If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, it does not make a sound

IntroductionTo begin with, I'd like to note that under the original definition of the word "sound" my opponent has seemingly conceded. He does not dispute the arguments under the original definition, and thus, they remain. I would also like to note that this debate is primarily about that particular definition of the word "sound." Thus, the greater half of this debate has been conceded.You will also recall that my opponent has graciously provided other definitions of the word "sound." As I have stated, these definitions rely upon the premise that there is a mind-independant physical reality, and that "sound," defined as such, is simply another part of this. In this way, I can agree with my opponent. If it is the case that there is indeed a mind-independant physical reality, and "sound" is just another part of that, then "sounds" occur regardless of whether or not we perceive them.Unfortunately, my opponent either dismisses or misunderstands my arguments against a mind-independant physical reality. Furthermore, his arguments in favor of such a thing are fallacious.DefinitionsI believe that the instigator should be able to define terms and rules however he so chooses. Unfortunately, my opponent has afforded me such a luxury, and has insisted that other definitions are of equal importance. I do not wish to get into a debate about semantics, so I shall leave this issue up to the voters. If the instigator defines terms and rules a certain way, can the accepting opponent correct him? You decide.The giving tree...still imperceptiblePassing over my opponent's opening remarks which unjustly label my arguments as "over smart" and "add[ing] a high level of confusion among the readers," it becomes clear that my opponent simply does not understand the arguments I have presented.The point is that we only experience mental phenomena. Physical trees, are not mental phenomena. Thus, we do not experience physical trees.Of course, there still is a sense in which we experience "trees." However, the trees we experience in our mind, only exist there, and do not exist in physical reality. "Thus in reality,Trees have color, feels hard, have taste, by experience of billions of living beings on this planet they look alike i.e.. They look like trees" -ConMy opponent simply illustrates my point further. In the mental construct, trees have color, feel hard, have taste, are experienced, look like trees, etc. But note, that each of these factors is an internal mental phenomena."Internal mental constructs may carry many meaning and purpose" -ConThis is interesting. How can something internal, and of a mental nature, have anything in common with something physical and non-mental? They are of a different nature, and cannot be compared. In fact, the physical world, being in its true nature, imperceptible, cannot be compared, precisely because it is imperceptible!"Though the ideas themselves do not exist without the mind, yet there may be things like them whereof they are copies or resemblances, which things exist without the mind, in an unthinking substance. I answer, an idea can be like nothing but an idea" -George Berkeley (1)"Many people including me with common knowledge know that "Tree" exists because we have seen and experience "Tree" and its qualities. You cannot just say this world is imperceptible and "Tree" is imperceptible just because you are living in a different world which common people including me do not know." -ConOnce again, I agree that there is a mental phenomena, which we call "tree." However, "tree" in the physical world, does not have any of these qualities which we normally think it does. The reason is that the physical world is not the mental world. We are never able to "get outside of" our minds, and experience the physical world as it truly is. We are limited to our senses, and experience only mental phenomena.Notice that my opponent has not even defined what "tree" is in a physical sense. All he has done is define tree in a mental sense, thus proving my point. "Tree" in a physical sense, cannot be exactly the same as "tree" in a mental sense, precisely because they are entirely different things.Until my opponent even explains what "physical matter" is, in a way which is not a mental explanation, we cannot even consider his arguments for the existence of it.My opponent also dismisses my alternatives, by simply stating:"No I'm not dreaming as I'm presently typing in this debate and never heard of an evil genius stimulating the world around me and I wish to talk about reality not some unfounded, unheard, illogical assumptions." -ConHowever, this is a bare assertion fallacy. (2) Simply because my opponent claims it is the case, it does not follow that it is the case. Simply dismissing other possibilities is not even an argument in the first place."Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -Albert Einstein (3)The interaction problemMy opponent seems to admit that the mind is mental, due to his partial admittance, and lack of disagreement.However, he fails to understand what the interaction problem is. The interaction problem states, that if there are such thing as "mental" substances, and "physical" substances (a word which my opponent has not even defined yet, that is, not without appealing to mental constructs of it) then they cannot interact with one another. However, they obviously do! I can make choices. Drinking too much alcohol gets a person drunk, and affects their mental abilities.This alone suffices to debunk my opponent's undefended, and undefined notion of a "physical" realm of reality. What even is "physical"? My opponent has not answered this question. Any idea of "physical" he has presented, is not "physical", and is in fact mental.My opponent's contentionsMy opponent attempts to prove that if there are certain effects, then we can conclude that sound was really produced.However, this is unfounded.Either:P1: IF there are certain effects, THEN sound was produced.P2: There are certain effects.C: Sound was produced.Or:P1: IF sound was produced, THEN there are certain effects.P2: There are certain effects.C: Sound was produced.Neither of these arguments are sound. My opponent must show that the production of physical sound is the only possible thing that could cause these effects. Since he has not even provided a non-mental definition of the word "sound" we cannot accept the first argument.I would agree with the truth of the premises in the second argument, but this argument is invalid. It affirms the consequent. (4)Either way, neither of these two arguments are sound.Straw-manMy opponent also straw-mans me. I am not claiming that there is no reality at all. I am claiming that there is no mind-independant physical reality, in the philosophical sense.ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent has failed to refute my arguments. He has conceded some, and simply misunderstood and dismissed others. Particularly the interaction problem.Have you ever "got outside of" your mind, and experienced the physical world, as it is, independantly of your mind? If not, why believe in something as cold and dubious as a physical world?I would like to conclude with a quote, to demonstrate that the position I am arguing for is not as absurd as it may seem."There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -Max Planck (5)This falls in line with the panentheistic alternative I provided, and which my opponent simply dismissed.I would like to ask the voters to vote fairly, and to vote for who they truly think argued better.Thanks!Sources(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...;(2) http://www.fallacyfiles.org...;(3) http://www.brainyquote.com...;(4) http://www.fallacyfiles.org...;(5) http://www.goodreads.com...;