes a rather relevant passage to show you just how old this question is; Plato obviously thought it was a key question.

[Skelington]

Part of the Allegory of the Cave. It is long(as this is but a mere excerpt), but it fits rather well with perception.
AND now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened:--Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
Far truer.
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
True, he now
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,
and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
To be sure, he said.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
No question, he said.
This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
Yes, very natural.
And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavouring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?
Anything but surprising, he replied.
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.
That, he said, is a very just distinction

[Tuvok]

It is far from pointless. I don't think you understood the essence of my question. Let me again return to my computer analogy, because it's the best that I've found for illustrating this.

There is code that determines what is displayed on my monitor. It interacts with other code from different parts of the computer and in turn has an effect; it is not arbitrary, and can be reasonably posited to exist. Yet when I look at the monitor I don't see code. I see objects on my screen. I see the different windows. They have properties; color, shape, what layer they exist on, and so forth. Code doesn't have these properties, but it is responsible for them. This is my experience of code ("I don't even see the code anymore. All I see are blonde, brunette, red head.").

So now let's say I turned off my screen. That didn't make the code go away. The code is still there. It still interacts. But the code is no longer "red" or "square" or "in front of" because the method of perception has vanished. This is the question that the OP has. What is the world like when you turn off the monitor? It must still have properties, but what are those properties? Asking whether the code is still "red" no longer has any meaning; what are the true properties of the code if not that it is "red"?

So you say it's a pointless question, but I'd say it's about as far from pointless as you can get in epistemology.

I say it's pointless because how the world is or works to something that doesn't perceive isn't even registered by that thing because there is nothing to actually perceive it, and by perceiving it you already contradict the terms the question.

You want to translate the unperceivable into a perceivable concept, I don't see how that's even possible.

[Skelington]

You want to translate the unperceivable into a perceivable concept, I don't see how that's even possible.

Is that not the purpose of this thread?

[Neichus]

You want to translate the unperceivable into a perceivable concept, I don't see how that's even possible.

You've hit the nail on the head, have you not? You can't perceive what can't be perceived (somewhat tautological there). The very point is that perception is not a passive act whereby we take in the world, but an active process of translation. But that doesn't leave us utterly bereft of hope that we can never made headway on the problem.

Obviously many over the centuries have thought that intense contemplation leads to results. We have new scientific insights into the world that, while themselves perceptions, hint at what the world may be like without it. Studying our own nervous system and how we process information may also give us insight; if you learn about how a monitor works, maybe you can learn something about the code it's connected to. There's lots of paths to follow right now.

[Nish77]

larger question, does the forest even exist if no one is around to see it exist?

This is the real question. The tree (if it exists and it does fall in a normal matter) will produce sound waves by moving air. If something that can perceive sound is near, it will 'hear a sound'.

There may not be a forest if we're not there to perceive it. There may be a forest with a fallen tree that was there fallen (whether always, or from a standing position and then in a fallen position without falling). The forest may disappear and reappear if nobody is there to perceive it. However, if enough people are there to perceive it, it'll most likely exist as it has. It 'could' disappear and reappear.

The tazmanian wolf will not come back, though for any reasonable length of time. It may, and then disappear. It will not likely be perceived by humans until no large group of people is around to perceive it's re-emergence. Then it 'might' come back. So, we're responsible for things as long as we're around to perceive them.

[Flaks]

If a person is born deaf, dumb, blind and without the sense of touch or taste, does he even exist to himself?

[Nish77]

If a person is born deaf, dumb, blind and without the sense of touch or taste, does he even exist to himself?

If the brain can perceive something it can perceive something (very simple things). There's a self there. It's hard to say when the brain can't perceive things although severe cases of some brain issues are believed to cause the inability to perceive anything that would constitute a consciousness.

[haxartus]

Things act completely differently if you observe them and if you don't. It might be a scary thing if you think about it. But any kind of difference in the environment count as an observation, so it will be pretty hard for a tree to fall without leaving any kind of a trace.

[lordhaxor]

Break down all the trees in the world I guarantee they will all make sounds, throw every single glass bottle to the concrete ground I guarantee it will never bounce up into your hands.

Right at the moment of impact of the glass bottle a strong wind slows down the bottle such that the impact does not destroy the bottle. And in the split second where the bottle reaches the ground the wind gets a lot stronger and uplifts the bottle to the point where it lands in your hand again.

Quite a fabricated tale and highly unlikely but impossible? Not at all.

[Deleted]

I think everyone missed the point with this one.

if no-one EVER has been able to confirm that a tree that falls in a forest where there's no-one to observe it falling makes a sound, we can't be sure if it actually makes a sound.

we can reason and say that it should make a sound, but we can't be sure that it does make a sound.

[Deleted]

For me the tree thing is quite simple. Yes the forest is there, yes the tree falls and yes it makes a sound. Whether anyone is there to witness it or not.

Baby's for example think that when they don't see a person anymore, he or she actually disappeared from this world (not that they know the concept of the word yet, but you know). When they get a bit older they realize they're are still here, they just don't see them anymore. The tree thing is sort of the same for me.

[Eled.]

Should take a philosophy class. This is the stuff you have to sit for practically an hour, listening to the professor run circles around.

Philosophy has already failed to explain the world, go go fundamental research

[Doctor Professor]

I think everyone missed the point with this one.

if no-one EVER has been able to confirm that a tree that falls in a forest where there's no-one to observe it falling makes a sound, we can't be sure if it actually makes a sound.

we can reason and say that it should make a sound, but we can't be sure that it does make a sound.

It's called a microphone.


Here is a question for you philosopher wanna-be's: Do deaf people think in letters when they talk to themselves in their head?

[rkma]

It's called a microphone.

Here is a question for you philosopher wanna-be's: Do deaf people think in letters when they talk to themselves in their head?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...f-people-think

[Eled.]

If a person is born deaf, dumb, blind and without the sense of touch or taste, does he even exist to himself?

Senses act like interfaces. They "only" provide informations.

Now, these informations account in this individual's physical and mental development ; all living being out there are very dependent on their CNS, somatic system, which is connected to the endocrine system, etc. If we consider an individual without anything, he most likely won't even be able to learn anything (no receptors of any kind means he wouldn't even have the most basic mechanics like mechanical stimulus habituation) ; moreover humans might be the least functional species at birth, we have to accumulate cultural informations for years in order to do anything by ourselves, being able to think is part of the development process.

So, in a way, I guess, no, he would probably not exist to himself.

---------- Post added 2011-06-01 at 09:04 AM ----------

Here is a question for you philosopher wanna-be's: Do deaf people think in letters when they talk to themselves in their head?

In letters, probably not, but using a language they learnt, definitely. Humans use languages as a "thought conductor" structure. (does that even make sense in english ? probably not )

[Wyrmrider]

My personal favorite answer is:

Define 'nobody.'

[Siton]

My personal favorite answer is:

Define 'nobody.'

Jared Leto.
I'll let you figure out the rest.

[Chockolate]

To me it is simple: Everything that exists will exist with or without us (and our perceptions).

E.g. There are planets in the universe that we can't see. There are still things going on their even though we have no way of knowing what.