On the one hand, man is a physical object and a person. Therefore, we interact with the reality, on one hand, directly as a physical object, but on the other hand as a person, i.e. indirectly through our psyche. On the basis of information from the senses, the consciousness of a person creates a subjective model of reality. A man mistakes his subjective model of reality for reality itself, i.e. unnecessarily assigns an ontological status, by the hypostatizations. In fact, as the reality a man perceives not reality itself, but only its subjective model of that reality. As a result, as a physical object, a person lives in the physical world, and as a person he lives in his subjective model of physical and social reality created on the basis of information coming to his senses directly and from the media. This work considers the process of formation of subjective 3D models reality based of large numbers of 2D images, a distinction is made in the content of terms: "Seeing" and "Sensing"; it also analyzes the transformation of objective facts into subjective perceptions of consciousness and back. As a result of hypostatizations of subjective models of reality, we may observe the same effects as in virtual reality (a reality effect; the effect of the presence; the effect of depersonalization; the effect of virtualization goals, values, and motivations). So, there is every reason to consider different subjective models of reality generated by different forms of consciousness, the virtual models. We study various consequences of these statements
Article FORMATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE (VIRTUAL) MODELS OF PHYSICAL AND...
I must say I had to read this a few times to try to understand what is being asked. I’ll use the field of aviation to present my views. In aviation, there are a few perceived realities. The brain receives stimuli from the senses and interprets or perceives its “reality.” But for a pilot, the cockpit is an extension of the physical with flight controls, gauges, instruments and alerts (a collection of action initiators and sensory indicators). These also must be sensed before being interpreted an included in the pilot’s perception of the flight’s reality (position, anticipated projection, and safe/risk assessments). It should be noted that the senses can give less than perfect representations of reality. A simple example is having less than perfect eyesight. A complicated example might be two senses that report what appears to be accurate yet conflicting information such as what may visually appear to be straight and level flight to a pilot while their seat-of-the-pants feeling (vestibular and mechanoreceptor sensations) –provides the sensation of being in a turn. The brain will work hard to de-conflict these stimuli. By design, the cockpit has instruments for the brain to reference for de-conflicting and corroborating information, a “reality check” if you will.
It should also be noted that an aircraft’s cockpit may also provide less than perfect information, but information that is often far more accurate than the pilot’s seat-of-the-pants “reality.” Any good pilot, certainly any all-weather pilots, have developed the skill of divorcing their physical sensory flight interpretations only to embrace the instrumentation provided by the cockpit. Believing the instruments and crosschecking that information often is a means for reliable perception.
One other physical/psyche concept should be brought up here, the idea of physical activity in realities. For example, a pilot that practices takeoffs and landings will gain a dominant “muscle memory” for the amount of force that should be exhorted on the flight controls; repetition helps establish and reinforce these perceived forces. Take the same pilot and put him or her in a simulator (an alternate reality), where the flight controls are usually much more sensitive, and the pilot will most likely experience over controlling the notional aircraft. Again, with exposure and repetition, the brain’s plasticity will adopt a more sensitive recessive muscle memory. The danger here is that while the pilot is simulating or practicing procedures in a very compelling environment (one where it is often hard to distinguish the difference between simulation and real), they are unwittingly modifying and reinforcing their flight control muscle memory input pressures. Sadly, there have been too many instances where pilots have practiced a flight in a simulator and then immediately executed the same flight in a real aircraft with catastrophic results. This occurs because the simulated experience and its muscle memory are carried into the real flight. The pilots most likely were too slow to recognize that their input pressures on the flight controls were too little, and their corrections were too late. As a result, some sectors have adopted a rule that real flight piloting may not take place for a certain number of hours following simulated flight. The number of hours varies but the idea is the same; it takes a certain amount of time for the recessive muscle memory skill set to wear off or revert to the dominant.
Perhaps an ontological view coupled with a metaphysical one is a way of approach this topic and the original question. Ultimately, I believe that simulations (full or part-task) become alternate realities for us in learning and training. We then take these skills and apply them to our collective true reality. Hope this helped.
What I actually meant was that what we are aware of as reality is actually a 3d model of reality created by our subconscious mind based on information from our senses.
Вообще-то я имел в виду, что то, что мы осознаем как реальность, в действительности является 3d моделью реальности, созданной нашим подсознанием на основе информации от органов чувств.
Well if that's what you meant, I don't disagree that our mind interprets our senses and experiences to present "its" reality to us. Realities are all relative to the accuracy of our senses and the breadth and wisdom gained from our experiences. I again recommend an ontological view coupled with a metaphysical one to approach this topic.
Apparently You misunderstood me. I cannot correctly Express a thought in English for You to understand. But I'll try again. What people take for reality is not really reality. They take for reality the model of reality. This model is created by our subconscious. This model is created on the basis of information from the organs of perception. The senses do not give us a 3d picture of reality. But we use a 3d-picture. This picture is a model. we unreasonably and wrongly believe that this is reality. At the same time, it certainly corresponds to reality quite well, i.e. quite adequate (usually).
Судя по всему Вы меня неправильно поняли. Я не могу корректно выразить мысль на английском языке, чтобы Вы поняли. Но попробую еще раз. То, что люди принимают за реальность на самом деле ей не является. Они принимают за реальность модель реальности. Эта модель создается нашим подсознанием. Эта модель создается на основе информации от органов восприятия. Органы восприятия не дают нам 3d картины реальности. Но пользуемся 3d-картиной. Эта картина есть модель. мы неоправданно и ошибочно считаем, что это и есть реальность. При этом она конечно довольно неплохо соответствует реальности, т.е. вполне адекватна (обычно).
