by onacruse 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The falling tree only generates energy waves.
The falling tree generating energy waves, isn't that the "it" part of "does it still make a sound"?
The fall made the energy, but is was not experience as sound.
I've only ever heard it expressed as "does it still make a sound?", not "is it still experienced as sound?".
I've only ever heard it expressed as "does it still make a sound?", not "is it still experienced as sound?".Point in case proved. | |
Gumby
Farkel:
The lamp shade is firmly on my head in this thread and I'm dancing a jig. I thought you could tell.
Jst2laws said:
: Sorry if this sounds like I'm agreeing with Craig. He IS touched
Yes, but that's irrelevant to our discussion. I'll proceed as if he isn't.
: NO. The tree does not make a sound.
Obviously I was talking about the physics definition of sound, since I said: "sound is the process of vibrations propagating through the air." Regarding the perceptual definition of sound, according to the Meriam-Webster online dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ):
Main Entry: sound
Function: noun
1 a : a particular auditory impression : TONE b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
This is obviously not the physics definition, but the definition in terms of human perception. However, this definition is useless in terms of the question, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, is there any sound?" It's useless because it's tautological: if no one is around to hear the tree fall, then no "particular auditory impression" is given to anyone, and no one receives "the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing". Duh.
However, the physics definition makes perfect sense. In line with my definition, Merriam-Websters gives:
c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing
The presence or absence of human observers obviously has nothing to do with the "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air)", because that energy propagates irrespective of human observers. It's generated by the falling tree, and it's existence is independent of whether anyone or anything receives "a particular auditory impression".
The point is that we have to avoid mixing definitions, and avoid useless definitions that really tell us nothing.
Furthermore, Merriam-Websters gave another definition of sound:
6 : recorded auditory material
In line with this, Gumby said:
How about if you put a tape recorder in the area where the tree fell with no human around......then that human went back and listened to the recording? Would the tape recorder record any sound? Of course it would.
Of course it would, indeed. The presence or absence of a tape recorder has no effect on the generation of sound by the falling tree, in the physical sense that I described above. It certainly has an effect on whether humans eventually might perceive the recorded sound. Duh.
With the above definitions in hand, let me point out how you've mixed them up:
: Does the tree produce energy patterns that we mammals interpret as sound? YES.
This is the physics definition.
: The falling tree only generates energy waves.
Only? But that's the definition of physical sound.
: There are all sorts of other energy waves produce by any such phenomena that we do not detect because we do not have built into us the sensing apparatus to detect those energy frequencies. We can detect energy through air that we perceive as sound and we can detect energy waves through solids we experience as vibrations.
Right. But the detection of this energy has nothing to do with its generation and propagation through the air.
: The bottom line is, unless a "conscious" individual is there to detect the energy and perceive or experience it, then all that happened is a wide spectrum of undetected energy is released, nun of which is perceived as sound. The fall made the energy, but is was not experience as sound.
Here you're mixing up the physical and perceptual definitions of sound, which is what I was trying to illustrate with the way people make a wrong conclusion about this question. No one will dispute that if no one is around to hear the sound, no one will perceive it as sound (a la the perceptual definition I gave above), because it's trivially true. But physical sound is still generated and propagated, just as you stated. So by the perceptual definition, no sound occurs, but by the physical definition, sound certainly occurs. To avoid massive cognitive dissonance which could result in self-destruction of the brain, we must keep our definitions straight.
AlanF
Onacruse said:
::: Can it truly be said that, when burned out, the candle-flame is "gone"?
:: Of course. What's the essence of a flame? Heat and light. You burn your fingers if you hold them over a wick that's supporting a flame. If you hold your fingers over a cold wick, are you fingers burned? Do you feel any heat. Do you see any light? No. The essence of flame isn't there. It doesn't exist over a cold wick, before you light the candle or after you extinguish it.
: It's all a matter of "perspective."
Not at all. Let's start with the definitions of "flame". From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ):
Main Entry:flame
Function: noun
1 : the glowing gaseous part of a fire
2 a : a state of blazing combustion <the car burst into flame> b : a condition or appearance suggesting a flame or burning: as (1) : burning zeal or passion (2) : a strong reddish orange color
From these definitions, if combustion isn't happening, a flame doesn't exist. Combustion, by definition, means a rapid chemical process (usually oxidation) that results in high heat, and usually, light. A normal candle flame always emits light as well as heat as products of such rapid oxidation. No heat and no light means no rapid oxidation and no combustion. So, lack of combustion, heat, and light means no flame, period. To claim otherwise is to misuse the normal meaning of words by making up your own definitions. You're free to do that, but you can't claim it means anything other than to make an otherwise silly argument valid. By the same token I could redefine "one foot" to mean "one inch" and claim that you're only six inches tall. Not of any practical value -- and to anyone who has seen you, silly to say.
When we have clear definitions of words that are attached to clear physical meanings that we all understand (like "flame"), then to make any sense of language we have to stick to those concepts. In view of the above, either a flame exists or it doesn't. There's no in-between.
: Imagine, for the sake of conversation, that your own sensory perception apparatus enabled you to "see" somewhat farther into the infrared and ultraviolet bandwidths of the EMR spectrum. Then you'd see a "continuum" of the process of the candle-flame,
No you wouldn't. Once the combustion process ceases, the flame -- by definition -- is gone. There's no longer any rapid oxidation, and therefore no combustion and no flame. The essence of the flame -- a concentrated source of heat and light hovering over the wick -- no longer exists. Or are you six inches tall?
: long after that flame itself was "gone."
It's not just "gone" -- it's gone. It has ceased to exist. It is no more. Or do you think the parrot is still "alive"?
: And, if you could fly into the stratosphere, the phenomenon of that flame would still be traceable.
You're making exactly the mistake that I specifically warned against. I said, "Certain consequences continue, such as the light perhaps propagating through space, or the combustion products dissipating through the air. I think you may be confusing the consequences of a process with the process itself." You're definitely confusing the consequences (products traceable in the stratosphere) with the process itself (the flame that producted the traceable products). Once the flame begins, combustion products go into the air and are, in principle, traceable. They remain whether the flame is still flaming or has gone out. Whatever -- the products of a process are in no sense the process itself.
Another example: suppose I emit a big fart. The products of my digestion go out into the air, and perhaps affect other people in certain ways. The fart dissipates, and, while people might find the event memorable, they certainly can't say that I'm the same as the fart -- in essence or in any other sense. I might be an old fart in another sense, but I'm certainly not the same as the gaseous products of my digestion.
: And thence, following that same "flame,"
Just like you're "six inches" tall.
: in the core of the Sun, would be virtually indiscernible. In a flask of liquid helium, such an "observation" would be like a nuclear explosion.
I don't see what this has to do with anything.
: But the thermodynamic "essence" of that process continues on, nonetheless, regardless of our own limited abilities to track it.
No, it does not. The process is no longer operating, period. The consequences of the process are detectable up to a point, though, perhaps even long after the process has ceased. You're again confusing the process with its products.
::: the consequences of which continue on unabated in the energy flow-and-ebb of the material universe (local Brownian motion, for example).
:: Not so. Certain consequences continue, such as the light perhaps propagating through space, or the combustion products dissipating through the air.
: But those consequences are exactly the same as the processes which produced them.
No, they are not the same at all. The process that produces the flame is rapid oxidation of various hydrocarbon compounds in the vaporized wax. The consequences of that process are carbon dioxide, water vapor, smoke and soot, light, heat, and perhaps other compounds and phenomena. You're clearly confusing process and products here.
: Cause and effect, effect and cause. In what way do "cause" and "effect" differ?
Causes precede effects in time. Time is not reversible. Remember your thermodynamics.
: In what way do they cease to be manifestations of the same "reality"?
This is gobble-de-gook. You have to stick with real things, like heat, light, smoke, water vapor, etc. If you don't think it's gobble-de-gook, then tell me what a "manifestation of reality" is. Apparently you think that there might be some underlying "reality" behind a candle flame that's not the same as the physical reality. What is that? Where does it reside? How is it connected with physical reality? Where was it before we lit the flame? Etc. etc. etc.
:: I think you may be confusing the consequences of a process with the process itself. If you have a headache, you moan and groan because of the pain. When the pain goes away, do you still have it? Of course not, and it's silly even to pose that question. You might retain a memory of the pain, but it's certainly not the same as the pain being there. Pain, of course, is a kind of process.
: No, I'm not confused on this.
Yes, you're very confused. You're definitely confusing process and products.
: Pain is a process, but a process that relates directly back to our individual "being."
Whatever that means.
: Can I remember the pain of my left knee being replaced? Certainly I can. It's not instant to my brain, but my memory of the pain of that surgery is as clear as if it happened yesterday. It's like the "smoke" of the candle.
The pain from the knee is not in any sense the same as your memory of the pain. When you have real pain in your knee, the nerves in your leg are continuously transmitting electrochemical signals to the brain, which interprets those signals as pain. That process of transmission and interpretation is the way medical scientists understand that pain works. When that process ceases (assuming your nerves and brain operate normally), the pain goes away. But the memory may linger on a long time. Same with a candle. The flame goes out and the smoke ascends for awhile. But no one in his right mind thinks that the smoke from an extingushed candle is the same as the flame in a burning candle. The latter will burn you; the former won't.
: That we (within the extremely limited sensory apparatus of our physical organism) simply "cease to see" the flame, per se,
No, we don't merely "cease to see the flame" -- we literally cease to see the flame, because it is no more.
: means only that that particular manifestation of the 'essentialness' of the flame has disappeared from our awareness.
This again sounds like metaphysical gobble-de-gook to me. You haven't defined what such 'essentialness' is. You haven't actually addressed any of the specifics in my previous post. I'm dealing with literal, concrete, observable things here -- not poorly defined, metaphysical concepts like "essentialness of a flame".
:: This sounds like metaphysical gobble-de-goop to me,
: Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Wittengstein, and others, would take issue with you on this.
I don't know enough about these guys to comment, but I have the impression that some of Kant's ideas have been discredited.
: However, it seems that they don't post on this board.
Probably a good thing for them.
:: along the lines of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, is there any sound?" Well of course there's sound, because sound is the process of vibrations propagating through the air. Just because no human happens to hear it doesn't mean it isn't there. And of course, when the sound vibrations die out, and are lost in the background noise, the sound of the tree falling no longer exists.
: You know as well as I that the energy vibrations of such an event never die out.
Sure they do, in a practical sense. My point about dying out into the background noise is just another way of saying that.
: That they might become imperceptible is a measure of you and me; not the energy event itself.
See below.
:: Flames and people and consciousness work the same when they dissipate into the background noise.
: OK, then...what do you define as "background noise"?
All physical processes are discrete -- not continuous -- because they're based on discrete particles such as atoms, quarks, electrons and photons. Most physical processes finally end up dissipating energy as heat -- the random thermal energy of quantum mechanical particles in motion. This dissipation is what is defined as the overall increase in entropy, or thermal disorder. When a system or ensemble of particles is in thermal equilibrium, then by definition there is no net heat transfer from one part of the ensemble to another. Conversely, when an ensemble of particles is not in thermal equilibrium, then by definition (backed up by careful thermodynamic measurements of all sorts of systems by hundreds of scientists for several hundred years) there is heat transfer from one part of the system to another. A candle flame, for example, extracts chemical energy from wax and oxygen, and converts it to thermal energy, which dissipates into the environment. In other words, heat is generated within the boundaries of the flame, and it flows into the surrounding air. Now suppose we light a candle and place it in a sealed, ideally thermally insulated box full of air. Eventually the oxygen will run out and the flame will die. In the meantime, the energy of combustion will heat the air and raise its temperature. Eventually the entire system in the box will reach the same temperature and will then be in thermal equilibrium. The process of combustion will then be indetectable -- even in principle, according to Heisenberg -- because all of the energy that was once concentrated in the flame has become evenly distributed among the air molecules in the box. In this case, the background noise is the random thermal energy of the ensemble of air molecules along with the randomly distributed molecules of air and combustion products. The system would be indistinguishable from one in which we individually introduced a candle and the same air and soot composition, and so forth, and heated it in a sealed, uninsulated box to the same temperature as the first box. There never was a candle flame here, but it's indistinguishable from the box where there had been a flame. Is there, then, some "essential flame" in this second box?
Another example is the charging of a capacitor through a resistor attached to an ideal voltage source. The ideal equation that governs the time dependence of the voltage across the capacitor, given that the voltage starts from zero and the source voltage is a step function, is: Vc = Vo * (1 - exp(-t / tau)) where Vc is the voltage across the capacitor, Vo is the voltage of the ideal source after the ideal step, t is time in seconds, tau = R * C, R is the value of the resistor in ohms, and C is the value of the capacitor in Farads. According to this ideal equation, the exponential term means that Vc never equals Vo. But in real life, this equation is only an approximation to the time dependence of the voltage. The voltage is actually determined by many factors, including the number of electrons contributing to the charge imbalance across the capacitor plates. Because the electrons are discrete particles, and flow through a non-ideal resistor, they accumulate on the plates by fits and starts, and so if we could measure the voltage "perfectly" and with infinite bandwidth, instead of a nice, clean exponential rise in voltage, we'd see a huge number of tiny voltage steps occuring at random times. Eventually the current through the resistor goes to such a small value that it consists only of the random thermal motion of the electrons, which actually conforms to Brownian motion statistics. When that equilibrium point is reached, then the current is effectively zero, because the measured average is zero. Heisenberg at work once again. Thus, the initial voltage step has dissipated into the random noise of motion of individual electrons, and the system has reached electrical and thermal equilibrium. I.e., the initial signal has dissipated into the background noise.
: Craig (of the "mental-masturbating" class LOLOL)
No comment.
AlanF
I think that the only intelligent thing I can do right now is to take up HS on his offer:
I read a very interesting book a couple of years ago, which in some ways attempts at least to deal with such questions. It was written by Lelsie DeWart and is entitled, "Evolution and Consciousness - The Role Of Speech In The Origin and development of Human Nature". Drop me you address by PM and I will send it to you.
As for most of the rest of you, all I can say is:
roflmao
Alan, you are a nerd! I have to admit that what you said made sense except for your comments about the "charging of a capacitor through a resistor attached to an ideal voltage source." Thats where you lost me.
Toreador
