31 ms·

So this is interesting. It’s not like this pseudo-randomization of inputs is necessarily a good thing because you’re actually introducing non-reality into the b

So this is interesting. It’s not like this pseudo-randomization of inputs is necessarily a good thing because you’re actually introducing non-reality into the brain (like dreaming I’m in prison or can fly) but instead we’re being prepared for possibilities so that I can wake up and think, “what if that actually had happened?” Still, not sure if this is a productive thing at this stage in human existence or not, i.e. do I need to train for if I could fly or should I focus on reality?

ordu 4y ago
> do I need to train for if I could fly or should I focus on reality? I believe the answer is yes, you need to leave reality sometimes to undersrand reality. It is a very general pattern, to understand something you need to move out of it. You cannot see a forest while being in the forest, because trees are obscuring your sight. You cannot prove all true statements in arithmetic system without extending it. For example it is impossible to find a general solution for a cubic equation in real numbers, you need to go imaginary, find imaginary roots and toss away not real ones. The remaining roots will be real roots of real cubic equation. You cannot understand limitations of a scientific theory without considering an alternative theory. (Or a more general, or a narrower theory) You cannot prove hypothesis without disproving an alternative one. This pattern is everywhere. So it wouldn't surprise me a bit, if it turned out that you cannot digest a real experience without getting some unreal experience as well.