What gives? — TheMadFool
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. — Outlander
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 Or to be more upbeat, somewhere greater where we are no longer dictated by satisfying our woefully outdated evolutionary wants and needs.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
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”.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
why are we incapable of deliberately switching on all the senses when we daydream to produce an experience indistinguishable from reality itself — 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”. — Gnomon
Our senses evolved really for one purpose - survival - but survival and the true nature of reality are two different subjects. — Brian Greene
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'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
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
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
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 think you are assuming what you can or can't do is the norm.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
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
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
There's the possibility that life could be a dream and then to realize that would qualify as a lucid dream. — TheMadFool
What's your point though? — TheMadFool
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
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
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.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 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.If yes, how do you do it? I'm curious. — TheMadFool
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.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 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
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
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
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
Different topic I believe. — Vince
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
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
lol I didn't say imagine being an apple. I said imagine an apple before you.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
What does it mean to get odor of tobacco on fire with an imaginary cigarette then, if its not a metaphor?get the odor of tobacco on fire with your imaginary cigarette?
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. — baker
And I didn't say I can perfectly simulate nonvisual sensations. — Yohan
I'll leave you to search for well documented cases of perfectly simulated nonvisual sensations if you want. — Yohan
synesthesia — Yohan
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? — baker
Imagining is a kind of thinking and thoughts are mainly mental images. That's why your vision is the strongest sense.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
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.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
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
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.Even hallucinations aren't that complete. That's the point I believe — TheMadFool
I was referring to this:Different topic I believe.
— Vince
Why did you bring it up? — TheMadFool
The "life could be a dream" thing. I don't think that, and that's a different conversation.There's the possibility that life could be a dream and then to realize that would qualify as a lucid dream. — TheMadFool
Indeed, I find the dream world fascinating.You're onto something or so I feel. — 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? — Alkis Piskas
References — TheMadFool
surely their imagination can't be in images - they lack sight — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.