This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_philosophy >>> According to Lakoff and Johnson, an embodied philosophy "would show the laws of thought to be metaphorical, not logical; truth would be a metaphorical construction, not an attribute of objective reality." <<<

Hmmm, very sixties.

Ah, a Wikipedia fan! As you may know, Wikpedia does not have a lot of credibility around here, and with good reason!!

I don't think it is 'sixties' at all - in fact, the book shows that to have the ideas they expound, and have good rational basis for them, is something that could only have come about recently (in the last 10 years or so) with the discoveries of Cognitive Science about the neural processes in the brain.

But I think logic, mathematics, and number are kinda fundamental to the structure of reality. No way are they metaphores (for what?).

I can only suggest you read the book. They do make a good case - you may not accept it, but at least you can read their case. Otherwise your argument is of the type that Richard Dawkins calls the 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' (I personally cannot see why X is Y, therefore...).

Firstly, it is not as black and white as 'the laws of thought to be metaphorical, not logical'; only that most of our thinking is metaphorical in ways we are usually not aware of. Even your use of the phrase 'fundamental to the structure of reality' is deeply metaphorical (that reality is like a building which has a structure, and foundations, etc).

It seems to me he is in the game of explaining what kind of processing our mind/brain does, that we have the abilities we do. But he does not address the hard problem -- why and how is some, but not all, of that processing accompanied by conscious experience and sensation?

I agree that he does not answer the 'hard problem' per se. But perhaps a reason it is such a 'hard' question is because it is being asked wrongly, essentially being asked in a way that is unanswerable. They do address that issue, in a way that I found both satisfying, rational and intellectually coherent.

This is not the place to go into this in depth, but I do recommend the book; at least it asks these kinds of questions in fresh way, and that is something.