Schrtzophenia and mysticism

[Antor8188]

@Leo Gura Science debunks visions like ghosts, spirits,etc by showing an altered brain chemistry of the brain is schritzophrnic  does that imply it isn’t true? I’m watching your debunking science video series and this insight popped into my mind?

[tuku747]

14 hours ago, Antor8188 said:

@Leo Gura Science debunks visions like ghosts, spirits,etc by showing an altered brain chemistry of the brain is schritzophrnic  does that imply it isn’t true? I’m watching your debunking science video series and this insight popped into my mind?

It's absolutely true that you can see ghosts and spirits in your mind.

[Paradoxed]

Science debunks things it could never debunk all the time. How could science possibly debunk someone's visions, or someone's ghost sightings. When you experience it, it doesn't matter what science feels about it. You know it to be true through your own direct experience. Nonetheless scientists spend their time trying to understand things that can never be rationally understood and can only be experienced. Or, it can be understood, but only through the experience. They think rationalizing will get them to the deepest levels of understanding but paradoxically this is untrue.

Edited February 8 by Paradoxed

[saif2]

Science dismisses the schizophrenic perspective as invalid, and the brain chemistry of someone who is schizophrenic as wrong based on that it is uncommon and that it is disruptive to the functioning of the society. Imagine a society that is filled with people who are are schizophrenic, and someone there is not, using the same scientific attitude they would treat that perspective as invalid. I think that the common scientific attitude is not able to reflect on the surrounding culture very much, this is why it falls into these types of errors. 

 

[Aaron p]

When scientists say schizophrenic ghost perceptions aren't real what they mean is; they are real (as perceptual occurrences) but don't represent things that exist "In reality." 

The problem is; what is reality? And how do you know what perceptions are accurate or inaccurate? Can you reach around your perceptions to check what reality actually is like to see if your perceptions are accurate? Of course that's not possible as everything that exists must also be perceptual. 

Perceptions and reality are one. 

People create the illusion of a general consensus by trust in their perceptions of other people who agree or disagree with them. This is truth at the actual, absolute level. 

There is of course common sense (to be able to function in human society you need to use consensus and agreement with people who exist in your perceptions and mind). However nondual mysticism ultimately postulates that the ontological existence of "other people" is fictitious and illusory. Substantially speaking.

[Shodburrito]

@Antor8188

This is such an important and often misunderstood topic, and I think it really comes down to a fundamental misalignment in how we conceptualize reality, consciousness, and the limitations of empirical measurement. The idea that altered brain chemistry equates to a hallucination that is "not real" is an oversimplification of an incredibly nuanced discussion, one that requires a deeper understanding of both neuroscience and the philosophy of perception. Because what we call "reality" is, at its core, nothing more than an interpretation—an electrical symphony of synapses firing, constructing a coherent narrative from raw sensory input. To dismiss an experience simply because it correlates with brain activity is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of experience itself.

What we see in cases of visions, whether they be ghosts, spirits, or other phenomena, is not necessarily an indication of falsehood but rather a different modality of perception. The brain is not just a passive receiver but an active participant in constructing the world we interact with. To say that something is a byproduct of brain chemistry does not disqualify its validity; it simply reframes it. Every thought, every memory, every profound insight is, in some way, linked to changes in brain chemistry. The question isn’t whether these experiences are real but rather how we define "real" in the first place. Because if reality is purely material, then one could argue that dreams, emotions, and even consciousness itself are illusions—but that would be an absurd reduction of the complexity at play.

[Carl-Richard]

If I drink orange juice, that alters my brain chemistry. Does that mean orange juice "isn't true"? You have to clarify your distinctions.

What people generally regard to be "not true" (not real) is simply what is commonly agreed upon to be not real; any thing that is not "normal experience".

If I hear voices that tell me to do criminal acts and 99.9% of people don't, then that is the reason they're called not real: virtually nobody else hears those kinds of voices.

However, if you ask someone "are your thoughts real?", "are your emotions real?", "are your sensations and perceptions real?", they would probably be inclined to answer "yes", even though nobody else experiences their exact thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc. What they will think is not real is that which radically deviates from their own experiences.

Edited Thursday at 08:44 PM by Carl-Richard