What gives? — TheMadFool

You're not dangerously insane. There's little to be said beyond that.

I suppose to pad the reply some, of all senses we possess sight and visuals are probably the most consequential and profound of the human experience. Sure, smell is useful to discern wildfires or when food has gone (really) bad, hearing is useful to discern loud (typically powerful, dangerous) happenings as well as communicate, but for all the threats to the human body that can be detected and avoided with the other four senses, there are at least two more that can be done with sight. Not all perfectly overlap of course. But why else are we such vain creatures? Museums, designer phone cases, covers, above all visual-based attraction. We don't have "smellatoriums" that are packed with people and their families day in and day out smelling unique scents. Sure, we appreciate a fragrance that is to say to replace/mask a neutral or malodorous one, but we rarely "seek it out" just to do so. We don't have "feelatoriums" where people rub furry walls and various textures all day for the fun of it. We throw people like that in mental institutions. Sure, you'd rather touch something smooth and silky than a jagged piece of metal but again, actually going out of your way to do so gives you weird stares.

Edit: There's just so much more information that can be communicated and yes experienced with sight. We don't have streaming services that you and a friend or your family gather around and "smell" various smells for an hour and a half. You don't call up your mates or have grandma flown in from Rochester to touch a Home Depot carpet sample booklet for hours on end. Granted audio and hearing makes a large part of the modern cinematic experience but silent movies passed the time then just fine and if given the opportunity will do so now.

A risk management approach. It makes sense if survival is the prime directive, the be all and end all of life in general and humans in particular. I don't see how that's got anything to do with why mind-generated silumations are done in halves - some senses are not activated as mentioned in the OP.

mind-generated silumations are done in halves - some senses are not activated — TheMadFool

Compare it to a dream. If it was just as real (sensory identical) or perhaps of a longer duration than what you define as not a simulation, you'd have a whole new set of questions.

Interestingly enough I've had many dreams that at least at one point or another all senses, in the moment of having them, realized dreaming or not, were activated, and that outlier is the sense of smell. Pain, sight and hearing naturally. Touch.. hm? Not quite. I dream often and remember, albeit vaguely many if not most of them, never having a single dream where I physically "felt" (as in feeling a texture) or "smelled" something. Curious, I suppose. Taste, only partially. I've noted unique (similar enough) tastes to food or beverage consumed in dreams, though without the savor. Perhaps, dreams are a window into Hell. Or to be more upbeat, somewhere greater where we are no longer dictated by satisfying our woefully outdated evolutionary wants and needs.

Compare it to a dream. If it was just as real (sensory identical) or perhaps of a longer duration than what you define as not a simulation, you'd have a whole new set of questions. — Outlander

Like...

The only distinction between dreams and daydreams (the OP's focus) is volitional in character.

Interestingly enough I've had many dreams that at least at one point or another all senses, in the moment of having them, realized dreaming or not, were activated, and that outlier is the sense of smell. Pain, sight and hearing naturally. Touch.. hm? Not quite. I dream often and remember, albeit vaguely many if not most of them, never having a single dream where I physically "felt" (as in feeling a texture) or "smelled" something. Curious, I suppose. Taste, only partially. I've noted unique (similar enough) tastes to food or beverage consumed in dreams, though without the savor. Perhaps, dreams are a window into Hell. Or to be more upbeat, somewhere greater where we are no longer dictated by satisfying our woefully outdated evolutionary wants and needs. — Outlander

Yes, it's possible that dreams could be experienced in all sensory modalities although I haven't come across any documented cases of such instances. I have my doubts.

My question, however, is why are we incapable of deliberately switching on all the senses when we daydream to produce an experience indistinguishable from reality itself? For instance, why couldn't my mind simulate the touch of the rock when I could simulate it visually?

It makes sense if survival is the prime directive, the be all and end all of life in general and humans in particular. I don't see how that's got anything to do with why mind-generated silumations are done in halves - some senses are not activated as mentioned in the OP. — TheMadFool

I think Donald Hoffman's notion of our senses as an "interface" between us and the real world, may offer a clue to "what gives?" In The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”. Even so, humans have also evolved another form of “perception” that we call “conception”.

And that’s where the philosophical debates divide. Via conception, we can imagine things we can’t see, and we sometimes find those subjective “ideals” to be more important than the objectively real objects of the physical realm. That sometimes leads to Faith, in which we “believe in things unseen”. Most of what we "know" about the physical world takes the form of abstractions or simulations (or "silumations", if you prefer), that contain only enough detail to allow us to survive the hazards of nature long enough to replicate our genes. But that pragmatic worldview falls far short of omniscience. So, "what gives" is an illusion of reality, not the ding an sich. :wink:


Interface : Window to Reality : Reality is not what you see
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

I'm doing the same experiment and I can "feel" the texture of the sandstone. I have touched sandstone before so I believe I'm using the memory of it.

Also, I have had many lucid dreams in my life.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream
At first glance, the whole experience is indistinguishable from the woken state, until you start scrutinizing your perceptions. For example, one time I tried to look at visual details and they became blurry.
So why is my brain capable of recreating a very accurate image of reality when I'm dreaming but not when I'm awake?
I think it's simply because the perception of reality primes over imaginary perception. Try sensory deprivation. Lock yourself in a dark room for a week or more, and you'll find yourself in the Sahara touching sandstone.(or you'll turn into an ape like William Hurt in Altered States)

why are we incapable of deliberately switching on all the senses when we daydream to produce an experience indistinguishable from reality itself — TheMadFool

Come to think of it that sounds horrific. Imagine if someone suffered from PTSD flashbacks from a painful, violent incident but instead of just severe anxiety also felt the same physical pain as well.

Some people are so familiar with certain sensations they can "almost feel" them with enough thought, say the sand between our toes or the warm sun on your skin. Or even simply reading a very well-written (or at least chock full of superfluous adjectives and nauseating detail) paragraph describing a texture. Not aware of the technical biologic details as to why or why not other than to say that's just not how a properly functioning human brain works, and for good reason.

I think Donald Hoffman's notion of our senses as an "interface" between us and the real world, may offer a clue to "what gives?" In The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”. Even so, humans have also evolved another form of “perception” that we call “conception”. — Gnomon

Our senses evolved really for one purpose - survival - but survival and the true nature of reality are two different subjects. — Brian Greene

I was wondering how if our senses don't give an accurate picture of reality, it would aid us in survival? That goes against the received wisdom that to be in touch with reality is key to living a happy and healthy life (most cases of death and injury occur when we believe falsehoods or ignore facts). :chin:

And that’s where the philosophical debates divide. Via conception, we can imagine things we can’t see, and we sometimes find those subjective “ideals” to be more important than the objectively real objects of the physical realm. That sometimes leads to Faith, in which we “believe in things unseen”. Most of what we "know" about the physical world takes the form of abstractions or simulations (or "silumations", if you prefer), that contain only enough detail to allow us to survive the hazards of nature long enough to replicate our genes. But that pragmatic worldview falls far short of omniscience. So, "what gives" is an illusion of reality, not the ding an sich — Gnomon

I've encountered this particular line of thinking in Yuval Noah Harari's (Israeli-born historian) book Sapiens, he calls them imagined orders (religion, money, state, etc.) but these are abstractions and not what I want to discuss. What I want to talk about is the fact that we can visualize with relative little effort but we can't do something similar with the other senses (smell, taste, touch, and hearing).

I'm doing the same experiment and I can "feel" the texture of the sandstone. I have touched sandstone before so I believe I'm using the memory of it. — Vince

You maybe unique, a one of a kind then because most people can't do that. I, for one, can't do that. So you're saying that when you imagine yourself touching a rock with your hand, you can actually feel the rock i.e. your hands register sensations? :chin:

Also, I have had many lucid dreams in my life.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream
At first glance, the whole experience is indistinguishable from the woken state, until you start scrutinizing your perceptions. For example, one time I tried to look at visual details and they became blurry.
So why is my brain capable of recreating a very accurate image of reality when I'm dreaming but not when I'm awake?
I think it's simply because the perception of reality primes over imaginary perception. Try sensory deprivation. Lock yourself in a dark room for a week or more, and you'll find yourself in the Sahara touching sandstone.(or you'll turn into an ape like William Hurt in Altered States) — Vince

There's the possibility that life could be a dream and then to realize that would qualify as a lucid dream. What's your point though?

Come to think of it that sounds horrific. Imagine if someone suffered from PTSD flashbacks from a painful, violent incident but instead of just severe anxiety also felt the same physical pain as well. — Outlander

Indeed, that would be a major drawback but then we can reverse the polarity and ask "what about all the wonderful experiences some people claim to have, wouldn't it be awesome if we could re-experience them in full/glorious technicolor?, if you know what I mean.

Some people are so familiar with certain sensations they can "almost feel" them with enough thought, say the sand between our toes or the warm sun on your skin. Or even simply reading a very well-written (or at least chock full of superfluous adjectives and nauseating detail) paragraph describing a texture. Not aware of the technical biologic details as to why or why not other than to say that's just not how a properly functioning human brain works, and for good reason. — Outlander

I tend to agree - to be able to activate all the senses when you're imagining something may not always be a good thing.

You maybe unique, a one of a kind then because most people can't do that. I, for one, can't do that. So you're saying that when you imagine yourself touching a rock with your hand, you can actually feel the rock i.e. your hands register sensations? — TheMadFool

I think you are assuming what you can or can't do is the norm.
I can imagine touch as vividly as images.
I was actually mildly shocked when I learned not everyone can do this.
I can imagine in all five sense modalities.
I don't understand how people choose what to eat if they can't imagine the scents or flavors of the food.

think you are assuming what you can or can't do is the norm.
I can imagine touch as vividly as images.
I was actually mildly shocked when I learned not everyone can do this.
I can imagine in all five sense modalities.
I don't understand how people choose what to eat if they can't imagine the scents or flavors of the food — Yohan

Suppose you've never smoked in your life or if you're smoker like me, you're not smoking as of now. Now, imagine that you are taking a puff of your brand of cigarette/cigar, take your pick. Like you I can see the cigarette in my hand, I bring it up to my mouth. What usually happens then is some wisps of smoke enter the nostrils and a distinct odor of burning tobacco becomes noticeable. This is happening in my imagination but, for better or worse, sorry to say, no smell of burning cigarettes. Are you telling me that in your case you can actually get the odor of tobacco on fire with your imaginary cigarette?

If yes, how do you do it? I'm curious.

So you're saying that when you imagine yourself touching a rock with your hand, you can actually feel the rock i.e. your hands register sensations? — TheMadFool

I can imagine the sensation, but my hand is not actually feeling it, if it was the case it would be called a hallucination.

There's the possibility that life could be a dream and then to realize that would qualify as a lucid dream. — TheMadFool

Different topic I believe.

What's your point though? — TheMadFool

I mentioned lucid dreaming in response to this:

Yes, it's possible that dreams could be experienced in all sensory modalities although I haven't come across any documented cases of such instances. I have my doubts. — TheMadFool

A lot of people, can remember having all sensory modalities during regular dreams after they wake up. In lucid dreams, sensations can be examined carefully at the same time as they are experienced. The result is a highly accurate recreation of reality as far as the senses are concerned. My point is that the more your senses are inhibited as they are in dreams or inside a sensory deprivation tank, the more your brain is taking over to recreate/hallucinate reality accurately. When you senses are uninhibited, you get the opposite effect.

My question, however, is why are we incapable of deliberately switching on all the senses when we daydream to produce an experience indistinguishable from reality itself? — TheMadFool

Because the perception of reality interferes with the capacity to daydream vividly, reducing it to the necessary elements. I can daydream all the senses but mostly one at a time. You seem to have an issue imagining particular sensations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

This is happening in my imagination but, for better or worse, sorry to say, no smell of burning cigarettes. Are you telling me that in your case you can actually get the odor of tobacco on fire with your imaginary cigarette? — TheMadFool

I wouldn't call it getting the odor of tabacco on fire. But assuming you are using that as a metaphor for experiencing the smell of tabacco inwardly, without having my olfactory nerves stimulated with present tabacco smoke, yeah.

If yes, how do you do it? I'm curious. — TheMadFool

I dunno. How do you visualize? If someone asks you to "experience what it would be life if an apple were before you" you just kind of do it, no? How can you explain how you do it? If someone says "Now imagine smelling a sliced apple"... I just do it.

Maybe if you try religiously every day to imagine smelling something that isn't present, you can gradually develop the ability.

I guess simulation of touch, smell and taste is absent because it doesn't give an adaptive evolutionary advantage. Sight and hearing simulation helps a lot, which explains why it is present Though I'm not really sure about whether they truly are absent. I can for example imagine the taste of pizza, although the simulation of it feels much less intense than the simulation of the sight of it.

My point is that the more your senses are inhibited as they are in dreams or inside a sensory deprivation tank, the more your brain is taking over to recreate/hallucinate reality accurately — Vince

I wonder if introverts tend to have more vivid imaginations, since introverts tend to be more withdrawn. A friend of mine with aphantasia is very uninhibited. TheMadFool comes off as a quite uninhibited extrovert as well.

I wouldn't call it getting the odor of tabacco on fire. But assuming you are using that as a metaphor for experiencing the smell of tabacco inwardly, without having my olfactory nerves stimulated with present tabacco smoke, yeah. — Yohan

No, no metaphor implied or expressed.

I dunno. How do you visualize? If someone asks you to "experience what it would be life if an apple were before you" you just kind of do it, no? How can you explain how you do it? If someone says "Now imagine smelling a sliced apple"... I just do it. — Yohan

First off, I'm not interested in the kind of thought experiment that deals in imagining being something nonhuman (like an apple). Second, I don't mind speculating on the issue but if your claim - that you can perfectly simulate nonvisual sensations is true - there should be some well-documented case. A reference I could crosscheck would be really helpful. Thanks.

I guess simulation of touch, smell and taste is absent because it doesn't give an adaptive evolutionary advantage. Sight and hearing simulation helps a lot, which explains why it is present Though I'm not really sure about whether they truly are absent. I can for example imagine the taste of pizza, although the simulation of it feels much less intense than the simulation of the sight of it. — Hello Human

Perhaps I'm using the wrong words here but here'a the clearest version of the problem I can manage:

1. I can imagine, visually, eating an icecream.

2. I can't imagine its taste/smell/touch.

N.B. I can, it seems, simulate how icecream sounds like when I take a bite of it.

I can imagine the sensation, but my hand is not actually feeling it, if it was the case it would be called a hallucination. — Vince

Even hallucinations aren't that complete. That's the point I believe.

Different topic I believe. — Vince

Why did you bring it up? You're onto something or so I feel.

I mentioned lucid dreaming in response to this:
Yes, it's possible that dreams could be experienced in all sensory modalities although I haven't come across any documented cases of such instances. I have my doubts.
— TheMadFool

A lot of people, can remember having all sensory modalities during regular dreams after they wake up. In lucid dreams, sensations can be examined carefully at the same time as they are experienced. The result is a highly accurate recreation of reality as far as the senses are concerned. My point is that the more your senses are inhibited as they are in dreams or inside a sensory deprivation tank, the more your brain is taking over to recreate/hallucinate reality accurately. When you senses are uninhibited, you get the opposite effect. — Vince

I get that part - sensory deprivation activating the imagination. You've made some claims regarding dreams, specifically lucid dreams. Initially I was of the view that you were barking up the wrong tree but there's something about lucid dreams that's relevant to what we're discussing although only indirectly it seems.

Because the perception of reality interferes with the capacity to daydream vividly, reducing it to the necessary elements. I can daydream all the senses but mostly one at a time. You seem to have an issue imagining particular sensations. — Vince

So, according to you,

1. The perception of reality interferes with the capacity to daydream vividly

Ergo,

2. We're unable to activate all our senses when daydreaming to produce an experience indistinguishable from reality.

How come "the perception of reality" doesn't have any effect on imaginations that are eye-specific? Why inhibit one sense while letting another sense have a field day?

First off, I'm not interested in the kind of thought experiment that deals in imagining being something nonhuman (like an apple). Second, I don't mind speculating on the issue but if your claim - that you can perfectly simulate nonvisual sensations is true - there should be some well-documented case. A reference I could crosscheck would be really helpful. Thanks. — TheMadFool

lol I didn't say imagine being an apple. I said imagine an apple before you.
And I didn't say I can perfectly simulate nonvisual sensations. Whatever, you seem on the defensive a bit.

I'll leave you to search for well documented cases of perfectly simulated nonvisual sensations if you want.

get the odor of tobacco on fire with your imaginary cigarette?

What does it mean to get odor of tobacco on fire with an imaginary cigarette then, if its not a metaphor?
It almost sounds like synesthesia.

Our minds can, via imaginative ability, create simulations - virtual realities if you like - BUT the simulations are always partial/incomplete. In the example above, I can see the golden sand, I can see the rock I told you about, I can also see myself touch it BUT I can't feel the rock.

What gives? — TheMadFool

What gives is that you're making an unjustified generalization. People differ in how well they can simulate things, via different senses.

Also, maybe you damaged your sense of smell with smoking.

What gives is that you're making an unjustified generalization. People differ in how well they can simulate things, via different senses. — baker

My stance is that people can't imagine smells/tastes/touch/sounds as they can visual images or if they can only to a lesser extent.

You claim that this is a hasty generalization. Do you have any references to back this up?

And I didn't say I can perfectly simulate nonvisual sensations. — Yohan

References please. Thank you.

I'll leave you to search for well documented cases of perfectly simulated nonvisual sensations if you want. — Yohan

Chickening out, I see. :grin:

synesthesia — Yohan

Now that's a good lead. Thank you. However, synesthesia is involuntary and also predominantly visual.

My stance is that people can't imagine smells/tastes/touch/sounds as they can visual images or if they can only to a lesser extent. — TheMadFool

You made your claim first. What do you have to back it up?

You made your claim first. What do you have to back it up? — baker

Imagination (Merriam-Webster Dictionary): The act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality.

No nention of senses other than vision!

Be a sport and give some references for your claim. This isn't a child's game of you said/did it first.

I can see the golden sand, I can see the rock I told you about, I can also see myself touch it BUT I can't feel the rock. — TheMadFool

Imagining is a kind of thinking and thoughts are mainly mental images. That's why your vision is the strongest sense.

Your other senses may be present but on a much lower intensity or even not at all. However, imagining is a kind of thinking and it resembles a lot to remembering. That's why sometimes we are not sure whether what seems as a factual memory of the past or created by our imagination. So, to make imagination stronger for other senses than vision, we can "borrow" from actually experienced sounds, smells, tastes and touches. E.g. you can taste the sand in your imagined stay in the desert, by remembering e.g. the disgusting taste and/or feeling you had once eating sand in a beach. You can also hear the sound of the wind that blows and the sand that moves by it, by remembering some experience you had on a beach. And so on. BTW, most often this happens automatically and w/o effort.

Have you tried that?

I was wondering how if our senses don't give an accurate picture of reality, it would aid us in survival? That goes against the received wisdom that to be in touch with reality is key to living a happy and healthy life (most cases of death and injury occur when we believe falsehoods or ignore facts). — TheMadFool

In his analogy with icons on a computer screen, Hoffman explains how a low-resolution representation of Reality is good-enough to keep us alive long enough to reproduce. Computer users interact with crude icons that represent messy reality in abstract outline, while hiding the complex mechanical and information-processing going on down below the surface.

However, philosophers, and scientists, (unlike most animals) are not content with "good-enough", and bare survival. Instead, they strive, not for pragmatic Science, but for ideal Omniscience ; not for adapting ourselves to the world, but for modifying Nature to suit human nature. :cool:

Interface Reality :
In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality. Donald Hoffman calls those mental models “Icons”, serving as symbols that merely represent the unseen information processes within the computer system.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Note -- According to Hoffman, our symbolic interface gives an adequate (not accurate) picture of reality


Icon :
Semiotics. a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it.
Note -- our senses and brains convert incoming signals from the environment (that are already encoded into abstract patterns of color & contrast) into neural patterns, that are abstracted further, and merged with prior knowledge from memory, into the low resolution patterns we call thoughts and ideas. Although those ideas are merely crude analogies of reality, they form our beliefs about reality. So, yes, we can be deluded by incomplete representations (perhaps based on "fake news") into believing falsehoods. Fortunately, some of us are aware of that pitfall, and take steps to make our symbols & icons & beliefs more accurate, by obtaining more & more detailed information to flesh-out our not-quite-good-enough mental models..

I wonder if introverts tend to have more vivid imaginations, since introverts tend to be more withdrawn. A friend of mine with aphantasia is very uninhibited. TheMadFool comes off as a quite uninhibited extrovert as well. — Yohan

I used inhibited regarding the senses, in terms of restriction of perception. The uninhibition your describe is related to restriction of actions. Is there a correlation between both? I don't know.

Even hallucinations aren't that complete. That's the point I believe — TheMadFool

There are different degrees of hallucinations. They can be incomplete but some are complete enough to make you think they're real without any doubt. That's the point I'm interested in.

Different topic I believe.
— Vince
Why did you bring it up? — TheMadFool

I was referring to this:

There's the possibility that life could be a dream and then to realize that would qualify as a lucid dream. — TheMadFool

The "life could be a dream" thing. I don't think that, and that's a different conversation.

You're onto something or so I feel. — TheMadFool

Indeed, I find the dream world fascinating.

You brought up an issue that's been at the back of my mind for quite some time now - that we aren't really aware of the actual processes (neuronal firing) that goes into thinking & perception (have I left anything out?). So the computer icon metaphor fits like a glove - we simply see the results (fully formed thoughts & perceptions), completely oblivious to the mechanisms involved. :up:

What, may I ask, does this have to do with our inability to imagine smells, tastes, touch, sounds like we can sights?

When someone says I'm imagining X, he means it he can see it with his oculus mentis and definitely not that he can smell, touch, taste, or hear X.

References?

Imagining is a kind of thinking and thoughts are mainly mental images. That's why your vision is the strongest sense.

Your other senses may be present but on a much lower intensity or even not at all. However, imagining is a kind of thinking and it resembles a lot to remembering. That's why sometimes we are not sure whether what seems as a factual memory of the past or created by our imagination. So, to make imagination stronger for other senses than vision, we can "borrow" from actually experienced sounds, smells, tastes and touches. E.g. you can taste the sand in your imagined stay in the desert, by remembering e.g. the disgusting taste and/or feeling you had once eating sand in a beach. You can also hear the sound of the wind that blows and the sand that moves by it, by remembering some experience you had on a beach. And so on. BTW, most often this happens automatically and w/o effort.

Have you tried that? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, but WHY? A webage I found claims that those who are congenitally blind dream in sounds and surely their imagination can't be in images - they lack sight.

References — TheMadFool

For lucid dreaming
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge

His first book is really popular.

surely their imagination can't be in images - they lack sight — TheMadFool

You can be born blind and still have a visual cortex. In absence of visual stimuli from the eyes, I'm quite sure the brain will have reallocated the space to process other senses, and because the visual cortex is meant to give you images, blind people may be seeing sounds, and not just in dreams but also when they're awake.

:up: Thanks