Things That Are Not There

davidelkins

davidelkins

Registered Senior Member
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
 
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.
 
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.

14242258_10154587506749479_4493136563339135307_o.jpg
 
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
 
davidelkins said:
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
Click to expand...
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".
 
davidelkins said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
davidelkins said:
Oh Dave, I see, so I should not make an argument
Click to expand...
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).

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
davidelkins said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
davidelkins said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
davidelkins said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.

14242258_10154587506749479_4493136563339135307_o.jpg
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You have special eyes. Most people can not see 12 dots simultaneously.



But that is not true. Perception is subjective.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Sylvester said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Sylvester said:
Whether 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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
davidelkins said:
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
Click to expand...

I'd say ''seeing things that are not there'' is probably the most apt definition of hallucination. (but not imagination)
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top