Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

[Eodnhoj7]

If conscious all-there-is hallucination, then,
yes, the brain itself [a part of all-there-is] is a hallucination.

So is everything a hallucination?

Yes, but note the hallucinatory continuum from 0.01% to 99.99%

So .01 percent of reality is not a hallucination? Would the evidence for this be a hallucination?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So is everything a hallucination?

Yes, but note the hallucinatory continuum from 0.01% to 99.99%

So .01 percent of reality is not a hallucination? Would the evidence for this be a hallucination?

In principle it is a hallucination.
0.01 white is 99.99 black but in principle and undeniably there is still a degree of whiteness, albeit 0.01 degree of whiteness.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, but note the hallucinatory continuum from 0.01% to 99.99%

So .01 percent of reality is not a hallucination? Would the evidence for this be a hallucination?

In principle it is a hallucination.
0.01 white is 99.99 black but in principle and undeniably there is still a degree of whiteness, albeit 0.01 degree of whiteness.

And what empirical evidence is there for this if empirical evidence falls under this 99.99 percent hallucination?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So .01 percent of reality is not a hallucination? Would the evidence for this be a hallucination?

In principle it is a hallucination.
0.01 white is 99.99 black but in principle and undeniably there is still a degree of whiteness, albeit 0.01 degree of whiteness.

And what empirical evidence is there for this if empirical evidence falls under this 99.99 percent hallucination?

Surely you are not that ignorant?

There are tons of research and empirical findings to support what is 99.99% hallucinations.
Example:

Halucinations in Schizophrenia
https://www.psycom.net/schizophrenia-ha ... delusions/


On the neurobiology of hallucinations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702442/

50% hallucination is from this;

Visual release hallucinations, also known as Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is a type of psychophysical visual disturbance and the experience of complex visual hallucinations in a person with partial or severe blindness. First described by Charles Bonnet in 1760,[1][2] it was first introduced into English-speaking psychiatry in 1982.[3] A related type of hallucination that also occurs with lack of visual input is the closed-eye hallucination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_re ... ucinations

Hypnagogic hallucinations and hypnopompic hallucinations are considered normal phenomena. Hypnagogic hallucinations can occur as one is falling asleep and hypnopompic hallucinations occur when one is waking up. Hallucinations can be associated with drug use (particularly deliriants), sleep deprivation, psychosis, neurological disorders, and delirium tremens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucina ... lucination

Hallucination in General
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

[Eodnhoj7]

In principle it is a hallucination.
0.01 white is 99.99 black but in principle and undeniably there is still a degree of whiteness, albeit 0.01 degree of whiteness.

And what empirical evidence is there for this if empirical evidence falls under this 99.99 percent hallucination?

Surely you are not that ignorant?

There are tons of research and empirical findings to support what is 99.99% hallucinations.
Example:

Halucinations in Schizophrenia
https://www.psycom.net/schizophrenia-ha ... delusions/


On the neurobiology of hallucinations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702442/

50% hallucination is from this;

Visual release hallucinations, also known as Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is a type of psychophysical visual disturbance and the experience of complex visual hallucinations in a person with partial or severe blindness. First described by Charles Bonnet in 1760,[1][2] it was first introduced into English-speaking psychiatry in 1982.[3] A related type of hallucination that also occurs with lack of visual input is the closed-eye hallucination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_re ... ucinations

Hypnagogic hallucinations and hypnopompic hallucinations are considered normal phenomena. Hypnagogic hallucinations can occur as one is falling asleep and hypnopompic hallucinations occur when one is waking up. Hallucinations can be associated with drug use (particularly deliriants), sleep deprivation, psychosis, neurological disorders, and delirium tremens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucina ... lucination

Hallucination in General
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

99.9 percent of this research has to be hallucination as well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what empirical evidence is there for this if empirical evidence falls under this 99.99 percent hallucination?

Surely you are not that ignorant?

There are tons of research and empirical findings to support what is 99.99% hallucinations.
Example:

Halucinations in Schizophrenia
https://www.psycom.net/schizophrenia-ha ... delusions/


On the neurobiology of hallucinations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702442/

50% hallucination is from this;

Visual release hallucinations, also known as Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is a type of psychophysical visual disturbance and the experience of complex visual hallucinations in a person with partial or severe blindness. First described by Charles Bonnet in 1760,[1][2] it was first introduced into English-speaking psychiatry in 1982.[3] A related type of hallucination that also occurs with lack of visual input is the closed-eye hallucination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_re ... ucinations

Hypnagogic hallucinations and hypnopompic hallucinations are considered normal phenomena. Hypnagogic hallucinations can occur as one is falling asleep and hypnopompic hallucinations occur when one is waking up. Hallucinations can be associated with drug use (particularly deliriants), sleep deprivation, psychosis, neurological disorders, and delirium tremens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucina ... lucination

Hallucination in General
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

99.9 percent of this research has to be hallucination as well.

yes, in principles, 0.01% hallucination 99.99% real.

[Eodnhoj7]

Surely you are not that ignorant?

There are tons of research and empirical findings to support what is 99.99% hallucinations.
Example:

Halucinations in Schizophrenia
https://www.psycom.net/schizophrenia-ha ... delusions/


On the neurobiology of hallucinations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702442/

50% hallucination is from this;





Hallucination in General
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

99.9 percent of this research has to be hallucination as well.

yes, in principles, 0.01% hallucination 99.99% real.

So yes it is 99.9 percent hallucination and 99.9 percent real?

What separates principle from hallucination exactly?

[Eodnhoj7]

Sounds a LOT like a belief system!

In a way, it is a set of belief but based on possible empirical reality and inferred from various sources of real evidences. You have to read the books of both neuroscientists to gather more information that support their hypothesis.
It is a matter of time this belief [empirically based] can be turned into a theory when there is sufficient evidence and consensus.

But the idea of God, Brahman, Absolute Oneness and the likes is merely an opinion [arising from an illusion] without any degree of empirical possibility to be proven at all. God is an impossibility to be real.

The argument of hallucination is determined by possibility and inference, not cause. The argument is not a truth statement but rather inference.

Empiricism is a belief, hence a philosophical dogma. To regard it as true based upon a consensus is a fallacy of authority and bandwagon, therefore illogical.

Empirical proof is a contradiction as it is probabilistic and subject to change.

[Veritas Aequitas]

99.9 percent of this research has to be hallucination as well.

yes, in principles, 0.01% hallucination 99.99% real.

So yes it is 99.9 percent hallucination and 99.9 percent real?

What separates principle from hallucination exactly?

Not sure of your point again but you seem to have misrepresented my point.

I stated in principles, 0.01% hallucination is 99.99% real and vice-versa.
Seeing an apple on the table, taking in in hand and eating it in front of many people is
0.01% hallucination and is 99.99% real.

Someone insisting gnomes exist as real because he talked to them in the garden is
99.99% hallucination and 0.000 ..0001% real.

[Eodnhoj7]

yes, in principles, 0.01% hallucination 99.99% real.

So yes it is 99.9 percent hallucination and 99.9 percent real?

What separates principle from hallucination exactly?

Not sure of your point again but you seem to have misrepresented my point.

I stated in principles, 0.01% hallucination is 99.99% real and vice-versa.
Seeing an apple on the table, taking in in hand and eating it in front of many people is
0.01% hallucination and is 99.99% real.

Someone insisting gnomes exist as real because he talked to them in the garden is
99.99% hallucination and 0.000 ..0001% real.

I habe not misrepresented anything, strictly observed its faulty logic.

Reread what you posted.

So the argument about God is 99.9 percent wrong, but .01 real? So God exists?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So yes it is 99.9 percent hallucination and 99.9 percent real?

What separates principle from hallucination exactly?

Not sure of your point again but you seem to have misrepresented my point.

I stated in principles, 0.01% hallucination is 99.99% real and vice-versa.
Seeing an apple on the table, taking in in hand and eating it in front of many people is
0.01% hallucination and is 99.99% real.

Someone insisting gnomes exist as real because he talked to them in the garden is
99.99% hallucination and 0.000 ..0001% real.

I habe not misrepresented anything, strictly observed its faulty logic.

Reread what you posted.

So the argument about God is 99.9 percent wrong, but .01 real? So God exists?

Note the perspective I argued re God not gnomes, i.e.
God is an impossibility, thus moot and a non-starter.

Note my thread;

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In this case it is a 100% transcendental illusion or hallucination.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not sure of your point again but you seem to have misrepresented my point.

I stated in principles, 0.01% hallucination is 99.99% real and vice-versa.
Seeing an apple on the table, taking in in hand and eating it in front of many people is
0.01% hallucination and is 99.99% real.

Someone insisting gnomes exist as real because he talked to them in the garden is
99.99% hallucination and 0.000 ..0001% real.

I habe not misrepresented anything, strictly observed its faulty logic.

Reread what you posted.

So the argument about God is 99.9 percent wrong, but .01 real? So God exists?

Note the perspective I argued re God not gnomes, i.e.
God is an impossibility, thus moot and a non-starter.

Note my thread;

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In this case it is a 100% transcendental illusion or hallucination.

And that illusion you are fighting becomes real because you say it is a real threat.

God cannot be proven or disprove, but given proofs as proof is structure and God is not limited to existence alone by definition.

Empiricism cannot be proven except through probabilities which necessitate change.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I habe not misrepresented anything, strictly observed its faulty logic.

Reread what you posted.

So the argument about God is 99.9 percent wrong, but .01 real? So God exists?

Note the perspective I argued re God not gnomes, i.e.
God is an impossibility, thus moot and a non-starter.

Note my thread;

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In this case it is a 100% transcendental illusion or hallucination.

And that illusion you are fighting becomes real because you say it is a real threat.

Where are you going to?
The illusion is an illusion. But theists believe the illusory God is real [empirically and otherwise] to the extent that such a 'real' God sent them commands to kill non-believers.
Such a threat from an illusion is real and we have to deal with it.
One solution is to convince God is an illusion and not a real being.

God cannot be proven or disprove, but given proofs as proof is structure and God is not limited to existence alone by definition.

Note 'existence' is not a predicate.
You can say God exists as a non-existing thing, then there is no issue nor potential threat.
But if you insist God exists are a real thing [predicate] then prove it?

Empiricism cannot be proven except through probabilities which necessitate change.

Empiricism can prove reality within the empirical framework via probability, can change or whatever.
If empiricism prove a person will die when knocked directly by a fast moving bus, would you argue against that truth/reality?

[Eodnhoj7]

Note the perspective I argued re God not gnomes, i.e.
God is an impossibility, thus moot and a non-starter.

Note my thread;

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In this case it is a 100% transcendental illusion or hallucination.

And that illusion you are fighting becomes real because you say it is a real threat.

Where are you going to?
The illusion is an illusion. But theists believe the illusory God is real [empirically and otherwise] to the extent that such a 'real' God sent them commands to kill non-believers.
Such a threat from an illusion is real and we have to deal with it.
One solution is to convince God is an illusion and not a real being.

The illusion as illusion, follows the law of identity and hence exists. The illusion as a focal point of awareness acts as a point of origin through which people mold reality according to there beliefs, with reality being molded in such a manner giving structure to the illusion in further abstract and empirical means.

God cannot be proven or disprove, but given proofs as proof is structure and God is not limited to existence alone by definition.

Note 'existence' is not a predicate.
You can say God exists as a non-existing thing, then there is no issue nor potential threat.
But if you insist God exists are a real thing [predicate] then prove it?

The point is moot considering the definition of God is not limited to existence alone. While proofs of God can be observed, due to existence, the inherent definition of God being beyond existence sets the framework of proof you desire as contradictory in one respect and an infinite continuum, in another. The infinite continuum proof of God would lead us to geometric spatial axioms.

Empiricism cannot be proven except through probabilities which necessitate change.

Empiricism can prove reality within the empirical framework via probability, can change or whatever.
If empiricism prove a person will die when knocked directly by a fast moving bus, would you argue against that truth/reality?


Probability necessitates not just a lack of consistency, but necessarily observes not just a continuum for it to be proven true but effectively the non actualized state of the probability to be actualized eventually given a long enough of a continuum, thus necessitating Divinity.

Empiricism proves that people knocked directly by a fast moving bus most of the time die, while sometimes surviving. All it does is argue that people both live and die when struck by a bus.

[Davyboi]

So if this is a hallucinations, conscious reality. surely that means we are experiencing something? And if we are hallucinating , surely that means we are perceiving a reality that is not what we should be perceiving. We must be under the influence of something? So basically how can every living being be sharing the same influence?