Slashdot Mirror


Visual Hallucinations Are a Normal Grief Reaction

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.' "

2 of 550 comments (clear)

  1. Re:simple by Abcd1234 · · 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?).

    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*.

  2. Re:what is the definition of supernatural anyway ? by Lurker2288 · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's a load of horseshit, and the fact that you'd make such a claim suggests to me that you have very little contact with people doing actual science. When I was a grad student hanging around the bio department, the folks in the department are some of the cleverest, most engaged individuals you're ever likely to meet, and they're all hungry to dig out new concepts and ideas. Imagine being the guy who creates an entirely new field of study--even if you died penniless and unsung, you'd be a legend. Many, many scientists would be willing to pursue long shots for such an opportunity.

    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.