Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

[Atla]

It's so tediously typical that when a philosophically idiotic neuroscientist like Anil Seth makes a sensationalist statement, like "your brain hallucinates your conscious reality", VA and his ilk will fly to it.

It just highlights the so-far-unjustified, binary stance he has on realism/antirealism. All or nothing. And he also doesn't seem to follow through on the implications his antirealism has on other people/minds, what he could possibly know about what we are like and so on.

He has two urges:
to generalize his conclusions and call them objective.
to undermine anything that gets in the way.

So, what happens is he chooses things that undermine parts of his own program.
It's a cake and eat too shifting ontology.

Hallucinations are called hallucinations for a reason. Yes what we experience in the head is a construct about the outer reality, and when that construct can be seen as accurate enough we see it as normal, and when the construct is too inaccurate we say we are hallucinating.

Then some neuroscientist comes along and says: "HO-HO-HO you know what, a construct is a construct so everything is a hallucination kinda, wow look at me I'm so deep and smart!"

Then VA and his ilk will flock to it and say "Oh wow look he's so deep! OMG I felt like this too since I was 7! It's all a hallucination and we just choose the one we can agree on! And later I took drugs and saw this again! The Truth is out everyone! My life is like totally changed!"

whahh...

[Flannel Jesus]

Hallucinations are called hallucinations for a reason. Yes what we experience in the head is a construct about the outer reality, and when that construct can be seen as accurate enough we see it as normal, and when the construct is too inaccurate we say we are hallucinating.

Then some neuroscientist comes along and says: "HO-HO-HO you know what, a construct is a construct so everything is a hallucination kinda, wow look at me I'm so deep and smart!"

Then VA and his ilk will flock to it and say "Oh wow look he's so deep! OMG I felt like this too since I was 7! It's all a hallucination and we just choose the one we can agree on! And later I took drugs and saw this again! The Truth is out everyone! My life is like totally changed!"

whahh...

I think there's a more charitable interpretation. First of all, the op is realistic, not anti realistic. It assumes an underlying reality, specifically the underlying reality of a brain, upon which a hallucination must occur. So if you take op seriously, you need not agree with anything remotely like anti realism.

Secondly, I think you can have a more loose definition of hallucination. The most loose interpretation is, a significant portion of the parts of your brain responsible for producing visual hallucinations are also responsible for producing visual experience out of the information from your eyes.

That doesn't mean you aren't getting visual information from your eyes, it doesn't mean your visual experience is completely unrelated to outside reality.

I actually like the idea. Experience is a hallucination, experience is a dream, or experience is a UI - I think all these views are just fine. I also think they do nothing to support the particular flavour of anti realism va likes to push

[Atla]

Hallucinations are called hallucinations for a reason. Yes what we experience in the head is a construct about the outer reality, and when that construct can be seen as accurate enough we see it as normal, and when the construct is too inaccurate we say we are hallucinating.

Then some neuroscientist comes along and says: "HO-HO-HO you know what, a construct is a construct so everything is a hallucination kinda, wow look at me I'm so deep and smart!"

Then VA and his ilk will flock to it and say "Oh wow look he's so deep! OMG I felt like this too since I was 7! It's all a hallucination and we just choose the one we can agree on! And later I took drugs and saw this again! The Truth is out everyone! My life is like totally changed!"

whahh...

I think there's a more charitable interpretation. First of all, the op is realistic, not anti realistic. It assumes an underlying reality, specifically the underlying reality of a brain, upon which a hallucination must occur. So if you take op seriously, you need not agree with anything remotely like anti realism.

Secondly, I think you can have a more loose definition of hallucination. The most loose interpretation is, a significant portion of the parts of your brain responsible for producing visual hallucinations are also responsible for producing visual experience out of the information from your eyes.

That doesn't mean you aren't getting visual information from your eyes, it doesn't mean your visual experience is completely unrelated to outside reality.

I actually like the idea. Experience is a hallucination, experience is a dream, or experience is a UI - I think all these views are just fine. I also think they do nothing to support the particular flavour of anti realism va likes to push

I honestly can't tell how your comment is connected to mine. Isn't this what I just said, except I find this take that all experience is a hallucination to be too destructive?

[Iwannaplato]

I think there's a more charitable interpretation. First of all, the op is realistic, not anti realistic. It assumes an underlying reality, specifically the underlying reality of a brain, upon which a hallucination must occur. So if you take op seriously, you need not agree with anything remotely like anti realism.

To that extent is it realism. Which was why I dug this up.

Secondly, I think you can have a more loose definition of hallucination. The most loose interpretation is, a significant portion of the parts of your brain responsible for producing visual hallucinations are also responsible for producing visual experience out of the information from your eyes.

That doesn't mean you aren't getting visual information from your eyes, it doesn't mean your visual experience is completely unrelated to outside reality.

Yes, though in VA's larger program this interpretation is verboten.

I actually like the idea. Experience is a hallucination, experience is a dream, or experience is a UI - I think all these views are just fine. I also think they do nothing to support the particular flavour of anti realism va likes to push

Right.

“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think.

From the OP. This fits nicely with indirect realism. There is a difference, but the line is not so crisp. There is a meaningful use of those terms, but there are gray areas or combinations.

But once you use hallucination as meaning it is all made up in the head, you can't then tell other people what their experiences are, unless you are a solipsist and they are merely parts of your own mind.

VA has tended to allow a realism about other people. He can know things about them and their brains and minds. They are out there, external to him. Any other perceived or talked about thing disappears when he's not around.

[Flannel Jesus]

VA has tended to allow a realism about other people. He can know things about them and their brains and minds. They are out there, external to him. Any other perceived or talked about thing disappears when he's not around.

Most of us would prefer to disappear when he IS around.

[Iwannaplato]

VA has tended to allow a realism about other people. He can know things about them and their brains and minds. They are out there, external to him. Any other perceived or talked about thing disappears when he's not around.

Most of us would prefer to disappear when he IS around.

That's a healthier way to experience his not responding to what we write and instead re-stating his positions or throwing new stuff without responding to points made. Instead of seeing this behavior as rude and reacting to the rudeness, we could see it as being blissfully invisible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not very sure of your points.

The brain [dead or alive] of every human can be proven to exist empirically via science.

Oh, so

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

is a very problematic statement then. Since science confirms that many of our beliefs about reality are correct. There is a tree over there. Other people's skin is warm to the touch when they have a fever. Warmth comes from the Sun, and so on.

So, we are not just hallucinating reality.

Therefore his brain is empirically possible for me and objective in the scientific sense.

Other people's minds are not.

I did not make any claims of transcendental objective reality.

If you, VA, are hallucinating reality period, then when you tell us about our lives, you are 1) talking to hallucinations and 2) making up stuff about what we are experiencing and must experience.

Rather it is Eodnhoj7 who claimed there is transcendental objective reality of an object [brain, etc] and a ultimate thing that is beyond human conditions.
I disputed and disagreed there is a transcendental objective reality of an object.
This is a hallucination [of pure reason] within the meta-hallucination.

If we are only hallucinating conscious reality then whenever you tell us what we are experiencing and what is happening in our brains is based on hallucinations.
And science, which is based on observations, it is an empirical process, is based on hallucinations.

So, you have no competence, by your own sense of yourself as hallucinating, to tell us about what is happening in our experiencing. EVerything is transcendant to you, unless you think we are merely a part of you.

You would be hallucinating when you 'read the research that proves....' The scientists would be hallucinating their observations. You would be hallucinating that there are scientists out there writing their research conclusions.

We are outside of your mind/brain. If you only hallucinate what it outside your brain, then ANY CONCLUSION YOU DRAW ABOUT WHAT IS NOT YOUR MIND is a hallucination.

I suggest you research [VERY] deeply into the subjects and made an attempt to understand [not necessary agree] the views from all sides on why and how "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality."

Try consulting ChatGpt's views for various views and ask for references.

[promethean75]

I dunno about the premise of this thread. Seems to me to be another deep 'question the nature of reality' themes in tune with Descartes and the matrix.

To that i say: if reality is called into question, evidence u have suggesting it ought to be called into question is called into question itself since it's part of the reality in question, so as evidence it's... well... questionable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I dunno about the premise of this thread. Seems to me to be another deep 'question the nature of reality' themes in tune with Descartes and the matrix.

To that i say: if reality is called into question, evidence u have suggesting it ought to be called into question is called into question itself since it's part of the reality in question, so as evidence it's... well... questionable.

The first best rational thing we can relied upon this thesis is;
whatever the God, it is at best in a way a hallucination [of varying degrees].
So there is no real God that sent his son, prophet with a message to earthlings.
This will erode the confidence of theists who impose their God's will upon non-believers or obey their God's commands and sanction to kill non-believers.

It will erode the confidence of ideological p-realist to do whatever negatives they are doing at present.

The OP theory provide the opportunity for humans to control reality optimally to their well-beings rather than surrendering to the mercy of a God or an independent external reality.

[Iwannaplato]

I dunno about the premise of this thread. Seems to me to be another deep 'question the nature of reality' themes in tune with Descartes and the matrix.

To that i say: if reality is called into question, evidence u have suggesting it ought to be called into question is called into question itself since it's part of the reality in question, so as evidence it's... well... questionable.

He missed the point of your post and rattled on about a specific issue.
Yes, it would be fruit of the poison tree.

It mainly boils down to VA can know stuff and the rest of us are hallucinating. He doesn't say this, it's what comes out in the interaction.