CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You mean hallucinate that you can't see? Of course why not. You can hallucinate that you can see things that aren't there, just fill the thing that's already there, with darkness and boom pseudo blindness.
What? I don't see how this makes sense. Hallucinations are positive symptoms, meaning they add to the participates current stimulus accumulation.
You mentioned that someone who hallucinates can see something that isn't truly there, but that's adding to the current visual stimuli. Hallucinations are also made up of things we think, see, hear, and encounter. I would imagine that going blind isn't something many hallucinating persons encounter.
Blindness is the lack of sight, not light. Creating darkness doesn't create a lack of sight. You cannot create that of which has a base point of 0. Blindness, in its absolute definition, is the complete absence of sight. You cannot create that.
Of course sigjt relies on sight, but if your brain creates a dark mass for you to see in your hallucination you aren't experiencing blindness. You are experiencing a lack of light, but in quanification of a hallucination you are actually adding to your current environment so you are actually seeing something there. Blindness isn't seeing. Thus you cannot hallucinate blindness. A black void is something yiu can see in your hallucination because your brain put it there, but seeing blindness? No. Cannot happen.
if your brain creates a dark mass for you to see in your hallucination you aren't experiencing blindness
If a person can't see anything but black/darkness, they are blind. Do they want to see things other than black/darkness? Probably. Can they? No. So they are blind.
You are experiencing a lack of light
But sight relies on light.
but in quanification of a hallucination
Do you mean qualification? Or are you trying to say quantification? Either way you can stop with your pseudo-intellect.
you are actually adding to your current environment so you are actually seeing something there.
Or the "dark mass" that you are hallucinating is actually subtracting things from your environment. Example: I could see a cat, but now I can't because of this hallucination of darkness all around me.
If a person can't see anything but black/darkness, they are blind. Do they want to see things other than black/darkness? Probably. Can they? No. So they are blind.
Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it?
Look at what you just wrote "If a person can't see anything but black/darkness...". Blindess is seeing absolute nothing. If you can hallucinte a black mass you can see the black mass you are not hallucinating blindness. You are seeing what your mind created. If you can't understand such a simple constructive explaination then I am done here.
But sight relies on light.
Yes.
Do you mean qualification? Or are you trying to say quantification? Either way you can stop with your pseudo-intellect.
Really? Attempting to jump on my spelling mistakes? How neat. If you could argue with less ignorance that would be highly appreciated.
Or the "dark mass" that you are hallucinating is actually subtracting things from your environment. Example: I could see a cat, but now I can't because of this hallucination of darkness all around me.
Hallucinations add. They cannot subtract. The mass is adding to your stimuli.
Some people have hallucinated entire events. Some people have hallucinated going to a party, getting drunk and having fun, when in reality they just sayed at home by themselves.
Why are you disputing me? Did you read what I put? I clearly stated that what we experience is what we can hallucinate. If someone hallucinates going to a party then they have experienced a party either first hand or through visual representation such as a TV or possibly a construct of a party from previous mental frameworks of a party.
Because, like you said, you believe hallucination is an unreality added to the reality.
So if I am standing in the kitchen, I'd be seeing the kitchen, but I could see things in the kitchen that weren't really there, right?
If that's true, how can people hallucinate going out to parties, meeting new people, eating and tasting and hearing stuff they don't really do - because they stayed inside all day? Going out and seeing a different environment is not an add to reality, but an entirely different reality.
So if I am standing in the kitchen, I'd be seeing the kitchen, but I could see things in the kitchen that weren't really there, right?
Yes, you'd be adding to your current visual stimuli.
If that's true, how can people hallucinate going out to parties, meeting new people, eating and tasting and hearing stuff they don't really do - because they stayed inside all day?
Seems you aren't understanding the application of my explanation. In essence hallucinations add on to our stimuli from the environment. A major hallucination, such as the one you use as an example, is still adding to one's current stimuli. It's not taking away one's sight, which is what the debate topic is about.
Going out and seeing a different environment is not an add to reality, but an entirely different reality.
Yes, it is. You are adding to what you are currently taking in from your environment. Your mind is adding a new environment to your senses. You aren't taking anything away. Do you understand now? You are still adding to your current sensory input.
In essence hallucinations add on to our stimuli from the environment. A major hallucination, such as the one you use as an example, is still adding to one's current stimuli. It's not taking away one's sight, which is what the debate topic is about.
Well - I asked if you could hallucinate blindness, not take away ones sight. Which in my opinion are two different things.
But if you can hallucinate an entire even just by adding to reality, couldn't you add complete darkness to your reality? If you can change the entire enviornment you're in to something completely different, then why does it end at hallucinating everything being gone?
Couldn't you ''add'' complete darkness to your reality?
Well - I asked if you could hallucinate blindness, not take away ones sight. Which in my opinion are two different things.
Blindness is the lack/loss of one's sight. This is something you can't hallucinate. This would be an entirely different thing. I'm not to sure though so do not hold me to those words.
But if you can hallucinate an entire even just by adding to reality, couldn't you add complete darkness to your reality? If you can change the entire enviornment you're in to something completely different, then why does it end at hallucinating everything being gone?
Here is the problem. I believe one could hallucinate themselves in a black world where nothing exists, but it will always be a physical embodiment. Blindness is an occurence. You cannot hallucinate losing you sight, but I do think you can hallucinate voids of black mass.
Quoting the first sentence; Hallucinations are perceptions in the absence of an external stimulus and are accompanied by a compelling sense of their reality.
; Hallucinations are perceptions in the absence of an external stimulus and are accompanied by a compelling sense of their reality.
Isn't that the exact opposite of what you said?
I disagree with this author's article. Absence of external stimuli? In what practical sense does this find applicancy? I don't follow this definition especially since it doesn't follow other medical dictionaries.
WebMD (Medical Dictionary) states: "A hallucination is a perception of something that is not really there. It can involve sight, hearing, taste, smell, and/or touch. For example, you may hear voices that nobody else hears or see something that nobody else sees."
This definition matches many others. It's basic and simple. The definition you provided placed odd constraints on what a hallucination truly is. Absence of stimuli? Stimuli is constantly coming into our sensory receptors. In what sense does a hallucination spark when a stumilus becomes absent? If one is seeing a lady sit next to them and the lady truly isn't there what became absent? What external stimuli became absent?
MedicineNet also states: "Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. An hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there."
Again, this definition is inconsistent with your author's definition (which leads me to believe that this is just her definition).
So yes, her definition is different from what I have said.
Session expired? I'm clueless. I've never heard of that one before, but thank you for taking the time to debate with me and hopefully we have both learned something new and shall utilize this knowledge later in the future.
Yeah Sure - I think it's because I upvote and downvote a lot, so .. I guess there is a limit. But I just created the debate out of curiosity. I don't really have an opinion myself :)
Honestly, how does hallucinating darkness not sound plausible to you? Darkness is a thing. Close your eyes, what you see (as a person who's never been blind) is the image of darkness.
No. Darkness is the lack of light. Darkness has no existence. Humans tend to give it physical embodiment, but darkness is truly the absence, or lack, or light. When I close my eyes I can see redness. Why? Because some light waves go through my eyelids. Even then I don't see the image of darkness, but the lack of light. Hallucinations involve adding things to the current visual environment or distorting the environment. This can be visual or auditory.
If you know what darkness is, and have seen anything your mind can call 'darkness' then you can hallucinate darkness. You're over complicating it. Close your eyes in a room with no light, at night, that's darkness. Your mind can simulate that setting, having had experienced it before.
Try this explanation. To a person who can see, darkness (not being able to see) is blindness (not being able to see) therefore if the mind can create darkness, which it certainly can, then it could create pseudo-blindness.
Darkness isn't blindness. Again, it's merely the lack of light. Blindness is the lack of sight. Not the lack of light. The two cannot be equated by your method. The mind can surely create a mass of darkness, but you cannot hallucinate blindness since hallucinations requires sight (visual hallucination).
As I said, pseudo-blindness. By definition, to be blind is to be unable to see. If You can only see darkness, but are used to seeing light, you consider the darkness to be seeing nothing, therefore unable to see, therefore, blind
The questions asks "can you hallucinate blindness?"
To hallucinate is simply to create in your head something that isn't there.
Would you at least agree, that to the average person, who isn't blind, waking up to darkness, even when their eyes are open would seem like blindness? If you can then hear me out on this part.
You can hallucinate (create in your head the idea) blindness (in this case all being dark) since a hallucination has nothing to do with the physical, simple your perception of it.
I mean if we were to use your logic, that'd be like saying you can not hallucinate that the sky is pink, because the sky isn't actually pink.
Would you at least agree, that to the average person, who isn't blind, waking up to darkness, even when their eyes are open would seem like blindness? If you can then hear me out on this part.
No. Blindness is not seeing. Blindness is a biological occurence. Hallucinations are a more psychological occurence.
You can hallucinate (create in your head the idea) blindness (in this case all being dark) since a hallucination has nothing to do with the physical, simple your perception of it.
No.
I mean if we were to use your logic, that'd be like saying you can not hallucinate that the sky is pink, because the sky isn't actually pink.*
Funny, because that not how my logic applies itself. My logic, would say that you can't hallucinate that the sky is pink because you can't ever see the sky because you are blind.
Near the end you trailed off into idiocy I believe. That analogy was assuming you can see, that's why it was distanced from the blind conversation.
I'll try again never the less.
You say that you can not hallucinate blindness because it applies only to the eyes, while hallucinations apply only to the brain. I am saying that using your logic, you can not hallucinate anything, since whatever you're hallucinating is only affecting your brain, it's not doing anything to your eyes. A specific example, one can not hallucinate going to a party, if they did not actually go to a party, because they didn't go to a party, the party was physical while the hallucination was mental.
I feel you on this one. Going blind could be the brain shutting down instead of problems with the eyes, but yeah, in that case it wouldn't be a hallucination. Good point.
Hallucination is defined as a case wherein a person sees things that aren't there. It is possible for a blind person to hallucinate and feel things that aren't real but for a person to suddenly lose vision, that seems more like a case of visual problems.