[Diamond]

In the legal field, I know what you mean by the "it is immaterial", but isn't that notion itself dependent upon a notion of trancendence of thought, and therefore of the intelligence thinking the thought? In other words, a tree may fall, but it takes an intelligent being to be aware of the materiality (or the immateriality) of the tree fall. So how can the trancendence of the being thinking the thought, "It is immaterial if any being was aware of the 'sound' of the fall.", be immaterial?

cordially

[tpaine]

To: betty boop; logos

A tree falls.
It is immaterial if any being was aware of the 'sound' of the fall. The tree fell. -- End of story.
You've been 'had' betty. Logos "great insight" is just more absurd sophistry.
167 - tpaine

In the legal field, I know what you mean by the "it is immaterial", but isn't that notion itself dependent upon a notion of trancendence of thought, and therefore of the intelligence thinking the thought?

Not if you believe, as I, that trees in fact, - do fall.

In other words, a tree may fall, but it takes an intelligent being to be aware of the materiality (or the immateriality) of the tree fall.

Not at all. An unintelligent being or object affected by the trees fall is also materially influenced.

So how can the trancendence of the being thinking the thought, "It is immaterial if any being was aware of the 'sound' of the fall.", be immaterial?

Because the fall did in fact occur, and in doing so, influenced other objects/beings.

Its fall, unobserved by intelligent beings, still affects reality. Thus, it is immaterial to reality if the fall is observed.