Meta-Hallucination versus 'General' Hallucinations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have posting various threads related to "hallucinations",
i.e.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?p=379628#p379628

Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

A Quote from V.S. Ramachandran, a famous neuroscientist,

“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think.
In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”

― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

The above spooked many since the term "hallucination" is often linked to mental illnesses and whatever that is not of reality and diverting to the idea of solipsism [btw not coherent].

Now I want to clarify, the sort of 'hallucination' the above links are referring are not the typical ordinary hallucinations but rather refer to a kind of META-Hallucination.

Hoffman stated, this Meta-Hallucination of an external world of 'real' things is a programmed by evolution to facilitate human or species survival.
Thus the ripen apple one sees on a real apple tree is real to the extent it can be really eaten for one's survival. But all this is happening of reality is within a Meta-Hallucination that is generic to ALL humans.
Within the Meta-hallucinated reality, one must jump off the rail track where there is an oncoming train to ensure survival.

Whilst the Meta-Hallucination is generic to all humans, there are certain types of hallucination [ordinary] that are generated in the minds of only some people, i.e. the mentally ill, the stressed, those who take drugs, brain-damaged, meditations, driven by pure reason & others and other typical illusions.

I am particularly interested in hallucinations and illusions that are generated based on pure reason, e.g. an all-powerful God, the Being no greater can be conceived, the ultimate Being, the Absolute and the likes. These are merely one type of sub-hallucinations generated by pure reason as driven by an subliminal psychological impulse relating to the existential crisis.

What is the Advantage of Viewing Reality from a Meta-Hallucination Perspective?
It is because it is the truth of reality.
Thus whatever is conceived as really real is at best a hallucination within the generic Meta-Hallucination.

This will prevent theists from claiming the God they hallucinated out of pure reason are ultimately real, thus influencing them to impose their beliefs onto non-believers.
So far, theist has insisted what they 'hallucinated' as God is so real that they obeyed gheir God's command to kill and harm disbelievers. [note evidently Islam].

It will also prevent other less benign claims, there is an ultimate reality that is more real than empirical and other evidential reality, e.g. Eodnhoj7's Ultimate-beyond-humans, Scott's Absolute Nothing, and others.

The idea of META-Hallucination is also a barrier in preventing people from taking the leap of faith in to la al land.

From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

Agree? Disagree?
Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note a similar [but not exactly] view to the above is the idea of 'Maya' within Advaita Vedanta

Maya (/ˈmɑːjə/; Devanagari: माया, IAST: māyā), literally "illusion" or "magic",[1][2] has multiple meanings in Indian philosophies depending on the context.

In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".[2][3]

Māyā is also a spiritual concept connoting "that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal", and the "power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality".[4][5]

In Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, Maya is "the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

While I agree with the Advaita Vedanta of the illusion of phenomena in one perspective I do not agree with its ultimate reality beyond the phenomena world.

In Buddhism, Maya is also illusion [hallucination] as follows;

The Theravada monk Bhikkhu Bodhi considers the Pali Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta “one of the most radical discourses on the empty nature of conditioned phenomena.”[81] Bodhi also cites the Pali commentary on this sutra, the Sāratthappakāsinī (Spk), which states:

Cognition is like a magical illusion (māyā) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Cognition is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Cognition deceives the multitude like a magical illusion (māyā).[82]

Likewise, Bhikkhu Katukurunde Nyanananda Thera has written an exposition of the Kàlakàràma Sutta which features the image of a magical illusion as its central metaphor.[83
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)#Theravada

[Eodnhoj7]

Note a similar [but not exactly] view to the above is the idea of 'Maya' within Advaita Vedanta

Maya (/ˈmɑːjə/; Devanagari: माया, IAST: māyā), literally "illusion" or "magic",[1][2] has multiple meanings in Indian philosophies depending on the context.

In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".[2][3]

Māyā is also a spiritual concept connoting "that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal", and the "power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality".[4][5]

In Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, Maya is "the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

While I agree with the Advaita Vedanta of the illusion of phenomena in one perspective I do not agree with its ultimate reality beyond the phenomena world.

In Buddhism, Maya is also illusion [hallucination] as follows;

The Theravada monk Bhikkhu Bodhi considers the Pali Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta “one of the most radical discourses on the empty nature of conditioned phenomena.”[81] Bodhi also cites the Pali commentary on this sutra, the Sāratthappakāsinī (Spk), which states:

Cognition is like a magical illusion (māyā) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Cognition is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Cognition deceives the multitude like a magical illusion (māyā).[82]

Likewise, Bhikkhu Katukurunde Nyanananda Thera has written an exposition of the Kàlakàràma Sutta which features the image of a magical illusion as its central metaphor.[83
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)#Theravada

An hallucination is the mirroring of a phenomenon. If this reality is a hallucination then there is a reality beyond it which is not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

An hallucination is the mirroring of a phenomenon.
If this reality is a hallucination then there is a reality beyond it which is not.

Nope! a hallucination is not the mirroring of a phenomenon. Hallucinations are merely processed images and thoughts brought to conscious awareness. Their factuality and veracity must be justified within specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

There are many types of hallucination, i.e.
1. an overall meta-hallucination and within that,
2. empirical-sense hallucinations/illusions [of sight, hearing, taste, feeling, smell],
3. hallucinations/illusions from reasoning [fallacies],
4. hallucinations/illusions from pure reason [God, soul, Totality, beyond human conceptions].

This total reality - all-there-is is a meta-hallucination.

That you speculate without proof, 'there is a reality beyond it which is not'
is a hallucination out of pure reason [subset] within the meta-hallucination [larger open system].
Why you do that is psychological to soothe a cognitive dissonance, i.e. things cannot come from nothing.

Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is a reality beyond it which is not."
Answers??

If you reflect deeply, the most critical reason is you feel soothed psychologically in insisting,
"there is a reality beyond it which is not."
Do you deny the above?

[Eodnhoj7]

An hallucination is the mirroring of a phenomenon.
If this reality is a hallucination then there is a reality beyond it which is not.

Nope! a hallucination is not the mirroring of a phenomenon. Hallucinations are merely processed images and thoughts brought to conscious awareness. Their factuality and veracity must be justified within specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

There are many types of hallucination, i.e.
1. an overall meta-hallucination and within that,
2. empirical-sense hallucinations/illusions [of sight, hearing, taste, feeling, smell],
3. hallucinations/illusions from reasoning [fallacies],
4. hallucinations/illusions from pure reason [God, soul, Totality, beyond human conceptions].

This total reality - all-there-is is a meta-hallucination.

That you speculate without proof, 'there is a reality beyond it which is not'
is a hallucination out of pure reason [subset] within the meta-hallucination [larger open system].
Why you do that is psychological to soothe a cognitive dissonance, i.e. things cannot come from nothing.

Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is a reality beyond it which is not."
Answers??

If you reflect deeply, the most critical reason is you feel soothed psychologically in insisting,
"there is a reality beyond it which is not."
Do you deny the above?

The scientific method is pure reason as it cannot be empirically proven. The scientific method is based upon concepts thus is a meta hallucination according to your stance.

1. And these processed images are built upon further images of something prior. A mirage of water is based upon the replication of the appearance of actual water. The mirage is the replication of the appearances, thus necessitating through a regress, an actual source which exists as real. Another example is a unicorn, it is composed of the replications of the actual phenomenon of a horse and a horn. The unicorn is grounded in actual phenomena.

2. The absence of any thing in itself, including this reality, as provable necessitates some other reality beyond it.

3. Things do come from Nothingness as Nothingness is formlessness. Formlessness negates itself into form much in the same manner a line comes from a point negating itself into further points. Formlessness is thus change as change is the absence of form, it is the inversion of one form into another.


Your apparent belief in this reality being all that there is is to soothe the cognitive dissonance revealed under the uncertainty of how a reality beyond this exists. Your whole argument is an existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

An hallucination is the mirroring of a phenomenon.
If this reality is a hallucination then there is a reality beyond it which is not.

Nope! a hallucination is not the mirroring of a phenomenon. Hallucinations are merely processed images and thoughts brought to conscious awareness. Their factuality and veracity must be justified within specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

There are many types of hallucination, i.e.
1. an overall meta-hallucination and within that,
2. empirical-sense hallucinations/illusions [of sight, hearing, taste, feeling, smell],
3. hallucinations/illusions from reasoning [fallacies],
4. hallucinations/illusions from pure reason [God, soul, Totality, beyond human conceptions].

This total reality - all-there-is is a meta-hallucination.

That you speculate without proof, 'there is a reality beyond it which is not'
is a hallucination out of pure reason [subset] within the meta-hallucination [larger open system].
Why you do that is psychological to soothe a cognitive dissonance, i.e. things cannot come from nothing.

Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is a reality beyond it."
Answers??

If you reflect deeply, the most critical reason is you feel soothed psychologically in insisting,
"there is a reality beyond it which is not."
Do you deny the above?

The scientific method is pure reason as it cannot be empirically proven. The scientific method is based upon concepts thus is a meta hallucination according to your stance.

Nope!
The scientific method is not based on pure reason.
The scientific method is also not a meta hallucination.

The scientific method is a system within the meta-hallucination.
The scientific method relied upon empirical evidences to generate scientific truths [polished conjectures] from within the meta-hallucination.

1. And these processed images are built upon further images of something prior.
A mirage of water is based upon the replication of the appearance of actual water.
The mirage is the replication of the appearances, thus necessitating through a regress, an actual source which exists as real.
Another example is a unicorn, it is composed of the replications of the actual phenomenon of a horse and a horn. The unicorn is grounded in actual phenomena.

What is that "something prior?"

Say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.

But you think this is based on perception [2] of the replication of actual water.

On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.

On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.

On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.

On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.

On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms

On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,

On more closer perception[9], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived.

On more closer perception[10], there are various types quarks

Then, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2].

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

The above range of phenomenon arise out of a meta-hallucination and there is no way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior.

Your something prior is thus a sub-hallucination within the meta-hallucination invented from pure reason and not of reality [within the meta hallucination].

2. The absence of any thing in itself, including this reality, as provable necessitates some other reality beyond it.

As I have shown above there is no 'other reality beyond it?'
Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

3. Things do come from Nothingness as Nothingness is formlessness. Formlessness negates itself into form much in the same manner a line comes from a point negating itself into further points. Formlessness is thus change as change is the absence of form, it is the inversion of one form into another.

The above is merely a sub-hallucination within the meta-hallucination.

Your apparent belief in this reality being all that there is is to soothe the cognitive dissonance revealed under the uncertainty of how a reality beyond this exists. Your whole argument is an existential crisis.

I understand reality-in-one perspective is a meta-hallucination.
Whatever is real within the meta-hallucination is verified to be real within a credible framework and system, such as the scientific method.

As I had stated,
EVEN Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

So who are you [a philosopher gnat] to insist there is the 'other reality beyond it' that is real?

Why you are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else you will feel suspended.

I asked above,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other reality beyond it."
Answers??

Reflecting deeply on the above will help you to ease yourself into reality within the meta-hallucination and relieve your cognitive dissonance more rationally.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope! a hallucination is not the mirroring of a phenomenon. Hallucinations are merely processed images and thoughts brought to conscious awareness. Their factuality and veracity must be justified within specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

There are many types of hallucination, i.e.
1. an overall meta-hallucination and within that,
2. empirical-sense hallucinations/illusions [of sight, hearing, taste, feeling, smell],
3. hallucinations/illusions from reasoning [fallacies],
4. hallucinations/illusions from pure reason [God, soul, Totality, beyond human conceptions].

This total reality - all-there-is is a meta-hallucination.

That you speculate without proof, 'there is a reality beyond it which is not'
is a hallucination out of pure reason [subset] within the meta-hallucination [larger open system].
Why you do that is psychological to soothe a cognitive dissonance, i.e. things cannot come from nothing.

Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is a reality beyond it."
Answers??

If you reflect deeply, the most critical reason is you feel soothed psychologically in insisting,
"there is a reality beyond it which is not."
Do you deny the above?

The scientific method is pure reason as it cannot be empirically proven. The scientific method is based upon concepts thus is a meta hallucination according to your stance.

Nope!
The scientific method is not based on pure reason.
The scientific method is also not a meta hallucination.

The scientific method is a system within the meta-hallucination.
The scientific method relied upon empirical evidences to generate scientific truths [polished conjectures] from within the meta-hallucination.

The interpretation of empirical phenomena through a framework necessitates the phenomenon as being interpreted through pure reason. Evidence is interpretation.

1. And these processed images are built upon further images of something prior.
A mirage of water is based upon the replication of the appearance of actual water.
The mirage is the replication of the appearances, thus necessitating through a regress, an actual source which exists as real.
Another example is a unicorn, it is composed of the replications of the actual phenomenon of a horse and a horn. The unicorn is grounded in actual phenomena.

What is that "something prior?"

Say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.

But you think this is based on perception [2] of the replication of actual water.

On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.

On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.

On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.

On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.

On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms

On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,

On more closer perception[9], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived.

On more closer perception[10], there are various types quarks

Then, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2].

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

The above range of phenomenon arise out of a meta-hallucination and there is no way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior.

Your something prior is thus a sub-hallucination within the meta-hallucination invented from pure reason and not of reality [within the meta hallucination].

All hallucinations, as images of a phenomenon, necessitate a prior existing phenomena which is not a hallucination. If all is a hallucination, as a chain, what is not a hallucination is the cycles of images thus necessitating the cycle as the real phenomena all phenomena are built upon.

2. The absence of any thing in itself, including this reality, as provable necessitates some other reality beyond it.

As I have shown above there is no 'other reality beyond it?'
Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

False, all existence as empty in itself is proof of another reality existing beyond this one.

3. Things do come from Nothingness as Nothingness is formlessness. Formlessness negates itself into form much in the same manner a line comes from a point negating itself into further points. Formlessness is thus change as change is the absence of form, it is the inversion of one form into another.

The above is merely a sub-hallucination within the meta-hallucination.

Nothingness is not an hallucination as formlessness cannot be hallucinated.

Your apparent belief in this reality being all that there is is to soothe the cognitive dissonance revealed under the uncertainty of how a reality beyond this exists. Your whole argument is an existential crisis.

I understand reality-in-one perspective is a meta-hallucination.
Whatever is real within the meta-hallucination is verified to be real within a credible framework and system, such as the scientific method.

As I had stated,
EVEN Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

So who are you [a philosopher gnat] to insist there is the 'other reality beyond it' that is real?

Why you are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else you will feel suspended.

Your stance that all is an hallucination is a belief stemming from an existential crisis.

I asked above,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other reality beyond it."
Answers??

Reflecting deeply on the above will help you to ease yourself into reality within the meta-hallucination and relieve your cognitive dissonance more rationally.

Truth and this reality is taken within a much broader perspective. The repetition of actions within this reality across another reality necessitates greater responsibility of actions within this dimension.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Probably DTs.

[jayjacobus]

Hallucinations are a misfunction of the brain and occur when a person is drunk, on drugs, under stress, pre-sleeping (hypnogogic) or suffering from a brain disorder. Sometimes, what is called mental illness, is actually a misfunction of the brain. The mind may interpret the wrong information rationally but, because the information is distorted, the mind is unable to react like a normal mind.

In cases where medicine has a beneficial effect, the effect is most likely on the brain and less likely on the mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The interpretation of empirical phenomena through a framework necessitates the phenomenon as being interpreted through pure reason. Evidence is interpretation.

The above is an oxymoron.

What is your definition of Pure Reason.

Pure Reason is defined as
'a completely distinct Cognition in which the Understanding [intellect, reasoning] is separated from the Senses and Imagination'.

How can the interpretation and cognition of empirical phenomena [senses] through a framework be based on pure reason? It is impossible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hallucinations are a misfunction of the brain and occur when a person is drunk, on drugs, under stress, pre-sleeping (hypnogogic) or suffering from a brain disorder. Sometimes, what is called mental illness, is actually a misfunction of the brain. The mind may interpret the wrong information rationally but, because the information is distorted, the mind is unable to react like a normal mind.

In cases where medicine has a beneficial effect, the effect is most likely on the brain and less likely on the mind.

I presume you did not read the OP thoroughly.
Note again;

“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think.
In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time.
One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”

― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human 2010

Scientists [note the above] had discovered the biological and neural mechanisms of hallucinations by those with mental cases and other ordinary circumstances are 'exactly' the same as how ordinary people perceived reality.

So they place such similar neural activities along a continuum of hallucination in terms of how the hallucinations arise.

Thus as above,
"One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data."

You should read Ramanchandran's book to understand how he had justified his claims.

Many other scientists has also discovered the same theory.

So far I have not read of any serious counter against the above claims nor these scientists were condemned as mad.

[jayjacobus]

“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think.
In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time.
One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”

― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human 2010

Nevertheless, it is the brain that distorts reality and the mind that gives meaning to the distorted information. It is crisp. The brain processes and the mind perceives the distorted (or undistorted) information. Moreover perception is not a choice anymore than reality is a choice. Perception of reality is a process that the brain makes and the brain does not choose.

[Impenitent]

I thought G.I. Joe took care of General Hallucinations when they fought Cobra...

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think.
In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time.
One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”

― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human 2010

Nevertheless, it is the brain that distorts reality and the mind that gives meaning to the distorted information. It is crisp. The brain processes and the mind perceives the distorted (or undistorted) information. Moreover perception is not a choice anymore than reality is a choice. Perception of reality is a process that the brain makes and the brain does not choose.

There are many complex functions and levels within of the brain, mind and body operating within the Universe.

1. Here is one basic levels and function of the brain;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
I don't mean like creating using a magic wand and things appear.
The gist is reality cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions which are part and parcel of reality.
This is related to the meta-hallucination of reality.

2. As such, the brain at one level would perceive the reality it has co-created. This is the empirical phenomena that is perceived.

3. At another level, the brain and mind can also distort the reality it "co-created" i.e. in the case of a hallucination, illusion and misperceptions. This is the general hallucination, e.g. a schizo claiming the garden gnome he talked to is real.
The experience of virtual reality [seemingly so real] is a form of hallucination.

You cannot conflate 1, 2 and 3 as all the same but rather must always qualify its context of which reality you are referring to.

[jayjacobus]

Nevertheless, it is the brain that distorts reality and the mind that gives meaning to the distorted information. It is crisp. The brain processes and the mind perceives the distorted (or undistorted) information. Moreover perception is not a choice anymore than reality is a choice. Perception of reality is a process that the brain makes and the brain does not choose.

There are many complex functions and levels within of the brain, mind and body operating within the Universe.

1. Here is one basic levels and function of the brain;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
I don't mean like creating using a magic wand and things appear.
The gist is reality cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions which are part and parcel of reality.
This is related to the meta-hallucination of reality.

2. As such, the brain at one level would perceive the reality it has co-created. This is the empirical phenomena that is perceived.

3. At another level, the brain and mind can also distort the reality it "co-created" i.e. in the case of a hallucination, illusion and misperceptions. This is the general hallucination, e.g. a schizo claiming the garden gnome he talked to is real.
The experience of virtual reality [seemingly so real] is a form of hallucination.

You cannot conflate 1, 2 and 3 as all the same but rather must always qualify its context of which reality you are referring to.

A computer is not an algorithm nor is the programmer's mind a computer.

If you agree, then what is the difference between reality, the brain and the mind?