Science, psychiatrists and neurologists can't explain the processes that may cause hallucinations. They can't physically test you to prove your hallucinating. On the other hand science, psychiatrists and neurologists know that the nature of consciousness is not understood and one of the purposes of science is to discover things not yet known. To define a hallucination as seeing something that is not there is therefore inaccurate, science doesn't know if what people see in apparent hallucinations isn't there and can't prove by examining your body that you are hallucinating.
2007-06-20 15:29:41 · 9 answers · asked by purplepeace59 5 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
It's easty to say that testing for hallucinations is quite simple (Bruce) and then not give an answer. As a qualified nurse I worked with demented elderly patients and did a psychiatric secondment as a student. There is no test to proove someone is hallucinating and no text book explanation as to the physiological nature of hallucinations. I did read around various psychiatric conditions during my training and had tutorials and never came accross any explanation other than the vague it's something to do with brain chemistry, but no objective, unbiased, medical, scientific tests exist to proove a person is hallucinating when they see something that others are not seeing.
2007-06-21 03:46:52 · update #1
The definition of a hallucination, "seeing something that is not there" is absolutely correct. What is not known is the cause.
You also said, "the nature of consciousness is not understood". That's correct, but it can be defined.
2007-06-21 02:23:34 · answer #1 · answered by Schwinn 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually there has been a mountain of research going on regarding visual hallucinations.
Spike-triggered averaging is now being employed...(there was a question on this posted yesturday)
Bifurcation and Perturbation theory can be combined with an anatomical knowledge of the visual cortex to explain the phenomenon of visual hallucinations. Turing has been working in this area since 1952.
Simply put...spike-triggered averaging can identify the electrical activity in the visual cortex noted when a person experiences a visual stimuli. The same activity results with a perceived stimulus if the individual realises visual hallucination.
Therefore using this technique we may be able to determine if an individual is experiencing visual hallucinations.
Kinda like a lie detector test for visual hallucinations.
2007-06-21 14:15:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The test for hallucinations is actually pretty simple.
I understand what you're saying and it's a fair point, but the way you've wrote it is wrong.
It's not like colour blindness where the colour X is always there but only certain people can see it.
Just because you don't have the full scientific explanation for something doesn't mean that you leave it untouched, they define it as what they currently know about it. When more is discovered the definition will be tweaked accordingly, like anyting else in life and science.
2007-06-20 22:47:31 · answer #3 · answered by bruce 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hallucinations are considered as mental abnormality.Mental conditions depend on electical impulses of brain or messages received through nervous system.Abnormal impulses create hallucinations.Occasional hallucinatons may not change your behaviour,frequent hallcinations do change behaviour leading to abnormality.What happens that after a few instances,the person will start believing halucination as "true".
Although physical examination may not prove hallucination,observation of persons may help.Some people claim as "seen God","Spoke to God" etc.This may be hallucination only.
2007-06-21 01:09:30 · answer #4 · answered by leowin1948 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They defined the symptom, what they don't know is the cause. It is like the sniffles, those are the symptoms of a cold.
The hallucination is the symptom of something else, which the doctors have been unable to pinpoint the cause.
2007-06-20 22:39:32 · answer #5 · answered by tipp10 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, i'm not sure if what you are seeking is an answer but the info is a bit of a"kicker" to me since I dabble.thanks
2007-06-20 22:38:36 · answer #6 · answered by drivemefar_13 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
EXACTLY!!! people love to define stuff- it makes them less fearful of people who may be capable of using more of their brain and therefore more powerful
2007-06-20 22:37:25 · answer #7 · answered by Nemo 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I suppose there are lots of words like that, racist, for instance,. How do we define a racist if the said racist says not me, I'm not a racist.
2007-06-21 00:33:59 · answer #8 · answered by jingles 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nobody knows what they are, we do know people have them
2007-06-21 08:33:29 · answer #9 · answered by paywithnaivety 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋