Finding a person who hallucinates is pretty easy. You go to your nearest asylum and go through the patients and you will usually find someone who has hallucinations.
As luck would have it the patients are also bound for years to a specific location and might have no possibilty to opt out of your study.
Finding people as test subjects who spent halve a year doing a hard mental practice is harder. Experiments that require that you have test subjects who spend a lot of time on a hard mental practice are much easier to do.
At a glance, science seems pretty well informed about hallucinations.
The page you linked to doesn’t provide evidence that indicates that science is well informed about the issue. It doesn’t illustrate that scientific theories are able to make reliable predictions about hallucinations.
One of the examples about which the wikipedia article talks is a unreplicated 13 person experiment with 5 days duration. It talks about is as “strong support” for an idea.
It says “There are few treatments for many types of hallucinations.” You can translate that into the acknowledgement that the phenomena isn’t well enough understood to effectively modify it in the way you want.
The third way to check whether someone understands something is to check with your own empirical experience. I unfortunately don’t have much experience with hallucinations that go beyond things like the optional illusion where every normal viewer hallucinates that wheels turn.
I do have some experiences I had after spending 5 days in an artificial coma. One of them is a state where what I see visually doesn’t change when I close my eyes. I know of descriptions of other people who experienced the same thing.
Can you find a mainstream science description of that visual hallucination?
Finding a person who hallucinates is pretty easy. You go to your nearest asylum and go through the patients and you will usually find someone who has hallucinations.
As luck would have it the patients are also bound for years to a specific location and might have no possibilty to opt out of your study.
Finding people as test subjects who spent halve a year doing a hard mental practice is harder. Experiments that require that you have test subjects who spend a lot of time on a hard mental practice are much easier to do.
The page you linked to doesn’t provide evidence that indicates that science is well informed about the issue. It doesn’t illustrate that scientific theories are able to make reliable predictions about hallucinations. One of the examples about which the wikipedia article talks is a unreplicated 13 person experiment with 5 days duration. It talks about is as “strong support” for an idea.
It says “There are few treatments for many types of hallucinations.” You can translate that into the acknowledgement that the phenomena isn’t well enough understood to effectively modify it in the way you want.
The third way to check whether someone understands something is to check with your own empirical experience. I unfortunately don’t have much experience with hallucinations that go beyond things like the optional illusion where every normal viewer hallucinates that wheels turn.
I do have some experiences I had after spending 5 days in an artificial coma. One of them is a state where what I see visually doesn’t change when I close my eyes. I know of descriptions of other people who experienced the same thing. Can you find a mainstream science description of that visual hallucination?