Neurologically True Reality
I have used the term Neurologically True Reality a number of times over the last decade, so here is my best way to explain it.
The human brain has about 100 billion neurons which form roughly 100 trillion neural connections:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/100-trillion-connections/
The human brain also dedicates around 40–50% of its computational energy to visual processing (although this can vary by person):
I always thought of XR (spatial computing, augmented reality, virtual reality) leading to a much bigger idea, which I call Sensoryfield Computing. The idea and philosophy of Sensoryfield Computing is that the human brain takes in continued sensory inputs (light-fields, sound-fields, tactile input, smell, and taste) in order to dynamically update a model of the world which we partially inherit (from our ancestors, perhaps in our genes) and partially create (from the day we are born, by moving about the world). In this model, a person is not that different from a self-driving car which has an existing model of the world (in its memory and CPU/GPU). The self-driving car updates this model through various sensors (cameras, LIDAR, etc.) as well as localizes itself on existing maps through GPS and related systems. In the Sensoryfield Computing model, we never experience the world directly — we only know about the world through our internal experience of the model we have inside, which is updated through external signals.
If you take the Sensoryfield Computing model a few more steps forward, we experience (throughout our waking and dreaming life) a really good internal simulation created by our built-in head-mounted biologic computing systems (our brain and its related sensory inputs and organs). This close to real-time simulation has a few millisecond lag with respect to the physics of the real world (which is a time gap certain magicians and great athletes can exploit to their advantage). The Sensoryfield Computing model also describes a reality (which is possibly true) that we never, ever directly see or experience what is outside of us — we only experience it through a intermediary system which filters, shapes, and molds what we actually experience. The design and mechanics of our human body, in all of its wonder, prevents us from having this direct contact with the Universe (those who meditate and transcend may agree, but they may also argue that they have found workarounds and hacks to this problem).
If the Sensoryfield Computing model is correct (everything I have experienced and tested in the XR field for the last decade continues to support the model), then a clear goal for XR today, and Sensoryfield Computing in the future can be established. We do not need to replicate the perfect analog physics of the external Universe. We do need to replicate the parts of those signals that make their way into our neurological and sensing systems, so that they are biomimetic. In this model, a perfect set of biomimetic signals (that parts of the signals from the Universe that are transduced into our body, by our body’s sensors) would create a Neurologically True Reality for the person using that Sensoryfield Computing system. Neurologic truth implies that the body has received everything it needs to update and tune the model and perception of the world (real or imagined) that may be built into all of us. This idea also leads to designs that best fit the needs of the human body, and are least likely to cause discomfort. Perfect (as close as we can get) biomimetic signals would also enable experiences that create no physiologic comfort of any kind — as our body is receiving the nearly identical signals from a synthetic source (Sensoryfield Computing) as it does from the primary source (the Universe).
Designing and building Sensoryfield Computing systems that can approach Neurologically True Reality is an extremely difficult systems engineering problem. In various experiments and tests with XR and sensing devices over the last decade, I have personally experienced a few things that approached this ideal — close enough to know that it is possible.
Sensoryfield Computing is a much larger problem than any one company or academic center can solve on its own. Approaching Neurologically True Reality with these systems is also a significant challenge — one that requires clear moral and ethical guidelines and boundaries. We also need good philosophical tools and thinking to guide anyone in the field (creators, designers, makers, users) to understand what this means in terms of our life and reality as human beings. Understanding how our human brain constructs our individual reality can be a very intense thing to process. This understanding can have a profound spiritual impact, and it may shatter long-held beliefs. This can lead to disillusion and despair for some. It can also build and support a deeply spiritual system of thinking about the world, as you move from being told what is reality, to experiencing and understanding it yourself.
My own personal experience has been positive. By climbing the mountain to Neurologically True Reality (a climb that does not end), and in working on aspects of Sensoryfield Computing (also a very tall mountain), I felt that I began to understand the concept of Maya:
The concept of Maya appears (in different forms) in many different religions and philosophies. The deep thinkers and shamans were able to approach this problem in their own way, thousands of years ago. By beginning to understand how our brain and senses construct our own individual reality in concert with the Universe, you can also appreciate the possibility of much greater things beyond our own personal worlds. By examining the systems that separate us from everything else, you can also understand how deeply connected every being is to everything.
Looking behind the curtain, peeking past the veil of reality, is something that can bind us all together in a good and wonderful way — but we need to be equipped with a way to understand what we are seeing and experiencing, or it can lead us to some very dark roads.
I prefer and deeply hope for the good path forward in all of these explorations-and I hope that the vast majority of thinkers, engineers, designers, makers, creators, and users in this field would also agree.
R. Abovitz
March 8th, 2022
Earth
