I don’t need to quote you when it is obvious that you are operating under the perception that “concepts” like breathing and gravity are fully understood or else you wouldn’t hold the moronic perception that principles of nature are abstract ideas. We apply abstract thinking to help up design a framework, but the working models and theories are dictated solely on natural facts that are reproducible.
And LOL at applying philosophies can explain physical and measurable phenomena like breathing and gravity. If anything, hard core objective and natural sciences explain breathing and gravity, but even then our knowledge is still incomplete. Reducing objective phenomena into abstract thinking literally serves no purpose other than to overly-intellectualize things into nonsense that holds no basis in reality.
Ah, ok, you are just a fan of pulling crap out of you behind then. I don’t even know why I am wasting time with your pointless yapping.
LMFAO!!! I bet you don’t even know the basic principles of respiration, yet you want to talk about concepts. If you did, then you would know about cellular respiration including glycolysis and the electron transport chain…both of which have been observed and measured as real-world processes. The only way that you can refer to breathing as a concept is if you genuinely have no idea about the science behind it.
Yes, please stop replying, because you are an intellectual lightweight who wants to pretend that you know than you do, but when you get called out, you want to bring up philosophical nonsense to try to obfuscate your points. I have seen this tactic many times before, and your iteration of this tactic is rudimentary.