Is Reality a Social Construction ?

@fresco,

Glad that pleased you, Fresco.

You are absolutely certain that "concepts are all we've got"...and there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that is simply a blind guess on your part that you cannot, for whatever reason, acknowledge as a blind guess???

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,

The only answer I can give you is from a position where your concept of "guess" is inextricably related to your concept of "reality". The fact that certain aspects of concepts imply a "physical relationship" with other concepts does not imply for me anything significant about the "reality" of either concept. Physicality is merely a description of our expectancies of the nature of a relationship. It is not a "property" of an independently existing "thing".

The concepts of "an electron" and "an observer" serve to illustrate this because an electron is associated with different aspects of physicality according to what you would call the "guesses" of different observers. Those who "guessed particle" got that relationship, but so did those who "guessed wave". In "naive" terms such "properties" were considered to be logically incompatible, but in non-dualistic terms observers and electrons are co-existent within a "particular observation event". So what might be "the reality of electrons" for the layman(equates to the "utility of the concept electron for predicting measurements for particular observers" for a scientist.

This summary of the celebrated "wave-particle dispute" should show you why labelling non-dualistic arguments as "blind guesses" is meaningless.

This is of course old turgid stuff. "Guessing" is what all observers do most of the time in daily life and what "works" for particular observers is called "the truth" for as long it is required. I am not going to repeat why "scientists" tend to agree as observers more often than others, but I will repeat that what scientists do NOT do is seek "truth"... they go for "best guess that works". The fact that some scientists might deny this merely indicates a degree of philosophical naivity on their part.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fresco wrote:

Quote:

Frank,

The only answer I can give you is from a position where your concept of "guess" is inextricably related to your concept of "reality". The fact that certain aspects of concepts imply a "physical relationship" with other concepts does not imply for me anything significant about the "reality" of either concept. Physicality is merely a description of our expectancies of the nature of a relationship. It is not a "property" of an independently existing "thing".

The concepts of "an electron" and "an observer" serve to illustrate this because an electron is associated with different aspects of physicality according to what you would call the "guesses" of different observers. Those who "guessed particle" got that relationship, but so did those who "guessed wave". In "naive" terms such "properties" were considered to be logically incompatible, but in non-dualistic terms observers and electrons are co-existent within a "particular observation event". So what might be "the reality of electrons" for the layman(equates to the "utility of the concept electron for predicting measurements for particular observers" for a scientist.

This summary of the celebrated "wave-particle dispute" should show you why labelling non-dualistic arguments as "blind guesses" is meaningless.

This is of course old turgid stuff. "Guessing" is what all observers do most of the time in daily life and what "works" for particular observers is called "the truth" for as long it is required. I am not going to repeat why "scientists" tend to agree as observers more often than others, but I will repeat that what scientists do NOT do is seek "truth"... they go for "best guess that works". The fact that some scientists might deny this merely indicates a degree of philosophical naivity on their part.

So is that a YES or a NO?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your question is meaningless and I have explained why.

1 Reply

@fresco,

You call the question “meaningless” Fresco…to avoid answering it.

My question actually reduces to: “You are telling me you know what the Reality of existence is…you know what it includes and what is does not contain. Is there any reason I should consider this anything more than a series of blind guesses on your part"blind guesses that for whatever reason, you are unwilling to acknowledge as a blind guess???”

And the answer to that question, if you had any sense of integrity, Fresco, would be, “No…not really!”

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No you don't get it.
Questions involving "guessing" "I" and "self-integrity" all belong to your restricted concept of reality. It (fresco) speaks from a wider concept of reality which encompasses your narrower one. An analogy is perhaps illustrated by an imagined conversation between Newton and Einstein.

Newton "Explain gravitational force to me"
Einstein "Forget about force. Space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve".
Newton "Curved space ??I don't know what you are talking about. Space stays the same whether there are things in it or not !"
Einstein "For everyday purposes it doesn't matter which view you take
but at the boundaries of measurement mine has wider utility and greater elegance".

Frank "What evidence do you have for non-duality"
Fresco "Forget about evidence. The observer and the observed are co- existent and co-extensive.
Frank "Co-extensive ?? I dont know what you are talking about. Things are things whether they are observed or not !"
Fresco "For everyday purposes dualistic views like yours are more convenient, but at the philosophical level dualism is restrictive and problematic".

2 Replies

@fresco,

You are the one who doesn't get it, Fresco.

All this bullshit of yours is dependent upon your blind guesses about Reality being correct.

But trying to get through the concrete in your head is impossible.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Wonderful response, Fresco. And very generous of you to go to so much trouble.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

C'mon, JL.

That was anything but a "wonderful response."

It was more of the rationalization that goes on among the non-dualists.

You folks, as much as I love yez, are even more concrete headed in your insistance of "I know what the Reality is" than are theists and atheists.

Hey, it doesn't make you bad people. Just terminally deluded.

1 Reply

Of course we can tease Frank when he claims that he does not do belief as that would suggest (at least by his rationale) that the chances of my dog being the supreme creator of all are equal to the chances that I am the supreme creator of all.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

But to quote JL from ages ago: 'All understanding is a form of delusion'
I don't believe in one objective 'truth', but I believe that is as near as one can ever get to understanding the world in terms of understanding their own conception of it.

3 Replies

@Chumly,

Not sure why that would follow, Chumly...but it sounds like a proposition with a lot more going for it as the source of discussion than some of the stuff here.

Wanna flesh it out a bit? I would love to discuss it.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

PQ, Well stated; we humans believe what we are taught by our parents, teachers, siblings, and friends - and through books. We all have a different perspective of what we believe, and it doesn't matter whether it is objective or subjective, because we continually confuse the two.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

PQ...fact of the matter is that my guesses about what the Reality is...probably coincide with the guesses JL has been making. That has been acknowledged many times...in many threads.

But I acknowledge my guesses as guesses.

JL and Fresco...tend to present their guesses as something else...not even, as you do, as "beliefs"...

...but rather as Revealed Truth.

There assertions carry with them the stench of "I KNOW WHAT THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE IS."

Oh, they make sure they eliminate the "I"...and all that kind of ****...

...but the bottom line is they are trying to peddle a "belief system" as being more than a belief system.

We've been over this again and again and again...probably for 15 years or so. (Not really sure, but I know it does go way back to Abuzz days!)

We just do this from time to time...and then go to a different thread and talk about something else.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

More so: the two are confused.
Our very consciousness (the subjective) is formed by borrowing meanings from the 'objective.'
How can we separate the two?

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

And ci and I have been through the agnostic versus atheistic thingy for all that long time also.

This group goes way, way back.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

And our age shows it big time. LOL

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Arg. I see what you mean completely, but I can't express what I want to say. Will have to have a think.
....the only thing i can suggest is that JL/Fresco are in a different mental 'place' to you. And I do not mean that in a derogatory way.

In fact, if JL and Fresco would be so kind it would be better coming from them I'm sure.
I'm often in conflict I do not believe in truth, or that my understanding is 'right'- yet I want to believe that my understanding that my understanding is not right, is right.
Does that make sense?
I want to say that this paradox just 'is,' but then that would bring everything full circle....

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Oh...does it ever.

Although at the moment, our good buddy Dys seems to be paying the biggest price.

Hope all goes well with him...and that all is well with you.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

I'm often in conflict I do not believe in truth, or that my understanding is 'right'- yet I want to believe that my understanding that my understanding is not right, is right.
Does that make sense?

Yes that makes sense from the idea of different levels of consciousness.

The way out of the circle is perhaps to separate " higher consciousness" from a "self" that seeks "rightness". According to to some, it is the non-judgemental observation of the self (or selves) striving for this, and seeing its futility, which yields a different quality of experience which some call "enlightenment"

1 Reply

Is Reality a Social Construction ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know