Talk:Closed-eye hallucination

message: I don't think an encyclopedia should be written in the second person, a rewrite should be done to at least correct that.
I would do it, but it will probably be erased, so someone else should do it.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.30.165 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second person 

message: what is the cause of "CEV perception level 1: visual noise"?
Tentative candidates are:
#cortically generated
#autofluorescence in visual organs
#red blood cells visible somehow
#light through eyelids
:: As far as I can tell It is most likely heat related noise which excites the Photoreceptor cells in the retina. since the temperature in the eye is quite high 37C and the eye is closed the signal to noise level drops to zero and one is able to experience the noise alone. Heat related noise or "Dark current" is quite visible digital camcorders when they have a high gain "ISO" and shoot video in a dark room. Astronomers experience heat related noise in their CCD cameras as well. Their solution to the problem is to chill the CCD using liquid nitrogen at  −196 °C,aza (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: what

message: This article really needs a clean up.  It reads like somebody copy and pasted a bunch of text from erowid.org.  The article should have names, descriptions of the hallucinations, causes.  It should read like an encyclopedia entry.  It is also factually incorrect.  I have personally taught several hundred people how to reach the so-called "level 4" in a single meditation session -- with no drugs.
As I'm not qualified to fix it myself, I'm putting the cleanup template up.
216.99.209.252 09:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Article

message: I have added the first citation and a reference to "Jurij Moskvitin, Essay on the origin of thought". I have also added a few "simulations" of CEV as animated gifs. Since the experience of CEV, might be highly individual I would like a little feedback form you. 
I have also been bold and added a reference to heat related noise in "CEV perception level 1: visual noise"? aza (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: references and visualization

message: If I apply intense pressure to my eyes, over a long periods of time, I can have level 3 CEHs. Such as tricolor pyramids and stars. I am pretty sure that everyone has this ability. The only thing is that it is so much pressure that the pain is nearly unbearable. Should this be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.16.71 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed Eye Hallucination Or Not?

message: It seems to me that the phenomena described here clearly are a form of phosphene, despite the strong statement to the contrary. Phosphenes are not defined as being caused by mechanical stimulation, any quasi-visual experience that arises from any sort of non-photic input into the visual system is a phosphene. As the phosphene entry rightly says "Phosphenes can be directly induced by mechanical, electrical, or magnetic stimulation of the retina or visual cortex as well as by random firing of cells in the visual system."
I am going to change the statement that they are not phosphenes, but really this entry should be merged with Phosphene. (By an editor who knows how.)Treharne (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphenes 

message: I have never taken drugs in my life, yet I'm able to reach level 4 easily. Is this a sign of mental illness?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.230.65 (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level 4 

message: The introduction to the TV series Magic Shadows included what I'm fairly sure is a depiction of "Level 4" CEV.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.110.175 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Magic Shadows]]'' intro 

message: This section, as written, seems to be original research/misinterpretation. Floaters are not air bubbles on the surface of the cornea or whatever the author is implying. There doesn't appear to be a scholarly source cited for this information either. Should be re-written.
71.139.166.154 (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Corneal Liquid" 

message: Are there any citations for ordering those phenomena from level 1–5? Level 3 is far easier to achieve for me than level 2, but there is probably no informal consensus on that, since someone was sure enough that 3 ranks above 2 to put them that way in the article. 78.0.214.21 (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels - original research? 

message: Shoudn't this lead to visual snow syndrome? Most people would describe it as static, the term visual snow from what i've seen is primarily used in a medical context. Most people searching for the term visual snow will be looking for info on the condition. PikaBoop (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The visual snow syndrome page is a biomedical page that seems appropriate for such redirects. This page on the other hand seems to be an amalgamation of various unrelated phenomena. The 'five stages' concept that the page is built around was introduced without reference almost two decades ago and still doesn't have a reference; I'd almost go so far as to suggest deleting this page. Transform8395 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

text: When  moved Visual snow to Visual snow syndrome, the comment said  Less than a year later,  changed the target to Closed-eye hallucination to avoid confusion and as a . Jay 💬 11:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Visual snow syndrome does have a section clarifying the perception of visual snow/static itself can be a normal phenomenon, but for solely separation from the neurological condition I think Ganzfeld effect may be a better target. Unfortunate how there doesn't appear to be an official term for common forms of visual static. Ruzes (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a request to change the redirect. I was about to boldly do it myself but it seems like that is frowned upon. I don't think the quality of this article justifies the redirects. Gracchus123 (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That request was rejected because Articles for creation is for creation of new articles, where as your request was for change of target of the redirects. I agree that a bold redirect to  Visual snow syndrome was not advisable since Ruzes thinks that Ganzfeld effect may be a better target.  Jay 💬 07:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also consider Visual snow syndrome#Common misconceptions an acceptable target. Perhaps even as a solid middle ground between all the points being made, containing a useful description of visual snow as a non-pathological event, and the section already linking to both here and Ganzfeld effect. Ruzes (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from "Visual Snow"