|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:59 pm
time for some meaningless debate, a little something to lighten the mood, and provide relief from heavy thought.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:46 am
Hmmm... My dream world is influenced by meeting in this. Is it the other way around and I'm having visions in my dreams? Is that normal there...
Everyone is so loving and kind compared to here. Please lock me away in a coma...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:41 am
If tree falls in the forest does it still make a sound if no one is around?
or
Are we all really walking on the ceiling because our opitical network takes images from around us and turns it around for our befuddled human brains to make sense of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:13 pm
if things are because we expect them to be, then why haven't I won the lottery yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:23 pm
good_grief If tree falls in the forest does it still make a sound if no one is around? or Are we all really walking on the ceiling because our opitical network takes images from around us and turns it around for our befuddled human brains to make sense of? 1. The falling of the tree creates soundwaves but not 'sound'. It needs to be 'translated' inside of the ear before it can be recognized as a sound. 2. No, we see things upside down and we've seen through medical science that there is but one rotation making the image the 'right' way up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:25 pm
Britannicus if things are because we expect them to be, then why haven't I won the lottery yet? Because you're doubting, if you were not then you wouldn't be asking this question, would you? Also you'd be a hell of a lot richer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:56 am
waffle_overlord Britannicus if things are because we expect them to be, then why haven't I won the lottery yet? Because you're doubting, if you were not then you wouldn't be asking this question, would you? Also you'd be a hell of a lot richer. But if someone walked around 'expecting' to win the lottery, we would think them arrogant or insane. Just as if I walked around "expecting" everyone to hand me a dollar, I would be sorely disappointed. It's like expecting someone to know what you're thinking. Expectations only bring disappointment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:58 am
waffle_overlord good_grief If tree falls in the forest does it still make a sound if no one is around? or Are we all really walking on the ceiling because our opitical network takes images from around us and turns it around for our befuddled human brains to make sense of? 1. The falling of the tree creates soundwaves but not 'sound'. It needs to be 'translated' inside of the ear before it can be recognized as a sound. 2. No, we see things upside down and we've seen through medical science that there is but one rotation making the image the 'right' way up. 1. What of the animals around? Or the sound waves beyond our hearing? There is still sound there, we just cannot register it. If there are sound waves, there is sound. It may not be audible, but it IS sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:06 am
amethystbadger waffle_overlord Britannicus if things are because we expect them to be, then why haven't I won the lottery yet? Because you're doubting, if you were not then you wouldn't be asking this question, would you? Also you'd be a hell of a lot richer. But if someone walked around 'expecting' to win the lottery, we would think them arrogant or insane. Just as if I walked around "expecting" everyone to hand me a dollar, I would be sorely disappointed. It's like expecting someone to know what you're thinking. Expectations only bring disappointment. You cannot yet judge as you have never truly done so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:10 am
amethystbadger waffle_overlord good_grief If tree falls in the forest does it still make a sound if no one is around? or Are we all really walking on the ceiling because our opitical network takes images from around us and turns it around for our befuddled human brains to make sense of? 1. The falling of the tree creates soundwaves but not 'sound'. It needs to be 'translated' inside of the ear before it can be recognized as a sound. 2. No, we see things upside down and we've seen through medical science that there is but one rotation making the image the 'right' way up. 1. What of the animals around? Or the sound waves beyond our hearing? There is still sound there, we just cannot register it. If there are sound waves, there is sound. It may not be audible, but it IS sound. Sound-waves have a limited range before they 'die-off'. Should someone be within the range of the sound waves (which the question is implying there isn't) it would be translated into sound. "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" "No, it makes sound-waves that fade away before they can be translated as a sound."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:34 am
waffle_overlord amethystbadger waffle_overlord good_grief If tree falls in the forest does it still make a sound if no one is around? or Are we all really walking on the ceiling because our opitical network takes images from around us and turns it around for our befuddled human brains to make sense of? 1. The falling of the tree creates soundwaves but not 'sound'. It needs to be 'translated' inside of the ear before it can be recognized as a sound. 2. No, we see things upside down and we've seen through medical science that there is but one rotation making the image the 'right' way up. 1. What of the animals around? Or the sound waves beyond our hearing? There is still sound there, we just cannot register it. If there are sound waves, there is sound. It may not be audible, but it IS sound. Sound-waves have a limited range before they 'die-off'. Should someone be within the range of the sound waves (which the question is implying there isn't) it would be translated into sound. "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" "No, it makes sound-waves that fade away before they can be translated as a sound." But sound waves are really the essence of sound. That's almost like saying just because someone died before anyone knew they were alive, they didn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:39 am
amethystbadger waffle_overlord amethystbadger waffle_overlord good_grief If tree falls in the forest does it still make a sound if no one is around? or Are we all really walking on the ceiling because our opitical network takes images from around us and turns it around for our befuddled human brains to make sense of? 1. The falling of the tree creates soundwaves but not 'sound'. It needs to be 'translated' inside of the ear before it can be recognized as a sound. 2. No, we see things upside down and we've seen through medical science that there is but one rotation making the image the 'right' way up. 1. What of the animals around? Or the sound waves beyond our hearing? There is still sound there, we just cannot register it. If there are sound waves, there is sound. It may not be audible, but it IS sound. Sound-waves have a limited range before they 'die-off'. Should someone be within the range of the sound waves (which the question is implying there isn't) it would be translated into sound. "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" "No, it makes sound-waves that fade away before they can be translated as a sound." But sound waves are really the essence of sound. That's almost like saying just because someone died before anyone knew they were alive, they didn't exist. They have two definitions. At the time the question was first asked it would have been asking about sound and only sound. Science was not much further. Sound waves are sound that has been translated into the definition of sound once the signal from the ear has reached our brain. It's the same as saying; French is English before it has been translated just because it can be. Sound-waves aren't sound just because they can be, without an ear to send messages to the brain they are just sound-waves- not the 'sound' asked for in the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:05 am
Just because the definition has changed, does not make the answer to the question untrue. It simply makes the question answerable. I'm not saying French is English, I'm saying the question may be in English, but I can answer in French. (So to speak, I really can't)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:17 am
amethystbadger Just because the definition has changed, does not make the answer to the question untrue. It simply makes the question answerable. I'm not saying French is English, I'm saying the question may be in English, but I can answer in French. (So to speak, I really can't) Speaking of definition... Not that it matters now, but are we talking about sound-waves, sound or heard sound?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:21 am
When I say sound, I think of sound. Sometimes you hear it, sometimes you don't, but its there. I generally don't even think about waves. Even if you say something in an empty room and you're deaf, it was still said. It COULD have been heard, so it's sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
