From your writing above I'm thinking you're not totally averse to my claim science and art differ mainly in terms of two different modalities of discovery: science leans towards objective discovery; art leans towards subjective discovery, and QM establishes where the twain shall meet! — ucarr

Well, that is such an obvious difference that I am baffled why you would wish to point it out? If your point is merely that Art is subjective and Science is objective (broadly speaking) ... so what? — I like sushi

What = existence; How = journey — ucarr

The above is my launch into the spine of my OP.

Discovery of "what" is rooted in the nominative predication of the fact of existing things.

This nominative predication of the fact of existing things establishes "what is."

Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the nominative predication of the fact of existing things.

This adverbial modification of the nominative predication of the fact of existing things narrates "what it's like" to experience "what is."

This adverbial modification elaborates both the effect and the affect of the fact of existing things. To the main point, "how" drags consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery.

David Chalmers has enlightened us with just how profound is the difference between "what" and "how" with his seminal paper, "The Hard Problem." It delineates what is perhaps the greatest limitation of abductive reasoning from "what."

With his paper, "The Hard Problem," David Chalmers shows in stark fashion what science, so far, cannot do: it cannot objectify the personal point of view of an enduring, individual self with personal history attached. It can technologize the self via computation, but the result isn't an authentic self. Instead, it's just a simulation of the self without an autonomous self-awareness. This technical self is just a machine awaiting additional source code from humans.

There's a question whether a self-aware source code can (or would want to) liberate itself from the formalism out of which it emerges. Curiously, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem might be a harbinger pointing the way towards a definitive understanding reductive materialism is flawed. (Even if a humanoid simulation evolves to the level of undetectability, it will still be an automaton running on programmatic source code.)

If there's a grain of truth in what I've written above, then Tarskian is correct in the characterization of the Incompleteness Theorem being the cause of a crisis in science and math. Jeffrey Kaplan compounds the reality of this crisis with his exegesis of Russell's Paradox.

Kaplan_Russell's Paradox

Is there a bridge linking "what" with "how" in the context I've elaborated here?

Yet the modern functionalists systematically disregarded the beautiful (or reinterpreted it as a function) as they prioritized practical qualities of planning, engineering, economy, service etc. — jkop

This is mediocrity turning art into by-the-numbers methodology.

There's no causal relation between the aesthetics and the sustainability and the practical reason for solar panels. — jkop

Does such a causal relation exist?

There are fields that are a tightly meshed combination of both, such as architecture. — Tarskian

:up:

I think another example is motion picture directing. In my understanding, the motion picture director is a mesh of dynamic systems engineering and aesthetic storytelling.

Given this definition of the director, motion pictures are constructed motion machines as light and shadow signifiers.

So, can you spin out a narrative of difference that illuminates the meaning of science being accurate measurement and art being touchy-feely measurement? — ucarr

That is an oversimplification I feel. Science does require creativity as much as art. — I like sushi

Tactical simplification is a good thing; in the case of trying to examine a complex thing, simplification of complexity can be a useful method towards clarification and subsequent understanding improved.

There are not just TWO distinct disciplines. There is a good deal of overlap between various fields of interest within and between Science and Humanities subjects. — I like sushi

Yes. This is well known. Our focus herein, however, is the task of articulating in terms both rational and general, why it is that institutions of higher learning segregate departments of the sciences from departments of the humanities. Is it mere formality, or is it formalism undergirded by an intuition of profound difference (in my opinion not yet clearly articulated into a cogent cognition)?

If you wish me to focus merely on 'accuracy of measuring' then I guess I can try, but that is not what science is. Nor would I say the humanities is just 'touchy feely' as each leaves an impression on the other (science affects humanities and humanities affects science). — I like sushi

Perhaps your line of attack on the question under examination here: science vs art, lies rooted in the calculus. The differentiation/integration essentials of calculus are rational approaches to the complex and nuanced mesh of science and art. Yes, there is subtlety in the mesh, but differentiation/integration essentials are no less undeniable.

...both 'measure' in different ways. I guess it is a matter of Value; the arts are concerned with subjective value that nevertheless approaches pure abstracted ideas of beauty and such (feelings/impressions) whereas the sciences are concerned with objective value that can be formulated into an abstract 'meaning' (equation). — I like sushi

From your writing above I'm thinking you're not totally averse to my claim science and art differ mainly in terms of two different modalities of discovery: science leans towards objective discovery; art leans towards subjective discovery, and QM establishes where the twain shall meet!

...science is an epistemic domain governed by a justification method. It really does not matter what exactly it is about as long as the justification method of testability can successfully be applied. — Tarskian

The same is true for mathematics. It is the epistemic domain governed by the justification method of axiomatic provability. — Tarskian

This means that a purely formalist view is perfectly sustainable in mathematics and science: — Tarskian

According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.

When you say logic and math aren't about anything at all, do you extend this application all the way to include the internal consistency of logic and math? Hasn't Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem rocked the houses of logic and math because it charges them with essential incompleteness? Doesn't this charge undermine their internal consistency? Doesn't the claim the first-order formalisms of logic and science will always generate statements internally unprovable open a wide fissure down the middle of formalism? Haven't you cited this as the crisis in math?

I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. — AmadeusD

Well, if a fact about science is a science fact, then you must explain how a science fact is not science. Take for example electrolysis, the process of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. That's a science fact. It's public, measurable and repeatable. This is not science you say?

How is it not the case that your argument above is not pettifogging en route to word muddle?

When you're done with an epic performance of a play, you aren't still performing the play when you pick up your Tony award eight months later, for instance. — AmadeusD

Here I think you insert an artificial partition; the Tony Awards would be meaningless without the dramatic performances that precede it.

Art has no right/wrong value. It has good/bad value (and subjective, at that). Science is the opposite. It has right/wrong values, and no good/bad values. — AmadeusD

Here you distill the war between science and art: successful navigation of right and wrong facts and right and wrong logic leads to the science and technology that produces nuclear bombs.

Detonation of nuclear bombs causes the good or bad vaporization of entire populations, enemy combatants and innocent civilians alike.

Can we see, herein, that right and wrong is concerned with what things are, whereas good and bad is concerned with the moral meaning of how things are experienced? Is this not an important difference between science and art? Does not Chris Nolan, through
Oppenheimer, spin out a narrative detailing the agony of a scientist caught in the crossfire between what he perceived as right and wrong versus good and bad?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. — I like sushi

I posted because your general conception of what science is seemed misguided/inaccurate. — I like sushi

My thinking here is simple: we talk about science; we talk about art; sometimes we see scientific sensibilities conflicting violently with artistic sensibilities. That's a clue that the differences between the two might not be trivial. Even so, it's hard to talk rationally and generally about what is that difference.

You write well about science; you write cautiously about art:

The means of accurate measuring of items like 'good' and 'bad' is obscure (and possibly a delusion?). — I like sushi

By this I simply mean that we do not possess the scope in spacial or temporal terms to pass any reasonably accurate declaration for a hard and fast 'rule' of human nature. — I like sushi

When you talk about the difference between the two disciplines, you talk about art being resistant to accurate measurement. So, can you spin out a narrative of difference that illuminates the meaning of science being accurate measurement and art being touchy-feely measurement?

My claim, faulty though it be, characterizes the general difference as different modalities of method of discovery: the what modality for science; the how modality for art.

The what modality is a narration of things as things.

The how modality is a narration of things as experiences.

In my opinion, the key distinction is testability. — Tarskian

Regarding my thesis, going forward from what you wrote above entails assessing whether experimentation is modally existential, with the hows and whys of the details of an pattern involving existing things being ancillary to the modally existential process of experimentation.

:up:

You've been clear: science is science; art is art.

Your definitions are clear: science observes and measures; art narrates living through love $\leftrightarrow$ hate and the grayscale in between.

Now, I'm waiting for you to start talking about how Newton's equations differ from the little boy who slips and tumbles down the stairs, thereafter taking comfort from his pain in mother's arms.

:up:

I think all I meant there was that the outcomes aren't hte science — AmadeusD

Take for example the discovery that light waves bend around gravitational fields; that's an outcome predicted by Relativity. It's one of the end games of Relativity as far validation is concerned. Henceforth, this bending of light waves under influence of gravity will be seen through the lens of Relativity. Isn't that a triumph not trifle of science?

It's not motivated by the outcome, per se, but by the outcome's accuracy. — AmadeusD

If you back engineer from the outcome to the theory that explains it, you see an answer in search of a question. Asking the right questions about the world we see around us is one of the seminal talents of the scientist. I don't presently see how your reasoning uncoupling answer from question is sound.

...the sciences are a subset of the humanities — 180 Proof

...interpretative-representational discourses explicating aspects of the human condition – which seek, via defeasible reasoning, testable answers to empirical questions. — 180 Proof

Your clause fragment above puts on a good show for establishing the proximity of the arts and sciences, and yet, I wonder if you feel that a description of intense prolonged neuron firing at synapses of the brain's pleasure centers is really almost the same thing as a fresh and frank description of a great shag between two characters just fallen in love. There's some sort of a big difference, isn't there?

The sciences are concerned with “what...” — ucarr

No. Science is concerned with science. The humanities are concerned with humans. — I like sushi

The give away is in the names? — I like sushi

Since science is done presumably only by humans, the authoritatively binary distinction you seek to establish between science and art reads like an exaggeration.

By your own argument about different names, there's some sort of important difference between the two disciplines, isn't there? What do you think it is?

The sciences are rooted in communication of existence in terms of what things are, how they’re interrelated, what they do and what functions, if any, they have. — ucarr

Science makes no assumptions. — I like sushi

I need to clarify: communication of existence is supposed to convey the fact that scientists make discoveries about what exists and, in turn, they communicate details of what exists to the public.

If measurements cannot be made science does not just leave it alone. We can observe changes and then speculate as to why such changes are happening. — I like sushi

Theoretical scientists develop conjectures about things not accessible to hands-on examination by spinning out from related things that have been measured directly. At a higher level of nuance, we can surmise that theoretical conjectures are a type of measurement.

The Hard Problem is a scientific problem. — I like sushi

Is it a scientific problem that does a good job of describing what it's like to be a human endeavoring to learn truths about the natural world?

The Humanities are about the expression and understanding of the human condition in lived terms most often through a narrative function — I like sushi

Where we are blind the Humanities dresses us in comfort. Is there truth hidden within this comfort? I believe so. — I like sushi

Yes. You seem to agree a good work of art is enduring, and it's enduring because, across the generations, human individuals continue to find promise of answers to human questions unresolved.

Well, true that measurement is central to science, but so too is theory - the framework within which measurements are interpreted. — Wayfarer

I sense great depth of meaning in your sentence above. So far I cannot sound the deep waters here, beyond vaguely ruminating on the connections between measurement and theory.

Measurement was key aspect, but so too was a radically different vision of nature. — Wayfarer

This sentence allows me to go a step further in my rumination: QM is, among other shocks, a motherlode of challenge along the axis of measurement. Its new vision of the world as theory could not have been measured in the required manner without that new vision, still today a hard thing to grasp and even harder to accept.

Well, I'm sure David Chalmers would be flattered to be counted as the Founder of the Humanities, but I'm not sure it is warranted. — Wayfarer

I don't mean to go that far in ascribing credit to Chalmers. I'm merely using his title to describe the still privileged human condition vis-á-vis the natural world.

Science, as a method, is not culture bound (in the general sense). It's motivation is simplicity of theory, not outcomes. — AmadeusD

What I've underlined is succinct and insightful. Bravo. It's a clear expression of a basic value guiding the scientific process.

I know one of the best ways for testing a theory is seeing if it can make correct predictions, so I don't agree that science isn't seriously concerned with outcomes.

Science as a practice by humans in specific times and places cannot completely abstract itself from local culture.

Art, in its highest aspirations, tries to be universal and therefore beyond local culture except as an accidental association.

The sciences ask how questions all the time: how does relativity connect with quantum mechanics; how do neurons connect in such a way that experience arises? — Manuel

Likewise, the humanities ask "what questions" frequently. What do human beings do when they are left in isolation, what do people think about X and Y, and so on. — Manuel

The sciences are concerned with how. How does light propagate, how are chemical bonds formed, how do worms reproduce. — Lionino

Sciences and humanities are not mutually exclusive, and both are concerned with "what" and "how" in their respective areas of interest. — jkop

Yes. The sciences and the humanities are each seriously concerned with both "what" and "how."

Yes. The sciences and the humanities are not mutually exclusive.

What = existence; How = journey — ucarr

Do existence and journey represent two different modal methods of discovery?

Does science culminate in the presence of a thing understood?

Does art culminate in the experience of an enduring point of view?

philosophy -- the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

--The Britannica Dictionary

Do you agree that this definition can be paraphrased thus: philosophy -- thinking about thinking

...consider the implications of the term 'idiosyncratic'. Idiosyncratic means 'pertaining to a particular individual' — Wayfarer

Do you imply that Tarskian's definition is too narrow in scope to be considered philosophical?

In fact, it would also be interesting to elaborate why exactly your example sentence is not philosophical. — Tarskian

What if you had written: (In fact, it would also be philosophically interesting to elaborate why exactly your example sentence is not philosophical.)?

Does your definition tell us philosophy is inherently iterative?

That's not a real problem. People who know me don't have any trouble making the distinction. — wonderer1

So, your behavior follows patterns exhibiting moral principles, thus you are your own moral authority. If I'm right about this, then you understand other individuals are their own moral authorities. This leads to comparisons of moral concepts. In turn, this leads to a measure of objectivity about which concepts are best. Next, we have a developing consensus towards an external database of more principles acting as a moral authority for a right-thinking society.

How do you suppose your personal authority can have no use for comparison with an objective database of socially sanctioned authority?

So now, the changes to humanity are not merely evolutionary (biological), they are personal. The personal is of a different category than the biological (subject to evolutionary forces), just as the biological is of a different category than the chemical. — Fire Ologist

Are personal changes roughly equivalent to volitional decisions?

We won’t evolve to be a better society. We have to invent it whole cloth and then constrain any biological instincts or physical forces that frustrate our invention. — Fire Ologist

You don't think personal cognition can evolve?

I don't have much use for the notion of a moral authority. — wonderer1

Not even your own? If you refuse to internalize moral principles you believe in and abide by, you're making yourself indistinguishable from a sociopath.

The way I see it, humanity evolved to remove itself from nature, so now the weak sometimes proliferate, and the strong are kept down, the mutation is ostracized, and evolutionary forces are frustrated. That’s humanity. — Fire Ologist

You seem to be an adherent of the law of the jungle: survival by any means possible. You think anarchy a companion to evolution? You think social welfare programs a perversion of nature?

God as goal has been refuted by science, but replaced with humanity’s self-assessment of “human progress” as goal. — Fire Ologist

You think humanity has internalized God?

An understanding that we have an evolved social primate nature rather than a mythological fallen nature. — wonderer1

Are you proposing sociology as a replacement for the moral authority of church and bible?

"Now ladies and gentlemen, I want you to look straight up. Do you see that? You think what you see is blue, don't you? No, no. It's not blue, it's green." — ucarr

One of our problems is, that could be a quote from any candidate on every side. — Fire Ologist

The fall of humanity into an inherently sinful nature had been a pretty good myth for checking human deceitfulness. In the wake of its obliteration by rationalist, materialist science and logic, what do we have in its place?

There is a threat to democracy, but it is division itself. WE are the threat, and how we treat each other. — Fire Ologist

There needs to be more goodwill. Just as a baseline for conversation.

Simple maturity, that gives respect regardless of whether it is earned. — Fire Ologist

A strong institution with generally accepted moral authority that establishes the moral compass is what humanity has been losing since the Enlightenment.

After the rationalism of materialist science started pushing back against the church, the objectivity of the church-sponsored moral compass started losing its power.

Apparently, it's no good turning to the scientist or atheist philosopher for moral direction. The power of reason is too flimsy for checking the onslaughts of emotional storms. The general public will not learn to read sentential logic. Those who can read it will not always obey it.

...the president cannot create an office. Offices are "established by law", or "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers — NOS4A2

Yes. If the president wants an official investigated, the investigation must be run through either the Congress or the Attorney General.

To a detached observer, Trump seems a very astute proponent and beneficiary of this identity politics. — Tom Storm

Preternatural mastery of gaslighting: massaging the Supreme Court into giving you cover for the insurrection that wasn't an insurrection.

"Now ladies and gentlemen, I want you to look straight up. Do you see that? You think what you see is blue, don't you? No, no. It's not blue, it's green."

“The most consequential election of our lifetime, with democracy itself hanging in the balance!” (Crowd cheers.) Just like the last election and the three before that. — Fire Ologist

Sound judgments about authenticity are tough calls to make during stormy times. Dug-in opponents succumbed to rage harden themselves against calls for unity. Even so, five-alarm fires are sometimes real and not rhetorical.

During the Anschluss, sardonic wits made wry commentary about false alarms distressing Europeans needlessly. There's scarcely anything more forlorn than human targets for extinction waking up after a safe exodus has been shut down.

It’s us, dividing against our neighbors and friends, unwilling to think skeptically about our own opinions, or treat opposing views with any good will. — Fire Ologist

You speak of one of philosophy's indisputable merits: the dialectic. Bravo! Keep on refuting me.

Identity politics isn’t progress; it’s a reversion to a time when identity mattered more than thoughts, actions, and behavior. — NOS4A2

Who says Christian family values aren't identity politics?

Contrary to the narrative, it was Biden’s DOJ who acted like King, creating out of thin air an office with which to investigate his political opponents, like the kings of old. — NOS4A2

The Office of the Special Counsel is bi-partisan and independent.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. OSC’s basic authorities come from four federal statutes: the Ci​vil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).​ — The White House

In order to escape from the lower class, you first need to rise through the "kulak" class. — Tarskian

There is a sub-clause to this structure of upward mobility that complicates it somewhat. Tokenism. A few showcase individuals who work their way up from rags to riches will always be glad-handed by oligarchs eager to cite them as evidence "the system works," and thus no need for a revolution. Play by the rules, work hard and you just might create room for yourself at the top.

By popular demand, however, the ruling mafia will "liquidate" the kulaks. — Tarskian

Again, the ruling class will first try to co-opt the hard charging up-and-comers.

...when Trump mounts his post-election coup, you might be waiting for some next hero to show up and save the day. — apokrisis

Depends on how many of the military personnel defect to join your supposed Trump-led insurrection. Without significant numbers from the bona fide military, I presume that weekend militia personnel will be no match for the pros.

Does being in possession of Biden's campaign war chest when the music stopped count as a sufficiently Shakespearean-level script? — apokrisis

No doubt some unexplainable luck factors into the mix regarding the phenomenal success of any particular individual. History features mediocrity elevated above its natural station as well as authentic genius neglected when not reviled.

But why were so many folk dismissing her for being shallow and brittle before the fickle finger of fate had to make its hasty choice? — apokrisis

Harris being sexy and transactional doesn't mean she can't also be brilliant and consequential.

I'll never fully understand the significance of Biden's choice of Harris as VP, nor will I ever completely fathom the meaning of it being coupled with the acute timing of his decline. What I see from this coupling is what Shakespeare wrote: "and some have greatness thrust upon them."

If you believe America's democratic republic is hanging on by a thread, then you might understand why my dream featuring Harris rising to the call of greatness is the most appealing fantasy for me to entertain seriously.

Just as much as the Democrats, the Republicans have listened to the mob, and they have happily enacted the mob's delusions into law. — Tarskian

Yes. The game requires astute governance of the masses by elite bosses who contain and appease the public by acting through popular representatives who seem to be one with the common citizen.

The ruling class "listens" to the general public so long as they remain inside of their designated theater of action. The standing army is the guard rail that prevents everyman crossings into elite circles: Think of Ned Beatty's boardroom speech to Peter Finch in Network.

I would probably say that the ultimate sacred object is money. — Tom Storm

Excellent point. I think the exercise of power often pairs money with guns to form a potent duet. Puppet despots can be bribed, but the quelling of a roiling mass of uprising peasants probably requires an army.

Who says this? Is this your framing or that of some source. — apokrisis

This is my understanding of the liberal/conservative divide. The masses at the bottom of the liberal group are (socio-economically) developing individuals (instead of developing nations) who seek access to the resources and social networks that empower its votaries.

The left-wing of politics is mainly responsible for managing politically the rising living standard of poor immigrants who come to the United States for a better quality of life: chiefly that means opening the doors (and national borders) of privilege to the unwashed, aspiring rabble through quotas, scholarships and social welfare programs. Liberalism is about access.

The elites at the top of the right-wing of politics are mainly responsible for conserving-preserving that culture and those societies and institutions in which the highest human power and financial wealth are concentrated: chiefly that means standing guardian at the door of privilege and filtering out all but six percent or so of applicants to Ivy League Universities, maintaining Greek Letter societies of professional combines who, of late, have been conducting initiation rituals that literally beat to death aspirants deemed unworthy, and either deporting, incarcerating or assassinating folk hero rebels become too powerful.

Your chart of free expression vs. originalism regarding speech and cultural practice is informative: those without money are the silent majority, as under capitalism the only speech that counts is the voice of money changing hands.

That is not a powerful argument in my book. — apokrisis

I'm very curious about Harris' ability to pull conservative women voters over to the Democratic ticket. I think it might happen in significant numbers because I believe the gender identity is deeper than the political identity.

But what the US needs more is something sustainable done about its wealth inequalities and environmental unsustainabilities. The deeply technical issues. — apokrisis

If someone can systematize such reforms without immediately being castigated and neutralized as a socialist who wants to practice social engineering within a "free" country, I'm seriously interested.

If you just vote for those who look like you – white bread or suitably diverse – then that is how you continue to get what you already got. A country divided by populism rather than agenda. — apokrisis

Whatever mark of inferiority is stamped upon a segment of the population: race, gender, sexual persuasion etc., that segment needs to see one of its own up in power before it begins trusting in the national system as a whole.

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.

With some apprehension, I want to declare that in America, the sacred artifact is not the Holy Cross, but rather the loaded gun. Gadget-crazy materialism positions guns as serious and consequential adult toys that in their novelty and marvel waged a three-pronged conquest of natives, slaves and women.

The proliferation of nifty gadgets must not be diminished by avant-garde extremists bent on stopping the public fun. Gizmo-crazy citizens have marched right up to the boundary line where human flesh is more expendable than the weekend warrior's equipage.

In the wake of the extinction of the Eagle and the Bison, the avant-garde are appreciated (on the downlow) for their essential function, protecting endangered species with just enough efficiency to ensure that the semi-automatic weekend warrior doesn't run out of exhilarating targets.

Are “convention” and “utility” the antecedents for “things.”? — ucarr

ucarr, what do you mean by “antecedents” here? I think convention and utility are attachments to physical objects. — javi2541997

Okay. Let's look at my dialog with noAxiom once again:

When we look at the premise: What constitutes an 'object' is entirely a matter of language/convention. There's no physical basis for it., we see that the interface connecting language with physical parts of the natural world is denied. — ucarr

...we see that the interface connecting cognitive language with physical parts of the natural world is denied. — ucarr

This denial raises the question: How does language internally bridge the gap separating it from the referents of the natural world that give it meaning? — ucarr

I don't see a denial of the indicated connection, so it's a question you must answer. — noAxioms

How is my understanding of your quote a mis-reading of it? — ucarr

Well for one, the suggestion is that convention is very much the interface between the physical world and 'object'. Convention comes from language and/or utility. So the interface is not denied, but instead enabled by these things. — noAxioms

Are “convention” and “utility” the antecedents for “things.”? — ucarr

If find it useful to begin an exam of the writer's post by asking grammatical questions. That's all I'm investigating here. I'm not yet examining philosophical content.

If the answer is "yes," "convention," and "utility" are the antecedents for "things," then noAxioms is telling me the interface between physical world and object consists of established language patterns interwoven with sensory (visual, tactile etc.) data. Words are signs with material details of the natural world as referents.

Some important details about how the interweave of physical world and object is configured is what I'm now examining.

Are you saying ‘object’ is a non-physical construction of the mind? — ucarr

An ideal, which yes, is a construct of the mind. As for it being non-physical, not so keen on that since mind seems to be as physical as anything else. Opinions on this vary of course. — noAxioms

Consider: a human individual navigates his way through the natural world. His perceiving mind processes the incoming data from his senses towards the construction of an interpretation. His interpretation is his mental picture. It resides within his cranium. As such, it is an internalized representation of something at least partially outside of and beyond the dimensions of his cranium.

Do the material details of the natural world constrain to some measurable degree the material details of the human's constructed interpretation? For example, there's a tree that the man sees outside of his house. If we can understand that the tree, as an independent material detail of an independent reality beyond the dimensions of the man's cranium, has a height of ten feet, whereas the man's house has a height of fifteen feet, can we conclude that the constructed interpretation within the man's cranium will likewise depict a tree with a height shorter than the height of the house?

If we arrive at this conclusion, do we know that the constructed interpretation has an analogical relationship with the independent and external world?

Can we answer "yes," the independent and external world does indeed constrain to some measurable degree the material details of the human's constructed interpretation?