Do you believe the functions are (pointing to something) real?

[Ginkgo]

I think that there are varying degrees of abstraction, and concepts can't be so clearly defined as either one or the other.

For instance, you may think that the concept "shirt" is pretty concrete, but it's actually pretty vague. It leaves alot up to the imagination, such as the color, size, and detail. Therefore, it falls into a level of abstraction.

However, if an object is directly experienced, it is conceptualized in a way that corresponds with itself more. If this is the case, then aren't cognitive functions more closely experienced than shirts, hats and ballgames? The only difference is that they can't be demonstrated in the same way because they are mental phenomena and intangible.

(I'm toying with words here, actually. Concepts aren't concrete. So this conversation is about whether functions are mere concepts, which I don't think they are )

 

[RaptorWizard]

How was the functions theory invented? It seems people of a certain behavior will have certain functions, and vice versa, our behavior brought into causation by our thoughts.

 

[Impact Calculus]

What does "real" mean here?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I'd say they create the real.

So they don't point, but they do................. Something. I mean they are necessary.

Of course they may not even say anything, or create anything, but they are processes (there is just no way around that word) to actualization. To movement to act upon an object.

I'd also say if multiple definitions, from different fields, can prove how the brain actually processes different styles of translating information then they are real, but no one really knows where to start.

If we say that the definitions are the functions then no I don't think they are real. As definitions are illusory. However, this may enlighten us on the earlier fact that there definitely may be another way to go about making descriptions of how we think in general that correlate to the same functions. Making them real. Yet again though where do we begin to look for those other definitions?

I personally believe they are real.

 

[Doctorjuice]

Is anything real?

In seriousness, I think the realness of the functions depends on whether they correlate with brain activity.

 

[jcloudz]

you mean some people favor certain uses of their mind over others? also are stronger in those parts? and the definition matches up with what those parts of the mind tend to do? kind of. i only see an issue probably with the defining the functions, they might change a little more but yes i do believe fairies.


i view it as a simple tool and work in progress.

 

[Orangey]

I think they attempt to describe something that is real, but they are only partially accurate. Kind of like a lousy metaphor.

 

[Ginkgo]

I think they attempt to describe something that is real, but they are only partially accurate. Kind of like a lousy metaphor.

If they weren't functions, they couldn't facilitate in attempting anything.