Consider this article a précis of 'the world-creates/embodies minds' ...

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/new-way-to-map-the-unique-brain-organization-of-individuals/ — 180 Proof

That kind of thing is always amazing.

It is interesting that "mind" can seem to itself to be something that it is not. Unlike a sphere drawn on paper which does not seem to itself to be a 3-D sphere, or a map which does not seem to itself to be the actual terrain. — Patterner

The mind can only be what it actually is. What is 'appears like' isn't anything. It does things. Whether there's a dualist element or not, that's the case. It isn't a 'thing' to be misinterpreted as best I can tell. You can't be deceived about what you mind. Just what it's giving you.

The original essay and OP were written prior to the advent of large language models - publication date was 4th November 2022, 15 days prior to the launch of ChatGPT. Just now, I copied it into Google Gemini for feedback, to wit.

What's the point of this post? I thought AI posts are banned from TPF.

The point is, the OP wasn't generated by AI, on account of it having been published before AI went live (Nov 19th 2022) - but I felt that the AI review was positive. But, you're right, I'll move it offsite.

Isn't it true then we're merely more sophisticated creatures than others we know of, as much products of and part of the world as they are? And if that's the case, isn't talk of our "creating" the world just hyperbole or metaphor?

Do the minds of other other organisms "create" the world as well? Is there a human world, and also a cat world and bunny world, and on and on? — Ciceronianus

They create their world - meaning, they enact or bring forth a meaningful environment through their embodied activity. That is a fundamental point of enactivism, 'a theory of cognition that emphasizes the dynamic interaction between an organism and its environment, positing that cognition arises from the organism's actions, not just from internal brain processes. It posits that the mind is not separate from the body but is fundamentally constituted by the brain, body, and environment interacting in dynamic ways, a concept known as the "embodied mind". Instead of passively representing the world, enactivism argues that organisms actively "enact" their world through their sensorimotor activity and that their subjective experience is shaped by these embodied actions.' (definition.)

The linked version of the essay on which the OP is based also mentions the 'lebenswelt' concept derived from phenomenology. Lebenswelt means life-world: the world as it is lived, experienced, and made meaningful by embodied, language-using beings like ourselves. Meaning is not a layer added on top of a neutral, value-free physical world, nor do words function by “corresponding” piece-by-piece to ready-made objects. Rather, meaning arises within the whole fabric of practices, situations, skills, expectations, and shared forms of life that constitute our lived world.

A word has meaning not because it mirrors a thing, but because it plays a role in this life-world — in the ways we perceive, act, communicate, and make sense of what matters to us. That’s why Husserl, and later Wittgenstein and Merleau-Ponty, insist that understanding is rooted in our participation in the life-world, not in some point-for-point mapping between language and “objects out there.”

So, surely there are cat worlds and bunny worlds. This does not mean there are multiple separate physical universes, but that each kind of organism inhabits a differently structured field of significance (also known as a 'salience landscape'), determined by its embodied capacities. But 'if a lion could speak, we wouldn't understand him' (Wittgenstein) and we'll never know what it's like to be a bat (Nagel.)

Sorry. My response appears above. The world I create is lopsided.

isn't talk of our "creating" the world just hyperbole or metaphor? — Ciceronianus

It could also be noted that the derivation of 'world' is from the old Dutch 'werold' meaning 'age or time of man.'

And "universe" is derived from the Latin "universum" meaning the entirety of existing things, which would include the world.

Yes, well, you asked a question, I answered it. Anything else?

I think you're overfond of using words implying that intent is present (e.g. "create" "enact") without any reason to do so. You need not respond.

I think you're overfond of using words implying that intent is present (e.g. "create" "enact") without any reason to do so. — Ciceronianus

If "intent" is defined by purpose, then all living things act with intent, because they clearly act with purpose. So I don't see why you have a problem with "create", which simply means to cause the existence of. Do bees create their hives? Do birds create their nests? Do human beings create their world? Why not?

The original post provides ample justification for basic argument, as does a related On Purpose.

Although I will grant that 'create' carries connotations that are perhaps a bit too strong. 'Mind constructed world' would be nearer the real intent, but it doesn't have the same ring to it.

So, each of us cause the world to exist? I suppose it would be more accurate to say that each of us causes a world to exist, though, as each of us has a mind, each mind therefore causing its own world.

I don't think anyone claims we physically cause the world to exist, building it as bees build a hive and birds build a nest, but perhaps I'm wrong,
as Wayfarer seems to think we (I don't distinguish between myself and my mind) construct the world, or each of us causes a world of our own.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that the characteristics or capacities of our minds under discussion are those that operate or obtain regardless of any intent on our part to use them. For example, to the extent my mind is involved in seeing or hearing, I normally don't will myself to see or hear. I just see or hear. Sometimes I look for something, or try to hear what someone is saying, and in those cases I may be said to intend to see or hear though I think it would sound odd, but I hear and see things without intending to do so merely by being alive. I can't help but do so.

I interact with the rest of the world and experience it merely by being a living human being, but I don't think it's correct to say that I intend to do that when I don't. Similarly, I don't think it's correct to say that I create something merely by being alive.

If we had the means we would certainly create a world, a physical world. I would, wouldn’t you?

So, each of us cause the world to exist? — Ciceronianus

If you read the OP you will see it says no such thing.


‘Let me address an obvious objection. ‘Surely “the world” is what is there all along, what is there anyway, regardless of whether you perceive it or not! Science has shown that h. sapiens only evolved in the last hundred thousand years or so, and we know Planet Earth is billions of years older than that! So how can you say that the mind ‘‘creates the world”’?’

I suppose it would be more accurate to say that each of us causes a world to exist, though, as each of us has a mind, each mind therefore causing its own world. — Ciceronianus

Well, you could say that, but in general, we each produce a world which we assume is shared with others, and that produces an illusion of objectivity. So the world i produce, like the world you produce, is a shared world. Through this illusion we each call our own world, "the world" and think of it in this way. Then we sometimes argue about what is the fact, or the truth about certain things within "the world", each believing that my world is the world, even though we disagree, and it would be necessary to resolve the disagreement to support this assumption of 'the world".

I don't think anyone claims we physically cause the world to exist, building it as bees build a hive and birds build a nest, but perhaps I'm wrong,
as Wayfarer seems to think we (I don't distinguish between myself and my mind) construct the world, or each of us causes a world of our own. — Ciceronianus

"Physicality" is part of that world which you produce, and also part of the world which I produce. You and I both have a different idea as to what "physicality" is, so it's one of those things which we might argue about, and need to resolve if we want to support the assumption of "the world". That disagreement, and argumentation is common at TPF.

With respect to making homes, we each do what we can to make ourselves comfortable in our own individual little worlds. Often, we assist each other in this effort, but sometimes, I making myself comfortable interferes with you making yourself comfortable. This interaction produces, and reinforces the illusion that we share a world which is "the world". However, the fact that we must interact with language and communication, extensively, before we can even get a very minimal understanding of how the possibilities of this supposed "world" appear to the other person, indicates that "the world" really is an illusion.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that the characteristics or capacities of our minds under discussion are those that operate or obtain regardless of any intent on our part to use them. — Ciceronianus

Intent is actually built into all those capacities, as they are all directed for various purposes. Your ability to "will" is just one of these capacities, purposely directed by intent. So intent underlies the will, and willing is one type of intentional act. But intent, as purpose, extends far beyond willing. This is evident in all your intentional acts which do not require willing, habitual movements, etc..

Sometimes I look for something, or try to hear what someone is saying, and in those cases I may be said to intend to see or hear though I think it would sound odd, but I hear and see things without intending to do so merely by being alive. I can't help but do so. — Ciceronianus

You have, inherent within you, intent, just by being alive. This is not something you willed to have happen. It just comes along with being alive as part of the package. You could put an end to this with suicide, but otherwise you cannot will your intent to go away. As it is impossible to not act at all, the best you might do to release yourself from intent, would be to try to act in a completely random way. But even that would be intentional So when you say that you can see and hear things without intending to, this is a self-deceptive illusion you create for yourself, by restricting "intention" to a conscious act of willing, and not allowing that there is intention, purpose, behind all your subconscious acts as well.

I interact with the rest of the world and experience it merely by being a living human being, but I don't think it's correct to say that I intend to do that when I don't. Similarly, I don't think it's correct to say that I create something merely by being alive. — Ciceronianus

The subconscious, unconscious, is a vast part of your living existence, which your conscious mind does not access. Since your conscious mind does not access it, your conscious mind does not know how intent is active in this vast part of your existence. Intent enters into your conscious mind, and you experience it as such, just like you experience all your sensations, so why not assign to it just as much reality as you do to your sensations? You assume that there is "a world" external to you, which is responsible for causing your sensations, so why not assume an internal world which is responsible for causing your experience of intention?

It is very correct to say that you create something just from being alive. That is why you need food and oxygen. Even at the most basic physical level, the cells are always dividing, creating new cells. So it's very clear, and correct, to say that being alive is to create, as the latter is the necessary condition of the former.

For the record, I don't assume there's a world "external" to me. I'm part of the world, like everything else. I'm not sure what you mean by an "internal world." It wouldn't be surprising if you assume there's one though. It seems you think worlds abound. You have a rococo conception of reality, or realities.

But regardless, I think you define and use "intend" and other words in ways I think are so beyond ordinary use I don't think further discussion would benefit either of us.

OK. But I think when we claim each of us create or construct the world, and cats and bunnies do so as well, the world tends to multiply.

A good question — but notice something subtle. The objection is framed from an imagined “view from nowhere,” as if we could somehow step outside all perspectives to compare them. But that very move is itself a construction within our world.

When we speak of a cat’s world or a bunny’s world, we’re not multiplying worlds in any real sense. We’re pointing to the fact that every organism lives in its own Lebenswelt—a lived world structured by its own embodied capacities, needs, and modes of attention. That’s exactly the point enactivism makes: worldhood is always enacted from within a perspective and can never be surveyed from outside.

So the worry about “many worlds” arises only when we tacitly assume an external vantage point ‘outside’ our actual perspective from which to count them—yet that vantage point is itself just another construction in the human life-world. It’s that taken-for-granted constructive activity that the OP is about.

For the record, I don't assume there's a world "external" to me. I'm part of the world, like everything else. I'm not sure what you mean by an "internal world." It wouldn't be surprising if you assume there's one though. It seems you think worlds abound. You have a rococo conception of reality, or realities. — Ciceronianus

This doesn't change anything. It's just more evidence that your world is not the same as my world. Therefore it's more proof that "the world" is actually a false conception. No matter how much the belief that there is just one world, is a shared belief, it's contrary to reality, as demonstrated by what you wrote here.

But regardless, I think you define and use "intend" and other words in ways I think are so beyond ordinary use I don't think further discussion would benefit either of us. — Ciceronianus

To properly study philosophy, it is of the utmost importance that we do not adhere to "ordinary use" for our definitions. Ordinary use is so full of ambiguity that attempts to apply logic would be fruitless.

In fact, I think we agree on several things discussed here. But I'm uncomfortable with your terminology in some cases, and concerned about what I think are inferences which I believe are unsubstantiated.

Fair enough. If you could be more specific, I might be able to address your concerns.

I think ambiguity and misconceptions arise when ordinary language is misused in philosophy, myself.

I think ambiguity and misconceptions arise when ordinary language is misused in philosophy, myself. — Ciceronianus

I don't see how ordinary language could be misused, because the nature of "ordinary language" is that there are no regulations to distinguish between use and misuse. That's why deception is common with ordinary use. Philosophers strive to exclude such misuse, and that's what separates philosophical use of language from ordinary use of language.

For what it's worth, I don't think the language used in the OP is idiosyncatic or the words have been misused in any way. As noted above, I dropped the text into gemini and it had no trouble interpreting it and summarizing it with 100% accuracy.

That is a fundamental point of enactivism, 'a theory of cognition that emphasizes the dynamic interaction between an organism and its environment, positing that cognition arises from the organism's actions, not just from internal brain processes. — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why I'm very keen on enactivism.. The dominance of "internal brain processes" is the result of the "theoretical stance". Enactivism needs to locate that as a derivative or specialized way of thinking that depends on ordinary, active, life.

Although I will grant that 'create' carries connotations that are perhaps a bit too strong. 'Mind constructed world' would be nearer the real intent, but it doesn't have the same ring to it. — Wayfarer

It's not just that. It's that it doesn't address the fundamental point that we are "thrown", as they say, into a world. It is what we are lumbered with, what we have to learn about before we can act coherently. There are no fresh starts.

So when you say that you can see and hear things without intending to, this is a self-deceptive illusion you create for yourself, by restricting "intention" to a conscious act of willing, and not allowing that there is intention, purpose, behind all your subconscious acts as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

The strange magic of evolutionary theory is that it creates a sense of purpose, of intent, that does not depend on any conscious activity. Whether, and how far, that coincides with un- or sub-conscious activity, I couldn't say. But I don't think that it makes philosophical sense to say that an unconscious purpose is just like a conscious purpose, but unconscious. It needs a bit more explaining than that.

But I think when we claim each of us create or construct the world, and cats and bunnies do so as well, the world tends to multiply. — Ciceronianus

I think that "Lebenswelt" does have some sense to it. But it is odd to say that each living thing creates its own. It would be better to say that each living thing has an associated lebenswelt which arises as a result of its existence. What is more difficult to understand is "the world" etc.

To properly study philosophy, it is of the utmost importance that we do not adhere to "ordinary use" for our definitions. Ordinary use is so full of ambiguity that attempts to apply logic would be fruitless. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think it is necessarily wrong to develop variant uses of ordinary concepts for philosophical purposes. But it would be a mistake to think that philosophy can just sail off on its own, losing contact with the ordinary world and ordinary language. Ordinary language, because it is the first language we learn, is the inescapable bedrock of everything else.

It's just more evidence that your world is not the same as my world. Therefore it's more proof that "the world" is actually a false conception. No matter how much the belief that there is just one world, is a shared belief, it's contrary to reality, as demonstrated by what you wrote here. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why can't our individual worlds all share in the public world?

I don't see how ordinary language could be misused, because the nature of "ordinary language" is that there are no regulations to distinguish between use and misuse. — Metaphysician Undercover

That doesn't mean there are no rules. It just means that the rules can be misused and misinterpreted. Some of these misinterpretations become new, or extended, uses. Others are ignored or suppressed because they are not accepted (taken up) by the ultimate arbiters of correct and incorrect - the community of users.

Philosophers strive to exclude such misuse, and that's what separates philosophical use of language from ordinary use of language. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. We can't take the whole of ordinary language for what it is and do philosophy. We have to use it somewhat differently. But we need to link back to ordinary language (or experience) or world, or philosophy becomes a pointless exercise.

The strange magic of evolutionary theory is that it creates a sense of purpose, of intent, that does not depend on any conscious activity. — Ludwig V

I'm reminded of this, from Schopenhauer (I don't know if he was aware of evolutionary theory):

Nature can attain her end only by implanting in the individual a certain delusion, and by virtue of this, that which is merely in truth a good thing for the species seems to him to be a good thing for himself, so that he serves the species, whereas he is under the delusion that he is serving himself. — The World as Will and Representation, 538

This expands the "sense of [unconscious] purpose, of intent" into the moral sphere as well, as so many contemporary exponents of evolutionary explanations do.

This expands the "sense of [unconscious] purpose, of intent" into the moral sphere as well, as so many contemporary exponents of evolutionary explanations do. — J

Yes. Dual intent/purpose is certainly at work. So is manipulation of our desires. Life's quite bleak from the evolutionary point of view.