Talk:Anomalous experiences

On the designation of William James

Someone (unidentified) changed my characterisation of William James as a 'psychologist' to 'psychiatrist'. However, I think it would be misleading to describe William James as a psychiatrist. The Wikipedia article on him, which seems to me scholarly and informed, describes him as a 'psychologist and philosopher'. In fact I have never seen him described otherwise. The Wiki article makes it clear that, although he acquired an M.D. degree, he never practised medicine, although he lectured on physiology and anatomy, among other subjects. Certainly I have never heard of him practising any form of psychiatry. I have therefore changed 'psychiatrist' to 'psychologist and philosopher', which is how he is characterised in the Wikipedia article on him.Ranger2006

Dreams are hallucinatory experiences too

In the page there is a refference to Lucid Dreams as hallucinatory experience. But the same thing goes to Non-Lucid Dreams.

See more here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109540/dream —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.78.160.118 (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Fair enough; but I feel I have covered that point by my phrase: 'Lucid dreams[...] may be regarded as hallucinatory experiences in the same way as non-lucid dreams of a vivid perceptual nature may be regarded as hallucinatory'.Ranger2006

Isn't there some physiological problem, i believe some eye disorder that causes hallucinations?

Re the proposed alteration/abbreviation by Android Mouse

The proposed change may have made the paragraph shorter, but some information was lost; and since the sentence was not particularly long to begin with, I feel there was no corresponding gain. With regard to the other alteration by the same user: I cannot see what is gained by removing the reference to van Eeden. Ranger2006

"The term ‘lucid dream’ was first used by the Dutch physician Frederik van Eeden (1913), who studied his own dreams of this type" -- this sentence isn't needed, this article isn't about lucid dreaming. All that it is needed is a brief sentence on what lucid dreaming is, not the history behind the terminology.

"Nevertheless, it is one of the features of lucid dreams that they can have an extremely high quality of perceptual realism, to the extent that the dreamer may spend time examining and admiring the perceptual environment and the way it appears to imitate that of waking life (see Green, 1968 for examples)." -- this sentence is unnecessarily long and descriptive. My slightly shortened version helped bring clarity and briefity to it without losing any information.

--Android Mouse 06:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the van Eeden reference: there is still confusion among many people with regard to the connotation of the word 'lucid' in this context. For evidence of this statement, see the Wikipedia article on lucid dreaming. I consider is is well worth while bringing out the true meaning of the term when applied to a dream, and highlighting van Eeden's role in its introduction. The paragraph on lucid dreams in the present article is by no means over-long in proportion to the article, IMO, even with van Eeden in it.

With regard to the proposed surgery on the sentence about subjects examining their environment in lucid dreams: it is by no means the case that no information would be lost thereby. It is begging the question to assert, as is done in the proposed revision, that the perceptual realism 'is comparable to what one experiences in waking life'. This may or may not be the case; the phenomenon of the dreamer examining his or her environment, as described in the original version, is one strand of evidence that this may be the case in a particular instance. But is by no means conclusive evidence on its own. There are cases in which the dreamer is impressed at the time, i.e. while dreaming, but less impressed on waking. I.e. he or she may still think in retrospect that there was an important difference, or differences, when the question is considered with full waking faculties.Ranger2006

Re the tag and deletion by Mattisse

I have removed the tag about lack of citations as it seems to me that the article is fully referenced. No evidence has been provided by the installer of the tag that there are any references missing.Ranger2006 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the ‘Psychology’ category, as no reason has been given for removing it. It seems to me this is predominantly a psychology article, though it has in it material relevant to philosophy as well.Ranger2006 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re last two reversions

Reasons for reverting the last two edits:

- The assimilation of the concept of hallucination to that of trance is question-begging. No evidence has been provided that there is any commonality between the two.

- ‘mental health’ is a phrase in common usage, with an unambiguous connotation. ‘Of sound mind’ is archaic/legalistic, and might even be argued to have dualistic implications which are inappropriate in an article of this sort.Ranger2006 8 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re removal of phrase inserted by Linkinlogs

I have removed the phrase ‘which would allow memories to leak through into consciousness’ because I feel it is begging the question as to why hallucinations may occur in conditions of extreme fatigue. Other explanations of this phenomenon are possible, and it is wrong to imply that the one given in this phrase is established, or the only one.Ranger2006 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

‘Hallucinations in those who are not mentally ill’

I have reinstated the former heading for this article, as, apart from being cumbrous, the proposed new title does not get round the problem of implying a qualitative distinction between the sane and the not-sane or the mentally ill and the mentally ‘healthy’. This distinction can be questioned on theoretical grounds, and has been, in different ways, by, e.g. Thomas Szasz, R.D. Laing, and more recently Richard Bentall. However, this does not seem to me the place for raising this issue. There are Wikipedia articles on sanity (from a legal perspective) and on mental disorder where it might more appropriately be raised.Ranger2006 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Heading: 'Apparitional experiences', and the insertion of the phrase 'visual hallucination'

I feel to change this to 'Hallucinations and apparitional experiences' is begging an important theoretical question. It implies that there is a meaningful distinction between a hallucination and an apparitional experience, which is something that has not been established.

On the second point: not all apparitional experiences are visual, as the rest of the article makes clear.Ranger2006 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles Bonnet syndrome

Should this not include at least some mention of Charles Bonnet syndrome, which I understand to be a very common form of visual hallucination in the sane? There is already a Wikipedia entry on Charles Bonnet syndrome, and it seems to me that either the articles should be amalgamated, or at the very least there should be links between them. Treharne (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting point! I have looked at the article on Charles Bonnet syndrome and I think the problem w. amalgamating them would be that the present article (Hallucinations in the Sane) is concerned w. hallucinations in people who are in good physical as well as mental health. I think the better course is to add a link here to the Charles Bonnet article, which I have now done.Ranger2006 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubled article

This article is the exact same article as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations_in_those_who_are_not_mentally_ill. They are not redirects. Even their talk pages are identical. Am I going nuts or something? Blooddraken (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe related to above move in May 2008 ?? as discussed above..and as per User:Ranger2006 talk page

The duplication arose because in May 2008 User:Jv821(who an Editor mooted might be User:Jackp), altered the title of this article in a way I considered was not an improvement and was even misleading (see discussion above). Ranger2006 (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

have asked for some help Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#unsucessful_move_-_now_have_two_articles Earlypsychosis (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Fixed. Further move proposals should go thru procedures outlined at WP:RM. –xeno ^talk 23:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you Earlypsychosis (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be renamed from "Hallucinations in the sane"

The article discusses hallucinations in those not considered mentally ill, with the purpose of discussing hallucinations which are not associated with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. The title, on the other hand, evokes the distinction between those who are sane and those who are not sane. Sanity is not a recognised medical (including psychiatric) category, nor is it a distinction used in psychology. Sanity and insanity are popular umbrella conceptions of mental illness, which are not equal to the distinction between not mentally ill and mentally ill. Sanity and insanity are also legal concepts which are not equal to mentally ill and not mentally ill. It is not appropriate for an article which discusses hallucinations in those who are not considered to have a mentally illness, or hallucinations which occur outside mental illness, to be called "Hallucinations in the sane". "Insanity" can refer to people who are not considered mentally ill, and "sanity" can include people who have mental illnesses associated with hallucation. The popular conception of insanity might include eccentricity, for example, which has little to do with mental illness and disease-associated hallucination (the concept of a "mad scientist", for example). The legal conception of insanity refers to responsibility for action (incapability thereof). Someone diagnosed with a mental illness which is associated with hallucination (i.e. schizophrenics) might not fulfill legal criteria for insanity (as judged by a jury) or popular notions of insanity. My essential point is that sanity and insantiy are cumbersome concepts which don't have very much to do with mental illness and hallucination associated with mental illness, as discussed in the article. The article should be moved to either "Hallucinations outside mental illness" or "Hallucinations in those not considered mentally ill", or something similar. --Oldak Quill 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel there are two difficulties with the proposed alternative titles for this article, one practical and the other theoretical. On the the practical level, the proposed alternatives are more cumbrous than the present title. On the theoretical level, the invocation of the concept of ‘mental illness’ implied by the proposed alternatives is question-begging, as explained in my comment about the proposed title ‘Hallucinations in those who are not mentally ill’ (see above).Ranger2006 (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering why the title has not been changed yet. One possibility would be to call this 'benign hallucinations'. I don't think it's great but it's better than the current title or the suggestions above, as we are not concerned with mental illness and sanity then. Personally, I am not keen on the word 'hallucinations' either and would prefer something like 'extraordinary experiences' or 'anomalous experiences'. The latter term is now widely used within academic psychology.Edelweiss64 (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)