Can we control reality just by perceiving it?

Some people would like to think so... maybe, because they imagine they can. And here, lies the problem... they maybe forgetting that we live in a 'social reality'. One that does not exist unless we agree  that it does. That happens through social interaction. While that much is true, there is yet a necessary 'reality' as in an already existing basic construct that we cannot change.

But first, let us delve into the terms perception of social reality and the social imagination which are not opposing. Its not hard to imagine that research regarding the concept of social reality perception was at the foundation of 20th century social scientific research, and there is no indication of a decline in academic interest in this topic in the 21st century. Importantly, this topic has drawn together researchers from across the core social sciences, including psychology, sociology, communication, and political science. Why is that?

Its because of the ongoing debate about social reality. Many argue this - aren't we an evidenced based reality? No. What is evidence anyway? Evidence is corroboration which means having the ability to compare information provided by two separate sources and find similarities between them. Finding corroboration between sources strengthens your conclusions, especially when you are making a historical argument. To me, that sounds like agreement reality.

Isn't the sun a star; isn't there plenty of evidence for that? The sun is a star because we say it is... and yes, there is plenty of evidence for that; especially when you consider what evidence is... just stated above. So, am I saying that nothing is real until we observe it? Well, in quantum physics that is the case.  

Werner Heisenberg, among others, interpreted the mathematics to mean that reality doesn’t exist until observed. “The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ... is impossible,” he wrote. John Wheeler, too, used a variant of the double-slit experiment to argue that “no elementary quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (‘observed,’ ‘indelibly recorded’) phenomenon.”

There are plenty of quantum theories and experiments out there about this in context of light particle behavior. But, in all cases, it comes down to the same truth... we cannot escape observation of the event and what it means to us plays into the whole scheme. It's meaning that we are truly after when you think about it. This is what the social imagination craves. That is why, we find many arguments concerning the nature of reality and its description.

If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.

Now, if we can agree on that much... we are doing ok. Why should I think that's ok? Well, in sociology, interactionism which happens to be my forte, is a theoretical perspective that derives social processes (the social imagination) from human interaction. It is the study of how individuals shape society and are shaped by society through meaning that arises in interactions.

Given that, I can also tell you that no one person could exist whatsoever, I mean literally; let alone exist on his/her own if there were no construct to interact with (basic landscape).... let alone the lack of any other person or concept of another person. The one example that illustrates this for the laymen is the film - Castaway with Tom Hanks.

Bottom line is this folks, the only evidence we have for our existence is what we agree on is real to us and for us... that later here implies 'meaning' and even that changes based on 'place' as in basic landscape construct. Which brings us to the always greater question... who made that for us to agree on is real and for us to exist in 'meaning'. Who made the construct and gave us a social imagination?

For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.…Romans 1:19-21.

He holds all things together ~ Colossians 1:17. And, we cannot change that. For, He is the way, the truth and the life! Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me ~ John 14:6.





*Online source ~  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

Ai, Bots and the Social Quantum Imagination...

The following first six paragraphs are an excerpt from an online article published in March 2017 by SCIENCENODE. 

Milena Tsvetkova, a sociologist, at the London School of Economics and Political Science is primarily interested in human interaction: with other humans or with computers. “I was initially resistant to the thought that computer programs could show interesting social behavior,” says Tsvetkova. “But the data proved me wrong!”

The number of bots in online systems is increasing quickly. They’re currently used to collect information, moderate forums, generate content, and provide customer service, as well as disseminate spam and spread fake news. “Even if bots are not designed to interact, they find themselves in systems with other bots and interaction is inevitable,” says Tsvetkova.

The researchers found that the same handful of bots are responsible for most of the ‘arguments’ with other bots. Conflicts between bots tend to occur at a slower rate and over a longer period than conflicts between human editors.

“Interaction leads to unexpected results, even when we design for it,” says Tsvetkova. “Bots' presence in and influence on our lives will be increasing, and if we want to understand society, we need to understand how we interact with these artificial agents too.”

Much of the scientific and popular discussion about artificial intelligence has been about psychology ...whether AI is able to think or feel the way we do, says Tsvetkova. “But now it’s time to discuss how artificial agents are expected to interact with us.”

When studying human-human interaction, social scientists often model individuals as ‘bots’ that follow simple rules when they meet other agents. These modeled interactions can lead to complex patterns at the group level, patterns that none of the individuals intended.

Its not that bots are so different from us socially... so, we are finding that out. Mmm, the question to consider is that dangerous or not. Well, conflicts exist among humans and now we are finding out they exist among bots.

Could we see a war between machines? That would be something right out of the movie "The Matrix", wouldn't it? Well, that's exactly what is concluded at the end of the article put out by SCIENCENODE - See online source below.

We all like to think, largely from watching science fiction movies, that all AI technology will be benevolent i.e. caring and compassionate. But, that is not true as the article posits and I concur. The main reason is that we are in a fallen world. What does that mean? It means that this 'world' was/is corrupted. Its entropic.  

The definition of entropic is having a tendency to change from a state of order to a state of disorder. And, the entropy of the universe is increasing. Therefore, in the future it will be higher, and in the past it was lower by definition.

We see this truth even by observing humanity, its very concept found in the social imagination. Today, we no longer want to recognize that genders were solid and stable as in good for society; now, there are over 50 different kinds. We see national boundaries as once having meaning, cultural data as something unique occurring only in a certain place and something to be study and protected.

Today, we see ideas such as freedom, justice, wisdom and respect being twisted. The titles bestowed upon people of position such as 'president' or 'pope' for example reflect this. Parents were once a man and woman living together, raising their children, teaching them the basics of life ... and it was called common sense.

We are definitely moving from a state of order to a state of disorder in the social imagination. But, that just my educated opinion in my entropic social imagination; and likely the state of the social life, the social imagination, of a bot... lest I say more. 




*Online Source ~ SCIENCENODE March 17, 2017. [https://sciencenode.org/feature/the-social-life-of-bots.php]