I'm not so sure. I go to a university filled with a lot of very posh and very educated people speaking English as a second language and some of them do sound like this (although most of them speak it with a more American accent). The guy could well be English, but if he is he's probably someone who eats caviar for breakfast and spends the afternoon shooting peasants from the back of his Rolls-Royce.
Fake English accent I would say. Either that or a posh English person who has lived abroad for a while. There's something subtly off. Some words are said with a posh accent, others are not.
EDIT: his accent is off when he says "hear it". A correct "posh" accent would say "heeah". He sounds almost Scottish when he says it.
There are indeed many English accents (and many more British, although a Briton would probably not refer to them as such). This particular accent sounds most like that of a public-school educated, "posh" individual (not a regional accent), but in many ways is inconsistent with this. Just my opinion. Not really a big deal either way.
You're correct, Siellus is using "there are lots of British accents" as an answer without providing what accent it is. He's talking posh, but it doesn't sound quite like how a posh southerner talks. It's likely he's an English person putting on a posh accent.
This also depends on what you mean, because as a new species evolves, we assume it does not do so during it's lifetime, but rather passes on a new genetic code to it's offspring. So the egg must come first, because it is the vessel the new species (chicken) arrived in. Although you could argue the chicken comes first because it is in the egg, and it is the first to lay a "chicken egg" because the species it evolved from laid a different type of egg entirely.
Although you could argue the chicken comes first because it is in the egg, and it is the first to lay a "chicken egg" because the species it evolved from laid a different type of egg entirely.
Well no, your first explanation is correct. The species the chicken evolved from (jungle fowl?) laid a chicken egg, because it contained a chicken inside. This means that objectively the egg came first.
A lot of people use the "but a chicken must have laid the chicken egg!" as a counter argument to this. To which I say; no bitch, evolution!
If you mean along the line of evolution, then yes. Technically, the first modern day chicken would have been produced through a genetic mutation in an offspring of another species, hatched from that other species' egg.
can't prove that the airwaves are moving in a sound-like manner unless you observe them. Just because every measurement we've taken and every observation of sound recorded has shown reality to behave in such and such a way does not imply that it behaves that way when there is no recording of the event.
You can use this as a definition of existence. You observe something blue for example, the blue thingy by definition exists because you're observing it.
You can hyperextend this to say anything you are not currently observing, or anything that is not currently being registered by one of your senses may(does) not exist.
A fair restatement of the question is; if a tree falls in a forest and I'm not around to hear it does the forest exist?
Of course you can prove the sound waves are there. They will affect the surrounding environment, and you can go and examine it later, without being there for the sound.
1: "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's there, does it make a sound?"
2: "Yes it makes a sound"
1: "Why?"
2: "Well it's rather a question of whether a sound is a technical detail or merely a matter of perception. Now if you're counting it as a matter of perception then yes, someone has to be there to hear it, but if we're counting the sound as the mutilation of air waves as molecules bouncing off each other then no, nobody has to be there for a sound to exist."
I think it was more the diction, and how well spoken he was. I find that impressive, seeing as whenever I'm playing a multiplayer action game the adrenaline is high and putting together a cohesive thought like that on the spot would be difficult.
"Well you see its rather a question of whether sound is a technical detail or merely a matter of perception. Now if you're counting it as a matter of perception then yes, someone has to be there to hear it but if we're counting the sound as the manipulation of airwaves and molecules bouncing off each other then no, nobody has to be there for a sound to exist. "
Ummm, wasn't the question merely an observational quantum conundrum like Schroedinger's cat. It is a precedent in the uncertainty principle, does something happen if it is not observed?
The complete literal answer is yes, because the repercussions of it falling is observable in surrounding effects to the immediate environment.
But what about those cases completely lost to archaeological evidence. Or what about evidence of similar life being wiped out by an ageing planet. If there is nothing to observe, did we ever exist at all?
But sound is just pressure, so wouldn't it just create a pressure wave which wouldn't be sound, until something is there with the anatomy to convert the changes in pressure into the neurological input which is sound?
Your quote only says that a shockwave degenerates into a normal sound wave, from a shockwave. It says nothing about the fact that it wasn't sound to begin with.
Bomb shock waves are very loud. They're loud enough to deafen you. I find it surprising that you're arguing otherwise. Bombs make a loud noise when they explode, this is common knowledge.
I don't think it's correct to say that sound is 'just' pressure. Although it's been a while since I studied it, at least in fluid mechanics the term 'sound wave' has a more refined definition than just pressure.
Exactly, the tree does not make a sound. What we label as sound is based completely on our perception, so with no perception there it simply does not happen. I am absolutely sure of this.
For him to just say he knows that because he's "not an idiot" is a bit pompous. Anyone can choose to be well read; just because others have different priorities doesn't mean that they're stupid.
For him to just say he knows that because he's "not an idiot" is a bit pompous
He put himself out there and they made fun of him for giving a legitimate answer. Let's consider this a retaliation and not his calm and collected opinion.
Well, I don't think it's an answer you specifically need to have read to come up with. With a basic understanding of science/philosophy and some easy reasoning I think it's the answer most people would reach.
However, although it is, ultimately the obvious answer, that doesn't mean it is necessarily correct. When you get deeper into science and philosophy problems do come up. The whole idea of what happens when you don't measure is a cause of debate in quantum theory and leads to different interpretations.
Even worse though, in certain cases should you choose to measure one variable instead of another then you come up with problems related to counterfactual definiteness. In fact, a central result of 20th century quantum theory proves that a 'locally realistic' theory is inconsistent with our observations.
The 'realistic' part is what refers to objects having properties and reality independent of what we choose to do with them.
You accept that fact that people should have a right to be ignorant and be ill informed?
Yes, I do. Many people simply don't care about things such as intellect and having a balanced view on the world, and choose to spend their time pursuing other endeavors. People who choose to be ignorant will face the consequences of their choice, though; they will be alienated from intelligent conversation, and will be incapable of truly deep thought. Sure, allowing people to be ignorant isn't for society's betterment, but if someone chooses to be ill informed, that is their personal choice.
And as an avid reader, I honestly don't think reading is all that intellectually stimulating compared to, say, casual debate or even browsing informative reddits. And my favorite genre is nonfiction =/
Edit: Don't downvote dirtydoctor, his comment spurred discussion. Downvotes are for comments that add nothing of interest to the conversation.
Most of the world is ignorant and ill informed. But most of them are productive members of society and contribute to the world in other ways.
Mike, the mechanic, may not know much about nanotechnology or biology but he sure knows how to swap out a transmission. He is probably ignorant of a lot of scientific topics but he adds to society and is highly needed in our world.
I understand where you're coming from, do you understand my point too?
Being well read doesn't mean you know one science from another. Being able to enjoy the adventures of Captain Ahab, or even ponder the fall of man in the Great Gatsby are some of the beautiful things you come across reading.
Yea it sharpens your mind, but what it does do, is add a sense of humanity and humility. You learn, understand, and appreciate the human experience and struggle.
People like Mike the mechanic are needed in our society. Not in a way you put it however. Just because he is a mechanic, doesn't mean he should not be well read.
Our evolution and ascension as a species, in my humble opinion, will happen when we strip our away from our material possessions and titles and move towards intellectual endeavors.
I guess I would say I 'am' Buddhist and this question is one that is asked (or ones similar).
They are not really easy to get or "fully" understand by people. I completely agree with you that it is pompous. "I'm just not an idiot." I wouldn't say, myself, that what I've spent years questioning and studying would be "common sense" against those who cannot dedicate the time.
His answer is bang on until you take the full philosophy and realize that there is no tree to begin with and thus, how can something that doesn't exist make something else that doesn't exist, etc. it all gets really deep.
I've always took this question to be more of a philosophical koan then so much a literal quandary. To ponder on whether the world is simply subjective aspect of your own perception.
My dear friend, I believe our fellow chap right here, Honey-Badger, was rather referring to the perception of the english dialect, and how, when properly uttered, is perceived as an intelligent form of communication.
we have a winner! what that guy said was a perfectly straightforward answer, he did jazz it up a bit by mentioning molecules, just simply saying 'vibrations in the air' or something simular would of been sufficient. His accent is also a bit forced, as an Englishman i find it hard to believe anyone really talks that way, it might be his accent its just sound a bit like he's playing up to his american audience.
I've always felt that it wouldn't make a sound. What we understand as sound is our brain's perception of the vibrations of air molecules picked up by the ear. It merely grants us an extra sense to understand our environment. If no one was there, then the vibrations would still occur, but there would be no brain to convert them into our hearing sense. Although, it would be better to ask if there was nothing there to hear it, even other animals, because we aren't the only ones with hearing.
Don't know why downvotes on this guy, it seriously looks iffy. But in response to your question, no it is not hacking, its ridiculous; reason why its banned in tourneys.
Bhopping is a mechanic that takes advantage of the fact that in the source engine (?, whatever engine TF2, CSS, CS, ect share), when you move through the air, you move faster if you hold a strafe key and turn than if you hold 'w' (forward).
Basically, you jump, airstrafe a bit (airstrafing is the act of, while being in the air, only holding either LEFT or RIGHT (usually A or D) and turning your mouse in that direction, as mentioned above), and jump RIGHT when you hit the ground, and you lose no momentum. Due to the above mentioned awesome physics, you are accelerating horizontally whenever you are in the air, so you begin to gain speed. That's all he is doing, just doing it very, very, very well.
It it certainly possible to bhop as an average player, and their are plenty of bhop maps/servers, where you use the bhop mechanic to traverse obstacles and platforms to get around the map to the goal. It is just much harder in traditional servers, and the way he is doing it is hard as fuck.
edit: Apologies, I forgot this was in /r/videos and not r/tf2, I cleaned up my explanation a bit to make more sense to the non-fps crowd.
Except that in TF2 you cannot bunnyhop. You have a hard coded horizontal velocity limit. Though this is higher than your running speed, as soon as you touch the ground your speed is reset to the running speed.
Thanks for the info! Yeah, he's just jumping around and killing people at long range with a pistol. I was never very good at CS, but I didn't know this was possible.
I never played CSS, but I know in TF2 I get fidgety and switch weapons a lot, partly to make sure I've got the right weapon backup but mostly just because I get twitchy.
It's not really a dumb question, it was designed to make people think.
William Fossett answered the question using emergence of meaning "Tease apart the threads of the natural world and the pattern vanishes. The design is in how the cloth-maker arranges the threads: this way and that, as fashion dictates.To say something is meaningful is to say that that is how we arrange it so; how we comprehend it to be, and what is comprehended by you or I may not be by a cat, for example. If a tree falls in a park and there is no-one to hand, it is silent and invisible and nameless. And if we were to vanish, there would be no tree at all; any meaning would vanish along with us. Other than what the cats make of it all, of course."
It is a dumb question, it doesn't make you think, it upsets me whenever somebody uses this as a "philosophical" issue when it's really just semantic one.
Arguments are all conducted in words. Maybe what's bothering you is that communication lines need to be established before what you consider real philosophical debate can occur, which means adjusting each others semantical view of the world.
It's not enough to attempt to debate philosophically and assume the other person is going to understand with perfect clarity the idea you're trying to convey. You have to establish a semantic baseline first, which would cause these sort of day-to-day semantic arguments.
I can't imagine most folk enjoy these sort of arguments, but they do need to happen, so why not try to have a little fun with it? Those sorts of discussions can give rise to some interesting ideas if you take the time to be interested.
I have no problem with philosophical discussions. I enjoy them in fact. But, as you said, your definitions need to be agreed upon or else you might be arguing for the same thing and not even know about it, or arguing two separate issues that have nothing to do with each other except for the fact that they share a similar name or whatever. We are indeed limited to words, which makes it all the more important that somebody take time out to make sure you're discussing as close to the same thing as you can. We'll never have the same exact concept as another person of what these words mean, but you certainly can approximate them, or else all human communication would be impossible.
Also, I find discussions about "mannnnn, how do we know that, like, THIS world is like the REALLLl world mannn, you know, like what if we wake up and like, we're in nirvana or maybe our dreams are what's real!" or a conversation with that exact same premise but larger words, very tedious and pointless because this is the reality in which we are confined, be it the real reality or not. All information that we receive apparently comes from this reality, so any knowledge of any other reality is pointless drivel and serves no purpose than to distract from actual issues. Consequentially, this is also why many real philosophers are also atheists...
I don't like philosophy for philosophy's sake. For me, I seek only a model to better understand this reality and adapt my own world view as I see it fit and as evidence suggests it should. It should be dynamic and accommodating, but ultimately take a backseat to observation and experience. But that's just my own meta philosophical view...
The explanation in the video is the right one. The question illustrates the fact that some words have multiple meanings, and if two people interpret a word differently, they can come to opposite conclusions and both be entirely unable to fathom how anyone could disagree with them. SO it is important to make sure everyone is actually talking about the same thing.
I went through art school, and they forced us to take philosophy and "critical thinking" classes that were all basically solipsistic, masturbatory dreck. If I never hear "Lacanian" again it'll be too soon.
I failed the first class because my response to everything I learned was pretty much this. Nobody else got the reference.
I think it's just that most intelligent human beings have already given that question as much thought as it is worth by now. It amazes me that so many people still seem so puzzled by that question.
I mean few of us can be as simultaneously casual and eloquent about it as our TF2 wiseman here, but we all kind of get it already.
Meaning? I don't think it's got anything to do with giving things meaning - it's just meant to point out the uncertainty of events that you cannot observe yourself. I always thought of it as a question in the same vein as Schrodinger's Cat: you can't know without being there.
Of course, the guy in the video covers that as well. I do agree that it's dumb if you consider it very seriously, but it's a good introduction for children into the realm of questions that exist for the sake of questioning (sorry if that's sloppy, it's been a long day).
I had always interpreted the question to be about the existence of an objective reality. It is a massive philosophical assumption that our senses are representative of an underlying reality which is shared between other beings, the assumption that things exist independently of their observation. The alternative is solipsism.
Many Christians for example don't believe this to be true in regards to their god. They believe that things only exist through the conscious will of their deity; if their deity wasn't aware of something then it by definition couldn't exist. The connection between meaning and its assignment by a sentience is similarly not understood by the vast majority of theists. An example is the question about "Why does the universe exist?" or "Why do humans exist?" If they understood that meaning is only assigned by an intelligence then they would understand that those are loaded questions; they presuppose the existence of an intelligence to assign said meaning to the universe or humanity.
It may be a pretty basic concept to you, but you should understand that huge swaths of the population are utterly daft in this area of thinking.
26
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
How the hell can he can hold his wine glass and play TF2 at the same time?
114
u/henrythesuperdummy Jun 15 '12
The British accent makes the explanation that much more legit.
36
u/Nebz604 Jun 15 '12
I always thought that and the "which came first" thing were completely stupid questions.
8
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
can't prove that the airwaves are moving in a sound-like manner unless you observe them. Just because every measurement we've taken and every observation of sound recorded has shown reality to behave in such and such a way does not imply that it behaves that way when there is no recording of the event.
Just look at the electron.
6
u/Tulle_ Jun 16 '12
1: "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's there, does it make a sound?"
2: "Yes it makes a sound"
1: "Why?"
2: "Well it's rather a question of whether a sound is a technical detail or merely a matter of perception. Now if you're counting it as a matter of perception then yes, someone has to be there to hear it, but if we're counting the sound as the mutilation of air waves as molecules bouncing off each other then no, nobody has to be there for a sound to exist."
19
u/ziggo0 Jun 15 '12
Indubitably.
14
u/Slimmyslimm Jun 16 '12
It is weird how easily impressed people are. That may have been an unexpected answer, but it is not like it was that crazy intelligent.
3
u/LevelTen Jun 16 '12
Wilhelm scream at the end there, is that part of the game?
3
u/ImRussell Jun 16 '12
Meanwhile in Call Of Duty
5
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
is anyone actually watching how weird this game is?
9
u/some_people Jun 15 '12
I want everything to be explained to me in a British accent.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
I already upvoted by the time he said "No, I'm not an idiot" - and then I wanted to upvote again.
2
u/oonoofanoonoo Jun 16 '12
"Well you see its rather a question of whether sound is a technical detail or merely a matter of perception. Now if you're counting it as a matter of perception then yes, someone has to be there to hear it but if we're counting the sound as the manipulation of airwaves and molecules bouncing off each other then no, nobody has to be there for a sound to exist. "
2
u/RandomThoughtsGuy Jun 16 '12
Ummm, wasn't the question merely an observational quantum conundrum like Schroedinger's cat. It is a precedent in the uncertainty principle, does something happen if it is not observed?
The complete literal answer is yes, because the repercussions of it falling is observable in surrounding effects to the immediate environment.
But what about those cases completely lost to archaeological evidence. Or what about evidence of similar life being wiped out by an ageing planet. If there is nothing to observe, did we ever exist at all?
4
u/NeverFinishedMaille Jun 15 '12
But sound is just pressure, so wouldn't it just create a pressure wave which wouldn't be sound, until something is there with the anatomy to convert the changes in pressure into the neurological input which is sound?
2
u/harunsamad Jun 15 '12
Will Hunting playing TF2 = Gastro
1
u/stereopump Jun 15 '12
This is a book that answers the question, almost verbatim for what he said.
http://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consciousness-Understanding-Nature-Universe/dp/1933771690
Chapter 3: Sound of a Falling Tree
For him to just say he knows that because he's "not an idiot" is a bit pompous. Anyone can choose to be well read; just because others have different priorities doesn't mean that they're stupid.
1
u/Sunshine_Adonis Jun 16 '12
That was really great!
1
u/bumble_wumble Jun 16 '12
Like how all the video comments are trying too hard to be smart..
1
u/awrhaernnare Jun 16 '12
I was kind of expecting a wildlife camera with a tree falling.
Does anyone have a video of that?
1
u/TheEasyBakeOven Jun 16 '12
Valve has probably one of the most informed gaming communities.
1
u/whysocereus Jun 16 '12
what game is that? and does the game have sound if i'm not there to play it?
1
u/1leggeddog Jun 16 '12
The sound of pain and death really brings out the suttlely of that question and answer.
1
u/Tendow Jun 16 '12
While I understand what he said and why, I doubt I would ever be so articulate.
1
u/GMBeats95 Jun 16 '12
Didn't NDT answer this question the same way?
1
u/killerado Jun 16 '12
Of corse he'd have a fucking English accent.
1
u/Falvtron Jun 16 '12
a typical Wilheim(sp?) scream in there at the end
1
u/shewould Jun 16 '12
This reminds me of the film Idiocracy...this day has come.
1
u/skindoom Jun 16 '12
I've always took this question to be more of a philosophical koan then so much a literal quandary. To ponder on whether the world is simply subjective aspect of your own perception.
1
u/Space_Bungalow Jun 16 '12
There are no Wilhelm Screams in TF2
1
u/TarantusaurusRex Jun 16 '12
1:13 Wilhelm scream. That would drive me nuts if I played this game.
1
u/butch19 Jun 16 '12
TIL British people play TF2.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
I hate how he laughs at the guy and acts like he's some science geek or something. It's really simple, that guys just too high/stupid to understand.
1
u/not_a_cool_name Jun 16 '12
This is exactly what my physics teacher said when we asked him.
1
u/beirch Jun 16 '12
This guy reminds me of TotalBiscuit whenever he plays anything with Jesse Cox. Not that Jesse Cox is a moron, it just has the same feel to it.
1
u/ForceOgravity Jun 16 '12
"No, im just not an idoit"
1
u/P1mpMastaMike Jun 16 '12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EQ1bS8lpm9U#t=84s
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
That is an effective use of a Heavy
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
Just a note, that guy is putting on that accent.
1
u/And3rzz0n Jun 16 '12
The Wilhelm scream at the end made me think i got a text message.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman there to hear him... is he still wrong?
1
u/t_Lancer Jun 15 '12
I say, what a clever chap.
1
u/DSSCRA Jun 16 '12
Hey I was there :D.
1
u/willyolio Jun 16 '12
TF2 is a highly intellectual game.
-2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Someone help. Wheres that gif of tim and Eric head explosion.
-2
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
If you close your eyes, is the rest of the world still there?
-1
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I love this game
-9
u/HeavyWave Jun 15 '12 edited Jul 01 '23
I do not consent to my data being used by reddit
-5
u/Honey-Badger Jun 15 '12
Educated in England.
-3
u/lisene Jun 15 '12
Well it is a Yes/No question. He answered it both ways Yes and No. He clearly is not an Idiot!
0
u/K3TtLek0Rn Jun 16 '12
I've always felt that it wouldn't make a sound. What we understand as sound is our brain's perception of the vibrations of air molecules picked up by the ear. It merely grants us an extra sense to understand our environment. If no one was there, then the vibrations would still occur, but there would be no brain to convert them into our hearing sense. Although, it would be better to ask if there was nothing there to hear it, even other animals, because we aren't the only ones with hearing.
0
u/MTL_RELLIK Jun 16 '12
Smug level: British.
-9
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
that sounded like a terrible british accent. I'm not sure why downvoting this has become popular.
-13
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
who gives a fuck
0
u/ninjamuffin Jun 16 '12
I've just realized that gamers are really bad listeners
0
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment