Are insane people really insane

Are insane people really insane [+ favourites]

Think about it... There's people who tell you that they see flying gaint insects or gaint caterpillers telling them what to do. Is this all physcologically make up or is it their perception of these astral planes, relatively speaking dimensions? Feel free to kill this topic and ask questions.

"Thy Lovest Soul"

psychologically speaking I read somewhere once that people who suffer from certain hallucinatory conditions such as schizophrenia had some sort of brain imaging done on them during an hallucination and it was discovered that there brain actually does physically see or hear what they say they are seeiing and hearing. So either the brain is somehow interpreting sensual information incorrectly, or they are in fact seeing, hearing smelling or tasting something everyone else can't.

""Each child holds the world in an open hand to mould it into any shape they choose.""

there's a simple test of continuity. If schizophrenics saw the same things that we don't then it would be them who have higher sensory acuteness of outside reality. But, as far as I'm aware, most schizophrenics sense something different.

So I'm led to the conclusion that it isn't that there is more outside of the observer but that the observer is unhealthy.

""No words""

in your perspective, healthy can be viewed in so many ways

"Thy Lovest Soul"

Philip, biologists were baffled by a creature they found called a humanzee. They called it Oliver and the reason it was called a humanzee was because of speculation that a chimpanzee and human had mated.

However, dna results showed otherwise. The fascinating thing is that relative to humans, this was more 'evolved' than the chimp, walking more straightly and with clearly more intelligence. So why did the other chimps reject him?

In my view the chimp wasn't evolved, or if you like too evolved. Simply, he wasnt going to pass on his genes. So, this was a freak, a one-off, something that nature didn't really want to keep. Although we may say that some attributes were better, and there was a plus side to all this, and perhaps rightly so; he was evolutionarily, biologically, naturally preservationally unhealthy.

Thats a sane answer of healthines. In relation to schizophrenia or insanity; two questions spring to mind:

1. Would a mother prefer her baby to be insane, or have schizophrenia?

2. Is the insane or schizophrenic person happy or not?

If the answer to both is no then of course the person is unhealthy. Feel free to play with words like healthiness, etc. go looking for the mice in the room, but the big obvious elephant of an answer is there; just to save you some time.

""No words""

An interesting topic . . .

quote:

---

there's a simple test of continuity. If schizophrenics saw the same things that we don't then it would be them who have higher sensory acuteness of outside reality

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

For a 1000 new thoughts, 999 of those will be illusions.

Sure, its great to look for that 1, but dont forget that 999 is still much bigger than 1. Genius and insanity go hand in hand, and nothing could really evolve without so-called revolutions. But, as is the case above, for every 1 genius there are 999 mystics. So, maybe 1 schizophrenic is right, and labelled wrongly, but laws, rules, etc. always are there to operate for consistency of progress in the general rather than dissolution. As for the reality of partciles and sub-atomic particles and the idea that they think, thats what science is trying to carve away at now, and to this end, failing quite badly.

As for the composition of ourselves and the variance of physical composition at the microscale, just remember that after 7 years all of the microscale atoms and therefore chemcials that make us have been changed. Now were free to speculate further as to what this means, etc. But, again, for every 1 speculation 999 will be illusionary. Until one is proven, or gives a test to be proven, they will remain as such.

Just for a trend check, we're living in a time now, cturtle, where the thought of imagimation, etc. because of new physicists, that acceptance of new ideas is becoming more liberal. And that has sound reason. The downside, is that many people are looking for the next revolution, or new thought. The strange thing is, I think, that new thoughts, or revolutions, are actually borne where there is the most law, or cynicism, precisely because of the risk involved and the reward to be gained from overcoming it. Its exactly the same analogy someone gave me that lawyers are taught to be subjective and journalists are taught to be objective. But, ironically enough, the person created, or even the person attracted to each subject, tends to be the opposite.

""No words""

you're all right including me and all the scepts. but what if 3/5 of them are actually teling the truth?

"Thy Lovest Soul"

Then theres a proposal for an experiment.

""No words""

wouldnt say expierement on a scientific scale considering it's the lines of facts and laws and proof are so definite.

"Thy Lovest Soul"

I dont quite get your post there philip, but I think it means that scientific tests are testable, grandeous, pinacles of objectiveness.

Well if we're proposing that 3/5 people are in fact somehow sane, and somehow have access to something before unexplored. Well then we're now in true research and we've already over-stepped that mark.

So, on those grounds, the point of this experiment would be to relate something that we can't observe to something that is observable. I don't know if what your proposing exists. And I doubt it does. I reckon insane people really have an over-active illusionary imagination rather than a real imagination.

But, There are tests. For example, if they see a past event, does it affect other electromagnetic forces? does it affect anything nearby that normally wouldn't?

These are of course, vague. A good example of a specific test is to be found with people who say they have out of body experiences. Some claim they can look down at their own body when they have out of body experiences. Ok, fine. If they could describe something they couldn't ordinarily see by common convention, say a small plant on a shelf out of their view, and they can describe this then their statement is plausible.

Indeed, if they see something as real, and because light receptors work by receiving light then we should be able to observe this also, as a deviation in electromagnetics, light being a property of electromagnetics.

I dont know if you've seen the film a Beatiful mind with John Nash and his battle with shichzophrenia. This films far-fetched, but he 'solves' his problem of the illusionary girl he sees by realising she never gets old; she never ages. We could look further into the workings of the brain. But as of yet; theres no need. And I dont know any insane people who work on the same wavelength. Genius' at least come to the same conclusions and do agree.

Insane people are unhealthy.

""No words""

There's a deeper and more self completing way of "testing" this theory out. Well let me put it in this way, im not making conclusions, i am open to all possibilities, but it's intregueing to go over every single one by asking your self these questions. The better we understand ourselves the better we understand our physical and spritual settings.

"Thy Lovest Soul"

Phil, in reguarding your first post

quote:

---

There's people who tell you that they see flying gaint insects or gaint caterpillers telling them what to do. Is this all physcologically make up or is it their perception of these astral planes, relatively speaking dimensions?

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]

yes?

"Thy Lovest Soul"

quote:

---

These are of course, vague. A good example of a specific test is to be found with people who say they have out of body experiences. Some claim they can look down at their own body when they have out of body experiences. Ok, fine. If they could describe something they couldn't ordinarily see by common convention, say a small plant on a shelf out of their view, and they can describe this then their statement is plausible.

---