Does a falling tree make noise in the forest?

[Belinda]

Does a falling tree make noise in the forest?

That depends on the context of the utterance. The meaning of "Does a falling tree make noise in the forest?" depends upon the social usage of the question. The meaning of "Does a falling tree make noise in the forest?" IS nothing but the social usage of the question.

Is the speaker a sound engineer talking to another sound engineer?

Are the protagonists anatomists talking about the auditory ossicles?

Musicians talking about how a deaf person can appreciate music?

Philosophers discussing whether or not words have intrinsic, or social, meanings?

Forestry workers discussing if trees ever behave like avalanches?

[Walker]

Gracias for the opportunity to highlight via repetition, Harbal. Interesting the comparison of contemplations allowed in the same time span by simultaneously addending and commenting, eh? One is a neiner, one is a contemplation.

Make that a double neiner revealed in the process.

Eventually, one evolves beyond the neiner phase and into contemplation.

Well said, whatever it means.

Well, that’s the principle. In this particular case, it means that while I was contemplating, you were looking for a way to say no, albeit less clever than customary.

Contemplation and no, each has a role.

No requires contemplation, and contemplation requires no.

In order to exist in relationship, a consistent role of no requires a balancing of contemplation, such as that supplied by Conde, seeds, Belinda and yours truly. Thus, we can conclude that the balance to no is not necessarily yes, but rather, contemplation.

Yes is a function of doing, of which this venue is not.

And what does this say of the consistent, blind and unthinking, no? It defines the form from which no emits as a manifestation of the classic neiner philosophy. With life as the measure, tisk tisk.

It says that unsupported knee-jerk no is pure reactionism that requires no intellect, among other things, however keep in mind that no is necessary or else contemplation lacking reflection is actually invisible.

Now, how you could miss even the synergetically sparked meaning?

[thedoc]

Facts:
Form receives light.
Light is invisible until reflected by form.
Form is invisible until form reflects light.
Sound is invisible until detected by form.
Sound moves invisibly through a medium until detected.
Light moves invisibly through darkness until reflected.
Light invisibly transmits sound through darkness and vacuum.

Adding up the facts: vibrations become sound or light only in relationship with a receiver or reflector.

Metaphorical implication: Light is like God.

Metaphysical implication of the metaphorical implication: Like light, God is invisible until detected via relationship of reflection or detection.

Moving on, what isn’t reflected is absorbed as heat.

Implication of the metaphysical implication of the metaphorical implication: Reflect as much God as possible so as not to melt down from the absorbed heat.

Underlined portions are not fact and are wrong. Light can be detected whether it reflects or not, light and sound do not depend on a receiver to exist.

Bolded and larger print does not follow, the whole argument fails. Absorbing God does not make the receiver hotter so there is no need to reflect God.

[Walker]

Light can be detected whether it reflects or not ...

Praytell howso?

[Harbal]

Absorbing God does not make the receiver hotter

Based on my observations of the women who come out of my local church most Sundays I would say that is true.

[thedoc]

Light can be detected whether it reflects or not ...

Praytell howso?

Refracting telescopes detect light all the time and the eye can detect light from stars without that light being reflected from anything.

[thedoc]

Absorbing God does not make the receiver hotter

Based on my observations of the women who come out of my local church most Sundays I would say that is true.

You have my deepest sympathy.

[Walker]

Light can be detected whether it reflects or not ...

Praytell howso?

Refracting telescopes detect light all the time and the eye can detect light from stars without that light being reflected from anything.

The light contacts the telescope.
The light contacts the eye.
Some light reflects from the telescope, and the telescope is made visible, by light to eye.
Unaided eyes can only see a telescope by the light of a close star, which is hot.
Same for eye, in being seen.
God passes by unseen by “I” unless reflected, or unless “I” gets burned.
God’s absorbed warmth unto “I” can actually be seen by eye.
It’s a radiance in folks.

[Harbal]

You have my deepest sympathy.

It doesn't really make any difference to me, doc, it's not as if I would be likely to benefit from the heat if there were any.

[thedoc]

God’s absorbed warmth unto “I” can actually be seen by eye.
It’s a radiance in folks.

And can only be seen by those who believe.

You should have lived 100 to 200 years ago, that kind of belief was very popular then.

[thedoc]

You have my deepest sympathy.

It doesn't really make any difference to me, doc, it's not as if I would be likely to benefit from the heat if there were any.

If you read my other posts you can see that I don't think that kind of heat would do you much good. "The sadder but wiser girl for me."

[Walker]

God’s absorbed warmth unto “I” can actually be seen by eye.
It’s a radiance in folks.

And can only be seen by those who believe.

You should have lived 100 to 200 years ago, that kind of belief was very popular then.

Apparently what you’re getting at is, does something such as sound or light exist if undetected by consciousness?

If the answer is yes, which it appears to be in examining your posts, then it can only be by faith in the limitations of detection that the unseen light or the unheard sound exists.

[thedoc]

God’s absorbed warmth unto “I” can actually be seen by eye.
It’s a radiance in folks.

And can only be seen by those who believe.

You should have lived 100 to 200 years ago, that kind of belief was very popular then.

Apparently what you’re getting at is, does something such as sound or light exist if undetected by consciousness?

If the answer is yes, which it appears to be in examining your posts, then it can only be by faith in the limitations of detection that the unseen light or the unheard sound exists.

It would take faith to believe that undetected light and sound do not exist, that they do exist only requires acceptance of reality.

[Walker]

And can only be seen by those who believe.

You should have lived 100 to 200 years ago, that kind of belief was very popular then.

Apparently what you’re getting at is, does something such as sound or light exist if undetected by consciousness?

If the answer is yes, which it appears to be in examining your posts, then it can only be by faith in the limitations of detection that the unseen light or the unheard sound exists.

It would take faith to believe that undetected light and sound do not exist, that they do exist only requires acceptance of reality.

If you had merely said that the answer is yes because of known, scientific cause and effect upon the imagined vibrations and waves of the future, then to say that the limitations of what you now know about this also applies to the physical laws of the future is to also imply that one’s knowledge of physical laws under all conditions, including future unknowns, is absolute.

Well, in response to what you might have said had that relevance not passed by unreflected and unabsorbed like the sound of a live one falling in the forest, all that any rational person can say is that within the realm of the absolute is the infinite, and there in which all conditions known and unknown is determined the shape of form and things to be, such hubris other than acknowledged inference is folly, frodo.

[thedoc]

Apparently what you’re getting at is, does something such as sound or light exist if undetected by consciousness?

If the answer is yes, which it appears to be in examining your posts, then it can only be by faith in the limitations of detection that the unseen light or the unheard sound exists.

It would take faith to believe that undetected light and sound do not exist, that they do exist only requires acceptance of reality.

If you had merely said that the answer is yes because of known, scientific cause and effect upon the imagined vibrations and waves of the future, then to say that the limitations of what you now know about this also applies to the physical laws of the future is to also imply that one’s knowledge of physical laws under all conditions, including future unknowns, is absolute.

Well, in response to what you might have said had that relevance not passed by unreflected and unabsorbed like the sound of a live one falling in the forest, all that any rational person can say is that within the realm of the absolute is the infinite, and there in which all conditions known and unknown is determined the shape of form and things to be, such hubris other than acknowledged inference is folly, frodo.

Simply answering "yes" would imply that I agree with what you posted but I do not.

Knowledge of the future is not claimed to be absolute but probable.

I never stated whether the tree was dead or alive, that detail is irrelevant.