In the case of multigroup collaboration, where each group in made by
smaller groups that collaborate in a lesser degree than in each group
internally, the survival program to ascertain what is truth or not would be
as follows: (IMHO).

Any comunication has two main components of truth: The first is about the
truth value of this comunication for  the knowledge of  "reality" the
"phisical medium" or knowledge of the "world".

The other component is a instinctive evaluation about in which way
this communication modifies the position of each actor in the group:  in
terms of power, righteousness, respect, status,  This also depends on  the
way in which this comunication modifies the status of our core groups from
which we take part formally or informally in the whole society.  I name
this element "social capital".

The truth of something, as perceived "in the heart" take both components. A
social robot would take into account both too.

 It is not very difficult to know that , by evolutionary reasons, without
a favourable value in the second evaluation, the first truth can not be
accepted

Apparently both evaluations are very different.  The first is the factual
or objective. The second is the subjective or moral, that may be egoistic
or altruistic. It can be said that the second depends on interests,
values, ascriptions etc, while the first is not. but the first is subject
to values too, and the second depends on the factual knowledge.

Except the innate knowdledge and/or the one observed with the own eyes
(stones tend to fall).  to hold something as objective  is a matter of
having very strong values and beliefs. For example, because I strongly
believe in certain institutions and methods, I accept as factual that there
are something called "electrons".

If I have other beliefs or values, I would not accept that as a fact.
factual knowledge is like any knowledge,* it has to be positive in the
second sense* before being accepted as truth. That is, every objective
accepted knowledge implies an acceptation ny the side of the subjective
filters.

In the other side if I demonstrate by game theorethical reasoning or
whatever that something , although bad for you in the short term, is good
for the whole society,and thus good for you and for your group in the long
term then this something becomes factual. because this truth pass the two
filters (objective and subjective) filter that you have to accept something
as truth..


The fact is that the verification of what values and beliefs are good for
you have been verified by evolution countless times. You are the descent of
the people that hold instinctively what was good for you. But what is good
has different components: There is what is good for you and your group of
interests and bad for the rest and there are what is good for the whole
society and for you in the long term but that imposes to you a charge in
the short term. The sucessful religions invokes these second set of
instincts.

Then, there is another way to make you to accept something as truth:
instead of making you see rationally what is good for you (if you believe
in reason) and pass trough your  two filters,  I can invoque your egotistic
or altruistic instincts that i mentioned in  the first paragraph, to make
you accept my truth. the first (egoistinc way) is called corruption, the
second (altruistic), conversion.

NOTE: I´m not being materialist. natural selection is not an  agent of
causation on the deep, meither matter is. they are a sustrate, the sensible
part that we perceived, colored by the mind, of a anthropically selected
mathematics. natural selection exist for beings living in time.

>From a timeless view, from above, the universe has spacetime locations
where there is existence, good spacetime trajectories that diverge and
flourish and bad ones that are death paths these paths have precise
phisiological, social in the same whay that they have phisical laws, that
are derived from  the mathematical structure of reality that indeed IMHO
are a consequence of the antrophic principle of existence of the mind. It
seems that the mind is computation, but the phisical substrate, which is
ultimately mathematthic reflect this computation as well as the mind, but
matter as a product of the mind can *not  be *the causation of the mind.

For that matter,  a product of the mind,  and is a proxy for the study of
the mind. trough natural selection.. Because NS is how we, as temporal
beings perceive the very long term coherence between the mind and the
anthropicallly selected mathematical reality


2013/1/6 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>

> The expression "Socila construction of reality" is an expression that hold
> any kind or relativism. This is nor that. This is a algorithmical study
> founded in game theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of
> possibilities and a harwired nature of any social being (the ROM element).
>
> Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper
> reality hidden by a evil society. This is a gnostic belief. There is no
> deeper reality. and the reality neither the society is evil per se.
>
> Yes, politics and advertising make use of this, like any of us in any
> activity. we do it by instinct and by experience, but not fbased on a well
> founded  theory. This is so because we have a a innate ability for
> manipulation and an innate resistance to manipulation. This must be part of
> a social cooperator subsumed in a process of variation and selection.
>
>
> The knowledge of this limitation in our knowledge and the flawed nature of
> our communications have moral, epistemological and in general philosophical
> implications.
>
>
>
>
> 2013/1/6 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
>
>> On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>>> I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give
>>> up when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and
>>> cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started.
>>> They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that
>>> are critical for an efficient group.
>>>
>>> And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored.
>>> Because this  has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is
>>> true or not.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this
>> what deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but
>> the more practical consequences are *very* extensively studied and the
>> results are applied - in advertising and in political campaigns.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>  The first of then is that whatever people say  have two meanings: one
>>> the pure truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the
>>> prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot
>>> at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating them.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>> .
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to