My best hypnogogic hallucination ever!

[Rubiks]

I'm not sure this was an actual Hallucination, because i don't remember it so good. I had been up 9:00 am, last day of school because of the summer vacation. It was over by 12:00 -
09:00 - 12:00 = 3 hours so far.

By 15:00 i took the buss to my father because i was going to live there for a while. I sat by the computer 22:00 sitting there to 6:00 (when my dad woke up, so, i hadnt had any sleep.) By 06:00 it had gone 21 hours and i yet hadnt been sleeping. I went to look a li'l at TV, when dad went to his work (08:00)
i once again took the computer, 23 hours awake. I sat there to 17:00,
and there had gone 31 hours. When dad come home we were gonna fix my bike because it was broke. Dad asked me than to go to my sister who lived just a few blocks away, and ask her boyfriend for some tools that we needed. When i was going there - Everything was sort of.. Swirling around, like in a Zero Gravity.. I doubt this was just because i was tired, because i had been up way longer than that... And, i wasnt even tired!

I fell asleep by 22:00. I had been up 36 hours.
I have never told anyone about this.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm not sure this was an actual Hallucination, because i don't remember it so good. I had been up 9:00 am, last day of school because of the summer vacation. It was over by 12:00 -
09:00 - 12:00 = 3 hours so far.

By 15:00 i took the buss to my father because i was going to live there for a while. I sat by the computer 22:00 sitting there to 6:00 (when my dad woke up, so, i hadnt had any sleep.) By 06:00 it had gone 21 hours and i yet hadnt been sleeping. I went to look a li'l at TV, when dad went to his work (08:00)
i once again took the computer, 23 hours awake. I sat there to 17:00,
and there had gone 31 hours. When dad come home we were gonna fix my bike because it was broke. Dad asked me than to go to my sister who lived just a few blocks away, and ask her boyfriend for some tools that we needed. When i was going there - Everything was sort of.. Swirling around, like in a Zero Gravity.. I doubt this was just because i was tired, because i had been up way longer than that... And, i wasnt even tired!

I fell asleep by 22:00. I had been up 36 hours.
I have never told anyone about this.

That's cool stuff. I've seen that swirling effect before (sometimes with
light flashes n' stuff) when pounding a soccer ball on my head a little
too much. I guess sleep depravation can induce *similar* effects.

 

[heliocentric]

I would be far more tempted by evidence to support an idea than having
original creative writing dialog...

Every idea that comes your way has to be backed up by empirical data? thats quite a strange out look on life you have..If ideas werent to be considered without any emprical data, we wouldnt have an empirical data to begin with.
You have to have ideas or a hunch before you can seek out evidence, and if you wont allow yourself to entertain ideas without proof you certainly wont ever get as far as attaining any evidence.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Every idea that comes your way has to be backed up by empirical data?

If an idea is part of or all of the foundation of a factual claim then you bet!
If not then its a creative writing exercise (not that I have anything against
creative writing).

thats quite a strange out look on life you have..If ideas werent to be considered without any emprical data, we wouldnt have an empirical data to begin with.

Ideas that are intended to be models of truth are hypothesis'. The other
ones are fantasy.

You have to have ideas or a hunch before you can seek out evidence, and if you wont allow yourself to entertain ideas without proof you certainly wont ever get as far as attaining any evidence.

I think we're confusing fantasy for a good ol' hypothesis.

 

[heliocentric]

If an idea is part of or all of the foundation of a factual claim then you bet!
If not then its a creative writing exercise (not that I have anything against
creative writing).

Any discussion in text of ideas that exist outside of those that have been experimentally verified is then by your defintion creative writing? in that case ive been a creative writer all these years without knowing it.
Im not entirely sure on the dictionary definition of creative writting, but maybe you understand the term wrong?

Ideas that are intended to be models of truth are hypothesis'. The other ones are fantasy.

Well thats a crude statement that i could spend all day picking apart...i think the sentence stands on its own absurdity though so i think i'll leave it be.

I think we're confusing fantasy for a good ol' hypothesis.

I think you're downplaying that good ol hypothesis and any other pursuit of factual evidence must be preceeded by hunch or simply going out on a limb. I know this rubs alot of people up the wrong way...but all that empirical data if you're willing to trace it back far enough starts its life as nothing more than an idea of something that mght be.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Any discussion in text of ideas that exist outside of those that have been experimentally verified is then by your defintion creative writing...

The interpretation is incorrect and I'll try a different angle to convey
the intended meaning.

THE CONTEXT:

An idea was asserted as truth (this is a claim). The idea is that the
brain generates / manifests reality under conditions interpreted as
hallucination.

THE TRUTH:

There is no evidence to support this assertion and there is evidence
to contradict it. It was also agreed that the leaning-towards-acceptance
of the assertion as true was heavily influenced by it's attractiveness.

THE RESULT:
Fantasy. Creative writing. Fiction.

WHAT WOULD HAVE ACHIEVED A DIFFERENT RESULT?:

Not making an assertion of fact. An assertion of desire / imagination may
have resulted in additional assertions of desire / imagination. We all have
them and this is the 'TRUTH' component of such discussions.

Let me know if this makes sense.

Well thats a crude statement that i could spend all day picking apart...i think the sentence stands on its own absurdity though so i think i'll leave it be.

The statement isn't nearly as important as the message.

I think you're downplaying that good ol hypothesis and any other pursuit of factual evidence must be preceeded by hunch or simply going out on a limb. I know this rubs alot of people up the wrong way...but all that empirical data if you're willing to trace it back far enough starts its life as nothing more than an idea of something that mght be.

I think imagination and ideas are very important in the process of discovering
truth. I think it's a self-chosen handicap to accept the results of the
imagination as truth without considering supportive / contradictory evidence.
People tend to embrace the attractive far more than the truth. It's how
we are predisposed.

 

[heliocentric]

The interpretation is incorrect and I'll try a different angle to convey
the intended meaning.

THE CONTEXT:

An idea was asserted as truth (this is a claim). The idea is that the
brain generates / manifests reality under conditions interpreted as
hallucination.

No this is where i feel things have been misunderstood, the idea if you read back was never asserted as the truth it was asserted as a possibility/something worth considering. In fact no claim, in the scientific sense has been made atall, if thats how you're interpreting it

THE TRUTH:

There is no evidence to support this assertion and there is evidence
to contradict it. It was also agreed that the leaning-towards-acceptance
of the assertion as true was heavily influenced by it's attractiveness.

Well your truth is based on a misconception of what i originally said, also im not sure you understand that trues and falsehoods are never as black and white as you'd want them to be. In fact as someone who odviously enjoys science you should at least know that there are no luxuaries of truths in science. There are just ideas that are very very likely to be correct and those that waiver in the middle, and those that are wholey unlikely.
You also dont know that there is any evidence to support my idea one way or the other, you havent sought any out, this is just an asumption on your part.

THE RESULT:
Fantasy. Creative writing. Fiction.

WHAT WOULD HAVE ACHIEVED A DIFFERENT RESULT?:

Well i can at least understand how you came to that conclusion now, i think a different result would have been brought about by understanding that things that arnt proven in the narrow sense that you're talking about dont simply take the default position of 'fantasy' i actually feel to say that is an abuse of the intended use of the word.

Not making an assertion of fact. An assertion of desire / imagination may
have resulted in additional assertions of desire / imagination. We all have
them and this is the 'TRUTH' component of such discussions.

Again i think you're dealing in absolutes of truths and facts that dont exist,
also the assertion that my idea is a product of desire is pretty subjective really.

I think imagination and ideas are very important in the process of discovering
truth. I think it's a self-chosen handicap to accept the results of the
imagination as truth without considering supportive / contradictory evidence.
People tend to embrace the attractive far more than the truth. It's how
we are predisposed.

No one is accepting them as truth, again that is your own misinterpretation, an idea doesnt have to be true to be an idea, and not having any evidence for that idea by default does not make it fantasy.
For the record i think its a self-chosen hanicap to only accept second hand evidence as truth, especially when more offen than not the data being put forward is never genuinely understood by the pedestrian science buff, mostly its accepted as true because its attractive to that person's idea of how the world works, or should work in their minds. Or its simply accepted on a great deal of faith, 'those people probably know what they're talking about even if i dont'.
Dont get me wrong theres alot to be said for that way of thinking but i certainly wouldnt rely on that method alone as means of attaining truths.


But im getting abit off topic : p my point all along is nothing more than ideas or possiblities can and i feel should rightly be discussed without evidence, and people should feel open to speculate and wonder. Its not a case of fantising as useally in these kinds of conversations people are trying to get to some kind of truth, the exact same thing that you're after.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No this is where i feel things have been misunderstood, the idea if you read back was never asserted as the truth it was asserted as a possibility/something worth considering. In fact no claim, in the scientific sense has been made atall, if thats how you're interpreting it

I am not sure if I quite agree with this. The original statement:

"I think you may be directly manifesting/changing reality."

appears to be an assertion of a probabalistic truth. This is the result of
the meaning of the sentence (i.e. definition and context relationship between
words). Maybe the intended meaning was different?

Well i can at least understand how you came to that conclusion now, i think a different result would have been brought about by understanding that things that arnt proven in the narrow sense that you're talking about dont simply take the default position of 'fantasy' i actually feel to say that is an abuse of the intended use of the word.

I feel the most value at this point would come out of re-modeling the
original assertion to better align with the intended meaning.

But im getting abit off topic : p my point all along is nothing more than ideas or possiblities can and i feel should rightly be discussed without evidence, and people should feel open to speculate and wonder. Its not a case of fantising as useally in these kinds of conversations people are trying to get to some kind of truth, the exact same thing that you're after.

Ahh then the whole thing is probably my fault then for not setting
expectations. I started the thread to share experiences of hypnogigic
hallucinations and make observations about them. There are alot of
commonalities between them which are fascinating. It's just more hints
about the different processes of the brain... quite tantelizing.

 

[heliocentric]

I am not sure if I quite agree with this. The original statement:

"I think you may be directly manifesting/changing reality."

appears to be an assertion of a probabalistic truth. This is the result of
the meaning of the sentence (i.e. definition and context relationship between
words). Maybe the intended meaning was different?

I think most people would take 'may' to mean 'might be, could, possible' where as if id said 'is' that would have been an assertion of truth.
'probabalistic truth' i guess is a valid way of interpreting it, but i really dont think it has to be that complicated.

I feel the most value at this point would come out of re-modeling the
original assertion to better align with the intended meaning.

Im happy with the original statement, i think it was formed in a pretty common everyday way that was easy to understand, i could have used 'prehaps' instead, but i think the semantics arnt really the issue. Any assertion wether it be put forward as a truth or a possibility i suspect you think should be backed by evidence. I personally dont see it that way, i dont think conversations always have to be that rigid.

Ahh then the whole thing is probably my fault then for not setting
expectations. I started the thread to share experiences of hypnogigic
hallucinations and make observations about them. There are alot of
commonalities between them which are fascinating. It's just more hints
about the different processes of the brain... quite tantelizing.

I think that might be the problem, plus different people are going to come at a subject from different angles, i dont think in threads like these its safe to assume everyones going to disscuss the subject using the same methodolagy as yourself. And if you want people to use the same methods, yeah it probably would be best to set that out from the start...for example if i started a thread on 'souls' i might ask for people to assume their existance as a given and then take it from there to discuss the nature of the soul. A pretty good way to avoid debate which bogs down the issue you really want to get to i find.

But yeah hallucinations are fascinating and ive got alot of opnions about them, just a pity we couldnt agree on a way to discuss them.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I think most people would take 'may' to mean 'might be, could, possible' where as if id said 'is' that would have been an assertion of truth.
'probabalistic truth' i guess is a valid way of interpreting it, but i really dont think it has to be that complicated.

I disagree. Language allows us to create similicities or complexities.
Any fantastic assertion of truth (even a probabalistic assertion) should
be scrutinized especially if evidence exists that contradicts it, as in this
case.

I think that might be the problem, plus different people are going to come at a subject from different angles, i dont think in threads like these its safe to assume everyones going to disscuss the subject using the same methodolagy as yourself. And if you want people to use the same methods, yeah it probably would be best to set that out from the start...

Yep, I agree.

for example if i started a thread on 'souls' i might ask for people to assume their existance as a given and then take it from there to discuss the nature of the soul. A pretty good way to avoid debate which bogs down the issue you really want to get to i find.

You're on a science forum (not a science fiction forum). I think alot of
people would want 'soul' defined or evidence of it's existence before engaging
in a conversation of that nature...

But yeah hallucinations are fascinating and ive got alot of opnions about them, just a pity we couldnt agree on a way to discuss them.

No biggie... when we compare the assertions of two individuals side by
side, it is very likely that one of them will be more aligned to truth than
the other. The individual whom holds evidence is likely the individual whom
is better aligned.

 

[heliocentric]

...

 

[heliocentric]

I disagree. Language allows us to create similicities or complexities.
Any fantastic assertion of truth (even a probabalistic assertion) should
be scrutinized especially if evidence exists that contradicts it, as in this
case.

Well you still havent presented any evidence despite saying that twice, but the burden of proof lies on me or however it goes...the problem being that im not interested in playing that kind of game in this instance.

You're on a science forum (not a science fiction forum). I think alot of
people would want 'soul' defined or evidence of it's existence before engaging
in a conversation of that nature...

Only very broadly speaking, there is sci fi section on this forum along with many others so you're not entirely correct. If i was to start a thread about the nature of the soul i would probably post it in the philosophy section though i have to say, i could i start a thread like that in this section, setting out that the discussion will not centre around wether souls do or do not exist, and any post atempting to do just that i could ask to be deleted.
But thats all by the way..since im not actually going to do that it was just an example of how one might start a thread without getting bogged down in discussions that lead you away from the truth you're trying to get to.

No biggie... when we compare the assertions of two individuals side by
side, it is very likely that one of them will be more aligned to truth than
the other. The individual whom holds evidence is likely the individual whom
is better aligned.

And seeing as neither of us has presented any evidence in this thread how are we to work out who is better aligned to the truth?

Personally i think you're far too hung up on evidence, science is great but it doesnt have to become a life philosophy, and taken to extremes. All i did was present an idea, you dont even have to agree with it. You can simply remember it, see if it fits with any future experiences, or any other similar expierence that you might read about...if it doesnt forget about it or discard it. It really doesnt have to be any more complex than that.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Well you still havent presented any evidence despite saying that twice, but the burden of proof lies on me or however it goes...the problem being that im not interested in playing that kind of game in this instance.

Yes I have. Re-read the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 03-31-05, 03:38 PM
post. This contradicts the probabalistic assertion of truth that the brain
manifests / creates reality.

Only very broadly speaking, there is sci fi section on this forum along with many others so you're not entirely correct.

There is a sci-fi section on the forum and it's documented as hosting:

"star trek, star wars, x-files, fantasy, fiction"

brains creating reality would definately fall into the fantasy / fiction category.
Again, I have nothing against creative works. It's healthy, it's fun, and
very stimulating. When fantasy is asserted as reality, scrutiny becomes
necessary.

If i was to start a thread about the nature of the soul i would probably post it in the philosophy section though i have to say, i could i start a thread like that in this section, setting out that the discussion will not centre around wether souls do or do not exist, and any post atempting to do just that i could ask to be deleted.
But thats all by the way..since im not actually going to do that it was just an example of how one might start a thread without getting bogged down in discussions that lead you away from the truth you're trying to get to.

As an experiment I would recommend trying starting a thread on the
nature of the soul in either parapsychology or general philosophy. Once
you are done post the results here and state your thoughts on how a
science forums met or did not meet your expectations.

Personally i think you're far too hung up on evidence, science is great but it doesnt have to become a life philosophy, and taken to extremes.

I think a life philosophy of asking important questions and seeking out
the answers is anything but extreme. It's enabling, it's fun, it's satisfying,
...

All i did was present an idea, you dont even have to agree with it. You can simply remember it, see if it fits with any future experiences, or any other similar expierence that you might read about...if it doesnt forget about it or discard it. It really doesnt have to be any more complex than that.

It's not the idea that I am directly challenging. It's the belief that the idea
has any probability of being true that I am challenging. Personally, I find
the idea of my brain manifesting / creating reality very attractive. I also
know that this is not how reality works.

If the idea was originally asserted as:

"I like the concept of the brain being able to manifest / create reality"

I would have probably agreed and even state something like:

"Wouldn't it be cool if the sum of everyone's thought resulted in reality...
the more people involved the richer reality would become?"

Both of the above assertions are not in any way assertions of truth. They
are creative, exploratory, attractive, thought provoking, and hold alot of
other good qualities.

 

[heliocentric]

Yes I have. Re-read the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 03-31-05, 03:38 PM
post. This contradicts the probabalistic assertion of truth that the brain
manifests / creates reality.

All i could find was a reference about video taping an event where someone felt they were manifesting reality. If youve got a link to such an experiment it would be interesting to read. If you dont have anything to back up your statement then it hardly serves as a contradiction. You're also assuming that a video camera has an objective view of reality, which is another can of worms right there. People see things that dont show up on tape, and things show up on tape that people dont see, so even if an experiment like this did exist im not sure how much it would prove.
And once again..no probabalistic assertion was being made.

There is a sci-fi section on the forum and it's documented as hosting:

"star trek, star wars, x-files, fantasy, fiction"

brains creating reality would definately fall into the fantasy / fiction category.
Again, I have nothing against creative works. It's healthy, it's fun, and
very stimulating. When fantasy is asserted as reality, scrutiny becomes
necessary.

It would be inappropriate to put a "brains creating reality' into the fantasy section, as im trying to get to the truth of reality not make-believe.
I think you know this to be true from what ive said already...
And yes it may be pure fantasy to you im sure, i personally think a great deal of religion is pure fantasy...should religious topics therefore be moved to the sci fi section? of course not, Like it or not when designing a forum you have to serve the needs of everyone. Thats life.

As an experiment I would recommend trying starting a thread on the
nature of the soul in either parapsychology or general philosophy. Once
you are done post the results here and state your thoughts on how a
science forums met or did not meet your expectations.

maybe i might do that some time in the future

I think a life philosophy of asking important questions and seeking out
the answers is anything butextreme. It's enabling, it's fun, it's satisfying,

Me too, but when you become overly pragmatic about semantics, it can become more of a hinderance than a help.

If the idea was originally asserted as:

"I like the concept of the brain being able to manifest / create reality"

I would have probably agreed and even state something like:


"Wouldn't it be cool if the sum of everyone's thought resulted in reality...
the more people involved the richer reality would become?"

Both of the above assertions are not in any way assertions of truth. They
are creative, exploratory, attractive, thought provoking, and hold alot of
other good qualities.

Well, i think if youd stated that from the start we could have both saved ourself a lot of time ; ) if thats how like to conduct such discussions then thats entirely your right.
however comming back to what i said earlier, Saying 'may' does does not have to be a probabalistic truth, and your definition is certainly not universal. and there might be a rule in science that a possibility has to be backed up by evidence (although im pretty sure thats not always the case). But i repeat again im not speaking in those terms, and you seem unhappy talking in terms other than that of a strict scientific frame work. Which puts our conversation at cross purposes.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

All i could find was a reference about video taping an event where someone felt they were manifesting reality. If youve got a link to such an experiment it would be interesting to read. If you dont have anything to back up your statement then it hardly serves as a contradiction. You're also assuming that a video camera has an objective view of reality, which is another can of worms right there. People see things that dont show up on tape, and things show up on tape that people dont see, so even if an experiment like this did exist im not sure how much it would prove.
And once again..no probabalistic assertion was being made.

There was a little more than that. There was an assertion:

* Stimulus can be generated internally and externally and the external is
where survival (the rest of reality) takes place.

And there were two experiments listed whose results will unconditionally
support the assertion.

* Starvation experiment to show that the internal has no affect on the
external.

* Video DMT experiment to show that the internal has no affect on the
external.

Youre assertion that the camera doesn't pick up *everything* is true. It
doesn't pick up X-Rays, extreme photon wavelength ranges, etc... It will
pick up most of what the human eye sees, and if a DMT experience is
generating a new reality, it would certainly pick up such major differences.
Seriously, have a video camera taping your field of vision and smoke some
DMT. When you see fantastic things state what they are. If you are
concerned the video camera is not picking up enough then use another
non-DMT affect human being to verify your observations. If your DMT sight
doesn't align with what the video camera / observer sees then this means
everything seen was generated internally (this is the evidence to support
the assertion). I am so confident this is what the results would be that I
would be willing to put a bet on it *signed via an affidavit* for $5000.

Similarly, in the starvation experiment. Eat all the food internally that you
can and see if you loose weight exteranally. I am so confident that you
will loose weight (this is the evidence) that I would be willing to put the same
bet on it as above.

That's $10,000 in potential cash. If you win then you get the money.
If you loose then you are able to distinguish between fantasy and reality
a little better. Either way it's a win-win situation.

It would be inappropriate to put a "brains creating reality' into the fantasy section, as im trying to get to the truth of reality not make-believe.
I think you know this to be true from what ive said already...
And yes it may be pure fantasy to you im sure, i personally think a great deal of religion is pure fantasy...should religious topics therefore be moved to the sci fi section? of course not, Like it or not when designing a forum you have to serve the needs of everyone. Thats life.

Restate the probability of truth claim as a hypothesis and then commit
to an experiment. Ask anyone to help as well. That's big step towards
getting to the truth.

BTW, I agree that religion is pure and utter fantasy. It is the worlds greatest
fantasy which is probably why it received it's own section.

Me too, but when you become overly pragmatic about semantics, it can become more of a hinderance than a help.

Semantics are important when scrutinizing the fantastic. I would hate
to allow a foundation of non-truth to be built upon only later to be challenged
that I agreed early on.

Well, i think if youd stated that from the start we could have both saved ourself a lot of time ; )

Yep, I agree.

however comming back to what i said earlier, Saying 'may' does does not have to be a probabalistic truth, and your definition is certainly not universal. and there might be a rule in science that a possibility has to be backed up by evidence (although im pretty sure thats not always the case). But i repeat again im not speaking in those terms, and you seem unhappy talking in terms other than that of a strict scientific frame work. Which puts our conversation at cross purposes.

If the 'may' assertion is accepted then it's accepted with knowledge that
it's meaning does include probabilistic truth. That can come back to haunt
you later.

I've had experiences with allowing the semantics to slide with fantastic
claims. I allowed conversations to build vast foundations of *crap*. At
the end of such conversations the *claimer* always turned sour when
I asked what the evidence was? The typical response was 'I already explained
that' and when I asked for details things just went downhill and no progress
was made. Taking the approach of not allowing that dunghill to be built
in the firstplace has had a much better affect with such individuals.

I am not saying that your behaviors would fall into this category (I see
indications supporting this). I am saying that it's the most effective overall
strategy for dealing with fantastic claims (sorry if it's frustrating).

 

[heliocentric]

There was a little more than that. There was an assertion:

* Stimulus can be generated internally and externally and the external is
where survival (the rest of reality) takes place.

And there were two experiments listed whose results will unconditionally
support the assertion.

* Starvation experiment to show that the internal has no affect on the
external.

* Video DMT experiment to show that the internal has no affect on the
external.

Ok heres the problem, the first experiment i know nothing about since youve not posted any information on it, therefore ive no reasonable idea what this experiment is about or how its supposed to prove anything.
The second experiment i now know most definitely doesnt exist, since you seem to be coercing me with money to create the experiment myself! Randi would be proud im sure.
For a person who holds science so dear you play pretty fast and loose with its rules when it suits you, you cant talk about evidence and how you're in possesion of it, and then turn round and side step the issue when i ask you for it by by offering your cash around. Well you can, become it makes you look like a rather unconvincing scientist.
Nothing is a given in science unless its been proven, thems the rules. If you dont have any proof its not proven, thats how it works, and writing a cheque does not count as evidence in itself all it really proves is that you're very sure of yourself.

Youre assertion that the camera doesn't pick up *everything* is true. It
doesn't pick up X-Rays, extreme photon wavelength ranges, etc... It will
pick up most of what the human eye sees, and if a DMT experience is
generating a new reality, it would certainly pick up such major differences.
Seriously, have a video camera taping your field of vision and smoke some
DMT. When you see fantastic things state what they are. If you are
concerned the video camera is not picking up enough then use another
non-DMT affect human being to verify your observations. If your DMT sight
doesn't align with what the video camera / observer sees then this means
everything seen was generated internally (this is the evidence to support
the assertion). I am so confident this is what the results would be that I
would be willing to put a bet on it *signed via an affidavit* for $5000.

Similarly, in the starvation experiment. Eat all the food internally that you
can and see if you loose weight exteranally. I am so confident that you
will loose weight (this is the evidence) that I would be willing to put the same
bet on it as above.

That's $10,000 in potential cash. If you win then you get the money.
If you loose then you are able to distinguish between fantasy and reality
a little better. Either way it's a win-win situation.

Im not in the business of creating experiments on the promise of money from people that i dont know online...this is becomming quite absurd.
But ok, i'll play devils advocate, if i managed to produce something on tape, what would stop you from calling bs on it and not handing over the money?
see...'experiments' with a pot of gold waiting at the end of them are never reliable, theres far too much motivation for foul play and bias when someones out to loose alot of cash. This is something the randi advocates need to come to terms with.

Restate the probability of truth claim as a hypothesis and then commit
to an experiment. Ask anyone to help as well. That's big step towards
getting to the truth.

Im not a scientist, why wont you believe you me? really take my word for it im not ; )

BTW, I agree that religion is pure and utter fantasy. It is the worlds greatest
fantasy which is probably why it received it's own section.

thats too much of a generalisation for me but yeah a great deal of it is imo.

If the 'may' assertion is accepted then it's accepted with knowledge that
it's meaning does include probabilistic truth. That can come back to haunt
you later.

It can hardly come back to haunt me, as i expressed the same view (to a degree), where we differ is that you take the view that possibilities have to be backed by empirical evidence, i dont.

I've had experiences with allowing the semantics to slide with fantastic
claims. I allowed conversations to build vast foundations of *crap*. At
the end of such conversations the *claimer* always turned sour when
I asked what the evidence was? The typical response was 'I already explained
that' and when I asked for details things just went downhill and no progress
was made. Taking the approach of not allowing that dunghill to be built
in the firstplace has had a much better affect with such individuals.

I am not saying that your behaviors would fall into this category (I see
indications supporting this). I am saying that it's the most effective overall
strategy for dealing with fantastic claims (sorry if it's frustrating).

I think the need to see every utterance of possibility as a claim, shows a distinct lack of ability or want to comprehend language and conversations in anything other than the current scientific fashion. Which is fine, not everyone can think in multiple paradigms. When it starts to become a little weird and unhinged is when i explain to you that im not a scientist and im not interesting in having a conversation in those terms and you just cant accept it. Stranger still when you dont even seem to adhere to the framework of your chosen paradigm at times. Im not trying to be rude here but you're kind of having a conversation with yourself, and playing out a template that you
use in these situations. Rather than hearing what im saying and either adapting to it or just leaving it be.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ok heres the problem, the first experiment i know nothing about since youve not posted any information on it, therefore ive no reasonable idea what this experiment is about or how its supposed to prove anything.

The result of the first experiment tests the 'hypothesis' that the perceived
reality induced by smoking a particular chemical is real; hence, making it
brain-created.

The second experiment i now know most definitely doesnt exist, since you seem to be coercing me with money to create the experiment myself! Randi would be proud im sure.

The money is a motivator. I feel that there is a difficulty distinguishing
between reality and fantasy and I am offering something in the hope
that I can help alleviate the difficulty.

For a person who holds science so dear you play pretty fast and loose with its rules when it suits you, you cant talk about evidence and how you're in possesion of it, and then turn round and side step the issue when i ask you for it by by offering your cash around. Well you can, become it makes you look like a rather unconvincing scientist.

The contradictory evidence I hold is the results of the experiments. I am
merely giving an opportunity and a motivator to recreate the experiment and
witness the results first hand.

Nothing is a given in science unless its been proven, thems the rules. If you dont have any proof its not proven, thats how it works, and writing a cheque does not count as evidence in itself all it really proves is that you're very sure of yourself.

That's just it, the proof is the results. I know what they will be and most
anyone whom has experienced hallucination knows the same. I had a room-
mate back in my college years who was having a bad trip. I pretended I
was the devil and scared him for pure entertainment purposes. He told
me that he saw me shooting flames out of my mouth, grew horns, was
burning his room to ashes, etc. From my perspective he ran and hid under
his bed (literally). There was no fire, no burns, no horns, just a whole lot
of hallucination. That's a point of evidence. What I am trying to do is
motivate you to find the truth through experimentation.

Im not in the business of creating experiments on the promise of money from people that i dont know online...this is becomming quite absurd.

I would be happy to help you and of course I said that I would sign an
affidavit. That's a legally binding contract you could take me to court over
if I welched on you. We can meet in person, we can do the experiments
together, I can give you legal ease of mind that my obligations will hold
true. I can even give you references of experiments I have done with
other on-line folks if my sincerity or committment are in question (I recently
went to Seattle for one such experiment).

But ok, i'll play devils advocate, if i managed to produce something on tape, what would stop you from calling bs on it and not handing over the money?

We would devise (together) and agree on the details of the experiment.
The agreement negates the B.S. factor.

see...'experiments' with a pot of gold waiting at the end of them are never reliable, theres far too much motivation for foul play and bias when someones out to loose alot of cash. This is something the randi advocates need to come to terms with.

I am not Randi and Randi is not I. I am willing to risk money to give you
an opportunity to find truth. If for some reason I am wrong then you
get money and I learn something increadible. If I am correct then you
don't get any money and you learn the truth.

Im not a scientist, why wont you believe you me? really take my word for it im not ; )

It can hardly come back to haunt me, as i expressed the same view (to a degree), where we differ is that you take the view that possibilities have to be backed by empirical evidence, i dont.

There are so many great questions to ask about reality and so many
awesome discoveries to be made. Why not create possibility out of things
we already know instead of discarding those things for the sake of possibility?

I think the need to see every utterance of possibility as a claim, shows a distinct lack of ability or want to comprehand language and conversations in anything other than the current scientific fashion. Which is fine, not everyone can think in multiple paradigms. When it starts to become a little weird and unhinged is when i explain to you that im not a scientist and im not interesting in having a conversation in those terms and you just cant accept it.

The only 'paradigm' I am working off of is to scrutinize the fantastic. There
is not alot to it.

Stranger still when you dont even seem to adhere to the framework of your chosen paradigm at times, how can i be expected to follow your rules when you wont folllow them yourself?

Maybe it might make sense if I clairify my intentions of our conversation
a little further. The original assertion (although spoken in terms of probability
/ possibility) is neither probable nor possible. I have witnessed (as have
many others) people hallucinating, I have hallucinated myself, and I know
that hallucination is the result of brian-generated stimulus and has no
bearing on the external world.

The very fact the assertion was made in the first place indicates that our
mutual understanding of reality is different. I also see that you are interested
in finding truth. I am confident that my understanding of reality is closer to
truth on the subject of hallucination. I am so confident that I am willing to
put a financial stake on the table as a motivator to help explore the truth
about hallucination.

The one thing I hope to get out of this is the mutual understanding that
the original assertion is neither probable nor possible. If I am incorrect then
you're $5000-$10000 richer and I will possess knowledge that will change
my life (and potentially the lives of many others). Nobody loses.

 

[heliocentric]

The result of the first experiment tests the 'hypothesis' that the perceived
reality induced by smoking a particular chemical is real; hence, making it
brain-created.

Wouldnt it be common sense to seek out any existing evidence before writing out cheques?

The money is a motivator. I feel that there is a difficulty distinguishing
between reality and fantasy and I am offering something in the hope
that I can help alleviate the difficulty.

Which is quite scary in many ways...you're not so much going to all that trouble to get to any kind of truth (youve already made up your mind about that). Youd go to all that trouble simply to convert me to your way of thinking, and they say science isnt dogmatic!

The contradictory evidence I hold is the results of the experiments.

Sorry but this is crossing over into the realms of pure insanity, you dont hold any evidence, no experiments have been undertaken. You cant second guess the out come of possible future experiments and try and put foward the non-existant results as proof.

That's just it, the proof is the results. I know what they will be and most
anyone whom has experienced hallucination knows the same. I had a room-
mate back in my college years who was having a bad trip. I pretended I
was the devil and scared him for pure entertainment purposes. He told
me that he saw me shooting flames out of my mouth, grew horns, was
burning his room to ashes, etc. From my perspective he ran and hid under
his bed (literally). There was no fire, no burns, no horns, just a whole lot
of hallucination.

Allow me to clear up that im in no way trying to say that ALL hallucinations are reality manifested outwards; there to be seen by a third party.
Im pretty sure thats not the case whatsoever, what im saying to you is actually pretty simple and i'll go into a little more detail.
I have come across anomalous reports/situations where a person or group of people manifesting reality could actually be a possibility that would solve a specific problem and fit pretty well. Ive got quite a few in mind but i'll talk about the one that sticks in my mind that most. I read recently about a group of people who set up a seance in an atempt to contact a spirit. But heres the twist.. they created the 'spirit' themselves.gave him a fictious name, background, birth and death. Heres the weird part, they set about contacting this fictious spirit and actually suceeded. They spoke to him via a ouiji board, had picture frames flying off the wall, raps on the table, and even got a ghostly apparition. Now seeing as these people created this character its a pretty good possibility that the physical manifestations came from them.

That's a point of evidence. What I am trying to do is
motivate you to find the truth through experimentation.

I think you're trying to convert me to your methods despite my atempts at telling you that i have no interest in following your methodolagy through. I have enough respect and common sense not to atempt to cajoul you into meditating on what ive spoken about or maybe reading a few philosophy books to widen your scope of investigation. So i really dont see how you feel justified in cajouling me to inspect reality via your methods..even when ive already let you know in this instance im not interested in going down that road.

I would be happy to help you and of course I said that I would sign an
affidavit. That's a legally binding contract you could take me to court over
if I welched on you. We can meet in person, we can do the experiments
together, I can give you legal ease of mind that my obligations will hold
true. I can even give you references of experiments I have done with
other on-line folks if my sincerity or committment are in question (I recently
went to Seattle for one such experiment).

I think ive made my position clear on this matter, i simply do not have the time or inclination to set about this. The fact that no experiment could realistically be desgined to prove that reality was being manifested also doesnt help. If you actually think it through, with current technolagy and understanding of the brain and consciousness there is just no a realistic way to trace the origin of a manifestation to a human brain. Even with the most high-tech equipment out there which would be running into millions of dollars i still dont see how it would be achievable.

We would devise (together) and agree on the details of the experiment.
The agreement negates the B.S. factor.

see above.

There are so many great questions to ask about reality and so many
awesome discoveries to be made. Why not create possibility out of things
we already know instead of discarding those things for the sake of possibility?

Why run with old ideas for safteys sake when we could be creating new ones?

The only 'paradigm' I am working off of is to scrutinize the fantastic. There
is not alot to it.

I agree, the problem being that we cannot agree on the method of scrutiny,
not that there is a lack of will on either side to scrutinise.

I have hallucinated myself, and I know that hallucination is the result of brian-generated stimulus and has no bearing on the external world.

Well your hallucinations must be rather different from most peoples, the majority of hallucinations take external reality and interpret it differently or re-form it in interesting ways. This is generally true of mushrooms/lsd experiences, although i conceed that not all hallucinations work this way, you should realise that the same is true of your personal hallucinations.

The very fact the assertion was made in the first place indicates that our
mutual understanding of reality is different. I also see that you are interested
in finding truth. I am confident that my understanding of reality is closer to
truth on the subject of hallucination. I am so confident that I am willing to
put a financial stake on the table as a motivator to help explore the truth
about hallucination.

The one thing I hope to get out of this is the mutual understanding that
the original assertion is neither probable nor possible. If I am incorrect then
you're $5000-$10000 richer and I will possess knowledge that will change
my life (and potentially the lives of many others). Nobody loses.

What i wish you to understand is that throwing money on the table is neither clever nor helpful, its a worn out tactic and its crass. There are smarter ways to go about things..i really dont know why you thought it was a good idea.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Wouldnt it be common sense to seek out any existing evidence before writing out cheques?

That's just it. I've seen the evidence first hand (remember the story
about the tripping roomate?); however, that is just testimonial evidence
and I suppose if were coming from different backgrounds we may not
have had the same educational, observational, and experiential opportunities.
While I can offer evidence in the form of instruction on how to set up an
experiment and what the expected results will be; perhaps, you are looking
for work which has already been done. Take a look at this article for some
clear definition of hallucination in general:

http://www.library.uu.nl/digiarchief/dip/diss/1954455/c8.pdf#search='Psychiatric%20archives%20hallucination'

The references at the end of the article (ex. "Illusions of reality" Bentall,
1990b) have tons of great observed and experimental results of the
hallucination phenomenon. Lots of hard evidence; however, in my opinion
it's unnecessary when any number of simple experiments can achieve
results that contradict the original assertion.

Which is quite scary in many ways...you're not so much going to all that trouble to get to any kind of truth (youve already made up your mind about that). Youd go to all that trouble simply to convert me to your way of thinking, and they say science isnt dogmatic!

I know what the truth is in this case. I am offering a way to prove it to
yourself. You can think anyway you like and reality remains what it is.

Sorry but this is crossing over into the realms of pure insanity, you dont hold any evidence, no experiments have been undertaken. You cant hold evidence for future experiments that may or may not come about, now that really is pure fantasty...

I am offering a chance to find truth through experimentation. I suppose
it doesn't really matter if I know or don't know the outcome. Just try it.
The resistance is not due to my crossing over into realms of insanity,
it's not due to experiments or lack of, it's due to my not taking the time
to approach you on common ground, establishing trust, and possibly
not making you feel heard on several points. It's a big time investment
to do these things right now so bear with me and please try to forgive the
lack of social ettiquette.

Allow me to clear up that im in no way trying to say that ALL hallucinations are reality manifested outwards; there to be seen by a third party.
Im pretty sure thats not the case whatsoever, what im saying to you is actually pretty simple and i'll go into a little more detail.
I have come across anomalous reports/situations where a person or group of people manifesting reality could actually be a possibility that would solve a specific problem and fit pretty well. Ive got quite a few in mind but i'll talk about the one that sticks in my mind that most. I read recently about a group of people who set up a seance in an atempt to contact a spirit. But heres the twist.. they created the 'spirit' themselves.gave him a fictious name, background, birth and death. Heres the weird part, they set about contacting this fictious spirit and actually suceeded. They spoke to him via a ouiji board, had picture frames flying off the wall, raps on the table, and even got a ghostly apparition. Now seeing as these people created this character its a pretty good possibility that the physical manifestations came from them.

Hey, this great information and I want to thank you for being brave enough
to share this with me. I am not going to make any conclusions on this and
am going to state the experience as follows:

Event: A group of people agreed upon the name, background, birth, and
death of a fictitious spirit. They used a ouiji board and interpreted the
results of their use as communication with the fictitous spirit. Picture frames
flew off the wall, raps were witnessed on the table, a visual anomoly was
seen.

Does it make sense to conclude that this was the result of manifesting
reality with group thought or does it make sense to ask questions:

* What happened with the ouiji board that led to the interpretation of
communication with the fictitous spirit?
* What caused the picture frame to fly off the wall?
* What caused the raps to occur on the table?
* What was the visual anomoly?

Maybe the same group could reproduce the results, get it on camera and / or
have live individuals observing the events as they occur? These are some
great exploration techniques to get to the truth.

I think you're trying to convert me to your methods despite my atempts at telling you that i have no interest in following your methodolagy through. I have enough respect and common sense not to atempt to cajoul you into meditating on what ive spoken about or maybe reading a few philosophy books to widen your scope of investigation. So i really dont see how you feel justified in cajouling me to inspect reality via your methods..even when ive already let you know in this instance im not interested in going down that road.

If there is no interest then so be it. It's a shame though as I feel that it
is my failure to have helped someone gain the tools necessary to differentiate
between reality and fantasy.

I think ive made my position clear on this matter, i simply do not have the time or inclination to set about this. The fact that no experiment could realistically be desgined to prove that reality was being manifested also doesnt help.

Fair enough. I will assert that an experiment that contradicts the assertion
that the brain manifests reality is equally as valuable.

If you actually think it through, with current technolagy and understanding of the brain and consciousness there is just no a realistic way to trace the origin of a manifestation to a human brain. Even with the most high-tech equipment out there which would be running into millions of dollars i still dont see how it would be achievable.

I am not sure about that. Energy is uncompressed matter and matter
is compressed energy. I would suspect that constant compression and
decompression would result in measurable dispersions of heat, electricity,
etc... (energy).

Why run with old ideas for safteys sake when we could be creating new ones?

It's not necessarily for safety's sake. In fact many theoretical sciences have
an empirical foundation and then bult theory on top of theory on top of
theory. If something low in the theory chain is contradicted then everything
above it goes.

Well your hallucinations must be rather different from most peoples, the majority of hallucinations take external reality and interpret it differently or re-form it in interesting ways. This is generally true of mushrooms/lsd experiences, although i conceed that not all hallucinations work this way, you should realise that the same is true of your personal hallucinations.

My hallucinations have strictly been hypnogogic and they can blend right
into my perception of the external. I understand that LSD, shrooms, etc.
can modify / completely distort perception. In these situations various
parts of the brain are in a disrupted state.

What i wish you to understand is that throwing money on the table is neither clever nor helpful, its a worn out tactic and its crass. There are smarter ways to go about things..i really dont know why you thought it was a good idea.

I use it because it's worked before; although, I will admit that I have a
pending experiment with another sciforums member in Q4 and he actually
turned down the cash potential and is strictly interested in testing his
hypothesis with my assistance. I find that to be simply awesome.

 

[heliocentric]

That's just it. I've seen the evidence first hand (remember the story
about the tripping roomate?); however, that is just testimonial evidence
and I suppose if were coming from different backgrounds we may not
have had the same educational, observational, and experiential opportunities.
While I can offer evidence in the form of instruction on how to set up an
experiment and what the expected results will be; perhaps, you are looking
for work which has already been done. Take a look at this article for some
clear definition of hallucination in general:

http://www.library.uu.nl/digiarchief/dip/diss/1954455/c8.pdf#search='Psychiatric%20archives%20hallucination'

The references at the end of the article (ex. "Illusions of reality" Bentall,
1990b) have tons of great observed and experimental results of the
hallucination phenomenon. Lots of hard evidence; however, in my opinion
it's unnecessary when any number of simple experiments can achieve
results that contradict the original assertion.

Im having a bit of trouble getting into the pdf, the laptop im on atm seems alittle slow. I'll tell you what i think of it when i get to read it ; )

I know what the truth is in this case. I am offering a way to prove it to
yourself.

I find your certainty almost religious, particularly in the way you insist on me comming round to your beliefs.
The only real truth here is that You have a pretty good idea of the truth of your own personal experiences i dont doubt that, but your personal experiences dont cover all the possibilities and variations of experience with hallucinations and realistically cant be used as a yard-stick for all other expeirences. Doesnt that make sense?

You can think anyway you like and reality remains what it is.

Im not sure if you wrote that realising the full implications of what you were saying, this in fact gets right into the heart of the argument, are thought and reality so seperate from each other? well to draw on my own personal experience, id say not. Infact id say they're intrinsically interwoven to the extent that you can shape reality in numerous ways without a classic 'physical' action taking place. The difference being that im not going to try convince you with my personal anecdotal evidence, im sensibile enough to know that it offers no proof to anyone other than myself.

I am offering a chance to find truth through experimentation. I suppose
it doesn't really matter if I know or don't know the outcome. Just try it.
The resistance is not due to my crossing over into realms of insanity,
it's not due to experiments or lack of, it's due to my not taking the time
to approach you on common ground, establishing trust, and possibly
not making you feel heard on several points. It's a big time investment
to do these things right now so bear with me and please try to forgive the
lack of social ettiquette.

No problem, clashing ideals together can be fun, and you can learn alot about yourself in the process : )

Hey, this great information and I want to thank you for being brave enough
to share this with me. I am not going to make any conclusions on this and
am going to state the experience as follows:

Event: A group of people agreed upon the name, background, birth, and
death of a fictitious spirit. They used a ouiji board and interpreted the
results of their use as communication with the fictitous spirit. Picture frames
flew off the wall, raps were witnessed on the table, a visual anomoly was
seen.

Does it make sense to conclude that this was the result of manifesting
reality with group thought or does it make sense to ask questions:

Well, if you re-read what i said again i didnt conclude that this was what happened i offered it up as a possibility, of course there are others,..

* What happened with the ouiji board that led to the interpretation of
communication with the fictitous spirit?
* What caused the picture frame to fly off the wall?
* What caused the raps to occur on the table?
* What was the visual anomoly?

Maybe the same group could reproduce the results, get it on camera and / or
have live individuals observing the events as they occur? These are some
great exploration techniques to get to the truth.

Limited details in experiments sometimes can be a pain, ive emailed people before to get more details, but never seem to get a response. Maybe im just unlucky or have a poor email manner : p
Without being there in person, i dare say its near impossible to work out what happened with complete certainty, im sure they could set up the same experiment again and get it on film. The problem being that people with call hoax, because ive seen many many videos of amazing manifestations/poltergeist activity thats been put through the video analyazing treatment and come up as LEGIT, but alas ghosts are still not excepted as being real in our society, its still too fantastic in the mind of the common man to be true.
Ive come to the conclusion that video evidence doesnt make a blind bit of difference to firm attitudes no matter what is captured. This type of evidence isnt nearly as useful as you would think.
The second problem is capturing the event on film, would not in itself go anyway to proving with absolute certainty that the group manifested them.
There are no methods that exsist to prove this without any doubt.

If there is no interest then so be it. It's a shame though as I feel that it is my failure to have helped someone gain the tools necessary to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

I have the tools of scientific methodolagy, its not something im a stranger to, im just smart enough to know when they can be applied and when they cant. Its a shame you cant put your tools down long enough to realise there are other ways to chip away at the truth.
As i said a while back all you need do with my idea is see if it applys to your experiences, or any experiences of others. Im not trying to force this idea down your throat, if youve already decided its rubbish, then disregard it.

Fair enough. I will assert that an experiment that contradicts the assertion
that the brain manifests reality is equally as valuable.

Again, any evidence youd like to show me im happy to take a look at, but you'll have to produce it at some stage if you want to keep refering to it.

I am not sure about that. Energy is uncompressed matter and matter
is compressed energy. I would suspect that constant compression and
decompression would result in measurable dispersions of heat, electricity,
etc... (energy).

You could be right, im still not sure it would prove much either way

It's not necessarily for safety's sake. In fact many theoretical sciences have
an empirical foundation and then bult theory on top of theory on top of
theory. If something low in the theory chain is contradicted then everything
above it goes.

Yep and dont get me wrong, thats a great tried and tested approach, im just open to other methods, i.e. comming up with an explaination when no other explaination seem to fit. I think thats pretty reasonable.

My hallucinations have strictly been hypnogogic and they can blend right
into my perception of the external. I understand that LSD, shrooms, etc.
can modify / completely distort perception. In these situations various
parts of the brain are in a disrupted state.

Sounds like youve had some very interesting experiences, i actually took some philosophers stone truffles on the weekend, which are a very potent type of fungus that grows beneath te ground. I had some amazing experiences, especially with multi-coloured 'jewels' of light that seemed to in habit most of my visions. It was a similar effect to when light reflects off the surface of a bubble. Im definitely interested to know why my mind seperated out the colour spectrum for me like this while simply staring at a wall. Abit of research to be done there i think...

I use it because it's worked before; although, I will admit that I have a
pending experiment with another sciforums member in Q4 and he actually
turned down the cash potential and is strictly interested in testing his
hypothesis with my assistance. I find that to be simply awesome.

That is pretty cool, if you feel something can be gained from it good luck to you.