Naming Our Brain Works

I'm bored. All the current events bore me and I have nothing new in the eschatological front. So what the hell, lets do some philosophy and physics (P & P). It will be stimulating. I have a unique inheritance of philosophy and physics. What I will share is fairly simple.  Anyone can apply themselves and learn this.  You will be smarter than Einstein.  You will think as sharp as an arrow and be able to unravel secrets. And so lets start with this curious human act of naming.  The word. 

We are able to name objects (that which has form) or to name a relation between objects which our brain has worked out. 

In assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth) . . . or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number, etc.) and we decided to name. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. The criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. Form is that which is bounded from an immediate surrounding. Gottlob Frege never figured this out when he said "the concept horse is not a concept". He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.


The sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this. And so the act of naming works an affinity between us and our brain-work. And what we do is treat our brain-work AS IF this were an object. In doing so we establish a sort of suprarational relation. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying, that is imagining that this concept is an object and ourselves relating to it. This is sort of a transcendental if you want. As far as I know animals are not able to accomplish this, and this is one qualifier that sets us apart from the animals. I have no idea what the physical mechanism is that enables us to accomplish this but I have heard them say that the human brain is one of the most beautiful and complex objects in all creation. We are freaks of nature, or children of God made in his image. Take your pick. I believe in the latter, but this is irrelevant to the discussion.

And this is what is confusing I think. It is easy to imagine Adam waking up, and naming that which has form (objects). But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word relates back to object or concept in any given context is form. Does the referent have form? Yes or no?

Blah

I have this concept. . . I call it blah blah blah. Blah, blah, blah, is not a thing. Blah has no form, but I treat blah like a thing in the act of naming, thinking and communication. I reified. I converted this idea into an object. But I just ignore the fact I reified blah blah blah. Now I literally think that blah is an object that performs verbs and is involved in causal relations and undergoes change effects with the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the stars and all atoms. Blah does it all. Blah is real. And with blah we can work miracles like travel back in time! Blah will take us to new galaxies. With blah we will inhabit new worlds!

But remember blah is just an idea I thought so don't take me too seriously. This is just for shits and giggles, and we make millions off of this concept. And besides we need another trillion dollars of public funds to validate this concept. And when we do we will announce this to the world, and all will wonder.