Illusions

[son_of_bob]

The discussion on facts and feelings (Drawing the line between feeling and fact) really brought up a lot of different thoughts for me.

I think there is something valid in exploring about the nature of illusions. Determining the validity of one’s subjective experiences and understanding the physical constraints and limitations imposed on us by our own sense organs and brains.

What I see from meeting people from so many different backgrounds and cultures, is that so many people see absolutely validity in people’s own subjective experiences.

@rick you brought up some interesting points that got me thinking about a lot of different things, so thanks.

@rick

As I demonstrated, illusions occur in the actual world.

I would further split illusions into arching categories:

• Sensual illusions

• Non-Sensual (mental) illusions

Sensual illusions relate to the problems in our sense organs capability/capabilities for detecting external stimuli and/or the brains means of interpreting these problems and gaps in stimuli or jumping the gun to try and compensate for the absence of information, by using memory and previous experiences to infer things. These can then be broken down into the following groups:

• Optical/Visual

• Auditory/Hearing

• Tactile (relating to body/skin e.g. spider sensation, phantom limbs)

• Temporal (perception of time)

• Intersensory (blend of different senses, such as taste, smell etc)

When you understand the deficits as to why the illusion happens due to the way the particular sense organ or combination of sense organs works in conjunction with the brain then this is something repeatable and demonstrable and the illusion is not metaphysical but an experiential deficit, like losing one eye and having a depth perception deficit and then having to compensate for it.
One day we might be able to modify our bodies with implants or modify our DNA/RNA and find a means to bypass these deficits and thus make these illusions no longer possible because they are just problems to be solved rather than some unknowable, unresolvable, unchanging aspect.

Non-Sensual (mental) illusions are more interesting. One could describe these as those caused by internal stimulation only, however they are still based on the historic real external data known, types of things people have seen, smelt, touched, heard, and learned by other means such as read about, abstract concepts etc. In the sense we are not imagining something that has never been perceived by the senses before. Even a monster imagined is based on constructs experientially encountered before, a body, arms, legs (or tentacles), colours, shape, emotional intent, etc. Pre-existing data reimagined and amalgamated in a new combination.

I have known friends and family with Bipolar and Schizophrenia. There are multiple experiences they have had of seeing people, monsters, things, etc that do not exist in actuality. My imagination used to be so strong that I could imagine incredibly detailed worlds, monsters, scenes and scenarios but I knew I was conjuring them so there was no fear or surprise there. I sometimes thought that a lot of what they experienced was similar to how imagination manifested for me when writing, creating, but it had happened to them in a sense of not being aware or conscious of the imagining they were conjuring. They were passively experiencing the imagination rather than in control of it, hence it was a terrifying and frightening experience.

However, from a biological perspective there are obviously groups of neurons working in conjunction to enable the hallucination (or imagination) and thus hypothetically if identified one might be able to stimulate that part of the brain and make the illusion happen to that person at a whim. Alternatively, construct a neuronal circuit equivalent in somebody else and make them experience the same hallucination. This is because there is a definitive mechanism for allowing an illusion to arise. Which clearly relates to this way of combining historical sensory data into a new form of idea which can also manifest as an illusion/hallucination.

For example, somebody blind from birth will never have a visual hallucination of a red devil. That would be something I would want to test, can I transfer the circuits in that persons brain that made her see some monster and put it in a blind persons brain and will they for the first time have a visual hallucination experience. (Then you can pre-prepare a blind person for visual stimulus before finding a new way to cure that blindness.)

What are the rules at play and the limits and mechanisms for all these types of illusions?

@rick

Yet our illusion sample of the scintillating rays demonstrates that perceptions of objects that have no external existence can be just as actual as perceptions of objects that have external existence; in other words, fundamentally, the experience and existence of the illusion is just as actual as the experience and existence of the non-illusion. Despite this understanding, in typical conversation, we say, “those ‘beams’ are not actual, they don’t actually exist.” Yet, what is typically said is in actuality not correct, because those ‘beams’ do actually exist, they are happening.

I was thinking of this and I would sat that the rays do not actually exist, the mechanism to allow the experience of the rays actually exist. Therefore, what is actual can be demarcated between what is objectively perceivable and measurable and what is subjectively perceivable in the known limitations of the sense organs and brains of that organism. One has to take into account all of the components that make a subjective experience possible. In this sense, ones subjective experiences cannot be an absolute arbiter due to the dependencies and limitations they are subject to, these constraints and capabilities build up the complete picture.

The brain does not create the external universe but interprets it, filling in gaps and deficits which are still based on other types of data it has received from those sense organs and its ability to store/remember information. The possibility exists for the brain to do this incorrectly as well, jump the gun and interpret something that was never there and never experience, a phantom experience, like a phantom limb.

@rick

When the children reach a certain stage, the illusion of ‘Santa’ will disintegrate, the physical mechanisms in place that sustained ‘him’ as an illusion will disassemble, and the now-disillusioned children will scoff and say that, “Of course Santa doesn’t exist, he never existed, it was all an illusion, don’t ya know? There’s no fat man with a magic sled.” They ignore the fact that ‘he’ did exist (or they ignore the way in which he existed); ‘he’ of course was an illusion – a demonstrably actual phenomenon – that materialized inseparably from the physical universe that bore, sustained, and ultimately terminated ‘him’. ‘His’ dynamic existence was as actual as anything that ever was.

I agree that the idea of him existed in actuality possibly born from a real individual who was very kind and gave gifts, this person then become an idea which then become a belief which then enabled the illusion to manifest. I remember being convinced I had seen Santa with his reindeer fly past as a 6 year old (funnily enough my Dad when on morphine kept having hallucinations of Santa on his reindeer flying through the lounge and it pissed him off enough he quit using morphine lol). The illusions have evolved from things that exist in actuality, people, red clothes, being jolly, etc. I think it is better to say that the mechanisms for allowing the illusion to recur or a new illusion of a similar fashion will still exist as this is a known possibility for the configuration of matter that is a human being. We can generate internal illusions as well as experience sensory illusions. A concept or idea has the potential to manifest and become an illusion as well.

@rick

I arrived at a different conclusion: that the illusory feeling-being does exist in this universe; just because the illusory object does not exist outside the skull does not mean that it does not actually exist. Typically, however, people do not regard the objects that arise in the brain as actually existing; they typically relegate as actual only that which has existence outside the skull.

I would say that the neuronal mechanisms exist for making illusions in this universe, including a sense of an illusory (metaphysical) feeling-being to manifest rather than saying there is independently an illusory feeling-being. That this feeling-being is not a something in the way there is an arm, an appendix, a brain.

That brains can make a “sense” of a feeler, an “experiencer”, an agent to whom all of this is happening to though. They can transmit and communicate ideas, via language and visually, including abstractions and other mental capabilities, such as lateral thinking or pattern recognition.

For example, if I cut off an arm we recognise its form and function as an arm, if I cut out a set of neurons is it a memory, or a self, an agent of experience…or is it just neurons? It’s function is part of a greater collective of systems of other neurons and brain regions, can it not be removed without a larger context of the whole system.

The arm could be broken down to tissue types and cell types, the proteins, the molecules, the elements, the individual atom of that element type and the sub atomic constituents like quarks. The arm itself is an abstraction I guess. Even our understanding of the constituents are abstractions…an atom just a model an approximation to try and understand nature.

It is tricky…to make sense of the subjective.

[rick]

@son_of_bob

The discussion on facts and feelings (Drawing the line between feeling and fact) really brought up a lot of different thoughts for me. I think there is something valid in exploring about the nature of illusions. Determining the validity of one’s subjective experiences and understanding the physical constraints and limitations imposed on us by our own sense organs and brains. What I see from meeting people from so many different backgrounds and cultures, is that so many people see absolutely validity in people’s own subjective experiences.@rick you brought up some interesting points that got me thinking about a lot of different things, so thanks.

You’re very welcome, Adam. I’m pleased it formed the basis for further thought for you, and I appreciate you sharing those thoughts. I read them with keen interest. Several months ago I explored the topic until I was satisfied with the conclusion, which was that the universe produces sensual and mental illusion in individuals like it produces illiteracy in Iraq, elephants in India, and the element Iridium in igneous rock intrusions. I’m not sure as to what rules or limits are at play nor do I know the precise mechanisms that make these things happen, I just know that things are caused to happen in one way or another. On a basic level, I am satisfied with that knowledge.

@son_of_bob

@rick

Yet our illusion sample of the scintillating rays demonstrates that perceptions of objects that have no external existence can be just as actual as perceptions of objects that have external existence; in other words, fundamentally, the experience and existence of the illusion is just as actual as the experience and existence of the non-illusion. Despite this understanding, in typical conversation, we say, “those ‘beams’ are not actual, they don’t actually exist.” Yet, what is typically said is in actuality not correct, because those ‘beams’ do actually exist, they are happening.

I was thinking of this and I would sat that the rays do not actually exist

Consider:

1. A flesh and bloody body living in the actual world perceives and experiences that which is not actual, those illusory scintillating rays for example, so the experience of a flesh and blood body in the actual world is not entirely actual, is it?

2. A flesh and blood body living in the actual world perceives and experiences only that which is actual, so those illusory scintillating rays perceived and experienced by a flesh and blood body in the actual world are actual, are they not?

[claudiu]

Haha just thought of a new twist on it. How about this: some illusions are actual, while others are not?

[son_of_bob]

@rick

A flesh and bloody body living in the actual world perceives and experiences that which is not actual, those illusory scintillating rays for example, so the experience of a flesh and blood body in the actual world is not entirely actual, is it?

Yes, it is inescapable aspect of the way our brains and sense organs work. The actual universe is not free of errors in processing information and perceptions. However, there need not be an affective reaction to these limitations.

In the same way an actually free person can still misunderstand something or be unintelligent. Intelligence is not a prerequisite of being free from the human condition. The actual world doesn’t mean an error is a problem just an interesting curiosity.

@rick

A flesh and blood body living in the actual world perceives and experiences only that which is actual, so those illusory scintillating rays perceived and experienced by a flesh and blood body in the actual world are actual, are they not?

I disagree with this statement. A flesh and blood body perceives what is actual and the human brain attempts to compensate for discrepancies in sensory data. For example, we might create an AI with superior vision and the ability to not experience such deficits that blind nature had bestowed upon us. We are still at the limits of our evolution.

As I said the actual world is not free from information processing errors in humans.

[Andrew]

Haha, I like that one @claudiu .

Some illusions are special.

[claudiu]

@rick

Consider:

1. A flesh and bloody body living in the actual world perceives and experiences that which is not actual, those illusory scintillating rays for example, so the experience of a flesh and blood body in the actual world is not entirely actual, is it?
2. A flesh and blood body living in the actual world perceives and experiences only that which is actual, so those illusory scintillating rays perceived and experienced by a flesh and blood body in the actual world are actual, are they not?

The following might be interesting for your consideration.

Upon reading this, of course the logical (as in following from premises that are axiomatically presumed to be true) conclusion came to mind that illusions are actual and therefore that ‘I’ am actual.

This came with the thought “if ‘I’ am actual then …” and I was then catapulted me into the same world I hinted about in the thread here, which you said you found awesome to read:

@rick

@claudiu

What you are finding is that there is no ‘outside’ to the universe – everything that exists is within the universe or is the universe manifesting itself in some way. This is indeed no small thing, and upon realizing this is what you were getting at I too experienced an increased intimacy in my surroundings.

This was such an awesome thing to read, by the way.

I noticed that I felt there was an increased intimacy in my surroundings this time, also, although I wouldn’t have put it that way at the time. I also felt an intrinsic benevolence and benignity in this world. I felt safe in this world. ‘I’ was fully present of course.

However, something didn’t seem quite right. Alarm bells were ringing. I couldn’t quite place my finger on it at first. Wasn’t this the same actuality that I have experienced before on many an occasion? Who am ‘I’ to deny that this benevolence I’m experiencing is of the actual world? Would ‘I’ reject such a thing?

And that’s when the simple realization came to me that what I was experiencing was not what I’ve experienced in the many EEs I’ve had (where ‘I’ was present), nor was the benevolence and benignity that I was feeling, the same as that sourced in the PCE, that I’m now quite familiar with.

In short this wasn’t those (EE or PCE)… and it sure as hell wasn’t normal… therefore it was an ASC!

Soon after I realized that it was different, I found the problem. In this ASC, the universe feels like it is benign and benevolent towards ‘me’, the feeling-being. It is experienced to be a benign place for ‘me’, the feeling-being. Whereas with regards to the benevolence and benignity of actuality, ‘I’ am essentially invisible to it. It’s never directed towards ‘me’ — ‘I’ don’t exist as far as it is concerned. ‘I’ just get in the way of it, as opposed to being the object of it, in the ASC.

And therein lies the rub of why the ASC is not on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom. It perpetuates ‘me’ by being a friendly place for ‘me’ to continue ‘my’ (imagined) existence.

Perhaps it is better than ‘normality’? I didn’t spend enough time there to find out. But it’s certainly not on the path towards actuality!

Cheers,
Claudiu