Are you sure? Can you prove this? A tremendous amount of philosophy has been dedicated to the question of whether reality exists or is just a trick of our senses. Part of the point of this koan is to ponder the possible alternatives because, in fact, you cannot prove that all of what you consider reality is not a construct of your mind or an illusion imposed on you by someone else. If you’re not in the forest, not only might the tree not make a sound, it might not be.
Oh cool, my first ever sdmb post may help not much.
If a man speaks and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?
Through observation of our world, we can infer, but not prove, many things.
Lack of proof of a scientific nature does not prevent one from understanding the world. Learning does not require proof.
While the tree scenario teaches us about observation and proof, it should never leave us unable to infer that ‘sound’ as we know it is simply our brains interpretation of a certain limited frequency range of vibrations through a medium, like air.
Maybe that’s what you should learn from the tree falling…
It all depends on the situation. If you’re teaching a physics class, there’s very little point in pondering whether the world exists when there’s no one there to observe it. If you’re discussing philosophy or meditating on the nature of reality, there is every point in wondering if the tree exists at all, much less whether it makes a sound. In physics, we obviously want to infer that the tree makes sound and move on to real work. If we do the same thing in metaphysics, we’re missing the point of the excercise.
Matters can be far more complex than “physics vs. philosophy” (although physics without philosophy is just another dogma). Consider the sciences concerned specifically with perception–biological, psychological, sociological, and anthropological sciences. Here the question can be quite important as a model. At what point does “sound” actually exist? Is it merely a physical phenomenon? Is it a matter of the physical phenomenon impinging upon a perceiver? Does it require some level of interpretation before the stimulus becomes “sound”? How might that nterpretation, if required, vary from culture to culture?
I’ve yet to see sufficient proof that “sound” is independent of perception, at the very least. Yes, there are compression waves in air, but is that “sound” any more than an object unseen has “appearance”? It would have appearance were it seen, but can it be said to actually be perceived if it is not being perceived?
Nothing exists outside of human perception. Memory is perception, so is communication, but imagination isn’t. That’s the difference between sound (or tree, or rock) and that sound. If there’s a cherry tree in your back yard, it exists. Because you remember it. You’ve seen it. If there’s a cherry tree in your BIL’s backyard you’ve never seen, but he tells you about it, it exixts. But if a cherry tree (is?) in a forrest where no human has ever been aware of it, it doesn’t exist.
So no, there is no sound. there isn’t even a tree.
The saying is just a trick to fool you into believing in god.
mangeorge is closest. The quip finds it origin in George Berkeley’s theory, set forth in A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), that nothing exists except what is perceived by a mind, which necessitates the existence of an all-perceiving God. References: http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/berkeley.htm and http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4r.htm.
I looked it up (see etext), but didn’t find it exactly.
Seems as if later history expanded on the original idea.
I would like to see objective evidence that things do not exist if they are not perceived.
I would like to see objective evidence to the contrary. It would seem that saying things exist when you have no evidence (i.e. no perception of them) is the “extraordinary claim” requiring proof.
I’m not trying to be argumentative. I certainly believe that things exist when I’ve got my back turned. I’m merely pointing out why the “tree falling in a forest” koan is a useful meditation because, in fact, it is very difficult to prove that our concept of reality is true.
Are you sure, Tusculan? That connection seems a bit thin. There’s no explicit falling trees in that text, just the intro. from the site creators (“It is to Berkeley whom we owe that tiresome question of the existence of the tree falling unobserved in the forest”). A web site put up by two Econ grad students doesn’t allay my doubts. As they disclaim:
The attribution to Berkeley is a staple of philosophy courses. At least that’s where I got it from, and I remember having read it several times in various books as well. I only provided the Googled references as support of my statement. I owe my knowledge of philosophy to my MA in the subject, not to the Internet, thankyouverymuch.
But in the interest of consensus and hard scientific truth, I must allow for alternative interpretations.
My first guess is or was that, like many philosophical attributions, it is indeed not an exact quote. The original thought was modified in later discussion. I deliberately checked with the original text for that reason. As I said, it finds its origin with Berkeley, which is not to say that Berkeley exactly said it.
To support the idea that philosophers generally attribute the quip to Berkeley, see the following (also academic sites):
- http://www.whitworth.edu/Academic/Department/Core/Classes/CO250/UK/Data/d_berke.htm (and the well-known limerick quoted)
- http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/rlee/hintsp02/exam2q.html
- http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/3dialogues/themes.html
- http://www.pds.org/freedholm/Philosophy/empiricism.htm (an odd site, which however may provide an explanation, by mentioning a passage in his Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous on sound being something that is perceived)
- Empiricism and Rationalism
However, as you can see, there is no exact attribution of the quote; it is just given as an example that is nearly always used.
I still prefer my guess that the example derives from Berkeley, by way of a handy example devised by an anonymous philosopher (on the basis of Berkeley’s own text) to explain what the good bishop said.
OTOH, when checking several of my paper reference works I could not immediately find it attributed in such exposes to Berkeley. So it is possible that the question comes from a different, unknown source, and was taken up by philosophers, saying ‘Hey, we know that, that is just what that Berkeley-dude said’. Or words to that extent.
I still find support for my original hypothesis in the following excerpt from the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
The passage can be found in the section on Epistemology, The history of epistemology, Modern philosophy, Berkeley. I copied it from my CD-copy of the Encyclopedia; if you want to see for yourself, I’ve been told you can sign up for free on their website.
Hope this answers your question satisfactorily.
I don’t know that god keeps the object in existence. I think the memory of your table does that. Or the telling of that table to another person. It’s the knowing of the specific table that makes it exist.
Lets plow a virgin field, one that’s never before been tilled by the “Hand of Man”. In the first half of the first row, you turn over five rocks. These rocks exist. You can come back on Tuesday and pick them up. You can tell your brother about the rocks, and he can go there and pick them up. They exist.
There are almost surely more rocks still buried in the field, but you cannot pick them up until you turn them or otherwise become aware of them, each one. They do not exist. They are beyond human awareness. Digging the rock up does not verify it’s existance, it establishes it.
Oh, I don’t think Berkeley was right. I’m just reporting that Berkeley held the position that God ensured the continued existence of all things, and that he thereby gave rise to the question about the tree in the forest.
I would say that nowadays there are no people who believe Berkeley is right, but recently **Meta-Gumble
** did in fact defend that position. See this thread, which also includes my reply on this position.
What’s the difference?
I tend to read this as, “The rock does not exist until someone perceives it.” Is this what you mean? Could even possibly mean that there is some sort of mind to [echo effect] The Uuuuuuuuuniveeeeeeerse [/echo effect] that is creating things just when people are able to perceive them?
What if only animals can perceive them?
“What if only animals can perceive them?”
You mean you are perceiving that animals are perceiving rocks?
Its about the individual mind and its relation to the universal, Buddha-mind.
How is that a spoiler? Do you mean it is a koan used to expand the minds of young Buddhists, and not a paraphrase of what Berkeley said?
Heres a question. If something is effecting you subconciously so you do not know it, IE: Germs in your body. Would they still count as being percieved? If so then Everything would be percieved due to gravity, wouldn’t it? On the moleculor level the gravity of everyone and everything on the earth effects you. I don’t think anyone has posted
This which is fairly relevant
Not to hijack the thread, and I don’t have anything to add to the tree question; but I didn’t want to start a new thread for something so mundane and pointless.
We all know the physics of why an airplane flies, even if there is the “Bernoulli Camp” and the “Newton Camp”. But years ago I was woolgathering and thought this: What if airplanes fly only because people believe they fly? Before the Wrights, people made gliders. Before that there were balloons. Before that, people didn’t fly except in mythology. What if the Montgolfier brothers, having observed balloons in flight, convinced people that humans could be carried aloft? What if the only reason it became possible was that they got enough people to believe that it could happen? Then someone had the bright idea to fly in a glider. “Look,” says he, “This model glider flies. If one could be built large enough and light enough, it would carry a man!” But it couldn’t happen until people believed it could happen. And so on to the Wrights.
With the Wrights, skeptics began to come around. More people believed that human flight was possible, and so it became possible and better and better aircraft were made. The more people believe that we can fly, the better our aircraft become. So physics would have nothing to do with it. If enough people believed they could fly by wearing casaba mellons on their heads, then it would work.
Obviously it flies (heh) in the face of science; but it was fun to think about.