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?

Good! Almost poetic.

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.

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!

Yes!

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.)

Back to the drawing board.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

You might find this interesting. — Pop

Very useful information. Thanks! Now, as usual, a whole bunch of new questions.

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.

When a single-cell splits - do they still communicate?

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?

Therefore, neither can precede the other in development. Both have developed simultaneously. — spirit-salamander

Then would either anticipate the need for the other?

This is the sort of question I begin to ask. How did the eye-brain connection take place? Why would either one communicate with the other - especially if one didn't know the other existed. Is there a reason why nerves would grow from one to the other? The eye didn't have a brain, and the brain didn't have an eye - so, which one grew the nerves first? Or, as Dingo says:

Your eye IS your brain. — DingoJones

I guess the simplest way of saying this is: One can't prove that he didn't make a mistake. — Qmeri

Good Question! It would also seem a better question if it was asked: Is there a paradox - or do I believe there is one?

Of course those experiments were in the cortex, and this is in the cerebellum for motor control but just being reminded of it still freaks me out. — ernest meyer

Yes, it is freaky. Make one wonder just what else is going on. I didn't even know monkeys could understand the concept of Pong.

Philosophy is a thoughtful act, of course, and so is functionally dependent on having a working thinking-machine, i.e. on having a mind. Something's got to do the thinking to do philosophy. But not just any act of thinking is psychology; only particular kinds of thinking about thinkers is psychology. When doing philosophy, we don't appeal to specific facts about the mind, not as empirically observable in the third person, at least, because that would be circular, those facts depending for their justification on empirical methods that are one of the things at stake in a philosophical investigation. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for the insight.

Good thinking. Thanks!.

But asking what "knowing" is in the human case is very difficult, it's still very much debated. But I don't think looking at AI helps much at all, it's better to continue studying people for these matters. — Manuel

I believe I understand what you are saying. I also believe we should study "both". Both AI, and people.

So there's going to be some connection between the two fields. — Manuel

I agree. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_psychology .

What we choose is more likely a reflection of the time we live in. — Tom Storm

I agree. But, that may be a given and can't be changed.

Psychology conversely is supposed to be an empirical, scientific investigation, which therefore depends for its justification on the validity of the scientific methods, and arguing about the validity of such methods is a philosophical matter, so to that extent psychology is logically dependent on philosophy. — Pfhorrest

An extension of that thought seems to also validate that philosophy is dependent on psychology. Doesn't one (think) about justification (justified true belief) ? The "thinking" part seems to be based on psychology.

Having always being interested in both psychology and philosophy, especially the way in which the two overlap, I have been thinking recently that the whole philosophy of mind is such an interesting area in this respect. I am also aware of vast areas arising in between the two disciplines during the time I have been using the site, especially phenomenology. — Jack Cummins

Thanks Jack! You and I seem to be running a parallel course.

Psychology - especially experimental psychology - is looking now, at the relatiohip between psychology and philosophy. It's interesting (to me) how human minds plays a part (psychology) in what we believe to be reality and truth (philosophy). Kind of like the way Plato thought?

This is the subject of a lot of commentary, I will leave it at that. — Wayfarer

Thanks! Yes, I realize it's a subject with a lot of thought, and commentary. One way to address something that is as complex - is to discuss it - get other opinions. Thanks again for your commentary.

You should be able to figure it out. You're the one who compared computers to children. Children are sentient beings, computers are devices. If that is a distinction that eludes you, there's probably nothing I can say. — Wayfarer

In spite of the attitude, I still don't see how that has to do with intelligence?

If I dropped my computer into a pool of water and destroyed it, I would have committed no crime. — Wayfarer

I'm really not sure what "being a crime" has to do with being intelligent. Could you offer more details.

what programming language did you use to engineer your kids? Computers only understand 1s and 0s. Kids have a creativity that isn't reducible to an algorithm. — emancipate

That's like saying a person doesn't understand "air vibrations" - only sound. A computer converts the 1's and 0's into something it can use - just like we convert air vibrations into something we can use.

They can emulate some aspects of it, to great effect - I actually use SIRI a fair bit, and I notice that Google gets more useful all the time, sometimes spookily so. But I agree with the above comment, it doesn't amount to sentience or actual knowledge. It's different in kind, and there's a difference in kind between beings and devices. — Wayfarer

We train our kids to emulate us - and we program our computers to emulate us. Really does't seem to be to be too much difference. We even congratulate our kids for being intelligent. Do we "expect" our computers not to be intelligent because they are machines?

Everything you ask a voice activated program can be stored on a hard drive, in a database, for later recall (querying). If you want to think of that as memory.. — emancipate

Is "everything" stored on a hard drive - or, can flash drives, cloud storage, or other things - be used as storage of information? How does the method of storing information limit whether a machine knows anything or not?