So I was relaxing while leaning back in my chair, a significant distance away from the monitor, and I saw something that should have been “physically” impossible.
I have nearsightedness and I now wear a deliberately weak prescription glasses so that I can practice my eyesight (I’m am a bit lazy about it though, so I end up not really practicing all that much, but that’s the logic behind my deliberately weaker than needed prescription here).
So what I saw was very clear text on a background of fuzzy text, which is extremely strange. I mean, the text should either be fuzzy or clear but not both at once, which makes zero “physical” sense. However I saw very clear text as though overlaid on top of the fuzzy gray stuff that would have been produced by the nearsighted perception of that same text.
From the POV of subjective idealism what I saw isn’t surprising, because what I am looking into isn’t some external object, but a state of my own inner expectation/will. Since when I am looking out I am not literally looking outside myself, but I am merely examining the state of my world-building will, then of course this can be rendered in pretty much arbitrary ways and what I see doesn’t need to abide physical limitations.
All in all this is a relatively minor phenomenon, but it’s kind of curious, so I decided to make a note of it here.
Within a physicalist pov, the phenomenal expirience of seeing “blur letters” is accompanied by the inference/knowing/interpretation that there is a “true alternative version of the sight” + which is being imperfectly apprehended by a imperfect instrument. From an idealist point of view, as mind is instantiating the image directly to itself, so as it appear so it is, and there are infinite “alternatives” to the blur version and interpretations to be associated…
Originally commented by u/Alshimur on 2018-03-07 23:47:58 (dvbg3ol)
I Know that it is 101 s.i, but besides my desire to write I also wish too see if someone can unfold a more sophisticated discourse in the same line.
Originally commented by u/Alshimur on 2018-03-07 23:55:45 (dvbge02)
I don’t entirely agree here, because my subjective idealism is a strongly anti-realist variety. Meaning, appearances for me are suggestive and are not informative, and they don’t reflect “how it is” at all, but maybe one way things could be (but aren’t).
I like your comment, don’t get me wrong.
I think where you are correct is that for a physicalist the sense that a crisp vision is the right vision while a blurry one is incorrect is associated with the notion of an external world. It’s assumed the external world is crisp.
However, for a subjective idealist the sense of visionary rightness can also exist, but it doesn’t depend on a notion of externality of some world or objects, but rather, on a notion of one’s highest visions, what one strives to see. So I can reject my sensory experience if it’s not according to my striving. And with anti-realist thinking that’s something I do quite often.
The idea that once you have seen something, “you’ve been informed” by that vision, is very pernicious and very mind-fixating.
Like imagine this. You’re facing a closed door of a room you haven’t visited yet. Before you open the door, your mind is somewhat open to what it can discover in that room. So you know it won’t be a pink elephant. And you know behind that door is not some galactic void. And you know there won’t be a horned rabbit. So you’re not completely open-minded even before you’ve seen the room. But you think maybe there are tables and chairs, or maybe not. Maybe there is a sofa there or not. Stuff like that.
Then once you open the door and see, there is a strong fixating mental imprint, bam, “I have been informed.” “Now I know!” So this sense that now you know leaves very little wiggle room. Once you see that there is a couch there, it will be very hard to close to door and open it again to see a table.
Some of this sense of informedness is thanks to the held externality (external to mind) of the world. But I claim not all. In contrast to anti-realist subjective idealists like me there are realist idealists (who are often non-subjective as well). For them sensoria are a reflection of ‘how it is’ but this ‘how it is’ is not external. Still, since “what you see is what there is” in realist and often non-subjective varieties of idealism, there is still a fixating quality to sensory experience even for many idealists.
In practical terms that’s even true for me because I have my ex-physicalist mental habits after all, and they won’t go away in a day.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2018-03-08 04:23:30 (dvbvplk)
Why creating it in the first place?
How do you rationalize the fact of inflicting this (unpleasant, I assume) nearsightedness on yourself?
Originally commented by u/JohnnyStyle on 2018-03-08 05:18:28 (dvbzerq)
There will be some experience always. The specifics can change, but even experiencing “nothing” is still experience.
So the choice pertains to the specifics, but there is no choice to simply stop experiencing altogether.
My condition has many reasons which I’ve discussed in the past in great detail.
May I ask why are you here on this sub? What’s your motivation?
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2018-03-08 05:34:51 (dvc0ipk)
I wasn’t referring to the act of creating experiences in general.
I meant “Why creating unpleasant experiences?”
My inability to find a plausible way to solve the apparent contradiction between the existence of bad things and the idea of being the creator of my experience.
Originally commented by u/JohnnyStyle on 2018-03-08 16:44:58 (dvd30zi)
Do you understand the concept of othering? In SI what you’re talking about is a solved problem and it’s solved by understanding othering, aka disowning. It’s when you deliberately disown and “other” an aspect of your own experience. This results in a number of features: a) an appearance of environment where there was no such appearance before, b) automatisms, c) appearance of beings with seemingly independent wills. Many of these can be considered “good” features, however, othering also brings with it the possibility of experience “going rogue.” Othering is not binary, but exists on a spectrum of less and more. An example of an experience with relatively slight othering is a lucid dream, where there is still an appearance of an environment and independently willed beings (dream characters), however, generally things in an LD go your way, you have influence or even outright control over all the scenarios, superpowers, etc.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2018-03-10 01:02:18 (dvfidqo)
Does the thought “Why am I doing this to myself?” ever cross your mind when you struggle with your eyesight?
Or you simply think “No big deal, it’s just a normal side-effect of my ‘humaning’ around…”
What does make your experience go rogue? Of course, it’s you.
If SI is true, this can’t happen “by itself”.
So, the question remains: why would you deliberately add unpleasant aspects to your experience?
Let’s call it “subjective theodicy”.
I’ve already heard seemingly plausible answers:
Bored god playing the pretend-I’m-a-human game.
Choosing a particular life challenge to learn something.
Purposefully experiencing bad things to better appreciate good things.
Self-limiting to experience growth.
But they’re all logically flawed.
An omnipotent being doesn’t need to actually go through “simulations”.
Originally commented by u/JohnnyStyle on 2018-03-11 18:47:43 (dvipgfh)
Never. I fully understand my condition.
If I disown something, of course it’s me who is disowning it. However, what happens to an experience in a disowned state? I will no longer feel like it’s my doing. That’s the whole point of disowning to begin with, to get a sense of something happening as though on its own. It’s not on its own, but is experienced as though it is, and so for many (not all, but many) intents and purposes, it can be treated as something independent.
Need is not the only motivational force.
I don’t want to argue with you. It seems you’re ideologically charged.
Let me ask you one more time, why are you here on this sub? What’s your motivation for being here?
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2018-03-13 05:41:45 (dvl6kjv)
I liked very much your commentary, it was better than what I was expecting, thank you for take the time. I agree wholeheartedly with your judgement about the importance of taking appearance as sugestive instead of informative. I could express my perspective like that: There are no “how things are” before I have willed my experience to appear as if it were the case, I’m the last authority over my dream, independently of the actual state of it in principle I retain access to infinite possibilities.
Originally commented by u/Alshimur on 2018-03-08 07:31:39 (dvc8bhc)
I agree with this exactly. This is exactly the kind of idea I like discussing, and its implications.
Thank you for your comments.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2018-03-08 08:31:57 (dvccdbo)