Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ernest Sparks · 03-10-2002, 07:25 AM

If a tree falls in a forest when no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

follow-up question:

If a tree falls in a forest when no-one is there to hear it, HOW does it make NO sound?

Kachana · 03-10-2002, 08:59 AM

If G. W. Bush says something in a forest when there is no one around to hear it, is it still dumb?

tronvillain · 03-10-2002, 11:20 AM

liquid:

Quote:

What I have noticed is that people are summarily dismissing the physical situations rather than discussing the philosophical points that arise from them. I'm disappointed, to be honest, that people aren't prepared to dig.

I'm not sure what philosophical points you are talking about. I'll answer "If a tree falls in a forest when no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" again:

1) If by "sound" you mean a wave of air pressure capable of being detected by the human ear, then a tree falling in the forest will make a sound whether there is anyone to hear it or not.

2) If by "sound" you mean the pattern of neural activity which results from a wave of air pressure being detected by the human ear, then a tree falling in the forest will not make a sound if there is no one to hear it.

The question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" does not raise any philisophical issues.

jpbrooks · 03-10-2002, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
[QB]

If a tree falls in a forest when no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Using logic or scientific knowlege, we can say "technically" the falling tree makes a sound (defined as vibration of air)irrespective of any observers or receptors. On the other hand, if sound manifests only when you "listen" to it, then there is no sound. The point of the koan is to understand that it doesnt matter whether there was a tree or it is falling or there is a planet, its about consciousness and how one approaches life. Comes down to the basic question, does reality exist coz you are "conscious" of it or does reality exist even if you are not "conscious" of it?

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

There are so many possible answers - half of two hands clapping or clap with one hand on your cheek or slapping someone or many other. The point of the koan is to emphasise "silence" and recognise the absurdity of subject-object duality and help in taking a break from linear thinking.
I think the following poem (Cheng-tao Ke ) sort of encapsulates the paradoxical nature of this way of thinking....

quote:

Like the empty sky it has no boundaries,
Yet it is right in this place, ever profound and clear.
When you seek to know it, you cannot see it.
You cannot take hold of it,
But you cannot lose it.
In not being able to get it, you get it.
When you are silent, it speaks;
When you speak, it is silent.
The great gate is wide open to bestow alms,
And no crowd is blocking the way.

Phaedrus,

this is not to denigrate "nonlinear thinking", but how can thinking based on the subject/object distinction be excluded on the basis of its "absurdity" if the subject/object distinction itself is already assumed to be fictional?

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

jpbrooks · 03-10-2002, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
<strong>phaedrus, I know they are koans, but I just wanted to see what people would say about them.

What I have noticed is that people are summarily dismissing the physical situations rather than discussing the philosophical points that arise from them. I'm disappointed, to be honest, that people aren't prepared to dig.

How about I put it this way:

1) Is existence dependent on conscious observation?

Whose "existence" and whose "conscious observation"? (Theistic answers may differ from non-theistic ones.)

If you mean simply "existence" and "consciousness" in general, then a (conscious) being, whose consciousness is supposed to be the basis of anything else that exists, must already exist in order to be conscious of anything.

Quote:

2) Does a component of an incomplete system include within it an inherent potentionality?

</strong>

What kind of "inomplete system" are you talking about, and what is meant by "potentionality"?

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Ender · 03-10-2002, 10:49 PM

Hey Phaedrus!

Quote:

Using logic or scientific knowlege, we can say "technically" the falling tree makes a sound (defined as vibration of air)irrespective of any observers or receptors. On the other hand, if sound manifests only when you "listen" to it, then there is no sound. The point of the koan is to understand that it doesnt matter whether there was a tree or it is falling or there is a planet, its about consciousness and how one approaches life. Comes down to the basic question, does reality exist coz you are "conscious" of it or does reality exist even if you are not "conscious" of it?

Explain why doesn't this reek of idealism?

~WiGGiN~

phaedrus · 03-11-2002, 02:27 AM

liquid

phaedrus, I know they are koans, but I just wanted to see what people would say about them.

What I have noticed is that people are summarily dismissing the physical situations rather than discussing the philosophical points that arise from them. I'm disappointed, to be honest, that people aren't prepared to dig.

Umm, as i said the point of the koans is not finding an answer, but is to exhaust the analytic intellect and the egoistic will, and bringing in understanding on an intuitive level with the emphasis laid on the "experience". There is no right or wrong answers to these koans, these paradoxical statements merely help in changing the way one thinks and realizing the futility of language and words to accurately represent reality. . Anyhows i guess you are entitled use them for whatever purpose or in whichever way you would want to

How about I put it this way:

1) Is existence dependent on conscious observation?

2) Does a component of an incomplete system include within it an inherent potentionality?

and so on....

Well if you had phrased them this way you could have got answers or some sort of "digging". There is a latent tendency in all of us to respond to "abstract or allegorical" questions/concepts in kind given our educational grounding. Hence the need for defining the framework in which you would like to discuss "reality".

JP

phaedrus · 03-11-2002, 02:38 AM

jpbrooks

this is not to denigrate "nonlinear thinking", but how can thinking based on the subject/object distinction be excluded on the basis of its "absurdity" if the subject/object distinction itself is already assumed to be fictional?

Are you objecting to the rejection of subject/object dualism by the zen chaps or the logic/phrasing of the sentence?

phaedrus · 03-11-2002, 02:52 AM

Ender my man

Long time

Explain why doesn't this reek of idealism?

It reeks of eastern mysticism

Ender · 03-11-2002, 12:54 PM

After Schopenhauer, could one legitimately demarcate idealism from eastern mysticism?

~WiGGiN~

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2002, 07:25 AM	#21
Ernest Sparks Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Portland, OR USA Posts: 1,248	If a tree falls in a forest when no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? follow-up question: If a tree falls in a forest when no-one is there to hear it, HOW does it make NO sound?

03-10-2002, 08:59 AM	#22
Kachana Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 279	If G. W. Bush says something in a forest when there is no one around to hear it, is it still dumb?

03-11-2002, 02:27 AM	#27
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	liquid phaedrus, I know they are koans, but I just wanted to see what people would say about them. What I have noticed is that people are summarily dismissing the physical situations rather than discussing the philosophical points that arise from them. I'm disappointed, to be honest, that people aren't prepared to dig. Umm, as i said the point of the koans is not finding an answer, but is to exhaust the analytic intellect and the egoistic will, and bringing in understanding on an intuitive level with the emphasis laid on the "experience". There is no right or wrong answers to these koans, these paradoxical statements merely help in changing the way one thinks and realizing the futility of language and words to accurately represent reality. . Anyhows i guess you are entitled use them for whatever purpose or in whichever way you would want to How about I put it this way: 1) Is existence dependent on conscious observation? 2) Does a component of an incomplete system include within it an inherent potentionality? and so on.... Well if you had phrased them this way you could have got answers or some sort of "digging". There is a latent tendency in all of us to respond to "abstract or allegorical" questions/concepts in kind given our educational grounding. Hence the need for defining the framework in which you would like to discuss "reality". JP

03-11-2002, 02:38 AM	#28
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	jpbrooks this is not to denigrate "nonlinear thinking", but how can thinking based on the subject/object distinction be excluded on the basis of its "absurdity" if the subject/object distinction itself is already assumed to be fictional? Are you objecting to the rejection of subject/object dualism by the zen chaps or the logic/phrasing of the sentence?

03-11-2002, 02:52 AM	#29
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	Ender my man Long time Explain why doesn't this reek of idealism? It reeks of eastern mysticism

03-11-2002, 12:54 PM	#30
Ender Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Lusitania Colony Posts: 658	After Schopenhauer, could one legitimately demarcate idealism from eastern mysticism? ~WiGGiN~

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.