So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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: Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:19 pm 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.
seeds wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:03 pm 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.

So which is it?
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:54 am Nature is a human construct....
Belinda, we seem to be going in circles.

Let's look at the dictionary definition of the word "nature":
the dictionary wrote: nature
NOUN
1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth...
With that standard definition in mind, perhaps it would help if you describe exactly what it is that you are referring to when you use the word "nature."

In other words, if it is something different than the standard definition, then please explain to me what you think "nature" consists of?
_______
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: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:21 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:19 pm 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.
seeds wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:03 pm 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.

So which is it?
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:54 am Nature is a human construct....
Belinda, we seem to be going in circles.

Let's look at the dictionary definition of the word "nature":
the dictionary wrote: nature
NOUN
1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth...
With that standard definition in mind, perhaps it would help if you describe exactly what it is that you are referring to when you use the word "nature."

In other words, if it is something different than the standard definition, then please explain to me what you think "nature" consists of?
_______
It's not an adequate definition. Nature includes not only all the things, all the phenomena , features, and products , nature also includes the connections between all these things, i.e. time,space, force and relativity; that's to say extramental (objective) order.

The Absolute includes nature as extramental order and also includes nature as a creation of men's minds.
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 26, 2021 5:54 pm
seeds wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:21 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:19 pm 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.
seeds wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:03 pm 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.

So which is it?
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:54 am Nature is a human construct....
Belinda, we seem to be going in circles.

Let's look at the dictionary definition of the word "nature":
the dictionary wrote: nature
NOUN
1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth...
With that standard definition in mind, perhaps it would help if you describe exactly what it is that you are referring to when you use the word "nature."

In other words, if it is something different than the standard definition, then please explain to me what you think "nature" consists of?
_______
It's not an adequate definition. Nature includes not only all the things, all the phenomena , features, and products , nature also includes the connections between all these things, i.e. time,space, force and relativity; that's to say extramental (objective) order.

The Absolute includes nature as extramental order and also includes nature as a creation of men's minds.
You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole, B.

If your definition of nature includes all of the things you listed (which I agree with, btw), then how in the world could nature be a "human construct"?
_______
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Sculptor »

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.
Yes and so are you.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:13 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.
Yes and so are you.
You as essential self are a human construct. You as a transient set of experiences, without essential core, are not only temporal but also eternal.
Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity.[1] In early Western thought, Plato's idealism held that all things have such an "essence"—an "idea" or "form". In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it, "make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing".[2] The contrary view—non-essentialism—denies the need to posit such an "essence'".

Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. Plato, in the Parmenides dialogue, depicts Socrates questioning the notion, suggesting that if we accept the idea that every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence to be beautiful or just, we must also accept the "existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt".[3] In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin;[4] the role and importance of essentialism in biology is still a matter of debate.[5]

In medical sciences essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities—for example assuming that differences in hypertension in Afro-American populations are due to racial differences rather than social causes—leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment.[6] In general, believing that social identities, such as ethnicity, nationality or gender, are the necessary characteristics of people which define who they are, can lead to dangerous consequences. Essentialist and reductive thinking lies at the core of many discriminatory and extremist ideologies.[7] Psychological essentialism is also correlated with racial prejudice.[8][9] Older social theories were often conceptually essentialist.[10]
Wikipedia
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:00 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:13 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.
Yes and so are you.
You as essential self are a human construct. You as a transient set of experiences, without essential core, are not only temporal but also eternal.
Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity.[1] In early Western thought, Plato's idealism held that all things have such an "essence"—an "idea" or "form". In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it, "make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing".[2] The contrary view—non-essentialism—denies the need to posit such an "essence'".

Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. Plato, in the Parmenides dialogue, depicts Socrates questioning the notion, suggesting that if we accept the idea that every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence to be beautiful or just, we must also accept the "existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt".[3] In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin;[4] the role and importance of essentialism in biology is still a matter of debate.[5]

In medical sciences essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities—for example assuming that differences in hypertension in Afro-American populations are due to racial differences rather than social causes—leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment.[6] In general, believing that social identities, such as ethnicity, nationality or gender, are the necessary characteristics of people which define who they are, can lead to dangerous consequences. Essentialist and reductive thinking lies at the core of many discriminatory and extremist ideologies.[7] Psychological essentialism is also correlated with racial prejudice.[8][9] Older social theories were often conceptually essentialist.[10]
Wikipedia
We are certainly temporary.
I burned my brother today.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:00 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:13 pm

Yes and so are you.
You as essential self are a human construct. You as a transient set of experiences, without essential core, are not only temporal but also eternal.
Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity.[1] In early Western thought, Plato's idealism held that all things have such an "essence"—an "idea" or "form". In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it, "make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing".[2] The contrary view—non-essentialism—denies the need to posit such an "essence'".

Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. Plato, in the Parmenides dialogue, depicts Socrates questioning the notion, suggesting that if we accept the idea that every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence to be beautiful or just, we must also accept the "existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt".[3] In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin;[4] the role and importance of essentialism in biology is still a matter of debate.[5]

In medical sciences essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities—for example assuming that differences in hypertension in Afro-American populations are due to racial differences rather than social causes—leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment.[6] In general, believing that social identities, such as ethnicity, nationality or gender, are the necessary characteristics of people which define who they are, can lead to dangerous consequences. Essentialist and reductive thinking lies at the core of many discriminatory and extremist ideologies.[7] Psychological essentialism is also correlated with racial prejudice.[8][9] Older social theories were often conceptually essentialist.[10]
Wikipedia
We are certainly temporary.
I burned my brother today.
I am sorry for your loss, Sculptor.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:07 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:00 pm

You as essential self are a human construct. You as a transient set of experiences, without essential core, are not only temporal but also eternal.


Wikipedia
We are certainly temporary.
I burned my brother today.
I am sorry for your loss, Sculptor.
Really?
You do not know me and did not know my brother.
People say that, but do not really mean it.
But thanks for saying so.
In a very sad way I lost my brother in 1980 when he had what was euphamistically called a "nervous breakdown". He decended into paranoid schitzophrenia at a time when the Tories were cutting mental health services. He did not get any help for years, and then only GP prescribed antipsychotics. But that lost time meant that he was never able to fully benefit from the help he eventualy got subsequently.
Decades of prescription drugs and self medicating with tobacco gave him a serious heart and pulmonary condition, which killed him at the age of 63.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:02 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:07 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:31 pm

We are certainly temporary.
I burned my brother today.
I am sorry for your loss, Sculptor.
Really?
You do not know me and did not know my brother.
People say that, but do not really mean it.
But thanks for saying so.
In a very sad way I lost my brother in 1980 when he had what was euphamistically called a "nervous breakdown". He decended into paranoid schitzophrenia at a time when the Tories were cutting mental health services. He did not get any help for years, and then only GP prescribed antipsychotics. But that lost time meant that he was never able to fully benefit from the help he eventualy got subsequently.
Decades of prescription drugs and self medicating with tobacco gave him a serious heart and pulmonary condition, which killed him at the age of 63.
My idea of you is shaped by your posts here, and nothing else, as far as that is true of you, so I do feel I sort of know you. Naturally, I fill in gaps with my own imagination.Yes, I really do sympathise with you in your loss, more so since you added those details in your post above.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:43 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:54 pm It's not an adequate definition. Nature includes not only all the things, all the phenomena , features, and products , nature also includes the connections between all these things, i.e. time,space, force and relativity; that's to say extramental (objective) order.

The Absolute includes nature as extramental order and also includes nature as a creation of men's minds.
You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole, B.

If your definition of nature includes all of the things you listed (which I agree with, btw), then how in the world could nature be a "human construct"?
_______
I hope you are not 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.

The philosophy behind this is related to Philosophical Realism which claims reality thus including Nature is absolutely independent of any human connections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The stance 'Nature is a human construct' generally represent the anti-realists' view in opposition specifically to the above claims of the Philosophical Realists.

Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Since the claim is made by Kant [a G.O.A.T] among all philosophers, what he presented must be of some substance to be investigated and awaiting countering with sound arguments.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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.
To claim to be an idealist is too general, since the idealism of people like Berkeley [Subjective Idealism], Descartes [Dogmatic Idealism] and others can be very problematic and not convincing.

I would recommend if you must, then identify as a Transcendental Idealist [Kantian] but that is not easy to grasp and express.
In addition, the Philosophical Realist can also be an Empirical Idealist from a certain perspective.

It would be easier to represent yourself as an Anti-Realist and therefore argue your points in opposition to Philosophical Realism which claim otherwise.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by seeds »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:18 pm
seeds wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:43 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:54 pm It's not an adequate definition. Nature includes not only all the things, all the phenomena , features, and products , nature also includes the connections between all these things, i.e. time,space, force and relativity; that's to say extramental (objective) order.

The Absolute includes nature as extramental order and also includes nature as a creation of men's minds.
You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole, B.

If your definition of nature includes all of the things you listed (which I agree with, btw), then how in the world could nature be a "human construct"?
_______
I hope you are not 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.

The philosophy behind this is related to Philosophical Realism which claims reality thus including Nature is absolutely independent of any human connections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The stance 'Nature is a human construct' generally represent the anti-realists' view in opposition specifically to the above claims of the Philosophical Realists.

Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Since the claim is made by Kant [a G.O.A.T] among all philosophers, what he presented must be of some substance to be investigated and awaiting countering with sound arguments.
Are you talking to me or Belinda?

She's the one that insists that nature is a "human construct."

However, seeing how logic dictates that nature preceded the existence of humans, I'm simply trying to get her to clarify what she means by that.
_______
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:19 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:18 pm
seeds wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:43 pm
You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole, B.

If your definition of nature includes all of the things you listed (which I agree with, btw), then how in the world could nature be a "human construct"?
_______
I hope you are not 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.

The philosophy behind this is related to Philosophical Realism which claims reality thus including Nature is absolutely independent of any human connections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The stance 'Nature is a human construct' generally represent the anti-realists' view in opposition specifically to the above claims of the Philosophical Realists.

Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Since the claim is made by Kant [a G.O.A.T] among all philosophers, what he presented must be of some substance to be investigated and awaiting countering with sound arguments.
Are you talking to me or Belinda?

She's the one that insists that nature is a "human construct."

However, seeing how logic dictates that nature preceded the existence of humans, I'm simply trying to get her to clarify what she means by that.
_______
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
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

I don't think Belinda take "human construct" in the direct literal sense.

Note "construct" in the Philosophical sense.
  • 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.
The above term 'depend' tend to be misinterpreted very narrowly.
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.'
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:24 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.
To claim to be an idealist is too general, since the idealism of people like Berkeley [Subjective Idealism], Descartes [Dogmatic Idealism] and others can be very problematic and not convincing.

I would recommend if you must, then identify as a Transcendental Idealist [Kantian] but that is not easy to grasp and express.
In addition, the Philosophical Realist can also be an Empirical Idealist from a certain perspective.

It would be easier to represent yourself as an Anti-Realist and therefore argue your points in opposition to Philosophical Realism which claim otherwise.
That is true. I simply don't know enough philosophy to identify myself according to the categories you name. I am slowly working on it, and would welcome any insights from other posters.
At this time I don't believe in things in themselves, so I not Kantian. Neither do I believe that God establishes harmony, so I'm not a follower of Berkeley.
I think what I believe is called absolute idealism i.e idealism with no get-out clauses.

I'd not want to call my belief anti-realism, because idealists look towards reality every bit as much as do materialists(physicalists).
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by seeds »

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
As 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.

So I don't know why you are making assumptions about what I was thinking when I asked her to clarify what she meant.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:23 am I don't think Belinda take "human construct" in the direct literal sense.
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 Note "construct" in the Philosophical sense.
  • 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.
The above term 'depend' tend to be misinterpreted very narrowly.
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.'
I'm not sure of what you are getting at with the above interpretation of the word "construct."

Nevertheless, from my own personal perspective, all constructs (be they subjective or objective) are dependent on mind in one way or another.
_______
Post Reply