Embodied Realism vs Disembodied Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Instead of 'Mind-independent' versus a literal 'mind-dependent' I believe it would be more effective to present the fundamental problem between p-realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism [Kantian] as,
Embodied Realism vs Disembodied Realism

From AI [with reservations];

In their book "Philosophy in the Flesh" & "Metaphors we live by," George Lakoff and Mark Johnson propose a theory called embodied realism as an alternative to traditional disembodied realism.
Here's a breakdown of the key differences:

Disembodied Realism:
Mind: Viewed as separate and independent from the body, existing in a non-physical realm.
Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.
Metaphors: Understood as purely linguistic constructs, not reflecting deeper truths about how we think and understand the world.

Embodied Realism:
Mind: Seen as fundamentally embodied, meaning it is shaped by and inseparable from the body and its interactions with the environment.
Thought: Considered as largely unconscious and grounded in embodied experiences like sensorimotor activities and emotions.
Knowledge: Arises from embodied interactions, with basic-level concepts (e.g., chair, hot) being directly linked to bodily experiences.
Metaphors: Seen as not just linguistic but also as fundamental structures of thought, shaping how we categorize, reason, and understand the world.
Here are some key points to remember:

Embodied realism challenges the traditional mind-body dualism, arguing that the mind and body are fundamentally intertwined.
It emphasizes the role of bodily experiences, sensorimotor activity, and unconscious processes in shaping our thoughts and knowledge.
Metaphors are seen as crucial tools for understanding abstract concepts, not just as figures of speech.

Here are some examples of embodied realism:
Understanding "love" as a journey is not just a metaphor; it reflects how we experience and reason about love based on our embodied experiences of movement and direction.
Categorizing objects like "chair" is grounded in our bodily interaction with them (sitting) and not just abstract definitions.
Our emotions and bodily sensations influence our thinking and decision-making in ways that traditional realism doesn't acknowledge.

The above is imputed into my principle of reality as:
whatever is real, true, exists, factual, knowledge, objective is conditioned with an embodied FSRK, of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

Those who oppose the above, i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
1 References:
i. Philosophy in the Flesh
ii. Metaphors we live by
by Lakoff and Johnson.

Note 2:

The Embodied Realism ... is anticipated by two of our greatest philosophers of the embodied mind, John Dewey and Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Dewey (C2, 1922, 1925) focused on the whole complex circuit of organism environment interactions that makes up our experience, and he showed how experience is at once bodily, social, intellectual, and emotional.
Merleau-Ponty (C2, 1962) argued that "subjects" and "objects" are not independent entities, but instead arise from a background, or "horizon," of fluid, integrated experience on which we impose the concepts "subjective" and "objective.” Phil-Flesh Chapter 7.

Philosophical Realism argued "subjects" are absolutely independent of the objects.
Therefore Embodied Realism cannot be philosophical realism.

......
Note 3:
Embodied Realism is close to the direct Realism of the Greeks in its denial of a mind-body Gap.
It [Embodied Realism] differs from direct Realism and Symbol-System Realism in its epistemology, since it denies that we can have objective and absolute knowledge of the world-in-itself. 7.1

........
Note 4
Note 3

The Direct Realism of the Greeks can thus be characterized as having three aspects:

1.The Realist Aspect: The assumption that the material world exists and an account of how we can function successfully in it.
2.The Directness Aspect: The lack of any mind-body Gap.
3.The Absoluteness Aspect: The view of the world as a unique, absolutely objective structure of which we can have absolutely correct, objective knowledge.

Symbol-System Realism of the sort found in Analytic Philosophy accepts (3), denies (2), and claims that (1) follows from (3), given a scientifically unexplicated notion of "correspondence.”
Embodied Realism accepts (1) and (2), but denies that we have any access to (3).
All three of these views are "realist" by virtue of their acceptance of (1) [assumption of an external world]. Phil in the Flesh 7.1

The critical point here is Embodied Realism ASSUMES there a material world exists that science seeks to discover.
Re 3. Embodied Realism denies there is an absolute mind-independent external world.

[Flannel Jesus]

Those who oppose the above, i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position.

Have you demonstrated this? It doesn't look like it to me. Did you state this as just a claim to be discussed, or did you intend for this to be sufficiently demonstrated by the time you said it?

[Iwannaplato]

Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.

This will end up being a strawman in relation to many realists. For example the majority of scientists are realists. That description does not fit their beliefs and in fact you can't really be a scientist saying that knowledge has not empirical foundation. No obervations. Sorry.

In fact this

Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.

is extreme Rationalism and does not work at all with empiricism.

You're welcome to make up definitions for things, but this will create all sorts of unnnessary arguments as you try to defend this ridiculous identification between the realism most people have with Rationalism. A Rationalist could be a realist. But no empiricist of any type could be this kind of radical Rationalist.

You are making a mess, more than usual, but just tossing out ideas that not only contradict your own ideas elsewhere, but don't stand on their own well either.

There's no way PH, for example, would say that all conclusions come from logic and reason without sense experience and bodily interaction of the world.

It's getting hilarious now.

Lakoff is great, and he's not an antirealist. And he does believe in a mind-independent reality. As your AI friends. Like Bing ai or any other that get read scholarly articles we'd have to pay for.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.

This will end up being a strawman in relation to many realists. For example the majority of scientists are realists. That description does not fit their beliefs and in fact you can't really be a scientist saying that knowledge has not empirical foundation. No obervations. Sorry.

You are being too general.
A realist can also be an antirealist in different contexts, so we need to be very precise.
Most scientist do not give a damn with any philosophical view whether they are realist [philosophical] or Anti-philosophical_realist.
Most scientists who has philosophical views are p-realist, e.g. Einstein but there are many who are anti-p-realists e.g. Bohr, Hawkins and others.

In general, scientist adopt the ASSUMPTION there is something out there existing externally awaiting discovery. But is merely an ASSUMPTION [as a guide] and not a premise relevant to their conclusion.

In fact this

Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.

is extreme Rationalism and does not work at all with empiricism.

You're welcome to make up definitions for things, but this will create all sorts of unnnessary arguments as you try to defend this ridiculous identification between the realism most people have with Rationalism. A Rationalist could be a realist. But no empiricist of any type could be this kind of radical Rationalist.

You are making a mess, more than usual, but just tossing out ideas that not only contradict your own ideas elsewhere, but don't stand on their own well either.

Not too sure of the above.

There's no way PH, for example, would say that all conclusions come from logic and reason without sense experience and bodily interaction of the world.

I am referring to PH as a realist in the sense of Philosophical Realism and on this he claims, things and reality exists regardless of humans which is messy and illusory.

Lakoff is great, and he's not an antirealist. And he does believe in a mind-independent reality. As your AI friends. Like Bing ai or any other that get read scholarly articles we'd have to pay for.

As stated, a realist can also be an antirealist in different contexts.
My reference in this topic is with Philosophical Realism, i.e. things and reality.
Where Lakoff believes reality is embodied, it follows he is ANTI-philosophical_realism.

AI are not anti_realists and believes in a mind-independent reality?
That is hilarious.
What happened to your intellectual cognitive capacity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Those who oppose the above, i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position.

Have you demonstrated this? It doesn't look like it to me. Did you state this as just a claim to be discussed, or did you intend for this to be sufficiently demonstrated by the time you said it?

Note I ended the OP with;
Discuss??
Views??

If you disagree, provide your alternative views.

The absolutely mind-independent gang adopt philosophical-realism which claims reality and things exist regardless of humans, e.g. the moon exists before and even if after humans are extinct.

[Flannel Jesus]

Those who oppose the above, i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position.

Have you demonstrated this? It doesn't look like it to me. Did you state this as just a claim to be discussed, or did you intend for this to be sufficiently demonstrated by the time you said it?

Note I ended the OP with;
Discuss??
Views??

If you disagree, provide your alternative views.

The absolutely mind-independent gang adopt philosophical-realism which claims reality and things exist regardless of humans, e.g. the moon exists before and even if after humans are extinct.

So you're agreeing that you didn't demonstrate it, you just stated it. There's really not much to talk about there. That which can be proclaimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It would be more interesting if you actually made an argument for it, instead of just stating it and waiting for people to disagree.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you demonstrated this? It doesn't look like it to me. Did you state this as just a claim to be discussed, or did you intend for this to be sufficiently demonstrated by the time you said it?

Note I ended the OP with;
Discuss??
Views??

If you disagree, provide your alternative views.

The absolutely mind-independent gang adopt philosophical-realism which claims reality and things exist regardless of humans, e.g. the moon exists before and even if after humans are extinct.

So you're agreeing that you didn't demonstrate it, you just stated it. There's really not much to talk about there. That which can be proclaimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It would be more interesting if you actually made an argument for it, instead of just stating it and waiting for people to disagree.

It is first a discussion.
It is open for anyone who is interested in saying something about the topic.
It could be someone's favorite subject, so he may have a lot to say about it and I can refresh or may learn something from it.

Maybe it was not clear, the argument for my view is actually demonstrated in the OP, i.e.;

• 1. The above [embodiment] is imputed into my principle of reality as:
  whatever is real, true, exists, factual, knowledge, objective is conditioned with an embodied FSRK, of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
  
  2. Those who oppose the above [1.], i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position [see OP]. i.e.
  
  Disembodied Realism:
  i. Mind: Viewed as separate and independent from the body, existing in a non-physical realm.
  ii. Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
  iii. Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.
  iv. Metaphors: Understood as purely linguistic constructs, not reflecting deeper truths about how we think and understand the world.

The relevant point to my argument from the above is ii, iii & iv.

[Atla]

Instead of 'Mind-independent' versus a literal 'mind-dependent' I believe it would be more effective to present the fundamental problem between p-realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism [Kantian] as,
Embodied Realism vs Disembodied Realism

Most p-realists are embodied realists. In fact I can't remember ever speaking to a disembodied p-realist, aside maybe from mind-body dualists if we want to count them here. You are fucking insane.

[Iwannaplato]

Instead of 'Mind-independent' versus a literal 'mind-dependent' I believe it would be more effective to present the fundamental problem between p-realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism [Kantian] as,
Embodied Realism vs Disembodied Realism

Most p-realists are embodied realists. In fact I can't remember ever speaking to a disembodied p-realist, aside maybe from mind-body dualists if we want to count them here. You are fucking insane.

This part is absurd...

ii. Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
iii. Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.

This means there are no realists who are empiricists. They are Rationalists or somehow on his team.
Does he think this applies to anyone here who has disagreed with him?
Loopy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Instead of 'Mind-independent' versus a literal 'mind-dependent' I believe it would be more effective to present the fundamental problem between p-realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism [Kantian] as,
Embodied Realism vs Disembodied Realism

Most p-realists are embodied realists. In fact I can't remember ever speaking to a disembodied p-realist, aside maybe from mind-body dualists if we want to count them here. You are fucking insane.

Without reading the book, Philosophy in the Flesh, Atla is talking from his arse.

The above in the OP is a crude summary from AI and if one understand the philosophical-realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism and read the book, they should have no problem understanding the issue on hand.

This part is absurd...

ii. Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
iii. Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.

This means there are no realists who are empiricists. They are Rationalists or somehow on his team.
Does he think this applies to anyone here who has disagreed with him?
Loopy.[/quote]
Loopy??
I'll show why you are the loopy one.

There are two types of empiricism, i.e.
Empirical-Realism [antirealist] and
Transcendental-Empiricism p-realist.

Yes, some or many p-realists are empirically inclined [not necessary empiricists].
But they merely adopt the illusory Transcendental Empiricism.
Because they assume things out there are independent of their mind, what is empirical as observed is only restricted to their brain and mind.
As such, what is empirical is confined to their mind while the real thing is out there independent of their mind.
This empiricism is beyond [transcendental] what they deem as really out there, thus that is Transcendental Empiricism.
One extreme form of Transcendental Empiricism is naive realism where the empirical-mind-related thing is independent of the supposed real mind-independent thing out there.
This is where the Correspondence Theory of Truth and mirroring principle in invoked.

On the other hand, for the anti-p-realist [Kantian], their is Empirical Realism, what is out there as real is embodied, thus there is nothing beyond the mind, so not transcendental.
In this case, what is observed, i.e. empirical is the sole real thing, i.e. embodied and not related to something out there that is independent of the mind [iii].

Anyone who do not agree with me as an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] is a Transcendental "Empiricist". If insisted upon as an ideology, they are loopy.

[Flannel Jesus]

2. Those who oppose the above [1.], i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position [see OP]. i.e.

Disembodied Realism:
i. Mind: Viewed as separate and independent from the body, existing in a non-physical realm.
ii. Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
iii. Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.
iv. Metaphors: Understood as purely linguistic constructs, not reflecting deeper truths about how we think and understand the world.
[/list]

The relevant point to my argument from the above is ii, iii & iv.

It's just a plainly poor argument to be honest. There's no content there to even begin to take seriously. You haven't done any of the work to show why people who believe in an objective reality must also accept I, ii, iii and iv. You're just stating it like it's a fact, but I look at these so-called facts and they look entirely untrue at a glance to me. If there's no actual argument here, then it's just an empty array of uninformed opinions.

[Iwannaplato]

2. Those who oppose the above [1.], i.e. the absolute mind-independent gang, adopt a disembodied-realism position [see OP]. i.e.

Disembodied Realism:
i. Mind: Viewed as separate and independent from the body, existing in a non-physical realm.
ii. Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
iii. Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.
iv. Metaphors: Understood as purely linguistic constructs, not reflecting deeper truths about how we think and understand the world.
[/list]

The relevant point to my argument from the above is ii, iii & iv.

It's just a plainly poor argument to be honest. There's no content there to even begin to take seriously. You haven't done any of the work to show why people who believe in an objective reality must also accept I, ii, iii and iv. You're just stating it like it's a fact, but I look at these so-called facts and they look entirely untrue at a glance to me. If there's no actual argument here, then it's just an empty array of uninformed opinions.

And he won't be able to argue it, because disembodied realism is compatible with both rationalism and empiricism. Locke and Hume, for historical examples, were both in the latter camp. Further all parts of i through iv above are confused. Further he's implying that the people who have disagreed with him here are disembodied realists............and THAT is not justified. So, it's a poor description of two empiricisms and poor applied and as pointed out by you not justified, any part of it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Further he's implying that the people who have disagreed with him here are disembodied realists............and THAT is not justified.

The dude would get further if he just started asking people what they believe.

[Iwannaplato]

Most p-realists are embodied realists. In fact I can't remember ever speaking to a disembodied p-realist, aside maybe from mind-body dualists if we want to count them here. You are fucking insane.

Without reading the book, Philosophy in the Flesh, Atla is talking from his arse.

The above in the OP is a crude summary from AI and if one understand the philosophical-realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism and read the book, they should have no problem understanding the issue on hand.

This part is absurd...

ii. Thought: Seen as abstract and purely rational, not influenced by physical experiences.
iii. Knowledge: Gained through logic and reason, independent of sensory input and bodily interaction with the world.

This means there are no realists who are empiricists. They are Rationalists or somehow on his team.
Does he think this applies to anyone here who has disagreed with him?
Loopy.

Loopy??
I'll show why you are the loopy one.

There are two types of empiricism, i.e.
Empirical-Realism [antirealist] and
Transcendental-Empiricism p-realist.

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. You are juxtaposing Antirealism, it seems, and Deleuze as the only possible empiricisms?

Yes, some or many p-realists are empirically inclined [not necessary empiricists].
But they merely adopt the illusory Transcendental Empiricism.

No, they don't, Yup, loopy. And many of them, like Locke and Hume couldn't possible since it didn't arrive until the 20th century.

Because they assume things out there are independent of their mind, what is empirical as observed is only restricted to their brain and mind.

I understand now why Atla keeps saying you don't understand indirect realism.
You don't understand how realists use inference or that they directly connect what is experience to the objects.

One extreme form of Transcendental Empiricism is naive realism where the empirical-mind-related thing is independent of the supposed real mind-independent thing out there.

Jesus. You can, if you really strain yourself manage to try to reconcile transcendental empiricism and naive realism, but 1) they fit together very poorly and 2) whatever mish mash you create would not be stable or really either one of the two. And there you have your own contradiction. There are only two types, and then we find there is an extreme form. So, everyone who does not agree with you is a naive realist. I mean, I am realizing how much irritation I have created for myself taking you as seriously as I have.

You just lump people together, create false dichotomies all to sharpen that ax you got to grind with some people here.

This is where the Correspondence Theory of Truth and mirroring principle in invoked.

On the other hand, for the anti-p-realist [Kantian], their is Empirical Realism, what is out there as real is embodied, thus there is nothing beyond the mind, so not transcendental.
In this case, what is observed, i.e. empirical is the sole real thing, i.e. embodied and not related to something out there that is independent of the mind [iii].

Yes, we've heard this a million times and your English makes it very confusing, but I am pretty sure I get it given how many times you have said it.

Anyone who do not agree with me as an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] is a Transcendental "Empiricist". If insisted upon as an ideology, they are loopy.

Yeah, right everyone who doesn't agree with you is a follower of Deleuze. There is only Deleuzes realist empiricism. And you don't even understand that one.

It's insulting have such undigested ideas thrown at one. It's disrespectful.