Things That Are Not There

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by davidelkins, Sep 14, 2016.

  1. davidelkins Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    If someone were to say to me, 'Do you see things that are not there?' I would reply and say, 'Well I can imagine a Coke bottle in my hand.' Psychiatry needs more concise arguments in the area of hallucination. DE
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,474
    Or they could just say "Why don't you answer the question that was asked instead of going off at a tangent?".
    Imagining (voluntarily) is not the same as seeing.
     
    ajanta likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,375
    How about not seeing things that are there?

    This just popped up on FB. It is one of the most compelling optical delusions I've seen.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,474
    Deleted.
     
  8. davidelkins Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    I have nothing wrong with imagining a Coke bottle and that is healthy, but if I believed that there was a Coke bottle that was trying to eat me, then I would be delusional. If I visualized the Coke bottle eating me and believed that it was happening, then I would be hallucinating in addition. Does this help, Dywyddyr? DE
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,474
    Nope.
    Since you said "visualising" then I fail to see how that classes as "hallucination".
    Nor does it (or anything else you've said so far) show why "Psychiatry needs more concise arguments in the area of hallucination".
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,375
    Perhaps the problem here is that this "someone" you speak of is not a psychologist/psychiatrist, and therefore asks ill-formed questions.
    Perhaps the field does have concise terminology about hallucination.
    Perhaps you should ask a psych the appropriate way to ask such a question.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  11. davidelkins Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    Oh Dave, I see, so I should not make an argument, but rather go off to a Pscyhiatrist and he or she can fill my little brain with the 'appropriate' way to ask such a question. Did anyone ever call you a piranha? DE
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,474
    You're in the clear then - because you haven't made any argument whatsoever.
    (Brain-dead statements with no apparent rationale - or coherence - don't count as arguments).

    Alternatively you could just go to school and learn how to answer questions that were asked instead of posing one question and answering a different one.
     
  13. davidelkins Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    Wikipedia defines a hallucination as, "a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception." I would define visual hallucination as 'A delusional acceptance of an absurd visual phenomenon.' DE
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,474
    Yeah well.
    It's not unusual for cranks to prefer their own peculiar definitions.
    1) Why does it have to be "absurd"? Is it not possible to hallucinate, say, an oasis in the desert when there actually isn't one? How is an oasis in the desert absurd?
    2) What makes you think the acceptance is the hallucination? Is it not possible hallucinate and be aware that you're doing so (which implies that you don't accept the "visual phenomenon").

    Oh, and your (shoddy inaccurate) "definition" shows that you really gave a stupid answer to your own question in the OP.
    A coke bottle in the hand is hardly "absurd". And, if you know you're imagining it, it's hardly a "delusional acceptance" is it?
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,375
    Wouldn't that resolve your problem perfectly?

    You post a layperson's question 'do you see things that aren't there?' then presume that it's a scientifically-well-formed question, and that the field is wanting.

    What makes you think that's a question a psych would ask at all?
     
    Seattle likes this.
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,375
    It is quite possible to hallucinate completely mundane things.

    For example, you could hallucinate your best friend is talking with you at your bedside when, in fact, he is not.
     
  17. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    463
    What is this? I see 12 black dots.


    "If someone were to say to me, 'Do you see things that are not there?' I would reply and say, 'Well I can imagine a Coke bottle in my hand.' Psychiatry needs more concise arguments in the area of hallucination. DE"

    OP, it is either there or it isn't. Same for if a tree falls in the woods does it make a noise? YES, it does.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,375
    You have special eyes. Most people can not see 12 dots simultaneously.


    But that is not true. Perception is subjective.
     
    ajanta likes this.
  19. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    463

    I guess i just came in as a sceptic, but saw the dots with no effort whatsoever. Just really a test on the extents of human vision.

    May based in perception though. Just like when i hear people talk about "shadow people" it's always out of the corners of their eyes and just a matter of the extents of vision To your other point, like i posted in another thread, what is truth? Perception is not truth. Weather anyone like it or not does not change the fact that the tree makes a noise when it falls and it really is that simple. No perception, no magic. Just...wishful thinking and like my brother told me "wish in one hand, shit in the other".

    Edit: should be "whether"...Forgive me for such an error.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,375
    Except that humans don't have access to "truth". All they have is perception.
    So, "either it's there or it isn't" does not apply.

    This not necessarily true. It depends what you mean by "noise". Sure, the tree sets up vibrations in the air when it falls, but is that "sound"? Arguably, "sound" is considered to be a property of the receptor. The sound is formed when our ear turns it into a signal in the brain.

    This is semantics, true, but so is the practical definition of "truth".
     
    Dywyddyr likes this.
  21. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,350
    I'd say ''seeing things that are not there'' is probably the most apt definition of hallucination. (but not imagination)
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  22. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    185
    I see the dots...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ...but not at the same time. "Blind spots"
     
  23. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    447
    So whether the tree falls does not just depend on the sound ;it depends on tracking the sound in our ear back in time (using logic-so we do reason reality) and "triangulating" what happened.

    It is a process.

    Can we separate our our sensory/reasoning process from the external world which stimulates them or are the two aspects of the same thing?

    Are our thought processes as physical as the falling tree( and of a same physicality) but we cannot see this because the level of detail involved is too fine ?
     

Share This Page