Do we know what an apple is?

[Catholicism]

Just a random question that popped into my head. I'd say yes, but I want to know what other people think.

 

[DouglasBrown]

Just a random question that popped into my head. I'd say yes, but I want to know what other people think.

I would say so. We know what it is, why it is, why and how it does what it does, and it's various properties (color, pH, ect.)

The other things are just chalked up to opinion (the taste, the "feel". the experience, etc).

 

[Merlin]

I like to eat apples.
Yes, I know what an apple is.

 

[Casstranquility]

I'd say, sort of. We know what it is we call an apple, from centuries of having called a certain fruit an 'apple'. Now, perhaps, if we looked deep within the apple, we'd discover that we really don't have any idea 'what' it is, just a bunch of labels that we gave to it. We'd see that this 'fruit' we call an 'apple' is really just a perception-for it is truly made out of energy and space.

 

[quatona]

Do we know what an apple is?

What do you mean - "apple"??

 

[quatona]

Just a random question that popped into my head.

Just a word of warning: make sure you entertain some useful thoughts once in a while in between all those mindgames.
I´ve been there.

I'd say yes, but I want to know what other people think.

So far I haven´t run into any problems when using the word "apple". On the market, when I asked for apples, they gave me what I had expected them to give me.
The biology dictionary defines the term apple in a way that so far allowed me to distinguish apples from anything else quite successfully.
Wait, once when I saw a fruit (do we know what a fruit is?) I had a minor problem telling whether to label it "apple" or rather "pear". But I ate it nonetheless and it tasted quite nicely. More like pear than like apple in my opinion, btw. I forgot soon about that incident. Should I have been more concerned, what do you think?

Other than that, i.e. if you ask the philosopher in me: There aren´t any such things as apples. They are illusions brought to you by your mind. These illusions can be quite useful - as long as you don´t take them too seriously.

 

[michabo]

Depends on how precicely you want all of the terms defined

 

[Livethefire]

"we" indiviually or as mankind?

Due to social conditioning and individual conditions we are brought up to believe whats layed down, then later in life we can dismiss what we dont want to beleive.

I for one know what an apple is in my eyes.

I know we have many sences but to understand the complexity of soical conditioning im going to narrow it down to just one to show you what i mean.

Sight,
Some one brought up with colour blindness is told the colour "green", is green. be they see it as red for example.
In their eyes, thats what it is. becasue its their perspective and has been all their life. they havnt see anything throguh anyone elses eyes.

Now that as one sence, keep buildings untill we get the complexity of our perception conditioned by those which live around us.

 

[Species8472]

I would say so. We know what it is, why it is, why and how it does what it does, and it's various properties (color, pH, ect.)

The other things are just chalked up to opinion (the taste, the "feel". the experience, etc).

If your speaking about an apple from a certain tree; and if that tree is called the knowledge between good and evil then the apple represents mans taste of knowledge between good and evil.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do we know what an apple is?

Well enough to recognize them, eat them, and to know that they are good for you.

IOW, yes, we know what an apple is. To have this sort of knowledge entitles one to say that one knows what an apple is.

Do we have to understand an apple is in every possible detail to know what one is? No, I don't think so. I think that would be an unreasonable high epistemological hurdle. I don't think we need a synoptic viewpoint before claiming knowledge of something. IOW, I don't think we need take an "all or nothing" approach to knowledge. To know something about an entity is to have knowledge about that entity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DouglasBrown]

I'd say, sort of. We know what it is we call an apple, from centuries of having called a certain fruit an 'apple'. Now, perhaps, if we looked deep within the apple, we'd discover that we really don't have any idea 'what' it is, just a bunch of labels that we gave to it. We'd see that this 'fruit' we call an 'apple' is really just a perception-for it is truly made out of energy and space.

If an apple were truly made from energy and space, then, logically, every object would have to be made from it, if you looked deeply enough as you say. Then, either one of two things could come of it (assuming "we" is mankind and assuming "energy and space" are physical/quantifiable, which I am for the sake of this argument)

a.) Every object is made from different amounts of energy and space, and, using that, we could identify (know) what an object is by its energry/space amounts and ratios.

b.) Each object is made of the same amount of energy and space, then all we would need to do is focus all of our attention on the energy and space, learning all we can about it. Then, if we could learn all there is to know about the energy and space (eventually we would come very close) we would know all there is to know about all physical objects at their deepest level with perceptions stripped away.

 

[quatona]

If an apple were truly made from energy and space, then, logically, every object would have to be made from it, if you looked deeply enough as you say. Then, either one of two things could come of it (assuming "we" is mankind and assuming "energy and space" are physical/quantifiable, which I am for the sake of this argument)

a.) Every object is made from different amounts of energy and space, and, using that, we could identify (know) what an object is by its energry/space amounts and ratios.

b.) Each object is made of the same amount of energy and space, then all we would need to do is focus all of our attention on the energy and space, learning all we can about it. Then, if we could learn all there is to know about the energy and space (eventually we would come very close) we would know all there is to know about all physical objects at their deepest level with perceptions stripped away.

Interesting approach!
I am wondering, though, whether there is a method of learning about physical phenomena that is not - at least partly - based on our perception.

 

[DouglasBrown]

I am wondering, though, whether there is a method of learning about physical phenomena that is not - at least partly - based on our perception.

That's a very interesting topic, and I would have to say there is no way perception can't get into the equation at some point. We make the tools, we devise the tests, we percieve the results. Unless we can can completely and utterly remove humans and human error from the equation, perception will always be a factor.

 

[quatona]

That's a very interesting topic, and I would have to say there is no way perception can't get into the equation at some point. We make the tools, we devise the tests, we percieve the results. Unless we can can completely and utterly remove humans and human error from the equation, perception will always be a factor.

I agree.

 

[michabo]

Then, if we could learn all there is to know about the energy and space (eventually we would come very close) we would know all there is to know about all physical objects at their deepest level with perceptions stripped away.

While I agree that technically chemistry is just a special case of physics, and biology is just a special case of chemisty, and sociology and the other social sciences are just special cases of biology, making everything special cases of physics, I also know that this is, in practice, a ludicrous division. We simply do not have the math to compute even basic information about atoms beyond Hydrogen or maybe Helium, and can certainly not derive chemistry from our knowledge of atoms. We can't derive the richness of biological interaction from chemistry, and so on.

By saying that apples are just quarks or strings interacting, you destroy the richness and complexity that is an apple.

 

[quatona]

By saying that apples are just quarks or strings interacting, you destroy the richness and complexity that is an apple.

Plus, who would want to eat quarks or strings interacting?

 

[Eudaimonist]

While I agree that technically chemistry is just a special case of physics, and biology is just a special case of chemisty, and sociology and the other social sciences are just special cases of biology, making everything special cases of physics, I also know that this is, in practice, a ludicrous division. We simply do not have the math to compute even basic information about atoms beyond Hydrogen or maybe Helium, and can certainly not derive chemistry from our knowledge of atoms. We can't derive the richness of biological interaction from chemistry, and so on.

By saying that apples are just quarks or strings interacting, you destroy the richness and complexity that is an apple.

Rep is on the way!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Casstranquility]

By saying that apples are just quarks or strings interacting, you destroy the richness and complexity that is an apple.

Luckily, I didn't say that. Yep, an apple is complex-especially since, amazingly, all humans come to approximately the same perceptions of an apple. Energy and space in quantum physics apparently can't take shape as an apple without our minds-which makes an apple actually appearing as an apple very interesting.