Mapping concepts mentally

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

We map concepts in our minds, the mind is able to see ideas directly. This is the basis for abstract thought, of course for philosophy. The tools to be able to do this include things like spatial visualization, 3D and 4D geometric shifting, color and size differentiations, zooming in and out, extracting and layering, etc. Sort of like using Adobe Photoshop, lol.

I find it weird when people don’t seem to know what it means to visualize ideas, as if they don’t have their own inner mental model of things, no mind’s eye. Are there people who really don’t experience like that? Seems to be flirting with the whole p-zombie thing. But they might have emotions, feelings, immediate pictures in their mind in a physical sense. Like how other animals probably experience their own mentalities as pictures of recent memories combined somehow with what they are already seeing. But we humans take abstraction to a whole new level by being able to mentally see and map ideas directly. Thus we can come to know about facts and meaning, and predict the future in new ways.

Specifically with something Ichthus wrote,

"Is there a tool you use to map the conceptual space of an idea? Something similar to a square of opposition? I want to create one that incorporates the harmonic triads. By all means… please show me you beat me to it.

Imagine how useful it would be in literally every field. "

The “tool” is your own mind. You know that thing you use when you visualize something as an idea, see it in the mind’s eye? Yeah, that thing. When you can learn to use that representational-visualization power to phenomenologically expand a concept or an idea in space, to literally see what it is made out of. Usually it’s made from other ideas, funny enough. But these always or should I say seemingly inevitably trace back into non-ideal things, like facts for example. Or lived experiences we’ve had, like sensate experiences or emotions. And those sort of experiences, even facts too, can then be expanded and studied in their own appropriate spatial mapping.

For the rest of what you said, I don’t know what you mean by harmonic triads. What is that?

2

I’m glad you’re admitting that you’re acting like a tool. You should stop drinking.

3

That reminds me of another fallacy I forgot to mention, when people pretend not to know something they really do know. I see people doing this a lot.

4

I do it on purpose until the person who is pretending to be someone they actually aren’t decides to be who they actually are.

5

So you pretend to be something you’re not because you genuinely think the other person is pretending to be something they aren’t, and you don’t point this out until the other person calls you out on your own pretending?

I call bullshit.

6

On yourself.

7

<><><>

&me no pre tend

<>

Oh yea, proof? (Pretend or/and) pre tend

[Had/have dream less visuals, only sense data]

will travel(s)

8

That’s called distrust and/or paranoia, and explains why Ich interacts how she does.

…though her paranoia isn’t unfounded, as plenty of people have plenty of sockpuppets and plenty of people lie about it/deny it. :smirking_face:

9

It’s not paranoia if it’s true. Js.

10

How about blind people who were blind from birth, they never could conceive a picture of their mind, that could form an image that could envisage a map, such exceptions to the idea of conceptually mapping images. from sight, fails the test of the hypothesis at hand, for exceptions like this become the rule Generally.

These ‘exceptional’ people can manage to learn, and form maps, maybe of a kind that is beyond description, but certainly not consistent of visual maps, but maybe I got this wrong.

11

Do sighted people? It’s a feeling. It’s all feeling.

12

When you are indiscriminately paranoid about everything and everyone, without justification… it’s paranoia.

Ergo… you.

13

Dispute all baseless accusations.

14

I agree that feeling is premordial to envisioning, to seeing, in lower species, possessing little or no eye sight evolves in utilitarian fashion, and their feeling states precede it, as their autonomy is threatened by changes in habitat. This is why a botanist, writing against evolutionary theory suggested that theory(selection ) probably does not hold up.
(( I may risk a venturesome suggestion of adding the eye to the formation of the identifiable features of character, which forms typical modeling. That is what appears to distinguish the phenomenal apprehension into what is seen from what is unseen, yet understood by other means.
In fact sense , feeling, apprehension can characterize ‘feeling’ as if it somehow was prior in an evolutionary sense, and morphology may interpret this as very early in species’ development, whereas it’s more likely a development issue of becoming aware and attuned to data already pre existent, and developing senses which can be utilized to receive and conceive signals which can adapt to more complex needs requiring interpretation that develop and finer tuned ‘receivers’

That both sight and sound develop parallel, intermingling the imposed differences into a new singularity, is proof why, the post modern world imposes virtual tools, that exceed human capacity, and such superhuman capability, becomes a sine qua non tool to sustain the ground of existence, to bar an absolute reduction into a perceived nothingness.

The phenomena of ‘nothingness’ as dogs exhibit preceeding the onset of disastrous natural events, is proof they can think phenominally, substantially consisting of sensing something before visually becoming aware of what’s coming.