On 1/7/2013 3:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
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.

Yes, that is a useful way to look at it. And the relative weight given the two valuations will also depend on circumstances, e.g. if you must act on the valuation you will probably give more weight to the objective valuation, whereas if you are just discussing it you may incline to the social valuation.

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

I'm not so sure about that; people certainly accept very unpleasant facts. I have a friend who was just diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. Acceptance has very negative implications, both personal and social.

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.

But then you need an account of what gains acceptance on subjective side. Does the fact have to be pleasant? socially shared?

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.

I'd say it is still theoretical - but I take you point that I would probably act on it (if it weren't too far in the future).

because this truth pass the two filters (objective and subjective) filter that you have to accept something as truth..

No, that's exactly what you *don't* have to do. You may have to act, but often you don't; you're just theorizing and discussing what might be true - as on this list. Scientists, as scientists, never accept something as true, except in the provisional sense of designing an experiment that depends on it.

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.

The problem is that your instinctive valuations evolved to work within a tribe of a few hundred people in the same culture. But small tribes are conquered by large coalitions of tribes which are conquered by nation states, etc. So then we need laws and public institutions to align our relations with strangers so they satisfy our instincts insofar as possible. Religion has played a part in all sizes of cultures, but it been divisive and oppressive as well as unifying and satisfying.

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.

A use of loaded terms. One might appeal to self-interest as motivation to help others as a way to strengthen community bonds and trust which will make your life better in the future. I wouldn't call that "corruption".

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

In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.


2013/1/6 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com <mailto: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 
    theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of possibilities and a 
    nature of any social being (the ROM element).

    Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper 
    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 
    we do it by instinct and by experience, but not fbased on a well founded  
    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 
    communications have moral, epistemological and in general philosophical 

    2013/1/6 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto: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 
            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 
            for an efficient group.

            And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been 
            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 
        deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the 
        practical consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results 
        applied - in advertising and in political campaigns.


            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
        To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
        For more options, visit this group at

-- 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 
For more options, visit this group at 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 01/03/13

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to