The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
2. The brain studies the brain.
3. "All utterances of the brain are hallucinations" is a hallucination.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Angelo Cannata »

There are errors.

First thing: you can talk about hallucination only after it happened, not in the meanwhile. In the meanwhile, either there is not hallucination, or you are talking from inside the hallucination; if you are talking from inside the hallucination, then you cannot talk about it, because you are already a victim of it; if you are able to talk about hallucination, this is evidence that there is no hallucination. So, hallucination can be only something that either was of will be; never something that is.

This makes impossible point n.3: if all utterances are hallucinations, then nobody is able to identify hallucinations, to talk about them, because we are all already victims of it.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Iwannaplato »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:30 am 1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
2. The brain studies the brain.
3. "All utterances of the brain are hallucinations" is a hallucination.
What makes you think your hallucinations are relevant for other minds?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:30 am 1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
2. The brain studies the brain.
3. "All utterances of the brain are hallucinations" is a hallucination.
Your post is incoherent.

I have argued
There is no Absolutely Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

Recently we are discussing, all are conditioned upon a specific FSK;
No-thing is absolute
viewtopic.php?p=573860#p573860

As such the following is conditioned upon a specific FSK, where the author is relying upon the scientific FSK;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Thus your
1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
must be conditioned upon a FSK but you did not qualify are claiming it is absolute.
Before your one can be valid, you need to qualify its conditional FSK, else your 1 is baseless and thus the conclusion.

2. The brain studies the brain.
It is the self and whole person that studies the brain.

In the qualified claim;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
There is conscious reality but the claim is, from one FSK perspective, this conscious reality is a hallucination [H] as qualified not an absolute-hallucination.

This hallucination-H [realistic and useful in another qualified perspective] is not the hallucination that are experienced by those suffering from schizophrenia or other mental illness.

Your OP is utterly incoherent most likely from some kind of quite-useless-hallucination.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by trokanmariel »

Hallucination meta:

The bridging ideology, i.e. emotion to supermarket containing geography is capitalism fusing with sunlight's own (a Lia Haddock edit, from Limetown) apparatus, can be an orientation to text over imagination matter. One says this, in the context of computation aristocracy's edition of socialism to absence of proof relative to face sociology's dependence on apparatus (Megan Fox's idea, from her time in the kitchen of JB).

Orientation to text, instead of imagination matter: by this, one means the writing is from sex-visual word (examples of visual words being sociology, sex, Mary Heath's rose) paradigm, being translated onto the speed using concentration democracy's hiding from aforementioned dependence on apparatus.

The abstract war blueprint, of all chronologies following the misappropriation of self-awareness; is the condition, of the symmetry between the war blueprint and everyday sociology content (examples being writing books, watching the TV, baiting through mutual awareness, taking part in sports) able to allow the free algebra physics connective tissue, to self-utilise its harddrive of daylight as mediator ideology outer space, in order to activate the living condition of typing as storytelling.

Typing as storytelling: it's a freedom, indeed, which is perhaps why it's the true definition of singularity (Barlow from 1979 says well done).

Again, typing as story. The symmetry hardcore, of typing (an Angela Bennett from The Net ethos), knocked against the wall by the interference from outside sociology maze as metaphor to metaphor rival to typing's hardcore, must be allowed to be a similar heroism of overcome relative to the orientation to text instead of imagination matter by Dex's (Infinity's).

To clarify:
Why is typing the true one?
The sound, for one, is the reason. It is a speed sound, as conjunction of meaning that's a parallel to visual word ideology.
And now, there is I suppose the detachment by typing from the concentration/speed alliance to harm mutual awareness, despite and not in light of demonic's ideas' (Christian Camargo's) original invitation of mutual awareness ideology, and onto the bridge of concentration to concentration alliance as left to right hang on as saving method of original force (Sarah Greene + Ethan Chandler).

However: can this force, the left to right edition of concentration to concentration also serve as a back up base, for the loneliness of political concentration sounds, vocalised coherently, and part of the pendulum negative as continuum to the left to right saving's method.

At this juncture, I need to focus on Bennett's art face sociology (a Barolo Xylie creation), from when she uses her computer as a normal reality. The up close image.

The mutual awareness demonic's intolerance, of Actual mistake logistics using the typing as singularity (the involvement by Actual mistake being down to the non-accommodation by typing's meta relative to the act's non-possession of slot to slot democracy), can be the deconstruction meaning of Bennett's face sociology - Up Twat.

Up Twat, is an obvious gift by body glamour, but, is it a defeat through parallel to Thomas Heath's sex to vindication appropriation from body glamour's writing is from sex ideology.

For further examination:
a pendulum negative's continuum of left to right; in writing it, I was able to resist the writing through the negative as absent imagination meta, meaning that I was able to just see the word.

A visual word, whose essence has no imagination. It being negative, is this a Barolo Xylie imagination?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:05 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:30 am 1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
2. The brain studies the brain.
3. "All utterances of the brain are hallucinations" is a hallucination.
What makes you think your hallucinations are relevant for other minds?
Hallucinations are a condition for other minds given in the example of a hallucinating person committing actions that affect another person who is not hallucinating. As such all hallucinations contain a degree of truth in the respect they exist and existence is truth.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:30 am 1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
2. The brain studies the brain.
3. "All utterances of the brain are hallucinations" is a hallucination.
Your post is incoherent.

I have argued
There is no Absolutely Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

Recently we are discussing, all are conditioned upon a specific FSK;
No-thing is absolute
viewtopic.php?p=573860#p573860

As such the following is conditioned upon a specific FSK, where the author is relying upon the scientific FSK;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Thus your
1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
must be conditioned upon a FSK but you did not qualify are claiming it is absolute.
Before your one can be valid, you need to qualify its conditional FSK, else your 1 is baseless and thus the conclusion.

2. The brain studies the brain.
It is the self and whole person that studies the brain.

In the qualified claim;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
There is conscious reality but the claim is, from one FSK perspective, this conscious reality is a hallucination [H] as qualified not an absolute-hallucination.

This hallucination-H [realistic and useful in another qualified perspective] is not the hallucination that are experienced by those suffering from schizophrenia or other mental illness.

Your OP is utterly incoherent most likely from some kind of quite-useless-hallucination.
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.

3. To qualify a statement, which is an FSK as it is definition, is to require a further FSK then a further FSK and we are left with an infinite regress. To stop this infinite regress there is a point in which the FSK must be resulting from nothing.

4. The FSK referencing another FSK referencing another FSK makes "FSK" utterly incoherent.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:30 am 1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
2. The brain studies the brain.
3. "All utterances of the brain are hallucinations" is a hallucination.
Your post is incoherent.

I have argued
There is no Absolutely Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

Recently we are discussing, all are conditioned upon a specific FSK;
No-thing is absolute
viewtopic.php?p=573860#p573860

As such the following is conditioned upon a specific FSK, where the author is relying upon the scientific FSK;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Thus your
1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
must be conditioned upon a FSK but you did not qualify are claiming it is absolute.
Before your one can be valid, you need to qualify its conditional FSK, else your 1 is baseless and thus the conclusion.

2. The brain studies the brain.
It is the self and whole person that studies the brain.

In the qualified claim;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
There is conscious reality but the claim is, from one FSK perspective, this conscious reality is a hallucination [H] as qualified not an absolute-hallucination.

This hallucination-H [realistic and useful in another qualified perspective] is not the hallucination that are experienced by those suffering from schizophrenia or other mental illness.

Your OP is utterly incoherent most likely from some kind of quite-useless-hallucination.
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.

3. To qualify a statement, which is an FSK as it is definition, is to require a further FSK then a further FSK and we are left with an infinite regress. To stop this infinite regress there is a point in which the FSK must be resulting from nothing.

4. The FSK referencing another FSK referencing another FSK makes "FSK" utterly incoherent.
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.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Dimebag »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:30 am 1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
2. The brain studies the brain.
3. "All utterances of the brain are hallucinations" is a hallucination.
You have discovered the paradoxical power of self reference.

Run this through your logic:
“This statement is false”

The trick lies not so much in the brain, but in self reference itself, which, it seems, the brain is actually a master of.

At the heart of ourself lies paradox, so it’s no surprise we find paradox at the deepest places we look.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Iwannaplato »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:18 am Hallucinations are a condition for other minds given in the example of a hallucinating person committing actions that affect another person who is not hallucinating. As such all hallucinations contain a degree of truth in the respect they exist and existence is truth.
But we might not be hallucinating, if we exist. You might be the only mind with a problem.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Dimebag wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 8:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:30 am 1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
2. The brain studies the brain.
3. "All utterances of the brain are hallucinations" is a hallucination.
You have discovered the paradoxical power of self reference.

Run this through your logic:
“This statement is false”

The trick lies not so much in the brain, but in self reference itself, which, it seems, the brain is actually a master of.

At the heart of ourself lies paradox, so it’s no surprise we find paradox at the deepest places we look.
Yes.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 2:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:18 am Hallucinations are a condition for other minds given in the example of a hallucinating person committing actions that affect another person who is not hallucinating. As such all hallucinations contain a degree of truth in the respect they exist and existence is truth.
But we might not be hallucinating, if we exist. You might be the only mind with a problem.
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.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:46 am
Your post is incoherent.

I have argued
There is no Absolutely Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

Recently we are discussing, all are conditioned upon a specific FSK;
No-thing is absolute
viewtopic.php?p=573860#p573860

As such the following is conditioned upon a specific FSK, where the author is relying upon the scientific FSK;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Thus your
1. All utterances of the brain are hallucinations.
must be conditioned upon a FSK but you did not qualify are claiming it is absolute.
Before your one can be valid, you need to qualify its conditional FSK, else your 1 is baseless and thus the conclusion.

2. The brain studies the brain.
It is the self and whole person that studies the brain.

In the qualified claim;
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
There is conscious reality but the claim is, from one FSK perspective, this conscious reality is a hallucination [H] as qualified not an absolute-hallucination.

This hallucination-H [realistic and useful in another qualified perspective] is not the hallucination that are experienced by those suffering from schizophrenia or other mental illness.

Your OP is utterly incoherent most likely from some kind of quite-useless-hallucination.
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.

3. To qualify a statement, which is an FSK as it is definition, is to require a further FSK then a further FSK and we are left with an infinite regress. To stop this infinite regress there is a point in which the FSK must be resulting from nothing.

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




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.


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.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Iwannaplato »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:15 pm 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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Hallucination that Everything is a Hallucination

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:58 am 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.
Post Reply