[tsimionescu]

It's quite common, though poorly understood, for the brain to have surprisingly consistent hallucinations in response to a particular substance. Just like seeing the same sort of entities on DMT, people in accute alcohol withdrawal almost all report hallucinations of small-ish vermin (e.g. rats, snakes, mice, cockroaches). It seems pretty clear that these substances each produce their own particular kind of input to the brain that then gets interpreted by the very similar neural circuitry we all have to the same kind of memory/experience.

I wonder if this type of thing will actually end up helping neuroscience research as well, seeing as how some of these substances seem to push higher level concepts than what is typically easily induced in an fMRI. If they turn out to be safe for human use, they should be usable in this setting as well.

And yes, of course an entity your brain is hallucinating "knows" about your memories. It's you talking to yourself.

[qbxk]

it seems like you're a bit too comfortable with thinking that just because the hallucinations are hallucinations they must be useless. alcoholics see snakes and rats and vermin, and that's not very much help to anybody. but all these psychedelic folks are hallucinating higher orders of intelligence that understand their trauma and can help them? hallucination or not, seems like a useful thing to have access to. far more than shadows of snakes, for sure

[tsimionescu]

As the other commenter pointed out, I'm not at all claiming they are useless. I actually think it's more likely than not that the hallucination itself is what is having the therapeutic effect, that it's not a side effect at all. And even if that's not true, I think it's still very wise for the one experiencing it to engage with the hallucination.

All I'm saying is that none of this makes it even slightly remotely possible that it is anything other than a hallucination.

And note: they are not hallucinating a higher level of intelligence, they are hallucinating a way to accept their own trauma in the form of an entity that appears more intelligent. Just like when writers create a super-intelligent alien in a movie, they don't actually create something more intelligent than humans.

Now, if they were seeing an entity that explained new ways of solving partial differential equations to them, then I would say that the external entity hypothesis merits some investigation.

[slfnflctd]

I'm deeply appreciative of the voice of reason in these discussions. My parents raised me in a demon haunted world, and having access to the intellectual tools which brought me out of that world fills me with gratitude toward those who helped make them widely available and continue to do so.

[adammarples]

I have had dreams where I listen to songs and marvel at the incredible skill of the songwriter, and sadly accept that I could never have 1/10th of that skill. It was a surprise for me to reflect back on the dream and realise that of course because it was my dream I was in fact the song writer too, somehow also able to listen to it with no idea what would come next. The mind is a fascinating thing.

[sdenton4]

Was the song actually that good, or did your brain simply tickle the 'appreciation for incredible beauty' neurons while playing back some Nickelback memories?

[andrewflnr]

I'm pretty sure I've experienced both, actually. Occasionally bits of it, melody or words, will survive in my memory that I think are actually good, if only I could reconstruct the rest of it. Other times I'm pretty sure there was nothing actually there.

[lupire]

The bit you remember might be great. The part you don't remember might never have existed. I've often "solved" problems in semi-lucid sleep, by brainstorming an idea and pursuing it, but when I push, the idea doesn't makes sense, or is meaningless, not just wrong.

[adammarples]

Almost certainly the latter. But how would I know...?

[amenhotep]

The trick is that you're not just generating the song; you're generating the experience of listening to the song. Much more efficient :)

[andrewflnr]

They didn't imply the hallucinations were useless. Rather the opposite in fact.

[mistermann]

For clarity: is this to say that it is a fact that these are simpy hallucinations, nothing more?

[tsimionescu]

It is a fact that they are experiences in your brain and not communication with an entity of any kind outside your brain.

The word "hallucination" sometimes has some negative connotations that suggest they are deceitful or useless experiences that you should ignore and forget. I'm not trying to say that at all. I do think it's quite possible that any therapeutic effect is entirely due to these experiences, and, if so, they should be encouraged, not ignored.

[mistermann]

To you, what is the meaning of "fact" and "is a fact"?

What, specifically, separates a "fact" from a "non fact" in this specific context?

[adammarples]

What possible answer do you think there could be to this question? Facts are true statements. Questioning what your interlocuter thinks a "fact" is isn't going to move the debate forward in any useful way.

[mistermann]

> What possible answer do you think there could be to this question?

There are a few different classes/categories you'll see, but not many.

> Facts are true statements.

Do (non-specialized, as in scientific facts) facts require a proof, or not? And if not....

> Questioning what your interlocuter thinks a "fact" is isn't going to move the debate forward in any useful way.

Perhaps (is that future you see the real thing?), it may provide value though.

[tsimionescu]

A fact is something which generally agrees with the accepted body of scientific knowledge, even if it challenges specific assumptions. A non fact is something that blatantly contradicts this body of knowledge without any credible new evidence.

[mistermann]

> A fact is something which generally agrees with the accepted body of scientific knowledge, even if it challenges specific assumptions.

Is there a difference between a fact and a scientific fact (from a Philosophy of Science perspective)?

> A non fact is something that blatantly contradicts this body of knowledge without any credible new evidence.

Can you cite anything authoritative that supports this claim?

And....are "fact" and "non fact" the only two options?

[tsimionescu]

Mathematical facts could be said to be different, though I think they are still compatible with my definition, so they could be considered a subset. So no, I don't believe there are other kinds of facts that don't match the criteria, though of course you can subdivide the ones that do into all sorts of categories.

And while any positive statement is either a fact or a "non fact", there are plenty of things we don't know the truth of (P=NP? Gravity is quantum?), and something that today seems a fact can be a non-fact tomorrow, though this rarely happens in physics (often, some preconditions just need to be added to make the older "fact" still correct).

I'm not sure what you want me to cite. Why I believe in this definition of "fact"?