• Is Reality an Emergent Property?
    Equally real, but not more real.Pantagruel

    After two-thousand years our greatest minds still cannot agree on: "What is real?" I really don't know why we can't even agree on a (simple answer) for a question like that.
  • Is Reality an Emergent Property?
    The "rabbit-hole" is so deep we can't even see the bottom. We may even be asking the wrong question?

    It seems "all" the great philosophers have taken a shot at a perceived target...but nothing's there. I'm bitting myself in the back of the neck. We're all missing something...what?
  • Is philosophy based on psychology, or the other way around?
    So, I'd say that originally, philosophy came first. But, as others have pointed out, different philosophical traditions use psychology in different degrees and ways.Apollodorus

    Sometimes philosophy and psychology seem to go hand-in-hand. Maybe there isn't a "which came first"?
  • Just how small can they get?
    Feynman's great paper, There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom.fishfry

    Good article on how small can the devices go, but as the devices for information-storage gets smaller, the "quantity" of information available for storage, and then used, increases. Then the question: How much information can be created, and stored, and then used? It seems we are getting the ability to gather more information, and then store, than we will have the ability to use. To me, it seems like a philosophical question? So, is the ability to (create and store) information getting greater than the ability to use that information? In a sense - information overload?
  • A tricky question about justified beliefs.
    So instead of knowledge we may be better off using "understanding" or some other term.Manuel

    We just have a hard time realizing "what it is that we don't know".
  • A tricky question about justified beliefs.
    So my question is: what makes Tom's justification method to be superior to Sam's justification method? Or in other words, why Tom is more justified to believe "it is called outside" then Sam?Curious Layman

    "Justified true belief" is still the most acknowledged method of determining the "truth" in contrast to an enlightened view. However, there are still problems with this method including the "Gettier Problem". It really comes down to the realization that we just don't know enough to determine the "absolute-truth" of anything. Many people would probably argue that point though...
  • How important is our reading as the foundation for philosophical explorations?
    With philosophy, as it is about ideas, it is easy for people to think that they can say anything they wish to. However, in the twenty first century, it does seem to me that any serious discussion needs a certain amount of academic rigour.Jack Cummins

    I agree. The trick seems to be in: "who decides how much rigour is required?. It seems to be an "unwritten" specification. And, it probably depends on who is having the discussion - and with whom. In academia, writing requirements are often dictated - but not so often in a discussion.
  • How important is our reading as the foundation for philosophical explorations?
    Reading serious philosophy is hard work. So you have to push yourself to do it, it's like training. Academic training can be useful in that it makes you articulate your thoughts and consider objections and different points of view.Wayfarer

    I really like this statement.It is a good reason for reading even though one may not want to do it at the time.

    He said, during the course of the conversation, and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, 'the Greeks, the Medievals, the Germans - that's all you have to know, the rest is rubbish!' :-)
    Wayfarer

    Does this say anything about the bias he may have had at the time of his conversation?
  • How important is our reading as the foundation for philosophical explorations?
    I also suspect that often the mind is partially closed before the reading even begins.Tom Storm

    I agree. So, should we read anyway?
  • How important is our reading as the foundation for philosophical explorations?
    The only problem which I end up with is that the reading life can be so lonely because most of the people who I interact with daily barely read, and definitely believe read philosophy books.Jack Cummins

    That may be because they (and you) might be biased to what they already believe - which I just posted to Tom Storm.
  • How important is our reading as the foundation for philosophical explorations?
    I think in many cases people read to confirm and build upon what they already think.Tom Storm

    I agree! But, doesn't that create a "bias" to what you already believe? Does that bias keep one from having an open-mind? So, which is more important - an open mind, or bias-conformation?
  • How important is our reading as the foundation for philosophical explorations?
    So, I am asking people what they think about this, and how they find the right balance for themselves.Jack Cummins

    I like to think of this in terms of the story: "Alice in Wonderland" and the question: "How deep does this rabbit hole go?" The more I (and maybe you) seem to learn (from reading), is the more questions that pop-up. There may be no end to it.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    I think there is content in philosophy, not just talk about words.Manuel

    I agree. Philosophy can be a play on words (word games), and philosophy can have content. Too bad we can't quantitatively measure the "content".
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    I'm only arguing that the example of a car and a garage, or an apple and its seeds, are word games and are not actual examples or counterexamples to your own thesis.fishfry

    I agree...and disagree. (If that makes sense?)
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    All philosophy arguments are word games. :grin:jgill

    Yes! Now we're on the same page.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    Oh no, that is quite false. The air molecules must be displaced by the car. Surely you understand that. You can't possibly think that the metal molecules of the car occupy the same space as the air molecules bounded by the car's boundary. Surely you can't be claiming that. You've brought me up short. I'd been thinking we're arguing semantic games, but now you're violating the laws of physics.fishfry

    No...There is no "law of physics" that states two objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time except "The Pauli exclusion Principle", and that only deals with certain types of sub-atomic particles - not real-world objects. Some may state it is an argument of logic - not physics, and becomes a philosophical question. That's why I'm asking the question on this forum.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    Is the space inside of anything part of the thing, or is only the surface of the thing, the thing. Is it a word game to believe a block of stone has stone outside, and inside, of it as well? Can a thing be hollow and still be a thing? These are not just word games. Too many times humans believe everything we see must be solid all the way through - and then make statements about what we believe to be true.
  • Does "context" change an object?
    Philosophy does a good job of isolating words from any context to make them more certain, rational;like know or intend or see or believe.Antony Nickles

    So, does context "change" an object?
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    You can't possibly be trying to make something serious of this, can you? Am I missing your point?fishfry

    Yes. For some reason you're still missing the point. You are quoting the facts, but missing the point.

    As you've described it, it's just a word game of little import. It's true that the space within the garage counts as being the garage, and the car is in the garage. I suppose I'm now backed into the corner of saying that when I park my car, I push away the part of the garage that's not my car so I can put my car in it. And when I drive my car out of the garage, the space where the car was immediately fills with garage space.fishfry

    The point I'm trying to make "when the car is in the garage" the space occupied by the car (while in the garage) - that space is still part of the garage (even though it has a car also in that same space). To me, that means, at that time, both the car and the garage are (in fact) occupying the same space - Not all of the space - just the space where the car is parked. I can't understand why that is hard to see. Two objects, the garage, and the car, at some time both occupy the same space. Note: You don't push away the space in the garage just to park your car. You use the same space. There is also air in the garage - and probably other items - but they can also occupy that same space, at the same time. I think it is incorrect to believe only one object can occupy a given space at any given time.
  • Does "context" change an object?
    I think that part of the reason we ignore context is because we need to be able to discern something quickly. If we took in as much as we could any time we interact with an object, it might be too taxing for us.Manuel

    I agree!
  • Does "context" change an object?
    How easy it is to counter that the cup, of all "things," we never, ever encounter, but only the atoms.tim wood

    The "context" (location) of the cup would help to identiy what level the cup is in (in the mind). Are you thinking at the atomic-level, or are you thinking at the breakfast-table level. Whatever your context level then determines whether the object is, atoms, or a cup. (It's still the same item - just viewed at different levels.)
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    Back to the drawing board.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    It appears we are at an impasse? At least it shows me more of what I have to do to get people to accept the concept.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    It's similar-ish to the whole chicken or egg debate.Manuel

    No! The question is: Can two objects occupy the same space at the same time. - Not which one came first.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    The apple and the seeds thus considered are part of the same object, not two distinct things. We are the one's who individuate in nature, not the things themselves.Manuel

    That is the question. Seeing the apple and seeds together (as an apple) is "one" way of perceiving the system, and probably the way most people would view it. However, what I'm trying to demonstrate is; we recognize the apple has seeds, but we don't always view the seeds as distinct entities (even though we recognize they exist in the apple). If the seeds exist in the apple, then they exist in space. That is: they have mass and other requirements of existence. However, our perception may tell us they can only exist as part of the apple? That doesn't make sense. Either they exist, or they don't. It is our perception that leads us astray. Some people don't understand (yet) - our perception is fooled simply by the "location"f the seeds. Whether they are in the apple, in our hand, or in a package. They are still the same seeds. They exist.

    The apple also exists. Yes, the apple has seeds in it. Do the seeds exist with or without the apple? Yes. Therefore, it is my conclusion that the space inside the apple "that cotains the seeds" is still part of the apple. Because the space is still part of the apple the two objects (the seed, and the apple) are occupying that same space at the same time.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    I mean sure, that's one way to analyze it. A lot of people's intuitions and many laws in different countries, as far as I'm aware, consider it a gradual affair. Moral problems don't usually arise after, say, 3 days after conception. But the moral issue in this case is not too strong. If you speak of something like, after 6 months, then yes, it gets more complicated. But religious believers disagree, which is fine.

    As for apple seeds, yeah they are part of the apple. But these gain much more importance is you're going to plant an apple tree or use the seeds.
    Manuel

    The question is: "Can two objects occupy the same space at the same time?" - not how long does a mother carry a baby, or planting apple seeds. Somehow we got off-track.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    But when I buy an apple at the grocery store, it's perfectly clear that there are some seeds in it.fishfry

    Do you "visualize" there are seeds in the apple - or, do you physically take the apple apart to examine it? First, I believe, you visualize the seeds. Yes, you can also visualize a unicorn in the apple. Actually, so can I. Visualizing an item doesn't take away from the reality of the item. (Even though some philosophers would debate that statement.)

    When you buy an apple at the store, and you realize it has seeds in it, do you perceive the seeds as part of the apple - or, do you perceive the seeds have their own existence as seeds? To me, both conditions are correct. The seeds have their own existence, and they are also part of the apple. Conventional science does not see it that way. Many people believe that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time - (the seeds and the apple). It is how we view our "perception" that creates the problem - not what is actually real.
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    Depends on the stage of development the embryo is in. Is this related to an abortion argument?Manuel

    No, it is not an abortion argument. We are speaking of: "when does something exist". Some people don't believe the baby exists - "until it is born" (no matter what stage of development it is in). It is a perspective. One can make the argument that the baby exist after conception, and they would be correct. One can also make the argument that as long as the baby is inside the mother it does not exist - it is still just a part of the mother until it is born - which is also correct. Levels states: both conditions are correct, and can exist at the same time. It does not have to be one-or-the-other (which is the way most people see it.) It is all in how someone "perceives" the baby.

    The same is true with the apple seed - even though they may be thrown away. (Throwing them away does not make them non-existing.) The seeds "exist" inside the apple (as seeds), and at the same time, as part of the apple. Again, it is how people perceive them. "Perception rules".
  • The apple, and the apple seed?
    When I think of an apple, I thinking about the exterior: the (usually) red skin and the shape. If someone were to say "think of the inside of an apple", then I might visualize the apple cut in two and I see the white flesh and the seeds.Manuel

    Thanks for your response, and your indulgence. Hopefully, I will be able to explain "why" levels makes a difference. Your response indicated you perceive the apple much the same way as most people, by seeing it. (The red skin, size, ect...). Most people do not perceive the seeds - unless, as you also mention, you cut the apple open. One of the points I'm trying to make is: the seeds "exist" whether we cut the apple, or not. We should not declare the seeds do not exist - just because we didn't cut the apple open to actually see the seeds. The problem seems to be: while the seeds are in the apple we "choose" to identify them as only part of the apple - not as apple seeds.

    Babies, in a mother's womb, is the same analogy. The baby still exists even though it is not "born" yet. It is also a "part of the mother" - but not just a part of the mother. The seed, as mentioned above, is a part of the apple - but also exists as a distinct part (a seed). The concept of levels allows objects to be in a hierarchy as described, and to exist as a part of different objects at the same time. Example: The atoms that form the baby in the womb, could also be considered as part of a leg - not just a part of the baby. Hopefully, this will shed some light on the subject. Thanks again for your time.
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    Sorry, but I'm not really following you. I accept that the seed and apple are enmeshed conceptually. But the logic of the enmeshment is quite clear. The relationship of the elements cause the whole - in this case an apple.Pop

    I understand Pop. I'm glad you communicated at all. Your "understanding" is what almost all people feel. It's not easy to convince people of new concepts.
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    an apple seed, and the apple, can occupy the same place at the same time.
    — Don Wade
    Pop
    What you have stated here is not logical. Two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time. because if they did then they would be the same thing. Whilst a seed is within an apple, an apple is not within a seed. An apple does not occupy the same space as the seed. It occupies more space then the seed. I think your point needs rephrasing.Pop

    Thanks again for your response! Then let's look at the question: "When is an apple seed an apple seed?" I believe that while the seed is still in the apple it is still a seed. (Even though it is also part of the apple, at the same time.) The seed doesn't need to be visible in order to exist. If we say the seed only exists when it's not in the apple would deny the seeds existence almost all the time. Apple seeds exist as does other masses. The problem is in our traditional way of perceiving the seed (in our mind) - not in the existence of the seed.
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    You seem to be to be trying to articulate how consciousness groups things, and then saying the groupings are what the things being grouped become? Yes there is an element of that occurring. Piaget's constructivism is a good example of how knowledge is accumulated, and then how that knowledge becomes the world via an idealist paradigm. No doubt the nature of consciousness ( both it's content and it's structure ) places a limitation on our perception of the world.Pop

    This is a good example of how one may group information, but "levels" is hierarchical groupings. That is, the various groupings the brain creates are not all on the same level - and can exist in the same place and at the same time as other groupings. Individual items cannot do that. Example: one apple cannot occupy the same place, at the same time, as another apple. But, an apple seed, and the apple, can occupy the same place at the same time. The properties of the apple, and the properties of the apple seed, can be envisioned to occupy the same place - at the same time. Both groups of properties (as envisioned by the brain) are at different levels - not the same level. Another example is: "The Sorites Paradox". (The pile of sand is at a different level than the grain of sand.)
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    Traditionally it has been generally assumed that something central must coordinate all these functions, but on closer inspection no such thing exists ( in physical form at least ). So traditional analytical reductionism is of no use. Science , across the whole spectrum. turns to systems theory to try and understand it.Pop

    Close, but not quite there. What I believe happens is that we (humans) create the so-called systems (reductionism). Example: The "forest" is a group of trees, not a real seperate item. Humans create the concept of forest insead of group-of-trees. Then we speak in terms of forest as if the forest actually existed. We (humans) do that a lot. That function is actually a process of our mind called "grouping". Our mind(s) can only handle a specific number (below 10) of items at any specific time - so, the mind seperates a large group of items into more manageable small groups - such as a large group of trees becomes a forest (not a large group of trees). Then, on top of that, our minds changes "focus". And we think of a forest as a single item - while, at the same time, (forgetting the group of trees) - to focus on the forest. Levels is a mental process that allows us to recognize, both the group of trees - and the forest - at the same time. (Not forget one just to focus on the other.) It does take some mental training to do that but it gives one a new insight on: "What is existence?". Note: That's not metaphysical - it's just a mental process.
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    A single-cell seems to be able to find all kinds of ways to communicate, or find food/sex. I study "Levels", and in levels, communication can happen between cells - as well as higher-level animals (made up of cells). However, the different levels don't seem to communicate.
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    You might find this interesting.Pop

    Very useful information. Thanks! Now, as usual, a whole bunch of new questions.
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    I am interested in what the eyes say about the brain and the mind, but I think that it is complex because the retina is part of a brain.I wonder if the eye problems which were picked up were connected to all the reading and thinking which I do. The eyes and the brain are part of the apparatus of our thinking, and perhaps they become overwhelmed and overloaded at times, but perhaps this needs to be seen in a wider scope of mind.Jack Cummins

    Jack, as always, I really appreciate your thoughts and comments. Thinking is complex! Thinking philosophically seems to be a lot more complex - but, is enjoyable. I wish you well in your quest for understanding, and your postings seems to indicate you may also enjoy philosophy.

    The eye-brain system that we enjoy as humans fascinates me and I "see" a lot of questions. Many of the questions have been around since philosophy first started.
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    When a single-cell splits - do they still communicate?
  • Eye-Brain Connection?
    The brain came first. It is possible to have a central nervous system without eyes, but not possible to have eyes without a central nervous system.counterpunch

    In a single-cell animal - does the DNA speak to itself?