Feel free to agree or disagree

[Age]

If you feel free, are you really free?

If you feel free, then why would you want to know if you are "really" free or not?

Excellent question "gary childress".

[Veritas Aequitas]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does the tree make a sound?

My answer is: "No"

The question is can a sound exists absolutely independent of the human conditions?

The basis of the above is related to Berkeley following John Locke;
What is a things is made up of primary and secondary qualities;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary%E ... istinction
1. John Locke proved secondary qualities [of senses] cannot exist without humans.
2. George Berkeley proved, even primary qualities cannot exist without humans.

Since, real things are made up of primary and secondary qualities, what is real cannot exists absolutely independent of the human conditions.

In another perspective, there is no sound [secondary qualities] if there are no humans to hear it.

Berkeley final say, only God can experience the 'real' primary and secondary qualities; but I assert God is illusory not real

Note my post;
Reality is not Absolutely Independent
viewtopic.php?p=711556&sid=aaf703bd60e0 ... c9#p711556

[Walker]

If you feel free, are you really free?

If you feel free, then why would you want to know if you are "really" free or not?

You, Gary Childress, would want to know in order to determine whether or not you are living in a "fool’s paradise".

It’s like the joke about the guy who loves the freedom of walking on the beach while holding hands with his girlfriend, until the drug de jour wears off and he realizes he’s dragging a mannequin around a parking lot, when she might prefer to just do some modeling.

[Walker]

If you feel free, are you really free?

If you feel free, then why would you want to know if you are "really" free or not?

Excellent question "gary childress".

And what Age's answer to the "excellent", ageless question?

(Should the comma be inside the quotes, or outside?)

[Walker]

Berkeley final say, only God can experience the 'real' primary and secondary qualities; but I assert God is illusory not real

Did he say if God can experience the ‘real’ primary and secondary qualities simultaneously, and if so, did he conclude through theory or experience that a human can also experience the ‘real’ primary or secondary qualities, but not simultaneously ... which would be a distinction between God and man.

[Gary Childress]

If you feel free, are you really free?

If you feel free, then why would you want to know if you are "really" free or not?

You, Gary Childress, would want to know in order to determine whether or not you are living in a "fool’s paradise".

It’s like the joke about the guy who loves the freedom of walking on the beach while holding hands with his girlfriend, until the drug de jour wears off and he realizes he’s dragging a mannequin around a parking lot, when she might prefer to just do some modeling.

Well, if you're worried about something like that, then I suggest not trying to break your girlfriend's arm in order to find out if she's a mannequin or not. And there are a lot of lonely single men out there too, so if you have a "mannequin" that you love, maybe count yourself lucky?

[Walker]

If you feel free, then why would you want to know if you are "really" free or not?

You, Gary Childress, would want to know in order to determine whether or not you are living in a "fool’s paradise".

It’s like the joke about the guy who loves the freedom of walking on the beach while holding hands with his girlfriend, until the drug de jour wears off and he realizes he’s dragging a mannequin around a parking lot, when she might prefer to just do some modeling.

Well, if you're worried about something like that, then I suggest not trying to break your girlfriend's arm in order to find out if she's a mannequin or not. And there are a lot of lonely single men out there too, so if you have a "mannequin" that you love, maybe count yourself lucky?

On the other hand, I think you would agree that when understood, freedom is a state of mind independent of conditions, need, and expansive enough to even integrate loneliness ... which makes it cling-free.

[Sculptor]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does the tree make a sound?

My answer is: "No"

BY THE SAME TOKEN...
If there is no one to hear it, then it never happened.

[Gary Childress]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does the tree make a sound?

My answer is: "No"

BY THE SAME TOKEN...
If there is no one to hear it, then it never happened.

I'm not a radical idealist. I assume something happened, even without a human being present, it just wasn't what we experience when that something happens.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does the tree make a sound?

My answer is: "No"

BY THE SAME TOKEN...
If there is no one to hear it, then it never happened.

I'm not a radical idealist. I assume something happened, even without a human being present, it just wasn't what we experience when that something happens.

There are many perspectives to what is reality and there nuances to it to consider where appropriate.

Within the lower Common and conventional sense or perspective, there is a sound even without a human being present. It has its qualified utilities.

However we should not convert common and conventional senses of the above as an absolute fundamentalistic and dogmatic ideology like the p-realists insist upon.

At the higher sense, what is reality is contingent upon the human conditions. As such, as qualified to this higher sense, there is no sound if there are no humans to hear it. This has its own respective utilities which is more complex than the common sense perspective.

On good analogy is the hierarchy of the independent of reality within Physics.

1. At the Newtonian Classical Physics, all matter are taken to be absolutely independent of the human conditions. This is valid with Philosophical Realism.
In this, there is sound even if no humans.

2. As Physics advanced, the human observers [Observers' effect] is taken into account in the realization of physical reality. This is sort of partially contingent with the human conditions. Absolute independence of matter from humans is not valid here.
In this case, "there is sound even if no humans" is mixed depending on context.

3. With Quantum Physics, the human conditions are imperatively interactive with the human conditions. In this case, what is physical reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions. This totally oppose p-realism absolute independence.
In this case, no humans = no sound.

So context is critical when deliberating on the question of the OP.

[Sculptor]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does the tree make a sound?

My answer is: "No"

BY THE SAME TOKEN...
If there is no one to hear it, then it never happened.

I'm not a radical idealist. I assume something happened, even without a human being present, it just wasn't what we experience when that something happens.

Byt what is implied by "no one"? Surely the ground is travelled through by the sound. Insects hear it?

[Gary Childress]

BY THE SAME TOKEN...
If there is no one to hear it, then it never happened.

I'm not a radical idealist. I assume something happened, even without a human being present, it just wasn't what we experience when that something happens.

Byt what is implied by "no one"?

Well, "no one" would be no beings that convert waves of air particles in motion into the sensation of sound.

Surely the ground is travelled through by the sound.

I'm sure it's traveled through by the vibration of particles. I just don't see how there could be sound if there are no beings to have an *experience* of sound.

Insects hear it?

That does seem likely. I think Age brought up that possibility as well.

Of course, these are all doomed to be assumptions on my part. But it's the way I think of the world, the way it makes the most sense to me.

[Sculptor]

I'm not a radical idealist. I assume something happened, even without a human being present, it just wasn't what we experience when that something happens.

Byt what is implied by "no one"?

Well, "no one" would be no beings that convert waves of air particles in motion into the sensation of sound.

Surely the ground is travelled through by the sound.

I'm sure it's traveled through by the vibration of particles. I just don't see how there could be sound if there are no beings to have an *experience* of sound.

Insects hear it?

That does seem likely. I think Age brought up that possibility as well.

Of course, these are all doomed to be assumptions on my part. But it's the way I think of the world, the way it makes the most sense to me.

SO what you seem to be doing is privaleging a certain type of organisation of matter. The ground, presumably the tree itself, millions of bacteria; but only things with an ear and neural matter to "interpret" that as sound.
Waves of "energy"(I am avoiding "sound waves") pass through creatures that do not have ears, and they might be affected by them is some way. Are they also discluded?
Would not the conclusion be teleological in that "sound" is only for the purpose of hearing?

[Gary Childress]

Byt what is implied by "no one"?

Well, "no one" would be no beings that convert waves of air particles in motion into the sensation of sound.

Surely the ground is travelled through by the sound.

I'm sure it's traveled through by the vibration of particles. I just don't see how there could be sound if there are no beings to have an *experience* of sound.

Insects hear it?

That does seem likely. I think Age brought up that possibility as well.

Of course, these are all doomed to be assumptions on my part. But it's the way I think of the world, the way it makes the most sense to me.

SO what you seem to be doing is privaleging a certain type of organisation of matter. The ground, presumably the tree itself, millions of bacteria; but only things with an ear and neural matter to "interpret" that as sound.
Waves of "energy"(I am avoiding "sound waves") pass through creatures that do not have ears, and they might be affected by them is some way. Are they also discluded?
Would not the conclusion be teleological in that "sound" is only for the purpose of hearing?

I believe that experiences (such as sound, colors, sadness or happiness) are not "out there" in the world but within the human mind, created from the particles in motion that strike our sense organs. I'm sure humans are not the only ones who experience all the things we experience. I'm really not "privileging" anything, simply giving an account of how I understand the world/mind relationship.

Maybe a good example; is the color red "out there in the world" or is the sensation/experience of the color red created within a human mind when photons of whatever energies and wavelengths (that ARE out there in the world) strike the retina and send signals through the neurons to the brain which gives us the experience of "redness"?

[Sculptor]

Well, "no one" would be no beings that convert waves of air particles in motion into the sensation of sound.



I'm sure it's traveled through by the vibration of particles. I just don't see how there could be sound if there are no beings to have an *experience* of sound.



That does seem likely. I think Age brought up that possibility as well.

Of course, these are all doomed to be assumptions on my part. But it's the way I think of the world, the way it makes the most sense to me.

SO what you seem to be doing is privaleging a certain type of organisation of matter. The ground, presumably the tree itself, millions of bacteria; but only things with an ear and neural matter to "interpret" that as sound.
Waves of "energy"(I am avoiding "sound waves") pass through creatures that do not have ears, and they might be affected by them is some way. Are they also discluded?
Would not the conclusion be teleological in that "sound" is only for the purpose of hearing?

I believe that experiences (such as sound, colors, sadness or happiness) are not "out there" in the world but within the human mind, created from the particles in motion that strike our sense organs. I'm sure humans are not the only ones who experience all the things we experience. I'm really not "privileging" anything, simply giving an account of how I understand the world/mind relationship.

That's a bit absolute. For sure there are no colours in nature, but I find it hard to deny that there is such a thing as light and that light can be measured in terms of varying wavelengths - which give us the experience of light.
Unless you are trying to pretend to yourself that there is nothing "out there" at all?? Is that the case? Are you going to go down the solipsism route? All we experience is just imaginary? Or do you agree with me that sounds and colours are caused by a physical world?

Maybe a good example; is the color red "out there in the world" or is the sensation/experience of the color red created within a human mind when photons of whatever energies and wavelengths (that ARE out there in the world) strike the retina and send signals through the neurons to the brain which gives us the experience of "redness"?

Redness is subjective. We have no idea if what you see when you nominate an object "red" look anything like what I see when I see the same object. But through convention we learn to use the same name for each colour.
But there is the rub. You cannot get away from the fact that we can "see" the same thing. SO unless you think I am a figment of your imagination your solipism breaks down.