Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM
Re Anil Seth's new book "Being You."
How does our biology give rise to the experience of consciousness?

• Anil Seth's quest to understand the biological basis of conscious experience is one of the most exciting contributions to twenty-first-century science.
  
  What does it mean to “be you”—that is, to have a specific, conscious experience of the world around you and yourself within it? There may be no more elusive or fascinating question. Historically, humanity has considered the nature of consciousness to be a primarily spiritual or philosophical inquiry, but scientific research is now mapping out compelling biological theories and explanations for consciousness and selfhood.
  
  Now, internationally renowned neuroscience professor, researcher, and author Anil Seth is offers a window into our consciousness in BEING YOU: A New Science of Consciousness. Anil Seth is both a leading expert on the neuroscience of consciousness and one of most prominent spokespeople for this relatively new field of science.
  
  His radical argument is that
  we do not perceive the world as it objectively is,
  but rather that we are prediction machines, constantly inventing our world and correcting our mistakes by the microsecond, and that we can now observe the biological mechanisms in the brain that accomplish this process of consciousness.
  https://www.amazon.com/Being-You-New-Sc ... 1524742872

Views if any.

[mickthinks]

Language is not well-fitted to the task of talking about the edges of knowledge, being, and reason and to say anything remotely sensible about why reality is not accessible to thought requires a great amount of preparation and circumlocution.

It follows that brief quotes are hopeless, near-meaningless failures. I think the precis or summary of Anil Seth's theses that you have provided is garbled.

we do not perceive the world as it objectively is
Of course we don't. Socrates and Plato said as much 2500 years ago.

...we are prediction machines,
I don't think so. Our brains are set up to develop models from which we can make predictions, yes. That may well be all they do. Yes. But that has nothing to do with being a machine.

As an aside: "We are just machines" is one of Scientism's articles of faith. If you believe it that's what you believe. I don't. I believe that the distinction between "machine" and "living thing" has been and remains a useful one. It may be that machines will be developed in the future which have capabilities that so match or exceed human capacities that the distinction becomes too blurred to be of further use. At that point we will still have a choice; whether to say "We are just machines, or to say "Machines are no longer just machines".

[Eodnhoj7]

Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM
Re Anil Seth's new book "Being You."
How does our biology give rise to the experience of consciousness?

• Anil Seth's quest to understand the biological basis of conscious experience is one of the most exciting contributions to twenty-first-century science.
  
  What does it mean to “be you”—that is, to have a specific, conscious experience of the world around you and yourself within it? There may be no more elusive or fascinating question. Historically, humanity has considered the nature of consciousness to be a primarily spiritual or philosophical inquiry, but scientific research is now mapping out compelling biological theories and explanations for consciousness and selfhood.
  
  Now, internationally renowned neuroscience professor, researcher, and author Anil Seth is offers a window into our consciousness in BEING YOU: A New Science of Consciousness. Anil Seth is both a leading expert on the neuroscience of consciousness and one of most prominent spokespeople for this relatively new field of science.
  
  His radical argument is that
  we do not perceive the world as it objectively is,
  but rather that we are prediction machines, constantly inventing our world and correcting our mistakes by the microsecond, and that we can now observe the biological mechanisms in the brain that accomplish this process of consciousness.
  https://www.amazon.com/Being-You-New-Sc ... 1524742872

Views if any.

All hallucinations are a mirroring of some reality. The hallucination of a unicorn is that of a horse and a horn. The mirage is that of water.

Because hallucinations exist then an ultimate reality exists. Even under the framework of reality being an infinite regress of hallucinations the hallucination stands as an unconditional reality in itself given it is existence.

[bahman]

Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM
Re Anil Seth's new book "Being You."
How does our biology give rise to the experience of consciousness?

• Anil Seth's quest to understand the biological basis of conscious experience is one of the most exciting contributions to twenty-first-century science.
  
  What does it mean to “be you”—that is, to have a specific, conscious experience of the world around you and yourself within it? There may be no more elusive or fascinating question. Historically, humanity has considered the nature of consciousness to be a primarily spiritual or philosophical inquiry, but scientific research is now mapping out compelling biological theories and explanations for consciousness and selfhood.
  
  Now, internationally renowned neuroscience professor, researcher, and author Anil Seth is offers a window into our consciousness in BEING YOU: A New Science of Consciousness. Anil Seth is both a leading expert on the neuroscience of consciousness and one of most prominent spokespeople for this relatively new field of science.
  
  His radical argument is that
  we do not perceive the world as it objectively is,
  but rather that we are prediction machines, constantly inventing our world and correcting our mistakes by the microsecond, and that we can now observe the biological mechanisms in the brain that accomplish this process of consciousness.
  https://www.amazon.com/Being-You-New-Sc ... 1524742872

Views if any.

Consciousness is the ability of the mind, the ability to experience Qualia. The duty of the brain is to create Qualia that can be experienced by the conscious/main mind. There are other minds in the brain too, what people call subconscious minds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM
Re Anil Seth's new book "Being You."
How does our biology give rise to the experience of consciousness?

• Anil Seth's quest to understand the biological basis of conscious experience is one of the most exciting contributions to twenty-first-century science.
  
  What does it mean to “be you”—that is, to have a specific, conscious experience of the world around you and yourself within it? There may be no more elusive or fascinating question. Historically, humanity has considered the nature of consciousness to be a primarily spiritual or philosophical inquiry, but scientific research is now mapping out compelling biological theories and explanations for consciousness and selfhood.
  
  Now, internationally renowned neuroscience professor, researcher, and author Anil Seth is offers a window into our consciousness in BEING YOU: A New Science of Consciousness. Anil Seth is both a leading expert on the neuroscience of consciousness and one of most prominent spokespeople for this relatively new field of science.
  
  His radical argument is that
  we do not perceive the world as it objectively is,
  but rather that we are prediction machines, constantly inventing our world and correcting our mistakes by the microsecond, and that we can now observe the biological mechanisms in the brain that accomplish this process of consciousness.
  https://www.amazon.com/Being-You-New-Sc ... 1524742872

Views if any.

All hallucinations are a mirroring of some reality. The hallucination of a unicorn is that of a horse and a horn. The mirage is that of water.

Because hallucinations exist then an ultimate reality exists. Even under the framework of reality being an infinite regress of hallucinations the hallucination stands as an unconditional reality in itself given it is existence.

What is implied by Seth in relation to your point is;

The uncontrolled hallucination of a unicorn is that of a [controlled hallucinated] horse and a [controlled hallucinated] horn. Note both the horse and horn whilst controlled hallucinations can be verified empirically at present while the unicorn is not.

The uncontrolled hallucination of a God is that of a [controlled hallucinated] of empirical realities.
Note empirical realities whilst are controlled hallucinations can be verified empirically at present while God [uncontrolled hallucination] as outside the domain of the empirical cannot be real at all.

There is no ultimate reality.
Your ultimate reality is merely a speculation which is illusory.
How do you justify an ultimate reality exists when you are apart from it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Language is not well-fitted to the task of talking about the edges of knowledge, being, and reason and to say anything remotely sensible about why reality is not accessible to thought requires a great amount of preparation and circumlocution.

It follows that brief quotes are hopeless, near-meaningless failures. I think the precis or summary of Anil Seth's theses that you have provided is garbled.

we do not perceive the world as it objectively is
Of course we don't. Socrates and Plato said as much 2500 years ago.

If you agree why do you say the original point is garbled?

...we are prediction machines,
I don't think so. Our brains are set up to develop models from which we can make predictions, yes. That may well be all they do. Yes. But that has nothing to do with being a machine.

As an aside: "We are just machines" is one of Scientism's articles of faith. If you believe it that's what you believe. I don't. I believe that the distinction between "machine" and "living thing" has been and remains a useful one. It may be that machines will be developed in the future which have capabilities that so match or exceed human capacities that the distinction becomes too blurred to be of further use. At that point we will still have a choice; whether to say "We are just machines, or to say "Machines are no longer just machines".

I believe he meant biological machines which fit the dictionary meaning in general.

machine:
a piece of equipment with several moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work.

Typically the brain or anything human is not recognized as a machine, but note this article, where in a certain context,
YES, YOUR BRAIN IS A MACHINE—IF YOU CHOOSE TO SEE IT THAT WAY
https://mindmatters.ai/2018/10/yes-your ... -that-way/

I believe the Principle of Charity need to apply here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

[Eodnhoj7]

Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM
Re Anil Seth's new book "Being You."
How does our biology give rise to the experience of consciousness?

• Anil Seth's quest to understand the biological basis of conscious experience is one of the most exciting contributions to twenty-first-century science.
  
  What does it mean to “be you”—that is, to have a specific, conscious experience of the world around you and yourself within it? There may be no more elusive or fascinating question. Historically, humanity has considered the nature of consciousness to be a primarily spiritual or philosophical inquiry, but scientific research is now mapping out compelling biological theories and explanations for consciousness and selfhood.
  
  Now, internationally renowned neuroscience professor, researcher, and author Anil Seth is offers a window into our consciousness in BEING YOU: A New Science of Consciousness. Anil Seth is both a leading expert on the neuroscience of consciousness and one of most prominent spokespeople for this relatively new field of science.
  
  His radical argument is that
  we do not perceive the world as it objectively is,
  but rather that we are prediction machines, constantly inventing our world and correcting our mistakes by the microsecond, and that we can now observe the biological mechanisms in the brain that accomplish this process of consciousness.
  https://www.amazon.com/Being-You-New-Sc ... 1524742872

Views if any.

All hallucinations are a mirroring of some reality. The hallucination of a unicorn is that of a horse and a horn. The mirage is that of water.

Because hallucinations exist then an ultimate reality exists. Even under the framework of reality being an infinite regress of hallucinations the hallucination stands as an unconditional reality in itself given it is existence.

What is implied by Seth in relation to your point is;

The uncontrolled hallucination of a unicorn is that of a [controlled hallucinated] horse and a [controlled hallucinated] horn. Note both the horse and horn whilst controlled hallucinations can be verified empirically at present while the unicorn is not.

The uncontrolled hallucination of a God is that of a [controlled hallucinated] of empirical realities.
Note empirical realities whilst are controlled hallucinations can be verified empirically at present while God [uncontrolled hallucination] as outside the domain of the empirical cannot be real at all.

There is no ultimate reality.
Your ultimate reality is merely a speculation which is illusory.
How do you justify an ultimate reality exists when you are apart from it?

To say there is no ultimate reality and then say "all" is a hallucination is to say that an ultimate (all) reality exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All hallucinations are a mirroring of some reality. The hallucination of a unicorn is that of a horse and a horn. The mirage is that of water.

Because hallucinations exist then an ultimate reality exists. Even under the framework of reality being an infinite regress of hallucinations the hallucination stands as an unconditional reality in itself given it is existence.

What is implied by Seth in relation to your point is;

The uncontrolled hallucination of a unicorn is that of a [controlled hallucinated] horse and a [controlled hallucinated] horn. Note both the horse and horn whilst controlled hallucinations can be verified empirically at present while the unicorn is not.

The uncontrolled hallucination of a God is that of a [controlled hallucinated] of empirical realities.
Note empirical realities whilst are controlled hallucinations can be verified empirically at present while God [uncontrolled hallucination] as outside the domain of the empirical cannot be real at all.

There is no ultimate reality.
Your ultimate reality is merely a speculation which is illusory.
How do you justify an ultimate reality exists when you are apart from it?

To say there is no ultimate reality and then say "all" is a hallucination is to say that an ultimate (all) reality exists.

1. All is a "hallucination."
2. ALL hallucinations are conditioned upon the human conditions
3. Whatever is ultimately hallucinated is conditioned upon human conditions.

There are degree of hallucination from the sane to the insane.
In this case, the hallucination is with reference toward more the of sane.

[Scott Mayers]

Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM
Re Anil Seth's new book "Being You."
How does our biology give rise to the experience of consciousness?

• Anil Seth's quest to understand the biological basis of conscious experience is one of the most exciting contributions to twenty-first-century science.
  
  What does it mean to “be you”—that is, to have a specific, conscious experience of the world around you and yourself within it? There may be no more elusive or fascinating question. Historically, humanity has considered the nature of consciousness to be a primarily spiritual or philosophical inquiry, but scientific research is now mapping out compelling biological theories and explanations for consciousness and selfhood.
  
  Now, internationally renowned neuroscience professor, researcher, and author Anil Seth is offers a window into our consciousness in BEING YOU: A New Science of Consciousness. Anil Seth is both a leading expert on the neuroscience of consciousness and one of most prominent spokespeople for this relatively new field of science.
  
  His radical argument is that
  we do not perceive the world as it objectively is,
  but rather that we are prediction machines, constantly inventing our world and correcting our mistakes by the microsecond, and that we can now observe the biological mechanisms in the brain that accomplish this process of consciousness.
  https://www.amazon.com/Being-You-New-Sc ... 1524742872

Views if any.

I watched a good discussion on YouTube, likely one you saw or is referenced above about his promoting it. But while I think it is all fine and adds interest for anyone to help understanding, I think I've aleady described this effect well as the dynamic effect of neurons and surrounding chemisty of the same physical structure forms that shares an entangled link to all operating in phasic sync with each other and requires a link in time (even if not simultaneously communicated or delayed.)

That sums it up but simply is hard to expand upon it in a way that we can normally relate to without some care to think about how certain physics operate relating waves.

The 'hallucination' description is equally difficult to intuit without the same care but I believe points to the same thing using different approaches. This is good though because it is how we learn to 'inuit' reality from our senses as single concepts even though these are learned by many instances of those different perspectives. 3-D sight is 'learned' such that even though we use two distinct perspectives at a time, our brain eventually makes 'sense' of things in time and then we 'entangle' the images we see as though the object itself has a model in our head of the objects. This process of interpreting objects outside of us is making them 'conscious' in the reflective way that our very conscious works inside.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM
Re Anil Seth's new book "Being You."
How does our biology give rise to the experience of consciousness?

• Anil Seth's quest to understand the biological basis of conscious experience is one of the most exciting contributions to twenty-first-century science.
  
  What does it mean to “be you”—that is, to have a specific, conscious experience of the world around you and yourself within it? There may be no more elusive or fascinating question. Historically, humanity has considered the nature of consciousness to be a primarily spiritual or philosophical inquiry, but scientific research is now mapping out compelling biological theories and explanations for consciousness and selfhood.
  
  Now, internationally renowned neuroscience professor, researcher, and author Anil Seth is offers a window into our consciousness in BEING YOU: A New Science of Consciousness. Anil Seth is both a leading expert on the neuroscience of consciousness and one of most prominent spokespeople for this relatively new field of science.
  
  His radical argument is that
  we do not perceive the world as it objectively is,
  but rather that we are prediction machines, constantly inventing our world and correcting our mistakes by the microsecond, and that we can now observe the biological mechanisms in the brain that accomplish this process of consciousness.
  https://www.amazon.com/Being-You-New-Sc ... 1524742872

Views if any.

I watched a good discussion on YouTube, likely one you saw or is referenced above about his promoting it. But while I think it is all fine and adds interest for anyone to help understanding, I think I've aleady described this effect well as the dynamic effect of neurons and surrounding chemisty of the same physical structure forms that shares an entangled link to all operating in phasic sync with each other and requires a link in time (even if not simultaneously communicated or delayed.)

That sums it up but simply is hard to expand upon it in a way that we can normally relate to without some care to think about how certain physics operate relating waves.

The 'hallucination' description is equally difficult to intuit without the same care but I believe points to the same thing using different approaches. This is good though because it is how we learn to 'inuit' reality from our senses as single concepts even though these are learned by many instances of those different perspectives. 3-D sight is 'learned' such that even though we use two distinct perspectives at a time, our brain eventually makes 'sense' of things in time and then we 'entangle' the images we see as though the object itself has a model in our head of the objects. This process of interpreting objects outside of us is making them 'conscious' in the reflective way that our very conscious works inside.

I believe the use of the "hallucination" is merely to shock and counter the belief that there are absolutely independent things re substance theory [philosophical realism] which is the default for the majority of people [>90%?].

In this case the hallucinations are placed on a continuum from sane-hallucinations to the extreme hallucinations of the insane.

Whatever the term used and if claimed to be real, it must be verifiable and justifiable within a credible framework and system of reality of which the scientific framework is the standard against all others.

One of the ultimate utility of the above thinking is to prevent supernaturalists from extending from philosophical realism to an independent thing called God which is claimed to be most real; therefrom the idea of a supposed real God is used as a basis and excuse to commit all sorts of terrible evils.

If all are hallucinations fundamentally then there is no way a God [as conceived] can be really real. So the question is which hallucination is more 'realistic'.

[attofishpi]

[If all are hallucinations fundamentally then there is no way a God [as conceived] can be really real. So the question is which hallucination is more 'realistic'.

Is something ever real or is really real, really really more required?

As far as using ANYTHING you have ever provided as PROOF that there is no God, is utterly ridiculous, as per above comment.

This Seth if he is worth his salt, should either make up a new term, or borrow something more suitable from another language if required. Hallucination by definition is unnaceptable.

[Scott Mayers]

I believe the use of the "hallucination" is merely to shock and counter the belief that there are absolutely independent things re substance theory [philosophical realism] which is the default for the majority of people [>90%?].

In this case the hallucinations are placed on a continuum from sane-hallucinations to the extreme hallucinations of the insane.

Whatever the term used and if claimed to be real, it must be verifiable and justifiable within a credible framework and system of reality of which the scientific framework is the standard against all others.

One of the ultimate utility of the above thinking is to prevent supernaturalists from extending from philosophical realism to an independent thing called God which is claimed to be most real; therefrom the idea of a supposed real God is used as a basis and excuse to commit all sorts of terrible evils.

If all are hallucinations fundamentally then there is no way a God [as conceived] can be really real. So the question is which hallucination is more 'realistic'.

It gets convoluted of definitions upon definitions. While you and I might follow where we invest the time to notice, most would just find a new term to add to the confusion so that others couldn't follow.

Given that I am struggling to find out why anything remotely critical of Big Bang theory (not replaced by religion but for a Steady State model) is strongly censored in more formal science-authorized forums, there exists a minimal desire to prevent anything that might remotely threaten the last potential vestigial 'save' for anything scientific that might dislodge religion absolutely in the realm of politics. As such, I believe that no matter how someone attempts to avoid religious bias in science, the advocacy of those wanting to conserve religion as a minimal justification in political forums will do whatever it takes to undermine another term or additional set of them to make it harder for the scientist to appeal with better clarity an understanding of signficant philosophy regarding things like consciousness.

"Hallucination" will thus just be challenged as a term forcing those proposing it to have to find another model of appeal to try to clarify it. But as it gets more complex where it needn't be, nobody outside of the deepest thinkers would be able to follow....and the religous advocates have won in the same way a corporate lawyer would use overburdening tactics to make it more difficult for opposing council to find the evidence that could discover to prove anything serious enough to stick.

I hate the politics of it all but am finding that I'm being forced into having to look at it more and more closely because it is effectively getting its claws into science everywhere! Religious thinking is at its lowest points (again, that is....., considering it is historically cyclic) and so they are fighting back with more fervor because it is threatening the powers of those wanting the best tool to exploit others capitalistically and selfishly at the expense of democratic intelligence.

[ If you have a hard time reading, then this just proves by this example how struggling to find better words to express issues scientifically is discouragingly in favor of the religious hoping that the particular scientific ideas that threaten them gets too hard for anyone to follow. ]

[attofishpi]

[ lol: If you have a hard time reading, then this just proves by this example how struggling to find better words to express issues scientifically is discouragingly in favor of the religious hoping that the particular scientific ideas that threaten them gets too hard for anyone to follow. ]

lol is the only thing you got right there.

What has science got to do with religion?

There are physicists that are theists (with many different forms of consideration of God, not necessarily confining themselves to any particular religious movement.)

At least they are wise enough to keep an open mind, and I very much doubt it changes their scientific methodology, even if indeed any of them intentionally make that consideration a goal, to prove their conception of God is real.

[Scott Mayers]

[ lol: If you have a hard time reading, then this just proves by this example how struggling to find better words to express issues scientifically is discouragingly in favor of the religious hoping that the particular scientific ideas that threaten them gets too hard for anyone to follow. ]

lol is the only thing you got right there.

What has science got to do with religion?

There are physicists that are theists (with many different forms of consideration of God, not necessarily confining themselves to any particular religious movement.)

At least they are wise enough to keep an open mind, and I very much doubt it changes their scientific methodology, even if indeed any of them intentionally make that consideration a goal, to prove their conception of God is real.

You mean what does religion have to do with science?!

My argument was about the fact that politics exists in science of the 'fringes' [the boundaries of the most uncertain], like 'consciousness'. But if any science is found to make these sufficiently clear and obvious, they tend to go against religion as a viable justification for existence. So politics will tend to intervene BY those interested in the utility of religion as a means of control. IF science demystifies the need for religion, religion's effectiveness as a powerful political tool is lost. So there is a tendency to challenge those who attempt to make those fringes clearer by using the tactics that make them more remote and harder to understand and forces the layperson to rely on authority or have a greater burden to invest in trying to make sense of the increasing complexity unnecessarily being added to convolute the topic.

[attofishpi]

[ lol: If you have a hard time reading, then this just proves by this example how struggling to find better words to express issues scientifically is discouragingly in favor of the religious hoping that the particular scientific ideas that threaten them gets too hard for anyone to follow. ]

lol is the only thing you got right there.

What has science got to do with religion?

There are physicists that are theists (with many different forms of consideration of God, not necessarily confining themselves to any particular religious movement.)

At least they are wise enough to keep an open mind, and I very much doubt it changes their scientific methodology, even if indeed any of them intentionally make that consideration a goal, to prove their conception of God is real.

You mean what does religion have to do with science?!

No I didn't. I stated "What has science got to do with religion?"

My argument was about the fact that politics exists in science of the 'fringes' [the boundaries of the most uncertain], like 'consciousness'. But if any science is found to make these sufficiently clear and obvious, they tend to go against religion as a viable justification for existence. So politics will tend to intervene BY those interested in the utility of religion as a means of control. IF science demystifies the need for religion, religion's effectiveness as a powerful political tool is lost. So there is a tendency to challenge those who attempt to make those fringes clearer by using the tactics that make them more remote and harder to understand and forces the layperson to rely on authority or have a greater burden to invest in trying to make sense of the increasing complexity unnecessarily being added to convolute the topic.

Religion in North America does play a mayor role in politics, in the more decent political world it's far more secular.

So.

I don't see any conflation between science and religion. ..and as one that has gnosis, clearly I see no contradiction as if science and God are mutually exclusive, since God\'God' exists, then there must be a reasonable scientific explanation as to its existence, physicists just haven't discovered it, yet. (I have some ideas regarding some of their findings that to me suggest such an intelligence behind what we perceive as reality, but perhaps another time and thread).