So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Philosophy Now »

Eleni Angelou eavesdrops on a conversation between a Believer and a Sceptic.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/146/So_You_Think_There_are_Laws_in_Nature
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

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
Nature means the superset of nomic connections, which is related to causation but transcends causation.

As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Impenitent »

who or what wrote and enforces them?

-Imp
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
How so?

In what way did humans have anything to do with the construction of Nature?
_______
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:49 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
How so?

In what way did humans have anything to do with the construction of Nature?
_______
Where to start?

Either nature exists independently of men's minds, or nature is an idea constructed by men's minds.
Common sense dictates the latter notion is daft, but think of how we know nothing of the world beyond our mind/brains.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:50 am
seeds wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:49 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
How so?

In what way did humans have anything to do with the construction of Nature?
_______
Where to start?

Either nature exists independently of men's minds, or nature is an idea constructed by men's minds.
Common sense dictates the latter notion is daft, but think of how we know nothing of the world beyond our mind/brains.
Belinda, if common sense dictates that one would have to be daft to entertain the notion that Nature is a human construct, then why in the world are you claiming that nature is a human construct?
_______
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm
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
Nature means the superset of nomic connections, which is related to causation but transcends causation.

As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
What do you think that humans are, exactly?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:40 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm
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
Nature means the superset of nomic connections, which is related to causation but transcends causation.

As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
What do you think that humans are, exactly?
My reply is also for Seeds.
' Humans 'is nomenclature from sciences, which are human constructs. I prefer to say 'men' or 'individuals' or 'consciously-aware entities, and as such you and I are bundles of experiences no more and no less. Others look upon us as personas. When we introspect we recognise a turning of our awarenesses towards a good that transcends our personas.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:40 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm
Nature means the superset of nomic connections, which is related to causation but transcends causation.

As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
What do you think that humans are, exactly?
My reply is also for Seeds.
' Humans 'is nomenclature from sciences, which are human constructs. I prefer to say 'men' or 'individuals' or 'consciously-aware entities, and as such you and I are bundles of experiences no more and no less. Others look upon us as personas. When we introspect we recognise a turning of our awarenesses towards a good that transcends our personas.
You're avoiding the question, Belinda.

When one thinks of "Nature," one thinks of the totality of the intricate workings of the hundred-billion+ galaxies of the universe.

So again I ask you, how can the trillions upon trillions of suns and planets spread throughout the vast reality of this universe,...

(phenomena that allegedly existed for billions of years before humans even arrived on the scene)

...be a "human construct"?
_______
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:40 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm
Nature means the superset of nomic connections, which is related to causation but transcends causation.

As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
What do you think that humans are, exactly?
My reply is also for Seeds.
' Humans 'is nomenclature from sciences, which are human constructs. I prefer to say 'men' or 'individuals' or 'consciously-aware entities, and as such you and I are bundles of experiences no more and no less. Others look upon us as personas. When we introspect we recognise a turning of our awarenesses towards a good that transcends our personas.
Okay, but what sort of entity? And just what are experiences ontologically in your view? And would it be that whatever sort of entity(ies) we're talking about and whatever experiences turn out to be, exactly, isn't something that's part of (or the whole of) nature?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:15 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:50 am
seeds wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:49 pm
How so?

In what way did humans have anything to do with the construction of Nature?
_______
Where to start?

Either nature exists independently of men's minds, or nature is an idea constructed by men's minds.
Common sense dictates the latter notion is daft, but think of how we know nothing of the world beyond our mind/brains.
Belinda, if common sense dictates that one would have to be daft to entertain the notion that Nature is a human construct, then why in the world are you claiming that nature is a human construct?
_______
Maybe that wondrous orderly system we call"Nature" is a construct in the mind of God.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:42 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:40 pm

What do you think that humans are, exactly?
My reply is also for Seeds.
' Humans 'is nomenclature from sciences, which are human constructs. I prefer to say 'men' or 'individuals' or 'consciously-aware entities, and as such you and I are bundles of experiences no more and no less. Others look upon us as personas. When we introspect we recognise a turning of our awarenesses towards a good that transcends our personas.
Okay, but what sort of entity? And just what are experiences ontologically in your view? And would it be that whatever sort of entity(ies) we're talking about and whatever experiences turn out to be, exactly, isn't something that's part of (or the whole of) nature?
What you or I are is 'shaped' by what you or I are not. If there were nothing that I am not I would not exist as an entity.
"Experiences " include thoughts, dreams, emotional and reflexive reactions, consciously-aware affects , bare sensory data (qualia), 'spiritual' attitudes, intuitive muscle memories such as walking or riding a bicycle, reveries, focused thinking, learned and inherited behaviours and so forth. Ontologically, experiences of relations is all there is , in the relative world that you and I inhabit.

Experiences and relationships are the whole of nature, including artefacts. Obviously an internal combustion engine, or a computer , experience only on and off plus physical forces of which they are not conscious. Many natural bundles -of -experiences can learn and experience affects, including those with no central nervous systems.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm
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
Nature means the superset of nomic connections, which is related to causation but transcends causation.

As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
Apart from our usual mumbo jumbo in the philosopher’s world, does this have an impact on how you act in accordance to(bad English but I hope you understand) the stuff here on this planet, not made by humans?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:55 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:25 pm
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
Nature means the superset of nomic connections, which is related to causation but transcends causation.

As an idealist I claim that Nature is a human construct.
Apart from our usual mumbo jumbo in the philosopher’s world, does this have an impact on how you act in accordance to(bad English but I hope you understand) the stuff here on this planet, not made by humans?
The ethical implication of absolute idealism is that all experiences are necessary experiences including those we call evil.

What saves that claim from the implication that there is no difference between good and evil is that good is the baseline of being. And that's the same as the claim that being is better than non-being: and that something happening is better than nothing.

Even in mundane matters such as the money economy, honesty (a subsection of good) is the baseline without which mutual trust could not work.And generally there is the practical implication of absolute idealism that there has to be some cooperation between men, and between species, for the biosphere to continue in existence.

Panpsychism is a belief that strengthens my practical resolve to respect all that exist especially the sentient.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:16 pm ... you and I are bundles of experiences no more and no less.
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.
Post Reply