Useless Thread...

[JeffHamm]

Interesting discussion, but I think Jeff that the waves are created empirically when the treat falls, the fact that there is nothing to auditorily translate them into recognizable sounds doesn't affect that truth. So I suppose a better way to phrase that would be...that if a tree falls in the forest does it create waves that can be translated by a translator/receiver into recognizable sounds to a human, is more the accurate way to phrase it...and that answer would be yes.

Yes I agree fully with the claim that if a tree falls in a forest, that is not itself contained within a vacuum, then there will result a series of pressure waves in the surrounding atmosphere. Those pressure waves, however, are not in and of themselves sound - they are the physical signal that are detected by a sensory organ which then produces neurological activity that, through mechanisms we do not know, result in the perceptual qualia we call sound. There is no requirement that the pressure waves are able to contact an auditory sense organ in order for those waves to be created. Nor is there any requirement for there to be pressure waves present in order for sound to be perceived (think auditory hallucinations; tinnitus; etc). Therefore sound and pressure waves are not identical, despite the high degree of correlation between them (pressure waves, within certain frequencies and amplitudes, will generally result in perceived sounds when detected by a normally functioning auditory system after all).

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting discussion, but I think Jeff that the waves are created empirically when the treat falls, the fact that there is nothing to auditorily translate them into recognizable sounds doesn't affect that truth. So I suppose a better way to phrase that would be...that if a tree falls in the forest does it create waves that can be translated by a translator/receiver into recognizable sounds to a human, is more the accurate way to phrase it...and that answer would be yes.

[JeffHamm]

So you subscribe to "sound" as being a 2 element event,... the source of the sound as one, and the sound recorder another? Interesting. As Im sure was clear in my post, I subscribe to the belief that when you know a falling tree does in fact make noise because you've heard it before yourself...you have been the recorder, your absence when it happens again doesn't alter that fact. Its why I added when it falls on someone, everyone knows that a human being will make noise when impacted by a heavy large object, even inadvertently. You don't need to hear it to know its truly there.

Sound refers to the perceptual event. Light waves do not have "colour", for example, they are just electromagnetic waves of differing frequencies. They are perceived as colour when they strike our retina and get translated into neurological signals that eventually result in the perception of colour. Sound is to hearing what colour is to seeing. When the tree falls in the forest it creates pressure waves in the air, that's the physical signal but it is not sound as that is the perceptual phenomenon (like the electromagnetic waves are the physical signal that are related to the perceptual phenomenon of colour). So, without a perceiver there can be the physical signal created but there cannot be the perceptual event, meaning there is no sound without something to translate the physical signal into a perceptual one.

So, if the tree falls on someone, that someone is the perceiver and so yes, there would be a sound. If that person were deaf, however, and there were no other organism that "hears", then no. Neither the tree nor the person created a sound, though both created disturbances in the air.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Is a sound only a sound if those disruptions in the airwaves are detected by an organism capable of translating them into electrical activity with associated cognition?

As such, I'm going for "no". If a tree falls and no organisms translate that activity into perceivable "sound" then the sound never existed.

So you subscribe to "sound" as being a 2 element event,... the source of the sound as one, and the sound recorder another? Interesting. As Im sure was clear in my post, I subscribe to the belief that when you know a falling tree does in fact make noise because you've heard it before yourself...you have been the recorder, your absence when it happens again doesn't alter that fact. Its why I added when it falls on someone, everyone knows that a human being will make noise when impacted by a heavy large object, even inadvertently. You don't need to hear it to know its truly there.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Is a sound only a sound if those disruptions in the airwaves are detected by an organism capable of translating them into electrical activity with associated cognition?

As such, I'm going for "no". If a tree falls and no organisms translate that activity into perceivable "sound" then the sound never existed.

[Michael W Richards]

If a tree falls in the forest with no-one around does it make a sound? If it falls on someone, do they? Its not always necessary to have all the data to be able to make a reasonable conclusion about things.

But the democratic way means that any conclusions must be ok'd by committees, so even if someone makes a reasonable conclusion using only what is known, they will have to have committee approval for it. That aint gonna happen in Ripperology, too many individuals with preconceived notions.

[Enigma]

Though some of the ideas which flogged a dead horse can be amusing. The great paranormal definitive solution of not so long ago did have an entertainment value even if it was useless.

[c.d.]

Useless Thread...
What a great idea, I had a couple in mind that I was going to call 'A Whip and a Prod' & 'Diemschutz' pony and cart - an obstruction to proceedings?'
Unfortunately someone beat me to it!
So many irrelevant pointless and irrelevant threads

I don't think I would go so far as to call them useless. Looking at things from a different perspective can be productive. However, some threads just beat a dead horse until it becomes reincarnated only to beat it to death again. There are some posters who seem to have an overwhelming desire to be proven correct. There is simply not enough evidence in this case for anyone to claim 100% metaphysical certainly of their theories. A preponderance of the evidence is the best we can do and even that is debatable. Arguing the same points over and over and failing to acknowledge evidence to the contrary gets old.

c.d.

[Spider]

Useless Thread...
What a great idea, I had a couple in mind that I was going to call 'A Whip and a Prod' & 'Diemschutz' pony and cart - an obstruction to proceedings?'
Unfortunately someone beat me to it!
So many irrelevant pointless and irrelevant threads

[JeffHamm]

I think if you find a use for it it causes a paradox and the internet explodes. That's my worry anyway.

- Jeff

[mikey559]

Wow, no one uses the useless thread. Oh well, I'll always be useless!

[Rosemary]

Well then

I'm at the head of the Useless Traiin, mes Amis. I've achieved a point of pointless posts, allegorically & alliteratively speaking. I just get my head banged when there's too much P in the air, good champers or not GUT, me darlin.

[GUT]

On 13 November 2015, Pierre told us that, in a letter he had found, the author, using a metaphorical language, "gives…the name of Mary Jane Kelly".

This was simply untrue.

After Pierre was forced to reveal the contents of the letter - Craig's persistence in searching for it having paid off - we discovered that the name of Mary Jane Kelly is not found in that letter in any form of language, metaphorical or otherwise, nor is even the name of "Mary" found in that letter in any form of language.

So when Pierre talks about having found someone's full name in metaphorical language in a letter, we can be confident, on the basis of his track record, that the name is not, in fact, to be found in that letter.

All Pierre's posts are useless as far as I can see.

So perhaps they should all be moved here.

[Mayerling]

Actually David, if anyone should have used this to make a useless post it shouldn't have been you (your post had a point to it) but Pierre - none of his vaporings that he calls clues have points.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

On 13 November 2015, Pierre told us that, in a letter he had found, the author, using a metaphorical language, "gives…the name of Mary Jane Kelly".

This was simply untrue.

After Pierre was forced to reveal the contents of the letter - Craig's persistence in searching for it having paid off - we discovered that the name of Mary Jane Kelly is not found in that letter in any form of language, metaphorical or otherwise, nor is even the name of "Mary" found in that letter in any form of language.

So when Pierre talks about having found someone's full name in metaphorical language in a letter, we can be confident, on the basis of his track record, that the name is not, in fact, to be found in that letter.