Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:00 am
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. ]