|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Kickle]
#28591002 - 12/20/23 08:31 AM (1 month, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: Does anyone think that errors, mistakes, misunderstandings, etc. can fall into the category of mistaking imagination for reality?
if imagination is perception, yes. perception is often in error, as it uses incomplete matching to resolve from experiences in memory. It can be no other way in our biology.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 31 minutes
|
|
This is actually the result of finding out about a really old (1910) psychological study.
The researcher put a projector screen up and asked participants to stare at the blank screen. Then while staring, to imagine a fruit, book, or tree on the blank screen. After a while, she would project an actual image of a fruit, book, or tree onto the screen itself.
Participants had a tough time recognizing any transition. Sometimes they would wonder why their imagined fruit was in a new orientation, but still think it was just their imagination. Or sometimes they would recognize that there was now something on the screen, but claim that some aspect of their imagination was really there too, such as a title for a book even though the actual image projected had no title at all.
In total people had a very difficult time knowing what was real vs. imagined in the experiment. And so it became known as The Perky Effect. Neurologically speaking in more modern times we understand that many of the same visual cortex neurons are firing when you imagine seeing something as when you actually see something. So from the brains standpoint, it can be quite difficult to differentiate.
But obviously we don't always become confused. So there is probably something contextually unique about the original Perky study. I maintain that vibrancy plays a role here. How bright or clear was a 1910's projector? I also think that having a trusted authority who says the screen is blank is sort of priming expectation, which also has an effect on perception. And many other factors of course. While the study is interesting in it's own right, it was early and many cognitive and psychological concepts we understand today as influencing outcome were not taken into account. But it planted a seed of curiosity as to how we do manage to distinguish relatively easily the difference between imagination and reality in day-to-day life.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Lithop
Spaghetti Days


Registered: 04/09/22
Posts: 764
Loc: 🛸
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Kickle] 1
#28591153 - 12/20/23 10:30 AM (1 month, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
loladoreen said: I've never experienced not knowing if something is real
Bold claim!
Quote:
Kickle said: It seems consistency is important for determining realness?
Could be helpful to track but it has to be a certain type of consistancy... Phobias or intrusive thoughts could be seen as the entire flipside of that coin of consistancy in relation to realness.
Quote:
Kickle said: I personally think intensity or vividness is important. An imagined image tends to be less vibrant and less visually strong. I also think when someone says of a dream "it felt more real than real' it is a reference to intensity or vividness.
Tough, the first part on the importance of vividness seems to clash with the second of those feeling a dream to be realer than real. Example: if I'm going through a depressive spell things may get really dulled/ washed out which lends the 'real' life a sense of 'unreality' but when dreaming, that place or experience feels more vivid, lending the 'unreal' a bigger sense of being 'real' than what we could all class as the actual real. Probably could be additionally helpful but I don't think intensity or vividness should be included as factors to consider when looking for the reality threshhold. Tripping also tells that when mingling with & THROUGH the reality threshold, things can be REAL intense and vivid!

Quote:
Kickle said: I've given some thought to sudly's posts and might summarize the view as judgement. We make judgement calls on things and trust our judgement. Judgement being perhaps a combination of many of the elements described thus far.
Quote:
Details that match prior experience (object consistency?) Science (controlled replicability) Spacial consistency Consistency acrosses additional sensory modalities
PLUS Holds up to/compatible with (measured) judgment.

Quote:
Kickle said: Does anyone think that errors, mistakes, misunderstandings, etc. can fall into the category of mistaking imagination for reality?
Yeah they can IMO.
Quote:
Blue Cthulhu said:
I thought Kickle was training us!?
He may well be... *adds Blue Cthulu to list of suspected bots*
 Tell me, if you don't mind, which looks more appealing; Option A
 or
Option B
 Don't worry, there's no right or wrong answer!
Quote:
Kickle said: ...Perky Effect...
That was interesting! Maybe vibrancy/intensity does play a part in how much attention/where we place our stakes these situations, as you said. Should ask RGV RE: strength of projectors- his one from 12 yrs old seems to date it to around 1910 by my maths, coinciding nicely w/ the study. But I definitely fall foul of somethin akin to this effect quite often when high where I'll see- text for example- as a different word, often a word related to my train of thought then I double take and see the actual word/object/ whatever. It's all extremely brief and seems to speak to some idea of projecting (the projection going out mixing with the stimuli coming in or something...)
--------------------
🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿ 🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿ 🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Lithop]
#28591271 - 12/20/23 11:54 AM (1 month, 8 days ago) |
|
|
vibrance, or persistence, aka frame-stacking from emotional or psychedelic, adds to the quality and quantity/duration of the content, and thereby increases the access to the memory via more potential contextual perceptions.
access is what makes memory seem more significant. when we cannot access a memory we may say we forgot, but it may simply be inaccessible in the current context.
everything we think of is real, but not always outside of our thoughts.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 31 minutes
|
|
In the below, imagery is defined as imagined [visual imagery] and perception is defined as externally existing [imagery].
Quote:
Taken together, our results reveal a subjective intermixing of imagery and perception, leading to widespread perceptual reality monitoring failure in large general population samples. The success of a signal detection model in capturing these data patterns indicates that reality monitoring may be implemented simply by comparing sensory signals against a reality threshold. Such a model is parsimonious and powerful, but also has profound implications. In particular, a consequence of this account is that it predicts when virtual or imagined sensory signals are strong or detailed enough, they become indistinguishable from reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37322-1
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Kickle]
#28591383 - 12/20/23 01:02 PM (1 month, 8 days ago) |
|
|
For nuance.
Quote:
However, visual imagery is often also triggered automatically, outside of voluntary control and, despite the absence of a clear intention in these instances, such involuntary imagery is generally still not mistaken for reality. This is because under this model imagery and perception are always distinguishable, even if they overlap in content (the congruent condition).
When deciding whether an experience reflects external reality or internal imagination, our model compares the strength of this experience to a reality threshold. But if reality and imagination are subjectively intermixed by default, why do we not confuse them more often in daily life? We suggest that such confusions are rare simply because imagery is typically less vivid than veridical perception, rarely crossing the reality threshold. However, these results also suggest that if imagery does become vivid or strong enough, it will be indistinguishable from perception.
This hypothesis is in line with our findings that people who reported higher imagery vividness in general (on the trials preceding the critical trial) were more likely to exhibit failures of perceptual reality monitoring. Furthermore, more vivid imagery has been associated with an increased probability of experiencing hallucinations in both clinical60,61 as well as non-clinical populations
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Lithop
Spaghetti Days


Registered: 04/09/22
Posts: 764
Loc: 🛸
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: access is what makes memory seem more significant. when we cannot access a memory we may say we forgot, but it may simply be inaccessible in the current context.
everything we think of is real, but not always outside of our thoughts.
But does this mean the more often/ readily accessed memory is real or just that we consider it to be?
Quote:
Kickle said: In the below, imagery is defined as imagined [visual imagery] and perception is defined as externally existing [imagery].
Quote:
Kickle said: "In particular, a consequence of this account is that it predicts when virtual or imagined sensory signals are strong or detailed enough, they become indistinguishable from reality."
'Central sensitisation' can happen with some chronic medical conditions, as consequence the perception of pain becomes warped, causing the incorrect ID of non painful stimuli as painful. The senses are tricked once again, similar to the visual mis ID. There may, then be the equivilent misperception for each of the senses. With those so succeptable and as suggested with RGV above: the fact even our memory is subject to bias and jank of some sort in what it offers up to us... Not easy to define a threshold of 'reality' when all that shit is in play.

:edit:
Quote:
sudly said: "But if reality and imagination are subjectively intermixed by default, why do we not confuse them more often in daily life? We suggest that such confusions are rare simply because imagery is typically less vivid than veridical perception, rarely crossing the reality threshold. However, these results also suggest that if imagery does become vivid or strong enough, it will be indistinguishable from perception."
So it becomes "indistinguishable" from the persons perception yet they don't confuse it with their reality? Where is the discernable threshold in that?
Edited by Lithop (12/20/23 01:10 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Kickle]
#28591407 - 12/20/23 01:22 PM (1 month, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: In the below, imagery is defined as imagined [visual imagery] and perception is defined as externally existing [imagery].
Quote:
Taken together, our results reveal a subjective intermixing of imagery and perception, leading to widespread perceptual reality monitoring failure in large general population samples. The success of a signal detection model in capturing these data patterns indicates that reality monitoring may be implemented simply by comparing sensory signals against a reality threshold. Such a model is parsimonious and powerful, but also has profound implications. In particular, a consequence of this account is that it predicts when virtual or imagined sensory signals are strong or detailed enough, they become indistinguishable from reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37322-1
I realize that perception is commonly conflated with sensation, however, we can sense something and not perceive what it is. in that case the memory has not chimed in with any perceptive reflexes. in the text you have imagination and you do not have memory. from my point of view, memory is the substrate, and we are always making new memory at ~10 engrams per second more or less, what comes out of memory is the perceptive reflex which could be called imagination or speech or movement or thought.
as for what is real or more real than anything else, well, we do expect perceptive glitching, and so we recheck and recheck, normally. in fact all of our movements and social discourse is managed by rechecking even as we speak and move because the expectation is that other things and people can be moving and reacting to our presence and expressions.
if we do not recheck while moving or interacting, we will stumble or seem out of touch.
In OCD people overdo the rechecking - they call it the doubting disease, and essentially this question about what is really real pertains very much to OCD.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Lithop
Spaghetti Days


Registered: 04/09/22
Posts: 764
Loc: 🛸
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: as for what is real or more real than anything else, well, we do expect perceptive glitching, and so we recheck and recheck, normally. in fact all of our movements and social discourse is managed by rechecking even as we speak and move because the expectation is that other things and people can be moving and reacting to our presence and expressions.
if we do not recheck while moving or interacting, we will stumble or seem out of touch.
In OCD people overdo the rechecking - they call it the doubting disease, and essentially this question about what is really real pertains very much to OCD.
So much of human behaviour. The above reminded me of, on Rigpa in Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoches commentary of Bardo Thodol: "If understanding something founded on the logic of a critical attitude, then your wisdom is based on extremely solid and definite ground; it is unshakable. But the other aspect of it is the realm of hell, when the critical attitude does not relate to solidity or base sanity of any kind, but sets off a chain reaction, an alarm bell so to speak, of paranoia." Paranoia needs a perception of 'reality' to function so how do you think we can hone in on point where considering a potential problem becomes paranoia, 'the threshold'?
--------------------
🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿ 🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿ 🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Lithop]
#28591444 - 12/20/23 02:00 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
The Bardo Thodol is an ancient text, and I do not agree with the model it presents of mind and wisdom and paranoia.
Too much of that document has circular definitions. I would say that to the face of the Dalai Lama or any Rinpoche.
however "critical attitude" can be interpreted as awareness with rechecking, and in that case I agree with the basic sanity of it, it is not however other than a natural way of being, so I would not consider it especially part of a practice, even a spider will do this.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1CxutqLxLg/
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Lithop
Spaghetti Days


Registered: 04/09/22
Posts: 764
Loc: 🛸
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: The Bardo Thodol is an ancient text, and I do not agree with the model it presents of mind and wisdom and paranoia.
Too much of that document has circular definitions.
I enjoy the document and have gotten a lot of food for thought from it. So how would you personally define paranoia, in the context of it as a metric which we can use in seeking the threshold between the real and unreal? Or is it even applicable?
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I would say that to the face of the Dalai Lama or any Rinpoche.


Quote:
redgreenvines said: however "critical attitude" can be interpreted as awareness with rechecking, and in that case I agree with the basic sanity of it, it is not however other than a natural way of being, so I would not consider it especially part of a practice, even a spider will do this.
I agree on the critical attitude point. In context what is the base if not a part of practise? I see it as the ground/bottom layer/pre requisite from which we approach our practise. Sure it (a basic, undistorted awareness or attitude) exists in other contexts but I disagree with saying 'natural way of being' isn't a part of practise. You could say the natural way of being "no thought of what is called 'just as it is' " is as real as it gets. But it still leaves the OP question open.
--------------------
🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿ 🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿ 🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Lithop]
#28591485 - 12/20/23 02:32 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
you do not have to practice being natural, but you might have to practice calming down and keeping out of the way of being natural, i.e. practice not adding so much imagination (perceptive reflex) that it is impossible to get a clean shot of what is happening - this is the crux of the reality threshold issue.
I had tons of good insight from Bardo Thodol too, but same with tarot cards bible etc. these are valid efforts to model life in different ways using archaic terms, but they are not accurate representations even in archaic terms, so if you do meet the Buddha in the middle of the road who you gonna call?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Lithop]
#28591488 - 12/20/23 02:34 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lithop said:
Quote:
sudly said: "But if reality and imagination are subjectively intermixed by default, why do we not confuse them more often in daily life? We suggest that such confusions are rare simply because imagery is typically less vivid than veridical perception, rarely crossing the reality threshold. However, these results also suggest that if imagery does become vivid or strong enough, it will be indistinguishable from perception."
So it becomes "indistinguishable" from the persons perception yet they don't confuse it with their reality? Where is the discernable threshold in that?

Quote:
if imagery does become vivid or strong enough,
Quote:
Delirium occurs when signals in the brain aren't sent and received properly.
The threshold is probably when the peo0le around you don't see what you claim to be seeing.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Kickle]
#28591501 - 12/20/23 02:46 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: This is actually the result of finding out about a really old (1910) psychological study.
The researcher put a projector screen up and asked participants to stare at the blank screen. Then while staring, to imagine a fruit, book, or tree on the blank screen. After a while, she would project an actual image of a fruit, book, or tree onto the screen itself.
Participants had a tough time recognizing any transition.
Quote:
how do you distinguish whether something is real or imagined? If you had to define a point, or threshold at which you are able to differentiate, what would you use?
Take imagining seeing a banana vs seeing a real banana. What enables you to know it is an imagined vs real vision?
A projection or an image is not a real object.
An image is a representation, not the actual object, the imagined object is the same, a representation.
A life-like image of a banana can be made that can look like a real banana, but is not. Even when the depiction is of a genuine object, the image is not the object and thus the object is not real. It makes sense that this experiment would work out this way. I doubt that any such thing can be done with a real banana on a table before someone.
This topic reminds me of remote viewing.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Nillion] 1
#28591513 - 12/20/23 02:55 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
it's more than remote viewing. an image in your mind can come from your eyes or from your memory (imagination) in both cases the same brain cells (not all of them but many) become active and represent the visual mental content being considered.
this means that fundamentally there is no difference between what can be visually perceived due to retinal stimulation or memory stimulation.
We do run into the problem when first engaging with psychedelics, while more "seasoned" psychonauts seem to know when to question the origins. sometimes it is difficult, or not worth the effort.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Lithop
Spaghetti Days


Registered: 04/09/22
Posts: 764
Loc: 🛸
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: sudly]
#28591520 - 12/20/23 02:59 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: you do not have to practice being natural, but you might have to practice calming down and keeping out of the way of being natural, i.e. practice not adding so much imagination (perceptive reflex) that it is impossible to get a clean shot of what is happening - this is the crux of the reality threshold issue.
Haha, I know- and so much of my 'practise' is of course the latter of what you said RE keeping out the way but I was more getting at the fact I see "clear awareness" as being natural in addition to that natural awareness being a component (base) of practise as well as something to work toward being able to access at will. Making it, IMO a part of practise. I appreciate what you said about perceptive reflex, it's a good term. I think that really is what is meant by "no thought of what is called 'just as it is'" it's preconceptual (?) like if you're there to notice it, you're not really there...
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I had tons of good insight from Bardo Thodol too, but same with tarot cards bible etc. these are valid efforts to model life in different ways using archaic terms, but they are not accurate representations even in archaic terms
Horses for courses, of course there's so much more VALUE to consuming information than where it ends up taking you! As I suggested earlier- accuracy (in this case accuracy to a representative model of life') isn't always the thing I find most important to measure.
Quote:
redgreenvines said: so if you do meet the Buddha in the middle of the road who you gonna call?
?
Quote:
sudly said: "if imagery does become vivid or strong enough,
Delirium occurs when signals in the brain aren't sent and received properly.
The threshold is probably when the peo0le around you don't see what you claim to be seeing."
When Kickle derived Quote:
Judgement being perhaps a combination of many of the elements described thus far.
from your previous post, I agreed that it's a potential factor.
--------------------
🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿ 🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿ 🌬️ 🌻 ➞➞➞ ❮❮❮❮ 🌈 ❹⑤⓿
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
|
Sorry, I should have elaborated.
It reminded me of remote viewing because the subject in those cases has no concept of what they are looking for, only where and or when they are looking. Some individuals have demonstrated a remarkable ability in this to perceive aspects of reality.
I think you have great points here RGV.
Edited by Nillion (12/20/23 03:07 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Lithop] 1
#28591547 - 12/20/23 03:30 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lithop said:..."no thought of what is called 'just as it is'" it's preconceptual (?) like if you're there to notice it, you're not really there....
yes, although, I must confess, I notice a lot of unfamiliar - unnameable, and though I am barely aware (the goal?), have to say at least some perceptive reflex is happening, but when I am doing really well at bare awareness, the perceptive reflex is not cascading and compounding (ramifying in all directions) - it is quickly subsumed by the next moment's breath movements. Then there is the whole change detection behavior of the brain tissue, and it is always just a little bit surprising, that no matter how well concentrated I seem to be, something comes up, and the unchanging center of attention seems to have disappeared behind this cloud. This puts a bit of a dance into the stillness.
I would not say I am not really there, but I am not other than the whole process, and that process would be happening in practice or not.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 35 minutes, 27 seconds
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Kickle]
#28591632 - 12/20/23 04:46 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: Does anyone think that errors, mistakes, misunderstandings, etc. can fall into the category of mistaking imagination for reality?
I do.
The line between imagination and reality is a lot more blurred than some people like to point out in my opinion.
First what do we call imagination?
Do we only call things that are conjured up voluntarily imagination? Or do we also call involuntary hallucinations imagination? How do we separate these two things? - if I close my eyes and imagine a banana, how long until that banana starts to change form a little bit in my imagination based on an involuntary thought that pops into my head? The banana now has a creepy smile for a moment; I didn’t originally intend for this imagined banana to have a creepy smile, but it just seemed to pop into existence. Does the creepy smile fall into the category of voluntary imagination because it appeared on my voluntarily imagined banana? Or does it fall into the category of involuntary hallucination because it just popped into existence based on a thought I had no control over?
The dictionary definition seems to be: The forming of new ideas, images or concepts about objects not present to the senses.
This definition doesn’t seem to take into account the voluntary or involuntary aspect I was talking about. So maybe I’m making it a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be… still, when I look for a clear line between imagination and reality I can’t find it.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 31 minutes
|
Re: Reality threshold [Re: Bardy] 1
#28591643 - 12/20/23 04:52 PM (1 month, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Reminds me of the question: How many bats are there in these inkblots?

A: as many as can be imagined
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
|