Embodied Mind

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Which 'concept' are not abstraction?

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?

When I am riding a horse, I am riding a real living particular-horse with its unique and specific features.

The winner of the Kentucky Derby is 'Marge', i.e. a particular horse, Trainer: Gustavo Delgado; Jockey: J. Castellano
https://www.kentuckyderby.com/

The question of 'concept' only applies when one do not understand the term 'horse' or want to deal with horses-in-general.
As such, a 'concept' is an abstraction grounded on empirical elements.

What is most real are the particular-horses as FSK-ed, not the 'concept'.

[Magnus Anderson]

Which 'concept' are not abstraction?

The concept of universe, for example.

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?

When I am riding a horse, I am riding a real living particular-horse with its unique and specific features.

That's precisely what the word "horse" denotes. It denotes a collection of atoms occpying a portion of space that is located outside of brains. It does not denote a concept ( which is what you claimed earlier. )

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

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).

When was the last time you observed a horse in its entirety? When was the last time you observed every atom that constitutes a horse?

Noone ever showed you a whole horse. They merely showed you parts of it. And you were more than happy to accept that as a proof of its existence. You didn't complain about it. You didn't say, "Oh, but you didn't show me the entire horse, you just showed me parts of it, so I'm afraid that's not a proof of its existence at all!"

It's a lot easier to prove the existence of the universe than it is to prove the existence of horses.

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.

At any given point in time, you can really only directly observe a side of a horse. A side of a horse is not the entire horse. Even if you were able to observe every side of a horse at a single point in time, even then you'd only be looking at the surface of a horse which is merely one part of it and not the entire horse. ( We're ignoring the fact that you can really only directly observe light that is hitting your retina. Everything else must be indirectly observed by employing reasoning. )

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.

Not really. Even if that part is merely repeating something that has been said in the earlier part of the sentence, even in that case it isn't meaningless. In fact, it might not even be redundant.

Sets are abstract, so the referent of the term "universe" is an abstraction!

You said that more than once. And I disagreed with it each time. And I still disagree.

Sets aren't concepts.

[Skepdick]

When was the last time you observed a horse in its entirety? When was the last time you observed every atom that constitutes a horse?

Noone ever showed you a whole horse. They merely showed you parts of it. And you were more than happy to accept that as a proof of its existence. You didn't complain about it. You didn't say, "Oh, but you didn't show me the entire horse, you just showed me parts of it, so I'm afraid that's not a proof of its existence at all!"

It's like you can't read or something.

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.

It's a lot easier to prove the existence of the universe than it is to prove the existence of horses.

Bullshit.

If all you can ever see are parts, but you can't see the whole - then how do you know what those parts are parts OF?

At any given point in time, you can really only directly observe a side of a horse. A side of a horse is not the entire horse. Even if you were able to observe every side of a horse at a single point in time, even then you'd only be looking at the surface of a horse which is merely one part of it and not the entire horse. ( We're ignoring the fact that you can really only directly observe light that is hitting your retina. Everything else must be indirectly observed by employing reasoning. )

So what? The horse has finite dimensions. Just go around it.

Not really. Even if that part is merely repeating something that has been said in the earlier part of the sentence, even in that case it isn't meaningless. In fact, it might not even be redundant.

If "X" means the same thing as "XYZ" then the "YZ" is redundant. That's what redundancy means.

You said that more than once. And I disagreed with it each time. And I still disagree.

Sets aren't concepts.

Sure. And I heard you every time. The thing is Platonism died a few centuries ago.

There are no such things as sets. Except in your head.

[Magnus Anderson]

It's a lot easier to prove the existence of the universe than it is to prove the existence of horses.

Bullshit.

You wish.

If all you can ever see are parts, but you can't see the whole - then how do you know what those parts are parts OF?

So what? The horse has finite dimensions. Just go around it.

According to your own logic, if all you can ever see are parts of a horse, i.e. if you can never see a horse in its entirety, you can't know what those parts are of, i.e. you can't know they are parts of a horse. Since you've never observed a horse in its entirety, only parts of it, then, according to your own logic, it follows that you can't know what those parts are of, i.e. you can't know whether what you're looking at is a horse or not. That's what.

The word "universe" is defined as "the totality of everything that exists". As such, everything that exists is a part of it. If horses exist, then they are parts of the universe. Since you DO think that horses exist, you are obliged, by logic, to accept that the universe exists too. But given that you have no respect for logic, you choose to contradict yourself.

If "X" means the same thing as "XYZ" then the "YZ" is redundant. That's what redundancy means.

Not really. "Redundant" means "unnecessary". Repetition is sometimes necessary, hence, it isn't always redundant.

But you didn't say that it is redundant. You actually said that it is meaningless. Two different things ( unless, of course, you're using the two terms interchangeably. )

Either way, I don't see the relevance of this.

There are no such things as sets. Except in your head.

There is a set of cars in front of my building. These things don't exist inside my head. They can't fit.

[Skepdick]

According to your own logic, if all you can ever see are parts of a horse, i.e. if you can never see a horse in its entirety, you can't know what those parts are of, i.e. you can't know they are parts of a horse.

That's not according to my logic. That's according to your misunderstanding of my logic.

I can see the whole damn horse. I can see its boundaries.

Since you've never observed a horse in its entirety, only parts of it, then, according to your own logic, it follows that you can't know what those parts are of, i.e. you can't know whether what you're looking at is a horse or not.

I can see the whole horse, dude. It has bounded dimensions and all.

The word "universe" is defined as "the totality of everything that exists".

Until you define "exists" that's a circular definition. Existence and universe are synonymous.

As such, everything that exists is a part of it. If horses exist, then they are parts of the universe. Since you DO think that horses exist, you are obliged, by logic, to accept that the universe exists too. But given that you have no respect for logic, you choose to contradict yourself.

There is no contradiction. Except in your misunderstanding.

If "X" means the same thing as "XYZ" then the "YZ" is redundant. That's what redundancy means.

Not really. "Redundant" means "unnecessary". Repetition is sometimes necessary, hence, it isn't always redundant.

Q.E.D

If "X" means the same thing as "XYZ" then the "YZ" is unnecessary e.g redundant!

But you didn't say that it is redundant. You actually said that it is meaningless. Two different things ( unless, of course, you're using the two terms interchangeably. )

I am not using them interchangeably. I am using them such that meaningless implies unnecessary and unnecessary implies redundant. By your very own definition.

There is a set of cars in front of my building. These things don't exist inside my head. They can't fit.

The cars aren't in your head.

The set of cars is in your head.

[Magnus Anderson]

That's not according to my logic. That's according to your misunderstanding of my logic.

I can see the whole damn horse. I can see its boundaries.

I can see the whole horse, dude. It has bounded dimensions and all.

Seeing the spatial boundaries of a horse is not the same thing as seeing the whole horse.

The word "universe" is defined as "the totality of everything that exists".

Until you define "exists" that's a circular definition. Existence and universe are synonymous.

I didn't define the term "universe" by using the term "existence".

I defined the term "universe" as "the totality of everything that exists".

That which exists is not necessarily the universe, so there is no circularity here, I am not defining the term by using a different word that means the same thing.

If "X" means the same thing as "XYZ" then the "YZ" is unnecessary e.g redundant!

As I said, not necessarily.

The set of cars is in your head.

It isn't.

[Skepdick]

Seeing the spatial boundaries of a horse is not the same thing as seeing the whole horse.

Then you best explain what you are refering to when you use the word "horse".

I didn't define the term "universe" by using the term "existence".
I defined the term "universe" as "the totality of everything that exists".

None are so blind as those who cannot see.

You keep defining "universe" in terms of the undefined term "exist"

That which exists is not necessarily the universe, so there is no circularity here, I am not defining the term by using a different word that means the same thing.

"Exist" is undefined

As I said, not necessarily.

No, you said that redundant means "not necessary".

The set of cars is in your head.

It isn't.

Then show it to me.

Don't show me the cars. Show me the set of cars.

Unless, of course the word "set" is redundant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Which 'concept' are not abstraction?

The concept of universe, for example.

The term "universe" is an abstraction.
The real 'universe' is make up all the atoms, quarks, particles as realized within a human-based science-physics-cosmology FSK.
Because it is human-based [i.e. incl. body and mind] it cannot be mind-independent.

What is the ultimate particle?
It can be a particle or wave subject to human intervention re Wave Collapse Function.
Because it is conditioned upon human intervention [i.e. incl. body and mind] it cannot be mind-independent.

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?

When I am riding a horse, I am riding a real living particular-horse with its unique and specific features.

That's precisely what the word "horse" denotes. It denotes a collection of atoms occpying a portion of space that is located outside of brains. It does not denote a concept ( which is what you claimed earlier. )

You missed my point.
You failed to distinguish the difference between a real-horse and a conceptual-horse.

The term 'horse' as in a dictionary is a concept representing horses-in-general.
As such in this context, the word 'horse' is a concept, i.e. a conceptual horse.

When I am riding a horse, it is with reference to a unique particular-horse which is a real horse and not a conceptual-horse.

[Iwannaplato]

What is the ultimate particle?
It can be a particle or wave subject to human intervention re Wave Collapse Function.
Because it is conditioned upon human intervention [i.e. incl. body and mind] it cannot be mind-independent.

Can be indicates that it isn't subject to human intervention in all cases.
That there are particles or waves, like those in the Big Bang, where no one was there to intervene.

But, regardless, you when from can be to always are, implicitly.

If something is subject to intervention it already exists prior to intervention.