'Does the tree make noise' question is stupid. Obviously it makes a noise...IT'S A BIG FUCKING TREE! Amirite?

The "Fucking Tree" sounds like a sequel to the "Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein, were the tree wants to have sex with the little boy, instead of helping him...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But how do you know? No one is there to know for sure.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The actual real answer to that question is no it does not make a sound

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Can you explain? I've never really understood how that would be true.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sound is only vibrations until it hits your ears which Then makes it in to sound

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They're still called sound waves. And also, animals there would hear it, even if there weren't any people.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know animals can hear I'm not stupid

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I was saying that animals there would interpret the vibrations as sound, and therefore there would be a sound.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But it said no one was around to hear it which implies everything

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well that's where our problem is, then. I figure this thought was made up during a time in which an animal would not be considered to be under the category of 'someone'. And, honestly, that's still true today - at least where I live.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Humans are animals.......so yes every animal is implied

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You need to stop being so literal. Yes, clearly humans are animals, but aside from technically, the majority of people don't consider them as such.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's because that majority are stuck up fucks who believe that nothing can take down a human. That we are the gods of anything lower on the food chain then us. Because of that and having the passion of not having any relationship with anything lower then us, we try to forget that we are animals to while trying to be gods Jk lol =D I know but we are animals and just because the majority of humans believe that we are not animals doesn't make us anything different

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, we are technically animals. But we're vastly different from the others.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

True let's just say he should have worded it NOTHING was around to hear it

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah. That was my main point, the wording was debatable.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Exactly what David said. A falling tree would produce a huge amount of vibrations in the area but unless someone is around for the inner mechanics of their ear to process the vibrations as sound it will just be vibrations.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So what about deaf people? Obviously sound exists, so how can you say it doesnt just because we can't "hear" it?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sound is defined as having a source and a receiver. With no receiver, there can't be a sound

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sound does exist, but in the form of vibrations. If we were a population of deaf people the vibrations that signify sound would exist but sound in itself would not be a real thing. The question should be answered as 'no nothing in the world makes a sound, but many things make vibrations that are audible to the human ear, but those vibrations would not be Audible to the human ear if there was no ear around

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The thing I never understood about that question is that it seems to make the assumption that only humans can discern sound. I mean it's a fucking forest. Some birds or bears or whatever are going to hear it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah but how do we know that? The birds or bears or whatever aren't going to confirm or deny it for us as we can't communicate with them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Do you really think animals can only hear sound within the vicinity of humans?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

True, animals can't confirm or deny it by communicating with us, but it's obvious that they respond to particular noises.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But the whole argument is that no one can confrim or deny if the sound actually happened. I'm not denying that animals could hear it, but that would still cause the issue of us not knowing if the animal heard it or not.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

... It's a theoretical ideal circumstance. Saying 'no one is around to hear it' rolls of the tongue better than 'nothing of living origin within the area of said falling tree would be able to hear or not hear the tree fall'

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I understand the wording and what it implies. I just disagree that it makes any real sense as a question, philosophical or otherwise.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Stating assumptions: 1. Hearing the noise is restricted to humans. Sound is the interpretation of sound waves, which are in essence the longitudinal collisions of the air molecules whcih then eventually collide with the inner ear of a human. Therefore, if there is no one around to interpert the sound wave, there was no noise created, just the potential. QED, the tree does not make a sound if no on is around to hear it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Stating assumptions: 1. Hearing the noise is restricted to humans. Sound is the interpretation of sound waves, which are in essence the longitudinal collisions of the air molecules whcih then eventually collide with the inner ear of a human. Therefore, if there is no one around to interpert the sound wave, there was no noise created, just the potential. QED, the tree does not make a sound if no on is around to hear it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The phrase is to ask us, "if we, as forms of life, had no ears, or any sense of hearing at all, would sound still exist?"

by Anonymous 12 years ago