This is a thread, or is it?

[Loony BoB]

You could make pie charts out of the trunk! Many of them! 3D pie charts!

[~*~Celes~*~]

I hate this philosopical stuff

[blackmage_nuke]

I answered that question with my post. =]

If you move your arm fast enough past your ear, you'll hear a sound. So it's right in that stretching your arm into the air would cause (not "be", if we're being pedantic) a sound, just a very small one that most people wouldn't hear. In fact, some sounds aren't heard by people at all. But yes, a sound all the same. That's why there are dog whistles. We can't hear them, but the vibrations exist, and it turns out dogs can hear them. It would be silly to dismiss something as soundless just because we don't hear it.

But by the logic of "it's a vibration, then it's a sound" the movement of any matter even the arm itself would be considered sound. After all the "sound" of the tree falling is vibration of air. Sound can travel through solids as very tiny vibrations, moving my arm is simply making the vibration very big and very slow and therefore by Kentarou's original logic of "if it falls in the forest it still makes a vibration therefore it still makes sound" since moving my arm is a vibration it is "sound". Thats why the only way to define sound is if it is heard.

Also if you record it then the recorder is recording the vibrations not the sound, and when you play it back then the recorder is making the sound, not the tree

[Loony BoB]

Also if you record it then the recorder is recording the vibrations not the sound, and when you play it back then the recorder is making the sound, not the tree

Ah! Touché, if you are going to go by technicalities, I suppose you could say that it is only sound when you directly sense it. But what is the sound that the recording is making? Is it not the sound of a tree falling?

From what I understand, sound requires three things... source, medium, receiver. Now, what if the receiver is not a being, but a microphone or recording? That is still a receiver, therefore it is still a sound. However, then you have to argue over whether or not "no one is there to hear it" can include recorders, microphones etc. Does a microphone technically 'hear' by recording? I don't think it does, but I can't be arsed going into that much detail.

Of course, going back to the original point of this thread: A post is a post because it does not need someone to read it for it to reach the definition of a "message board post".

EDIT: A bit more research shows that sound doesn't require a receiver, and therefore, yes, a sound is made when a tree falls even if nothing is there to 'receive' it, be that by hearing, transmitting or recording.

[blackmage_nuke]

It is the sound of a diaphragm vibrating due to electronic pulses which just so happens to create a sound similar to if you were hearing a tree fall.

But once you claim that sound does not require a reciever we are back to the original problem that sound can be any form of movement of matter, since sound is then just the vibration of a medium, moving matter is just a slower longer vibration of that medium and is thus sound, since the sound being recieved is no longer a criteria

But this is more a discussion of semantics rather than philosophy. Much like molten rock is called magma until it reaches the surface when it is then called lava, i feel that vibrations are only vibrations until they are percieved by an ear when it is then called sound.

[Loony BoB]

I think we agree on the general idea and I definitely agree that it's just a matter of semantics.

[Chemical]

Hmm, only 2 posts in this thread, all well thanks anyways oddler