FWIW I composed one of my arbitrarily long (and convoluted) observations (maybe just mansplaining) about the multiple uses of the term /Reality/ and how I apprehend them and how I (think) they relate to the business of "chatting with LLMs" and the implications for the discussion at-hand.    Maybe there will (co)arise a white paper elsewhere.

However, to (try to) be concise I trimmed it a bit.   I think I hear us talking (effing) all the way around the question of whether there is an ineffable and is it just "mysticism" by another name?

I hear DaveW holding Qualia as the only truly grounded Reality and EricS alluding to the way the Intersubjective dribbles over into Placeholder (a handwaving name for something we all think we know, but can't seem to pin down or agree on).  Most of us trained and operating in Sci/Eng/Tech *want* there to be a simple Objective which the formalisms of math/science help us converge upon but defer to Operational/Pragmatic most of the time?

My suspicion of mystical rhetoric is that it is a most /obscurational/ form of Placeholder Reality... while also being *aspriational* ("but what IF there IS an objective reality which *only I* can access through unspecified occult means?").  That said, I DO agree with DaveWs suggestion that there are things which can be perceived, even apprehended which cannot be expressed ("effed"). thus they are "ineffable".  The arts of the Arcane and Occult attempt to "eff" them, though gesturally, pointing vaguely toward an interstice?   Alexander's QWAN, etc.

My working definitions of "Reality" to be found at the bottom of the post.

I acknowledge Qualia as fundamental to *my* existence..  but recognize the  Pragmatic as a common mode of my expression and even apprehension, all the while aspiring to Objective but deferring heavily to Intersubjective to interpret all of the others.     EAC is most interesting to me whether it is the autopoesis of M&V or the vedic/buddhist dependent co-arising, or wheeler/beyond quantum realities.   But maybe because it is more exotic?

EricS wrote:

On Jun 27, 2025, at 7:31, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave writes:

<My 'mysticism', like my hallucinogenic experience, is nothing more than a source of what I consider to be "real" data and a supply of fascinating questions—never answers.>

Not clear why something that supposedly cannot be captured by mere language keeps getting pitched as a real and intersubjective thing via language.

I am much less bothered by this _in principle_, since I generally hold the two premises:

1. Language is a collection of signals _within_ a system,
...

2. The term “reality” is a problem in general.
I do like the idea that this is just a version of the normal confusion, for things not understood very well (like, quite badly), and that one could find ways to do better.

Without belaboring (but including for completeness) I offer my working definitions of various uses of the term /*Reality*/:

1) Operational Pragmatic Reality: /
/

   /That which affords coherent behavior—the reliable background
   against which action can occur.  As from ecological psychology
   (/Gibson/’s affordances), predictive processing (/Friston/), and
   some aspects of (our beloved) /Peircean/pragmatism?/

2) Intersubjective Reality:

   /That which is constructed, maintained, and enacted through language
   and shared narratives.  As from /Luckman, Lacan, Foucault/?/

3) Formal (Scientific) Reality:

   /That which can be modeled with precision, prediction, and
   repeatability.  As from Mathematics, physics, systems theory?/

4) Experiential Reality: /
/

   The immediately given, lived experience—the “suchness” before
   concept.**/As from /Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Varela?  Whence /Qualia/.

5) Placeholder Reality:

   /The term “reality” as a placeholder or dummy variable—used
   rhetorically to defer deeper ontological commitments.  As from /all
   of us/all the time?/

6) Participatory Reality:

   /Reality as not wholly determinate /until observed or enacted/—that
   is, it co-arises with participation./

7) Linguistic Manifold Reality:

   /LLMs inhabit and approximate intersubjective reality.  Each
   language model represents a “manifold” within a semantic plenum.
   “Reality” is the high-dimensional attractor surface that forms when
   enough participants (biological or artificial) converge on something
   shareable, predictive, and compressible./

Enactivism / Autopoiesis / Dependent Co-Arising (EAC) is not a single category in this typology—it is a *meta-theory of reality-generation*, operating across:

 *

   *Operational* → it explains the /conditions for affordances/

 *

   *Intersubjective* → it explains /how we co-construct the shared/

 *

   *Experiential* → it explains /how we inhabit the lived/

 *

   *Participatory* → it explains /why observation creates reality/

And it gently critiques:

 *

   *Formal* → by showing its limits

 *

   *Placeholder* → by showing its necessity

 *

   *LLM-based* → by asking what is missing for full participation


Attachment: OpenPGP_0xD5BAF94F88AFFA63.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... 
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Reply via email to