4 ms·

Who is to say we are experiencing rich detail? How do we know we aren’t stuck? Stuck on the planet? Stuck in this universe? Stuck in our minds? It’s an interes

Who is to say we are experiencing rich detail? How do we know we aren’t stuck? Stuck on the planet? Stuck in this universe? Stuck in our minds? It’s an interesting theory though but I’m not quite sure I buy the detail resolution argument as the one that defeats it, rather similar to Descartes in that you can’t trust your senses it’s hard to care about, especially with no proposed test (which wouldn’t the test be part of the simulation too?). So you kind of run into the “well who created that kind of marathon and I don’t know of any philosophical conjectures that have those characteristics that have been solved. Could be wrong though.

glenstein 5y ago
>Who is to say we are experiencing rich detail? How do we know we aren’t stuck? Stuck on the planet? Stuck in this universe? Stuck in our minds? I largely agree with where you're at on this. What we experience as normal might be extremely low detail relative to some more detailed underlying reality. However, the flip side is that we know quite clearly what it is for a world to be less detailed than our own. So it seems like there's room to go "further down". I also don't necessarily think it's a decisive argument, but what's interesting to me is that argument in particular stresses detail, and what it has in common with this article leads to an implication that we're more likely to get "stuck" in a cognitive sense, so that there are shapes to our thinking that correspond to the level of detail we're able to experience.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > However, the flip side is that we know quite clearly what it is for a world to be less detailed than our own. Do we? I'm not trying to do the Socratic Method here with endless questioning but how can I know or experience what less detail means? Don't I only have access to all of the detail I could have access to by definition?
  - glenstein 5y ago
    I take the notion of "resolution" to relate to things such as the range of visible color, complexity of shapes and sounds. If you agree with that assumption (and you don't have do) that details are of that nature, you can always conceive of less, but not necessarily more.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      I don't think visible color is a good example because we still detect the resolution of it through instruments. Complexity of shapes is an interesting one. Idk about sounds though - depends on what we mean by complexity here because while Bach is more complex than idk whatever people listen to these days I'd still put them at the same "resolution". Though I guess there's a lot of things to define as far as terms go. When I think about resolution I'm kind of imagining things that aren't measurable by us at all or possible to experience, because if we can measure them or experience them then they are part of our "resolution" sphere I'd think? It's definitely interesting to think about. I'd love to get your thoughts and those of others too.
dsego 5y ago
This is a bit out there, but I've been binge watching people talking about their NDEs lately on youtube, and some mention that our reality feels less real, almost cartoonish, after having experienced the beyond.

glenstein 5y ago

>Who is to say we are experiencing rich detail? How do we know we aren’t stuck? Stuck on the planet? Stuck in this universe? Stuck in our minds? I largely agree with where you're at on this. What we experience as normal might be extremely low detail relative to some more detailed underlying reality. However, the flip side is that we know quite clearly what it is for a world to be less detailed than our own. So it seems like there's room to go "further down". I also don't necessarily think it's a decisive argument, but what's interesting to me is that argument in particular stresses detail, and what it has in common with this article leads to an implication that we're more likely to get "stuck" in a cognitive sense, so that there are shapes to our thinking that correspond to the level of detail we're able to experience.

ericmay 5y ago
> However, the flip side is that we know quite clearly what it is for a world to be less detailed than our own. Do we? I'm not trying to do the Socratic Method here with endless questioning but how can I know or experience what less detail means? Don't I only have access to all of the detail I could have access to by definition?
- glenstein 5y ago
  I take the notion of "resolution" to relate to things such as the range of visible color, complexity of shapes and sounds. If you agree with that assumption (and you don't have do) that details are of that nature, you can always conceive of less, but not necessarily more.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    I don't think visible color is a good example because we still detect the resolution of it through instruments. Complexity of shapes is an interesting one. Idk about sounds though - depends on what we mean by complexity here because while Bach is more complex than idk whatever people listen to these days I'd still put them at the same "resolution". Though I guess there's a lot of things to define as far as terms go. When I think about resolution I'm kind of imagining things that aren't measurable by us at all or possible to experience, because if we can measure them or experience them then they are part of our "resolution" sphere I'd think? It's definitely interesting to think about. I'd love to get your thoughts and those of others too.

dsego 5y ago

This is a bit out there, but I've been binge watching people talking about their NDEs lately on youtube, and some mention that our reality feels less real, almost cartoonish, after having experienced the beyond.