If a tree fell in a forest and no one was around...

Post Reply New Topic

What if the forest farted and no one was around, would it be heard and smelled?

No, but the event would still somehow end up with it's own twitter account and 300 followers.

what a comprehensive failure to even spell "nonsense" let alone describe why it is nonsense.

if an unknown entity has a white stone and a black stone, and the 2 stones are separately encapsulated in boxes which conceal the contents, and one box is cast out to the "other side of the universe", no one will know what is in the local box until it is opened and the contents witnessed.

if i open the local box and see a white stone, then i will then instantly know that the box on the other side of the universe contains a black stone.
it does not take billions of years for me to observe the contents of the box on the other side of the universe to observe that it has a black stone in it. i can fast track reality by already knowing it is the case sine the local box contains a white stone.

if no box is opened to reveal it's content to my consciousness, then i would have no idea which box has a white or black stone in it.

is that the threshold of reality? is "reality" only a brains interpretation of what is in it?

it does not require any consciousness for every thing in the universe to exist. existence is considered subjective, and i believe that the universe will continue happening after my consciousness is dead.

a universe devoid of consciousness is still a complete universe (albeit devoid of consciousness).

What if the forest farted and no one was around, would it be heard and smelled?

The issue is that reality is a function of our perception. The only thing we can be sure is about our perception. To explain our perception we build a model: reality. But reality is not really something we experience directly, but a model we build.

So we suppose that a tree that falls makes a sound, even if we're not there to check it. Because the model 'reality' says so. So, at the end, it's everything about 'how much we trust our model of reality?'. In my opinion, this is the question that stablishes the foundations of science. At the end, science is basically a model that can make statements we trust even if we're not there to check them.

Thats just the same semantic dichotomy.

Odors are just molocules floating in the air.

So- is "smell" that?
The molecules themselves drifting around?

Or is smell the sensation triggered by our noses detecting the airborne molecules?

Either definition makes sense. But if its the former then a "tree farting in the woods with no one around to smell it " still does make a smell ( and a sound) because "smell" is the phenomenon itsself and not the sensory perception of the phenomenon.

But if the later then it does NOT make a smell (nor a sound since there is no one around to hear the sound waves produced by the fart either) because both smell and sound are the sensation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itsself.

all perceptions require sensations, and all sensations are completely subjective.
there is no such thing as "light" or "sound" or "taste" or "smell" or "feel" or "hot" or "cold" or "up" or "down" (etc) outside subjective experience.

a subjective perception of a circumstance is not required for the circumstance to happen.

"there are many more things in heaven and on earth than are dreamed of in all philosophies" (a corruption of a Shakespearean notion), and i will add that "if no philosophies existed, then no happening in the universe would be affected in any way".

reality happens without reference to consciousness, and consciousness happens with reference to reality. consciousness depends on reality, but reality does not depend on consciousness. i do not know how i know that but i do. it is obvious to me.

Thats just the same semantic dichotomy.

Odors are just molocules floating in the air.

So- is "smell" that?
The molecules themselves drifting around?

Or is smell the sensation triggered by our noses detecting the airborne molecules?

Either definition makes sense. But if its the former then a "tree farting in the woods with no one around to smell it " still does make a smell ( and a sound) because "smell" is the phenomenon itsself and not the sensory perception of the phenomenon.

But if the later then it does NOT make a smell (nor a sound since there is no one around to hear the sound waves produced by the fart either) because both smell and sound are the sensation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itsself.

There is a good chance it would not be smelled, as the sound is a signal to run away.