Distinguishing Fantasy from Reality

[Anonymous No.10758758]

How does one know to distinguish fantasy from reality?

Here is a hypothetical scenario: let us say that there is a certain person afflicted with hallucinations, but their hallucinations are "non-bizarre". That is: the person isn't seeing anything overly unusual, like supernatural, paranormal, and/or conspiracy theory stuff. No demons, ghosts, aliens, deities, or anything like that. But this afflicted person is most definitely hallucinating.

What if this afflicted person has a somewhat unusual experience with no supernatural, paranormal, and/or conspiracy theory elements to it whatsoever. This unusual experience was a full-blown psychotic episode, complete with hallucinations affecting all of the senses: visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory hallucinations... the afflicted person assumes that this experience really happened in the physical world (in reality) among other real people who experienced the same exact things so that the general consensus is something that the afflicted person and everyone else involved can agree on.

So this afflicted person goes about their day assuming that this experience really happened. But then they start meeting with other people and talking to them, and those other people suddenly start saying things that contradict what the afflicted person experienced.

How can the afflicted person be certain that they did not simply hallucinate the entire experience?

[Anonymous No.10758768]

>>10758758
Use a video camera or a mirror? Perhaps use an object to determine what is real and false like a cane, and then ask a third party how the object has been affected after the hallucination. An objective middle ground would be the most helpful.

[Anonymous No.10758798]

>>10758758
>isn't seeing anything that is not normal

What is "normal" anyway man.
What if your concept of "normal" is actually quite abnormal, and you're experiencing hallucinations all the time but it all just seems "normal" to you?

[Anonymous No.10758843]

>>10758758
By seeing a therapist if they are mentally ill like (You)

[Anonymous No.10758884]

>>10758758
Read these:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XqvnWFtRD2keJdwjX/the-useful-idea-of-truth
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/X3HpE8tMXz4m4w6Rz/the-simple-truth

[Anonymous No.10758907]

>>10758758
>This unusual experience was a full-blown psychotic episode
The key aspect of psychosis is that one can not differentiate it from normative reality, it does not even register as a possible hallucination.

[Anonymous No.10759075]

>>10758843

>By seeing a therapist

It is truly quite fascinating how your kind continue insisting that individuals seek professional help (such as seeing a therapist)...

>if they are mentally ill like (You)

...and yet you also insist on arbitrarily diagnosing people over the internet.

[Anonymous No.10759078]

>>10758843
>therapy for psychosis

Shoo Freud!

[Anonymous No.10759168]

>>10758758
you can't, all perception of the world is subjective.

culture is a mass hallucination

you can quickly convince anyone of anything with the right means, politics is a good show of that but not the only one, just record the things people say when they are in a relationship and what they say after its broken

[Anonymous No.10759198]

What did you experience?

[Anonymous No.10759382]

>>10758758
why does that picture instantly and inescapably make me think it is Zuckerberg? it must be zuckerberg right?

[Anonymous No.10759410]

What about a shared hallucinations?

What if there's one particular thing that everyone in the world is hallucinating, and because everyone is seeing the same thing everyone assumes it's normal, but what if it's not true? It seems pretty crazy to think that EVERYONE could be wrong about something but it has happened in the past.

[Anonymous No.10759417]

It's literally impossible to determine reality from fiction unless you just arbitrarily pick some random version of reality to be "real" based on nothing.

See: Rene Descartes Evil Demon. Philosophy and science have never found a solution for this problem so they just ignore it.

[Anonymous No.10759446]

>>10758768
Literally this, just use a camera nigger

[Anonymous No.10759472]

>>10758768
>>10759446
what if the camera is the source of the hallucination?
I remember there was a time everyone believe in skyfish (rods) that could only be captured on film because "they were moving too fast for the human eye to see"

[Anonymous No.10759511]

>>10758768

>Use a video camera or a mirror?

How can the afflicted person be certain that anything recorded by the video camera or reflected by the mirror isn't all part of the psychotic episode?

>Perhaps use an object to determine what is real and false like a cane, and then ask a third party how the object has been affected after the hallucination. An objective middle ground would be the most helpful.

How can the afflicted person be certain that the third party isn't just a hallucinated apparition? How can the afflicted person be certain that the third party has an objective perspective of reality?

[Anonymous No.10759570]

>>10759168

>you can't, all perception of the world is subjective.

So who is it that decides what is or is not possible in reality? Who is it that decides what aspects of the paranormal, the supernatural, the religious, the spiritual, the superstitious, and the conspiracy theoretical to be "possible" or "impossible"? Who is it that decides whether or not things like ghosts, demons, aliens, or deities are "real"? Who has the authority to do that, and why should they have the authority?

>you can quickly convince anyone of anything with the right means

So could a large population be convinced that leprechauns are real? Could this large population be capable of experiencing a mass hallucination in which they see leprechauns? And if the majority of the global population happens to believe in leprechauns, does that suggest that their opinion matters more than that of the minority that doesn't believe in leprechauns? Does that suggest that the majority is actually capable of warping reality itself with thought alone (at least from the perspective of those within the majority)?

[Anonymous No.10759596]

>>10759198

>What did you experience?

Between April of 2015 and May of 2016 I was seeing a psychiatric nurse practitioner who was prescribing some psychotropic medication to me. Roughly around May of 2016, I strongly suspected that she was leading me on.

In July of 2016, I went to see a psychologist (working at a different practice) to evaluate me for all personality disorders and mental disorders (including schizophrenia and other schizophrenia-like disorders). I told the psychologist that I believed the nurse practitioner was leading me on, but that I considered the possibility that I imagined the whole thing (possibly due to a mental disorder like schizophrenia). The psychologist told me that I most definitely did NOT imagine it, and that the nurse practitioner really WAS leading me on.

A few months later I went to go see my psychiatrist (the nurse practitioner's boss). I told him the exact same story that I had told the psychologist. My psychiatrist determined that the nurse practitioner was NOT leading me on, that I DID imagine the whole thing, that I was delusional, and that it was sufficient reason to stop prescribing Adderall to me.

[Anonymous No.10759877]

>>10758758
Well the algorithm is usually: if it feels right it's right. However, that's kind of weak, one way to improve it, is to think of two voices, perhaps you feel it's right and someone else feels it's right so this leads to a bigger consensus that it's right. However, not only people can be voices, there are also the voices of your senses, the voices of your memories, the voices of your adventures in reasoning. If all voices tell you it's right, then it's right. If some disagree and you're able to find a way to make them coherent in relation to some framework then it's right under that framework, you then have to think about possible alternative frameworks, and if one of those frameworks feels right in some way then it's right in that way

[Anonymous No.10759981]

>>10759410
Thats what our shared reality is.

In a physical sense all that exists is quantum randomness, and if that isnt the bottom level then even that isnt right.
But in practical reality we consider emergent reality as real as "base" reality, so we consider atoms real things, cells, and even ourselves. Our brains are adapted so our sensory input is rendered into a model of the world and internal state.

So the fact you can look at these squiggles and believe they represent real meaning and not just a bunch of squiggles, means you and I are having a shared hallucunation.

[Anonymous No.10759985]

>>10759417
The solution is that there is no solution you idiot. The definition of it is that you can't trust any potentially proposed solution. It guarantees no such thing exists, there is no escaping it.

So what you do is you note that down as part of the apparent structure of things, and then go forward as if you can actually trust your own knowledge. Then you can actually find interesting conclusions

[Anonymous No.10760007]

>>10759570
This is what 1984 was about.

Yes a society theoretically could get to a point of forced mass hallucination (or pretending to hallucinate) to a level of warping reality, declaring gravity doesnt exist if gravity is politically inconvenient.

The problem is that objective reality exists, and as the hallucinations go further from objective reality, they require greater effort to maintain. Eventually the hallucinations are so far off that they interrupt the effort that allows them to exist, and the whole thing collapses.

Anyways OP the way you type and all seems like you probably have some schizo sort of condition. Probably mild and thats why your reasoning is a lot better than most schizoposters, being critical and not jumping to a wild conclusion about ghosts or something.

Unfortunately idk how to help you, I wish you the best

[Anonymous No.10760328]

>>10759570
>So who is it that decides what is or is not possible in reality?
nobody, everyone decides for himself in what to believe and you can never be 100% sure what's right

>>10759570
>So could a large population be convinced that leprechauns are real?
is leperchauns more silly sounding than jesus christ? or honest mainstream politicans for that fcase?

how about love

love is a great measure of fantasy, take any retarded young couple, he wants sex, she wants a daddy replacement. both of them are thinking of a lie, or not depending on who you ask

but the real relationship is not in him or in her, its a complex relation that stops existing when one of each sides stops believing.

[Anonymous No.10760333]

>>10760007
>The problem is that objective reality exists
very few things are so objective as to really create a mass isntant consensus.

Gravity? you mean things falling down or things falling to the center of the earth? This is literally in discussion with flat earthers.

In the end humans are symbolic-cultural creatures. Anything that comes from culture will end up imposing itself

[Anonymous No.10761711]

>>10760007

>The problem is that objective reality exists

How can you be so certain that objective reality exists? The only beings capable of perceiving reality currently appear to be us humans. So it would seem that it is up to us to decide what, exactly, "objective reality" is. But I also think that we humans are inherently irrational creatures, and for us humans to judge what is or is not part of "objective reality" is extremely difficult if not impossible.

>Anyways OP the way you type and all seems like you probably have some schizo sort of condition.

Why do you say that? Doesn't just about anyone and everyone get to a certain point in their lives in which they question the very nature of reality?

>Probably mild and thats why your reasoning is a lot better than most schizoposters, being critical and not jumping to a wild conclusion about ghosts or something.

Well, I have indeed been able to confirm through a DNA test that I apparently have some of the genes that put me at "risk" of developing schizophrenia at some point in my life. And a psychologist once told me that he had what he referred to as a, "schizotypal personality style" (not schizotypal personality disorder). I'm guessing that schizotypal personality style must be about one step below schizotypal personality disorder. If schizophrenia is to be considered a spectrum the same way that autism is considered a spectrum, then perhaps I might be in the "high functioning" end of the schizophrenia spectrum. I probably have a bit more "schizotypy" than the average person.

>Unfortunately idk how to help you, I wish you the best

Thank you. I wish you the best as well.

[Anonymous No.10761729]

>>10759410

The concept of "shared hallucinations" or "mass hallucinations" or "mass hysteria" really blew my mind away when I first read about it. I mean, because, before I read that such a thing existed I had assumed that for a person to be considered "crazy" that they must believe in something that most people or nobody else believes. That a crazy person would inevitably be in the minority. That crazy people are inevitably singled out, ostracized, and/or exiled (at least until they stop being crazy). And that only crazy people could experience hallucinations.

But then when I read about mass hallucinations, I was just like, "wait, what the hell?" Because all of a sudden I realized that it was possible for a very large group of people to believe in something that is not true, and that this large group of people can end up experiencing the same exact hallucination, in the exact same place, at the exact same time. So these people would go about their lives assuming that this event truly happened, and anyone who denies that it happened must either be close-minded, stupid, evil, or even crazy themselves. So it would seem to be that it is up to the majority to decide what is or is not part of "objective reality", regardless of whether or not it is actually true, or if there even is such a thing as objective reality.

So then I started reading about all of these events that have occurred throughout history, and wondered how many of them could be attributed to "mass hallucinations". Like there's been quite a few of UFO sightings and personal encounters with extraterrestrial beings throughout history, and I was wondering how anyone could possibly hope to determine whether or not any one of these encounters were, in fact, real encounters with extraterrestrial beings.

[Anonymous No.10761795]

>>10758758
Google Swamp Man intentionality. There were a series of papers written in the 80s and 90s on this stuff. Admittedly the papers were shit IMO, but it might be a good starting point. Other stuff to look into is are the concepts of (1) semantic externalism, (2) semantic holism, (3) meaning skepticism.

The best publication on this subject that I have read was a monograph called "Limits of Realism" by Tim Button. Its a recent piblication and discusses basically every variant of the thought experiment found in the literature.

[Anonymous No.10761834]

>>10761729
You can't coherently doubt the existence of objective reality - to do so is self-undermining.

[Anonymous No.10761862]

>>10759417

>Philosophy and science have never found a solution for this problem so they just ignore it.

If neither philosophy nor science have been able to distinguish fantasy from fiction, then who or what is it that determines what should be the "general consensus"?

The mainstream belief among scientists in regards to extraterrestrial life currently seems to be that there's a pretty good chance that extraterrestrial life does, in fact, exist somewhere in the Universe, but that it's highly unlikely that any one extraterrestrial, space-faring species will ever make contact with another extraterrestrial, space-faring species. People like to cite things like the "Fermi paradox" as the ultimate proof that an extraterrestrial, space-faring species can never make contact with another extraterrestrial, space-faring species... some people go even further than that by saying that extraterrestrial life simply does not exist, because, if it does, we humans should have encountered it by now. So who is it that decides whether or not humans have or have not encountered an extraterrestrial lifeform?

If one person has a photographic image or a video recording of a so-called "extraterrestrial spacecraft", it is automatically dismissed as being either: swamp gas, the planet Venus, man-made aircraft, artificial satellite, a star, the Sun, the Moon, special effects, computer-generated imagery, etc.

If one person has a photographic image or a video recording of a so-called "extraterrestrial being", it is automatically dismissed as being either: a man with a mask, a costume, or make-up, or animatronics, or computer-generated imagery, etc.

If a large group of people claimed to have been visited by a group of extraterrestrial beings, their experience is automatically dismissed as being either: an intentional fabrication, or a mass hallucination.

So, what the hell?

[Anonymous No.10761879]

>>10761862

>If neither philosophy nor science have been able to distinguish fantasy from fiction,

Or, rather, fantasy from reality.

[Anonymous No.10763346]

>>10761834
apparently that doesn't stop those solipsism nuts on /x/ and /r9k/

[Anonymous No.10763520]

>>10761862
The problem with aliens is that there are a lot of variables people flat out fucking ignore that would help answer the damn question.

>For one, do aliens have the same starting or different starting resources as we humans? >Have these aliens gone through successes and mistakes that would impact them on a mental and/or biological level(ex:warfare, drugs, breeding, etc...)?
>How would we even be able to communicate with said beings assuming universal ques only extend to humans.
>If we can't even coherently communicate with animals which are about as close as we have to aliens now, how would we communicate with anything else remotely intelligent.
>Would the concept of death and culture apply to aliens as well, and if so, how evolutionarily would alien's manage to overcome the #1 terminator of life?
>What environments lead to the conception of said intelligent life?

Why do we assume alien life is more intelligent than us to begin with? We can confirm microbes in space yes, but under what circumstances do those microbes become anything more than microbes, and where did said microbes originate? Every time the concept of alien's comes up, we project our own fucking aspirations on the concept in hopes we're not the best this universe has to offer...

How do we not know that every sighting of aliens we've seen is not just some elaborate secret government program in which specially trained pilots fly advanced airfare breakthroughs under the guise of an orchestrated boogieman and carry out, in specially trained uniforms, activities that would ordinarily be illegal on a federal level in the name of science including but not limited to, abduction, human experimentation, surveillance, psy-ops, social engineering, and other activities in the name of military progress?

[Anonymous No.10763572]

>>10758758
>How does one know to distinguish fantasy from reality?
the pragmatic maxim
>How can the afflicted person be certain that they did not simply hallucinate the entire experience?
>certain
impossibru

gawk as I thread this loch ness slipstream sepsis
subconscious up f twitch asterisk see off my meds glitch
thoughts squealin through my mildew watch my back or I'll kill you
schizo superscript scan the voice imprint only I can hear you
deserted mansion in my head half-lidded lanterns returnin
sclera scarlet as wall of virgin bombed by flask of bourbon
can't be certain
your intercom I'm fingering you don't wanna but you buzz me in

[Anonymous No.10763596]

>>10763520

>How would we even be able to communicate with said beings assuming universal ques only extend to humans.

Science fiction has covered this very well in various ways, I believe. For one: humans might be able to communicate with extraterrestrial lifeforms using a sort of "universal language" (such as possibly: mathematics). This is assuming, of course, that mathematics is universal... which probably is because mathematics is what has allowed us humans to become space-faring.

>Would the concept of death and culture apply to aliens as well, and if so, how evolutionarily would alien's manage to overcome the #1 terminator of life?

Yes. Death is one factor that people often use to "prove" that interstellar contact between two extraterrestrial, space-faring species is impossible. People often say that interstellar contact between two extraterrestrial, space-faring species is impossible because the distances between stars is so vast that it would take years, decades, centuries, or even millennia to travel from one star system to another. It would require so much time to travel across those distances that no lifeform in the Unvierse would be capable of surviving the trips. But people are assuming that extraterrestrial, space-faring species would have lifespans like those of us humans. People are also assuming that advances in longevity, medicine, genetic engineering, cybernetics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and/or cryo-preservation wouldn't extend the lifespans of extraterrestrial, space-faring species.

>Why do we assume alien life is more intelligent than us to begin with?

Indeed not all extraterrestrial life should necessarily be intelligent. I imagine that most extraterrestrial life in the Universe must be microbrial. But, surely, every once in awhile, intelligence would develop somewhere in the Universe.

[Anonymous No.10763608]

>>10763520

>For one, do aliens have the same starting or different starting resources as we humans?

I imagine that at least some extraterrestrial species in the Universe would have the sufficient resources required that would allow them to become space-faring.

>What environments lead to the conception of said intelligent life?

I believe that the Miller–Urey experiment proved that the conditions required for life to develop aren't as strict as previously thought. But for whatever reason people are choosing to ignore the Miller–Urey experiment, and just go on to wondering how it is that life came to be.

>How do we not know that every sighting of aliens we've seen is not just some elaborate secret government program in which specially trained pilots fly advanced airfare breakthroughs under the guise of an orchestrated boogieman and carry out, in specially trained uniforms, activities that would ordinarily be illegal on a federal level in the name of science including but not limited to, abduction, human experimentation, surveillance, psy-ops, social engineering, and other activities in the name of military progress?

Yes. This is one theory that I've sometimes read about. But if you were to make this suggestion to anyone, people will accuse you of being a paranoid sociopath, and they will lump you into the same category as those who believe in conspiracy theories such as: 9/11 inside job, Holocaust hoax, Philadelphia experiment, JFK assassination, attack on Pearl Harbor, etc.