Two philosophers are arguing. One says "If a tree falls in the woods, there is no sound, because there is no one to hear it." The other says "No, that's not c

Two philosophers are arguing. One says "If a tree falls in the woods, there is no sound, because there is no one to hear it." The other says "No, that's not correct. There is sound, because vibrations are created in the air." The first philosopher agrees that there are vibrations in the air, and the second agrees that without a human around, there will be no human perception of the vibrations. Yet they continue to argue without paying much attention to the fact that they are disputing the definition of the word 'sound'. I think Eliezer Yudkowsky suggested 'tabooing' the word in question for situations like these, to force the discussion on the logical arguments instead of the symbolic dead ends. In that case the word 'sound' was charged and raised emotions. 'Consciousness' and 'free will' certainly fall into that category.