An actual physical being is actual and physical because the mind is experiencing the body. Your mind is experiencing the clothes you put on. Experiences are not attributes of you, they ARE you.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:27 pmWell, speak for yourself.
So when you get dressed in the morning. that's just experience putting clothes on an experience. Exactly what does an, "experience," wear--or do experiences go naked?
You may find it difficult to believe, but everyone I know is an actual physical being that has experience as one of its many attributes, including experiencing it's own awareness of himself, which he must do to get dressed in the morning. Conscious experience is hardly the only attribute of a human being.
So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
Now tell me what an experience is that experiences nothing. Before you have an experience there must be something to have it (a living conscious organism,) and there must be something to experience (that which one is conscious of).Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:22 amAn actual physical being is actual and physical because the mind is experiencing the body. Your mind is experiencing the clothes you put on. Experiences are not attributes of you, they ARE you.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:27 pmWell, speak for yourself.
So when you get dressed in the morning. that's just experience putting clothes on an experience. Exactly what does an, "experience," wear--or do experiences go naked?
You may find it difficult to believe, but everyone I know is an actual physical being that has experience as one of its many attributes, including experiencing it's own awareness of himself, which he must do to get dressed in the morning. Conscious experience is hardly the only attribute of a human being.
"Experiemce," is not a thing, or substance that just exists on its own.You are using the term as some kind of, "floating abstraction," turning it into some kind mystical, "stuff," as though there could be, "life," independent of anything living, or "pain," without anything to feel it, or, "experience," without anything to have it and nothing for it to be aware of. You and I are what have the experience and you and I are what we are even when we are having no experience, when asleep or anaesthetized, for example.
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
What has experience A are other experiences that are not-A.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:05 pmNow tell me what an experience is that experiences nothing. Before you have an experience there must be something to have it (a living conscious organism,) and there must be something to experience (that which one is conscious of).Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:22 amAn actual physical being is actual and physical because the mind is experiencing the body. Your mind is experiencing the clothes you put on. Experiences are not attributes of you, they ARE you.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:27 pm
Well, speak for yourself.
So when you get dressed in the morning. that's just experience putting clothes on an experience. Exactly what does an, "experience," wear--or do experiences go naked?
You may find it difficult to believe, but everyone I know is an actual physical being that has experience as one of its many attributes, including experiencing it's own awareness of himself, which he must do to get dressed in the morning. Conscious experience is hardly the only attribute of a human being.
"Experiemce," is not a thing, or substance that just exists on its own.You are using the term as some kind of, "floating abstraction," turning it into some kind mystical, "stuff," as though there could be, "life," independent of anything living, or "pain," without anything to feel it, or, "experience," without anything to have it and nothing for it to be aware of. You and I are what have the experience and you and I are what we are even when we are having no experience, when asleep or anaesthetized, for example.
Living conscious organisms are complex and huge bundles of experiences, more complex and huge experience-wise than for instance a table lamp or a virus.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
Table lamps and viruses have, "experiences?" How about rocks, and rain drops? Are you an animist?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:52 pmWhat has experience A are other experiences that are not-A.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:05 pmNow tell me what an experience is that experiences nothing. Before you have an experience there must be something to have it (a living conscious organism,) and there must be something to experience (that which one is conscious of).
"Experiemce," is not a thing, or substance that just exists on its own.You are using the term as some kind of, "floating abstraction," turning it into some kind mystical, "stuff," as though there could be, "life," independent of anything living, or "pain," without anything to feel it, or, "experience," without anything to have it and nothing for it to be aware of. You and I are what have the experience and you and I are what we are even when we are having no experience, when asleep or anaesthetized, for example.
Living conscious organisms are complex and huge bundles of experiences, more complex and huge experience-wise than for instance a table lamp or a virus.
I don't care you believe in such nonsense. I very much enjoyed the Thai people while living in Thailand (often referred to as the smiling people by other Southeastern Asians). They are mostly Buddhists and animists and think everything is some kind of spirit. The problem is when someone supposes they can know such a thing. Even if the inanimate had experiences, you could never know it. You cannot know what the actual experience of other human beings are, much less what any animal experiences. Experience is subjective and unknowable to anyone other than the one having the experience.
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
I'd not say animist(not just at present)but am trying out panpsychism, and it is working out so far.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:36 pmTable lamps and viruses have, "experiences?" How about rocks, and rain drops? Are you an animist?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:52 pmWhat has experience A are other experiences that are not-A.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:05 pm
Now tell me what an experience is that experiences nothing. Before you have an experience there must be something to have it (a living conscious organism,) and there must be something to experience (that which one is conscious of).
"Experiemce," is not a thing, or substance that just exists on its own.You are using the term as some kind of, "floating abstraction," turning it into some kind mystical, "stuff," as though there could be, "life," independent of anything living, or "pain," without anything to feel it, or, "experience," without anything to have it and nothing for it to be aware of. You and I are what have the experience and you and I are what we are even when we are having no experience, when asleep or anaesthetized, for example.
Living conscious organisms are complex and huge bundles of experiences, more complex and huge experience-wise than for instance a table lamp or a virus.
I don't care you believe in such nonsense. I very much enjoyed the Thai people while living in Thailand (often referred to as the smiling people by other Southeastern Asians). They are mostly Buddhists and animists and think everything is some kind of spirit. The problem is when someone supposes they can know such a thing. Even if the inanimate had experiences, you could never know it. You cannot know what the actual experience of other human beings are, much less what any animal experiences. Experience is subjective and unknowable to anyone other than the one having the experience.
I agree about not knowing others' subjective experiences, except for peak experiences perhaps. There is a significant ethical and practical reason for adopting a faith in panpsychism, or at least a sympathetic attitude towards panpsychism at this time.
-
- Posts: 12634
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
You are right and that is supported by one of the G.O.A.T. [greatest of all times] philosopher, i.e. Kant.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pmNature means the superset of nomic connections, which is related to causation but transcends causation.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 4:06 pm Eleni Angelou eavesdrops on a conversation between a Believer and a Sceptic.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/146/So ... _in_Nature
As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
Kant don't simply make the above statements but support them with very solid but complex arguments which I don't have time to present fully.Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori if there were not Subjective
Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind,
and if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid.
Kant CPR A125
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
I don't know what you wear. I know how the Belinda bundle of remembered experiences influence what she chooses to wear.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:27 pmWell, speak for yourself.
So when you get dressed in the morning. that's just experience putting clothes on an experience. Exactly what does an, "experience," wear--or do experiences go naked?
You may find it difficult to believe, but everyone I know is an actual physical being that has experience as one of its many attributes, including experiencing it's own awareness of himself, which he must do to get dressed in the morning. Conscious experience is hardly the only attribute of a human being.
Experience is not an attribute of some essence. Experience is all there is. It so happened that a great many experiences coincided to create RCS.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
Experiences are subjective phenomena so they are not "stuff" which implies material things, each of which has an essential attribute.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:13 pmYou think experience is some kind of, "stuff," things are made out of?
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
Yes.
And setting aside the fact that you just blew a hole in your own theory that nature is a "human construct," can you not see how the possibility of nature being a construct in the mind of God, pairs up nicely with your later assertion that you are...
According to Wiki:
In other words, if the "...wondrous orderly system we call"Nature" is a construct in the mind of God..." then, clearly, you are on the right track in your "trying out" panpsychism, for everything is indeed a construct of mind (just not a construct of the human mind).Wiki wrote: In the philosophy of mind, panpsychism is the view that mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality.
So, by all means, B, keep "trying out" panpsychism and see where it takes you, for it is definitely a step in the right direction.
_______
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
There is only process in nature; nothing equivalent to laws which rule or enforce a system to operate exactly in that manner. There is nothing specifically mandated. The term "Law" would imply something extraneous to the process itself which gets denoted as nothing more or less than a paradigm operative in this universe or section of this universe.
The term "nature" is a synthesis of everything we understand and don't understand.
The term "nature" is a synthesis of everything we understand and don't understand.
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
Seeds wrote:
My theory stands. The Absolute is not the personal God. God is an idea tacked on to the Absolute. When I wrote "nature-------construct in the mind of God" I referred to God as Absolute not God as a Person.And setting aside the fact that you just blew a hole in your own theory that nature is a "human construct," can you not see how the possibility of nature being a construct in the mind of God, pairs up nicely with your later assertion that you are..
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
Okay then, so what you meant to say is that nature is a construct of the "Absolute." Yet you asserted that nature is a human construct.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:19 pm Seeds wrote:
My theory stands. The Absolute is not the personal God. God is an idea tacked on to the Absolute. When I wrote "nature-------construct in the mind of God" I referred to God as Absolute not God as a Person.And setting aside the fact that you just blew a hole in your own theory that nature is a "human construct," can you not see how the possibility of nature being a construct in the mind of God, pairs up nicely with your later assertion that you are..
So which is it?
_______
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
Nature is a human construct. The Absolute contains all human constructs, including nature, times, seasons, places, things, relations, moral codes, saints, sinners, sufferings, joys, and human explanations of the physical forces of nature's workings. There is nothing the Absolute does not contain.seeds wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:03 pmOkay then, so what you meant to say is that nature is a construct of the "Absolute." Yet you asserted that nature is a human construct.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:19 pm Seeds wrote:
My theory stands. The Absolute is not the personal God. God is an idea tacked on to the Absolute. When I wrote "nature-------construct in the mind of God" I referred to God as Absolute not God as a Person.And setting aside the fact that you just blew a hole in your own theory that nature is a "human construct," can you not see how the possibility of nature being a construct in the mind of God, pairs up nicely with your later assertion that you are..
So which is it?
_______
Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?
_______
_______
_______