Is Reality a Social Construction ?

Reality does not exist.Get real. Logical statements regarding reality contain their own negation. E.g. If you can read this it doesn't exist. I accept the premise is incorrect.

Allow me to suggest you follow this link and come back with your thoughts thereafter.
http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm

But then we come back to the fact that ".........even if Man* never existed, the inductive reactance would still be a function of the frequency."

* and cats for that matter

Newton's Third would still have applicability as discussed.

I only managed to skim read the article: I think the basic trouble with written language, is that most communication is done non verbally: attempts to be precise are to me pointless.
I am of Spanish stock: the language is very vague but hugely expressive: it a beautifully inventive poetic form. English is far better for engineering. There is a quote along the lines" I talk Spanish to God, French to women, English to men and German to my horse. "
Ironically I think emoticons and the new technologies are much better for communications.
I don't have the patience for linguistic quibbling, I prefer Mathematical proof. Because written language is such a convoluted and contrived way of communication, it is easy to get tied up in metaphorical knots.

I've re read it: I also think communication is not an absolute. It certainly isn't verifiable as per Schrodingers Cat. Basically we can never know if we are understood, only if we are getting good responses.

You mention you “prefer mathematical proof” however mathematical proofs in and of themselves are far from a definitive form of real-world proof; witness some forms of mufti-dimensional math.

For proof as would be needed here one would need a good dose of scientific-empiricism with math to back it up in such as fashion as to be predictive.

That's why I referenced Xl = 2 pi fl

Sorry but the only viable axiom for me is a non-dualistic one.

i.e. No "thinger" - no "thinged"....no "man"-no "reactance".
"Existence "is a two way relationship neither pole can exist except in relationship to the other, and the nature of the poles mutually changes over time.

I mention a Maturana paper on the other thread which is presumably available in Spanish. This is not easy stuff because it starts from the definition of "life" as an "autop0ietic structure" without sensory inputs or outputs yet which nevertheless "structurally couples" with its environment - such an environment being considered at various levels such as the biological and the social. Those descriptions lie in "the observer domain" but the autpoietic structure itself operates in its own "organizational domain".

Given you assert there is no reactance, then you'd best not use any electrical devices, nor for that matter anything that involves a changing magnetic field, at the risk of noting that there is such a phenomena.

No...you and I, as "modern developed men" are co-existent with and co-defined by our common environment and experience part of which includes "electrical machines" for our common purpose. Four hundred years ago both "we" and "our environment" would have had a different co-existence.

So-called "laws of physics" imply a fictitious "standard observer" who we visualise as standing alone and independent of its universe. But unless we evoke a "God" as such an observer it is only ourselves who are doing the observing in our imagination. Such is the fiction behind "naive realism".

Mmmm, what a waste of Spanish and German.

The phenomena as discussed exists with or without the presence of machines. Also as mentioned with or without man's knowledge of inductive reactance and as mentioned with or without the existence of man.

You would need to show me that inductive reactance is predicated on your claims, and this you have not done.

Chumly,

You are stuck with a dualistic view of "existence". I cannot add anything to what I have already said other than to point you towards the great debates on phenomenology from Kant onwards.

Hello: I a have to restate my position: empiricism is largely reductionist in nature, I do not play philosophical games that infinitely regress, as the prize is a long way away. I therefore assume my own existence. This helpfully avoids that Heidegger nonsense.
I merely point out how much of our world is based on assumption, we see what we want to see. This is argued scientifically in Kuhn, with playing cards, I did try to find the specific reference, but its not a easy book to flick thru.
Essentially I have to point out a reasonable "Kantian" route. Society is partly real,partly imagined. Taking all these arguments to their logical extremes is certainly valid but not useful.
I'm not getting involved in falling trees in forests as I am not a lumberjack. I assume my senses to be correct, because on an evolutionary level that is the best survival strategy.
Being A firm believer in manners. I thank therefore I am.

Hey Fresco.

Same ole; same ole...I see.

Setting aside for the moment the philosophical "ontological" notion of what is real as opposed to fantasy, the ways we CONSTRUE reality (whatever that may be) are human individual and social-cultural constructions. If that were not so, anthropologists (and clinical psychologists) would be out of work.
At least that's my construal; what's yours?

JL, if you don’t mind, I will answer just once"rather than three times"unless the three posts were a construct of mine!

I think the way humans construe Reality…and the way humans question components of Reality…are two different things"and I think you are doing a non-duality job on them.

Two people can, at least in my opinion, construe Reality identically…while questioning (whether framed as a question or offered as an assertion) particular components (i.e.; is there a god; are there no gods involved…or…is reality a non-duality reality or is that not the case) of that Reality as they construe it.

I am not prepared to defend that to any significant degree, JL…it simply is something I suspect. I am inclined to sit back an offer it as a suspicion of mine…and listen to arguments from anyone who wants to assert they know the truth to be something different. .

(Oops...I see you corrected the three postings. I'm leaving the kidding in anyway.)

I have not read through this thread, but that answer is YES. Reality is wholly a social construction.

I see!

So the fact that the sun is where it is in the galaxy is a part of reality--and the fact that it is where it is...is a social construct?

Yes, because language is a social construct thus "sun" is a construct. Even if we had no language that which we call sun and Galaxy might be recognized as something, but as what it is impossible to say.

The mind sifts and categorizes, but how a particular mind does so is completely tied to how others do it. There is also the matter of how we are too close to ourselves to know ourselves, we only know ourselves by the wake we leave in this world, by how who we are reflects off of those around us. The people in our lives are mirrors who reflect back to us who we are, with out those mirrors we would never know ourselves. All we are and all that we know is in wholly and completely tied to the collective.