Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

[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?

The billions of neurons hallucinating your reality are subsets of that said reality thus are hallucinations as well. The argument basically states all is a hallucination, yet this contradicts itself as this argument for hallucinations is an hallucination itself thus unreal by the standard presented.

Yes, reality i.e. all there is a hallucination [empirical].
Within this empirical hallucination, there is its relative empirical reality which can be verified and justified by science [albeit a hallucination].
Regardless it is a hallucination, point is, what is relatively real scientific knowledge is repeatable thus credible to be used within the empirical-based hallucination.

Note within all-there-is i.e. an empirical hallucination, some humans are entrapped by transcendental hallucination of a God.
A transcendental hallucination is a sub-hallucination of empirical 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?

The billions of neurons hallucinating your reality are subsets of that said reality thus are hallucinations as well. The argument basically states all is a hallucination, yet this contradicts itself as this argument for hallucinations is an hallucination itself thus unreal by the standard presented.

Yes, reality i.e. all there is a hallucination [empirical].
Within this empirical hallucination, there is its relative empirical reality which can be verified and justified by science [albeit a hallucination].
Regardless it is a hallucination, point is, what is relatively real scientific knowledge is repeatable thus credible to be used within the empirical-based hallucination.

Note within all-there-is i.e. an empirical hallucination, some humans are entrapped by transcendental hallucination of a God.
A transcendental hallucination is a sub-hallucination of empirical hallucination.

Thus all is hallucination according to you and like all hallucinations, such as a mirage of water, they are dependent upon some reality beyond them.

All empirical phenomena as a hallucination points to a reality beyond the hallucination as a hallucination is the mirroring of some higher reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The billions of neurons hallucinating your reality are subsets of that said reality thus are hallucinations as well. The argument basically states all is a hallucination, yet this contradicts itself as this argument for hallucinations is an hallucination itself thus unreal by the standard presented.

Yes, reality i.e. all there is a hallucination [empirical].
Within this empirical hallucination, there is its relative empirical reality which can be verified and justified by science [albeit a hallucination].
Regardless it is a hallucination, point is, what is relatively real scientific knowledge is repeatable thus credible to be used within the empirical-based hallucination.

Note within all-there-is i.e. an empirical hallucination, some humans are entrapped by transcendental hallucination of a God.
A transcendental hallucination is a sub-hallucination of empirical hallucination.

Thus all is hallucination according to you and like all hallucinations, such as a mirage of water, they are dependent upon some reality beyond them.

All empirical phenomena as a hallucination points to a reality beyond the hallucination as a hallucination is the mirroring of some higher reality.

You are conflating the empirical with the transcendental of la la land.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, reality i.e. all there is a hallucination [empirical].
Within this empirical hallucination, there is its relative empirical reality which can be verified and justified by science [albeit a hallucination].
Regardless it is a hallucination, point is, what is relatively real scientific knowledge is repeatable thus credible to be used within the empirical-based hallucination.

Note within all-there-is i.e. an empirical hallucination, some humans are entrapped by transcendental hallucination of a God.
A transcendental hallucination is a sub-hallucination of empirical hallucination.

Thus all is hallucination according to you and like all hallucinations, such as a mirage of water, they are dependent upon some reality beyond them.

All empirical phenomena as a hallucination points to a reality beyond the hallucination as a hallucination is the mirroring of some higher reality.

You are conflating the empirical with the transcendental of la la land.

But the empirical is a hallucination according to you, you are already in la la land.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus all is hallucination according to you and like all hallucinations, such as a mirage of water, they are dependent upon some reality beyond them.

All empirical phenomena as a hallucination points to a reality beyond the hallucination as a hallucination is the mirroring of some higher reality.

You are conflating the empirical with the transcendental of la la land.

But the empirical is a hallucination according to you, you are already in la la land.

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination of reality.

Ordinary we are hallucinating a reality, i.e. all there is,
but you go further in hallucinating unreality in la la land within a hallucinated reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are conflating the empirical with the transcendental of la la land.

But the empirical is a hallucination according to you, you are already in la la land.

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination of reality.

Ordinary we are hallucinating a reality, i.e. all there is,
but you go further in hallucinating unreality in la la land within a hallucinated reality.

All is a hallucination according to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But the empirical is a hallucination according to you, you are already in la la land.

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination of reality.

Ordinary we are hallucinating a reality, i.e. all there is,
but you go further in hallucinating unreality in la la land within a hallucinated reality.

All is a hallucination according to you.

I am agreeing with what is claimed in the OP.

In addition, note this,

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

The point is humans are conscious of an external reality and themselves as real, but in actuality, humans are not aware this reality is a "programmed" reality, thus in one perspective is technically a meta-hallucination [as defined].
According the Hoffman, the "programmer" in this case is 'evolution'.

Thus when a person see a mirage in the desert, that is an empirical-hallucination within a meta-hallucination.

In your case you are generating a hallucination-out-of-Pure Reason [something-beyond-humans] within the meta-hallucination.

[Iwannaplato]

Eodnhoj7 notice below.....

I am agreeing with what is claimed in the OP.

In addition, note this,

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

The point is humans are conscious of an external reality and themselves as real, but in actuality, humans are not aware this reality is a "programmed" reality, thus in one perspective is technically a meta-hallucination [as defined].
According the Hoffman, the "programmer" in this case is 'evolution'.

Thus when a person see a mirage in the desert, that is an empirical-hallucination within a meta-hallucination.

In your case you are generating a hallucination-out-of-Pure Reason [something-beyond-humans] within the meta-hallucination.

You have someone telling you that your sense of the world is hallucinated (and of course this is general and includes him also), but in his and the arguments he cites, they refer to brains. They refer to objects they have conceived and refined their conceptions of through what must be...

hallucinations.

So, he presents you with FACTS about an objective reality which entail
his conclusion, he thinks,
that it is all a halluciation.

Note carefully how this is presented as binary.
Either real perception or hallucination

when it is implicit that percepts can be accurate or the whole house of cards falls down.

Binary presentation when for his position to make the least sense at all there have to be degrees.

A woman runs across a field with holes and thistles and dips and grass cluster bumps. That is, a complicated obstracle course for the feet.

The woman runs the field at top speed, perceiving something well enough to do this without breaker her ankle or stepping in cow shit. She does this ten more times in a row. You bring an entire high school cross country team of women and they do the same.

Unless he wants to make a claim at the level of The Matrix films, she is not just hallucinating. she is successfully percieving the field to an important degree, just as the scientists he quotes are also making to some degree accurate observations of reality or their work is meaningless. They can't merely be good at inferring. Because if percpetion is hallucination, period, they would be inferring from random data. And you can't get anywhere with that.

Watch him continue to talk about the objecte world - brains etc, and your brain - while saying it doesn't exist. and justifying his position by tellling you what the external world is like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........
Watch him continue to talk about the objecte world - brains etc, and your brain - while saying it doesn't exist. and justifying his position by tellling you what the external world is like.

Where did I state brains and your brain do not exist??

All of reality is a Meta-hallucination.
Within that Meta-hallucination, all things are real, thus you, me, brains and all are empirically real.
They are real as conditioned upon the meta-hallucination.

Read this post;
Meta-Hallucination versus 'General' Hallucinations.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31536

Views?

[Iwannaplato]

You are conflating the empirical with the transcendental of la la land.

The empirical for you, is not his brain. (or her brain, not sure which it is)

You have your experiences, but they you tell other people about their brains. Their brains are not your empirical. You drawing conclusions about what is out there, beyond your experience. You are making claims about objective reality, what you are calling transcendent.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination of reality.

Ordinary we are hallucinating a reality, i.e. all there is,
but you go further in hallucinating unreality in la la land within a hallucinated reality.

All is a hallucination according to you.

I am agreeing with what is claimed in the OP.

In addition, note this,

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

The point is humans are conscious of an external reality and themselves as real, but in actuality, humans are not aware this reality is a "programmed" reality, thus in one perspective is technically a meta-hallucination [as defined].
According the Hoffman, the "programmer" in this case is 'evolution'.

Thus when a person see a mirage in the desert, that is an empirical-hallucination within a meta-hallucination.

In your case you are generating a hallucination-out-of-Pure Reason [something-beyond-humans] within the meta-hallucination.

His interpretation is thus an hallucination created to sooth an existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are conflating the empirical with the transcendental of la la land.

The empirical for you, is not his brain. (or her brain, not sure which it is)

You have your experiences, but they you tell other people about their brains. Their brains are not your empirical. You drawing conclusions about what is out there, beyond your experience. You are making claims about objective reality, what you are calling transcendent.

Not very sure of your points.

The brain [dead or alive] of every human can be proven to exist empirically via science.
Therefore his brain is empirically possible for me and objective in the scientific sense.
This is an empirical objective reality.
There is no empirical issue on this matter.
It is empirically real within the framework of a meta-hallucination.

I did not make any claims of transcendental objective reality.
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.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

[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.

[Iwannaplato]

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.