The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

[Eodnhoj7]

As I had argued your bottom-up approach to stop an infinite regress is unrealistic and merely based on a hasty desperate psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis.

What is most realistic is the top-down-approach-FSK which relies on empirical verification and justifications supported by rational philosophical reasonings [to prevent Scientism].
In this case, we should then depend as far and down based on available evidences and rational justification.

We may speculate beyond the empirical justification but it must remained empirically-based and supported by philosophical reasonings.
For example I can speculate there are human-like people existing in a planet 100 light years from Earth.
Such a speculation is empirically possible because all the critical variables referred are empirical. So it is just a matter of producing the direct empirical evidences for verification and justification.

In the case of a hasty jump to reify something to stop the infinite regress, e.g. a first cause, your speculation is this case is not empirically based.

I ask, why is that you cannot ignore the temptation of an infinite regress?

As I mentioned in the other post,
Why you hastily jumped to close an infinite regress and why are stuck in the 'kindergarten' level in terms of reality is due to a cognitive dissonance arising desperate inherent psychology impulses that hold you back from progress.
It is VERY 'painful' to leave an infinite regress unattended.

This is why when people [especially theists] who have discovered quickie theism as a consonance to soothe the very painful cognitive dissonance of infinite regress, will even kill those who threaten the security of the consonances they are clinging onto.

Suggest you reflect more deeply and strive to grow out of your "kindergarten classes" to the higher levels of knowledge.

You ignored:

1. The totality is absolute has there is not comparison; so say the whole is relative to its parts is to equate the whole to the parts and we are left with a singularity without comparison.

2. It is absolute that there are conditions as everything is reducible to a condition thus the condition is a thing in itself as it references further conditions.

4. The FSK referencing another FSK referencing another FSK makes "FSK" utterly incoherent.

Nope, I have summarized your above as a 'bottom-up' approach which invoke an infinite regress which is not realistic

As to the infinite regress you ignored this:
3. .... To stop this infinite regress there is a point in which the FSK must be resulting from nothing.

It is only your 'bottom-up' that you stopped an infinite regress.
My 'top-down' approach do not entail any infinite regress at all.

And to continue:


1. Your FSKs are a result of an existential crisis.
2. The dependency of an FSK on another FSK so on an so forth necessitates the quality that is an FSK to be self-referential thus a thing in itself as the quality that is the FSK underlies all of being. Everything that is defined qualifies as an FSK thus the FSK, as said before, is self-referential and is a thing in itself.
3. "Philosophical reasonings" can equate to any form of interpretation as this is an open ended term; as such anything can be justified as anything can be defined. Due to this "infinite regress" is one logical outcome.
4. "Being" is a thing itself as it references only itself thus nothing; being is absolute.

It is only your 'bottom-up' that you engaged an infinite regress.

My 'top-down' [empirical plus philosophical reasonings] approach do not entail any infinite regress at all.

1. The infinite regress/progress is realistic as "Now" is continuous and without end or beginning.

2. Without infinite regress your FSK not only is founded in nothing but is circular in rationale.

3. "Bottom up" and "top down" are relative contexts of interpretation where there is no justification, without circularity or assumption, that one is better than the other.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Hallucinations exist.
2. All existence has an element of truth in it by the very fact it exists.
3. Hallucinations contain an element of truth in them.

Then calling them hallucinations is misleading. There can be a meaningful distinction between perceptions we call hallucinations and those we don't. Even here you chose to write those 3 lines and not others, assuming that those three lines were less hallucinatory than other lines you did not or would not write.

Hallucinations mimic some truths and as mimicing some truths contain elements of truth within them. The reflection of "x" in a mirror is "x" from a different context.

[Iwannaplato]

1. Hallucinations exist.
2. All existence has an element of truth in it by the very fact it exists.
3. Hallucinations contain an element of truth in them.

Then calling them hallucinations is misleading. There can be a meaningful distinction between perceptions we call hallucinations and those we don't. Even here you chose to write those 3 lines and not others, assuming that those three lines were less hallucinatory than other lines you did not or would not write.

Hallucinations mimic some truths and as mimicing some truths contain elements of truth within them. The reflection of "x" in a mirror is "x" from a different context.

Is the information you just gave me less of a hallucination and containing more truths than other statements?

[Eodnhoj7]

Then calling them hallucinations is misleading. There can be a meaningful distinction between perceptions we call hallucinations and those we don't. Even here you chose to write those 3 lines and not others, assuming that those three lines were less hallucinatory than other lines you did not or would not write.

Hallucinations mimic some truths and as mimicing some truths contain elements of truth within them. The reflection of "x" in a mirror is "x" from a different context.

Is the information you just gave me less of a hallucination and containing more truths than other statements?

Does it matter if it contains truth?

[Iwannaplato]

Hallucinations mimic some truths and as mimicing some truths contain elements of truth within them. The reflection of "x" in a mirror is "x" from a different context.

Is the information you just gave me less of a hallucination and containing more truths than other statements?

Does it matter if it contains truth?

Is the information you just gave me less of a hallucination and containing more truths than other statements?
I'll answer your question if you've answered mine.
And matter to whom?

[Fja1]

What the tortoise said to Achilles

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is only your 'bottom-up' that you engaged an infinite regress.

My 'top-down' [empirical plus philosophical reasonings] approach do not entail any infinite regress at all.

1. The infinite regress/progress is realistic as "Now" is continuous and without end or beginning.

2. Without infinite regress your FSK not only is founded in nothing but is circular in rationale.

3. "Bottom up" and "top down" are relative contexts of interpretation where there is no justification, without circularity or assumption, that one is better than the other.
[/quote]
The "top down" approach merely focus on the empirical and as far as evidence can go with support of philosophical reasonings. Thus there is no concern with the possibility of any infinite regress.

The scientific FSK relies on the top-down approach without concern for any infinite regress.
The scientific FSK is the most credible/reliable FSK at present.
If you condemn a top-down approach without infinite regress, it imply you are condemning the scientific FSK?
That is irrational because the pros of the scientific FSK has proven to outweigh it cons.

1. The infinite regress/progress is realistic as "Now" is continuous and without end or beginning.

But that you believe there is an absolutely-absolute means you are putting an end to the infinite regress, i.e. the first cause.

Btw, I don't have an issue with an infinite regress, i.e. it can go on forever providing there is no end to it.
However whatever is conceivable reality is limited to the scientific FSK [mathematics and others] which are conditioned upon human conditions, thus can never be absolute, i.e. absolute independent existing by itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the information you just gave me less of a hallucination and containing more truths than other statements?

Does it matter if it contains truth?

Is the information you just gave me less of a hallucination and containing more truths than other statements?
I'll answer your question if you've answered mine.
And matter to whom?

Relatively one truth is always greater or lesser than another depending on what the truth is relative too.

Absolutely speaking one truth always exists as part of the whole; what exists as a part always exists as a part because of the whole.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is only your 'bottom-up' that you engaged an infinite regress.

My 'top-down' [empirical plus philosophical reasonings] approach do not entail any infinite regress at all.

1. The infinite regress/progress is realistic as "Now" is continuous and without end or beginning.

2. Without infinite regress your FSK not only is founded in nothing but is circular in rationale.

3. "Bottom up" and "top down" are relative contexts of interpretation where there is no justification, without circularity or assumption, that one is better than the other.

The "top down" approach merely focus on the empirical and as far as evidence can go with support of philosophical reasonings. Thus there is no concern with the possibility of any infinite regress.

The scientific FSK relies on the top-down approach without concern for any infinite regress.
The scientific FSK is the most credible/reliable FSK at present.
If you condemn a top-down approach without infinite regress, it imply you are condemning the scientific FSK?
That is irrational because the pros of the scientific FSK has proven to outweigh it cons.

1. The infinite regress/progress is realistic as "Now" is continuous and without end or beginning.

But that you believe there is an absolutely-absolute means you are putting an end to the infinite regress, i.e. the first cause.

Btw, I don't have an issue with an infinite regress, i.e. it can go on forever providing there is no end to it.
However whatever is conceivable reality is limited to the scientific FSK [mathematics and others] which are conditioned upon human conditions, thus can never be absolute, i.e. absolute independent existing by itself.
[/quote]

1. The fact that infinite regress is a possibility occurs because the concept of infinite regress emerges from reality.

2. Credibility is relative thus falsifiable under different contexts, as such the scientific FSK is falsifiable.

3. "Pros outweighing the cons" is a relative statement thus follows point 2.

4. The totality of reality exists by itself and is inconceivable, as it is formless, due to its absence of contrast.

[Iwannaplato]

Relatively one truth is always greater or lesser than another depending on what the truth is relative too.

Well, there you go. So, some things are less hallucination than others. We can be polemical and say all is hallucination, to point to something, to provoke. And this can be useful. But in the end some statements contain more truth and some provocations lead to more truth. If all was mere hallucination, there would be no point bothering with more than gibberish. Probably better to do something then communicate. Plant some trees help yourself or someone else.

Yes, it matters to me if there is some truth 'in' a statement or 'in' the process of the dialogue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. The fact that infinite regress is a possibility occurs because the concept of infinite regress emerges from reality.

In a way, but it emerges out of a psychological delusion.
You can think of a square-circle and insist it exists as real, but that is due to being delusional.
It is the same with the idea of an infinite regress.

2. Credibility is relative thus falsifiable under different contexts, as such the scientific FSK is falsifiable.

3. "Pros outweighing the cons" is a relative statement thus follows point 2.

Yes, relative but you don't seem to appreciate it is favorable that pros outweigh the cons in its contribution to the well-being of humanity.

4. The totality of reality exists by itself and is inconceivable, as it is formless, due to its absence of contrast.

Again this is merely a thought without substance.
Such a thought perhaps is currently in a state of net-pros, e.g. believing in a illusory God has its pros psychologically relative to the beastly psychological states we are in.
But such delusions of an inconceivable things is trending towards a net-cons as such, it being irrational should be weaned off.

[Eodnhoj7]

Relatively one truth is always greater or lesser than another depending on what the truth is relative too.

Well, there you go. So, some things are less hallucination than others. We can be polemical and say all is hallucination, to point to something, to provoke. And this can be useful. But in the end some statements contain more truth and some provocations lead to more truth. If all was mere hallucination, there would be no point bothering with more than gibberish. Probably better to do something then communicate. Plant some trees help yourself or someone else.

Yes, it matters to me if there is some truth 'in' a statement or 'in' the process of the dialogue.

"Greater" or "lesser" always exists for every truth when compared to the vastness of contexts in which exists; a truth is always greater/lesser simultaneously.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. The fact that infinite regress is a possibility occurs because the concept of infinite regress emerges from reality.

In a way, but it emerges out of a psychological delusion.
You can think of a square-circle and insist it exists as real, but that is due to being delusional.
It is the same with the idea of an infinite regress.

2. Credibility is relative thus falsifiable under different contexts, as such the scientific FSK is falsifiable.

3. "Pros outweighing the cons" is a relative statement thus follows point 2.

Yes, relative but you don't seem to appreciate it is favorable that pros outweigh the cons in its contribution to the well-being of humanity.

4. The totality of reality exists by itself and is inconceivable, as it is formless, due to its absence of contrast.

Again this is merely a thought without substance.
Such a thought perhaps is currently in a state of net-pros, e.g. believing in a illusory God has its pros psychologically relative to the beastly psychological states we are in.
But such delusions of an inconceivable things is trending towards a net-cons as such, it being irrational should be weaned off.

1. Delusions are a part of reality thus an extension of it, as extensions they exist as phenomena.

2. Finiteness can be considered a delusion given the beginning/ending of phenomena are the product of conception and there are no boundaries on conception.

3. Contribution is relative and as such is falsifiable. One contributes to some does not contribute to others. For example, science is meaningful to some but not to others, such as the artist.

4. Substance is relative as what is substantial to some is not to others. 100 dollars is substantial to the poor man but not to the rich man.