Did it make a sound, Veeky Forums?

The tree is just an idea in God's mind.

Define sound

How is it justified that God has a mind?

Because minds (and their ideas) are the only things that exist.

How is it justified that minds other than your own exist? How is it justified that a mind other than the ones animals and humans have exists?

Pic related would imply that an actor capable of hearing it would not have to be present for sound to happen.

Which seems weird.

By accepted definition? Duh of course. Phenomenologically? Not if I wasn't around.

>How is it justified that minds other than your own exist?
Because I'm able to experience other phenomenon.

You've experienced another's mind?

Our experience is another's mind.

Your experiences don't comprise your own mind? You lack a mind?

Experiences we perceive as external reality are ideas in God's mind.

Again you lack ideas and a mind? What medium does God's mind reside in? And when a person or animal dies, and it stops experiencing things, does this mean God's mind becomes less?

Yes
/thread

How can you prove that God heard it?

>this thread

Yeah it went BRSHHHHKCRKCRKSHFWOOOFBAM

Matter is not created or destroyed. The mind within a mind becomes a new mind.

How do you know your mind is within a mind? Also how are ideas matter?

>Again you lack ideas and a mind?
Ideas are all a mind has.

>What medium does God's mind reside in?
Berkeley said that everything is either a spirit (mind) or an idea. Nothing exists apart from the mind, and ideas only exist within minds. We have the illusion of a tree being a physical object, but only because God supplies the idea of it to our senses allowing us to form an idea of it in our own minds. This also explains the persistence of such "objects" when we go away from and return to them. The idea stays constant in God's mind. In this system a mind requires no "medium."

>And when a person or animal dies, and it stops experiencing things, does this mean God's mind becomes less?
Animals don't have minds in Berkeley's system. I think that Berkeley would either answer that human minds are separate from God's mind, or that human minds are merely ideas of minds within God's mind, so the death of a human mind wouldn't "lessen" God's mind at all, but would lessen either another, distinct mind, or would be a mere idea, the extinguishment of which would lessen the mind it is contained within no more than then the emptying of a bottle would lessens the bottle itself.

Because the tree itself, let alone the sound it makes, would not exist if there were no mind present to perceive it, and the only mind that could be around if no human minds were around would be God's mind.

>This also explains the persistence of such "objects" when we go away from and return to them.
Wouldn't it require fewer assumptions to instead insist that ideas stay constant in our own minds independently?
>a mind requires no medium
Unembodied minds exist in this system?
>Animals don't have minds in Berkeley's system.
Why not?

The existence of ideas is easier to prove than the existence of "physical matter" because we only know such "material objects" through the ideas that we have of them. "I think therefore I am" proves the existence of minds. If we can reasonably doubt the existence of "matter" but not of ideas or minds, then it stands to reason that what we experience as "matter" might very well be merely ideas in a mind, a mind that might as well contain our minds themselves. Monism is a simpler system than dualism, and idealism might very well be simpler than materialism.

the argument always goes
>define sound

the only one using the term "Lack of mind" is you

>Matter is not created or destroyed.
O I AM LAFFIN

next you'll be telling us how sky daddy created everything

it's funny how the entire issue relies on the fact that there wasn't a person to hear it therefore it is arguable that it doesn't make a sound

though you cannot know it fell if you didn't see it fall either which would naturally lead you to hear the sound too, however that is already presupposed in the question

You only know you think that others think. This line of thinking only gets you as far as solipsism.

>Wouldn't it require fewer assumptions to instead insist that ideas stay constant in our own minds independently?
But when you're not around the tree would cease to exist, since the human mind is finite in its perception. The idea of the tree would have to be recreated anew each time it is encountered, because the memory, being the idea, would cease to exist in the absence of perception. You would need to assume a solipsistic position to explain the persistence of objects, which raises other difficulties (why are the perceptions of the solipsistic mind limited?) without solving the original problem (the assumption of an omnipresent mind). A separate omnipresent mind solves this difficulty of solipsism by allowing for both an infinite and finite minds to coexist and interact.

>Unembodied minds exist in this system?
Spirits are the only thing that exists in this system, apart from the ideas they contain.

>Why not?
Berkeley probably viewed animals as mindless automatons much as Descartes did, only in this case they are made of ideas rather than matter. Only humans, angels, and God have mins in subjective idealism.

>Berkeley probably viewed animals as mindless automatons much as Descartes did, only in this case they are made of ideas rather than matter. Only humans, angels, and God have mins in subjective idealism.
I'd love to hear the justification for this.

Humans have bias towards ourselves and it makes us assume irrational things like Berkeley did.

>because the memory, being the idea, would cease to exist in the absence of perception.
Not necessarily. Memories persist whether we are stil around to perceive the tree or not. Our own minds make the memory persist.

Well I'd imagine that he thought that God's idea of an animal just didn't include a mind as he defined it, since one can't prove that an animal has such a thing.

One can't prove a human (or god, for that matter) has one either.

Well we're back to Descartes then, who would disagree with that.

Descartes only proves solipsism. How do you know people other than me think?

If a tree is an idea in the mind of the solipsistic mind, and the memory of the tree is that same idea, the wouldn't the removal of the idea of the tree from perception also remove the memory of the tree from the mind, being that the idea, the tree, and the memory are all one and the same?

Cartesianism relies on the existence of God as the source of reason and existence, not the individual thinker, and is incompatible with solipsism, because Descartes is not an idealist. I can't recall his exact line of reasoning from "I think therefore I am" to "God is" but I'm sure Berekley was all over it.

Nice assumptions m80

Of course it makes a sound.
Get that rotunda butt out in to the country more often

Yes.

how do we know the tree has fallen if no one is there to see it fall?

Define your terms, state your axioms, and ask again

yes, it still released waves of vibrations, there just weren't any human eardrums to pick it up

No the pic's definition treats sound as a physical thing like light, temperature or gravity. Light exists even if no one sees it, things have a temperature even if no one feels it, and objects exert gravity even if nothing is around to be affected by it.
The does a tree falling with no one around still make a sound question is basically the same as is "is a cube of ice cold even if no one touches it?"

>The does a tree falling with no one around still make a sound question is basically the same as is "is a cube of ice cold even if no one touches it?"
Low temperature/temperature kinetic energy is a valid definition of "cold" even if whatever you're examining was isolated from heat flow.

Sound is the result of a stimulus, namely air movement in the form of a longitudinal wave.

If no one is around, it did not. More importantly, if there is no life that can perceive air movement as sound, then no. However, the forest is not devoid of life, so some animal probably did hear it.

A whistle is blown twice. It creates vibrations in the surrounding air, but at a very high frequency. The first time, only humans are around, and nobody percieve the whistle. The second time, a dog is also present, and reacts by looking directly at the whistler. Aside from the change in audience, the whistle blows were identical.

Does the whistle "make a sound"? Would this change if we modified the procedure to involve human adults and human adolescents rather than humans and dogs?

Circular logic at its best.

Anyone who says it didn't make a noise is either a simpleton or an ironic shitposter, the saying revolves around the truth that just because we can't perceive something doesn't mean it didn't happen or isn't happening.

>The speed of sound is the distance traveled per unit time by a sound wave propagating through an elastic medium.

Yes it did make a sound.
You couldnt measure the speed of sound if it were something that is just in your head.
Now that youve been properly blown the fuck out, delete this thread.

Yes it did, it was already entangled, its quantum wave function was collapsed...

this is the dumbest fucking 'muh philosophy' thing ever, of course it made a fucking sound, a human doesn't need to hear it for it to be a sound