(Det är nâgot obehagligt att hälsa pâ nâgon utan vidare bestämdhet än att det är 'een'. men... men...)
What a dialectician you make! To shadow your own expression close enough to ensure a mutual understanding:
Fair enough, fair enough...
You asked: "But in doing so to write that 'concepts are the products of brain
activity' is, in this context, puzzling.
Or is your brain not part of the existing world?"
I would answer: yes indeed it is a part of the world, a part, as opposed to the whole world.
Concepts and laws that arise from its activity may have no other relevance than being the determined result of laws that governs its funtionning -- the brain's (this is a concession). The problem would in this case be: how could we be certain of such laws, for we would have to set our attention on the principles at the base of brain activity bearing in mind (in the brain) that we are not certain concepts and laws formed in our brain are relevant. Puzzling indeed.
Although, there has to be an outside wourld. For example, this morning I received a bunch of email in my mailbox. Except one, they are not the result of my sole brain activity. Something else must have given birth to them. Is that something ordered, organised, bound to laws? Possible, even probable. Although... what is the nature of these laws? When I describe the world with words, am I doing anything else than placing brain organised structure over it? Does my understanding of a certain theory of photosynthetis account for the very simple exitence of a tree leaf?
Vertige des sens...
I do not expect an answer; although confusing, words has given me the impression that our conceptions are not so far from one another.
After all the world is just another concept...
And all dinstinction between one thing and another rests upon the impression that they are not one; sometimes with the strength of a given definition.
Is your claim that I am facing the final unity of all things, of everything, of the Thing?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]