Reply to comment

i found this really interesting. the idea that something doesnt need to happen to you for you to be a certain way - just thinking, or rather believing,  it happened is enough. this then adds to the idea of 'degrees of serious' - whether loosing a dog is as serious as loosing a family member - a lot of people would normally scoff at that and wonder how the two could ever even be compared on the same scale. but really, who decides? to someone, loosing a dog may be as if not more serious than loosing someone in their family - and honestly, can we really judge that?

moving on, i wonder how we distinguish between what counts as confabulation and what doesnt. when it comes to matters in faith, or matters of consciousness, who apart from the person who has experienced the situation can fairly decide if it actually happened or not? this makes me wonder about people with schitzophrenia, or people who claim they have seen god.

it also makes me wonder where then, is it okay to draw the line? because to be functional in this society, people need to be at a certain consensus about what did and did not happen, and what qualifies as an experience, and what does not. how else would we build concepts like morality, law, even education?