Embodied Mind

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:40 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:17 am I don't say we don't have minds - or I hope I've never said that. If I have, I apologise. And I'm very interested in research that indicates that what we call the mind is not limited to the brain, or even to life forms with brains. I think the 'embodied mind' makes sense.

My point is this: pending evidence for the existence of the mind as a separate, abstract or non-physical thing, belief in its existence is irrational - and mentalist talk, about minds containing mental things and events, is metaphorical. Every single mentalist expression can be parsed or explained 'non-mentalistically'.

I go further. Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, what could be called non-dogmatic physicalism - or methodological naturalism in science - is the rational default position. And I'm happy to debate that claim with anyone who clings to the superstition that non-physical things exist.
Every time I mentioned 'mind-independent' you straight-away jumped at it to insist there is no such thing as mind, as such the term 'mind-independent' is non-sensical.
That is despite telling you [a million times] what I meant my 'mind' in 'mind-independent' has nothing to do with Descartes's dualism and non-physical mind and me explaining my concept of 'what is mind' is the 'embodied mind'.

So in future whenever I mention 'mind-independent' it mean the embodied mind.

In this case, your ideology is Philosophical Realism,
'mind-independent' as above is embodied-mind-independent.
The term "mind-independent" is the common usage.

In this case your 'what is fact' that is embodied-mind-independent is still illusory [noumenal].
You still have not proven how your 'what is fact' that is embodied-mind-independent is real?
In the future I will merely use 'mind-independent' as a convenience.
And I'm happy to debate that claim with anyone who clings to the superstition that non-physical things exist.
You can raise that in the Religion section where theists claim the non-physical things like God, Soul, real platonic ideas and the like exist.
To be clear, don't use the expression 'mind-independent' any more, because it's deeply corrupted by substance dualism.

Instead, let's use 'human-body-independent' - because the embodied mind is the human body.
Nah, I prefer to use the term 'mind-independent' which is the common usage and usual to type; you are the only exceptional one.
I suggest you interpret my 'mind-independent' as 'human-body-independent' which implied including the brain, mind and body.

I believe the term 'mind' is very critical, the living human body is the one that is highly minded relative to all other animals and organisms.
So now, your claim is that reality is not and cannot be independent from the human body.
And that's a load of cack - which is what I've been saying all along.
Reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.

Just in case, you are tempted to revert to your 'the description is not the described' note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145

You have yet to prove the reality of your mind-independent fact, a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, and a state of affairs; i.e. the noumenal.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:30 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:40 am
Every time I mentioned 'mind-independent' you straight-away jumped at it to insist there is no such thing as mind, as such the term 'mind-independent' is non-sensical.
That is despite telling you [a million times] what I meant my 'mind' in 'mind-independent' has nothing to do with Descartes's dualism and non-physical mind and me explaining my concept of 'what is mind' is the 'embodied mind'.

So in future whenever I mention 'mind-independent' it mean the embodied mind.

In this case, your ideology is Philosophical Realism,
'mind-independent' as above is embodied-mind-independent.
The term "mind-independent" is the common usage.

In this case your 'what is fact' that is embodied-mind-independent is still illusory [noumenal].
You still have not proven how your 'what is fact' that is embodied-mind-independent is real?
In the future I will merely use 'mind-independent' as a convenience.


You can raise that in the Religion section where theists claim the non-physical things like God, Soul, real platonic ideas and the like exist.
To be clear, don't use the expression 'mind-independent' any more, because it's deeply corrupted by substance dualism.

Instead, let's use 'human-body-independent' - because the embodied mind is the human body.
Nah, I prefer to use the term 'mind-independent' which is the common usage and usual to type; you are the only exceptional one.
I suggest you interpret my 'mind-independent' as 'human-body-independent' which implied including the brain, mind and body.

I believe the term 'mind' is very critical, the living human body is the one that is highly minded relative to all other animals and organisms.
So now, your claim is that reality is not and cannot be independent from the human body.
And that's a load of cack - which is what I've been saying all along.
Reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.

Just in case, you are tempted to revert to your 'the description is not the described' note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145

You have yet to prove the reality of your mind-independent fact, a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, and a state of affairs; i.e. the noumenal.
You have yet to show why the whole of the universe is dependent on the human body.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:36 pm You have yet to show why the whole of the universe is dependent on the human body.
Until you show me the referent for the term "universe" it's safe to assume that your use of the term represents a concept.

All concepts depend on humans.

Q.E.D
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:33 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:36 pm You have yet to show why the whole of the universe is dependent on the human body.
Until you show me the referent for the term "universe" it's safe to assume that your use of the term represents a concept.

All concepts depend on humans.

Q.E.D
That's a very poor argument.

The universe is not a concept. The concept of the universe is a concept. Two very different things.

The universe refers to the set of everything that was, that is and will be + the set of laws or rules that determine what's possible within it and what's not in various situations.

If you're arguing that there is no such thing as the universe, you're also arguing that YOU do not exist.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:17 am I don't say we don't have minds - or I hope I've never said that. If I have, I apologise. And I'm very interested in research that indicates that what we call the mind is not limited to the brain, or even to life forms with brains. I think the 'embodied mind' makes sense.
OK
My point is this: pending evidence for the existence of the mind as a separate, abstract or non-physical thing,

Does it have to be separate? Can it be an aspect of something? I mean, if someone asks you what you dreamed about you don't tell them you had rapid eye movements and neuronal activity. If you remembered the dream you'd tell them whatever images and feelings you experienced, I would guess. That's describing mental events. Perhaps they are an aspect of physical events and physicalists/monists are correct. Perhaps they are some other substance interacting with the physical, so some kind of dualism. Perhaps there is no physical (a term that I don't think has any meaning anymore) and there is only some kind of idealism. I think we can black box all that.

But if I say I dreamt that I was walking in a forest and met my mother, I am not speaking metaphorically. That's a literal sentence - as much as any sentence can be since most language is built on dead metaphors. I mean physicalists are speaking metaphorically, since they include things that have nothing in common with what was considered physical 200 years ago. (probably much more recently also, but just being careful) Physical is an expanding set of whatever is considered real by physicalists.
belief in its existence is irrational - and mentalist talk, about minds containing mental things and events, is metaphorical. Every single mentalist expression can be parsed or explained 'non-mentalistically'.
I don't think that's true. How do you tell someone what you dreamed without using 'dream' in the experienced mentally sense, not the 'what the dream researcher sees on eegs and the like' sense?

I was thinking about you this morning.
You can't translate that into physicalist language -whatever that means- and say anything meaningful. What do you do, list all the neurons and glial cells involved and hope they understand that you likely had images of and feelings about them in your mind?
I go further. Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical,

OK, you keep using that word physical, here in the negative. What does that word mean?

And let's remember that every single thing we consider physical derives the meaning of all of its adjectives via subjective experience. It's ALL metaphorical.
what could be called non-dogmatic physicalism
What does that mean?
- or methodological naturalism in science
methodologies do not need to decide substance positions in advance. And given what 'physical' now includes, it's a good thing.
- is the rational default position. And I'm happy to debate that claim with anyone who clings to the superstition that non-physical things exist.
Again, I don't think that term has any meanign because it's built on a term, 'physical', that has no meaning, precisely because scientists, in the end, don't care about substance claims on the ontological level. They just want to find out what's going on so they can predict stuff.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:46 pm That's a very poor argument.

The universe is not a concept. The concept of the universe is a concept. Two very different things.
Then you should have no problem showing me the referent for the term "universe". Where is it?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:46 pm The universe refers to the set of everything that was, that is and will be + the set of laws or rules that determine what's possible within it and what's not in various situations.
So the term "universe" refers to a set? Sets are concepts; or as they are known in English grammar - collective nouns.

So "the universe" is a collective noun - a concept.

Q.E.D
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:46 pm If you're arguing that there is no such thing as the universe, you're also arguing that YOU do not exist.
I am not arguing anything. I am sticking you with the burden of proof.

If you are claiming that "the universe exists" prove it.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:11 pmThen you should have no problem showing me the referent for the term "universe". Where is it?
What would constitute a "referent" to you?
So the term "universe" refers to a set? Sets are concepts; or as they are known in English grammar - collective nouns.

So "the universe" is a collective noun - a concept.

Q.E.D
A set is not a concept. The concept of a set is a concept.

It's similar to how horses aren't concepts but the concept of a horse is a concept.

The set of all members of a team is NOT a concept ( it's a team. )

The set of all people in the world is NOT a concept ( it's human population. )

The set of all cells in your body is NOT a concept ( it's your body. )

The set of all parts of an automobile is NOT a concept ( it's the autombile itself. )

The set of everything that exists is NOT a concept ( it's the universe. )
I am not arguing anything. I am sticking you with the burden of proof.

If you are claiming that "the universe exists" prove it.
1) The universe is the set of everything that exists.

2) If something exists, the universe exists. If nothing exists, the universe does not exist.

3) You exist.

3) Therefore, the universe exists.

Q.E.D.

And no, you are NOT a concept.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm What would constitute a "referent" to you?
The dictionary definition will suffice.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm A set is not a concept. The concept of a set is a concept.

It's similar to how horses aren't concepts but the concept of a horse is a concept.
The term "horse" denotes a horse. You can show me a horse.
The term "set" denotes a set. Why can't you show me a set?

The abstract/concrete distinction eludes you.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm The set of all members of a team is NOT a concept ( it's a team. )
The individual members aren't a concept - they are concrete.
The set of members is a concept - it's abstract.

Teams are teams, not sets.

Sets are abstract mathematical objects.
Teams are not.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm The set of all people in the world is NOT a concept ( it's human population. )
The individual people aren't a concept - they are concrete.
The set of all people is a concept - it's abstract.

Populations are populations, not sets.

Sets are abstract mathematical objects.
Populations are not.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm The set of all cells in your body is NOT a concept ( it's your body. )
The individual cells aren't a concept - they are concrete.
The set of all cells is a concept - it's abstract.

Bodies are bodies, not sets.

Sets are abstract mathematical objects.
Bodies are not.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm The set of all parts of an automobile is NOT a concept ( it's the autombile itself. )
The individual parts aren't a concept - they are concrete.
The set of all parts is a concept - it's abstract.

Automobiles are automobiles, not sets.

Sets are abstract mathematical objects.
Automobiles are not.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm The set of everything that exists is NOT a concept ( it's the universe. )
Any given thing is concrete.
Things (collectively) are collections/sets - those are abstract.
The universe (the set of all things) is a collective noun.

Collective nouns are abstract.

You really really need to learn to distinguish the concrete and the abstract.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm 1) The universe is the set of everything that exists.
If the universe is a set and sets are abstract concepts then the universe is an abstract concept.

Q.E.D
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm 2) If something exists, the universe exists. If nothing exists, the universe does not exist.

3) You exist.

3) Therefore, the universe exists.

Q.E.D.

And no, you are NOT a concept.
I am not a collective noun.
The universe is.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:21 pmThe term "horse" denotes a horse. You can show me a horse.
The term "set" denotes a set. Why can't you show me a set?
A horse is a set of cells. By showing you a horse, I am showing you a set.

Note that, if you don't understand what the word "set" means, I can't show you a set.
The set of members is a concept
It is not.
Teams are teams, not sets.
"Team", "a group of people working together", "a collection of people working together" and "a set of people working together" are four different expressions that have one and the same meaning.
Sets are abstract mathematical objects.
There is the word "set" that can be used to represent any collection of things.

And then there is the term "the concept of a set" that can only be used to represent a concept.

You're confusing the two.

It's like someone confusing horses with the concept of a horse.
You really really need to learn to distinguish the concrete and the abstract.
And you really really need to learn English language.

I have never seen someone misuse words as much as you do.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:21 pmThe term "horse" denotes a horse. You can show me a horse.
The term "set" denotes a set. Why can't you show me a set?
A horse is a set of cells. By showing you a horse, I am showing you a set.
*sigh*

If a horse is a set and the universe is a set why can you show me the horse but you can't show me the universe?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm Note that, if you don't understand what the word "set" means, I can't show you a set.
I understand perfectly. That sets are abstract and horses aren't.

Which is why you can show me a horse, but you can't show me a set.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm It is not.
Then show me a set. Oh wait!

You said you can't.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm "Team", "a group of people working together", "a collection of people working together" and "a set of people working together" are four different expressions that have one and the same meaning.
Sure. They are all collective nouns e.g they are abstractions.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm There is the word "set" that can be used to represent any collection of things.
I know. Hence - it's a collective noun. An abstract linguistic concept.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm And then there is the term "the concept of a set" that can only be used to represent a concept.
The concept of a set and a set are both concepts.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm You're confusing the two.
No, I am not.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm It's like someone confusing horses with the concept of a horse.
It's nothing like that, but you are persistently confusing the abstract with the concrete.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm And you really really need to learn English language.

I have never seen someone misuse words as much as you do.
There's no such thing of "misuse" if my use is intentional unless you are appealing to linguistic prescriptivism.

Either way - your problem isn't language. You can't think.

Your head is full of misconceptions. That's why you keep confusing the abstract for the concrete.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:20 pm*sigh*

If a horse is a set and the universe is a set why can you show me the horse but you can't show me the universe?
I can show it to you but I can't see it for you.

That horse is a part of the universe. By showing you that horse, I am showing you the universe.

Or do you actually want me to show you the entire universe, i.e. every bit of it?

But when I showed you that horse, I didn't show you every bit of it, I only showed you bits of it. Yet, you had no trouble accepting that as a proof of its existence.

One doesn't have to observe a thing in its entirety in order to conclude that it exists.
I understand perfectly.
Hardly.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm "Team", "a group of people working together", "a collection of people working together" and "a set of people working together" are four different expressions that have one and the same meaning.
Sure. They are all collective nouns e.g they are abstractions.
They are four different descriptions all describing one and the same thing, namely, something that exists outside of minds.

They are not describing concepts.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pm There is the word "set" that can be used to represent any collection of things.
I know. Hence - it's a collective noun. An abstract linguistic concept.
Doesn't follow.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:54 pmIt's like someone confusing horses with the concept of a horse.
It's nothing like that, but you are persistently confusing the abstract with the concrete.
There's no such thing of "misuse" if my use is intentional unless you are appealing to linguistic prescriptivism.

Either way - your problem isn't language. You can't think.

Your head is full of misconceptions. That's why you keep confusing the abstract for the concrete.
You're projecting, dummy.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm I can show it to you but I can't see it for you.
If you can show it - I will see it.
If I don't see it - you haven't shown it.

Probably because it's only in your head.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm That horse is a part of the universe. By showing you that horse, I am showing you the universe.
You can show me parts of the horse as well as the whole horse.

Do the same with the universe - show me the whole thing, not just parts of it.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm Or do you actually want me to show you the entire universe, i.e. every bit of it?
Obviously. If you are showing me the whole horse (not parts of it) - also show me the whole universe (not parts of it).
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm But when I showed you that horse, I didn't show you every bit of it, I only showed you bits of it. Yet, you had no trouble accepting that as a proof of its existence.
Quote the opposite - I don't need to zoom in on every bit to see the whole horse. I just need to stand back far enough to see its outline - where it begins and ends.

I also have no idea what you are talking about. Which part of the horse is the term "existence" refering to?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm One doesn't have to observe a thing in its entirety in order to conclude that it exists.
This conversation is like a deja vu - i swear.

Given the sentence "There is a horse" and "there is a horse that exists".

You said the two sentences mean exactly the same thing. Which necessarily means that the part "that exists" is meaningless.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm Hardly.
Not at all. Frankly, I am convinced that you don't even understand that your own understanding is the problem here.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm They are four different descriptions all describing one and the same thing, namely, something that exists outside of minds.

They are not describing concepts.
The description is abstract. The referent may be abstract or concrete. Obviously!

Which is why I asked you what the term "universe" refers to. And you said it refers to a set!

Sets are abstract, so the referent of the term "universe" is an abstraction!
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm Doesn't follow.
It does. You just can't seem to follow it.

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:07 pm You're projecting, dummy.
Q.E.D

You can't even tell you are the one projecting, dummy.

Specifically: you are projecting sets.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:30 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:01 am
To be clear, don't use the expression 'mind-independent' any more, because it's deeply corrupted by substance dualism.

Instead, let's use 'human-body-independent' - because the embodied mind is the human body.
Nah, I prefer to use the term 'mind-independent' which is the common usage and usual to type; you are the only exceptional one.
I suggest you interpret my 'mind-independent' as 'human-body-independent' which implied including the brain, mind and body.

I believe the term 'mind' is very critical, the living human body is the one that is highly minded relative to all other animals and organisms.
So now, your claim is that reality is not and cannot be independent from the human body.
And that's a load of cack - which is what I've been saying all along.
Reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.

Just in case, you are tempted to revert to your 'the description is not the described' note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145

You have yet to prove the reality of your mind-independent fact, a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, and a state of affairs; i.e. the noumenal.
You have yet to show why the whole of the universe is dependent on the human body.
As I have insisted the better word is 'mind' as in 'Embodied Mind' because a physical human body or brain can be that of a corpse that has no mind.
All living humans has a life force [from 3.5 billion years ago] that enable the emergence of a 'mind' that supervenes on the physical brain and the whole body.

The P-realist claims a mind-independent universe.
The anti-P-realism claims the universe CANNOT be mind-independent.

Note via common sense, all things outside the human body are 'external' to the mind.
But this external-ness is merely apparently but ultimately this external-ness is not independent of the mind.

What is part and parcel of the Whole cannot be independent of the Whole in the ultimate sense.
The human body and the mind is part and parcel of the Universe.
Therefore, the human body and mind cannot be independent from the Universe.

The above is the general argument.
There are other more complex arguments to prove why the human body and mind cannot be independent from the Universe.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:46 pm It's similar to how horses aren't concepts but the concept of a horse is a concept.
You are missing a lot of things in term of epistemology.

To say "horses aren't concepts but the concept of a horse is a concept" is too crude philosophically and wrong. We need to be more rigoristics with greater precisions and details.

A Concept is an Abstraction from empirical experiences;
  • When the mind makes a generalization such as the concept of tree, it extracts similarities from numerous examples; the simplification enables higher-level thinking. -WIKI
Image

Thus, the term 'horse' [pl. horses] is applicable in general to all animals that has the common feature of what-is-a-horse.
As such 'horse' is a concept, a universal, also is an abstraction.

A 'real' horse [not conceptual] must have a referent to a 'real' particular unique horse.

Whatever is abstracted without any empirical element is an Idea, merely an intelligible thought.

The issue that is linked ultimately to morality is;
that supposedly real horse is not embodied mind-independent, it cannot be a mind-independent fact.

Why it is not mind-independent is because 'what is horse' as a fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

Within the common sense FSK, one would observe an 'independent' horse out there as conditioned within the human based common sense FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows, the resultant reality cannot be embodied-mind-independent.

But the common-sense FSK in realization a horse cannot be as realistic as what is horse within the science-biological-FSK which engages what is horse in greater biological details. Again, because it is human-based, it follows, the resultant reality cannot be embodied-mind-independent.

Then, the science-biological-FSK realization of a horse cannot be as realistic as what is horse within the science-Physics-QM-FSK, where the whole horse is viewed in terms of atoms, electrons, quarks [wave or particles].
Again, because it is human-based, it follows, the resultant reality cannot be embodied-mind-independent.

Generally from the above, what is reality cannot be mind-independent but rather conditioned upon various FSKs [of human minds] of which the scientitic FSK is the most credible and reliable as the standard.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Embodied Mind

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Not every concept is an abstraction, Veritas. Abstraction is merely a type of concept that is formed by taking a number of examples and then calculating their average. Not all concepts are formed this way.

But that doesn't really matter because either way the concept attached to the word "horse" is not that of a concept.

What exactly are you riding when you're riding a horse?

Are you riding a concept?
Post Reply