Penrose has a cute picture sortof on this topic,
the person who drew this knew exactly what I'm trying to convey. I've seen that sphere too.
In the spirit of optimism I would propose instead that problems are soluble, and that what we have on our hands here is a genuine problem that is not simply a matter of interpretation or transcendental ordering of different viewpoints. The obvious fact is: We are embodied in consciousness and consciousness exists in the physical universe. When we doubt the physical universe or conscious experience we simply fall prey to the philosophical pessimism of our time where doubt is elevated above honesty and courage to seek out the truth. We hear background noises of material utility coming from the one side and noises of spiritual utility coming from the other, with no sense that any of them has a deep roaring passion to unravel the mystery at hand.
CLains, you always go over my head just a little bit, but I'll try to respond the best I can.
I don't think it's dishonest to express doubts about the physical universe or conscious experience. If we don't know, then we simply don't know until further advances in knowledge are made. It would be just as dishonest to deny the possibility that this isn't the lowest level of experiences. I don't view it as philosophical pessimism or doubt, but an openness to all possible scenarios, which a SR allows for.
I don't understand the last sentence though.
I wanted to open a thread about this subjective reality article. It makes no sense at all to me.
The argument that subjective reality is superior because it's a "broader view" than objective reality is so weak it's not even funny.
You cannot falsify the fact that an alien entity is dreaming/simulating the universe, and the dreaming entity explication explains the physical perceived world whereas the reverse is not true, therefore* the dreaming entity model is more logical. Seriously? LOL. (And sorry but no, according importance to formal logic is not the equivalent of being narrow minded).
*that where the logic fail lies
I don't think either of us can really refute either possibility. We can only posit what makes the most sense. I will grant that you can't falsify the idea of an entity simulating the universe. Just as you can't falsify the idea of a god. I will acknowledge that I honestly don't know, all I'm trying to say is that the idea of a subjective reality makes a lot more sense to me than it would've if I hadn't ever experienced ego loss.
Also in dreams things are inconsistent. The physical laws of the dreamed world doesn't applies consistently and even formal logic doesn't always hold. Why don't we perceived the same inconsistence in the Universe in which we live?
Not necessarily, just because the laws in dreams aren't the same as the laws of reality doesn't make those laws inconsistent. It just makes them unknown. Formal logic doesn't hold true in quantum mechanics, does it?
Regarding ego loss, I don't see the point to use drugs as an argument. Hundred of thousands of people experience ego loss every day, they just physically die. I am not sure it's the evidence of anything though. Also you can experience ego loss by taking heroin or opium, again I don't see what it proves besides the fact that drugs change the way our neurons interact, thus we experience tentative new mental models under their sway (it's a chemical action, there is no magical or mysterious tricks).
It only shows that our usual mental models are among many, it's doesn't show anything about the structure of the reality.
Less of an argument, more of an indicator to take into account, I would say. I don't view it as empirical evidence. Not having done opiates in a high enough dose to experience ego loss I can't comment on whether the two are comparable, but based on lower doses of opiates I would guess that this isn't the same kind of ego loss I'm referring to. I think it's certainly possible that a chemical action in your brain can temporarily cause a deeper understanding of reality than we're normally capable of perceiving.