while i have always appreciated the analytical ability of feynman and it works well for specific problem solving in a technical universe i rely much more in daily life on the ideas of Peter Berger with his social construction of reality. it doesn't matter that much what the subatomic structure of the desk is as long as it holds my computer. which also takes us away from the aristotelean/platonic 'ness of things. when milking a cow i dont visualize "cow'ness", which leaves us with socially constructed universes of agreements in which we can function regardless of their inherent "reality". degrees of sanity ranging from absolute dysfunction of the catatonic to the "self actualized" are all relative to the societal functions of meaningful interactions that meet our personal and social needs. the self-absorbed yogi in nepal may have spiritual awareness (i doubt it) but he can hardly be said to be a functional member of society.
So does that four letter word that begins with "s."
dyslexia
Thanks for the Berger reference. I agree with your view of the yogi. Dissolution of "self" by "spiritual seekers" amounts to premature death from a social point of view. Such thinkers may "solve the time problem" but at the expense of social interaction. Does it perhaps follow that all "closed" monastic orders are merely parasitic on the rest of society who tolerate them for vacarious reasons ?
Fresco, I think you have a point there. They (closed monastic orders) serve a function in the "social interaction" realm, as long as there aren't too many of them at a time. I hope you'll forgive my impatience with any realm beyond the functional.......by that I mean, what works, how and why. Call me a hedonist (please). I am concerned with my experience and the experience of others, with affects and ideas. Any line of reasoning that attempts to achieve the purely objective fails to move me. And I prefer those experiences that make me feel alive, not prematurely dead.
Lola, If people on A2K do not know you're a "hedonist" by now, they never will. LOL c.i.
fresco, the way I see it, reality IS what's "out there." It is the source of the photons that impact our sensory organs and produce electrical impulses that are processed by our brains/minds to create an image of the world. It is our perceptions of reality that differ, and culture is a social construction for dealing with what we perceive.
Culture tells us that a rainbow is a sign from God or a refraction of light through water droplets. Culture tells us to avoid poisonous snakes or worship them. Culture tells us what is safe and what to fear, how to interact with others and how we esteem ourselves, rules for predicting events and how we can change the world in which we find ourselves.
Suppose that everyone agreed that demons exist, demons are responsible for disease and other ills that plague mankind, and that magic rituals and sacrifices could influence the actions of these demons. The belief in demons affects the way people in this culture think and act, and how they perceive their world. Do the demons really exist?
Suppose that a yogi withdraws from society, loses himself in a mystical state and is never again perceived or even thought of by any other person. Is he still part of the social construction? If not, how can he exist?
The measuring of time may be a social construct, but the perception of time appears to be based on molecular clocks that are built by our genes and run in accordance with some "laws" of physics. The universe appears to have been around for 13 or so billion years and changed in determinable ways over that time, assuming that some measure of time (such as the vibrations of atoms) is constant.
Terry
The only difference between "photons" and "demons" is the degree of consensus or to put it another way the degree of functional utility (=predictive power) of the concepts.
Many years ago vision was conceived as being similar to touch, ie. the eye "sent out" a feeler beam like an extension of the fingers. Now we might say boloney, but wait a minute...
(1)don't physicists often "reverse" their concept of particle beams ...for example electric current being defined as a flow of "holes" from positive to negative, rather than "electrons" from negative to positive...and which is "real" to the physicist ?...the answer is neither !...they are just different views of the same process just like the Earth going round the Sun has no FUNCTIONAL reality for everyday purposes (interactions) even if it does for space travel. Neither view has objective truth independent of purpose.
(2) isn't perception active...? .....don't we seek out confirmatory "information" like a blind man feeling his way round a possibly familiar object ?
...so that antiquated view of vision was merely an alternative reality whose status has now altered in line with our enhanced knowledge (=greater predictive ability) with respect to "light" but not necessarily "perception".
The point is that what is "out there" depends on what is "in here".
If "I" (as a member of linguistic/cultural group) need "photons" or "demons" TO KNOW WHAT TO DO NEXT then thats what I'll get !
And the status of "reality" of either concept is not arbitrary; it has evolved through a linguistic and cultural history and will continue to evolve !
In a thousand years time they may be laughing at the idea of "photon" or "vibrating atoms" just like we laugh at the "four Greek elements".
"Man is the measure of all things" ... Change man, change all !
Through logic and inference we can prove anything. Therefore, logic and inference, in contrast to ordinary daily living experience, are secondary instruments of knowledge. Probably tertiary.
c.i................................ :wink:
I'm not really a hedonist. But I play a good part, don't you think? :wink:
Excellent, me lady, excellent!
c.i.
Is reality a social construction?
For sure. But what is the construction made of?
Continuing with the visual consciousness example from a scientific materialist perspective; The light/photons reflect of an objects surface, enters the eye, and upside-down image is formed on the back of the retina, at which point a signal is send to the brain. But since the photons never make it to the brain we never actually see or experience light/[photons. We become aware and experience an image produced by the brain/mind, a purely mental event. If all other "perceptions can be understood in a similar way then all we ever experience is a mental world.
When I am looking at person X's brain it is also an object/percept/idea in my brain. If I could open my scull and observe my own brain, the perception of my brain would be an image in my brain, it would be mental event.
In this sense the entire manifestation is mental including the brain where it supposedly originates from.
The social construction is a solipsistic mental construction. That's not to say other don't exist, but like all else I can only image they do.
Once we can dissolve the barrier between the mental stuff we call perceptions "out there" (including the body) and mental events "in here" and recognise them as a sage might, as being essentially the same thing (the contents of the mind) then the subject-object dualism is seen for what it is, merely a means to interact as an "individual" in a world, which is in truth entirely you. You are all your observations, I am all mine. Consciousness is one. And perhaps that's another beginning.
Social construction and/or self construction.
This thread is getting positively scary.
It's possible to drive a car without knowing the law of nature first stated by Newton specifying the equivalence of inertia and gravity.
But since I see no volunteers so far willing to jump off the 26th floor (isn't gravity a social construct?) I only hope the drivers among you don't start running people over; their views on that other social construct known as inertia of a 2-ton vehicle crashing into them at 80 mph might differ from yours <G>
fresco, there is a BIG difference between demons and photons. Photons can be measured precisely: number, frequency, wavelength, speed, charge, etc. Photons have observable and predictable effects. There is no doubt as to their existence, even if we are not entirely sure of their fundamental basis.
Demons cannot be detected, measured, or quantized in any way. Their existence violates fundamental principles of physics. No matter how many people "believe" in demons, their presence cannot be verified objectively.
Do you have a reference for the concept that eyes sent out a feeler beam? Reminds me of the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Treating electrons as holes is a matter of convenience, not a model of reality.
Given what we have observed of gravity, the earth must go around the sun, not vice versa. What you call "functional reality" is actually just a functional model of reality. It seems to be a matter of semantics: I consider "reality" to be what actually exists, not what a particular person perceives.
Dust coalesces, stars burn, galaxies whirl, the universe expands, and countless other processes were in ticking along quite nicely long before there were any human beings to construct anything.
Yes scientific models change as we discover more detail about atoms, etc. But it is not the underlying structure that changes, merely our perception of it. If it did, then anytime there were competing theories about some new aspect of atoms, presumably the scientists who had the strongest ESP abilities would win and change reality in their favor.
So we don't need science at all, just a bunch of good dreamers!
If you think that reality is constructed by social consensus, please answer these questions:
1. If you were constructing a reality, is this the best one you could come up with?
2. Where did the intelligences come from that supposedly initiated this social construction?
3. Where do the ideas from which we construct reality come from, if not from a pre-existing universe?
4. How come we have no conscious memory of constructing this reality? If our consciousness did not construct it, who did?
5. How come social groups are unable to make the reality they constructed conform to their ideal? For instance, despite constant practice and desire to construct a reality in which it is possible, "flying" yogis can't actually fly.
dyslexia, logic and inference cannot prove all things!
HofT, I doubt if anyone here would step off the 26th floor even if we got a hundred thousand people to stand below and try to socially construct the local curvature of space such that they would not fall. (I would put a smilie here if I could figure out how)
Hold the horses! What if a religious sect taught their adherents that jumping off that building will send them to heaven with 72 virgins. Isn't it possible, then, that their reality is so dictated? c.i.
c.i., I guess the question is whether believing in something makes it real.
Many children believe in Santa Claus. To them, perhaps it seems that Santa IS real. But that doesn't change the fact that the North Pole is open water, reindeer can't fly, and it is not physically possible for one man to personally deliver toys to millions of children in a single night.
Nor do I think it is possible that jumping off a building will get you sent to heaven with 72 virgins.
We do not have to give equal credence to all beliefs! The scientific method is a good way to determine whether a particular belief is fantasy or objective reality.
HofT
Your "26th floor argument" is no defence against "social reality".
The fact that we may agree on likely outcome of jumping out of a window merely highlights our the commonality of our physical experiences based on (a) our common physical attributes and (b) our common understanding of "26th floor". The key word is "common" i.e. "social". Such predictions say nothing about the "reality of gravity" etc, we could all perhaps agree instead on the existence of a "high places demon" who exacts revenge on mortals in his realm (but not seagulls). Some people with an "irrational" fear of flying
may come pretty close to such thoughts. So instead of "demons" most of us accept that mysterious force called "gravity" which Einstein said is "actually" curved space-time ! Hmmm....
HofT
Your "26th floor argument" is no defence against "social reality".
The fact that we may agree on likely outcome of jumping out of a window merely highlights our the commonality of our physical experiences based on (a) our common physical attributes and (b) our common understanding of "26th floor". The key word is "common" i.e. "social". Such predictions say nothing about the "reality of gravity" etc, we could all perhaps agree instead on the existence of a "high places demon" who exacts revenge on mortals in his realm (but not seagulls). Some people with an "irrational" fear of flying may come pretty close to such thoughts. So instead of "demons" most of us accept that mysterious force called "gravity" which Einstein said is "actually" curved space-time ! Hmmm....
Terry, But isn't the title of this forum, "Is Reality a Social Construction?" Their reality is what they believe to be true, irregardless of what is fact. c.i.
