If a trees falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Discuss. You might want to define what you mean by a "sound," by "nobody," and perhaps even a "tree."
According to Berkeley, sound is simply the motion of air. We perceive this motion of air and translate it into what we refer to as "sound". Without us, he believes this sound does not exist. Real sounds are never heard, instead, their vibrations can be felt. When relating this to the "tree falls in the woods" situation, it is clear that Berkeley does not believe it makes a sound since there is no one around to perceive it. Like Berkeley, I believe a tree does not make a sound when it falls in a forest. Sound is a translation of wavelengths. It is a language that we speak using our ears. Without us to perceive these motions of sound, these are simple waves and motion in the air. Sound is only sound in relative terms. Each one of us could be perceiving sound differently, a high pitch could seem like a low pitch to another person. We give things terminology, yet we have no way to prove that we all experience things similarly. Although it is true that trees are a living thing, we have no way to prove that they have the sense of hearing that we have. In addition to this, trees do not have the hearing system that we have that translate wavelengths into sounds. When we use the term "nobody", we must include all living things that have the hearing system we do(some sort of ears). Animals are considered a "nobody", therefore they cannot be around to witness this. If an animal was around, it would be able to hear this occurrence. We know for a fact that animals have hearing, especially the animals in the forest, since we have studied their hearing system and have witnessed their reaction to sounds that we hear as well. If there is truly no one around, then there is no hearing system to perceive these movements of motion we refer to as sounds.
According to “dictionary.com”, a reputable site for definitions, sound is either a: “ the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium”, or b: “Mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet per second at sea level”. Berkeley uses something along the lines of the first definition to define sound. He claims that because there are no people, and ultimately no organs present to be stimulated, then no sound is made. Sure, this makes sense until we consider God. Later in Berkeley’s dialogue, we determine that there must be an infinite mind that is always perceiving things. If not, than a table in my room would disappear as soon as I leave for school. An alternative to this is that monads are everywhere. That is, if there is not one infinite mind, then there are an infinite number of tiny minds. Provided we agree with Berkeley, and claim that there is an infinite mind (quite possibly God) always perceiving things, or monads everywhere, then scenario of a tree falling a forest with no one around is not possible, as this omnipresent mind will perceive the sound of a falling tree. Thus, using the first definition of sound, a tree does in fact make a sound with “nobody” around because when we say "nobody" there is still always someone around, and therefore sound is percieved.
If we are to use the second definition of sound, and claim that it is solely mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, then the question of whether or not it will make a noise is answered. The tree will in fact make a noise because vibrations are transmitted when the tree creates a cacophony of tree like noises. This is based off of science, and unless someone can show to me a forest inside a vacuum, a tree will indeed make a noise if it falls in a forest. Q.E.D.
While this philosophical problem may at first seem straightforward, it is complicated by the ambiguity of the terms “sound”, “nobody”, and “tree”. To simply the question and hopefully arrive at a solution, I will attempt to clarify what these terms mean. First, it is important to distinguish between a “sound wave” and a “sound”. A sound wave is the compression and expansion of air particles (aka vibrations) through which sound is propagated (Adapted from Wikipedia). Sound, on the other hand, exists solely in the mind and is perceived by the faculty of the ears. Next, “nobody” in this context will be taken to mean no human, animal, bacteria, and every other sentient being capable of perception; however, God will not be included in this definition of “nobody”. If He were to be included in “nobody”, He would not “be around”, and hence the tree would not exist in His mind or any mind, and thus the tree would not exist in the first place to make a sound. Finally the “tree” is the bundle of perceptions that exists solely in the mind which perceives them; in this case, the tree exists solely in the mind of God, because no one else is perceiving the tree. The conclusion to this argument follows logically from these definitions. First, it is evident that the tree must exist although it isn’t being perceiving by any human, animal, bacteria, etc., it exists in the mind of God. Thus, if the tree exists, its falling creates the compression and expansion of sound waves. Further, sound exists only in the mind; the tree must make a sound because God is around to perceive that sound. However, at the same time, the sound is not capable of being perceived by a mind that isn’t infinite and omnipresent (aka the mind of a man). To clearly restate what I have suggested, the tree does make a sound in the mind of God, but the sound is not capable of being perceived by man or animal or plant, and hence doesn’t exist in the mind of a non-God creature. While this might seem confusing at first, this situation is very similar to Berkeley’s argument about creation, which suggests that everything existed in the mind of God before it was capable of being perceived by man, or “created”. The sound, like the bundles of perceptions that existed before creation, exists and always has existed because it is in the mind of God; however, these things do not exist in the mind of man because either God has not willed it or man is not around to perceive it.
With this famous question, Berkeley discusses the nature of the actions of objects that are supposedly not being actively perceived. However, the answer to this issue cannot be given in a single statement; the problem must be broken up first. The argument must begin with the clarification of “tree,” “sound,” and “nobody.” From my interpretation of the question, tree and sound are relatively straightforward. “Tree” is used as the specific example, but it really represents any object that could possibly make a sound. For the sake of accuracy, “sound” should be defined by its official Merriam-Webster dictionary definition: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing.” The exact definition of sound only qualifies it as particular kind of energy wave that is produced by the compression of air, and based on this view it is logical that any object capable of making a sound when it falls will make that sound regardless of the presence of any perceivers. However, the use of the word “nobody” is much more controversial, especially when Berkeley’s views on God are taken into consideration. Berkeley sees God as omnipresent— able to perceive everything—but if this statement about God is true than it would not be possible for anything to occur that was perceived by “nobody.” Therefore, the entire question Berkeley initially posed is irrational, which means that the answer to “If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?” is neither yes or no, but impossible to discern.
Berkeley argues that if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, it does not make a sound, and in my opinion, Berkeley is correct. First of all, a “tree” must be defined. A tree is best defined as a bundle of perceptions that form an idea. This idea is regarded by society to mean something that is widely accepted to be represented by the word “tree.” The phrase “no one” must also be defined. “No one” refers to the absence of a being with the power to perceive sound. It does not matter whether this being is human or not, only that it can perceive sound. This being could be the most insignificant insect as long as it has the ability to perceive sound. Finally, sound must be defined. Sound is the perception of sound waves. To clarify this concept, Berkeley talks about color. Philonous asks Hylas, “Should it not seem to follow, that all colors are equally apparent, and that none of those which we perceive are really inherent in any outward object?” (Berkeley 21) and Hylas agrees with the statement. Essentially, Berkeley is saying that sound is a perception of sound waves in the same way color is the perception of light. An object does not have an inherent color; it simply appears to be a certain color because of the way it reflects light. I agree with Berkeley regarding the fact that sound only exists as a perception. If the sound waves cannot be perceived, then nothing is heard. If sound can only be heard, and nothing is heard when the tree falls, there is no sound. Furthermore, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it is not even certain that it creates sound waves. There is reasonable suspicion that the tree creates sound waves when it hits the ground because in practically every other aspect of life, sound waves are created when two objects collide. Nevertheless, it cannot be certain that sound waves are created if they cannot be perceived. It is possible that the forest in which the tree falls is special. However unlikely it may be, it is possible that for some unknown reason, this forest does not allow sound waves to be produced when objects collide. Overall, unless it is possible to be absolutely certain that when a tree falls, it creates sound waves that are perceived, it is impossible to know whether or not it makes a sound.
The short answer, according to Berkeley, is no. Or so it seems during the first dialogue between Hylas and Philonous. To begin with, the operational definition that Berkeley uses for sound is the motion of air. According to Berkeley, “real sounds may possibly be seen or felt, but [can] never [be] heard” (18). From this explanation, it can be said that one must either see a sound moving from its source or feel the waves reverberate on one’s skin. In the scenario at hand, if no one was really around to experience the sensation of the wave on their skin or see the wave moving at the time that the tree fell, then the sounds could not possibly have happened. Further, Berkeley believes that qualities such as color, temperature, smell, taste, and sound exist only in the mind. Also, these qualities can only be perceived through the senses. If the quality of sound that the fallen tree possesses is only in the mind, and a mind was not around to perceive the sound through its senses, then the sound did not exist to begin with. An interesting question to consider as an extension of this puzzle would be “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to perceive it, does it even happen at all?” Obviously there’s a pretty logical explanation for this, seeing as someone could observe the tree for several days in a row and one day see that it has fallen. But I digress. There is a problem to be addressed in Berkeley’s argument. And that problem starts with God. Later in the dialogues, Berkeley says that things cannot pop in and out of existence because all things are always being perceived in the mind of God. What follows from this assumption undermines the whole of Berkeley’s argument against the hypothetical tree. If everything is always being perceived by God, then every tree falling in every forest can be heard by God. Checkmate, George – your bouncy house of idealism has deflated on top of you.
It’s a question as old as time itself (okay, maybe not quite that old) – if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Fundamentally, this question has served to challenge the perceptions of people of all ages, as anyone seeking to answer this question has to consider the definitions of “sound” and “nobody”, definitions which people rarely think about. Thus, the question poses an interesting philosophical quandary regarding the nature of material objects, qualities of such objects, and the perceptions of external beings. As much of a cop-out as it may seem, the answer to this question simply depends on the definition of “sound”. If, on the one hand, one defines “sound” as the emission of waves due to some sort of motion, followed by the movement of air particles in response to such waves, then the tree certainly makes a sound. After all, regardless of whether or not that sound is to be perceived, the air is going to react to such sound waves, creating the potential for an audible experience. If, however, one takes this definition one step further, and argues that sound requires the perception of an organism, as, without such a perception, no sound is actually being heard, then the tree certainly does not make a sound. (This is, of course, assuming that the word “nobody” applies to any sentient organism. If this word only applies to humans, and we assume that other sentient animals are near the tree, then this entire argument is moot, as some organism would experience a sensual, auditory response to the sound waves.) A quick search of Google and the Oxford English Dictionary results in both the definition of sound as “vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear”, as well as “the particular auditory effect produced by a special cause”. The former definition would certainly support the idea that the tree does, in fact, make a sound, while the latter, which specifically requires that some sort of perception occur in a sentient organism, would support the opposite argument. From a pure scientific perspective, the idea that a sound is the movement of air particles caused by sound waves certainly makes more sense, as the properties of sound waves are prevalent regardless of the presence or absence an organism capable of hearing it, but, in the end, there is no definitively “correct” answer. Philosopher George Berkeley, however, would argue that there is a proper response, namely, that the tree does not make a sound. Berkeley specifically defines sound as a “sensation”, rather than any scientific phenomenon (though he does present a scientific understanding of the nature of sound and the existence of sound waves), concluding that “sound, being a sensation, [cannot] exist in the air… without the mind” (17). This portion of the argument makes sense, if we accept the definition of sound that requires a perception. However, Berkeley’s ultimate conclusion from this argument (along with similar arguments applied to the other senses), that any properties of any material object exist only in the mind, and therefore that matter does not exist, is quite flawed, as Berkeley himself is oblivious to the contradictory logic which he utilizes in reaching this conclusion. As long as Berkeley acknowledges that “we never hear a sound but when some motion is produced in the air” (17), there is an objective nature to sound – the waves that are produced, without regard to whatever sensible beings may be around them. At that point, there is some objective nature to sound (the wavelengths, frequencies, and speeds of the waves, as well as the physical properties of the collisions with the air), and therefore, by Berkeley’s own acknowledgement that sound waves exist in the air, there must be some material object that exists to produce such objective qualities.
Therefore, regardless of whether or not the tree actually “makes a sound”, something, some imperceptible interaction with the physical world, is produced, an interaction which must be attributed to matter.
In Berkeley’s opinion, if a tree falls in a forest when there is nobody around to hear it, it does not make a sound. Berkeley defines “sound” as a sensation which occurs when “some motion is produced in the air” (17), but he continues by stating that movement of air particles can be seen or felt, but not necessarily heard. Thus he distinguishes between two types of sound: 1) movement of air particles and 2) sound “as it is heard”. He later claims that sound as it is heard is a sensation, and thus if there is nobody to perceive this sensation, there is no sound. According to him, if there is “nobody” in the forest, the “tree” will not be heard. The definition of “nobody” is essential here. If it means “no humans”, well, animals may perceive the “sound” of the tree falling. Then, it must mean “no creatures” are present in the forest. Yet that is still insufficient, in my opinion. Imagine a leaf on a tree next to the falling tree; wouldn’t that leaf perceive the sound? The leaf would shake slightly due to sound vibrations, which fits as “sound” based on Berkeley’s first definition of movement in air particles. Thus, when a tree falls with no creature to depict it, it makes a sound; yet it is not heard, according to Berkeley’s belief. He would argue that to be heard, can be attributed to the 2nd definition of sound, while to emit sound refers to the 1st definition. The leaf’s movement due to air particles, thus, is embodied in the 1st definition, while the fact that this movement doesn’t mean that the tree is “heard” is shown in the 2nd definition. So no, the tree is NOT heard, but it does emit a sound. Now, Berkeley argues later on that all things exist only if they are perceived by a mind, as many have already stated. Basically, he arrives at this conclusion after proving that all qualities are actually secondary and exist only within the mind that since it is absurd that objects would pop out of existence when not perceived, an infinite mind (God) would have to exist which constantly monitors the objects. Using this interpretation of God which Berkeley holds, we know that God would perceive the tree falling. If the tree is not heard, that would imply that God has perceived only the “movement of air particles” (the 1st definition) and NOT the “real sound” as it is heard (2nd definition). It would be absurd to conclude that God would not perceive a sensation which His creation is able to (in other words, if God perceives the tree falling, he is surely powerful enough to “hear” it by both definitions, not just one). So, the tree must ALWAYS be heard, since God can perceive everything, all the time, the way His creatures perceive it or otherwise.
I originally thought, as many others in the class did as well, that if a tree falls in the woods there would be a sound, even if there is nobody around to hear it. I justified my reasoning by explaining that sound is formed from sound waves and vibrations that are naturally part of physics and the universe. It does not matter, whether or not a human is observing it. However, after listening to Berkeley’s argument, I noticed that there are some problems with my original idea. The first problem is that I assume, that sound is the same as a sound waves. A sound, and the ability to hear, is a construct that is conjured within one’s brain, while a sound wave is a property specific to the earth, “real sounds may possibly be seen or felt, but never heard” (18). Yes, the tree would cause vibrations, however nobody will hear these vibrations, because sound requires a mind to interpret the sound waves. Another problem with my original assumption is that I do not consider whether an object even exists if there is nothing to view it. When we are not in a room do the objects that we conjure up in our minds even exist, or are they only visible when we are present. According to Berkeley, an object is just a bundle of perceptions that we place together to form this object within our minds. This is an interesting question and one of the main observations of idealism. Perceptions that we have, such as, sound and sight are just within the minds of the perceiver. According to Berkeley the saying “the party don’t start until I walk in”, actually would be the party does not exist until I walk in. Berkeley’s argument is based off the fact that everybody has their own perceptions and that everyone perceives their own material substances. One problem with this argument is that many people share similar perceptions, for example I can see a chair and Sami can also see the chair. Another problem is the existence of God, Berkeley claims that if there is no one viewing an object then it cannot exist, however an omnipotent and omniscient God would see everything and therefore, everything would exist at all times. These two problems will be main concerns that Berkeley will need to deal with later in the book.
With a famous question like this it is essential to break it down. First of all the official definition of sound is the vibrations of air creating a certain frequency which can be heard by certain beings. By nobody the question is saying not a single being that has the capability of sensing. A tree is easier of the three to define; it is what we generally perceive it to be “a plant having a permanently woody main stem or trunk, ordinarily growing to a considerable height, and usually developing branches at some distance from the ground” (dictionary.com). So if a tree where to fall then on impact there would have to vibrations as a result. Those vibrations make a frequency which is perceived to sound like a crash. If there is nobody there to hear the tree fall then there is no perception of sound but there is still sound. The distinction is essential. Sound is being broken down into two parts, the part which is the vibrations and the part which is heard by beings. When the tree falls then the vibrations occur but the other aspect does not exist because it is perceived by the faculty of the senses and there are no beings that can sense in the area. The first statement is true because it defies the laws of physics to have a collision without vibration pattern traveling through the air. The latter is true because the perception of sound requires a faculty of hearing to exist.
Although I am a materialist, I believe that if no one is there to hear it, the tree does not make a sound. Even if there was someone there to hear it, I still do not believe that the tree made a sound. As a materialist, I believe that everything exists independent of the human mind. Any property of an object exists at all times and is maintained whether or not it is observed. Even after believing all of this, I still do not believe that sound exists without a perceiver. Sound is the result of a person’s ear s translating vibrations into usable information. A person who is deaf can still feel vibrations, but sound is never interpreted by their brain. Sound is therefore, created in the mind. A tree cannot produce a sound; it can produce a vibration that will be converted into a sound. Suppose that a person hears a gun fired two times. If they cover their ears during the second shot, it will sound different than the first shot. This is because the vibrations are transformed before they enter they ears. Sound, which is in the mind, can never be transformed inside the mind. If the same vibrations reach your ears multiple times, all will sound identical. Therefore, sound is never produced by a tree and if no one is there, no sound will be heard. However, Berkeley’s question might not be about the nature of the sound. It might be whether the tree produces any vibrations at all. If that was what he was asking, I would adamantly state “yes!” The properties of all objects are consistent whether or not they are observed. This includes vibrations caused by falling. The existence of a perceiver does not determine whether or not the tree makes a sound. Therefore, a falling tree still produces vibrations if there is not an observer.
In Berkeley’s famous discussion of Idealism, the statement is made that the properties of all objects rest within the mind of the observer; that the existence of everything is only defined by being perceived by an external mind, and that no properties (like mass, shape, color, or sound) are inherent to an object, existing outside the mind. This conclusion often leads people to question whether or not objects exist whenever they are not being perceived; since existence is granted only through perception, this must mean that lack of perceptions takes away this existence, that all objects not within perceptible range of humans fall out of reality until they are back in view. This question is often stated in a convenient and intuitive way; “If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Furthermore, questions were raised about this concept when people realized that the properties of object were not actually changed through human influence (unless there was a physical interaction). But if existence of an object is determined through the mind, wouldn’t an individual who perceives one object as another, change the properties of that object? Can a person who sees an apple as a cup of coffee turn the apple into a cup of coffee? Berkeley found an issue with this line of thinking; to him it seemed obvious that the idea of objects oscillating in and out of reality was too crazy of a concept to be true. Further still, Berkeley knew very well that human minds cannot morph the properties of objects, and so a convenient escape was created. Since objects are always around regardless of human perception, and they are always around in a rather limited range of properties, Berkeley concluded that there must exist an Omnipresent, Omnipotent mind, which not only grants existence to all things at once, but also controls their properties. Finally, the long-standing question is answered by the leading idealist Berkeley, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, it does make a sound because God is always there to perceive all occurrences. Not only is there a tree, but everything about the tree, the properties it exhibits, and the sounds it makes when it falls all exist indefinitely due to the omniscient mind who is perpetually granting existence to all of these things. The argument could always be made that Berkeley could have been incorrect about God’s existence, but one must remember that the claim for God’s existence stems from Idealism. God’s existence is proven through the same idea that states that an object requires perception to exist, making one of two options possible. First; Idealism is incorrect (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that in the first place) meaning that a tree that falls in the woods has inherent properties that do not involve the perception of a thinking being to be real. Second, Idealism is correct, leading not only to the concept of existence requiring perception, but also to the existence of God, which grants existence to all objects and their primary properties. Either direction based on Berkley’s philosophies leads to the conclusion that a tree that falls in the woods with nobody around to hear it does in fact make a sound.
Berkeley would argue that a tree falling in the woods does not make a sound as long as no one is around to hear it because he believes that sound is something that humans perceive with our minds; therefore if humans do not exist or are not present, sound cannot exist. While discussing Berkeley’s argument regarding the sound a tree makes in a lone forest, we have to understand the definition of sound, which is simply a vibration that travels through the air. Using this definition, it would be logical to think that the tree would make a noise regardless of who is or is not around because the laws of science tells us that there will still be vibrations even though no one is there to experience them. The problem with this argument is that sound is a word that humans created in order to give a name to what humans hear when those vibrations occur. This means that while there will definitely be many vibrations between the forest floor and the tree, an actual sound will not occur if there is no one there to hear it, since there is no one there to perceive it. Another thing to keep in mind is what Berkeley means by “if no one is there to hear it.” Humans perceive sounds with our minds, but in order for that to happen, the person must exist and must have a mind with which they can perceive things.
This famed problem, commonly known as a ‘philosophical problem’, offers a wide range of questions faced. In order for a sound to be heard, it must be perceived through the mind. Sound is perceived through the mind and the mind only. Berkeley argues since there is no person with a mind to perceive the tree falling, then no sounds is heard, therefore the tree is silent when it falls. I disagree with Berkeley. I believe that if a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to perceive it then it does make a sound because God is there to perceive it. Later in Berkeley’s dialogue, we learn that God is the ultimate perceiver. God perceives everything throughout the world that happens. Does that also mean that God is there to perceive the falling tree? If God perceives us, then he must also perceive the falling tree. Even when we are not present to witness the tree falling, God must be able to witness it because he is there when it falls. God must be present to perceive things. If God constantly perceives us, then he must also constantly perceive the fallen tree. Since God perceives everything, then we can conclude that God is able to perceive things everywhere, therefore proving that he is able to perceive the fallen tree. This theory of God, given by Berkeley himself disproves his own theory that a tree can fall without making a sound. A tree cannot fall and fail to make a sound if there is a perceiver. God is present to perceive the sound of the fallen tree.
If anything HAPPENS when no one is around does it happen? Of course because the action is still taking place. If someone is killed when no one is around, did they really get killed? This is a good comparison because we all know that a tree makes noise when it falls if we are present because not only do we see it happening, but we also hear it as well. So if you see someone get killed, you know it happened because you physically saw it. So the idea of sound being made is the action that is occurring, nobody is the people that aren't around to witness this action taking place and finally the tree is the body or being that is doing the action that people are not near. In conclusion, if a tree falls, it does make a sound because even if no one is near to hear it, sound is still being made
Berkeley claims that values like sound are extrinsic and thus exist only inside the minds. If we take the definition of sound to be our perception of vibrations in the air, He would say sound may be perceived by two different people, and the two perceptions cannot both be happening, so the value of sound is a perception by our minds. According to this logic, if there were no minds to perceive the sound of this tree falling, the tree would make no sound because the property of sound is extrinsic to the action. So this question is solved if you agree with Berkley's theory of extrinsic values that rely on our mind, but if you still hold values to be dependent on objects or actions, the tree would make a sound regardless of the lack of minds to perceive it. So, whether or not the tree makes a sound depends on if you buy into Berkley's theory of extrinsic values. Also, if you have a different definition of what sound is, this argument no longer applies, for if sound is only the vibrations in the air, it can be measured in hertz. Now it has a definite measure it is unchanging and is not effected by Berkley's theory of extrinsic values because it is not relative to the mind. The tree would make a sound dependent on the validity of Berkley's argument for qualities being perceptions of the mind, and your definition of what sound is, so the answer varies depending on the mind it is asked to.
The ‘if a tree falls in the woods…’ conundrum is one that has been a constant source of philosophical debate throughout time. Based upon the fundamental beliefs of idealism, Berkeley essentially argues that when a tree falls in the woods, if no one is there to perceive the sound made by the tree when it falls, then the sound ceases to exist. This is argued to be true because idealism presents the notion that everything is merely a sum of its perceptions and ideas, and that without anyone there to truly witness and perceive the fall or the sound, it completely ceases to exist.
However, one argument to combat this claim is that which is scientifically-based. dictionary.com defines “sound” as, “mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.” while we may not necessarily hear the sound ourselves, it is understood that on a scientific basis, we know the sound does truly, physically exist, with data to back this claim up. We find that in arguing this point, whether or not Berkeley is justified in his beliefs can boil down to the question of whether or not we are looking at “sound” as a scientific quality, driven by evidence and data or rather metaphysically observing it as a sensory quality, dependent upon our perception to determine its existence.
According to Berkeley, sound is simply the motion of air. We perceive this motion of air and translate it into what we refer to as "sound". Without us, he believes this sound does not exist. Real sounds are never heard, instead, their vibrations can be felt. When relating this to the "tree falls in the woods" situation, it is clear that Berkeley does not believe it makes a sound since there is no one around to perceive it. Like Berkeley, I believe a tree does not make a sound when it falls in a forest. Sound is a translation of wavelengths. It is a language that we speak using our ears. Without us to perceive these motions of sound, these are simple waves and motion in the air. Sound is only sound in relative terms. Each one of us could be perceiving sound differently, a high pitch could seem like a low pitch to another person. We give things terminology, yet we have no way to prove that we all experience things similarly. Although it is true that trees are a living thing, we have no way to prove that they have the sense of hearing that we have. In addition to this, trees do not have the hearing system that we have that translate wavelengths into sounds. When we use the term "nobody", we must include all living things that have the hearing system we do(some sort of ears). Animals are considered a "nobody", therefore they cannot be around to witness this. If an animal was around, it would be able to hear this occurrence. We know for a fact that animals have hearing, especially the animals in the forest, since we have studied their hearing system and have witnessed their reaction to sounds that we hear as well. If there is truly no one around, then there is no hearing system to perceive these movements of motion we refer to as sounds.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to “dictionary.com”, a reputable site for definitions, sound is either a: “ the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium”, or b: “Mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet per second at sea level”. Berkeley uses something along the lines of the first definition to define sound. He claims that because there are no people, and ultimately no organs present to be stimulated, then no sound is made. Sure, this makes sense until we consider God. Later in Berkeley’s dialogue, we determine that there must be an infinite mind that is always perceiving things. If not, than a table in my room would disappear as soon as I leave for school. An alternative to this is that monads are everywhere. That is, if there is not one infinite mind, then there are an infinite number of tiny minds. Provided we agree with Berkeley, and claim that there is an infinite mind (quite possibly God) always perceiving things, or monads everywhere, then scenario of a tree falling a forest with no one around is not possible, as this omnipresent mind will perceive the sound of a falling tree. Thus, using the first definition of sound, a tree does in fact make a sound with “nobody” around because when we say "nobody" there is still always someone around, and therefore sound is percieved.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to use the second definition of sound, and claim that it is solely mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, then the question of whether or not it will make a noise is answered. The tree will in fact make a noise because vibrations are transmitted when the tree creates a cacophony of tree like noises. This is based off of science, and unless someone can show to me a forest inside a vacuum, a tree will indeed make a noise if it falls in a forest. Q.E.D.
While this philosophical problem may at first seem straightforward, it is complicated by the ambiguity of the terms “sound”, “nobody”, and “tree”. To simply the question and hopefully arrive at a solution, I will attempt to clarify what these terms mean. First, it is important to distinguish between a “sound wave” and a “sound”. A sound wave is the compression and expansion of air particles (aka vibrations) through which sound is propagated (Adapted from Wikipedia). Sound, on the other hand, exists solely in the mind and is perceived by the faculty of the ears. Next, “nobody” in this context will be taken to mean no human, animal, bacteria, and every other sentient being capable of perception; however, God will not be included in this definition of “nobody”. If He were to be included in “nobody”, He would not “be around”, and hence the tree would not exist in His mind or any mind, and thus the tree would not exist in the first place to make a sound. Finally the “tree” is the bundle of perceptions that exists solely in the mind which perceives them; in this case, the tree exists solely in the mind of God, because no one else is perceiving the tree.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion to this argument follows logically from these definitions. First, it is evident that the tree must exist although it isn’t being perceiving by any human, animal, bacteria, etc., it exists in the mind of God. Thus, if the tree exists, its falling creates the compression and expansion of sound waves. Further, sound exists only in the mind; the tree must make a sound because God is around to perceive that sound. However, at the same time, the sound is not capable of being perceived by a mind that isn’t infinite and omnipresent (aka the mind of a man). To clearly restate what I have suggested, the tree does make a sound in the mind of God, but the sound is not capable of being perceived by man or animal or plant, and hence doesn’t exist in the mind of a non-God creature.
While this might seem confusing at first, this situation is very similar to Berkeley’s argument about creation, which suggests that everything existed in the mind of God before it was capable of being perceived by man, or “created”. The sound, like the bundles of perceptions that existed before creation, exists and always has existed because it is in the mind of God; however, these things do not exist in the mind of man because either God has not willed it or man is not around to perceive it.
With this famous question, Berkeley discusses the nature of the actions of objects that are supposedly not being actively perceived. However, the answer to this issue cannot be given in a single statement; the problem must be broken up first. The argument must begin with the clarification of “tree,” “sound,” and “nobody.”
ReplyDeleteFrom my interpretation of the question, tree and sound are relatively straightforward. “Tree” is used as the specific example, but it really represents any object that could possibly make a sound. For the sake of accuracy, “sound” should be defined by its official Merriam-Webster dictionary definition: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing.” The exact definition of sound only qualifies it as particular kind of energy wave that is produced by the compression of air, and based on this view it is logical that any object capable of making a sound when it falls will make that sound regardless of the presence of any perceivers.
However, the use of the word “nobody” is much more controversial, especially when Berkeley’s views on God are taken into consideration. Berkeley sees God as omnipresent— able to perceive everything—but if this statement about God is true than it would not be possible for anything to occur that was perceived by “nobody.” Therefore, the entire question Berkeley initially posed is irrational, which means that the answer to “If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?” is neither yes or no, but impossible to discern.
Berkeley argues that if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, it does not make a sound, and in my opinion, Berkeley is correct. First of all, a “tree” must be defined. A tree is best defined as a bundle of perceptions that form an idea. This idea is regarded by society to mean something that is widely accepted to be represented by the word “tree.” The phrase “no one” must also be defined. “No one” refers to the absence of a being with the power to perceive sound. It does not matter whether this being is human or not, only that it can perceive sound. This being could be the most insignificant insect as long as it has the ability to perceive sound. Finally, sound must be defined. Sound is the perception of sound waves. To clarify this concept, Berkeley talks about color. Philonous asks Hylas, “Should it not seem to follow, that all colors are equally apparent, and that none of those which we perceive are really inherent in any outward object?” (Berkeley 21) and Hylas agrees with the statement. Essentially, Berkeley is saying that sound is a perception of sound waves in the same way color is the perception of light. An object does not have an inherent color; it simply appears to be a certain color because of the way it reflects light. I agree with Berkeley regarding the fact that sound only exists as a perception. If the sound waves cannot be perceived, then nothing is heard. If sound can only be heard, and nothing is heard when the tree falls, there is no sound. Furthermore, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it is not even certain that it creates sound waves. There is reasonable suspicion that the tree creates sound waves when it hits the ground because in practically every other aspect of life, sound waves are created when two objects collide. Nevertheless, it cannot be certain that sound waves are created if they cannot be perceived. It is possible that the forest in which the tree falls is special. However unlikely it may be, it is possible that for some unknown reason, this forest does not allow sound waves to be produced when objects collide. Overall, unless it is possible to be absolutely certain that when a tree falls, it creates sound waves that are perceived, it is impossible to know whether or not it makes a sound.
ReplyDeleteThe short answer, according to Berkeley, is no. Or so it seems during the first dialogue between Hylas and Philonous. To begin with, the operational definition that Berkeley uses for sound is the motion of air. According to Berkeley, “real sounds may possibly be seen or felt, but [can] never [be] heard” (18). From this explanation, it can be said that one must either see a sound moving from its source or feel the waves reverberate on one’s skin. In the scenario at hand, if no one was really around to experience the sensation of the wave on their skin or see the wave moving at the time that the tree fell, then the sounds could not possibly have happened. Further, Berkeley believes that qualities such as color, temperature, smell, taste, and sound exist only in the mind. Also, these qualities can only be perceived through the senses. If the quality of sound that the fallen tree possesses is only in the mind, and a mind was not around to perceive the sound through its senses, then the sound did not exist to begin with. An interesting question to consider as an extension of this puzzle would be “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to perceive it, does it even happen at all?” Obviously there’s a pretty logical explanation for this, seeing as someone could observe the tree for several days in a row and one day see that it has fallen. But I digress. There is a problem to be addressed in Berkeley’s argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd that problem starts with God. Later in the dialogues, Berkeley says that things cannot pop in and out of existence because all things are always being perceived in the mind of God. What follows from this assumption undermines the whole of Berkeley’s argument against the hypothetical tree. If everything is always being perceived by God, then every tree falling in every forest can be heard by God. Checkmate, George – your bouncy house of idealism has deflated on top of you.
It’s a question as old as time itself (okay, maybe not quite that old) – if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Fundamentally, this question has served to challenge the perceptions of people of all ages, as anyone seeking to answer this question has to consider the definitions of “sound” and “nobody”, definitions which people rarely think about. Thus, the question poses an interesting philosophical quandary regarding the nature of material objects, qualities of such objects, and the perceptions of external beings.
ReplyDeleteAs much of a cop-out as it may seem, the answer to this question simply depends on the definition of “sound”. If, on the one hand, one defines “sound” as the emission of waves due to some sort of motion, followed by the movement of air particles in response to such waves, then the tree certainly makes a sound. After all, regardless of whether or not that sound is to be perceived, the air is going to react to such sound waves, creating the potential for an audible experience. If, however, one takes this definition one step further, and argues that sound requires the perception of an organism, as, without such a perception, no sound is actually being heard, then the tree certainly does not make a sound. (This is, of course, assuming that the word “nobody” applies to any sentient organism. If this word only applies to humans, and we assume that other sentient animals are near the tree, then this entire argument is moot, as some organism would experience a sensual, auditory response to the sound waves.) A quick search of Google and the Oxford English Dictionary results in both the definition of sound as “vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear”, as well as “the particular auditory effect produced by a special cause”. The former definition would certainly support the idea that the tree does, in fact, make a sound, while the latter, which specifically requires that some sort of perception occur in a sentient organism, would support the opposite argument. From a pure scientific perspective, the idea that a sound is the movement of air particles caused by sound waves certainly makes more sense, as the properties of sound waves are prevalent regardless of the presence or absence an organism capable of hearing it, but, in the end, there is no definitively “correct” answer.
Philosopher George Berkeley, however, would argue that there is a proper response, namely, that the tree does not make a sound. Berkeley specifically defines sound as a “sensation”, rather than any scientific phenomenon (though he does present a scientific understanding of the nature of sound and the existence of sound waves), concluding that “sound, being a sensation, [cannot] exist in the air… without the mind” (17). This portion of the argument makes sense, if we accept the definition of sound that requires a perception. However, Berkeley’s ultimate conclusion from this argument (along with similar arguments applied to the other senses), that any properties of any material object exist only in the mind, and therefore that matter does not exist, is quite flawed, as Berkeley himself is oblivious to the contradictory logic which he utilizes in reaching this conclusion. As long as Berkeley acknowledges that “we never hear a sound but when some motion is produced in the air” (17), there is an objective nature to sound – the waves that are produced, without regard to whatever sensible beings may be around them. At that point, there is some objective nature to sound (the wavelengths, frequencies, and speeds of the waves, as well as the physical properties of the collisions with the air), and therefore, by Berkeley’s own acknowledgement that sound waves exist in the air, there must be some material object that exists to produce such objective qualities.
Therefore, regardless of whether or not the tree actually “makes a sound”, something, some imperceptible interaction with the physical world, is produced, an interaction which must be attributed to matter.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Berkeley’s opinion, if a tree falls in a forest when there is nobody around to hear it, it does not make a sound. Berkeley defines “sound” as a sensation which occurs when “some motion is produced in the air” (17), but he continues by stating that movement of air particles can be seen or felt, but not necessarily heard. Thus he distinguishes between two types of sound: 1) movement of air particles and 2) sound “as it is heard”. He later claims that sound as it is heard is a sensation, and thus if there is nobody to perceive this sensation, there is no sound. According to him, if there is “nobody” in the forest, the “tree” will not be heard.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of “nobody” is essential here. If it means “no humans”, well, animals may perceive the “sound” of the tree falling. Then, it must mean “no creatures” are present in the forest. Yet that is still insufficient, in my opinion. Imagine a leaf on a tree next to the falling tree; wouldn’t that leaf perceive the sound? The leaf would shake slightly due to sound vibrations, which fits as “sound” based on Berkeley’s first definition of movement in air particles. Thus, when a tree falls with no creature to depict it, it makes a sound; yet it is not heard, according to Berkeley’s belief. He would argue that to be heard, can be attributed to the 2nd definition of sound, while to emit sound refers to the 1st definition. The leaf’s movement due to air particles, thus, is embodied in the 1st definition, while the fact that this movement doesn’t mean that the tree is “heard” is shown in the 2nd definition. So no, the tree is NOT heard, but it does emit a sound.
Now, Berkeley argues later on that all things exist only if they are perceived by a mind, as many have already stated. Basically, he arrives at this conclusion after proving that all qualities are actually secondary and exist only within the mind that since it is absurd that objects would pop out of existence when not perceived, an infinite mind (God) would have to exist which constantly monitors the objects. Using this interpretation of God which Berkeley holds, we know that God would perceive the tree falling. If the tree is not heard, that would imply that God has perceived only the “movement of air particles” (the 1st definition) and NOT the “real sound” as it is heard (2nd definition). It would be absurd to conclude that God would not perceive a sensation which His creation is able to (in other words, if God perceives the tree falling, he is surely powerful enough to “hear” it by both definitions, not just one). So, the tree must ALWAYS be heard, since God can perceive everything, all the time, the way His creatures perceive it or otherwise.
I originally thought, as many others in the class did as well, that if a tree falls in the woods there would be a sound, even if there is nobody around to hear it. I justified my reasoning by explaining that sound is formed from sound waves and vibrations that are naturally part of physics and the universe. It does not matter, whether or not a human is observing it. However, after listening to Berkeley’s argument, I noticed that there are some problems with my original idea. The first problem is that I assume, that sound is the same as a sound waves. A sound, and the ability to hear, is a construct that is conjured within one’s brain, while a sound wave is a property specific to the earth, “real sounds may possibly be seen or felt, but never heard” (18). Yes, the tree would cause vibrations, however nobody will hear these vibrations, because sound requires a mind to interpret the sound waves. Another problem with my original assumption is that I do not consider whether an object even exists if there is nothing to view it. When we are not in a room do the objects that we conjure up in our minds even exist, or are they only visible when we are present. According to Berkeley, an object is just a bundle of perceptions that we place together to form this object within our minds. This is an interesting question and one of the main observations of idealism. Perceptions that we have, such as, sound and sight are just within the minds of the perceiver. According to Berkeley the saying “the party don’t start until I walk in”, actually would be the party does not exist until I walk in.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley’s argument is based off the fact that everybody has their own perceptions and that everyone perceives their own material substances. One problem with this argument is that many people share similar perceptions, for example I can see a chair and Sami can also see the chair. Another problem is the existence of God, Berkeley claims that if there is no one viewing an object then it cannot exist, however an omnipotent and omniscient God would see everything and therefore, everything would exist at all times. These two problems will be main concerns that Berkeley will need to deal with later in the book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith a famous question like this it is essential to break it down. First of all the official definition of sound is the vibrations of air creating a certain frequency which can be heard by certain beings. By nobody the question is saying not a single being that has the capability of sensing. A tree is easier of the three to define; it is what we generally perceive it to be “a plant having a permanently woody main stem or trunk, ordinarily growing to a considerable height, and usually developing branches at some distance from the ground” (dictionary.com). So if a tree where to fall then on impact there would have to vibrations as a result. Those vibrations make a frequency which is perceived to sound like a crash. If there is nobody there to hear the tree fall then there is no perception of sound but there is still sound.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction is essential. Sound is being broken down into two parts, the part which is the vibrations and the part which is heard by beings. When the tree falls then the vibrations occur but the other aspect does not exist because it is perceived by the faculty of the senses and there are no beings that can sense in the area. The first statement is true because it defies the laws of physics to have a collision without vibration pattern traveling through the air. The latter is true because the perception of sound requires a faculty of hearing to exist.
Although I am a materialist, I believe that if no one is there to hear it, the tree does not make a sound. Even if there was someone there to hear it, I still do not believe that the tree made a sound. As a materialist, I believe that everything exists independent of the human mind. Any property of an object exists at all times and is maintained whether or not it is observed. Even after believing all of this, I still do not believe that sound exists without a perceiver. Sound is the result of a person’s ear s translating vibrations into usable information. A person who is deaf can still feel vibrations, but sound is never interpreted by their brain. Sound is therefore, created in the mind. A tree cannot produce a sound; it can produce a vibration that will be converted into a sound. Suppose that a person hears a gun fired two times. If they cover their ears during the second shot, it will sound different than the first shot. This is because the vibrations are transformed before they enter they ears. Sound, which is in the mind, can never be transformed inside the mind. If the same vibrations reach your ears multiple times, all will sound identical. Therefore, sound is never produced by a tree and if no one is there, no sound will be heard.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Berkeley’s question might not be about the nature of the sound. It might be whether the tree produces any vibrations at all. If that was what he was asking, I would adamantly state “yes!” The properties of all objects are consistent whether or not they are observed. This includes vibrations caused by falling. The existence of a perceiver does not determine whether or not the tree makes a sound. Therefore, a falling tree still produces vibrations if there is not an observer.
In Berkeley’s famous discussion of Idealism, the statement is made that the properties of all objects rest within the mind of the observer; that the existence of everything is only defined by being perceived by an external mind, and that no properties (like mass, shape, color, or sound) are inherent to an object, existing outside the mind. This conclusion often leads people to question whether or not objects exist whenever they are not being perceived; since existence is granted only through perception, this must mean that lack of perceptions takes away this existence, that all objects not within perceptible range of humans fall out of reality until they are back in view. This question is often stated in a convenient and intuitive way; “If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Furthermore, questions were raised about this concept when people realized that the properties of object were not actually changed through human influence (unless there was a physical interaction). But if existence of an object is determined through the mind, wouldn’t an individual who perceives one object as another, change the properties of that object? Can a person who sees an apple as a cup of coffee turn the apple into a cup of coffee?
ReplyDeleteBerkeley found an issue with this line of thinking; to him it seemed obvious that the idea of objects oscillating in and out of reality was too crazy of a concept to be true. Further still, Berkeley knew very well that human minds cannot morph the properties of objects, and so a convenient escape was created. Since objects are always around regardless of human perception, and they are always around in a rather limited range of properties, Berkeley concluded that there must exist an Omnipresent, Omnipotent mind, which not only grants existence to all things at once, but also controls their properties. Finally, the long-standing question is answered by the leading idealist Berkeley, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, it does make a sound because God is always there to perceive all occurrences. Not only is there a tree, but everything about the tree, the properties it exhibits, and the sounds it makes when it falls all exist indefinitely due to the omniscient mind who is perpetually granting existence to all of these things.
The argument could always be made that Berkeley could have been incorrect about God’s existence, but one must remember that the claim for God’s existence stems from Idealism. God’s existence is proven through the same idea that states that an object requires perception to exist, making one of two options possible. First; Idealism is incorrect (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that in the first place) meaning that a tree that falls in the woods has inherent properties that do not involve the perception of a thinking being to be real. Second, Idealism is correct, leading not only to the concept of existence requiring perception, but also to the existence of God, which grants existence to all objects and their primary properties. Either direction based on Berkley’s philosophies leads to the conclusion that a tree that falls in the woods with nobody around to hear it does in fact make a sound.
Berkeley would argue that a tree falling in the woods does not make a sound as long as no one is around to hear it because he believes that sound is something that humans perceive with our minds; therefore if humans do not exist or are not present, sound cannot exist. While discussing Berkeley’s argument regarding the sound a tree makes in a lone forest, we have to understand the definition of sound, which is simply a vibration that travels through the air. Using this definition, it would be logical to think that the tree would make a noise regardless of who is or is not around because the laws of science tells us that there will still be vibrations even though no one is there to experience them. The problem with this argument is that sound is a word that humans created in order to give a name to what humans hear when those vibrations occur. This means that while there will definitely be many vibrations between the forest floor and the tree, an actual sound will not occur if there is no one there to hear it, since there is no one there to perceive it. Another thing to keep in mind is what Berkeley means by “if no one is there to hear it.” Humans perceive sounds with our minds, but in order for that to happen, the person must exist and must have a mind with which they can perceive things.
ReplyDeleteThis famed problem, commonly known as a ‘philosophical problem’, offers a wide range of questions faced. In order for a sound to be heard, it must be perceived through the mind. Sound is perceived through the mind and the mind only. Berkeley argues since there is no person with a mind to perceive the tree falling, then no sounds is heard, therefore the tree is silent when it falls. I disagree with Berkeley. I believe that if a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to perceive it then it does make a sound because God is there to perceive it. Later in Berkeley’s dialogue, we learn that God is the ultimate perceiver. God perceives everything throughout the world that happens. Does that also mean that God is there to perceive the falling tree? If God perceives us, then he must also perceive the falling tree. Even when we are not present to witness the tree falling, God must be able to witness it because he is there when it falls. God must be present to perceive things. If God constantly perceives us, then he must also constantly perceive the fallen tree. Since God perceives everything, then we can conclude that God is able to perceive things everywhere, therefore proving that he is able to perceive the fallen tree. This theory of God, given by Berkeley himself disproves his own theory that a tree can fall without making a sound. A tree cannot fall and fail to make a sound if there is a perceiver. God is present to perceive the sound of the fallen tree.
ReplyDeleteIf anything HAPPENS when no one is around does it happen? Of course because the action is still taking place. If someone is killed when no one is around, did they really get killed? This is a good comparison because we all know that a tree makes noise when it falls if we are present because not only do we see it happening, but we also hear it as well. So if you see someone get killed, you know it happened because you physically saw it. So the idea of sound being made is the action that is occurring, nobody is the people that aren't around to witness this action taking place and finally the tree is the body or being that is doing the action that people are not near. In conclusion, if a tree falls, it does make a sound because even if no one is near to hear it, sound is still being made
ReplyDeleteBerkeley claims that values like sound are extrinsic and thus exist only inside the minds. If we take the definition of sound to be our perception of vibrations in the air, He would say sound may be perceived by two different people, and the two perceptions cannot both be happening, so the value of sound is a perception by our minds. According to this logic, if there were no minds to perceive the sound of this tree falling, the tree would make no sound because the property of sound is extrinsic to the action. So this question is solved if you agree with Berkley's theory of extrinsic values that rely on our mind, but if you still hold values to be dependent on objects or actions, the tree would make a sound regardless of the lack of minds to perceive it. So, whether or not the tree makes a sound depends on if you buy into Berkley's theory of extrinsic values. Also, if you have a different definition of what sound is, this argument no longer applies, for if sound is only the vibrations in the air, it can be measured in hertz. Now it has a definite measure it is unchanging and is not effected by Berkley's theory of extrinsic values because it is not relative to the mind. The tree would make a sound dependent on the validity of Berkley's argument for qualities being perceptions of the mind, and your definition of what sound is, so the answer varies depending on the mind it is asked to.
ReplyDeleteThe ‘if a tree falls in the woods…’ conundrum is one that has been a constant source of philosophical debate throughout time. Based upon the fundamental beliefs of idealism, Berkeley essentially argues that when a tree falls in the woods, if no one is there to perceive the sound made by the tree when it falls, then the sound ceases to exist. This is argued to be true because idealism presents the notion that everything is merely a sum of its perceptions and ideas, and that without anyone there to truly witness and perceive the fall or the sound, it completely ceases to exist.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one argument to combat this claim is that which is scientifically-based. dictionary.com defines “sound” as,
“mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.” while we may not necessarily hear the sound ourselves, it is understood that on a scientific basis, we know the sound does truly, physically exist, with data to back this claim up. We find that in arguing this point, whether or not Berkeley is justified in his beliefs can boil down to the question of whether or not we are looking at “sound” as a scientific quality, driven by evidence and data or rather metaphysically observing it as a sensory quality, dependent upon our perception to determine its existence.