# Hyperreal VR and the future of humans / ETIs **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Mind\ **Created:** [August 9, 2026, 4:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194 "2026-08-09T16:04:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2026, 4:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/1 "2026-08-09T16:04:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2026, 6:36pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/2 "2026-08-09T18:36:07Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > There’s a danger of losing all attachment to the **real** world. This suggests one of my favorite solutions to “Fermi’s Paradox”: _ETs stay home exploring **simulated** universes._ 🖖 👽 ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 11:57am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/3 "2026-08-10T11:57:40Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 12:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/4 "2026-08-10T12:26:10Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > 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…? 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. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > 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 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. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 2:02pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/5 "2026-08-10T14:02:28Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > 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_. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 2:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/6 "2026-08-10T14:41:40Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > 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? 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. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > 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? 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. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > Vision and perception are a great deal deeper, and more complex, than your OP considers, I think? 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. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 3:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/7 "2026-08-10T15:21:13Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > 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. Really? I thought the following text, from your OP, said something pretty close to that. See for yourself: > [@Mijin1](#): > > 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.** Did I misunderstand something? ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 3:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/8 "2026-08-10T15:26:51Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > The thing you’re **implying** is impossible has been done. 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. > [@Mijin1](#): > > 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. 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… ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 3:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/9 "2026-08-10T15:44:55Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > Did I misunderstand something? Yes: the sentence preceding the one you highlighted. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > 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. “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. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 4:08pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/10 "2026-08-10T16:08:11Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > “Imply” is not a dirty word. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 4:15pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/11 "2026-08-10T16:15:18Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > Such as, if you offer the optic nerve much more than it has evolved to accept, then what? For the **fourth** time, nobody suggested this. This is your idea of communicating with honesty, clarity and courtesy? ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 4:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/12 "2026-08-10T16:20:56Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > > [@PatternChaser](#): > > > > Such as, if you offer the optic nerve much more than it has evolved to accept, then what? > > For the **fourth** time, nobody suggested this. I think you did exactly that, here in your OP: > [@Mijin1](#): > > Directly stimulating the optic nerve won’t have that problem \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* > [@Mijin1](#): > > This is your idea of communicating with honesty, clarity and courtesy? Oh, I can be wrong, or misunderstand, as anyone can. But I don’t think I was wrong, in this instance. 👍 ---
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 4:48pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/13 "2026-08-10T16:48:14Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 4:51pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/14 "2026-08-10T16:51:24Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 5:35pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/15 "2026-08-10T17:35:59Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > I think you did exactly that, here in your OP No: directly stimulating the optic nerve =/= “offer the optic nerve much more than it has evolved to accept” As I said in the OP, I meant things like the fact that the will have not been any refraction / diffraction of that image, unlike real vision. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2026, 5:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/16 "2026-08-10T17:38:48Z")
> [@invicta](#): > > What you’re suggesting is to create individual bubbles, disconnecting you from your fellow man. 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. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2026, 12:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/17 "2026-08-11T12:10:33Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > > [@PatternChaser](#): > > > > I think you did exactly that, here in your OP > > No: directly stimulating the optic nerve =/= “offer the optic nerve much more than it has evolved to accept” Ah, sorry; it looked that way to me, and from your words. > [@Mijin1](#): > > As I said in the OP, I meant things like the fact that the will have not been any refraction / diffraction of that image, unlike real vision. You wrote more about the shortcomings of rods and cones, not diffraction. But OK. 👍 ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2026, 4:40pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/18 "2026-08-11T16:40:58Z")
> [@invicta](#): > > I think that’s kinda sad… what next instead of a real partner you buy a sex doll? Those are not mutually exclusive options, y’know. 😏 ---
**Author:** ![Punshhh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Punshhh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Punshhh)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2026, 8:33am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/19 "2026-08-12T08:33:16Z")
Are you thinking what I’m thinking? ![IMG_4543](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/uploads/thephilosophyforum/original/2X/f/f2ef564b1daad0a3037248c9918def0fb3212f9d.webp) ---
**Author:** ![Punshhh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Punshhh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Punshhh)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2026, 8:37am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/hyperreal-vr-and-the-future-of-humans-etis/2194/20 "2026-08-12T08:37:47Z")
I don’t wish to lower the tone. I’m with you regarding hyperVR. But also I see a future (distant) where VR itself would be superseded.