Indeed we humans stand within the physis, unto the outermost extent thereof. We are integral with, not neccessarily "related" to the physis, for:

Any attempt to posit 'relation' between a human and the physis, encounters the theoretical unintelligibility that is infinite regress, i.e., to posit relation R between A (Human) and B (Physis), requires positing a further relation between the original relation R and A, and so on again for B and its relation to the original R, and on and on... (F.H. Bradley, "Appearance and Reality", 1897).

The notion 'Cause' comes into the world via human consciousness, and, is a human theoretical construct not necessarily intelligibly contained in the world (Bradley). Law, a given, does not, cannot, move consciousness to do or not do X. Consciousness is nothingness and, functions strictly in terms of nothingnesses, and, not in terms of and via somethings like law.

Consciousness is nothingness — quintillus

I don't know how you reached this conclusion and what supports it because it is certainly not my experience.

The words you have written have acted on my consciousness and instigated this response. The law is just words. These words have meaning and we clearly respond to the meaning of words as I am doing now.

I do believe in free will and I don't believe in the causal picture that says causes must be determinate. But in this area we simply have a lack of knowledge we have no explanation for consciousness or volitional action but things work anyway in the absence of a complete explanation.

What do you intend to replace the law with?

Correctional institutions are overpopulated — quintillus

Is this a moral claim and are there any other invalid institutions?

Are you a prison abolitionist? I support prison abolition but recognise the need to protect people from antisocial behaviour.

The position that consciousness is nothingness is constructed by Sartre in his "Being and Nothingness"
1943; built upon Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est" and Hegel's "Omnis determinatio est negatio."; and having no connect with me.
Law can be transcended by attainment of personal reflective comprehension of how one's ontological freedom functions as nihilation.

In so far as it is mistaken to claim to punish on the basis of law, which law is not in fact determinative of human conduct, it is unintentionally immoral, and simply ignorant, to ascribe one's acts of punishment to said law.
No, not a prison abolitionist...
I wholly agree with your: "'We can lock people in prison for societies safety even without invoking a legal or moral framework just as a form of self defence."

Weather is wholly concrete physical substance which exists as entirely equivalent to itself; whereas a human being never coincides with itself, being always elsewhere, projected out unto a not yet, intended, future. Persons freely choose responses to given weather, weather does not choose human responses. — quintillus

Frankly, I may misunderstand you, but I wonder if your pronouncements (there doesn't seem to be another word for them, though "proclamations" come to mind) are, ultimately, uninteresting. Weather and law are givens (you say that about the law in another post). That much we may agree on. But we're organisms that are part of an environment, and our lives consist of interactions with the rest of the world of which we're a part.

Now, one can of course say that "I choose to wear a parka or something similarly warm when I walk through a blizzard on a windy day when wind chills are -20 Fahrenheit", or that "I choose to walk around a tree rather than walking into it." I could also say that "if I wanted to, I could choose to walk through a blizzard wearing a speedo", or "I could choose to blithely walk into a tree." I would in those cases be an imbecile, but I can choose to be one if I want.

So, the weather and the tree don't choose for me. Q.E.D.

If that's your point, it's hardly a novel or a remarkable insight.

Nobody would seriously claim that the weather or the law choose anything, of course. But the weather and other givens (including the law) influence or impact the choices we make in those circumstances where their application would have adverse consequences if particular choices are made rather than others. That may be the case only when we're aware of the consequences, and are intelligent enough to consider them, and capable of weighing means and ends and making an intelligent decision. It may not be the case if we cannot do so for one reason or another, or have desires which make the potential for adverse consequences or the consequences themselves irrelevant or of little or no concern, of course, If that's the case, though, it is because of other givens with which we must deal.

Another thing is that the law actually protects large groups of vulnerable people by giving them rights and protections so it is probably indispensable.

Ciceroianus,
You, striving to validly designate something given as determinative of conduct, asked: "Is the weather determinative of human conduct? '' I decently explained why weather cannot be determinative of conduct. Hence, you situated me in an absurd situation. I was kind to you and politely answered you. Now, you unkindly radically insult me, by accusing me of uninteresting pronouncement, in response to your inane question.

I am centrally addressing foibles of criminal law and punishment. Although no law is actually validly determinative of human behavior, constitutional/civil rights law is uplifting, and not subject to indictment.

iceroianus,
You, striving to validly designate something given as determinative of conduct, asked: "Is the weather determinative of human conduct? '' I decently explained why weather cannot be determinative of conduct. Hence, you situated me in an absurd situation. I was kind to you and politely answered you. Now, you unkindly radically insult me, by accusing me of uninteresting pronouncement, in response to your inane question. — quintillus

If you're making some claim to the effect that "the law must be changed" or "the law is ineffective" many would agree with you. If you're making some claim to the effect that "the law doesn't impact or influence human conduct" I think you're wrong. If you're saying something else about the law, I confess I don't know what it is you're saying.

I thought that the law a command with consequences for not heeding the command?

Yes, precisely.

I am simply saying that no given state of affairs, e.g. law, determines persons to act; nor do persons, nor can persons, determine themselves to act due to law. It is only out of the fear of serious punishment that persons do nothing of what is putatively prohibited by law.

A command can be followed or ignored. I follow the instruction manual on a new device effectively.

How do you intend to preserve positive legal presidents and concepts of rights?

Also I do not understand how consciousness is nothingness. The only thing we are aware of conscious states and we can't be aware of entities not available to consciousness or independent of it. Idealism I suppose.

Consciousness is nothing in the sense that it is an empty stage whereupon being appears.

Consciousness is nothingness in the sense that it is continuously abandoning/surpassing/discarding its present state, in a continuous thrust toward what it intends to bring to pass. Continually making the given state nothing, and, making the nothing that is the not yet which it intends to usher in. That doubly negative process is what is called "double nihilation". 'Nihilation' means to make nothing. Consciousness continually nihilates nothing.

"How do you intend to preserve positive legal presidents (precedents) and concepts of rights?" I have not performed a double nihilation in that regard yet.

I am simply saying that no given state of affairs, e.g. law, determines persons to act; nor do persons, nor can persons, determine themselves to act due to law. It is only out of the fear of serious punishment that persons do nothing of what is putatively prohibited by law. — quintillus

The penalty is a part of the law, though; it wouldn't exist but for the law. So, the fear is engendered by the law. It seems to me you're saying, then, that the law influences the choice.

Persons fear possible, imagined harm, to their person. Imagination is nothing. Law means possible harm. Possibility is nothing. The fear is a human reaction to imagined possible harm by possibly harmful law-persons, and, fear is a function of the person fearing, not a quality of the words of the law. In the absence of the prohibited act there in only nothing of action and dread of possible, imagined, punishment. Human consciousness of the law is generating the fear, not the law per se.

Human consciousness of the law is generating the fear, not the law per se. — quintillus

The Stoics would say that what disturbs us are not things, but our judgments about them (to paraphrase Epictetus). That would apply not only to possibilities, but to what applies now. So, the law is the law, the weather is the weather, but how we judge them is in our control. To the Stoic, one need not fear the law. But one may know the law (the weather too) and assess its impact on potential action. I would say it's wise to do that, regardless of its ontological status.

"But one may know the law (the weather too) and assess its impact on potential action. I would say it's wise to do that, regardless of its ontological status." Most certainly.

Consciousness is nothing in the sense that it is an empty stage whereupon being appears. — quintillus

A stage is not nothing though.

The human visual system that allows us to see is highly complex and not nothing like wise all the other perceptual systems and in the case of broadcasting a television is not nothing nor a radio or computer etc.

Consciousness requires a preexisting observer which I call the self. I am aware of myself as well as perceptions at each moment. The self may be invisible to others or even non material but I don't equate that with nothing.

A theatre stage has physical features and dimensions on which a play can be performed.

Continually making the given state nothing — quintillus

I have memories from childhood and throughout my life. I don't see how this fits your picture.
My experiences are not eradicated as soon as they happen but linger in memory for varying degrees of time including a life time. For example I can name several dead relatives and tell you the address of the house I last lived in at the age of 7.
So did Sartre and Bradley et al give any concrete examples for their beliefs?

Apparently energy cannot not be created or destroyed so that also does not seem to fit into a nihilation picture.

"Apparently energy cannot not be created or destroyed so that also does not seem to fit into a nihilation picture." The nothings being referred to here are projects/intentions.
Sartre is continually providing concrete examples of his take on human existence. There is a free copy of his Being and Nothingness available on the net.
A stage is essentially an open space, an opening whereupon things appear.

Out of interest what drew you to Sartre's work. I find it hard to understand. Was he an atheist? Pro science? Pro religion? Did he have a technical explanation of how consciousness is possible and how it may be created? Did he support idealism or panpsychism or dualism?

I had courses in a Phil. Dept. where the lecture was about him and his work B&N. We read B&N. Definitely an atheist. He said consciousness arises as nothingness being introduced into concrete being. I cannot answer all your other questions...