apple
>>43123175
>>43123175I know where this thread is going and it's a L I T E R A L apples to oranges comparison
tangelo innit though
>>43123229no, it's an appleare you applephobic?do you not respect its lived experiences as an apple?
>>43123175>when her gock looks like that
If a category is defined by a bundle of traits, does sufficiently modifying an object to match said bundle ever constitute a category change, or just produce a modified instance of the original?If you modify the composition of the apple such that it is identical to an orange, at least in all ways an orange can be described, then is it now an orange, or does it remain an apple - now modified to function as an orange?
>>43123432Furthermore, is an object defined with respect to a category based upon a bundle of traits shared throughout the category or is it something more?Like if I reference "music" for example, there are a lot of "usually includes" "often features" which can be true of many categories.How do we determine what traits belong in the category of music?Do we make it up? Do we reference some basal layer? Some fundamental attribute?In the case of gender, do we reference sex?
>>43123432Are flying pigs airplanes?
>>43123461>>43123236Gincel gincel go awayGo rape kids another day
>>43123461If a pig is modified so that its skin is aluminum, and its internal workings are 1:1 identical to a cessna 172, and you can literally fly him at 124 knots, has he become an airplane, or is he still a pig which is modified to function as an airplane?Does the pig even exist anymore? Maybe he's just a collection of rotting parts in a trashcan at that point? Or perhaps he's a fuckin cool four seat aircraft?
>>43123491If a person were to stumble upon said pig would he not recognize it as an airplane?Is that how we would categorize it, or is its history relevant?
If we use a structural or functional definition, and the pig is 1:1 functionally identical to an airplane, then it is an airplane.If we use a teleological or intent-of-design definition, and the pig was intentionally remodeled and engineered to function as an airplane, then it is an airplane.But if we hold the object's history as relevant to its definition, then it is not an airplane but a radically modified organism, or it is a destroyed organism replaced by a collection of engineered materials.
>>43123565>a destroyed organism replaced by a collection of engineered materials.And this is kind of poetic.
Does the pig still exist if the airplane exists?
