You are hallucinating right now!

Are you hallucinating right now?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not Sure
  • Other (Please explain)
  • Don’t Care!
0 voters

No wonder the brain is so capable of hallucination; it does so constantly. It turns out the brain is constantly hallucinating within the eye’s blind spot (the size of “nine full moons in the sky”).

uni-protokolle.de/buecher/isbn/0688172172/
“…with your blind spot particularly discombobulating, as you watch as your mind “fills in” missing information, and even “hallucinates” things that aren’t there…”
serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html
sciammind.com/article.cfm?ar … 414B7F0000

I wonder how else we delude ourselves? :-k

Setting aside speculations about filling in the blind spot – which, practically speaking, doesn’t constitute hallucination most of the time because the eyes are constantly in motion and thus so is the blind spot, so the whole thing is self-correcting – the answer to “we are always hallucinating” is roughly the same as the answer to “the objective world does not exist” – the question is meaningless.

The world that exists for us is the world we experience. The only sense in which the word “hallucination” has any meaning is that, sometimes, under some conditions, we perceive things that another person would not perceive and that we would not perceive ourselves under different conditions. For example, certain drugs and certain mental illnesses, as well as severe fatigue and a few other conditions, can produce sensory perceptions that are abnormal and “not real.” But the only way we can say that these perceptions are “not real,” is by comparing them to other perceptions that are more consistent with the pattern of perception overall.

Hallucination, therefore, is necessarily a sometime thing, not an always thing. To say that we are ALWAYS hallucinating is meaningless.

To repeat the science: their are no photoreceptors over the optic nerve. So the phenomenon is always happening whenever we use our eyes. It’s a fact, yes?

It’s a shame that many parents forget or don’t realize this- that mind makes up reality in order to fill the gaps. That’s what makes it an effective processor without having to fall apart at every glitch.

We must have tolerance for behaviour in people, particularly growing, that “lie” because their mind offers little choice. Especially in cases where they’re trained to believe that giving wrong information could threaten their survival.

Only when the lie seems chronic or premeditated should we really make it an ethical issue.

I remember times being so bored in school that I would hallucinate justo to keep my mind going. And people would browbeat at my reactions . . . maybe I should have argued for a symptom of a bad curriculum.

No, because that’s not what “hallucination” means.

Cute, though. :wink:

example of hallucination from my personal experiance:

After taking a large dose of purple mike(poor mans lsd), i was leaning against my friends car, it was raining.

When i looked at the rain falling, it seemed as if the rain drops were falling in “slow motion”. I use the term slow motion because it was noticablly slower than what i would expect to see in this situation.

This is considered a hallucination because it varies from my normal perception. So, if in the event we were always percieving our environment in a set way, there would have to be a change in that percieving to consider the said experiance as hallucinatory. ie hallucinating “always” is an impossibility (as has been said)

Another similar experiance that night is when my friends came over to talk with me, the image of they’re face was not aligning with the rate at which i was hearing them speak so i could hardly understand them. It seemd as if they’re voice was proceeding in slow motion and they’re mouth was moving in fast forward.

If things which we find in our environment can effect our perception of the environment, how can we doubt the objective existance of this environment?

The definition I’m using for “hallucination” is: seeing something that’s not there. If our brain actually saw the blind spot, it would look like a hole in our otherwise normal vision. Since I never see this hole, I’m saying that there is a constant phenomenon occurring. If you don’t want to call it a hallucination, that’s fine, but it is constant and it is a “phenomenon”, yes?

I think I can bend your definition of “hallucination” to fit this example. You mention that a hallucination “varies from my normal perception”. Well, that’s what is going on at the blind spot, a variance of normal perception. Normal perception is where light comes into the eye and interacts with the photoreceptors. This does not happen where the optic nerve creates the blind spot. The vision that occurs over this area is a false one cobbled together by some mechanism in the brain. This could be considered abnormal when compared to the photoreceptor-method that constitutes 90 percent (I’m guessing) of the way our eyes perceive.

But anyway, if there is a problem with the word “hallucination”, please offer a replacement to explain the phenomenon. “Seeing something that is not there” sounded like a hallucination to me. :wink:

Seems true although “survival” is a little vague. For evolution, I’m not sure how the blind spot would make a difference. The caveman still wouldn’t be able to see the saber-tooth tiger attacking him from his blind spot with or without the hallucination phenomenon. How does covering up the blind spot help with survival? :-k

I think that this is the point of having two eyes, not “hallucinating”. I have forgotten a lot about our eyes, but when you do that exercise with the x and the circle and what not, you have to do it with one eye shut.

Our eyes don’t technically look in the exact same spot (for example, try looking at something then close one eye at a time, the angle will vary). As a result, you get a complete picture as one eye fills in the information of the blind spot for the other.

However, that’s just my opinion and like I said, I’ve forgotten a lot about eyes.
edit: I didn’t read the articles so I don’t know if I’m contradicting some sort of evidence or not.

Drugs. I;ve taken them. It’s amazing. You can hallucinate on drugs and be conscious of the fact that it is an hallucination.

But, at the same time this makes sense. It was like my mind was trying to make sense and put some kind of label or memory with what was coming in. Like, the hallucination wasn’t random. It was my minds attempt to tie what was coming in from the eyes with what it knew about already, then my mind tried to make me see “that”, but because I knew I was on drugs I could reason with my mind and tell it, that it was wrong.

Drugs must interrupt this process, so a person can observe their mind unfold. I don’t advocate drug use, however.

I wouldn’t have thought so from your signature!

EDIT: Signature has since changed.

like your photo of the fish you caught?

so the area of the blind spot has more importance than the area of which we see with?

why?

yes

I’m not sure which is more important. The part we see with I guess. Hate to lose that.

[b]Lo, friends, make the ears of thy mind cold,
For but a gentle moment,
As I say:
"Mirage…
Distortion…
Do they not each require… heat?

Thus the untruth of the fire-worlds!
And my fascination with the ice!"[/b]

I am aware of hallucinations all the time (audtitory, tactile, olfactory and visual and often combined). The rate is every few seconds.

While I would agree that human perception is always flawed, I think we are trying to differentiate from normal (flawed) sense perception, and flagrant mis-perception.

I had a very weird olfactory hallucination when I was young (like 7 years old):

I was on a field trip with school and we were out in a forest somewhere, and there was this leaf on a tree that whenever I crushed it between my fingers smelled like an Abba Zabba candy bar (taffy and peanut butter).

It had to be an olfactory hallucination.

rockofagescandy.com/Funny_St … Zabba.html

We are always hallucinating; it just so happens that most of the time our hallucinations match up topologically with the real world.

An example of the necessity for hallucination is motion. If we tried to capture every snapshot of our environment individually, we would end up with an enormous (possibly infinite) need for data. Instead, we simply process the gaps which we can assume lead from one picture to the other. Statistics, robotics, quantum physics et al works the same way using calculus.