We are Hallucinating All the Time

[Veritas Aequitas]

Our perception of reality is on a continuum of hallucinating [in one perspective] from low objectivity [e.g. 2 below] to high objectivity [e.g. 1 below].

It depends on what he means by "mind-independent". If a mind-independent thing, as defined by him, is a thing that is not "an appearance in the eye of the beholder", which means, it is not someone's perception, then it follows that what he's saying is that only perceptions exist. As such, a T-rex toy does not really exist because a T-rex toy is not a perception -- it is a three-dimensional physical object. Instead, what exists is a belief that a T-rex toy exists and a belief that the toy is looking at us. Both beliefs are erroneous, of course, but they exist nonetheless.

Yes there are two beliefs here in consideration, i.e.
1. a belief that a T-rex toy exists
2. a belief that the T-rex toy is looking at us

Here are my point;
Philosophical Realists believe the physical-T-rex toy [1] exists as absolutely mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Philosophical Realists when informed understand [2] is an illusion, i.e. it is "dependent" on the mind of the observer.

What philosophical realists (PRs) are ignorant is actually "1.a belief that a T-rex toy exists" the SAME process as "2. the T-rex toy is looking at us is an illusion."

What the philosophical realists [mind-independence] is they failed to understand [where necessary & relevant]* the principles of the mind in 2 generating illusions is the same at that in their ordinary everyday experiences.
* mind-independent is not Absolute as insisted by PRs but rather relative to difference conditions.

As Ramachandran [famous neuroscientist] has I stated;

• “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

As such, our perceptions of reality are on a continuum of hallucinating [in one perspective] from low objectivity [e.g. 2 above] to high objectivity [e.g. 1 above].

What philosophical realists is banking on is the Law of Excluded Middle [black or white] and they do not realize [in one perspective] our perceptions of reality are on a continuum of hallucinating.

See the various thread I have raised on this issue;
Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34077

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

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

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

Is Reality an Illusion? Donald Hoffman
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39218

Discuss?? views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: TBA

[Skepdick]

<...>

We aren't "hallucinating all the time".

The hallucination of time is called history.

WHERE is this history, except as a memory in your head? Nobody can point us in the direction of the past or the future. It's always now.
How is it that you are remembering stuff which happened 13.8 billion years ago?

[Veritas Aequitas]

<...>

We aren't "hallucinating all the time".

The hallucination of time is called history.

WHERE is this history, except as a memory in your head? Nobody can point us in the direction of the past or the future. It's always now.
How is it that you are remembering stuff which happened 13.8 billion years ago?

The continuum of hallucination is based on the mechanics of perception which is studied in detailed by cognitive scientists, neuro-psychologist, neuroscientists and the likes.

In one (not all perspectives), it is claimed there is no significant differences in the mental [possibly neural] mechanics of perceptions [& realization] of reality between a schizo hallucinating and a normal person realizing and perceiving reality. It is just a matter of degree.
Note Charles Bonnet Syndrome where a person can be very conscious of he is hallucinating.

• Visual release hallucinations, also known as Charles Bonnet syndrome or CBS, are a type of psychophysical visual disturbance in which a person with partial or severe blindness experiences visual hallucinations. WIKI

It is through the detailed analysis of the mechanics of perception that scientists understood the continuum of hallucination in perception; this conception is definitely useful.

There reality is there is no absolute mind-independent reality and things to be mirrored with or corresponded to as claimed by philosophical realists.

[Skepdick]

<...>

We aren't "hallucinating all the time".

The hallucination of time is called history.

WHERE is this history, except as a memory in your head? Nobody can point us in the direction of the past or the future. It's always now.
How is it that you are remembering stuff which happened 13.8 billion years ago?

The continuum of hallucination is based on the mechanics of perception which is studied in detailed by cognitive scientists, neuro-psychologist, neuroscientists and the likes.

In one (not all perspectives), it is claimed there is no significant differences in the mental [possibly neural] mechanics of perceptions [& realization] of reality between a schizo hallucinating and a normal person realizing and perceiving reality. It is just a matter of degree.
Note Charles Bonnet Syndrome where a person can be very conscious of he is hallucinating.

• Visual release hallucinations, also known as Charles Bonnet syndrome or CBS, are a type of psychophysical visual disturbance in which a person with partial or severe blindness experiences visual hallucinations. WIKI

It is through the detailed analysis of the mechanics of perception that scientists understood the continuum of hallucination in perception; this conception is definitely useful.

There reality is there is no absolute mind-independent reality and things to be mirrored with or corresponded to as claimed by philosophical realists.

It's not a perspective. It's a testable hypothesis.

WHERE is the past? Show it to me without showing me The History of The Cosmos.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We aren't "hallucinating all the time".

The hallucination of time is called history.

WHERE is this history, except as a memory in your head? Nobody can point us in the direction of the past or the future. It's always now.
How is it that you are remembering stuff which happened 13.8 billion years ago?

The continuum of hallucination is based on the mechanics of perception which is studied in detailed by cognitive scientists, neuro-psychologist, neuroscientists and the likes.

In one (not all perspectives), it is claimed there is no significant differences in the mental [possibly neural] mechanics of perceptions [& realization] of reality between a schizo hallucinating and a normal person realizing and perceiving reality. It is just a matter of degree.
Note Charles Bonnet Syndrome where a person can be very conscious of he is hallucinating.

• Visual release hallucinations, also known as Charles Bonnet syndrome or CBS, are a type of psychophysical visual disturbance in which a person with partial or severe blindness experiences visual hallucinations. WIKI

It is through the detailed analysis of the mechanics of perception that scientists understood the continuum of hallucination in perception; this conception is definitely useful.

There reality is there is no absolute mind-independent reality and things to be mirrored with or corresponded to as claimed by philosophical realists.

It's not a perspective. It's a testable hypothesis.

WHERE is the past? Show it to me without showing me The History of The Cosmos.

I have not deny time [past or present] is an illusion or hallucination.

Time Does Not Exist. Let me explain with a graph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpyXVkqkQgg&t=4s

Time when perceived as real in common sense is in one perspective, a hallucination within the continuum of hallucination.

[promethean75]

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

So there is at least one thing, 'data', that wouldn't be mind-dependent or the product of a hallucination. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that if everything is a hallucination, the 'data' itself would be a hallucination and therefore something other than 'data'. But that can't be. Therefore there is an objective and mind-independent quality to sensual and perceptual information in the world. What a brain makes of it is neither here nor there.

[Iwannaplato]

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

So there is at least one thing, 'data', that wouldn't be mind-dependent or the product of a hallucination. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that if everything is a hallucination, the 'data' itself would be a hallucination and therefore something other than 'data'. But that can't be. Therefore there is an objective and mind-independent quality to sensual and perceptual information in the world. What a brain makes of it is neither here nor there.

Right. The truth of that quote rests on the ability to check the hallucinations against the incoming data to determine which fits that data best. That's a form of realism. A realism about the data, not the objects themselves that the data is about, but a realism nevertheless. Otherwise we simply have a bunch of hallucinations and no way to give them grades, as VA does.

But good luck getting this acknowledged.

[Skepdick]

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

So there is at least one thing, 'data', that wouldn't be mind-dependent or the product of a hallucination. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that if everything is a hallucination, the 'data' itself would be a hallucination and therefore something other than 'data'. But that can't be. Therefore there is an objective and mind-independent quality to sensual and perceptual information in the world. What a brain makes of it is neither here nor there.

Right. The truth of that quote rests on the ability to check the hallucinations against the incoming data to determine which fits that data best. That's a form of realism. A realism about the data, not the objects themselves that the data is about, but a realism nevertheless. Otherwise we simply have a bunch of hallucinations and no way to give them grades, as VA does.

But good luck getting this acknowledged.

Is that a form of realism about the data; or a form of trusting your mesurement apparatus? Including the ones you've designed from theory.

If it's the latter the question of realism is entirely moot. I could be living in The Matrix for all I care; and for all I know.

[victorpatrick]

Does that indicate a practical approach to the data or a level of confidence in your measurement tool? As well as the ones you created based on theory.

Realistically, the question is completely irrelevant if it's the latter. For all I know and care, I may be residing in The Matrix.  retro bowl college