Talk:Hallucinatory states

Cause

Can we add a Cause section like this?:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Cause
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Hypnagogic_hallucination
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Drug-induced_hallucination
  • Drug-induced hallucination, psychedelic hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/534/drug-induced_hallucination
  • Withdrawal hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/2013/withdrawal_hallucination
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Sensory_deprivation_hallucination
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Experimentally-induced_hallucinations

--David Hedlund (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2017 (CET)

If we talk about hallucinations on the PsychonautWiki, the cause is - unless otherwise noted - substance induced. --Kenan (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2017 (CET)

Levels

I suggest that we add a level system to the page. Something like:

1. Simple hallucination, elementary hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1718/simple_hallucination, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination (search "elementary")
2. Pseudohallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1548/pseudohallucination, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohallucination
3. True hallucination, genuine hallucinations, veridical hallucinations, and hallucinations proper - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1927/true_hallucination

Reply

@David Hedlund: While "The Dictionary of Hallucinations" by Jan Dirk Blom is a legitimate academic work, the classificatory and definition scheme it uses is not established or widely used in the field. As a result, it cannot be used as the sole reference to justify a proposed change. Please make sure any proposed changes are generally reflective of the current consensus in the scientific and academic commmunities, meaning it should be validated by multiple sources across the discipline, not just a single person or group. Anything else could reasonably be labeled as original research, advocacy, or POV-pushing, which would violate our neutrality and "due weight" policies.

Here are some excerpts from a published peer review that suggests that this book should not be taken as an authoritative reference:

"While A Dictionary of Hallucinations is recommended for large academic libraries, especially those with a medical history collection, it is problematic for clinical or research-oriented organizations. Much of the book's fascinating elements serve to make it cumbersome for the practitioner... Additionally, each of the many entries describing a psychoactive substance ends with the statement, “A person intentionally employing [substance] for the purpose of exploring the psyche may be called a psychonaut.” While this may be a fact, it is a fact inessential to the definition, and the decision to include it so often hints at an unrevealed authorial agenda." (source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3133898/) --Clarity (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2017 (CET)

@Clarity: To-do list says: "Library and book reviews (e.g. LSD: My Problem Child and The Doors of Perception". Can you please write a review for Dictionary of Hallucinations)? --David Hedlund (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2017 (CET)

@David Hedlund: I appreciate that you think such a review would be worthwhile, but I cannot see why this is necessary or a rational way to allocate my limited time and resources. For one, I am neither a practitioner nor lay expert in psychiatry, so there is no reason to expect that I would have anything particular to say or new to contribute to the field -- I'd just be offering a limited and uninformed perspective that could very easily come off as forced, promotional, or otherwise inorganic.

Second, while I did not read the full book, I thought the provided review was reasonable and fair enough. I'd say the chances are high that I'd come to the same conclusion as the author, and find it satisfactory to just refer to their review as a substitute for mine. If I did find the time to write up a book review, it'd have to be for something of historical significance such as one of the aforementioned books, and only those that I felt a genuine personal connection with.

Lastly, do keep in mind that the to-do list isn't contractual or specific. Just because something is up there, doesn't mean it is my or anyone else's job to do in particular. The to-do list is for any contributor or potential contributor to the site, meaning it is communal and participatory instead of proprietary or compulsory. It's just as much intended for you as it is for me. --Clarity (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2017 (CET)