Ask a Philosopher!

[Clement]

I have some questions about trees if trees can't see, or feel or think, how do they do the following :

Trees often produce tasty fruit, how do they know that animals would like to eat those fruits?

How do they know those animals exist?

how do they know firstly that animals can move freely unlike them, and secondly how do they know about said animals digestive tract? (with regards to fruit being consumed and then being pooped out far away for the seeds to grow)

If they know these things, where do they keep this information without having a brain?

why are trees so mysterious?

 

[Fifty]

Any good non-Ayn Rand worshiping intros to Objectivism that you know of?

I'm afraid not. Books about Objectivism are written only by Randroid wackos as far as I know, since nobody would waste time writing an introduction to an insane and unimportant system of thought. There is probably some funny rhetorical smackdowns of Objectivism online, but I don't specifically know of any.

I have some questions about trees if trees can't see, or feel or think, how do they do the following :

Trees often produce tasty fruit, how do they know that animals would like to eat those fruits?

They don't know anything. Trees that produced tasty fruit were selected for, and thus exist. Its sorta like if I have a sieve and put rocks of various size in it and shook it, and only rocks small enough to fit through made it through. I might say "how did the tiny rocks know that they could get through?", but that would be the wrong thing to say. Rather, the tiny rocks made it through because a blind process made it the case that they made it through and the others didn't.

How do they know those animals exist?

how do they know firstly that animals can move freely unlike them, and secondly how do they know about said animals digestive tract? (with regards to fruit being consumed and then being pooped out far away for the seeds to grow)

If they know these things, where do they keep this information without having a brain?

See above.

why are trees so mysterious?

If by mysterious you mean interesting, I think they are mysterious because they are complicated and important parts of the natural world, which are the sorts of things we have an inclination to try to understand.

 

[civplayah]

BUMP! Lets see if we can get this thread going again.

ANY QUESTIONS!?

Wow... just yesterday I was thinking about this thread. That's a coincidence.

 

[Clement]

They don't know anything. Trees that produced tasty fruit were selected for, and thus exist. Its sorta like if I have a sieve and put rocks of various size in it and shook it, and only rocks small enough to fit through made it through. I might say "how did the tiny rocks know that they could get through?", but that would be the wrong thing to say. Rather, the tiny rocks made it through because a blind process made it the case that they made it through and the others didn't.



See above.



If by mysterious you mean interesting, I think they are mysterious because they are complicated and important parts of the natural world, which are the sorts of things we have an inclination to try to understand.

ok, how about the propellor seeds? you know the ones that come down like a helicopter blade? there is no animal making a choice there over hundreds of thousands of years, how does the tree know about physics?

 

[Clement]

i just thought of another question, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? where does the new "space" come from?

 

[ParkCungHee]

A person is composed of things - like cells, or (at another level) molecules, or ... etc.

A persons body is composed of such things. A person is not. Identifying a person with their body can lead to equal silliness to identifying a person with their memories. In fact, the objection is much the same: the physical make up of my body is constantly changing. If I am my cells, I have a very short lifespan: I will be dead in a few months, and I have only recently come into being.

 

[Ajidica]

stupid post. please delete.

 

[Fifty]

ok, how about the propellor seeds? you know the ones that come down like a helicopter blade? there is no animal making a choice there over hundreds of thousands of years, how does the tree know about physics?

Seeds that traveled far from the tree were selected for over millennia, the current incarnation of which is those propeller seeds. Its not that they knew how to make that shape.

You should read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

i just thought of another question, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? where does the new "space" come from?

I dunno, thats a physics question. I'm sure lots of people on CFC can answer better than I can, perhaps Bill or Perfy or something will. My guess is that the basic mental image you have of the universe as a sort of bubble in nothingness is wrong.

 

[Perfection]

i just thought of another question, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? where does the new "space" come from?

Space itself is expanding.

 

[Clement]

Seeds that traveled far from the tree were selected for over millennia, the current incarnation of which is those propeller seeds. Its not that they knew how to make that shape.

ok cheers

You should read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

I dunno, thats a physics question. I'm sure lots of people on CFC can answer better than I can, perhaps Bill or Perfy or something will. My guess is that the basic mental image you have of the universe as a sort of bubble in nothingness is wrong.

As crazy as it sounds, i prefer philosophical answers/idea's to what would normally be scientific questions, since i often question the nature of reality itself.

What confuses me is that when i ask what is on the other side of the material universe i am often told "nothing" yet at some point this nothing becomes something due to the "something" expanding, sounds like a philosophical question to me

thank you for the answers fifty

 

[Clement]

Sorry for the constant questions but i have one last one, would you recommend me a good book to read about immanuel kant?

 

[Perfection]

As crazy as it sounds, i prefer philosophical answers/idea's to what would normally be scientific questions, since i often question the nature of reality itself.

What confuses me is that when i ask what is on the other side of the material universe i am often told "nothing" yet at some point this nothing becomes something due to the "something" expanding, sounds like a philosophical question to me

Your misunderstanding is in the nature of space itself. The universe doesn't fill up some previously unfilled space, space itself expands. The universe doesn't just take up more space. There is more space.

 

[Clement]

Your misunderstanding is in the nature of space itself. The universe doesn't fill up some previously unfilled space, space itself expands. The universe doesn't just take up more space. There is more space.

Well i agree with you certainly that i misunderstand the nature of space, it's a confusing subject.

My mode of thinking is this, if the universe itself expands, and there is more space for it to expand into, then the space being expanded into is part of the universe anyway, it's infinite and one with itself regardless of it's make-up, and (for me at least) it's not worth pointing out that a part of it is expanding.

If on the other hand there is a barrier like a bubble, then what's that elusive stuff outside of the universe? the bit that is classified as nothing that is being expanded into?

I've often asked this question quite a few times over the years when given the opportunity but i have yet to receive an answer that makes any sense to me, may well be that i am just not equipped to understand.

 

[Fifty]

Sorry for the constant questions but i have one last one, would you recommend me a good book to read about immanuel kant?

What part of Kant are you interested in? I mean, are you interested in his approach to a specific area of philosophy, or his personal life, or what?

Here is some general stuff on him: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

And here you can see under the Kant listing a ton of separate articles on specific areas of his thought: http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#k

 

[Clement]

What part of Kant are you interested in? I mean, are you interested in his approach to a specific area of philosophy, or his personal life, or what?

Here is some general stuff on him: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

And here you can see under the Kant listing a ton of separate articles on specific areas of his thought: http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#k

Well im very new to philosophy, i know very little about the different aspects and approaches, and i heard him mentioned, i'm pretty much interested in everything and those links look great, thank you very much for your help Fifty

 

[Fifty]

Well im very new to philosophy, i know very little about the different aspects and approaches, and i heard him mentioned, i'm pretty much interested in everything and those links look great, thank you very much for your help Fifty

As an aside, for those new to philosophy with an interest in it, my general prescription is to do the following:

1) Read The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
2) Read The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
3) Browse the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu) from time to time and just read any article that tickles your fancy.

 

[_random_]

In your experience, how often does the stereotype of the stoner philosophy majors hold true? On the whole, do you think mind-altering substances tend to help or hinder one's ability to philosophize?

 

[Fifty]

In your experience, how often does the stereotype of the stoner philosophy majors hold true?

In my experience, the proportion of stoners in the philosophy department at my school was about equal to the proportion in the other departments I took a lot of courses in (economics, math).

On the whole, do you think mind-altering substances tend to help or hinder one's ability to philosophize?

Hinder serious philosophizing, since a lot of philosophy turns on fine-grained logical distinctions. All mind-altering substances accomplish is making you believe your not-so-reasonable ideas are reasonable. That said, alcohol-fueled philosophy discussion has a venerable tradition (see e.g. Plato's Symposium).

 

[Perfection]

Well i agree with you certainly that i misunderstand the nature of space, it's a confusing subject.

My mode of thinking is this, if the universe itself expands, and there is more space for it to expand into, then the space being expanded into is part of the universe anyway, it's infinite and one with itself regardless of it's make-up, and (for me at least) it's not worth pointing out that a part of it is expanding.

If on the other hand there is a barrier like a bubble, then what's that elusive stuff outside of the universe? the bit that is classified as nothing that is being expanded into?

I've often asked this question quite a few times over the years when given the opportunity but i have yet to receive an answer that makes any sense to me, may well be that i am just not equipped to understand.

Here's a way to think about it.

We have our galaxy, and there's a galaxy say a billion light-years away. We wait a billion years, now the galaxy is 1.01 billion light years away (I make no claim that this number is accurate). What happened? Did the galaxies move away from each other? Not really!

The space between them expanded! And in fact if you look at a galaxy that was 1 billion light years away in the opposite direction it will also be 1.01 billion light years away.

 

[Clement]

I'm going to ask another one as i don't often have the opportunity of asking these really interesting questions,

My apologies if this question sounds a little silly maybe, but i ask it in good faith,

what is the greatest service/services that philosophy can do for mankind?