Shared Hallucinations

How do shared hallucinations work? Like if two people hallucinate the same thing at the same time?

1 Like

As a species we are very suggestible and prone to exaggerations. A vaguely human shaped shadow is spotted in a photo and then a child throwing themselves around morphs into a story of a boy being thrown about by shadow figures. It’s not about people seeing something at the same time, it’s about one person claiming they saw or heard something, then convincing others they saw or heard it too.


Or the Jesus. Hallelujah.


Oh their god, that made me laugh a bit of Rioja out of my nose… :sunglasses: :rofl:


You refer to Folie Ă  deux, or shared delusional disorder.

Déjà identifié, trouvez-le dans la littérature.

So like let’s say for example someone’s dog passed away, and they had their friend over, and they both saw the dog sitting on the couch for a second or something like that, is that in example of a shared hallucination, and how is that naturally caused?

Might a suggest a pair of swimmers’ nose clips? Wear it while drinking and posting.

1 Like

What is the difference between being naturally caused and being unnaturally caused?

We know the first one is possible.

I doubt very much that there are “shared” hallucinations. Even simultaneous hallucinations of the exact same thing is highly improbable. What is possible is having shared illusions. Two people seeing a shadow, or something and interpreting it as something other than the shadow or whatever it really is.

can anyone give an example of something being unnaturally caused?


What I meant was does that have a natural explanation.

Shared hallucinations are a real thing. They can happen in multiple settings regardless of substance abuse. They can happen among straight, drugged or mixed groups. I know it is not significant as evidence but I have both witnessed and experienced them.
Best explanation IMO comes as mix of susceptible ambience and mirror-neuron action followed by joined memory creation after the fact that someone claimed some experience. Any individual experience in that moment gets attached to the story and is usually followed by encouragement by others. Strange artefacts like slight time difference or position difference is explained as later joining to the “event”, or even, being called in later, and is interpreted as really real because of that. Stories get aligned as the “event” develops.
I’ve also been in situations where all others have shared hallucination, but I didn’t. In both of those situations I was not in susceptible state, I was highly alert.
This is mostly my own speculation, based on what I have learned and experienced. But, mirror-neurons are a thing and conformity is a thing, susceptibility is a real thing and human imagination is also a real thing, I think shared hallucinations are expected as such and not the slightest bit unreasonable.

Edit: I have a feeling that this is poorly worded, can’t be sure tho, I just don’t know any better. And I had a drink or two.

The point being made is that the word natural in that sentence is redundant, unless you can demonstrate any other kind of cause is possible or has ever been objectively evidenced.

1 Like

can you give me an example of a “non-natural explanation”?


Is it possible he doesn’t understand, or perhaps that his reticence is an indication that he absolutely does understand? I’m inclined towards the latter to be honest.

For all the bluster and bombast we see from theists apologists and the plain irrational on here, surely demonstrating just one example of a non-natural explanation is not asking much.


I get suspicious when people insist on using an adjective, that they refuse to define. I have no idea what the difference is between:

  1. a natural explication for something
  2. a not natural explanation for something

Seems like the ground work for a no true Scotsman.

1 Like

I agree, also a form of false dichotomy, natural explanation or non-natural explanation, the third choice of course is that we don’t know, but since theism and apologetics is based on absolutes this doesn’t float their boat. They also use argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, so that not knowing lends credence to their claim a magic man in the sky did it.

1 Like

“In the beginning there was the word and the mouth from whence the word came smelteth quite ungodly.”

And lo, there came unto them Phillip, named Punter, and he was Lillian Roth in his extremity and he lay in that land a long long time, like worms out of a hot cheese log…

1 Like