Btw, I did not make any assumption.seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:04 pmAs I tried to point out to you earlier, the only thing I was thinking was in the form of a question as to what Belinda was thinking when she asserted that nature is a human construct.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:23 am It was addressed to you.
If you are thinking re "human construct" as if nature was/is constructed by humans like constructing things out of lego blocks or any human made physical systems, then note
Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce
So I don't know why you are making assumptions about what I was thinking when I asked her to clarify what she meant.
Instead of you speaking on Belinda's behalf, how about we let Belinda explain her own take on the issue.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:23 am I don't think Belinda take "human construct" in the direct literal sense.
I'm not sure of what you are getting at with the above interpretation of the word "construct."Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:23 am Note "construct" in the Philosophical sense.
The above term 'depend' tend to be misinterpreted very narrowly.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy)
In philosophy, a construct is an object which is ideal, that is, an object of the mind or of thought, meaning that its existence may be said to depend upon a subject's mind. This contrasts with any possibly mind-independent objects, the existence of which purportedly does not depend on the existence of a conscious observing subject.
Instead of 'depend' I had used the phrase "somehow connected and linked with the subject's mind in the broadest perspective."
Other more accurate terms are 'inevitably interdependent' or in 'complementarity.'
Nevertheless, from my own personal perspective, all constructs (be they subjective or objective) are dependent on mind in one way or another.
_______
Note I used "IF".
If your case is not the case, then you can ignore the whole post.