Which supervenes? If the concrete world is the objective fact (a rather nonsensical phrase) then what of the mind that declares it thus? Unfortunately, the property, or, more accurately »appearance of concreteness is only extant or relevant to a mind that purposively derives this. In other words: produces it.

And whatever that mind might be, concrete it is not. I sometimes wonder if the only real objectivity that may exist is enitrely local (the opposite of our common idea).

Declarations about concreteness aren’t helpful. It’s all well and good to say that the iron is hard, unless — as in much of language — there is neither iron nor someone to examine it.

Strangely, the situation can be analogized if not resolved by the simple realization that the degrees of freedom available to minds are unstipulated. This is an exceptionally profound situation.

Especially when one realizes that there are myriad forms… and communities… of minds…

Birdwalks aside for the moment, in the same way that boats don’t become boatwrights, theories are not minds.