The part is around the 1:25 mark but I’m just wondering if this is true and if so then…well what does that exactly mean for us? Does it mean our likes and such aren’t real because we’re not born with any of it?
1:25 “You yourself is constructed entirely out of human communication.
Like a little bit of it is the stuff going on in your head, but not most of it.”
Sounds like a toss out metaphor.
Where do we stop?
Why aren’t animals all made out of communication, simply because it doesn’t have the higher level introspection, doesn’t mean there’s not communication going on.
I bet it could be argued atoms and molecules are all about communication,
as are photons.
You should spend more time with your own questions.
We are born with only our naked body.
You spend your life acquiring things, interior and exterior - why should that be “unreal”, because you weren’t born with it?
Given the topic of the video you introduced, I figure may as well raise you one.
Another self-created self-destruction scenario.
Revenge of the nurds.
We have had long discussions about “constructed” and “real”, so, honestly not to interested in chopping it up with you again. People are real, conversations are real, we build our knowledge from direct experience, but there is a limit to that, so we enhance it with with the experiences of others. How is that not real to you?
Sabine is generally not considered reliable these days.
That’s kinda my issue with it, also I don’t really get what it means. Some would argue that we evolved for survival and that the attempt at truth isn’t possible: Reddit - Please wait for verification
Though in my view if you admit that then your next point is invalid as it that one.
Well the thing is we never really got into it. But as for how they are not real I guess since it’s not inherent to me, not something I was born with or as then that makes it less real. For some reason the notion of it being constructed makes it matter less, like it’s not truly “mine” but rather it’s artificial instead of natural.
In a sense it’s similar to the view of the self I used to have, which is akin to some soul, something you could call your own. But when you start to see how much of our lives is the result of rules we made up…I dunno…it just makes the whole thing feel fake or like pretend.
You are a hard solipsist, with this twist that you want things to be “inherent to you”, which just adds something that makes it so you define the thing so no one can refute you. It can’t be disproven unless you cooperate, unless you accept some premises that are clear to me.
You end up here:
Existential Isolation: It results in complete isolation, as all perceived connections to others are viewed as internal reflections
which is why I would never adopt such a philosophy.
How exactly did you pull hard solipsism from anything I said? I said inherent which would mean everyone has something they could call their own. We essentially do that in our day to day, people defining themselves and knowing who they are and believing that to be constant. It’s not something arcane.
But the reality though is that there is no essence to anyone, we change and get shaped by the surroundings and other factors, but knowing that makes it hard (IMO) to stand for anything or really know yourself because it could change tomorrow so why care about it today?
This is has to be the most wild misreading of what I’ve posted anywhere on the internet.
When I say that things being constructed means they feel fake or pretend it means they aren’t hard laws of the universe or just how things are. Society and much of the things we care about are rules that we agree to and they hold so long as we keep doing so. That’s kinda what I mean by “pretend” since they change if we either die out or change them ourselves. I think the word “social construct” is the term used. Money is the easy example to use, it exists because we agree to it, it’s not inherent to reality. The same goes for a lot of other stuff.
How you got hard solipsism from any of that is beyond me, this is just about how we humans construct reality: mentally, socially, physically, psychologically. My issue is this stuff makes everything worth striving for less solid because it’s not some cosmic rule or something like that.
Truth is a human construct, that depends on the parameters that must be established.
I myself believe facts and honesty are much more important, if getting closer to an approximation of truth is the goal.
Yet, like that mirage on the hot desert highway, …
As for Sabine’s video, did I say anything about being able to take it to the bank?
It was simply an introduction to something new and potentially terrifying to the world order - well at least where security codes matter
Why quantum security is a question leaders cannot ignore right now
Feb 20, 2026 -
- Quantum computing isn’t ready to break cryptography yet, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t already have risks.
- The ‘harvest now, decrypt later’ threat model could mean businesses’ data is already vulnerable.
- Security leaders, acting now to deliver quantum safety is imperative.
The modern arms race,
tit-for-tat
I admit I know next to nothing about it, so I’m not trying to convince you of one side or the other.
Well, that was an unusual visceral reaction from you. Solipsism is not arcane, it’s quite common, the idea that the self is the only existent thing. You want there to be a soul, a consistently existing self, there from birth. Those two ideas are similar.
The way you approach ideas that contradict what you want are even more similar. Any challenge to there not being a self is met by you with your feelings of you having a self, a soul. There is no way for me argue you out of that, in the same way I can’t prove to a solipsist that I exist outside of their perception.
The arguments against the self/soul involve thought experiments about the complexity required for them to exist. It means considering the observations of how we do change and comparing that to some kind everlasting self. You don’t like doing that.
They are not. Solipsism is more about knowledge of what can be known for certain, the existence of a soul isn’t really the same thing. The existence of the soul wouldn’t have anything to do with solipsism’s claims, if anything it would probably disprove it. Though maybe not since you could just be the creator of those souls, it’s call the hard problem for a reason.
That still doesn’t make it solipsism. Also I already explain to you that most of human society operates on the assumption of a “soul” or persistent self. You can see an example in the justice system where we believe the person who did the crime to be the same person before us. But when it comes to talk about the existence or lack thereof of a self then feelings are going to come into play. If you cannot navigate that then that sounds like a you problem.
You’re not really listening to what I’m saying. The case is the opposite, since the self and soul are simple concepts that don’t require any complexity for them to exist, they simply are. The counter examples or arguments point out that we do in fact change, that parts of us don’t really stay the same, that everything that makes us up isn’t eternal but changes. So given all that the idea of a soul or self doesn’t really match what’s going on. Complexity is the argument against it, not that the soul or self needs it to exist.
My issue, if you’re reading, is the socially constructed nature of the reality we humans live in and how it feels more like playing pretend with other people rather than anything that really matters. Kinda reminds me of a Bill Hick’s quote:
“The World is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it’s real, because that’s how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round, and it has thrills and chills and is very brightly colored, and it’s very loud. And it’s fun, for a while.
Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they’ve begun to question, ‘Is this real, or is this just a ride?’, and other people have remembered, and they’ve come back to us and they say ‘Hey, don’t worry. Don’t be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride.’ and we **** THOSE PEOPLE.
“Shut him up! We have alot invested in this ride! SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account, and my family. This just has to be real.”
It’s just a ride.
But we always **** those good guys who try and tell us that. You ever noticed that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn’t matter, because … It’s just a ride.
And we can change it anytime we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear wants you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead see all of us as one.
Here’s what we can do to change the world right now, to a better ride:
Take all that money we spent on weapons and defense each year and instead spend it feeding, clothing, and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and WE CAN EXPLORE SPACE, TOGETHER, BOTH INNER AND OUTER, forever … in peace.
I can navigate it just fine. It doesn’t make it true. The Justice system is antiquated, based on outdated motions of free will that come from religion.
Are you messing with me now? Look up Bill Hicks in this forum and see how often I refer to him. His work does not support the idea of a soul in the way you talk about it. I do listen to you, that’s why I know I disagree with you.
You’re missing the point…again. Reread the part I was using his quote to refer to. If you look at it the reference to it being a “ride” is that we literally make up all of the things that we care about. Hence the social construction of reality. Why are you obsessed with the soul when I’m trying to paint a broader picture that you keep missing. You reading into what isn’t there. You say you cite him often but I’m not sure you understand him. He’s clearly backing what I’m saying about how we construct reality, though his conclusion differs.
And yet it is also how many see themselves and others, which is my point. You’re not really making a case for what a world without the idea of a soul or self would look like, similar to those I talk to who can’t think of how society would function without free will as a concept.
It honestly feels like you either didn’t read my explanations or are reading something else that’s not there. The solipsism analysis doesn’t give me much confidence.
I have always said there is a social construction of reality. When did you start thinking I said there wasn’t?
I’m not obsessed with it. You said:
In a sense it’s similar to the view of the self I used to have, which is akin to some soul, something you could call your own. But when you start to see how much of our lives is the result of rules we made up…I dunno…it just makes the whole thing feel fake or like pretend.
So, seems pretty important to you that should exist.
No, I haven’t, but you don’t talk about that either. You talk about your feelings and how you are affected by the idea of there being no “self” or free will. I have thoughts on things like how the justice system should change, but it’s not a topic we’ve spent much time on
That’s the issue I have and I explained why that is.
Not so much me as everyone existing. Loneliness was never something I could really tolerate.
I mean yeah of course feelings come into play, pretty much everything we do is rooted in our feelings on the matter, what we value and such. For me I’m not really sure how life would work with “no self” and definitely sure with no free will.
This is my copy of the book that I read. We agree on this apparently. I don’t know what else to say about that. I also apparently was confused that when you were talking about your feelings of a constructed self, you were arguing that the idea was wrong.
You changed your tone recently, for the better in some ways, but now I’m confused about what you want from me.
Given how many links you find discussing “no self” and no free will, I don’t know what you mean by “everyone”.
This fits with everything you’ve said before. But there are two parts to what we’ve been discussing; is there a “self” as the Western world has defined it for thousands of years, and, what does it mean if there isn’t one? The second one has two parts; what does it mean individually, and, what does it mean for society.
My problem is how does one deal with that sense of construction, sounds like a short step into nihilism.
Other people. My own existence matters less to me than other people existing and being real.
That’s kinda what I’m asking. People keep saying this but they don’t say what life would look like if it were true. It reminded me of Alex O’Connor and Robery Sapolsky in an interview saying they both don’t have a plan or idea of how a world without free will would look like and yet they still want to destroy it. To me that is just narcissism.
I don’t know how you get there so quickly. Social construction says morality and norms are built up over generations, providing meaning, giving us something to think about from our ancestors and to pass along. Meaning is derived from what we decide to do with our lives. The idea that something is beamed from the heavens into us to give us meaning is outdated and dysfunctional.
I’m not going to say much about this, since it sounds like you are thinking that people aren’t real. If it’s true you think that, it frames this discussion very differently.
First, I think you need to understand the implications of social construction better. There’s plenty available for that.
Social Construction of Reality
Second, an understanding of the world, based on evidence, logic, and experience can’t be narcissistic. They aren’t deciding they want something to be true, then not caring about the implications because it’s what they want, they are finding something to be true and exploring its implications with the rest of the world.
Sapolsky does say that we should be compassionate to people who violate social norms, that’s hardly narcissistic. He talks about how our actions are driven by many factors and our justice system is based mostly on the individual choosing their actions with their thoughts only. Some changes have been made in recent decades, but we should consider the science and do more to restore people to be part of society instead of just punishing them.
1 Like
I get that, but to me unless it’s written into the fabric of reality and not subject to interpretation then it seems fake. Because that means it can be changed, that it’s not solid enough to build your life around.
More like seeing people as unified entities instead of just aggregates of parts.
Except that’s not what they’re doing. The did the first part and skipped the second, both of them admitted they don’t know what the implications would be like or what the world would look like without free will.
Yeah but part of the reason rehab works and why belief that folks can change is the belief in agency and free will. If people thought they had no choice in the matter then the concept of punishment as a deterrence wouldn’t work, neither would merit. The very concept of sports would fall apart, even the Olympics, because there was no effort involved, it was just physics playing out.
The irony is that your link essentially highlights the problems with reality being socially constructed, I do get it and that’s why I can point out the issues with it. You essentially validated my original point about it being playing pretend.
If it’s all constructed then why should we do one person’s view over another, I mean these aren’t hard rules it’s just humanity collectively playing pretend. As a result there is nothing solid to build anything from. What that page doesn’t understand is the reason institutions have any real power is through reification. In fact it reminds my why Critical Theory fails, because it doesn’t have any idea of an actual plan for change.
In fact I’d encourage you to read the part about social construction of truth and the criticisms.
It’s also incorrect about the practical benefits of deconstructing. Like I said it only tears things down, but doesn’t have a plan for building it up. It’s essentially exposing things we do as being “made up” but doesn’t understand the real world consequences of doing that. When you pretty much expose our institutions and other stuff we do as being “pretend” that leads to any alternative you would propose to not being taken seriously. I mean after all “it’s just your opinion”, it’s not some iron rule.
Though it’s also wrong that inequality is produced and not natural, the reality is nature is unequal and so is any human society by definition. The key is rather figuring out how to balance those inequalities. Nature does it by accident more or less, every organism isn’t equal but it works out.
But yeah, ironically that post supports and highlights the problems I listed with social construction. The reason society works is that most don’t see it as socially constructed.
Well, we don’t know what the fabric of reality is and we just beginning to read what is written in it. We may never know the full picture. So, that, and this
Are unrealistic expectations that you set and most likely will never achieve. But might be your goal, to keep the game going, something to argue about
They did the science. What if the people who find lead in the air didn’t report it because they were worried about upsetting the gasoline industry?
Quite the opposite. If you think you can think yourself into morality, you’re wrong. You need to understand your chemistry and your history and learn to live with being human.
No, that’s the reason slavery lasted so long, it was accepted as part of nature. Then we figured out that humans reified it as true, which means we can change it