Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

[Ramu]

Do you trust yourself with this direct experience of two normal faces?

But this has nothing to do with actual direct experience of SELF which is prior to any concept or image, or ideas about people with mental problems.

Point is, in the case of the normal face demo, do you agree 'you' were deceived by your own brain/mind. Yes/No. It is essential you confirm this fact.

SELF simply means nothing and everything manifesting everywhere and nowhere from out of the infinite void of pure potential to actuality.

In all actuality there is no 'me' experiencing myself, theres just the experience of nothing and everything HERE right NOW.

Dont ask me how this is possible, but it is experiencial.. in no way shape or form is SELF impossible at all...because its a happening, this is it. It may well be an illusory mirage but the illusion is here to stay whether you like it or not because you are a part of the whole illusion that you cannot escape from.

The above is only your explanation which cannot be verified as you stated,
"Don't ask me how this is possible,"
Yes, it is experiential, but one's experience cannot be trusted.
How do you know your experience is not due to some kind of temporary madness since many mad people also reported similar experiences of no-me, no-I?

So VA, you're saying direct first person experience can't be trusted. So how do we verify the experience, through 3rd party objective? That's where science stops. Good enough right? We've got our indirect proof disproving the null hypothesis? Except the metaphysics are screwy because the 3rd party objective that you deem "more true" than first person subjective, IS STILL OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE!!

[surreptitious57]

So VA you re saying direct first person experience cant be trusted. So how do we verify the experience through 3rd party objective ? That is where science stops. Good enough right ? We have got our indirect proof disproving the null hypothesis ? Except the metaphysics are screwy because the 3rd party objective that you deem more true than first person subjective IS STILL OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE !!

This is true but multiple third person interpretations are however significantly better at eliminating bias and error than a single first person one is
And so it is not a question of being right but of being less wrong and the greater the number of third persons the less probable bias or error will be

Science is eternally self correcting as there is no point at which it can reach objective truth because induction prevents this
One has to work within such limitations. The alternative is to not investigate at all but that is not possible given our natural
curiosity. Then we have no choice but to investigate using inter subjectivity as a substitute for objectivity and the scientific
method for testing hypotheses to absolute destruction [ or as close to as possible ] as this is the most effective way there is

[Veritas Aequitas]

So VA you re saying direct first person experience cant be trusted. So how do we verify the experience through 3rd party objective ? That is where science stops. Good enough right ? We have got our indirect proof disproving the null hypothesis ? Except the metaphysics are screwy because the 3rd party objective that you deem more true than first person subjective IS STILL OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE !!

I'll borrow surreptitious57 to reply to your above.

This is true but multiple third person interpretations are however significantly better at eliminating bias and error than a single first person one is
And so it is not a question of being right but of being less wrong and the greater the number of third persons the less probable bias or error will be

Science is eternally self correcting as there is no point at which it can reach objective truth because induction prevents this
One has to work within such limitations. The alternative is to not investigate at all but that is not possible given our natural
curiosity. Then we have no choice but to investigate using inter subjectivity as a substitute for objectivity and the scientific
method for testing hypotheses to absolute destruction [ or as close to as possible ] as this is the most effective way there is

I agree. Very Good answer.

Ramu,
I agree with Karl Popper's i.e. scientific theories are at best polished conjectures which in many cases are due to direct experiences, e.g. the apple falling on Newton.
Despite the known limitations of science, note the tremendous quantum of its positive contributions to humanity. You got this to sink in.

Even when first person subjective experiences are obviously difficult study, Science has made loads of advancements to understand the sources of weird metaphysical claims by various people.

Many psychiatric patients made claims of having experiences with an entity called God or the likes. Psychiatrists had been treating such patients and cured their visions and experiences of a 'God'. Neuroscientists are also making inroads into the brain to find the sources of such madness. Note my often linked video [there are many],

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

I believe with the further advancements in the Human Connectome Project, scientists will be more accurate to find the causes of metaphysical claims within the brain/mind.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

I agree Science is limited, that is why we have back up the veracity of various knowledge with Philosophy-proper [backed by all potential tools], thus my call for an empirical-rational basis for knowledge.

First person subjective experiences [metaphysical-ontological] like yours are firstly conjectures [in the eyes of others] and as such you need to put them through the empirical-rational grinder to polish it till it has credibility which any one can test and verify if they want to.

Btw, I believe Advaita Vedanta [if you are into it] is PhD level spirituality and very positive in contrast to the Abrahamic ones, but there is still some reservations re the above mentioned points.

[Reflex]

Earlier I posted, “My brain hallucinates VA.” Apparently, someone doesn’t appreciate comments in strict accord with the OP and deleted it. If my brain hallucinates my conscious reality and VA is a part of that reality, then, clearly, my brain hallucinates VA.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Earlier I posted, “My brain hallucinates VA.” Apparently, someone doesn’t appreciate comments in strict accord with the OP and deleted it. If my brain hallucinates my conscious reality and VA is a part of that reality, then, clearly, my brain hallucinates VA.

I don't know about the above but generally it is not preferable to get personal for no good reason.
I wonder if you have listened to the video.

My take is the degree of conscious reality is inversely correlated to the degree of 'hallucination'.
There is a play of words here, but it does make sense.

There is no absolute reality, thus there is only relative reality.
What is 'reality' is how our brain/mind matches its conception from 'external waves' [non-absolute] from 'objects' [non-absolute] that trigger the whole brain [senses and all].

In this sense, note the following;

1. the degree of 1/100 hallucination = 99/100 reality - the normal person
2. the degree of 99/100 hallucination = 1/100 reality - the schizophrenic

Thus if you are a normal person and see another living human being, you are theoretically and in principle hallucinating albeit only in a 1/100 degree.

It is like saying almost pure white is 1/100 black.

Thus using the above principle,
the person who insist God is real is caught in a 50-99/100 hallucination as justified by sound rational arguments.

The above "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality" provides a critical blanket control on the impossibility of God to be really real because everything emerging from the self [brain/mind] is a hallucination of some degree.

[Walker]

What’s your take on the “licking of lepers”?

Serious question.

[QuantumT]

Well you know VA, I used to be a materialist like you so I can see why you have this belief system where brains exist. Materialists also believe that the universe is just a dumb universe full of bouncing particles that are governed by rational physical forces.

However why do most materialists think this way? Did you realize that the great minds of the quantum physicists of the day back 100 years ago debunked materialism. What did the great minds like Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein discover? That the universe is non physical, VA!

(Niels) Bohr and Einstein were opponents in this interpretation, and although Einstein partially admitted his defeat towards the end, he never truly gave up on materialism. You must be thinking of Heisenberg.

But I agree 100%. Physics is an illusion. There is nothing but energy, or rather, information.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What’s your take on the “licking of lepers”?

Serious question.

Noted the following;

Leprosy is spread between people and possibly from armadillos.[7] This is thought to occur through a cough or contact with fluid from the nose of an infected person.[7] Leprosy occurs more commonly among those living in poverty.[2]
Contrary to popular belief, it is not highly contagious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy

There could be many reasons why certain people who challenge the contagiousness of leprosy did not get infected with the disease. One reason could be they have an efficient immunity system.

However I would only be convinced if they are tested under scientific conditions or given the exposure beyond their tolerance level.
I however will not accept it has anything to do with a God with independent agency.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well you know VA, I used to be a materialist like you so I can see why you have this belief system where brains exist. Materialists also believe that the universe is just a dumb universe full of bouncing particles that are governed by rational physical forces.

However why do most materialists think this way? Did you realize that the great minds of the quantum physicists of the day back 100 years ago debunked materialism. What did the great minds like Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein discover? That the universe is non physical, VA!

I missed the above until it was brought out in the above.

I was never a materialist.
George Berkeley [1700s] debunked materialism [philosophical] in his own ways which I agree in part but not where he brought God into his argument.
nb: [mine]

George Berkeley (/ˈbɑːrkli/;[4][5] 12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753) — known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne) — was an Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others).
This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers [from the Mind of God] and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived.
Berkeley is also known for his critique of abstraction, an important premise in his argument for immaterialism.

There are other Philosophical anti-Materialists who had debunked materialism.
Based on this Physicists has shifted from Materialism to Physicalism.
Quantum Physicists still rely on Physicalism [only slightly different from materialism].

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.

Physicalism is closely related to materialism.
Physicalism grew out of materialism with advancements of the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena.
The terms are often used interchangeably, although they are sometimes distinguished, for example on the basis of physics describing more than just matter (including energy and physical law). Common arguments against physicalism include both the philosophical zombie argument[3] and the multiple observers argument,[4] that the existence of a physical being may imply zero or more distinct conscious entities.

Therefore Quantum Physicists did not debunk Philosophical Materialism.

I noted you have the wrong view of Materialists - now as Physicalists.
The physicalists has no choice but to define their terms within their specific Framework and System, i.e. Science as scientists. They just cannot state "God/Absolute exists" as a condition within the scientific thesis/papers they presented.

However outside their Scientific Framework they do acknowledge their own consciousness and existence.
The difference is the specific Physicalists aka Materialists do not accept the existence of an Absolute or God within their specific Framework and System, i.e. Science because there is no room for that.
However some scientists do believe in God or Absolute outside the scope of Science as defined.

[surreptitious57]

The physicalists has no choice but to define their terms within their specific Framework and System i e Science as scientists
They just cannot state God / Absolute exists as a condition within the scientific thesis / papers they presented

However outside their Scientific Framework they do acknowledge their own consciousness and existence
The difference is the specific Physicalists aka Materialists do not accept the existence of an Absolute or God within their specific
Framework and System i e Science

However some scientists do believe in God or Absolute outside the scope of Science as defined

Science cannot answer the God question because that is ontological not scientific
But as you say scientists can still believe in God they just cannot use science to demonstrate his existence as that is non falsifiable

[Veritas Aequitas]

The physicalists has no choice but to define their terms within their specific Framework and System i e Science as scientists
They just cannot state God / Absolute exists as a condition within the scientific thesis / papers they presented

However outside their Scientific Framework they do acknowledge their own consciousness and existence
The difference is the specific Physicalists aka Materialists do not accept the existence of an Absolute or God within their specific
Framework and System i e Science

However some scientists do believe in God or Absolute outside the scope of Science as defined

Science cannot answer the God question because that is ontological not scientific
But as you say scientists can still believe in God they just cannot use science to demonstrate his existence as that is non falsifiable

Agree.

To add, SOME scientists do believe in God because their neural-existential-crisis is very active in generating desperate psychological impulses [subtle anxieties, despair, meaninglessness, Angst, etc] that need to be comforted, thus their belief in a God [illusory], which somehow work.

The theory here is the consequences of mental activities -X [in this case existential anxieties, etc] can be contra_ed with another set of mental activities -Y [belief in a God].
The problem and fact is this mental activities -Y [belief in a God] can and have led [evidently] to very real physical terrible evil and violent acts -Z committed in the name of Y.

Thus the solution to deal with Z - the evil and violent acts is to deal with the root within X and eliminate evil elements of Y the activator of the evil and violent acts.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am raising this OP is this section to support my point, the idea of God is actually a transcendental-hallucination out of this set of empirical-hallucination proposed by Anil Seth.


Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Right now, billions of neurons in your brain are working together to generate a conscious experience -- and not just any conscious experience, your experience of the world around you and of yourself within it.
How does this happen?

According to neuroscientist Anil Seth, we're all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it "reality."

Join Seth for a delightfully disorienting talk that may leave you questioning the very nature of your existence.

Long ago, V. S. Ramachandran had made the same claim,

“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

Views?

So the brain is a hallucination?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am raising this OP is this section to support my point, the idea of God is actually a transcendental-hallucination out of this set of empirical-hallucination proposed by Anil Seth.


Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Right now, billions of neurons in your brain are working together to generate a conscious experience -- and not just any conscious experience, your experience of the world around you and of yourself within it.
How does this happen?

According to neuroscientist Anil Seth, we're all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it "reality."

Join Seth for a delightfully disorienting talk that may leave you questioning the very nature of your existence.

Long ago, V. S. Ramachandran had made the same claim,

“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

Views?

So the brain is a hallucination?

If conscious all-there-is hallucination, then,
yes, the brain itself [a part of all-there-is] is a hallucination.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am raising this OP is this section to support my point, the idea of God is actually a transcendental-hallucination out of this set of empirical-hallucination proposed by Anil Seth.


Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo



Long ago, V. S. Ramachandran had made the same claim,



Views?

So the brain is a hallucination?

If conscious all-there-is hallucination, then,
yes, the brain itself [a part of all-there-is] is a hallucination.

So is everything a hallucination?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the brain is a hallucination?

If conscious all-there-is hallucination, then,
yes, the brain itself [a part of all-there-is] is a hallucination.

So is everything a hallucination?

Yes, but note the hallucinatory continuum from 0.01% to 99.99%