3 ms·

As far as I can tell, you're the only one moving the goalpost from "internally visualize" to "actually see the object manifested in front of you". I don't thin

As far as I can tell, you're the only one moving the goalpost from "internally visualize" to "actually see the object manifested in front of you". I don't think anyone is claiming that the latter is widespread, and I also don't think you're acknowledging that there are many people who can't do the former at all (myself included). If you ask me to imagine something, there is no visual component to that at all for me. Internally, externally, nowhere.

3f34f34f 6y ago
I probably was moving goalposts, but it's just one of those issues where it's hard to communicate with each other. I guess i'm not very good at visualising other people's experiences :p
- JshWright 6y ago
  I guess I should clarify that I don't think you were arguing in bad-faith ("moving the goalposts" is a bit a of a charged phrase in the current political climate). I appreciate the conversation!
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    It's frustrating that so few people argue on simulacrum level 1. (Reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity?commentId=JTcLcW8tcBQwmRJPu https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-...) Moving the goalposts is bad arguing. Bad arguing is often due to bad-faith arguing; but good arguing is hard, so it's also often accidental. Yet, people equate pointing out flaws in an argument with accusations of intellectual dishonesty: it's been politicised.
    - jooize 6y ago
      Thank you for these thoughts and that link. Spent an hour reading there, the article[1], and about The Gervais Principle[2]. [1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-... [2]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- function_seven 6y ago
  So we have a meta-problem of different abilities to visualize or imagine the concepts of visualization :) Sorry, but this is too funny. There's some sort of fundamental difficulty when humans are trying to compare their varying (or not?) qualia. Like those stoner-philosphy questions. ("Is the 'red' I see the same hue as the 'red' you see? How would we ever know??") There's an element of that unsolvable problem here; of knowing whether the other person is describing their internal mental state using the same definitions as you are.
ajju 6y ago
This is such a civil discussion and debate. I don’t even know you folks but I am more optimistic about our future as a society because of this thread.
ip26 6y ago
I've read plenty of folks who claim they can watch a movie on the inside of their eyelids, an experience they claim is indistinguishable from watching it on a TV.

3f34f34f 6y ago

I probably was moving goalposts, but it's just one of those issues where it's hard to communicate with each other. I guess i'm not very good at visualising other people's experiences :p

JshWright 6y ago
I guess I should clarify that I don't think you were arguing in bad-faith ("moving the goalposts" is a bit a of a charged phrase in the current political climate). I appreciate the conversation!
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  It's frustrating that so few people argue on simulacrum level 1. (Reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity?commentId=JTcLcW8tcBQwmRJPu https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-...) Moving the goalposts is bad arguing. Bad arguing is often due to bad-faith arguing; but good arguing is hard, so it's also often accidental. Yet, people equate pointing out flaws in an argument with accusations of intellectual dishonesty: it's been politicised.
  - jooize 6y ago
    Thank you for these thoughts and that link. Spent an hour reading there, the article[1], and about The Gervais Principle[2]. [1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-... [2]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
function_seven 6y ago
So we have a meta-problem of different abilities to visualize or imagine the concepts of visualization :) Sorry, but this is too funny. There's some sort of fundamental difficulty when humans are trying to compare their varying (or not?) qualia. Like those stoner-philosphy questions. ("Is the 'red' I see the same hue as the 'red' you see? How would we ever know??") There's an element of that unsolvable problem here; of knowing whether the other person is describing their internal mental state using the same definitions as you are.

ajju 6y ago

This is such a civil discussion and debate. I don’t even know you folks but I am more optimistic about our future as a society because of this thread.

ip26 6y ago

I've read plenty of folks who claim they can watch a movie on the inside of their eyelids, an experience they claim is indistinguishable from watching it on a TV.