The "I" that experiences wants to explain the the "I" as an object of experience. The "I" wants to explain itself

It all boils down to the definition of feeling or experience. You do "experience" (for lack of a better word) the concept of freedom. Here experience is the fact that you have it in your mind. You do have the rock or number 2 in your mind, but they have properties that the freedom does not have

Even the feeling of "is" (or being) of understanding, is something we experience. The confusion rises when one tries to identify that "we", or the "I". That's when one hits the wall of infinite regress. ocrampal.com/how-asking-the-wrong-question-creates-mysteries-that-dont-exist/

Freedom, number 2 and a rock are all concepts/objects that you feel (experience). But you feel different properties. Freedom is not sharable (we call it subjective). Number 2 is sharable (we call it objective), but not touchable. A rock is sharable (objective) and touchable.
Touchable -> link to?

Question: what makes you think that objects link to something while mathematical objects or the concept of freedom does not?

Why do you need to hypothesize something "out there"?

Genuine question ...

Yes I used nature for lack of a better word. I mean that the feeling of concept or object that one experiences has the same origin

What differentiate digital from analog computation? Is analog computation a computation or are we calling analog computation something that is not computation?

When trying to explain the brain in terms of computation one falls into the frame problem: www.ocrampal.com/the-code-tha...

The way I see it is that existence is one of our concepts. Life, intelligence etc. are other concepts. The question is: what can we say of the "process" of creating, using concepts without using other concepts? That's what www.geneosophy.com is about.

Agree that space time (and quantity) are not fundamental, but why not go further and consider objects not fundamental as well?

Let's start from what we mean by object and concept. www.ocrampal.com/how-solving-...

Thanks! Exactly my point.

It is so much easier for Latin languages speaker to appreciate that the scientific method induced world view is partial. And I mean partial as limited, not wrong!

www.geneosophy.com the project I am working on aims to fill the gap.

www.geneosophy.com, the conceptual framework I am working on, does not need that. So it must justify objectivity in another way.

Understand your assumptions. Was just curious. Interesting that you bring up a larger more significant experience. In a sense it is another way of calling the objective world, something "outside" we all have in common.

Agree with this definition. Let me ask you something. Do you conceive of objects being a representation of an objective world? Or a presentation, as you say. But presentation of what? I'm being a devil's advocate here ...

Yes, I guess you are referring to autonomous creativity, which computational systems cannot express

Exactly. But then what would be a satisfactory definition of intelligence? An equation, an essay?

It seems like we have no problem with defining mathematical structures,but when it comes to the concepts of life and intelligence we have a problem. www.geneosophy.com deals with these problems

Thanks. Bergson had many correct intuitions. He did not find a way to formalize them: ocrampal.com/geneosophy-a...

And the emotional attachment is so strong that www.ocrampal.com/why-criticiz...