Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!eos!ames!umd5!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: The Social Construction of Reality Summary: bletch Message-ID: <218@proxftl.UUCP> Date: 26 May 88 18:27:47 GMT References: <4134@super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1157@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale Lines: 77 In article <1157@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: > In article <1666@pt.cs.cmu.edu> acha@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu (Anurag Acharya) writes: > >Come on, does anyone really believe that if he and his pals reach a consensus > >on some aspect of the world - the world would change to suit them ? That is the > >conclusion I keep getting out of all these nebulous and hazy stuff about > >'reality' being a function of 'social processes'. No, they do not really believe it, but they would like you to believe it. > The idea that there is ONE world, ONE physical reality is flawed, and > pace Kant, this 'noumenal' world in unknowable anyway, if it does exist. > Thus, to ask if the world would change, this depends on whether you > see it as a single immutable physical entity, or an ideology, a set of > ideas held by a social group (e.g. Physicists whose ideas are often > different to engineers). Oh, yeah. First, Kant is a dead horse. Second, you are only able to get away with this multiple reality nonsense by twisting words all out of relationship to any real meaning. > When a new consensus about the world is reached (scientific discovery > to give it ONE ritual title), the world does change, as more often > than not it changes the way that groups party to the knowledge > interact with the world. We are in this world, not apart from it. OK, answer me this: how in the world do they reach a consensus without some underlying reality which they communicate through. And this: logic depends on the idea of noncontradiction. If you abandon that, you abandon logic. You assert that consensus determines reality (whatever that means). Now, among those with whom I hold a consensus, we agree that there is only one reality. Yours agree that there are multiple realities. Either logic is valid in which case the contradiction is not allowed or logic is not valid in which case your proposition has no evidence to validate itself with. (And do not bother with "non-standard" logics. I can construct the same paradox in any one which presumes to assert anything about anything.) > Yes it is all nebulous and hazy, but it's an intellectual handicap to > only be able to handle things which are clear cut and 'scientific'. It is the desire to abdicate the requirement to "handle things which are clear cut" which motivates sickos who propose consensus reality schemes. > There's something desparately insecure about scientists who need > everything tied down before the think interaction with the socio-physical > world is possible. There is something desperately insecure about pseudo-philosophers who need everything nebulous and hazy. > Virtuall everything we do, outside of technical production, is nebulous > and hazy. And that ("outside of technical production") contradicts everything else you have said. *** DO NOT BOTHER TO REPLY TO ME IF YOU WANT TO DEFEND CONSENSUS REALITY. The idea is so sick that I am not even willing to reply to those who believe in it. As you have noticed, this is not intended as a counter argument to consensus reality. Instead, it is intended as a red-hot flame. My indended audience is not the consensus reality perverts but those of you who have been mislead by this kind of s**t into wondering whether there is something to consensus reality. If you have any questions about the game the consensus reality freaks are playing, you can send me e-mail. I have no intention of further polluting the net by speaking about them. (At least until next year when I will probably have to repost something like this message again. Sigh.)