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
When we visualize an apple on an apple tree, do the seeds inside the apple exist? This may seem like a simple question, but there are many different ways of visualizing (the question).
Some people believe the seeds cannot exist in the same place as the apple (at the same time) — Don Wade
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. — Don Wade
Depends on the stage of development the embryo is in. Is this related to an abortion argument? — Manuel
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. — Don Wade
But when I buy an apple at the grocery store, it's perfectly clear that there are some seeds in it. — fishfry
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 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
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. — Don Wade
Can two objects occupy the same space at the same time. - Not which one came first. — Don Wade
However, our perception may tell us they can only exist as part of the apple? That doesn't make sense. — Don Wade
Do you "visualize" there are seeds in the apple - or, do you physically take the apple apart to examine it? ]/quote]
At first the former, and eventually when I eat the apple, the latter.
— Don Wade
First, I believe, you visualize the seeds. — Don Wade
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.) — Don Wade
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? — Don Wade
To me, both conditions are correct. — Don Wade
The seeds have their own existence, and they are also part of the apple. — Don Wade
Conventional science does not see it that way. — Don Wade
Many people believe that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time - (the seeds and the apple). — Don Wade
It is how we view our "perception" that creates the problem - not what is actually real. — Don Wade
You can't possibly be trying to make something serious of this, can you? Am I missing your point? — fishfry
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
Yes. For some reason you're still missing the point. You are quoting the facts, but missing the point. — Don Wade
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). — Don Wade
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. — Don Wade
I can't understand why that is hard to see. — Don Wade
Two objects, the garage, and the car, at some time both occupy the same space. — Don Wade
Note: You don't push away the space in the garage just to park your car. — Don Wade
You use the same space. — Don Wade
There is also air in the garage - and probably other items - but they can also occupy that same space, at the same time. — Don Wade
I think it is incorrect to believe only one object can occupy a given space at any given time. — Don Wade
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 — Don Wade
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
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? — Don Wade
These are not just word games — Don Wade
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. — Don Wade
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.