Is Reality a Social Construction ?

Re: cicerone imposter (Post 3652463)
1.When we drive a car, we drive on the roads that we think best meets our wishes.

When computer drives a car, it drives on the roads that it thinks best meets its wishes.
If computer was programmed to get there as fast as possible you can call this his wish and it will use the fastest route. (sports car in a race)
If computer was programmed to get there using the slowest route
you can call this his wish and it will use the slowest route. (sports car in a race hacked by a rival driver)
But it's still programmed by some human to do so, and it cannot deviate from the program. A human driver can deviate at any time and at any way they wish on the way to any destination.


2. A computerized vehicle can only go in the direction that has been pre-programmed.
Human operated vehicle can only go in the direction that has been pre-programmed.
Wrong; a human can change their mind and deviate from their orginal plan.

3. When a human decides to go someplace, they have many options in arriving at their destination. They can take the shortest route, the longest route, the scenic route, or with any numbers of detours.

No he can't. Whatever decision that human makes at that moment was the only possible decision he could have made at that moment.
Wrong: humans can change their mind any time they wish - to continue on their journey, to stop and rest, to take a detour, or go back home - at random.

Complex process of deciding where to go that was going in his brain was governed by the laws of physics directing electric impulses between neurons. laws of physics define EXACTLY what will happen with any part of the universe in the next moment no metter if this is electrical impuls in your brain or yourself as a system.
Wrong: physics has nothing to do with the subjective choices humans make when driving a car or walking.

The process of deciding which route to take can be simply programmed into computer.
If there is no rain take the scenic route.
If you need to be at your destination in less then 10 minutes take the fast route.
If you have 30 minutes to get to your destination and you fuel level is lower then 10 galons deatour to the pump.
Yes, it must be pre-programmed into the computer. It cannot make any decision not pre-programmed, but humans can change plans at any point on the journey.

3. Yes, somebody had to "program" what the computer does.
Just like the nature programmed you what to do and gave you a subprogram which changes your program all the time.
"Nature" doesn't program humans. It's based on our genes, culture, and environment.

So behaviour of our NPC can also be changed over time by another subprogam. Then subprogam might at some ppoint change thos "1000 gold coins" into "10 silver coins", or it can add another if statement to that NPC furthermore changing its behaviour.
You lost me.

4.The "consequence or reward" is pre-programmed by some human. It does not decide on its own; the programmer programmed it that way.
Who's the programmer and the programmee! LOL

You can imagen that your brain has acctually two program. One that decides for you and the other that constatly is reprogramming the first one telling him what rules to use. This is like have program and programmer tide to each other and the programmer is constantly changing the program.
Show me some real life examples of this.

Mathematical Models of Neural Networks are oding the same thing. They are always equiped with so called Back propagation algorithm whose goal is to change/reprogram neurla network after each of its decisions. This allows NN to adapt, learn and change just like your brain does.
Mathematical models do not explain human behavior.

5. All the scenarios were established, and the response(s) already programmed.
Wrong: who established "all the scenarios?"
Not if you have another programm which constantly change NPCs behaviour which is what happens in brain.
You lost me again.

6. We're talking about behavior of humans and computers; not whether we have physical limitations.
Agreed; that's the reason it's not about physics.

Because of physical limitations/laws we have our choices limited to single one at any given moment.
Correct; I haven't been able to fly on my own yet.


7 . Yes, and they are all programmed by humans.
What is: "they are all programmed by humans."?
Mostly computer programmers; they're all humans, aren't they?

Heh
Those sentences which I gave beside each number were acctually what you said and then I treid to explain my view on it.
I better learn using red font like you do.

That little prgoram I made which defines NPC behaviour was just hes program at one perticular moment in time. That program doesn't have to be constant. There is another programm which runs paralele to that one. Goal of that other program is to change or add new if statements to NPC behaviour. this program could look like this:

If NPCs dog was killed add following if statement to his behaviour:
If you see a dog start crying.

If NPC is hit by truck add following if statement to his behaviour:
If you see a truck start shaking.

Both that NPC and you don't have fixed program from the day you were created/born. You both start with some simple program that gets more complex over time. That new complexitiy is not begin added/programmed by some person but by another program.

Yes, "God" and "Exist" fall under such an abstract, but without the language we have all agreed on, we could not ask the questions and find relevant answers. If the language were not here, and the hierarchy not established we would probably all be much happier freely thinking alone in the forest, to be true to your own thoughts is to free them from the confines we are aware of, and accept the dim box of reality as it as so long as we have too.

Perceived reality is all we can relate with. Our egos and defense system won't allow us to take it further.

I suppose with all that what you really mean is that we have real perceptions going on...(that perceptions happen and are true !)

You will just end with a Cartesian em passe... unless you start to assume something or trust something...

Without going back through the ten years of this thread, I would state that celebrated modern philosophers such as Rorty and Quine have argued that it is impossible to state any "given" in epistemology. We are left with the pragmatist's analysis that truth/reality is "what works" and is subject to contextual negotiation. Furthermore, I take Maturana's view that all "observation" necessarily involves "language" which implies that what we call "reality" is a linguistic construction and only arises when its status is disputed. It has no ontological status outside that social context. (Sorry if that is counter-intuitive, but it follows from Wittgenstein's adage "meaning is use", and the fact that in normal circumstances, as opposed to philosophically contrived ones, the concept of "reality" never arises unless it is disputed).

Only true (real) to the person with the perception, but if his perception is conventional wisdom found in dictionaries and encyclopedias, he'll be in tune with the rest of the world.

Reality is what it is, only mental cases can't comprehend it.

May be you should re-write this in klingonian so the category is refreshed a little bid.

not yap wa' Hol !

Hey, that's good. I see it now.

Most individual realities are indeed a social construct, aimed at keeping those on top already, at the top. This is clearly the "illuminati-theory", but if one takes the power of the alchemists and the power of average scientits, then the issue speaks for itself. No, I'm not talking about the gold-chasers. They have yet to see the extent of the Truth they so feebly mock. They are still under the geo-political-hierarchy, sealed in by the monetary system.

What if you no longer needed a monetary system??

Ahh, now we see why the alchemists were hated.

Ridicule is the greatest deterrent.

But the Path is only Legal if carried out correctly.

Truth-fully.

The 'gold digging' aspect of science does explain a lot. Try to get a research grant for bucking the accepted dogma and see how far you get. And even if you DO stick to the dogma, if your research leads to contradictions to ‘ natural causes', be very sure that your paper specifies that it only appears to show 'design', otherwise forget getting published.

WTF is your obsession with "design" supposed to mean right at the bottom?
Can't you see for a second that even if we granted the idea any merit at all we are just scaling things up 1 level?
Who designed the designer be it a "god" or an Alien or whatever?
Ultimately you HIT A HARD BOUNDARY and there is no cause!
That is what should be in your mind as substantial not what is one level up or one level down...for all that I know if a "god" exists he has no free will either nor can God justify his own Nature other then shrunk his own shoulders and put up with whatever he ought to be or do.
The whole fracking languaging we are using to debate Metaphysics is inadequate to describe anything meaningful because by definition it must be outside our boundaries of understanding...

...worse yet our very own imagination on what a "god" is shrinks it to our own monkeish needs...no better then a worm talking about the God worm who always knows were humidity and grass is in Worm paradise...

...this all obsession about design or no design is meaningless and smells to much at tribal warfare as cultures try to survive quick change...

I always have a hard time accepting other people's limitations on what I can understand. You call it ego, i call it being set free of artificial boundaries.

Claim a limitation and sure enough, it's yours.
I think it was Richard Bach that said that. And i agree.

“Claim a limitation and sure enough,”
Fun comment. It's the outstanding character of “prisoner of consciousness”. It’s just their consciousness claim“a limitation” for themselves so that they became “prisoner of consciousness”. And then, their brain only can think in that “limited / standard” angle.

(Of course, we must be AWARE that some guys might have “obscure purpose”.
Piggy never understands why those guys who look down upon or unhappy with the academic achievement in a2k must persist on PRESENCE in this site. For what purpose?)

Piggy is not able to access many foreign media. Can you tell the story of Richard Bach here. Thank you.

Good observation. The most evil way to enslave people is to make them their own slavemaster.

Richard Bach is a writer. His best known work is probably "Jonathan Livingstone Seagull", the story of a bird that is shunned from the flock for his independent thinking and aspirations.
I think that quote i gave was from his book "Illusions".

...with that idea in mind you will soon be replacing God himself...

Nope, I'm just his kid.
He has offered to adopt you as well, but only if you want.