But it’s not a complicated concept to get. Like a person who is drunk might see double, when in fact there is one object. A person who is on a lot of amphetamines might believe they are being purposely followed when in fact there are no people intentionally following them.
Those perceptions are not real, in any commonly understood meaning of the word. It’s easy to understand what the parent comment meant in that context as well.
Respectfully - there is still a bit of a category error in the GP, and a bit of a goalpost move here on your part.
Here’s the whole paragraph: > “ These belief-shifting outcomes aren’t mentioned in harm reduction guides. In many cases, they’re actually celebrated by users with an implicit assumption that all belief changes from psychedelics must be inherently good. I think it’s important to understand that thoughts and feelings imparted by psychedelics aren’t real and may likely be entirely meaningless.”
At a minimum, “what the parent comment meant in that context” refers to experiences that themselves alter one’s general perspective, mood, mindset, state of being, etc after the experience. If you prefer, taken word-as-written the GP is saying every thought you have at all under the influence isn’t “real.”
And reading the rest of the post, GP is concerned with permanent, potentially irreversible change to beliefs and brains.
So, shifting the conversation to hallucinations themselves is a bit of a dodge from the original context.
The other reply comment to yours has a salient point: emotions fall into a more durable category of experience than a hallucination. So, in what sense can any shift of perspective, mood, mindset, state of being, etc. in a person be counted as “real” or “not real?”
I mean, in what possible way are they “less real” than thoughts and feelings imparted by any other cause? This is your body, doing the thing in reaponse to a stimulus. This may be an atypical stimulus generating very different than usual responses, but they’re certainly real