The philosophy thread

[Puckoon]

Life's a beech.

[andoireabu]

Is this a question?

[Puckoon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3DmtUJ3MWs

[omaghjoe]

If a tree falls over in a wood and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a noise?

Since a sound is an internal experience then obviously not

[Hardy]

That's a remarkably concise statement of four-and-a-half years of deliberation.

[Billys Boots]

I stink; therefore I am.

[MoChara]

If a tree falls over in a wood and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a noise?

This is the same as the train of thought American Evangelical creationists hold, there was no-one to experience or record it so there's no way to prove it happened, despite all evidence to the contrary, in this case we would need a listening device that recorded the vibrations from the collapsed tree to have proof, even though we know a tree couldn't fall without disturbing the surroundings enough to make noise.

[Dinny Breen]

If you one doesn't read the abuse on the Leinster Football Championship Thread does the abuse exist?

[stew]

If a tree falls over in a wood and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a noise?

This is the same as the train of thought American Evangelical creationists hold, there was no-one to experience or record it so there's no way to prove it happened, despite all evidence to the contrary, in this case we would need a listening device that recorded the vibrations from the collapsed tree to have proof, even though we know a tree couldn't fall without disturbing the surroundings enough to make noise.

Bollocks, of course it makes a sound, the next tree that falls without making a sound will be the first one.

Scientists call the beginning of the universe 'the big bang' as they knew full well, it was not big, it started infinitely small and there was no bang as it was born in a vacuum.

[omaghjoe]

This is nothing to do with creationists, and guilt by association is irrelevant to logical arguments

A sound is something that is picked up by our senses and then experienced by us.

A recording device can pick up information about something that is going on and played back but ultimately it manipulates that reality to turn it into sound waves. Do radio waves make a sound? No they are manipulated by electronics to make sound waves same way as a recording device is manipulated to make a sound.

[Clov]

This is essentially a variation on Berkeley's problem - that existence unperceived is impossible.

The great John Campbell has, for my money, the right kind of way out of the dilemma.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/0/0/8/00843e0769aa78d8/John_Campbell_on_Berkeleys_Puzzle_1.mp3?c_id=1779637&expiration=1464022509&hwt=2bf2a11967145fc5345a01926aff0816

Sound, colour, shape etc. are just objective properties of the external world.

[weareros]

This is essentially a variation on Berkeley's problem - that existence unperceived is impossible.

The great John Campbell has, for my money, the right kind of way out of the dilemma.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/0/0/8/00843e0769aa78d8/John_Campbell_on_Berkeleys_Puzzle_1.mp3?c_id=1779637&expiration=1464022509&hwt=2bf2a11967145fc5345a01926aff0816

Sound, colour, shape etc. are just objective properties of the external world.

According to Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the structure of our language impacts our experience of the world, given that we can only experience it within the confines of the language we conceptualize it in. As a result, there's no objective reality only one predefined by the conventions of language. Think about it - within, of course, the tyranny of language.

[Clov]

Well there are strong versions and weak versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Only the strong version would provide a challenge of sorts for the objective realism argued for by Campbell. The problem for strong versions the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that despite being around in one form or another for a hundred years, there is little or no evidence to support it. The work of Debi Roberson and Jules Davidoff on colour categorisation in remote Nambian tribes is the best that i've seen http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028504000763
but it really suggests that the linguistic influence comes in at the point of categorisation rather than perception.

[omaghjoe]

I always thought the tree falling problem was more about the nature of nature of knowledge rather than what is really there, however they are closely related so I'll digress.

The problem with realism is that classical physics doesn't make sense, but then does it actually have to make sense? or maybe that is what Mr Campbell is trying to say? In any case the problem of idealism remains... that it is still incorrect to presume that the senses we have gave us the correct perception of the world. Donald Hoffmann reckons that senses evolved for surviving and not for giving us a picture of reality. https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is?language=en
Comically he gives a near perfect description of idealism and then rebukes it when challenged that its a modern day version of George Berkeleys ideas

Science as I see it is ultimately flawed as well in terms of an accurate picture of reality, as it uses the same empirical means as realism. Science however has proposed complex theories to make sense of it. Quantum mechanics has put order to matter pretty well however meshing it to relativity is nowhere close, gravity is still preventing us from flying it seems.
Besides although we can detect these quantum particles we cannot ultimately observe them empirically and likely never will, so the only thing that really gives us an accurate picture of their goings on is maths. Maths is another concept of the mind so Im afraid it looks back to idealism.

Then again is maths a true concept of the mind or does it govern the universe the way which science craves it do? Does it hold the secret of laws of naturalism?