Your use of “metaphysical” confuses me. I assume you mean “non-physical”, where “physical” is shorthand for “explainable in terms of our theories of physics such that every aspect of the phenomenon can be accounted for”.
The observations in your first three hypotheses seem accurate enough. When I ask myself “Where is this thought”, what it feels like is that it has a definite location (I can’t bring myself to feel as if the thought is located in a different body part than my head), but no definite extent. (Perhaps because it’s a small thought. I seem to remember thoughts—insights—that felt bigger than that.) I can think, and apparently make others think, of things that are anywere.
We sometimes simulate reality (e.g. I can imagine getting up from the computer and leaving the room, and even envision consequences of doing that) but I would deny that this is what’s going on when I look at my hand, or (since I can no longer now look at my hand in a way that I ordinarily look at it—you have effectively bumped me into simulation mode) an everyday object.
I’ve just looked at my Mac’s menu bar to tell the time—I wouldn’t say that I have simulated my computer for the sake of knowing the time.
We sometimes simulate reality (e.g. I can imagine getting up from the computer and leaving the room, and even envision consequences of doing that) but I would deny that this is what’s going on when I look at my hand, or [...] an everyday object.
I wonder if I could convince you that “you” only see a simulation? First, to clarify: by ‘only seeing a simulation’ I mean ‘only seeing a Platonic representation of the object’. Throughout the day as you type on your computer you ‘see’ your monitor without really carefully looking at it. You look at it enough to locate where it is, and you might notice if anything changed about it, but for the most part you don’t study it in any detail and reply on a Platonic representation of it when you observe that ‘you are looking at your monitor’.
In contrast, if you were someplace where it would be strange to see a monitor, you would spend some amount of time longer looking at the monitor (time spent really actually looking at it) before assigning it the Platonic representation: Monitor.
The situation of looking at the menu bar is really quite different—because then you really need to look in order to read the time. You can’t rely on your Platonic representation of the menu bar to provide you the time. But by the time you know the time, I contend the experience has been assimilated as a simulation.
Your use of “metaphysical” confuses me. I assume you mean “non-physical”, where “physical” is shorthand for “explainable in terms of our theories of physics such that every aspect of the phenomenon can be accounted for”.
The observations in your first three hypotheses seem accurate enough. When I ask myself “Where is this thought”, what it feels like is that it has a definite location (I can’t bring myself to feel as if the thought is located in a different body part than my head), but no definite extent. (Perhaps because it’s a small thought. I seem to remember thoughts—insights—that felt bigger than that.) I can think, and apparently make others think, of things that are anywere.
We sometimes simulate reality (e.g. I can imagine getting up from the computer and leaving the room, and even envision consequences of doing that) but I would deny that this is what’s going on when I look at my hand, or (since I can no longer now look at my hand in a way that I ordinarily look at it—you have effectively bumped me into simulation mode) an everyday object.
I’ve just looked at my Mac’s menu bar to tell the time—I wouldn’t say that I have simulated my computer for the sake of knowing the time.
I wonder if I could convince you that “you” only see a simulation? First, to clarify: by ‘only seeing a simulation’ I mean ‘only seeing a Platonic representation of the object’. Throughout the day as you type on your computer you ‘see’ your monitor without really carefully looking at it. You look at it enough to locate where it is, and you might notice if anything changed about it, but for the most part you don’t study it in any detail and reply on a Platonic representation of it when you observe that ‘you are looking at your monitor’.
In contrast, if you were someplace where it would be strange to see a monitor, you would spend some amount of time longer looking at the monitor (time spent really actually looking at it) before assigning it the Platonic representation: Monitor.
The situation of looking at the menu bar is really quite different—because then you really need to look in order to read the time. You can’t rely on your Platonic representation of the menu bar to provide you the time. But by the time you know the time, I contend the experience has been assimilated as a simulation.