<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>FWIW I composed one of my arbitrarily long (and convoluted)
      observations (maybe just mansplaining) about the multiple uses of
      the term <i>Reality</i> 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.<br>
    </p>
    <p>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?  <br>
    </p>
    <p>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?</p>
    <p>My suspicion of mystical rhetoric is that it is a most <i>obscurational</i>
      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.<br>
    </p>
    <p>My working definitions of "Reality" to be found at the bottom of
      the post.<br>
    </p>
    <p>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?</p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">EricS wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:D10CA919-26A1-4D51-9736-BE4147C28360@santafe.edu">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <br>
      <div>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <div>On Jun 27, 2025, at 7:31, Marcus Daniels
            <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><marcus@snoutfarm.com></a> wrote:</div>
          <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
          <div>
            <meta charset="UTF-8">
            <div class="WordSection1"
style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
              <div
style="margin: 0in; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span
                  style="font-size: 11pt;">Dave writes:<br>
                  <br>
                  <<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">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.</span><span
                  style="font-size: 11pt;"><span
                    class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>><br>
                  <br>
                  Not clear why something that supposedly cannot be
                  captured by mere language keeps getting pitched as a
                  real and intersubjective thing via language.</span></div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I am much less bothered by this _in principle_, since I
          generally hold the two premises:
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>1. Language is a collection of signals _within_ a system,
            <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    ...<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:D10CA919-26A1-4D51-9736-BE4147C28360@santafe.edu">
      <div>
        <div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>2. The term “reality” is a problem in general. <br>
          </div>
          <div>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.</div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <p>Without belaboring (but including for completeness) I offer my
      working definitions of various uses of the term <i><b>Reality</b></i>:</p>
    <p>1) Operational Pragmatic Reality: <i><br>
      </i></p>
    <blockquote>
      <p><i>That which <span data-start="997" data-end="1024">affords
            coherent behavior</span>—the reliable background against
          which action can occur.  As from ecological psychology (</i>Gibson<i>’s
          affordances), predictive processing (</i>Friston<i>), and some
          aspects of (our beloved) </i>Peircean<i> pragmatism?</i></p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>2) Intersubjective Reality:</p>
    <blockquote>
      <p><i>That which is constructed, maintained, and enacted through
          language and shared narratives.  As from </i>Luckman, Lacan,
        Foucault<i>?</i></p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>3) Formal (Scientific) Reality:</p>
    <blockquote>
      <p><i>That which can be modeled with precision, prediction, and
          repeatability.  As from Mathematics, physics, systems theory?</i></p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>4) Experiential Reality: <i><br>
      </i></p>
    <blockquote>
      <p>The immediately given, lived experience—the “suchness” before
        concept.<strong data-start="2563" data-end="2578">  </strong><i>As
          from </i>Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Varela?  Whence <i>Qualia</i>.<br>
      </p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>5) Placeholder Reality:</p>
    <blockquote>
      <p><i>The term “reality” as a placeholder or dummy variable—used
          rhetorically to defer deeper ontological commitments.  As from
        </i>all of us<i> all the time?</i></p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>6) Participatory Reality:</p>
    <blockquote>
      <p><i>Reality as not wholly determinate </i>until <span
          data-start="3266" data-end="3287">observed or enacted</span><i>—that
          is, it co-arises with participation.</i></p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>7) Linguistic Manifold Reality:</p>
    <blockquote>
      <p><i>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)
          <span data-start="3930" data-end="3940">converge</span> on
          something shareable, predictive, and compressible.</i></p>
    </blockquote>
    <p data-start="5249" data-end="5409">Enactivism / Autopoiesis /
      Dependent Co-Arising (EAC) is not a single category in this
      typology—it is a <strong data-start="5353" data-end="5390">meta-theory
        of reality-generation</strong>, operating across:</p>
    <ul data-start="5411" data-end="5678">
      <li data-start="5411" data-end="5477">
        <p data-start="5413" data-end="5477"><strong data-start="5413"
            data-end="5428">Operational</strong> → it explains the <em
            data-start="5447" data-end="5475">conditions for affordances</em></p>
      </li>
      <li data-start="5478" data-end="5548">
        <p data-start="5480" data-end="5548"><strong data-start="5480"
            data-end="5499">Intersubjective</strong> → it explains <em
            data-start="5514" data-end="5546">how we co-construct the
            shared</em></p>
      </li>
      <li data-start="5549" data-end="5610">
        <p data-start="5551" data-end="5610"><strong data-start="5551"
            data-end="5567">Experiential</strong> → it explains <em
            data-start="5582" data-end="5608">how we inhabit the lived</em></p>
      </li>
      <li data-start="5611" data-end="5678">
        <p data-start="5613" data-end="5678"><strong data-start="5613"
            data-end="5630">Participatory</strong> → it explains <em
            data-start="5645" data-end="5678">why observation creates
            reality</em></p>
      </li>
    </ul>
    <p data-start="5680" data-end="5704">And it gently critiques:</p>
    <ul data-start="5706" data-end="5858">
      <li data-start="5706" data-end="5744">
        <p data-start="5708" data-end="5744"><strong data-start="5708"
            data-end="5718">Formal</strong> → by showing its limits</p>
      </li>
      <li data-start="5745" data-end="5791">
        <p data-start="5747" data-end="5791"><strong data-start="5747"
            data-end="5762">Placeholder</strong> → by showing its
          necessity</p>
      </li>
      <li data-start="5792" data-end="5858">
        <p data-start="5794" data-end="5858"><strong data-start="5794"
            data-end="5807">LLM-based</strong> → by asking what is
          missing for full participation</p>
      </li>
    </ul>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>