Visual Hallucinations Are a Normal Grief Reaction 550
Hugh Pickens writes "Vaughn Bell has written an interesting essay at Scientific American about grief hallucinations. This phenomenon is a normal reaction to bereavement that is rarely discussed, although researchers now know that hallucinations are more likely during times of stress. Mourning seems to be a time when hallucinations are particularly common, to the point where feeling the presence of the deceased is the norm rather than the exception. A study by Agneta Grimby at the University of Goteborg found that over 80 percent of elderly people experience hallucinations associated with their dead partner one month after bereavement, as if their perception had yet to catch up with the knowledge of their beloved's passing. It's not unusual for people who have lost a partner to clearly see or hear the person about the house, and sometimes even converse with them at length. 'Despite the fact that hallucinations are one of the most common reactions to loss, they have barely been investigated and we know little more about them. Like sorrow itself, we seem a little uncomfortable with it, unwilling to broach the subject,' writes Bell. 'We often fall back on the cultural catch all of the "ghost" while the reality is, in many ways, more profound.' "
Re:Jesus. (Score:2, Informative)
Or, you know, a writer taking liberties decades after the fact.
Re:simple (Score:5, Informative)
a human is also an entity and a form of energy, in addition to the body mass and the heat it generates.
No, it's not.
physically it should have been impossible for 20 of them to combine and create exponentially higher impact on their environment.
I can't even describe how incredibly wrong and stupid this statement is. By this definition termites must have some sort of "higher energy" (ever seen an African termite nest [branchy.com]?).
therefore, philosophically, according to conservation of energy
Good Christ, man. Now you're going to try to co-opt the laws of conservation of energy, despite clearly having no idea what you're talking about? Here, let me explain it to you:
The sun beams energy, in the form of radiation, to Earth.
Plants convert that radiation into chemical energy.
I eat that chemical energy.
I then expend said chemical energy welding a girder to a skyscraper.
Hey, look at that, I'm increasing the order of my local universe by utilizing energy provided to me by the sun. No magic needed.
this tells that when a human complex dies, there is some other form of energy released that equals everything that human complex did in his life minus his body mass and heat.
And that tells me that you're so desperate to believe that you'll survive after you're dead that you'll make up basically anything. You know, like Jesus did.
Let me make this simple: when you die, you're dead. Your body decomposes, and the various compounds that make up your corpse enter the food chain. That's it. So make the best of this life. It's the only one you get, and once it's done, it's *done*.
Re:Couldn't this also mean (Score:3, Informative)
The supernatural does not exist [discovermagazine.com].
Read it....
Semantics.
Literally. You're arguing about definitions. The article you linked to does not in any way prove that the phenomena often called supernatural don't exist, rather it just argues that if they exist, they are natural, and therefore not actually "supernatural".
Re:Ghosts (Score:1, Informative)
Thank you Mr. Spock. Illogical as it sounds, the idea of an afterlife helped me quite a bit when I lost 3 family members.
Re:Barely been investigated? Well gee.. (Score:2, Informative)
There's speculation it's produced naturally in the brain. The brain produces other things like it, and has enzymes that are capable of producing it, but we don't know if it does because, well, studying its production in a live subject would be lethal. (Brain biopsy isn't a fun procedure, and the pineal gland is vital to continued living.)
It's a subtle difference from what you said -- I also believe it is, but we can't say for sure.
Re:what is the definition of supernatural anyway ? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with 99% of the so-called supernatural is that there's not the slightest damn bit of evidence to support new fields of study. There was a lab at Duke University for at least 20-30 years for the study of psi phenomenon like ESP, telepathy, etc. Now, granted, I'm sure they weren't the most highly funded department, but in all the time they were active they never found a damn thing. If these phenomenon were real, wouldn't you expect to see SOMETHING? And if you found solid evidence of some hitherto fantastic phenomenon, wouldn't you trumpet it from the rooftops even if mainstream scientists ignored you? Yet no good evidence seems to exist.
It's a very handy position for the fringe crowd: blame mainstream science for marginalizing your ideas, and if a real scientist does produce data contradicting your claims, just keep clamoring for more money and more research, regardless of how little support you may have for your claims.
Re:Barely been investigated? Well gee.. (Score:2, Informative)
Hell one of them, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), is even produced naturally in the human brain. This is the most powerful hallucinogen known to exist
Actually, that title goes to lsd, with salvinorin-a coming in a close second. I agree, however that research should be done on these chemicals and the effects they have on the brain. But see, if we went and did that, it would more than likely show the ridiculousness of keeping these psychoactives illegal! We can't have that, now can we?
Re:AND it HAS to be hallucination (Score:3, Informative)
then review the last 150 years.
Re:Sorry... (Score:3, Informative)
For a finite investment, you get an infinite return. You have a guaranteed return on your investment.
You don't know that. That's the whole point.
Religion still (in most cases) makes one a better person.
Arguable, in the sense that Santa Clause encourages kids to behave. I'd rather teach principles based on concern for yourself, others, and society than a the wrath of a whimsical god that certain people claim to have authority on.
Can't beat the peace and joy religion brings in times of suffering. Those without any hope for the future fare a lot worse than those with hope. Religion has a social value apart from its religious message.
Perhaps. Then again, it also encourages people to get sucked in by faith healers and the like.
For all the complaints about religion, participation is much more voluntary than participation in government.
Depends on the religion, time, and place. Many religions are dogmatic and have the concept of blasphemy.
As a believer, if I'm wrong about God's existence, I'll never know the difference. An atheist wrong about God's existence is in for a very rude awakening. In short, you risk a lot more through unbelief than belief.
This is just Pascal's Wager [wikipedia.org]. Been refuted for ages. Maybe you risk eternal Hell for believing in a false god for the wrong reasons.
Could it be that believers are simply applying the same principles to their lives as a whole?
As a non-believer, I came to that position by applying my principles. Every time I looked critically at the evidence, religion came up empty. It seemed best explained as mythology.
It seems like if one would attend a University to expand one's capacity for thought, it would be only logical to attend a church, to believe in a God, in order to expand one's capacity for virtue.
The logical thing would be to study philosophy -- it's like religion without the dogma.