[BriggyDwiggs42]

We need to account for the odd similarity of experience across users, which leads to two most probable explanations. First, the brain generates the experience, and the patterns are a consequence of structural similarities across human brains. Second, these entities actually exist somehow and we can’t yet observe them with our modern instruments. I certainly think that the first is more likely, but I think we need to do more work to reduce the probability of the second, likely by recording the brain activity similarities we would expect to see if it were a generated experience or by finding a number of individuals who don’t have the same experiences. We can also have people undergo extended trips, as is being tested currently, and see if the characteristics of the entities or the world indicate a generated experience. My only point was that, since this is a matter that depends entirely upon subjective conscious experience, a phenomenon we lack tools to measure and understand somewhat poorly, and since this substance is majorly understudied, it isn’t smart to simply assume that the first explanation is the correct one.

[tsimionescu]

The second "explanation" requires a fundamental upending of basic physics research that is confirmed to higher degrees of accuracy than any direct experience we have ever had. The first explanation, while slightly handwavy, perfectly fits all established models of physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and psychology.

I think even mentioning the second explanation is entirely splitting hairs. It's like reminding everyone that physics can't rule out that God could have created the world with its apparent 8 billion year history 2 hours ago.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

Actually yeah I think you’re right.

[lupire]

This is called Bayesian reasoning, BTW, and you subconsciously do it all the time. Your entire life would be almost completely incomprehensible otherwise.