|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:57 pm
I am really tired of hearing this question. What makes you so great mister zen bhuddist guy that sounds suddenly don't exist just becase you aren't there? Same thing applies to people that argue if stuff really exists or not. In the end does it really matter? If stuff no longer exists without an observer does it matter? How does this affect anyone at all. And If a tree falls in the wood and no one is around to hear it, it would still cause a vibration of surrouding air causing sonic waves.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:13 pm
It's proof of a point:
What cant be proven can never be found truly correct or incorrect, it is a saying that was never told to make you sound like a fool or anything, it simply tells one that you can doubt or assume the most immpossible events if you did notyourself know the answer or assumed you knew the answer. No matter how impossible it sounds,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:32 pm
SurvivingPyrodoxManiac... It's proof of a point: What cant be proven can never be found truly correct or incorrect, it is a saying that was never told to make you sound like a fool or anything, it simply tells one that you can doubt or assume the most immpossible events if you did notyourself know the answer or assumed you knew the answer. No matter how impossible it sounds, I'm saying that it is preterntious to make a question that cannot be inherently answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:52 pm
Silence is often the answer to koans (riddles), but only sometimes.
I could re-frame the question the same way with light and eyes. Light is really just a bunch of waves/photons (vibrations!). Our eyes evolved to tap into this information source. The sense of hearing is another one of these information sources.
There's a "vibration" theme going here which is important. (Even String Theory believes particles may really be the particular vibrations of "strings" or "membranes"....)
The full implication of the tree falling in the woods can also be asked with this question: who were you before you were born?
Supposedly, if you can make the connections here, you are that much closer to understanding your true nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:42 pm
Scientifically, actually, the question can be answered: no. It will create vibrations and waves, this is true, but waves are not a sound. Waves are an effect of the tree falling, and sound is an effect of those waves being translated by the right mechanisms. Lightwaves travel at, well, the speed of light; whether or not they are percieved, lightwaves are present(excepting cases of utmost blacknesses, see: blackholes). However, unless this raw data can be decoded into an image, there is no image, simply lightwaves.
Basically, if a cause typically creates an effect, but there is nothing around to affect, is there still an effect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:11 am
Viscount Scientifically, actually, the question can be answered: no. It will create vibrations and waves, this is true, but waves are not a sound. Waves are an effect of the tree falling, and sound is an effect of those waves being translated by the right mechanisms. Lightwaves travel at, well, the speed of light; whether or not they are percieved, lightwaves are present(excepting cases of utmost blacknesses, see: blackholes). However, unless this raw data can be decoded into an image, there is no image, simply lightwaves. Basically, if a cause typically creates an effect, but there is nothing around to affect, is there still an effect? Well then the question devolves in to a question of definition. As for Kagerou Osajima : It's just that i believe that it is pointless to ask a question. The true path to enlightenment is not containd in riddle's or phrases but true understanding and peace with one's true nature, will, or self depending on ideal form according to ones belief system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:40 am
luftwafe As for Kagerou Osajima : It's just that i believe that it is pointless to ask a question. The true path to enlightenment is not containd in riddle's or phrases but true understanding and peace with one's true nature, will, or self depending on ideal form according to ones belief system. I agree. 3nodding The koans were originally intended as just one method to give people something to meditate over. I suppose in a way, it's to train people to not take words literally all the time...since there's an inherent trap in doing that. So...there's a kind of joke to it in that the point of the riddles is that they're pointless. A lot of koans got into pop-culture, so lost that aspect. But that's really Zen's fault for keeping them around so long. Koans are supposed to be based on everyday life, yet many of them are several hundred years old. (If you really wanna waste your time, here's bunch of the oldies...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:44 pm
Kagerou Osajima luftwafe As for Kagerou Osajima : It's just that i believe that it is pointless to ask a question. The true path to enlightenment is not containd in riddle's or phrases but true understanding and peace with one's true nature, will, or self depending on ideal form according to ones belief system. I agree. 3nodding The koans were originally intended as just one method to give people something to meditate over. I suppose in a way, it's to train people to not take words literally all the time...since there's an inherent trap in doing that. So...there's a kind of joke to it in that the point of the riddles is that they're pointless. A lot of koans got into pop-culture, so lost that aspect. But that's really Zen's fault for keeping them around so long. Koans are supposed to be based on everyday life, yet many of them are several hundred years old. (If you really wanna waste your time, here's bunch of the oldies...) Hoorah! because God knows that all philosophers have too much time on their hands! < also a popular song by Styx who also did Mr. Roboto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:52 pm
luftwafe Hoorah! because God knows that all philosophers have too much time on their hands! < also a popular song by Styx who also did Mr. Roboto. Hell, yeah. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:35 am
i remember talking about something like this in a class i once took in which my professor put a can of soda into a carboard box, closed it up and asked us to prove that there was something in the box without touching it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:57 pm
nightlight i remember talking about something like this in a class i once took in which my professor put a can of soda into a carboard box, closed it up and asked us to prove that there was something in the box without touching it. X ray radiation would've done the trick but that'd be a bit much to disprove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:21 pm
You could throw something at the box...! Maybe land hard enough to make it rattle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:47 pm
Oh a good answer to the box thing is "If the thing in the box was of any importance it's existence would be known or make it's self known, thereby the object in the box or lack thereof is moot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:35 am
anyways, after reading all the answers here, there was apparently no way to prove there was something in the box. The answer had to do with negative space or something, i forget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:13 am
Hooray! I cheched the poll and 4 people care more about gold then Insulting me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
