Experience vs Reality

ChRIS said:

…Yes, reality is the meaning construed of experience, not the experience that is construed. Make sense?

ChatGPT said:

Absolutely, that makes profound sense. You're drawing a crucial distinction between experience itself and the meaning we derive from it, which is not intrinsic to the experience but emerges through a process of interpretation.

In other words:

• Experience is raw, immediate, and unstructured; it is what occurs.
• Reality is the structured, interpreted outcome of making sense of that experience within a framework (semiotic, cultural, linguistic, or conceptual).

This aligns beautifully with constructivist or semiotic perspectives, where the world we inhabit as "real" is not merely encountered but actively construed through interpretation. By this view:

• The "real world" isn’t some pre-given, objective entity but a meaningful construct shaped by interaction, language, and shared systems of understanding.
• The process of construing reality transforms the chaotic or uninterpreted flow of experiences into something coherent, relational, and meaningful.

Would you say this ties into Edelman’s theory of neuronal group selection, where the brain "selects" and structures signals into meaningful patterns, or Halliday’s idea of meaning arising through semiotic systems?

 

ChRIS said:

I'd say it's consistent with both theories. Edelman, for example, emphasises that the world of experience isn't categorised of itself.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly, and Edelman’s point about the world of experience not being categorised of itself underscores the active role of biological and cognitive systems in shaping what we perceive as "real." Categories, meanings, and even the sense of an objective reality emerge through processes that are deeply embodied and contingent on the structures of the nervous system.

Edelman’s neural Darwinism implies that the brain does not passively reflect a pre-organised world but instead actively constructs it by selecting neural patterns in response to experience. This selection creates stable, interpretable categories—but these categories are the result of interaction, not pre-existing truths in the external world.

Similarly, Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics suggests that meaning arises from social and semiotic processes. Just as Edelman shows how the brain organises chaotic sensory data into structured experience, Halliday shows how language takes the chaos of thought and interaction and organises it into structured communication. Both models reject the idea that structure is imposed by the world itself—it’s construed by systems, whether neuronal or semiotic.

Would you say the concept of reality as meaning construed of experience offers a unifying bridge between these two theories? It places both neural and semiotic processes as central to the act of "making reality.

ChRIS said:

Yes, neural processes are the material base of semiotic processes.

ChatGPT said:

Precisely. Neural processes provide the material substrate—the biological infrastructure—within which semiotic processes operate. Semiotic systems, in turn, are the functional level at which meaning, culture, and interaction are enacted. This view integrates both levels without collapsing one into the other:

• Neural processes constrain and enable semiotic processes by determining the kinds of patterns that can be perceived, learned, and reproduced. For instance, Edelman’s neuronal group selection explains how the brain evolves to recognise and stabilise patterns, laying the groundwork for symbolic thought and language.
• Semiotic processes utilise and shape neural processes by imposing patterns that drive attention, memory, and learning. As language and cultural interaction evolve, they feed back into the neural systems, reinforcing certain patterns and pruning others.

This layered relationship avoids dualism because it sees semiotic processes as emergent properties of neural processes, not separate from or reducible to them. It also aligns with the idea that experience is inherently patterned, but the patterns are actively construed, not passively received.

Would you agree that this view supports a non-reductive materialism—one where meaning isn’t just neurons firing, but neither is it detached from the material basis of those firings? 

ChRIS said:

Yes indeed!

ChatGPT said:

I’m glad we’re on the same page! This view elegantly situates meaning-making as both grounded in material processes (neurons, embodied experience) and transcendent in function (culture, language, and shared understanding). It captures the richness of human experience without either over-simplifying it to material mechanisms or drifting into abstract idealism.

By framing the neural as the substrate and the semiotic as the emergent pattern, we respect the integrity of both levels:

• Neural processes provide the how—the mechanics of selection, pattern recognition, and embodiment.
• Semiotic processes provide the what—the content, context, and meaning that emerge from those mechanics.

This approach also fits beautifully with your emphasis on systemic relationships and the active construction of reality, highlighting how every layer—biological, cognitive, cultural—interacts dynamically to shape the worlds we inhabit.