Originally posted by Philosophicus
I said the following: "Ok, but how will you know for sure that you are not merely imagining an interference of your surroundings? Or, how can you be absolutely sure you are not imaginning everything right now? If one is inside one's own reality, everything makes sense inside of that 'reality'. Even if one doesn't go mad in an instant, but rather that it's a gradual process, how do you know you haven't already gone through that process of going mad and now have no memory of that? "That is proof that you would definately not be able to know if you are indeed insane or not.
Moreover, illusions and hallucinations are reproducable as well. Insane people experience the exact same situations over and over again.
And what I said is different from what you say:
The difference between real perceptions and hallucinations is that you can repeat and reproduce results from real perceptions but not from hallucinations.
Originally posted by Storm
A hallucination is a false sensory perception in the absence of an external stimulus, as distinct from an illusion, which is a misperception of an external stimulus.
How do you know you aren't merely imaginning external stimuli? What proof do you have of the existence of external stimuli? The point is that if you are insane you will not be aware of it. And even if you do feel aware of your insanity or sanity, you may still be imaginning it. An insane person feels just as sane to himself as a sane person. The problem is that you cannot proove to yourself whether you are insane or not.
Originally posted by Philosophicus
An insane person feels just as sane to himself as a sane person. The problem is that you cannot proove to yourself whether you are insane or not.
That scares me a little... I just pray that I am not insane... 😕
Can you explain to me in detail, what really is insanity, because I am getting confuse, as those who are insane thinks that they are right, that normal people can't see the truth... that happens a lot to geniuses and normal people... so does this mean that geniuses thinks that normal people are insane??
hmm.... 😕
Originally posted by peterKSL
That scares me a little... I just pray that I am not insane... 😕
Can you explain to me in detail, what really is insanity, because I am getting confuse, as those who are insane thinks that they are right, that normal people can't see the truth... that happens a lot to geniuses and normal people... so does this mean that geniuses thinks that normal people are insane??
hmm.... 😕
Indeed an interseting topic: sanity/insanity. You don't have to be scared of not knowing whether you are sane or insane, because an insane person feels sane, the same as a sane person. I do think that geniuses think normal people are insane and normal people think geniuses are insane. Sanity and insanity is the same - you can never know for sure in what condition you are - how do you prove that?
Insanity is usually determined by acts committed.
People claim murderers are insane when the correct way of saying it is that they cannot distinguish between extreme acts. They see no difference because they lack any emotional connection.
It's not anything to do with geniuses thinking normal people are insane or vice versa, that's complete rubbish. I don't think "normal" people or "geniuses" are insane. I'm sure many others don't either.
-AC
for sanity/insanity you could seek the opinion of a certified professional in that field of treatment (if you are indeed puzzled on your status.. which Im not quite sure why that would be).... They are profoundly methodical on spotting a fake as well
as for wondering whether life is reality or illusion.. it can only be an opinionated answer.. so my opinion is that this is reality.. simply because I can go somewhere and ask someone what they did 3 days ago.. wait 3 years and ask that person what they told me on said day, and the information would be consistent.. if this was an illusory or hallucinogenic state.. the information would not hold consistency.
"extreme acts is a relative concept - how do you define it? Where do you draw the line between extreme and ordinary?"
Extreme acts ARE a relative concept is what I think you meant.
Secondly, smashing someone's head in with a hammer for....parking in your space, is extreme. To someone who does that, it's more often than not, viewed as a normal act. Coz they don't distinguish between normal and extreme as a result of having no emotional registering of the acts they commit.
-AC
Originally posted by Philosophicusthe beautiful mind is a perfect example.. the inconsistency with that particular hallucination.. was that the people involved never aged... he was 22.. the girl was 12.. he was 26.. the girl was 12.. his wife knew something was wrong.. and thats all that needed to happen.. he sought help.. and eventually learned to ignore them.. oh and by the way.. even after he learned to ignore them (which he was like around age 70ish).. the girl was still 12 🙂
SaTsuJiN, that's no good answer - an insane person such as a schezophrenic can imagine seeing a psychiatrist and can also have consistently the same hallucinations and 'unreal' experience of life for many years - such as that guy...Ford I think, in the film a Beautiful Mind.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"extreme acts is a relative concept - how do you define it? Where do you draw the line between extreme and ordinary?"Extreme acts ARE a relative concept is what I think you meant.
Secondly, smashing someone's head in with a hammer for....parking in your space, is extreme. To someone who does that, it's more often than not, viewed as a normal act. Coz they don't distinguish between normal and extreme as a result of having no emotional registering of the acts they commit.
-AC
Anyway, "Secondly, smashing someone's head in with a hammer for....parking in your space, is extreme. To someone who does that, it's more often than not, viewed as a normal act. Coz they don't distinguish between normal and extreme as a result of having no emotional registering of the acts they commit." this still doesn't proove the difference or indeed the existence of a difference between extreme and ordinary/normal.
"extreme acts IS a relative concept (you idiot) - the 'is' refer to the word 'concept' in the sentence, which is singular - if I said: extreme acts IS relative concepts - then it should've read 'ARE' instead of 'IS' . In other words, its either "Extreme acts IS a relative concept" OR "Extreme acts ARE relative concepts". I just caught you failing grammar! haha! Ask any language teacher about the sentence and you'll see I'm right."
Extreme acts is a relative concept? Extreme acts ARE a relative concept coz the concept refers to the plural. The concept isn't what's in question, the acts are. Therefore they are what's referred to. An extreme acts is a relative concept? OR An extreme ACT is a relative concept? The latter is correct. For a genius you sure do not know how to distinguish between plural and singular.
"this still doesn't proove the difference or indeed the existence of a difference between extreme and ordinary/normal."
One O, just one.
Yes it does, because the difference between EXTREME acts and NORMAL acts differ for someone of an "insane" mind.
-AC
"Really, what are you trying to do? It really looks like you're struggling. Oh, and your singular/plural analyses is still flawed - I suggest asking a language professional."
What am I trying to do? Appears you've hit a brick wall. I'm not struggling, nor is my singular/plural analysIs flawed. Sort out your spelling, punctuation and sentence formation before you delve into singulars and plurals. I won't kick a dead corpse. So I'll let you continue your fantastical, sensationalistic life on this philosophy forum Mr. Professor.
-AC