<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/02/2024 17:32, Tara Maya wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.24.1707845575.1312.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<pre>No one can have an experience at Will if the circumstances of that
experience aren’t real; they can only have the illusion of an
experience.
You could recreate a memory or a fantasy of hearing a mariachi band but
unless the band of other people were there, you’d not be experiencing
the band itself only the simulacra of the band.
A painting is not the thing it portrays.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Real? Define 'real', in this context.<br>
<br>
Do you accept that we create the world that we experience? That each
person builds a world from their sensory inputs, and for them, that
is 'the world'?<br>
<br>
If so, then there is no problem, and an 'illusion' of an experience
is the same thing as the experience.<br>
<br>
If not, then you have to explain how we can apprehend the 'real'
world without actually creating it in our own minds.<br>
<br>
In this particular case, of minds, the map is the important thing,
not the territory. We never, ever, experience the territory, just
the map that we create in our own heads (built from many sensory and
memory inputs). The painting is all we ever know about. What it
portrays is forever beyond our reach. A high-quality reproduction of
the painting is just as good as the original painting, in every
respect.<br>
<br>
Therefore, experiencing a simulacrum of a mariachi band is identical
to 'really' experiencing the band. 'Reality' is what we create in
our heads.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>