Power of perception I think it's real...

No, the microphone of the taperecorder picks up the air vibrations, and transfers the data on tape.

When you listen to the tape, the data is translated back to vibrating air, through the speakers.

Then your ear picks up the vibrations and your brains turn it into sound.

So when I do this...(bangs hand on table) are you saying that because you can't hear it there is no sound?

Like I said before, hearing is a reaction, not an action.

How can things like sound only exist when there is human interaction?

Do not confuse "sound" with "hearing"!

reply to post by nerbot


That's a bad example, cause when you bang your hand on the table you are there to hear it yourself.

Originally posted by enigmania
Jeah, that's a classic way to get out of that one.

Ok, as long as there is no living thing around with a capability to turn vibrating air into sound, there is no sound.

Edit to add: Souind only exists in the brain of the beholder.

[edit on 29/9/08 by enigmania]

I think he got you on this one... It would be yes it makes a sound because there is no place in this world where trees or forest or grass or whatever exists without life to support it... There will always be life around that will have the capability to identify the sound of the falling tree...

reply to post by ElectricUncleSam


I think you are missing the point here. It's a thought experiment to illustrate the concept of "reality" depending on an "observer".

It would depend on the definition of sound.

There are definitions that speak of the stimulation of the hearing organs.

There are definitions that speak of the vibrations of the air.

If you take the first one to be true nothing ''makes'' sound. It can only be ''converted'' from vibrations, in which case the absence of hearing organs would be the absence of sound.

If you take the second one to be true, everything that makes vibrations in the air makes sound. And thus there would be sound even if nobody would be there to hear it.

As far as I know a tree does not sensor scan the area 360 degrees around it for any creatures capable of hearing air vibrations before ''making sound''.

[edit on 30/9/08 by -0mega-]

Originally posted by enigmania
I think you are missing the point here. It's a thought experiment to illustrate the concept of "reality" depending on an "observer".

Actually this whole thread and concept is about "perception".

While I admit that your perspective is correct in a defining way, there are more possibilities to consider and it is not "definative".

Why limit your perception by the chains of one seemingly pure truth?

"sound" is not just a bio-mechanical transfer from the outside world to our brains.

It's a word, in a dream, a description, a signal, a reaction, an action, part of an atmosphere, the result of one of our senses, music, voice, song, collision, reverberation, direction, acoustic, electric, loud quiet, deep, high, near, far......

(bangs hand on table again three times) ....bang, bang, bang!

If you can think of what I have just done, the sound exists, from your pretend hearing of it in your mind, or your recognition that it has or could happen. Even the fact that you are reading this means that the sound I made, in some form, exists.

Or is it still in our minds only as the result of vibrating air?

[edit on 30/9/2008 by nerbot]

[edit on 30/9/2008 by nerbot]

reply to post by nerbot


No, I agree. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, the whole concept of sound only exists in the brain, or better yet, the mind.



[edit on 30/9/08 by enigmania]

Originally posted by enigmania from a post in the thread you linked to earlier here.
No I'm not half right, I'm completely right.

In any context that is a bold statement!

To deny the possibility you could be even slightly wrong is you-know-what!

(leaves without a sound)

reply to post by nerbot


Wow, what's that about?

It's very easy for anyone, to take a quote out of it's context, and present it as if it were my life's motto.

In that particular situation I felt I was completely right, does that make me narrowminded, or ignorant in everything I say?

It wasn't a matter of opinion, we were talking about results of an experiment, one of us was right, I proved it my posts.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, I actually said I agreed with you in my previous post.

A bit weak this.



[edit on 30/9/08 by enigmania]