Area 51 Forum Index Area 51
Chat & discuss movies, funny crap, aliens & general groovy stuff
 

A Philosophical Question.....
Click here to go to the original topic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
       Area 51 Forum Index -> Religion & Philosophy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jarmen



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 3241
Location: Australia, fool.

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:36 am    Post subject:  

whufc88 wrote: ...wat date was that posted caus i mite have been slightly intoxicated with alcohol wen i wrote that :lol: :P

Its alright, hush, I understand completely.. :lol:
Back to top  
*brunettie spenc*



Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 57

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:39 am    Post subject:  

it depends what kind of hearing you define sound by... the animals around it would hear it and therefore it makes a noise but no humans have heard it so WE cannot say for sure if it made a noise or not
Back to top  
area51newmexico



Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 10598
Location: East Yorkshire, England

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:03 pm    Post subject:  

True, it is rather presumptuous to say that it did or didn't make a sound! After all, it's wrong to assume things.
Back to top  
tafkao



Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3946

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:32 pm    Post subject:  

when solid objects collide, vibrations are generated. When those vibrations caused the apparatus in our ears to vibrate, we call it hearing the sound.

But if there are no ears around to hear it, does that mean there were no vibrations? Of course not. Sound is defined as vibrations, whether anything detects those vibrations.

The question confuses the meaning of 'sound' with the meaning of 'hearing'.

There is ample evidence from animal behaviour and recording devices that sound occurs absent of human hearing it.

Every night I shut Voodoo in the laundry to eat her dinner. When I let her out, her food is gone. No-one sees her eat it, but I think I am reasonable to assume she did in fact eat it.
Back to top  
aalpha



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:15 am    Post subject:  

I still like the modern version of this concept.

"If a man speaks in the woods and there is no woman there to hear it, is he still wrong?"

Your thoughts, esteemed thinkers. :roll:
Back to top  
*brunettie spenc*



Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 57

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:42 am    Post subject:  

aalpha wrote: I still like the modern version of this concept.

"If a man speaks in the woods and there is no woman there to hear it, is he still wrong?"

Your thoughts, esteemed thinkers. :roll:

your saying man is always wrong and women always right ??

however if this is true, a man speaking out loud in the woods with no woman to hear him can only be wrong if there is another man presant and with a differing opinion.
Back to top  
tafkao



Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3946

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:57 am    Post subject:  

So if I think the Earth is flat, but keep that idea to myself then I am right and the Earth really is flat? It's only round if someone contradicts me?
Back to top  
Jarmen



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 3241
Location: Australia, fool.

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:06 am    Post subject:  

tafkao wrote: So if I think the Earth is flat, but keep that idea to myself then I am right and the Earth really is flat? It's only round if someone contradicts me?

ahh but history has already contradicted that thought, so you would know (I would assume) that it is round.
Back to top  
tafkao



Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3946

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:28 am    Post subject:  

So if a New Guinea Highland tribe not exposed to outsiders believe the Earth is a turd laid by a giant bird of paradise, it is true because no-one has contradicted it? It's still wrong.
Back to top  
Jarmen



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 3241
Location: Australia, fool.

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:53 am    Post subject:  

Of course its wrong, just becuase someone is yet to be contradicted is not to say they are correct until said contradiction takes place. There are facts and no matter how much you want to believe something that a known fact contradicts does not make it correct.
Back to top  
area51newmexico



Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 10598
Location: East Yorkshire, England

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:07 pm    Post subject:  

tafkao wrote: So if I think the Earth is flat, but keep that idea to myself then I am right and the Earth really is flat? It's only round if someone contradicts me?

In your own little mind, you would be right in this instance. After all, the world is made up of how we perceive it. For example, the two of us may watch a movie, one loves it and the other hates it. It's a good or bad movie? It's neither, it is however the individual perceives it.
Back to top  
Lamiaceae



Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 7651
Location: To the right of my computer

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:30 pm    Post subject:  

aalpha wrote: I still like the modern version of this concept.

"If a man speaks in the woods and there is no woman there to hear it, is he still wrong?"

Your thoughts, esteemed thinkers. :roll:

I was waiting to see who would bring this one up. I managed to resist posting it myself.

Kay from Men In Black wrote:
Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew it was flat. Fifteen minutes ago, you knew we humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.


Man does not create, he discovers. What you may believe to be correct may be wrong on the grand scale of things. Therefore, we can only define right and wrong given what we know at the moment. We are unable to say you are right, when it is impossible to think outside what we know as that leads to pure speculation. Therefore we can only say you're right/wrong based on what we 'know' at the moment. If you want to back your argument up, then by all means quote experiments or recognised arguments that prove your point.
If you want to argue the points on what you are founding your argument on, by all means do so, but beyond a certain level - you are going to have to speculate, and people will jump on that, and just say the opposite.

In Taf's example, this belief would perhaps be held as gospel, perhaps think of it as their religion. As they don't know any better it would be considered 'true' though if they had someone else prove that this wasn't so then they would of been wrong and would now alter their perceptions.

Though on saying that, how do you know Taf's example is wrong?
Back to top  
tafkao



Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3946

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:08 pm    Post subject:  

We seem to have established something I would not have wanted to, that truth is relative. On the micro-level, truth is limited to the sum of experience of the individual, and on the macro-level to the sum of experience of the civilization.

Truth will for all intents and purposes be continually refined and upgraded, occasionally superseded. But for all its impermanence, it's more useful than fixed beliefs which admit no change or impermanence.

We may well discover some time in the future that there are more than 3 dimensions and the Earth is some other shape than spherical, but we have achieved a lot and will continue to do so working with the 'truth' that it's round, however relative that might be.

So the truth that the Earth is round is more practical, realistic and beneficial than a truth that it's a giant bird turd. Some truths are of greater value than others.

I think it's worth having a designation which differentiates practical, realistic and testable truths from those which are only 'true' because of the lack of information of those who hold them.

Why call them truths if you can't then distinguish their lack of value from the value of practical, realistic and testable facts? One reason could be a desire to hold on to 'truths' which can only be valid in an environment poor in information.
Back to top  
Captain



Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 224
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:20 pm    Post subject:  

It's easy to believe it does, but I think it doesn't. I believe soundi s defined by the waves that are interpreted by the ear. If there is no ear to interpret. No sound??
Back to top  
tafkao



Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3946

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:18 pm    Post subject:  

sound is the vibration not the sensation. The sensation is called hearing. If there is no ear to hear it, it could still be detected by a seismograph. Therefore it exists even in the absence of being heard.
Back to top  
 
       Area 51 Forum Index -> Religion & Philosophy Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3