Georgina Woodward
It is absolutely pointless to try to interpret the world in terms of high-level beings (e.g. blind men and elephants), and their high-level highfalutin ideas: “Kantian philosophy” or “Quasi reality” or “Level 3 Synthesis” or “partial Object reality” or “the function of … the cerebral cortex” etc. If you want to interpret the world more correctly, you start with the physics of the world, which is represented via the use of mathematical symbols, including numbers.
But a system of mathematical or other symbols, including number, word, and sentence symbols, is not a standalone system, because symbols always require the logical connections provided by people. So, a system of symbols needs, in addition to the symbols themselves: 1) something that recognises/ is conscious of the symbols; 2) something that interprets the symbols; and 3) something that changes or moves the symbols.
As computer programs have shown, to more correctly represent any moving or living system, you need to represent the above three aspects, which in the past were provided by people who were mostly not conscious that they themselves personally were providing the necessary aspects that were missing from the symbols alone: it is these three necessary aspects which make a symbol system work.
So, I think where you are going wrong Georgina, is that you have unconsciously assumed that these three aspects of the world exist, but you have failed to identify that they are necessary aspects of a moving, living world.
