A Mathematical Theory for Why People Hallucinate(quantamagazine.org)
quantamagazine.org
A Mathematical Theory for Why People Hallucinate
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-math-theory-for-why-people-hallucinate-20180730/
45 comments
I've held this theory on my own after experiencing geometric shapes while hallucinating after smoking a lot of marijuana years back. I sat down closed my eyes and experienced an intense feeling of flying through what I can only explain as the starfield screen saver from Windows but with colored 2D shapes heavily dominated by hexagons of various sizes. During that experience I realized that I might be experiencing the inner workings of my brain in real time. I didn't give it much more thought but that ideas stuck in my mind for years. Recently I began fitness training with a trainer who believes in the stoned ape theory which reminded me of my own experience and I again read into it a bit. I'm not sold on the idea but the overall theory is solid in my book. Still to this day if I get really high I experience geometric hallucinations.
I've mentioned this before on HN, but I don't understand why SAH is seen as a "solid" theory. Psychedelics might increase some cognitive or perceptual faculties, but McKenna never gives any physical mechanics for how this could possibly lead to genetic alteration, i.e. how it creates any selection pressure for intelligence.
As someone who bas taken a bunch of LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and DMT, as well as listened to a bunch of Terrence McKenna...the stoned ape theory is total horse shit. It’s a slap in the face to evolutionary biology and just a completely nonsensical “theory”
Intelligence isn't only influenced by genetics, but also by how an animal (human or not) is reared.
If you raise a dog in complete social isolation (not even human contact) it will be unable to cope in the outside world. The same applies to people, if a baby is raised with no interaction, they will not be capable of functioning as a normal human. There's a very well written, Pulitzer Prize winning article on one such case in Florida: http://www.tampabay.com/projects/girl-in-the-window/danielle...
I think that a convincing argument could be made that psychedelics could work to kick-start this mental expansion. There are plenty of stories of people suddenly being able to understand complex abstract concepts after using psychedelic drugs.
That's not to say that I believe that the Stoned Ape Hypothesis is "solid", I haven't done any research into it to be able to make that judgement, but it is plausible.
If you raise a dog in complete social isolation (not even human contact) it will be unable to cope in the outside world. The same applies to people, if a baby is raised with no interaction, they will not be capable of functioning as a normal human. There's a very well written, Pulitzer Prize winning article on one such case in Florida: http://www.tampabay.com/projects/girl-in-the-window/danielle...
I think that a convincing argument could be made that psychedelics could work to kick-start this mental expansion. There are plenty of stories of people suddenly being able to understand complex abstract concepts after using psychedelic drugs.
That's not to say that I believe that the Stoned Ape Hypothesis is "solid", I haven't done any research into it to be able to make that judgement, but it is plausible.
But the SAH is supposed to explain the sudden growth in brain size, which is a genetic change in the history of the human species.
I think the Stoned Ape Hypothesis (sah) is reasonable within the context of a social lawlessness found in the state of nature. The chaos of the animal kingdom would permit the transgression of norms among primates, with little consequence, and it wouldn't matter as much for animals to be indulging in mind altering substances, if other needs were all essentially met by the surrounding environment.
Evolutionary theory is founded mostly on untouchable mechanics that operate at nearly geologic time scales, so we look, and we see slight incremental changes, and say to ourselves, yeah that holds up the rest.
But at it's core, the fundamental question is: Why did the human brain explode onto the scene? Why wasn't that change gradual? Why did it only happen once? Was there an accelerant in the mix?
To say that it happened fast is to speak in relative terms. It still would have happened across multiple generations, in movements of 10 and 20 years, according to sexual maturation. But to jump the rails, the change would have had to represent an ignition of sorts, to kick off a chain reaction that spreads outward from primary events, and is easily replicable crossing regional boundaries, once a successful game changer is cemented as viable.
The human brain isn't totally unique in it's structure, if you look at elephants and dolphins. But the relative brain size to body size ratio, as an emergent evolutionary trait, seems to be pretty unique.
Diet sounds like a plausible point of origin, when considering that the brain is a nutrition-greedy organ. So, the Stoned Ape Hypothesis is reasonable, in the sense that it layers nutritional augmentation on top of evolutionary theory. On the one hand, you still have evolutionary mechanics as the operating framework, but the dietary augmentation produces behavioral effects that change mating strategies.
So then, selection processes take over, and the successful live, and the others die. The successful produce alike offspring, and combinations of traits group together. But all clustered around this drug induced behavioral mess, where you find these apes getting into catnip and going nuts.
The idea is not without precedent. Consider the Greek Oracle, as a temple ventilated with toxic volcanic gases, acting as the mind altering substance. People willfully producing an altered state, by effectively huffing volatile, oxygen depriving vapors not unlike spray paint fumes, to gain insight and augment decision making.
Which brings us around to the crux of the idea. It should be possible to replicate the process, even at a small scale, by modeling the scenario with other animals. Usually mice have a short enough lifespan to push their genes around with careful engineering. So, what about talking mice that modify their environment? Could drugs and rampant sex make that happen in a time frame comparable to the fossile record for humans?
But geeze, talking mice that invent and implement conceptual ideas? What would we do with them, once they're here? What if they escape the lab? Would their population explode as an invasive species? Capable of direct lilliputian competition with humans?
Once the invasive species status is realized, all the rest fits into place. We wouldn't want to let the mice escape into the wild. So the only missing piece, regarding the mechanics of the idea, is the bridge in between dumb mice and smart mice.
Evolutionary theory is founded mostly on untouchable mechanics that operate at nearly geologic time scales, so we look, and we see slight incremental changes, and say to ourselves, yeah that holds up the rest.
But at it's core, the fundamental question is: Why did the human brain explode onto the scene? Why wasn't that change gradual? Why did it only happen once? Was there an accelerant in the mix?
To say that it happened fast is to speak in relative terms. It still would have happened across multiple generations, in movements of 10 and 20 years, according to sexual maturation. But to jump the rails, the change would have had to represent an ignition of sorts, to kick off a chain reaction that spreads outward from primary events, and is easily replicable crossing regional boundaries, once a successful game changer is cemented as viable.
The human brain isn't totally unique in it's structure, if you look at elephants and dolphins. But the relative brain size to body size ratio, as an emergent evolutionary trait, seems to be pretty unique.
Diet sounds like a plausible point of origin, when considering that the brain is a nutrition-greedy organ. So, the Stoned Ape Hypothesis is reasonable, in the sense that it layers nutritional augmentation on top of evolutionary theory. On the one hand, you still have evolutionary mechanics as the operating framework, but the dietary augmentation produces behavioral effects that change mating strategies.
So then, selection processes take over, and the successful live, and the others die. The successful produce alike offspring, and combinations of traits group together. But all clustered around this drug induced behavioral mess, where you find these apes getting into catnip and going nuts.
The idea is not without precedent. Consider the Greek Oracle, as a temple ventilated with toxic volcanic gases, acting as the mind altering substance. People willfully producing an altered state, by effectively huffing volatile, oxygen depriving vapors not unlike spray paint fumes, to gain insight and augment decision making.
Which brings us around to the crux of the idea. It should be possible to replicate the process, even at a small scale, by modeling the scenario with other animals. Usually mice have a short enough lifespan to push their genes around with careful engineering. So, what about talking mice that modify their environment? Could drugs and rampant sex make that happen in a time frame comparable to the fossile record for humans?
But geeze, talking mice that invent and implement conceptual ideas? What would we do with them, once they're here? What if they escape the lab? Would their population explode as an invasive species? Capable of direct lilliputian competition with humans?
Once the invasive species status is realized, all the rest fits into place. We wouldn't want to let the mice escape into the wild. So the only missing piece, regarding the mechanics of the idea, is the bridge in between dumb mice and smart mice.
I'm aware of the theory, but there's a big conceptual leap between paragraphs 6 and 7 which McKenna never addresses. Why should the presence of psychedelics change mating strategies so as to select specifically for larger brain size?
[deleted]
[deleted]
So this is the part of evolutionary theory that can never really give up the ghost. There are non-deterministic/non-linear forces at work, which may or may not divulge direct evidence of sequential events.
Why did some primates emerge with brains twice the size of their ancestors, over many thousands of generations, during the course of several million years?
This hypothesis can only fit inside the huge knowledge gap. Many times, accelerated evolutionary changes signify arms races and bottle necks. An arms race like the Cambrian explosion has lots of things happening at the same time, a form of evolutionary tit-for-tat game. A bottle neck is something like the dinosaurs disappearing. The invasive species concept is, many times, kind of in between.
Since we can't access or develop a perfect map of primate migration patterns from an ideal fossil record of all historic skull sizes over time, demonstrating how the expanding brain case trend took shape, the details for the specific drivers of these changes are unclear.
We have a grand canyon sized void of information, and all we can really do is consider bridge designs that utilize natural forces to connect the empty space separating both sides. Figure, maybe, the stoned ape concept is like some epic beaver dam between us and our predecessors.
Since the human brain is an unprecedented organ, we have few avenues for corollaries. Like the big bang theory, we'll get stuck with whatever idea connects the most dots, fits inside the knowledge gap, whether it ousts other ideas or not.
Even if incorrect, the big bang fits what we see, but can never tell us why time started at all, if material existence truly began as a singularity, or whether something existed prior to moment zero. It may be that the big bang is an event that can only be obscuring prior information, due to some unknowable cosmological process that destroyed any such information predating this mysterious expansion event. Perhaps some crunch or freeze, reduced the sampleable scope of the universe we inhabit and currently observe into a pin-prick singularity we are forced to guess only broad, basic details about. How would we inform ourselves of what exists beyond the observable universe, or learn of events prior to a moment that destroyed all preceding facts or information?
As a hypothetical idea, the stoned ape hypothesis will always deal in uncertainty, at least until we discover the next ground-breaking evidence that changes the current picture. Same with the big bang: we can't really know if it's correct, so much as we can only deal in observable facts evident to our perspective, and that can be unsatisfying.
If multiple stories fit inside an evidence-starved narrative (brains doubling in size), these competing stories will sit deadlocked until a tie-breaker appears, usually with the most easily reasoned hypothesis carrying preference until rendered untenable. Science and institutional academia often shuns juicy excitement, which is where this theory's incredible story is found wanting of incredible evidence.
Why did some primates emerge with brains twice the size of their ancestors, over many thousands of generations, during the course of several million years?
This hypothesis can only fit inside the huge knowledge gap. Many times, accelerated evolutionary changes signify arms races and bottle necks. An arms race like the Cambrian explosion has lots of things happening at the same time, a form of evolutionary tit-for-tat game. A bottle neck is something like the dinosaurs disappearing. The invasive species concept is, many times, kind of in between.
Since we can't access or develop a perfect map of primate migration patterns from an ideal fossil record of all historic skull sizes over time, demonstrating how the expanding brain case trend took shape, the details for the specific drivers of these changes are unclear.
We have a grand canyon sized void of information, and all we can really do is consider bridge designs that utilize natural forces to connect the empty space separating both sides. Figure, maybe, the stoned ape concept is like some epic beaver dam between us and our predecessors.
Since the human brain is an unprecedented organ, we have few avenues for corollaries. Like the big bang theory, we'll get stuck with whatever idea connects the most dots, fits inside the knowledge gap, whether it ousts other ideas or not.
Even if incorrect, the big bang fits what we see, but can never tell us why time started at all, if material existence truly began as a singularity, or whether something existed prior to moment zero. It may be that the big bang is an event that can only be obscuring prior information, due to some unknowable cosmological process that destroyed any such information predating this mysterious expansion event. Perhaps some crunch or freeze, reduced the sampleable scope of the universe we inhabit and currently observe into a pin-prick singularity we are forced to guess only broad, basic details about. How would we inform ourselves of what exists beyond the observable universe, or learn of events prior to a moment that destroyed all preceding facts or information?
As a hypothetical idea, the stoned ape hypothesis will always deal in uncertainty, at least until we discover the next ground-breaking evidence that changes the current picture. Same with the big bang: we can't really know if it's correct, so much as we can only deal in observable facts evident to our perspective, and that can be unsatisfying.
If multiple stories fit inside an evidence-starved narrative (brains doubling in size), these competing stories will sit deadlocked until a tie-breaker appears, usually with the most easily reasoned hypothesis carrying preference until rendered untenable. Science and institutional academia often shuns juicy excitement, which is where this theory's incredible story is found wanting of incredible evidence.
Let me get this straight. You think the SAH is a plausible hypothesis for the sudden growth in brain size, but you agree that it fails to explain or provide a mechanism for favouring genes for larger brain size?
Plausible is too weak a word, and "failing to explain or provide a mechanism" is too damning and dismissive.
I'm saying we may never know the real story, in that no single theory might ever accumulate enough backing evidence to be proven correct, by virtue of the processes being examined. SAH operates in a space where we may only find utility in thought experiments.
I can see one or two points of evidence emerging, that could simply blow SAH to bits and put the nail in the coffin of debate. But just as easily, I could see a fossil jump out of the ground, and upend our thinking overnight. The evolutionary tale of human prehistory is that brittle, based on what we have in front of us right now.
The only ways I see SAH being proven, are forward looking replication of results, or longshot statistical truths, found in subtle clues which are very hard to measure, all in one place. Meanwhile, literally any other theory could burst onto the scene with a stronger, more convincing and reasonable narrative, and bury SAH so deep in its own wild and extraordinary whimsy that we never think about it again. But neither has happened yet, so we can still navel gaze on this one.
But, take anything you want. Any externality, leveraging selective pressure, but leaving scant traces of ever even having happened, and you've got a good competing hypothesis with legs under it. Instead of psychoactive substances, why not body lice, for example, as a selective externality? Although less charismatic than SAH, just as reasonable of a story, but just as tough to tease out a smoking gun.
How would body lice influence circumstances favoring for genetic brain size? We might easily hypothesize an illness spread by one kind of louse, whereby the head lice versus the body lice is the deciding factor to produce the selective brain outcome in the same time span. But why the bigger brain on the other side of it? Same as with SAH, the brain size could be an incidental trait. That's the way bottlenecks, invasive species explosions and fitness arms races work in evolution. Some outcomes are non-deterministic, so we never get satisfying proof.
I'm saying we may never know the real story, in that no single theory might ever accumulate enough backing evidence to be proven correct, by virtue of the processes being examined. SAH operates in a space where we may only find utility in thought experiments.
I can see one or two points of evidence emerging, that could simply blow SAH to bits and put the nail in the coffin of debate. But just as easily, I could see a fossil jump out of the ground, and upend our thinking overnight. The evolutionary tale of human prehistory is that brittle, based on what we have in front of us right now.
The only ways I see SAH being proven, are forward looking replication of results, or longshot statistical truths, found in subtle clues which are very hard to measure, all in one place. Meanwhile, literally any other theory could burst onto the scene with a stronger, more convincing and reasonable narrative, and bury SAH so deep in its own wild and extraordinary whimsy that we never think about it again. But neither has happened yet, so we can still navel gaze on this one.
But, take anything you want. Any externality, leveraging selective pressure, but leaving scant traces of ever even having happened, and you've got a good competing hypothesis with legs under it. Instead of psychoactive substances, why not body lice, for example, as a selective externality? Although less charismatic than SAH, just as reasonable of a story, but just as tough to tease out a smoking gun.
How would body lice influence circumstances favoring for genetic brain size? We might easily hypothesize an illness spread by one kind of louse, whereby the head lice versus the body lice is the deciding factor to produce the selective brain outcome in the same time span. But why the bigger brain on the other side of it? Same as with SAH, the brain size could be an incidental trait. That's the way bottlenecks, invasive species explosions and fitness arms races work in evolution. Some outcomes are non-deterministic, so we never get satisfying proof.
If you are able to keep things precise, please could you tell me how the ingestion of psychedelics might cause larger brain sizes to be favoured? For example, would it mean that individuals with larger brains are more likely to mate or to survive?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I often joke (but dont take serious at all) that addictive smokable plants are addictive due to natural selection:
Most people I know who either smoke tobacco or marihuana, are addicted to either and can smoke the other without getting addicted. In my case I am addicted to nicotine, and I like smoking weed but never get addicted to it. I.e. one addiction is sufficient. But for what?
Another observation is that individuals that never smoke don't feel addicted, i.e. there is no innate attraction towards a substance, only after using it for a while.
Any smoker knows that after a while you need to smoke again.
The jokke/hypothesis is as follows: fire was important for human survival, tribes with fire were at an advantage over tribes without fire. Yet smoking is not healthy. The tribe only needs a few members to keep the fire going, so instead of innate attraction to keep the fire going (which would be unhealthy to each member of the group), only people who are initiated by the current fire-man get addicted, but should get addicted lest they not neglect the fire (i.e. a biological timer reminding you to inhale from the portable pipe). This way nomadic tribes that had a propensity for addiction had access to fire and its applications, and the tribe survived better than those tribes that could not get addicted (and occasionally lost their fire, possibly executing the specific fire-man at fault, a selection pressure).
I say joke, and that I don't take it serious for multiple reasons: species that probably never benefitted from fire -like spiders- feel the effects off say nicotine.
Another hole in the theory is that tobacco was imported after the discovery of the new world. But I can immagine other plants having fulfilled similar roles.
Most people I know who either smoke tobacco or marihuana, are addicted to either and can smoke the other without getting addicted. In my case I am addicted to nicotine, and I like smoking weed but never get addicted to it. I.e. one addiction is sufficient. But for what?
Another observation is that individuals that never smoke don't feel addicted, i.e. there is no innate attraction towards a substance, only after using it for a while.
Any smoker knows that after a while you need to smoke again.
The jokke/hypothesis is as follows: fire was important for human survival, tribes with fire were at an advantage over tribes without fire. Yet smoking is not healthy. The tribe only needs a few members to keep the fire going, so instead of innate attraction to keep the fire going (which would be unhealthy to each member of the group), only people who are initiated by the current fire-man get addicted, but should get addicted lest they not neglect the fire (i.e. a biological timer reminding you to inhale from the portable pipe). This way nomadic tribes that had a propensity for addiction had access to fire and its applications, and the tribe survived better than those tribes that could not get addicted (and occasionally lost their fire, possibly executing the specific fire-man at fault, a selection pressure).
I say joke, and that I don't take it serious for multiple reasons: species that probably never benefitted from fire -like spiders- feel the effects off say nicotine.
Another hole in the theory is that tobacco was imported after the discovery of the new world. But I can immagine other plants having fulfilled similar roles.
Wait, what, doesn't everyone see these same geometric patterns merely by closing their eyes tight?
Ow thanks for the suggestion, now I have a headache
I had a similar experience when I forgot to take my SNRI antidepressant. I woke up in the middle of the night, and when I tried to continue sleeping I had these ultra-detailed geometric patterns dancing before me. The visuals were nice, but then my ears started ringing too which started bothering me, so I opened my eyes and woke up completely, which stopped the visuals and the ringing.
If I'm woken up right in the middle of very intense R.E.M. sleep I'll sometimes see geometric patterns for a little while.
Is this 'hallucination' though? Or just some weird stuff happening in visual processing?
I underwent some very serious periods of sleep deprivation (Army) and our 'hallucinations' were of a totally different kind: having conversations with people that were not there, seeing things that were not there, misidentifying people whom you know really well who are right on front of your face, taking on different personalities etc..
I underwent some very serious periods of sleep deprivation (Army) and our 'hallucinations' were of a totally different kind: having conversations with people that were not there, seeing things that were not there, misidentifying people whom you know really well who are right on front of your face, taking on different personalities etc..
That sounds like deliriant hallucinations as opposed to psychedelic hallucinations. Deliriant drugs (such as Nutmeg, DPH, Datura, etc.) produce a completely different hallucination experience compared to psychedelics. Often times after taking these people do not even realize they are hallucinating everything that is happening (conversations, other people, going places) until they suddenly realize they have been simply walking around their bedroom for hours. I imagine these work in completely different ways on your brain.
Good point - definitely the 'lack of self awareness' is a big differentiator - that said, sensory and cognitive ability is seriously impaired to begin with in these scenarios of sleep deprivation/stress induction.
It's also very scary once you do realize that you've been having a conversation with 'nobody' (or a 'ghost' is what one might think) for quite some time - it adds quite a degree of neuroticism.
On a funny/scary note - the weirdest of all is seeing two people apparently 'having a conversation' ... but upon closer inspection you find they are just taking turns talking near gibberish at one another. All of the manner, body language and tone of a 'conversation' but really, it's just two temporarily crazy people mumbling ... with automatic weapons. Thankfully with no live rounds in most situations :)
It's also very scary once you do realize that you've been having a conversation with 'nobody' (or a 'ghost' is what one might think) for quite some time - it adds quite a degree of neuroticism.
On a funny/scary note - the weirdest of all is seeing two people apparently 'having a conversation' ... but upon closer inspection you find they are just taking turns talking near gibberish at one another. All of the manner, body language and tone of a 'conversation' but really, it's just two temporarily crazy people mumbling ... with automatic weapons. Thankfully with no live rounds in most situations :)
> Is this 'hallucination' though? Or just some weird stuff happening in visual processing?
Is there a meaningful difference?
Is there a meaningful difference?
I would argue that yes, there is.
On LSD (at least up to moderate doses), you don't hallucinate anything that doesn't exist. You don't see anything that isn't there, or hear voices, everything is just an altered version of reality.
Hallucinations from sleep deprivation (and certain drugs) are different though, you do start to see things that aren't there, often in the corner of your vision, and you do start to genuinely hear voices that don't exist. It's a surreal experience when you're suffering from severe sleep deprivation and you can hear your family talking to you, despite knowing that in reality they're 1000 miles away.
On LSD (at least up to moderate doses), you don't hallucinate anything that doesn't exist. You don't see anything that isn't there, or hear voices, everything is just an altered version of reality.
Hallucinations from sleep deprivation (and certain drugs) are different though, you do start to see things that aren't there, often in the corner of your vision, and you do start to genuinely hear voices that don't exist. It's a surreal experience when you're suffering from severe sleep deprivation and you can hear your family talking to you, despite knowing that in reality they're 1000 miles away.
If you look at how neural nets work, they too tend to hallucinate. It doesn't seem so mysterious to me. We have GANs, autoencoders and network visualisation tools (finding the input that maximises a certain neuron or set of neurons) - and they show that noise injection into the net can cause hallucinations.
> The sparseness of connections between inhibitory neurons prevents inhibitory signals from traveling long distances, disrupting the stochastic Turing mechanism and the perception of funnels, cobwebs, spirals and so forth. The dominant patterns that spread through the network will be based on external stimuli — a very good thing for survival, since you want to be able to spot a snake and not be distracted by a pretty spiral shape.
I see spirals every time I meditate. I find it interesting the suggestion that meditation allows more random noise into my neurons.
It feels very similar to the dream state where the content usually has clear connections to my real life but is randomized just enough to produce some odd effects.
In the end, understanding dreams or hallucinations feels like interpreting art to me.
I see spirals every time I meditate. I find it interesting the suggestion that meditation allows more random noise into my neurons.
It feels very similar to the dream state where the content usually has clear connections to my real life but is randomized just enough to produce some odd effects.
In the end, understanding dreams or hallucinations feels like interpreting art to me.
This reminds me of a short-story called "Blit", involving hacks against the human visual system.
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm
I wonder if the same effect can be reproduced with image recognition software.
The "Google deep dream" look very... acidic to me, but there were deliberately induced by reinforcing a particular signal. But I wouldn't be surprised to get similar effects by adding noise to the proper type of neural network.
The "Google deep dream" look very... acidic to me, but there were deliberately induced by reinforcing a particular signal. But I wouldn't be surprised to get similar effects by adding noise to the proper type of neural network.
How do we know that reality itself isn't a mass hallucination?
Because it's shared. Assuming you accept the existence of other minds, what makes reality real, is that it's shared. Schizophrenic hallucinations are no less real to the sufferer than so-called normal experiences. What makes reality real is that every shares the experience.
That raises interesting questions about what is real and what is not, but also questions about how much of reality is really the residue of culture and worldview.
That raises interesting questions about what is real and what is not, but also questions about how much of reality is really the residue of culture and worldview.
Why a "mass" hallucination? Are you sure you aren't the only thing "out there" asking this question to yourself?
Descartes ruined my perception of reality. He got me down to the bottom of that well, but couldn't get me out.
Wooooow dude, I bet noone came up with this idea before! Very trippy! 420!
Very interesting article. Some of the patterns it talks about are also usually visible in the output of many deepdream / style transfer software that are based on existing neural nets, which leads me to believe that they are indeed mimicking existing brain processes.
(TBH this should probably be titled HOW people hallucinate)
(TBH this should probably be titled HOW people hallucinate)
It's an interesting article. But I hate the header image. It's cool and all, but has nothing to do with psychedelic hallucinations. And while Klüver's "form constants" are OK, what's interesting about hallucinations isn't just the basic geometry.
Consider LSD hallucinations, for example. I recall especially complex entangled "ropes". Brightly colored, and in constant motion. Both spinning on axis, and writhing. But the motions weren't just three dimensional. There was a sense of stuff rotating and moving through other dimensions.
Also, the "ropes" had lots of detail. Almost like strings of characters. A little like that G/E/B block on the cover of Hofstadter's GEB. I also recall this guy who argued that all Hebrew letters were two dimensional projections of some multidimensional object. He released a video, which reminded me of LSD hallucinations. Very Kabalistic. And perhaps one inspiration for Aronofsky's "Pi".
Consider LSD hallucinations, for example. I recall especially complex entangled "ropes". Brightly colored, and in constant motion. Both spinning on axis, and writhing. But the motions weren't just three dimensional. There was a sense of stuff rotating and moving through other dimensions.
Also, the "ropes" had lots of detail. Almost like strings of characters. A little like that G/E/B block on the cover of Hofstadter's GEB. I also recall this guy who argued that all Hebrew letters were two dimensional projections of some multidimensional object. He released a video, which reminded me of LSD hallucinations. Very Kabalistic. And perhaps one inspiration for Aronofsky's "Pi".
If you stay partially aware as you fall asleep, you’ll see a ton of geometric hallucinations. It’s just the way things work.
The scientists in the article are trying to get to a 'why'.
Happens to me more upon waking up. But it's a cool phenomenon either way, and to my mind it's an indication that tripping is a normal thing for the human brain to do sometimes, and probably not harmful.