DOes anyone know,if possible,if there is a method for interpreting hallucinations in the same way as dreams?Hallucinations could be seen as the relection of our consciousness,which is symbolic for our inner UNconsciousness.

Has anyone ever heard of hallucinations having a "meaning" in the same way that a myth does,and, if hallucinations are just sense data/perception+psychological projections,then what meaning do objects of our senses have,particularly lsd and other hallucinogens?I mean,if,say for example,my psychological state is reflected in my consciousness of the outside world-if the outside LOOKS good,then I FEEL good,whatever is outside is symbolic for what is good INSIDE,my INNER being.For example,I fear fire,so fire could be seen as symbolic for my FEAR,and when I take hallucinogens,I can see-"via" the hallucinations the unconscious reason why I fear fire.So,everything is symbolic of something else,something unconscious.And that is what hallucinogens do,they make conscious-as hallucinations-the unconscious reason WHY something(an object)is symbolic for something else,such as fire for fear.

But,if hallucinogens are a means to an end-of making the unconscious conscious-then what are hallucinogens symbolic for?Do you see what I mean?

You could check into the work of Astral Travelers but be careful not to buy into any cultish things. The connection between the two areas (drug-induced versus real Naguals work) is tenuous but real. Carlos Castaneda and Don Genaro or others is also worth inspection.

Hobson's book "Consciousness" may address your question about the relation between altered states and dreams. You can find the book on amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...9910342-5932155


Here's an excerpt from a reviewer's comments that you may find helpful:

The core model is the AIM model, standing for activation, internal or external information, and neuromodulation. In his tridimensional space model, he considers these factors to be able to explain everything about consciousness. This is where I start disagreeing. It is true neuromodulators influence consciousness, but they are not the neural correlates of consciousness. That is, they alter modes of processing, but are not the process itself. Hobson's strong points are in the area of dream research. Dream as delirium is a very convincing piece of theorizing. The phenomenology of dreaming and its relationship to brain waves and the AIM model is clear enough, but not the same can be said of consciousness. I would posit that the AIM model is more of a model of altered states of consciousness than consciousness per se. However, it is also true that theories of consciousness that ignore the powerful influences of neuromodulation must be necessarily incomplete. This is a must read for anyone in the scientific debate of consciousness.

in case the url above doesn't work, try cut and pasting the following:

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=s_sf_b_as/102-9910342-5932155

sorry, try this one:

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716760401/qid=1084121610/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9910342-5932155?v=glance&s=books#product-details

here is another reviewer's comments:

Hobson provides a welcome and scholarly contribution to the literature concerned with explaining the phenomenon of human consciousness. A most fitting extention of his earlier studies of sleep, dreaming and waking, this new volume also includes discussion of abnormal states of consciousness in the context of a coherent functional account of brain activity. In this sense, Hobson's choice remains essentially reductionist, whilst claiming appeal to combine emergentism, holism and subjectivism. Indeed, he quite rightly asserts that it is this very subjective nature of what we call ‘consciousness', that we are needing to explain. There are no clear answers to the question of how and why we generate the particular contents of conscious expeience ‘chosen' by the brain mind (cf Edelman & Tononi, 2000), but we are provided with a rather appealing neurally-based model of dynamic brain function which correlates well with both clinical and pre-clinical experimental data.Consistent at both the anatomical and neurochemical levels, Hobson proposes the secret of consciousness experience to lay in fine interplay of the brain's modular systems of activation, "giving equivalent subdivisions of consciousness in accordance with the activity of [the various] anatomical and physiological modular specialisations of different brain regions". In this model, the modularity is to be based upon purely anatomical distinctions; the physiological affect according to the dynamic modulatory effects of the various neurotransmitter environment in which the nervous tissues are bathed from one instant to another. The explicit hypothesis here, states that "the brain creates the unity of conscious experience via the synchronisation of its elements". So,.... what are the elements ? It has for a long time been known that the activity of neural circuitries in the brainstem' reticular formation and projecting thalamocortical pathways are involved in the maintenance and variation in reports of conscious experience. A variety of brain activity recording techniques (from EEG to fMRI) have continued to implicate these same regions over time, but, combined with the increasingly detailed resolution of the modern brain scanning machines, the advent of a refined molecular biology and functional psychopharmacology has shed much light upon the dynamics of the component brain circuits involved. For example, we now believe that the aminergic neurotransmitter seratonin (ana 5-HT, an important chemical modulator thought to be involved in sensory perception and memory formation) is not released during normal periods of sleep (a typically ‘unconscious' time for most of us). Does its absence therefore explain the lack of memory for dream imagery ? Hobson suspects that it does, argues his case well, and proposes the neural origin of consciousness to lay firmly within the thalamocortical projection systems of the forebrain structures. His ‘binding' makes no dependence upon the 40 Hz-type of synchrony theory, nor is he reductive enough to evoke the contribution of microtubule quantum effects. His explanation remains firmly within the realms of testable hypotheses involving the conscious phenomenology of both normal and clinical human presentations. The take-home model of Hobson is the AIM model of conscious states, the name an acronym combining the features he proposes to be most important in accounting for the variation(s) of experience reported. A very welcome 3-D, dynamic model (in contrast to the more frequently linear models of the past) accompanied by clear visual illustrations, we are taken through the model with clarity and consistent reference to relevant clinical findings in a way accessible to the informed reader. This is not a book which falls at the last hurdle, a final chapter lacking in solution, leaving the reader feeling let down. In brief, the proposal affords that one's subjective conscious experience be accountable according to the combined AIM three-component vector space ("conscious state space") comprising one's Activation state (high-low), Information source (sensory external-internal) and Mode of processing (cholinergic-aminergic neurochemical modulation). The reasoning is coherent and the neuroscience data accurate to date, with references and further reading offered for those wishing to gain more from the physiological research literature. I will be certainly be adding this volume to my tutorial teaching list. I like the way Hobson writes. I like his clarity, modesty and his perseverence with a difficult subject (he does not claim to have ‘explained' consciousness). For me, his work does nonetheless help to explain at least something of the mind-brain unity baggage itself that is so often forgotten about: no brain,...no consciousness, ..(as far as I know). The mechanisms by which my own specific brain functions correlate/cause/effect my conscious experience, continue to derive explanatory value (if not a fuller understanding) from the type of model recurrent in Hobson's work. This latest, is no exception.

personally, I found the book interesting, but Hobson's AIM model clearly is not the answer to consciousness and its relation to brain. His relating of altered states and hallucinations with dreams is weak, in my opinion. But the book is still definitely worth reading even if you don't agree with what he says.

sorry, I neglected the second half of your post dealing with symbolism. I'll have to take this up later. Fascinating ideas though. I will have much to say.

I recall research in the late '60s or early '70s that found there are common classes of hallucinations cutting across all cultural boundaries studied. I can't remember the source, but I'll try to pry it out of my wife's memory later today.

One of the common hallucinations was "marching squirrels”. Go figure.