Concept versus Idea

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally an idea is any thought from the brain/mind.

In philosophy, there is the Philosophical Idea which need to be differentiated from a Philosophical Concept.

Philosophical Concept
A philosophical concept is a general idea that must be linked directly or indirectly with an empirical element [real or possible].
A philosophical concept of a tree refers to a tree that is empirical.

A philosophical concept can be abstract and it is related to something empirical.
For example, a speculated human-liked alien living light years away in a planet is conceptual because such a thing is empirically possible subject to available empirical evidence.

Neural Activities Representation


In terms of neural activities representation, a concept is represented and shared by experiences and activities in all the three parts of the brain, i.e. new, middle, and reptillian as above.


Philosophical Idea
A philosophical idea is a general idea that is not linked to anything empirical. Such a philosophical idea is thus a pure thought empty of anything empirical [real or possible].

At the extreme, philosophical ideas are those ideas that are pure thoughts alone and their corresponding object are impossible to be real.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
The most common example is the philosophical idea of God which is purely empty of any real object.

In terms of neural representations, the philosophical idea is represented only by the new cortical brain whilst triggered by impulses from the reptilian and lower brain.

Thus the philosophical idea of God is a thought that is empty of any thing real but merely generated to deal with the terrible psychological impulses from an inherent existential crisis.

The above nuance between a concept [reality grounded] and a philosophical idea [e.g. God] is critical to prevent rhetorical conflation and equivocation by theists due to psychological desperation leading SOME to commit terrible evil and violent acts.

Views?

[Nick_A]

I'd like to add this excerpt from a discussion between Dr. Jeffery Mishlove and Jacob Needleman which includes Prof. Needleman's distinction between concepts and ideas.

http://www.williamjames.com/transcripts/needle.htm

.................MISHLOVE: When we deal with the realm of the intellect, with the realm of concepts, you've introduced a very interesting distinction I'd like to bring up, and that is the difference between a concept and an idea.

NEEDLEMAN: That's a tough one. It took me a lot in my book to explain it.

MISHLOVE: It meant a lot to me when I read it.

NEEDLEMAN: It's hard to put it in a quick description. A concept is a kind of mental tool for organizing data and facts. It's like an aspect of a computer, or a filing system, and very useful. But it's part of a rather automatic part of the mind which the human being has, which is very useful. An idea is like an expression of a fundamental reality -- a force, in a way. Sometimes it takes its expression in words, an abstract formula; sometimes it's in images; sometimes it's in geometric forms, in art forms. So the verbal expression of ideas is only one way of communicating, of speaking about something that goes beyond just the isolated intellect to understand. It's very hard to put this quickly in any other way. But ideas come from a deeper level of the human mind. Concepts are the ordinary mind functioning as it should to organize, cut, dry, put in file cabinets, and do all that.

MISHLOVE: In other words, normally when we think of the work of the intellect we're thinking about concepts that it deals with. Ideas are something that the intellect is also engaged in, but ideas penetrate deeper; they have a greater transformative power.

NEEDLEMAN: Absolutely. They're meant to be accepted by the intellect, but they need to penetrate down into the heart and the guts, and that's what concepts don't do particularly.

MISHLOVE: And ideas, I suppose, are not measurable in the way that concepts are. They can't be manipulated the way that concepts are manipulated.

NEEDLEMAN: No. If they are, they get twisted.

MISHLOVE: A great idea might be the one that's been left to us by Socrates: "Man, know thyself."

NEEDLEMAN: That's a great idea. Many of those kinds of things. The idea of God is an idea, and it points to something that may or may not exist. I think it does, that it's real, but it's an idea. It didn't just appear automatically like a rock or a stone. Somebody had this vision of the idea of God, or the idea of the universe -- oneness, many in one. Or in ancient Chinese, the idea of the yin and the yang -- the two, the constant interplay of two forces in the universe. This is an idea. Now the head can figure out the conceptual way of doing it, but it can never really understand it, because with ideas, to understand it you have to experience it. That means you have to be immersed in it with your whole being. So it's a very big difference, ideas. And you're right -- there's been a tremendous confusion between ideas and concepts, and therefore the conceptual mind has tried to do all by itself what only the mind of the whole person is able to do, and that's been a problem with our whole society, I think..........................

Concepts influence our literal reason while ideas must be experienced to create their value

[Arising_uk]

...
Neural Activities Representation

...

In terms of neural activities representation, a concept is represented and shared by experiences and activities in all the three parts of the brain, i.e. new, middle, and reptillian as above.
...
In terms of neural representations, the philosophical idea is represented only by the new cortical brain whilst triggered by impulses from the reptilian and lower brain.
...

Views?

Well philosophically speaking if you are going to use ideas from psychology and biology as a ground for your thoughts then you should try to use ideas and concepts that are true and not just interweeb memes.

https://danieltoker.com/2018/04/11/you- ... ard-brain/

[Veritas Aequitas]

...
Neural Activities Representation

...

In terms of neural activities representation, a concept is represented and shared by experiences and activities in all the three parts of the brain, i.e. new, middle, and reptillian as above.
...
In terms of neural representations, the philosophical idea is represented only by the new cortical brain whilst triggered by impulses from the reptilian and lower brain.
...

Views?

Well philosophically speaking if you are going to use ideas from psychology and biology as a ground for your thoughts then you should try to use ideas and concepts that are true and not just interweeb memes.

https://danieltoker.com/2018/04/11/you- ... ard-brain/

Noted.

My attempt was to introduce a very simplistic explanation. I did try very hard to find an appropriate image to post. That is why I avoided to post this common image showing the pictorial depiction of a reptile, etc. therein;



The main point here is, there is a difference in terms of significant and 'dominance' of the impulses from certain parts of the brain.
Isn't it obvious there are difference between reptilian, non-human mammals and humans?
Thus when we discuss the behavior of reptiles we would not focus on its relatively insignificant cortical brain which do not think and act like our significant cortical brain.

Note this point from the article,

The problem starts, of course, with MacLean. I think it’s fairly clear that MacLean wanted to find what makes humans (and mammals more broadly) unique. And that desire to identify our uniqueness led him to judge his available evidence poorly.
MacLean should have considered alternative hypotheses, such as the possibility that differences between our brains and those of other vertebrates are a matter of degree, rather than kind.

I believe Maclean introduced a very significant concept re the triune brain which is not totally wrong but rather it is not precise given the complexity of the brain during his time.

[Reflex]

A philosophical concept can be abstract and it is related to something empirical.

So God is a philosophical concept even by your standard (such as it may be).

[Veritas Aequitas]

A philosophical concept can be abstract and it is related to something empirical.

So God is a philosophical concept even by your standard (such as it may be).

Nope.
The idea of God is not related to anything empirical but only based on pure thoughts only.
Therefore God cannot be a philosophical concept which must have empirical elements and possibility.

To be more pedantic;
A philosophical concept engages the lower, mind, higher including the neo-cortex* of the brain. This is the empirical-rational aspect of the brain.

*The neocortex, also called the neopallium and isocortex, is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands,[1] spatial reasoning and language.
The neocortex is the newest part of the cerebral cortex to evolve (prefix neo meaning new)
-it has been found in the brains of all mammals, but not in any other animals. [subject to some debates ..maybe avians]

A philosophical idea is dominantly activated in the neo-cortex of the higher human brain in response to the impulses of the existential crisis.

Thus the philosophical idea of God is triggered mainly in the neo-cortex without heavy engagement with the lower, mid and the older-cortex. This is why the belief of God entail a big leap which is useful to relieve the existential pains.

Because the idea of God [whilst has psychological utility] has no link with any empirical-rational reality, it is proven to be an illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion/deception.

[Reflex]

A philosophical concept can be abstract and it is related to something empirical.

So God is a philosophical concept even by your standard (such as it may be).

Nope.
The idea of God is not related to anything empirical but only based on pure thoughts only.

I wouldn’t bet on it if our you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So God is a philosophical concept even by your standard (such as it may be).

Nope.
The idea of God is not related to anything empirical but only based on pure thoughts only.

I wouldn’t bet on it if our you.

Then show your proofs and arguments?

Btw, I should have stated, the philosophical idea of God is not GROUNDED [rather than 'related' to] on the empirical-rational.

I have argued the philosophical idea of God emerged from the human neo-cortex only.

Note my argument;

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
It is only from the human neo-cortex that the philosophical idea of an absolute perfect supreme ontological God can emerged from thoughts only without any approach to be proven as real.

plus, note my various posts on how the idea of God emerged out of the mind and there are no proofs at all to justify God is really real.

[Reflex]

Nope.
The idea of God is not related to anything empirical but only based on pure thoughts only.

I wouldn’t bet on it if our you.

Then show your proofs and arguments?

Ever hear of QM?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wouldn’t bet on it if our you.

Then show your proofs and arguments?

Ever hear of QM?

I believe we have gone tru this before.

QM theories are scientific based theories.
According to Karl Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore a QM-based God is thus based on conjectures.

[Reflex]

Then show your proofs and arguments?

Ever hear of QM?

I believe we have gone tru this before.

QM theories are scientific based theories.
According to Karl Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore a QM-based God is thus based on conjectures.

So there is no reason to believe events like quantum tunneling, non-locality and superposition are real? Interesting. The most successful and most tested theory in history is based only on conjecture.

What is your evidence for “zombie parasites”? How is that different than than the notion of a fragment of God dwelling in us as our higher and true self?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ever hear of QM?

I believe we have gone tru this before.

QM theories are scientific based theories.
According to Karl Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore a QM-based God is thus based on conjectures.

So there is no reason to believe events like quantum tunneling, non-locality and superposition are real? Interesting. The most successful and most tested theory in history is based only on conjecture.

Accepted QM theories are real but qualified to the Scientific Framework, System and Methods and fundamentally at best are polished conjectures.

What is your evidence for “zombie parasites”? How is that different than than the notion of a fragment of God dwelling in us as our higher and true self?

First the question of a real God is moot, i.e. a non-starter as I have proven thus.
The idea of a God [illusory] is merely a psychological emergence to relieve desperate pains and anxieties arising from the "zombie parasites" neural set.

My hypothesis for "zombie parasites' is inferred from the following;

• 1. Ants + brain + zombie parasites = irrational fatalistic behaviors
  2. Humans + brain + x = irrational beliefs and fatalistic behaviors, e.g. illusory God, suicide bombers, etc.
  3. Therefore x = "zombie parasites" in the brain

I hope you get it, "zombie parasites" are not literally biological parasites, but some sort of mental turbulences that trigger the brain to leap to an unverified philosophical idea of a God which is an illusion/delusion.

I have provided experiments where one can have direct experience of how one brain can deceived oneself without one being aware of it. Note the two-'normal'-faces illusion via self-experiment.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&p=384082#p384082

Theism and the Zombie Parasites
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25418

Religious and Spiritual Delusions in Schizophrenia
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25328

At this stage I have provided very reasonable arguments as a strong lead to support my hypothesis and I agree they are not strongly conclusive at present due to our limited knowledge.

However given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology* humanity will soon achieve breakthroughs to prove conclusively the psychological idea of God [illusory] is merely a mental activity rather than something really real.
* note the Human Connectome Project.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Theism is a critical necessity for the majority of people and humanity can only wean it off when we have fool proof alternative to replace theism, which I believe will be soon, 50? 75? or more years in the future.

[TimeSeeker]

Depending on the context they could be used synonymously; or they could be used to mean different things.

You get to decide. And if you intend them to mean different things - you get to tell us what the differences AND similarities are in your intended meaning.

Trying to draw a universal, context-free distinction between the two is a fool's errand.

[Reflex]

VA:

The most successful and most tested theory in history makes your conjectures untenable.

Depending on the context they could be used synonymously; or they could be used to mean different things.

You get to decide. And if you intend them to mean different things - you get to tell us what the differences AND similarities are in your intended meaning.

Trying to draw a universal, context-free distinction between the two is a fool's errand.

Well, it is VA, after all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA:

The most successful and most tested theory in history makes your conjectures untenable.

How?

Whatever the most successful and most tested theory in history and being empirical-rational, it will not be able to prove and justify God is real because God is illusory and an impossibility

My hypothesis , i.e. God is not real but emerges psychologically is confined to the empirical-rational.

Note my hypothesis is can be tested [polished] with reasonable results, i.e. many who were given drugs and hallucinogen reported experiences with God or as God similar to the main founder of religions and spiritual groups.

It is a matter of time when we can get to a more precise knowledge how the idea of God came to be and that the root cause is psychological.