Hallucinations...

[Sir Isaac Lime]

If a hallucination is shared by more then one person, does it cease to be a hallucination?

Discuss.

[coffeezombie]

No. I've read of people doing hallucinogens before who "suggested" a hallucination to another person and then the other person proceeded to hallucinate the same thing. It still isn't reality, even if it is a shared reality.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

No. I've read of people doing hallucinogens before who "suggested" a hallucination to another person and then the other person proceeded to hallucinate the same thing. It still isn't reality, even if it is a shared reality.

Thats not a shared hallucination, thats a suggested hallucination. I'm referring to a collective, real-time hallucination.

[coffeezombie]

Thats not a shared hallucination, thats a suggested hallucination.

Then shared hallucinations are impossible. Even shared perceptions are. No person ever sees exactly the same thing as another person.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Then shared hallucinations are impossible. Even shared perceptions are. No person ever sees exactly the same thing as another person.

Yes, perceptions can be shared. No, none of them are exactly the same.

How many things do we consider "real" out of human agreement and nothing more?

[ohnoaninfp]

If a hallucination is shared by more then one person, does it cease to be a hallucination?

Discuss.
You got to stop using those shrooms! They will really fuck you up.

[purple13]

I think similar conclusions can be drawn independently, when the minds involved are in similar states.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Isn't culture nothing more then a collective hallucination?

Does money have any real inherant value outside of our willingness to participate in the illusion that it does?

[Jacque]

What makes you think that these thoughts aren't a part of your hallucination?

You are obviously rebeling against something. Do you want to burn money? Is it existential? Epistemological or Historical?

[Pedro_The_Lion]

He's not necessarily rebeling against anything. I'm not sure whether the hallucination would cease to be so. I agree with your view on culture (ie shared experience not hallucination per se).

[Sir Isaac Lime]

What makes you think that these thoughts aren't a part of your hallucination?

You are obviously rebeling against something. Do you want to burn money? Is it existential? Epistemological or Historical?

Could you give a brief summary on your take of the discussion so far?

[Pierce]

It seems to me that hallucinations and visions (I draw a distinction between the two) are kinds of waking dreams. The "language" is that of symbol rather than literal observation or linear reason. Any two or more people may experience, perceive, and interpret a symbolic event similarly or quite differently, none of which makes it any more or less real or verifiable. Here is an account of such an event in the Bible:

John 12: Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. 31

Was it the voice of God, an angel, or thunder? Does it matter? Does it have objective meaning, or only subjective, or none at all? LOL. OK, let's not go there.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

It seems to me that hallucinations and visions (I draw a distinction between the two) are kinds of waking dreams. The "language" is that of symbol rather than literal observation or linear reason. Any two or more people may experience, perceive, and interpret a symbolic event similarly or quite differently, none of which makes it any more or less real or verifiable. Here is an account of such an event in the Bible:

John 12: Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. 31

Was it the voice of God, an angel, or thunder? Does it matter? Does it have objective meaning, or only subjective, or none at all? LOL. OK, let's not go there.

What is the fundamental difference between a hallucination and a vision?

[Pierce]

What is the fundamental difference between a hallucination and a vision?
A hallucination emanates from a physical chemical imbalance of some sort -- drugs, disorder, illness, diet or sometimes pizza. A vision may or may not be accompanied by the same sort chemical imbalance, but is intrinsically spiritual, conveying a sense of meaning or revelation to the beholder. Since atheists do not recognize the spiritual dimensions of life, this distinction is lost on them; they are happy to call them all hallucinations.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

A hallucination emanates from a physical chemical imbalance of some sort -- drugs, disorder, illness, diet or sometimes pizza. A vision may or may not be accompanied by the same sort chemical imbalance, but is intrinsically spiritual, conveying a sense of meaning or revelation to the beholder. Since atheists do not recognize the spiritual dimensions of life, this distinction is lost on them; they are happy to call them all hallucinations.

Have you ever heard of a substance called DMT? It's a compound produced naturally in the human brain (as well as in thousands of plants), which is released in times of extreme stress such as birth and death. A common hallucination is the sense of being physically transported, a flash of light, and interactions with entities such as God(s), godesses, angels, aliens, etc. It is highly suggestible that the brain has specific functions for hallucinogenic compounds, whether we comprehend their application or not. What you call an imbalance I call an interaction.

And DMT sounds about as spiritual as you can get and we know it's a chemical.

[Pierce]

Have you ever heard of a substance called DMT? It's a compound produced naturally in the human brain (as well as in thousands of plants), which is released in times of extreme stress such as birth and death. A common hallucination is the sense of being physically transported, a flash of light, and interactions with entities such as God(s), godesses, angels, aliens, etc. It is highly suggestible that the brain has specific functions for hallucinogenic compounds, whether we comprehend their application or not. What you call an imbalance I call an interaction.

And DMT sounds about as spiritual as you can get and we know it's a chemical.
Our "normal" state does not include hallucinations or visions -- altered states may, and represent an imbalance to what is the norm. These usually rare and temporary states are, for physical beings, both interactions and imbalances.

Of course, your real point is to suggest that anything beyond the constraints of your time-space bound rational viewpoint does not exist; any belief in God, love, beauty, goodness, etc. is merely delusional, brought on by physical chemical and/or electical processes. Knock yourself out. We don't need to press this any further. I reject your premise. You reject mine. The argument is a waste of time.

[Chicken]

I think that is what draws the line between hallucination and conspiracy. A hallucination is viewed by the subject. A conspiracy theory is viewed by society, or a group of people, and it's collectively believed to be real. ;)

[Dman]

I think the first thing you must do is examine the definition of a hallucination –

Hallucination: (1) Perception of objects or beings with no reality or not present within normal sensory scanning range. (2) Experience of sensations with no exterior cause, usually as a result of nervous dysfunction. (3) Perceptions not in accord with consensus reality.

Now if you have two people experiencing the exact same hallucination, that’s a trip. If they both witness something that, by definition, has no bearing in reality or presence within normal sensory scanning range, I would contend that one possible cause was that by some extreme coincidence something in each person’s brain (due to similar memories, thinking processes, experiences, etc.) caused the two of them to hallucinate the exact same thing at the same time. The only other cause that I can think of off the top of my head would be some type of “extra” sensory perception that as yet is unproven/unknown. The question of how either of those two points could actually be proven is beyond me.

[cuspuser]

How many things do we consider "real" out of human agreement and nothing more?

Thats a good question, technically i think when you dig deep enough most things are due to human agreement ... of course within the agreement are many communities.

for example a group of artists may get together and say doesn't that <insert obscure name of a shade of light green here> work perfectly

when the non-artist (like myself) would say isn't that a nice shade of green

as for the difference b/w hallucination and vision, i think that distinction would come from i) the experiencer and ii) the person evaluating the experience, this is something very subjective ...

someone could have a very spiritual experience and call it a hallucination, because it isn't something that investigated

while someone could have a hallucination and mistake it for something spiritual ...

mostly it would depend on the persons view of unverifiable content ...

of course there are some things that we hope people don't take as visions, like someone hearing God tell them to kill someone

personally i'd be very tenitive to call something a vision, it would imply having access to knowledge that i don't think i can necessarily have, but if i were to experience something spiritual i wouldn't write it off as a hallucination pure and simple either

plus, many religions (esp. native american religions) have used conscious altering substances and rituals to obtain visions, so i wouldn't classify the distinction the way Pierce did either ...

[Edmond Zedo]

"Once I thought I saw you...In a crowded hazy bar. I saw your brown eyes turning once to fire."

[Sackanaka]

cuspuser responded! this thread is special :D

I wonder if you've read Proudfoot's concept of "belief preceding experience"?
It was in refutation that religious experience, something ineffable, preceded one's understanding of the phenomena.
Proudfoot explained that one must have some kind of pre-notion of what one is experiencing (visually, aurally, etc.) in order to experience it.
Ex. You see a brown, rough figure in the distance. You are in the woods.
It is a bear- you get nervous, adrenaline builds up and your senses are heightened-

upon closer inspection it is in fact a fallen log. You relax.

"You" in the example had to know what both a bear and a log was prior to comprehending what just happened / what the object was. The preestablished concepts were there, ready to be attached to the sensory stimuli.

So in regards to this issue of hallucinations / visions, one has to have already had a preconceived notion of an Alien or Angel prior to interpreting the visualization.
A full concept is not necessary; just knowing the concept (in other words, hearing about it through other outside, prior sources like people or texts) is enough to attach onto an unrecognizable sensory input.

I believe that it is when the mind has to struggle more than usual (daily life recognitions), and when the most applicable concept is highly unusual in regards to occurence, this is when the mind is forced to make a judgment- a thought that dashes through the mind, going "WTF WAS THAT?!"- and depending upon the individual's pre-established concepts (knowledge stored/retrievable in brain until the point of experience), the resulting phenomena can be attributed to religious experience or whacky shrooms.

[Pierce]

plus, many religions (esp. native american religions) have used conscious altering substances and rituals to obtain visions, so i wouldn't classify the distinction the way Pierce did either ...
Actually, I wrote, "A vision may or may not be accompanied by the same sort chemical imbalance..." meaning that visions may occur under the influence of mind altering drugs or even practices such as fasting, whether by native religions or anyone else. Of course, I don't imagine that all visions are beatific. The notion of a vision also implies a message, which a hallucination does not. A message would require a sender. A sender might be God or a spirit -- good or evil, living or dead. While I've heard of a person having a vision of another person in distress or dying, usually there is no conscious effort to communicate in this way -- most often the experience is unexpected. Jesus' vision of Nathaniel sitting under a fig tree lacked the strong emotional elements common to such reports, but the clarity seemed sharp. And then there are the occasional random, fleeting and often disconcertingly coincidental mental impressions most people have from time to time -- visions? Hallucinations? Occult practitioners do practice at such things, though their level of success is dubious.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

So in regards to this issue of hallucinations / visions, one has to have already had a preconceived notion of an Alien or Angel prior to interpreting the visualization.

Agreed. It was noted in recent DMT research that each persons hallucinations were subjective to personal and cultural belief. Some would be abducted by aliens, others confronted by an African huntress. I would suggest that we've probably got Jesus and Michael Jackson floating around in our heads, whether we like it or not.

I also have not heard of Proudfoot, but I like what he said.


The notion of a vision also implies a message, which a hallucination does not. A message would require a sender. A sender might be God or a spirit -- good or evil, living or dead.


I think this is where we disagree in defintion. I would define "vision" as an sudden shift in awareness. In so many words - shining a light onto a previously unlit portion of the room. To combine sackanacks view, if you physically stood in a dark room and shone a brief flash of light in random places, each time would initiate a "WTF!" response.

=========================

I think what we perceive as real is intimatly tied into not only physical reality, but biological and cultural predispositions. To use a hologram metaphor - A laser is split; one end hits physical reality, while the other hits our conciousness. When they are reflected and merged they form the hologram we refer to as reality.

[Miss Anthropic]

1 a : perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b : the object so perceived

A hallucination is not reality, if two people are seeing, hearing, (pick whatever sense you want) the same thing at the same time, most likely what they are sensing is reality. There are many things that occur in this world that are unexplained, that because they are unexplained and thus, "unproven" would be deemed NOT REAL by many INTPs. I disagree with the premise that just because something cannot be proven (ie; misc. metaphysical phenomena) it isn't real. Please don't bother arguing semantics with me. This is just my opinion....it may not be your reality, but its definitely not a hallucination.

[Pierce]

While we are in definition mode...

vi·sion 1 a : something seen in a dream, trance, or ecstasy; especially : a supernatural appearance that conveys a revelation b : an object of imagination c : a manifestation to the senses of something immaterial

When comparing a vision to a hallucination, I think it is important to note that neither one would represent what we would commonly call reality, not literal, physical reality anyway.

I think Sackanaka is right about needing a preconceived notion of something to "see" it in a vision. However, I think the images are highly sybolic rather than literal. Interestingly, a symbol may be more "real" than the literal representation of a thing in that it conveys meaning rather than mere fact. We tend to obsess about facts being reality, but really facts, from a dimensional perspective, would be consigned to the 3rd dimension of space. Our more advanced notions of reality include the unseen surmizes of reason, as we recognize the operations of time in relation to space, a fourth dimension. The realm of symbol or meaning manifested by the universal human experience of dream and vision and interpretation, may be another dimension of reality, a higher dimension.

The most famous vision of all time was that of the apostle John recorded in the book of the Revelation, the final chapter of the Bible. In it, John recorded several visionary, symbolic renditions of Jesus including a "Lamb standing, as if slain." The literal "reality" vision would be of a man dying on a wooden cross. Instead, the vision instills meaning by harkening back to the Hebrew story of Exodus and the Passover lamb, the sacrifice that spared the Hebrews when the angel of death passed over them, and also John the Baptist's statment about Jesus, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'" So, what is more real, the fact or the true meaning of the fact?

I realize using religious examples to illustrate the meaning of meaning, is a bit problematic with this crowd largely due to a pervasive and intense anti-religious bias, but let's for the moment try to ignore the specific religious implications as points of argument. While I could use other examples to illustrate the idea I'm trying to convey, in this case the illustrations are quite clear and poignant.

To expand this idea and make a much larger point, I assert that "vision" is a means of perceiving symbolic meaning in life and is a large part of the concept of faith, as compared to faith being "blind" belief in a creed.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

To expand this idea and make a much larger point, I assert that "vision" is a means of perceiving symbolic meaning in life and is a large part of the concept of faith, as compared to faith being "blind" belief in a creed.

I think this is where we disagree again. I don't think a vision has to be related to life meaning or faith. I think it can be more of an "Intuitive flash", which indeed is often triggered by an altered state of conciousness. I can give two examples:

Renee Descartes, whos now known as the grandfather of modern science, had a dream in which he was confronted by an angel that told him "The conquest of nature will be made through number and measure". Frederick Kekule had a dream in which he had a vision of a snake biting it's tail. Eureka, the benzene molecule he had been working on indeed turned out to be circular.

I think the brain pulls things from the external world and lets them sort of marinate in the creative conciousness. As they sit, they bend and contort with the brains established symbols and meaning, until a sort of match occurs. I think that dreams as well states induced by hallucinogenic substances, have a tendancy to bend external concepts in much different ways, sometimes resulting in intense moments of vision, or, a eureka moment if you will.

[Pierce]

I think this is where we disagree again. I don't think a vision has to be related to life meaning or faith. I think it can be more of an "Intuitive flash", which indeed is often triggered by an altered state of conciousness. I can give two examples:

Renee Descartes, whos now known as the grandfather of modern science, had a dream in which he was confronted by an angel that told him "The conquest of nature will be made through number and measure". Frederick Kekule had a dream in which he had a vision of a snake biting it's tail. Eureka, the benzene molecule he had been working on indeed turned out to be circular.

I think the brain pulls things from the external world and lets them sort of marinate in the creative conciousness. As they sit, they bend and contort with the brains established symbols and meaning, until a sort of match occurs. I think that dreams as well states induced by hallucinogenic substances, have a tendancy to bend external concepts in much different ways, sometimes resulting in intense moments of vision, or, a eureka moment if you will.

I don't think "vision" is necessarily a message from God or a spirit, and the examples you cited, i agree, respresent visions (or perhaps insights -- a subtle variation :) ). On the other hand, I don't negate God or a spiritual dimension because I cannot apprehend them with reason.

The very idea that some people imagine that the existence of God either can be, or needs to be, proven by reason is patently absurd to me. Dimensionally speaking, it would be like someone with the perspective of a point denying the existence of a line, or a person with the perspective of a line denying a plane. Of course the guy with the line perspective condescendingly looks down his nose at the unsophisticated fellow who views the world from a point's perspective, but he cannot begin to grasp planeness, or good heavens, cubeness. Silly as it seems, those masters of the time-space continum, purveyors of reason, insist that God lower himself to their level, that he make himself known on their terms, else they will deny his existence. Since the point fellow is surrounded by lineness, and he cannot perceive it, nor planeness, nor anything beyond the limits of his own pointed perspective, I suppose it is "reasonable" to expect that a rational person would deny any existence beyond the scope of his reason -- even though he is surrounded by God, he cannot perceive God.

Reason then is a springboard, a jumping off place. There is no upward continuum, only downward. Upward movement is accomplished by leaps, and, at this juncture, a leap of faith.

[philonightmare]

[....] insist that God lower himself to their level, that he make himself known on their terms, else they will deny his existence. Since the point fellow is surrounded by lineness, and he cannot perceive it, nor planeness, nor anything beyond the limits of his own pointed perspective, I suppose it is "reasonable" to expect that a rational person would deny any existence beyond the scope of his reason -- even though he is surrounded by God, he cannot perceive God.

Reason then is a springboard, a jumping off place. There is no upward continuum, only downward. Upward movement is accomplished by leaps, and, at this juncture, a leap of faith.
I agree with you.
---
My previous attempt to use the "wager" to prove that belief in God can be rational was wrong since the "wager" is meant to initiate a "leap of faith," not reason-this-out-or-else. (This is meant for Sir Isaac Lime)

On Hallucinations: Everything Sackanaka already contributed is what I believe to be true. One must have a pre-concept of something in order to experience it.

Ex: The concept of unicorns must have some of these pre-concepts in order to be understood by the masses=goat+horse+donkey+lion in some shape, or fashion.

[oldfriendofnoemi]

John 12: Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.


Wow. Perfect example. I remember reading that passage when I was a young girl and realizing that the people who witnessed this had to have experienced a subjective but universal truth.

I am not a Christian. However, I do not dispute the existence of any deity. I simply do not have specific faith in anything. There is no denying that when the Bible says that some heard thunder and some heard an angel and Jesus said the voice was not even for his benefit, well, it jives with so much of what I believe about the greater reality which I believe is completely hidden from most of us.

Anywho. I had to create an account just so that I could tell you how awesome I thought your post was. Very very inspiring.

[LazyReed]

High doses of tryptamine hallucinogens like psilocybin and DMT can produce suggested "collective hallucinations". I'm not sure exactly if this is what you're talking about. As for a non drug-induced hallucination, I've read, or at least from what I've understood, that Terence Mckenna (awesome awesome awesome writer for intps) believed the UFO phenomena as being a manifestation of our subconscious need for contact with the "OTHER" or as he explained another intelligent non-human life form.