here is a good question up for debate: if a tree falls...

I very much agree with what you have to say about this. Just because we didn't hear something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thank you Withoutwings! I have come to another question: fightingstheonlyway, how do you know the tree falls? according to your way of thinking it doesn't fall, and furthermore, there is no tree, since there is no observer! For you the existant world is only the length of a few miles around you, where you can see and hear, then. Europe don't exist, if you are in canada and you can't hear us.

the tree itself is actually proven existent because the tree itself is the observer.. if we assume that once it breaks off it becomes non-living and nobody else is existent, does the tree become non-existent as well? i would then argue No because the tree has already been proven to exist because the tree itself was the observer. for there needs to be an observer for something to exist. _______________ so, if i was to have a mental problem and have delusions that the easter bunny exists, it does exist because i am an observer of it! does this mean that if one can go as far as THINKING of it, does it also become existent? hmm btw missak, THIS is metaphysics

but how would you know that there was a sound in the first place?

dude, thats observation

We could use a sonometer. We leave a rock in the desert conected to a system that will make it fall in about 2 days, and we put a sonometer near where it is intended to fall. We return home. We look on the recordings of the sonometer, do you think it will record nothing for the rock falling just because we weren't there?

firstly, observation does not just mean sight. secondly, the tree is an observer.

well then wouldnt the tree be the observer when it falls and makes a sound also?

well, in that case what about the dirt, or the ground the tree is in as an observer?

well, you kind of trailed off.. but okay.. but yea, this is another subject. does something become existent through thought? also, what is the difference between inspiration and plagiarized? plagiarized work is getting others work and say its your own. inspiration is getting ideas from other sources to create something new, so it is not metaphysical. so, the easter bunny was created by some guy thinking of A)a bunny B)a man walking C)chicken eggs and D) chocolate and he created a walking bunny who lays chocolate chicken eggs. so it is not metaphysical.

the metaphysical part of this is asking whether or not something is existent through thought.

That was Tanya's argument about a month ago. I think you are following her steps, but slower. In about a month you will realize you are deterministic lol. "inspiration is getting ideas from other sources to create SOMETHING NEW"- If it is new, it is not plagarized, it belongs to no one else and it is not present in current physics. Joining ideas is not always an inspired accion. Just artistical ones are really inspired, and really challenge the world. So only thoose are metaphysical. "The metaphysical part of this is asking whether or not something is existent through thought." Do you mean that the question is metaphysical? or the answer is metaphysical? Or the options are metaphysical? Anyways we return to the same: if you invent something (= making something existent through thought) the process is metaphysical.

oh come on missak, i thought you were smarter than this.. im gonna give you the answer. this comes down to this question: is something seen because its visible or visible because its seen?

mmmmmm your answers are questions... nice... plus you target me to other discussions when you never follow the links I give you to my OLDER discussions (not some I invented in a moment of fear to wipe oway the attention). I am not you, I'll answer to that discussion, but still I want to follow this reasoning that is not exactly the same. If you base the existance of things on PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, how would you disprouve religious people when they are basing on the prior knowledge (about God and related things) their comunity gave them (i.e. The Bible)? I think it is you who is not being smart. Once again my intention was not using your arguments against you, just showing they are not valid arguments. Or if they are, you should explain them better.

Your arguments: 1.prior knowledge 2.AND 3.life at the area Once again very dogamtic religious arguments lol. 1.I won't abuse, I'll let you rethink this one a little. 3.How do you know there is life on that area, if it is not because of 1? 2.aren't 1 and 3 the same? why capital letters? And take it a step further, nothing exists at all. No tree no falling no sound no noise and no discussion :P

aw, now we are getting somewhere. are we? maybe not. how can you be sure that a living thing is an observer? how can you be sure that a lone living thing can observe itself? the truth is, we cant. EVEN if there is another observer observing you, it could just be a fault in your observation that another observer is observing you. this is the only good rebuttal to my argument, and one that may or may not have an answer. can an observer observe oneself? if not, there may be no proof to existence what so ever and everything you are observing is just a figment. HOWEVER, this seems to back up the idea of "i think, therefore i am" because this idea only has the capacity to disprove the existence of anything BUT the thinker/observer! that is why i agree with this statement, and, moreover, use it to justify the existence of others, even though it is limited (because one can argue that the existence of others through this sequence could also be a figment) that is how i believe that the observer can prove his own existence even better than others.

also, there is a debate that "i think, therefore i am" is actually a fill in the blank statement.. i think "i am tired", therefore i am "tired"

I think you didn't get me here. What I meant is if you are alone in the universe (i.e. in the middle of the desert in your scenario, in the place of the tree) whether you fall and die or not, how can you be sure you are alive? Do you need one silly scenario to understand this? Think on Descartes "I think therefore I am", is that true for you? Ok, I'll seek for a silly scenario about trees and a wolf eating the three pigs so that you understand.

we cannot be sure of anything until it happens. it is not science then, it is faith.

yea, its the truth, there is no way i could disprove that. however, this only works in the logic of its own domain. just as quantum physics only works in its own domain.

That sounds very mystical! What is the difference between domains and plans of existance, and what meditations should we use to get to the next domain?

The soul issue is just a side note. Now take your sentence: "so, the God is proven existent, because the God itself is an observer. it can be proven because it is living." lol, nice arguments for an atheistic...

noise is a sound.

lol, I am already in the end, this discussion is very easy, just I am going slow to make it interesting. Here was just a non-philosophical argument: the definition of sound has nothing to do with an an "observer", while the "noise" definition does.

artists are human beings (I wtill wonder sometimes, but we can pretend we are right?)

again, nothing is 100%. we cannot assume anything until it happens