Do universals exist independent of their particulars? Are you a nominalist or a realist...

And what makes you think things only exist outside of a mind?

No fuck off. We're not going down the solipsism hole today fucker.

But we do not imagine an abstract house when we think of "house" - we imagine a particular house in connection with the term "house", the term and the idea being connected with a bunch of other particular houses.

There is no "house" as such.

If I ask you to draw a house you might try to draw a particular house, but most people will draw something like a box with windows, a door, a chimney, and a peaked roof, even if they don't live in such a house themselves.

>There is no "house" as such.

In reality agreed, but in your brain there is a schemata of "house" composed of the most common features of every actual house you have seen.

>most people will draw something like a box with windows, a door, a chimney, and a peaked roof, even if they don't live in such a house themselves

But that is never really the house people imagine in their minds. It's almost always a concrete picture of a house.

>In reality agreed, but in your brain there is a schemata of "house" composed of the most common features of every actual house you have seen.

Again, I could imagine that when you direct me to, but that is never what I think of when I think of "house".

We don't imagine the schemata when we think of things, we rely on the schemata to fill in the gaps. You no doubt have a pretty clear image of your own house, because you've seen it so often and have preserved so many details in your memory. But if you were to think of a house you saw once as a child, chances are you would have very few actual memories of it's details, and so would rely on the schemata of "houses" to fill in the gaps. This process is invisible to your consciousness, it happens in the subconscious. From the pov of your consciousness, you only ever think in terms of actual houses, but your consciousness has limited access to the workings of your brain and the reconstructed character of your memories is one of the things the rest of your brain keeps from the knowledge of your consciousness, because it would be disastrous for your survival chances for you to be second guessing your memories all the time.

Euclides proved to us through mathematical discourse (that is, a priori) that there can be a shape that today we call the icosehadron. In the time of euclides there were no particular icosehadron shaped objects, and now we have several artefacts shaped like an icosehadron and we also know there's a virus that is naturally shaped like an icosehadron. Do you think Euclides created/constructed the geometrical shape that is the icosehadron or he intelectually apprehended something outside of him?

I would agree, but our idea of schemata now differs from our idea of schemata earlier ITT.

>Do you think Euclides created/constructed the geometrical shape that is the icosehadron or he intelectually apprehended something outside of him?

Neither, he employed the laws of mathematics that he had learned to discover an implication inherent in them.

I'm using this definition, which afaik is the conventional neuropsych definition of the concept.
>A schema is a mental concept that informs a person about what to expect from a variety of experiences and situations. Schemas are developed based on information provided by life experiences and are then stored in memory. Our brains create and use schemas as a short cut to make future encounters with similar situations easier to navigate.

This page discusses their discovery:
jamesclear.com/schemas
>In 1932, Frederic Bartlett was working at Cambridge University when he conducted one of the most famous cognitive psychology experiments of all-time.
>For this research study, Bartlett recited a Native American folk tale called “The War of the Ghosts” to each participant. Then, Bartlett followed up with each person several times over the following year and asked them to tell the story back to him.
>As you might expect, the story shortened over time as participants forgot certain details.
>What wasn’t expected, however, was that each person adapted the story to fit their expectations of a “normal” world. You see, each participant was British and this Native American story had a few cultural details that would have seemed out-of-place in British society.

Particulars do not exist independent of their universals.

What is your view on the ontological status of mathematical objects?

Like logic and schemata, they are heuristics based on empirical observation.

>not answering the question

On the contrary I provided a direct response. What part didn't you understand?

You are an empiricist? You believe every single content in our mind could reduced to a particular sense data?

could be reduced*

>You are an empiricist?

No.

> You believe every single content in our mind could reduced to a particular sense data?

Depends what you mean by sense data. Many parts of our brain and our instincts are hardwired rather than being learned per se.

>Many parts of our brain and our instincts are hardwired

correct, but you neglect to consider that they are hardwired to respond immediately to certain ordered sense data packets.

>Depends what you mean by sense data.

literally bio-electrical impulses.

>literally bio-electrical impulses.

In that case yes.

>they are hardwired to respond immediately to certain ordered sense data packets.

That's how our brains work, it would be truly peculiar if there was part of our brains that DIDN'T respond to bio-electrical impulses.

Could you give me a mental state which has for it's content something that could not be derived from experience?

Depends what you mean by experience. We "know" how to see without having to learn it, although of course we have to learn how to interpret what we see. Instincts are not derived from personal experience, but from the "experience" of your genepool.

>it would be truly peculiar if there was part of our brains that DIDN'T respond to bio-electrical impulses.

depends on the strength of the impulse, not every impulse triggers every part of the brain. I suppose it is theoretically possible for there to be one neuron in someone's brain that no longer responds to other neurons.

besides this is tangential. The mind is for the most part entirely dependent on the machine brain.

The soul however has no such material dependency.

>The soul however has no such material dependency.

The soul is a spook, it's just what pre-modern people called the mind before they understood it's physical nature. The idea itself is incoherent, if it's non-physical then how does it interact with our physical bodies?

Is there things like sets and numbers in a universe without humans or any mathematically cabable beings?

>if it's non-physical then how does it interact with our physical bodies?

Physical bodies are a temporal manifestation of the soul, which is our greater being.

Soul > Body

>if it's non-physical

What does physical even mean? Real? So if something is non-physical that means it isn't real?

Time is an illusion dude. It's just like how a movie appears to be a fluid motion when in reality it's just a rapidly shifting series of still images, or how our brain constructs a projection of reality gleaned from tiny specks of light, vibration, and touch response.

This is analogous to our experience of reality, which is a minor cross section of an unimaginably huge dimensional structure.

>The soul is a spook,
I'm tired of this spook bullshit meme. Whenever I see "spook" in an intelligent conversation, I convulse.

>Is there things like sets and numbers in a universe without humans or any mathematically cabable beings?

Those things are products of how our brains work, if we had different brains (maybe a cyborg implant that gave total photographic recall) then they probably wouldn't exist, but perhaps soemthing analogous but different would exist in their place. So no, I guess, though I would broaden "mathematically capable beings" to include nonliving objects such as computers and books (or more accurately the arrangements of data inside said objects).

>Physical bodies are a temporal manifestation of the soul, which is our greater being.

So do souls have genes? Why do our bodies so obviously resemble our parents and our relatives, do our souls belong to the same "family" in heaven?

>What does physical even mean?

Obeying the laws of physics, such as thermodynamics and interactions with the four forces. If the soul doesn't do any of this, then what does it even mean to say it's connected to our bodies?

>Time is an illusion dude

No, time is directional, which has tremendous consequences for how physics works and cannot be said to be an illusion except in the vacuous "everything you think is real is just, like, your opinion, man!" kind of way.

The irony is I've never read Stirner and never will, philosophy has little interest for me.

From what i gather from this thread you deny the existence of abstract objects outside the human mind, am i correct?

Correct, abstract objects are not objects at all but artefacts of how our brains work.

Numbers as the particular concept we have defined probably wouldn't exist, but the relationships they represent probably would.

>but the relationships they represent probably would.

I agree, such relationships seem to be "real" in a non-anthropocentric sense and form the basis of the empirical observations that lead to their creation / invention / discovery by human minds.

>their creation

I mean of numbers and similar abstract cultural objects.

>Why do our bodies so obviously resemble our parents and our relatives

Why not?

Besides, I could think of several reasons why a soul could manifest itself several times, or even a couple billion times. Time isn't an issue after all.

>the laws of physics

Weird, it seems as if the laws of physics are somehow more real than the objects that obey them.

I wonder what laws are?

>time is directional

time appears to be directional. But I hold that all moments and all possible moments exist simultaneously.

>I agree, such relationships seem to be "real" in a non-anthropocentric sense

That would make you a realist then, but your previous posts suggests you are an antirealist. Could clarify yourself?

Could you clarify yourself*?

>Weird, it seems as if the laws of physics are somehow more real than the objects that obey them.

Does it? Probably because you don't understand them even in passing. What you call "objects" are figments of physics, the electrostatic force to be precise.

>time appears to be directional.

No, it has to be or none of what we discovered would work, and the universe would be full of Boltzman brains.

>But I hold that all moments and all possible moments exist simultaneously.

I don't know what this means, please elaborate.

>Besides, I could think of several reasons why a soul could manifest itself several times, or even a couple billion times. Time isn't an issue after all.

Why does the soul mirror biology at all? Biological traits are evidentially inherited from our parents, does this mean our soul is inherited too? What about non-humans? Do they have souls, and are their souls similarly reflections of their forms?

>I wonder what laws are?
Not him, but laws are human constructs summarizing characteristic sets of behaviours. Objects do not "obey" the laws of physics so much as they act in whatever ways are characteristic of their inherent nature, and "laws" describe from a human perspective what those behaviors are. The words "obey" and "law" are useful because they communicate that some behaviors are possible while others are not.

I have learned one thing from philosophy, and that is, that applying labels to yourself is a terrible idea. Once you adopt a given label, you inevitably distort all future experiences to bring them into line with your label. Worse, you begin adopting new ideas not because they convince you but because they are part of a bundle of ideas associated with your label, and worse still, this whole process is completely invisible to you. So when you say I'm a realist you are free to do so and my views on this particular point fit that label best. But it doesn't follow from that that I must hold realist views on other topics.

>I wonder what laws are?

This. "Laws" of nature are empirically discovered, they simply describe how nature works and are not "laws" in the usual political meaning of the word.

>they simply describe how nature works

Oh, so when something is physical that means it acts how it naturally does.

Awesome, that totally describes what physicality is.

>Biological traits are evidentially inherited from our parents, does this mean our soul is inherited too?

Maybe in a sense. There's no reason why it couldn't all be the same soul.

>Why does the soul mirror biology at all?

The soul does not mirror biology, it's the other way around.

>Oh, so when something is physical that means it acts how it naturally does.
The sets of its characteristic possible and impossible behaviours matches the current global framework we have for possible or impossible behaviours. That, or the evidence for one or more of its im/possible behaviours incongruent with the framework manages to outweigh the evidence supporting the current framework.

>Oh, so when something is physical that means it acts how it naturally does.

The laws of nature are descriptions of how things act naturally, correct.

>Awesome, that totally describes what physicality is.

Physicality is the observed interaction of an object with physical forces. It could be seen as a property of things that exist, as opposed to non-physical objects such as abstractions that do not exist, but are the consequence of a frame of reference.

>non-physical objects that do not exist

oh man

>evidence
>you guys I know what reality is because of my infallible meat organs and surely if I see the same image over and over again there must be exist corresponding object that looks just like it's image, and not like something completely different!

kek