Reality is just a bunch of hallucinations we collectively agree on

[Bee]

I just saw this article and thought it was fascinating. I've copied the text and links below, with a link to the article here. It's even more interesting for me as the research is being carried out at my local university.

Anil Seth, a neuroscientist and director of the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science at the University of Sussex, researches the biological basis of the otherwise ethereal topic of consciousness.

When we think of hallucinations, we think of phenomena that are not real—created, in a way, by an aberration in our minds. But from one perspective, these visual illusions are just as real as anything else we might see.

[Mod edit: Please only copy snippet from article and then link to it. Otherwise, this site is exposed to copyright violation lawsuit.]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

the beast-machine theory, put forth by French philosopher Rene Descartes, that says animals differ from humans in that they are unthinking, unfeeling machines.

Anyone who has ever seen a dog or cat grieve over a lost playmate pet, or a pet who has grieved for its deceased owner, knows the "unfeeling" part to be totally incorrect. Koko, the gorilla, definitely expressed grief at the death of one of his friends and was able to express sadness specifically for that dead gorilla. So I think the beast-machine theory has been debunked.

BTW - good choice of thread title, Bee.

Reality is the sum of all shared hallucinations. I would only add that reality might also be the sum of an individual's consistent hallucinations over time. This is, of course, the ultimate statement of solipsism, particularly if you think your hallucination includes that you believe others exist who share the hallucination with you. Of course, those others could be hallucinations too. Thanks for hallucinating me, Bee! (Or maybe I am hallucinating you?)

 

[Jon]

If the title is a good one, does that mean if we don't collectively agree on the hallucination, it cannot be reality? It reminds me of the Kavanaugh situation. Much agreement that he is a good man. But it only takes 1 (or 3) to destroy a reputation.

animals differ from humans in that they are unthinking, unfeeling machines.

I watched a YouTube video yesterday evening on this very same topic. I suggest you watch this TED talk on it. It is very good.

 

[Bee]

Humph. I thought I'd get a Like. Instead I got a telling off.

 

[Jon]

It is just a factual notification. Some copyright trolling lawyers shake people down for violations. I am a bit legally sensitive at the moment!

 

[Bee]

Stop being reasonable. I'm sulking!

 

[Jon]

Change of pic. I bet you move the furniture around regularly too.

 

[Bee]

Moving furniture is the one thing I never do. I like things where they are - and I like my routine. Moving house is going to be...challenging. Expect me to have the collywobbles for a week or two!

 

[Jon]

The ingrained habits of years, shed to make room for new fertile ground. It will tantalise your synapses.

 

[Bee]

It will make me tetchy and irritable. And eventually it will be an oasis of calm leading to creativity and productivity.

 

[Jon]

Put some plant life in there and make the indoors seem like outdoors. It is funny how we do that.

 

[Bee]

My aura kills plants.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Much agreement that he is a good man. But it only takes 1 (or 3) to destroy a reputation.

(In re: Kavanaugh hearings)

But Jon, reputation is not reality. It is a virtual entity in that (a) it is time-variant (b) it strongly depends on the membership of the survey group (c) many serial killers (Ted Bundy comes to mind) were smooth, engaging, generally likeable characters who had good reputations - until their other proclivities were exposed.

Further, it appears that some of Kavanaugh's attackers, by coming forward, exposed themselves to be proved as liars, so that aspect of the comment is also open to discussion. Destroying a reputation can be remediated by destroying the reputation of the original accuser.