In the relatively near future it may be possible for humans to experience constructed worlds that feel significantly more real, and have more varied experiences, than real life does.
The tech I have in mind concerns directly stimulating sensory regions of the brain, and so what I mean by “relatively near” is in the next few centuries.
For example, everything you’ve ever seen has been a bit fuzzy, by virtual of light needing to pass through a layer of cells, and the slightly chaotic firing of sensory rods and cones in your eye.
Directly stimulating the optic nerve won’t have that problem, so will seem much more vivid than the real world does.
So ISTM that at that future time, most people who could access this technology would spend most of their time in that system; using it for work and socializing as well as play. I think we’ll only return to the hazy, slow, repetitive world for essential tasks.
In my view, it’s a positive thing, but with clear risks. There’s a danger of losing all attachment to the real world.
I don’t think your sci-fi idea survives the transition into RL? It’s like you are suggesting improving my Trabant, adding top-standard high-tech tyres, to transform it into a Ferrari…?
Improving sensation is one thing, but the process of perception embraces a great deal more than sensation. Do you think a human brain capable of the accelerated processing that higher-resolution eyes would require?
I was stunned, some years ago, when I started to look into what happens when we ‘see’ stuff, and how our eyes/vision works.
I don’t see why. Also I emphasized that I am talking about centuries here, because when I’ve raised this topic previously it’s been interpreted as me suggesting everyone is going to wear a Quest headset all the time; something which gets nauseating within ~45 mins for most people.
That’s not what I am saying at all.
I didn’t mention higher resolution, I mentioned only removing the fuzziness from our vision. This would actually reduce the post-processing that needs to be done by the brain
…which could potentially cause problems of its own. When a part of the cortex goes from heavily taxed to essentially useless, it can lead to pathologies in some cases like e.g. phantom limbs. But this is a different point I think from the one you’re raising.
In terms of higher resolution specifically (or things like seeing more colours), the answer of course is we don’t know if the brain would be able to handle that input. But going by how adaptable the brain is, I wouldn’t wager my own money that the limit is exactly where sensory data lies today.
Our eyes are ‘scanned’ 4 times per second — search for “saccades” — and it takes our brains around 250 ms to process what it scanned, and integrate it into the dynamic world models that we all carry and use. If you add, or substitute, a higher-resolution source than eyes, how often would you expect a brain to each ‘frame’, to use TV tech jargon?
And, if we assume that your new vision-source includes some preprocessing that eyes do not do, where in the brain/mind would you plug it in? Not into the optic nerves, that lead signals to existing processing facilities.
Vision and perception are a great deal deeper, and more complex, than your OP considers, I think?
******************
But this is not philosophy, I think this is bioscience or neuroscience.
I don’t know, because resolution and framerate are two different things. The neurochemistry of the brain limits the speed at which anything can happen, but the “bandwidth” of the brain is immense.
But I am not making a claim either way. You seem to be.
Again, the scenario I describe in the OP requires less preprocessing.
In terms of your question though, firstly we don’t know that the system is maxed out now, and secondly the brain does form new connections; a neural implant can, with practice, form a new kind of sensory input for the patient. The thing you’re implying is impossible has been done.
Once again; I am talking speculatively about technology in multiple centuries’ time. I don’t think you’ve made a good argument for why this is not possible. And that’s even within the context of talking about increasing the resolution of the eye, which was a concept that you brought up, not me.
Aside: I’m autistic. I have so deep a commitment to honesty that you would find it … weird. And I make no use of implication or writing ‘between the lines’. I say only what I mean; I mean only what I say. I speak (and write) explicitly: the words I write openly contain all the meaning that I intend. There’s no reason why you would or should have known this, but it’s true.
Well spotted! I have made no such argument, as I am not aware of any such arguments.
I’ve been commenting on how existing bio-wetware might respond to your sci-fi additions…
Yes: the sentence preceding the one you highlighted.
“Imply” is not a dirty word.
Your question about where additional preprocessing would “plug in” was clearly the justification for you then suggesting that this is more complex than the OP…it’s perfectly fine for you to do that, without walking through the logical connection, because we’re both trying to communicate in good faith.
And it’s good faith of me to reiterate and ensure we’re on the same page.
So, if this wasn’t the implication of what you were saying, then feel free to clarify.
It is to me. To me, it ‘implies’ () a lack of clarity. I try always to communicate with honesty, clarity and courtesy.
I don’t think we are close to the ‘same page’. Your suggestions seem to ignore a lot of important things. Such as, if you offer the optic nerve much more than it has evolved to accept, then what?
VR would be an unhealthy distraction from the real world.
life is already full of richness and complexity to provide and challenge humanity to do better, to improve and make the world a better place. What you’re suggesting is to create individual bubbles, disconnecting you from your fellow man. I think that’s kinda sad… what next instead of a real partner you buy a sex doll?
What exactly is real to your perspective? To paraphrase/quote one of my favorite characters, “Ive stopped trying to figure out what is real years ago.”
I’m not talking about vr headsets.
I’m talking about a much more rich environment that can be produced today. And there’s no reason why it can’t be a shared experience.
That was part of the suggestion that people might live and work in such environments.
is not philosophy, I think this is bioscience or neuroscience.
And I make no use of implication or writing ‘between the lines’. I say only what I mean; I mean only what I say. I speak (and write) explicitly: the words I write openly contain all the meaning that I intend. There’s no reason why you would or should have known this, but it’s true.
