Protagoras vs Socrates

[Eodnhoj7]

When I ask for proof or at least a basis of proof that that-which-exists-beyond-man as real, you give all sort of excuses.

What you are heading towards is infinite regression and thus an inherent cognitive dissonance which forces you for consonance thus forcing something ultimate as real to be the final beyond.

Note I posted this somewhere;

The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

You should consider the more realistic answer to the 'why' of the above desperation to find the ultimate cause, i.e. it is purely psychological, i.e. evolutionary psychology.

Note Michael Shermer, if you read his book,
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
you will get a clue why people are so desperate to jump [blindly and hastily] on what is the ultimate cause or origin of reality.

Total proof of anything is impossible as proof requires some other proof beyond it which is unproven. At best proof is definition.

I did not ask for total proof.
I asked for conventional proofs based on the empirical and the philosophical, e.g. on a scientific basis.

I stated if you cannot produce empirical evidences now, then demonstrate to me that-which-exists-beyond-man is empirically possible.
Example, I don't have evidence now but I believe [a hypothesis] human-liked aliens exists in a Planet 100 light years away. This is empirically possible because the bolded variables are empirically true, thus the hypothesis is empirically possible.

1. That which exists as beyond man is possible given man and his interpretations are no thing in themselves.

2. God cannot be scientifically proven as one definition of God is derived from God's untestability. "You shall not test the Lord your God. To scientifically prove God exists is to limit him to a testable framework thus necessitating God as subservient to the framework, thus not God, while raising the framework to a state of God. God can neither be scientifically proven or disproven. To make God testable is to negate the very definition of God one seeks to prove.

3. Unscientifically the proof of God is in the totality of being.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Total proof of anything is impossible as proof requires some other proof beyond it which is unproven. At best proof is definition.

I did not ask for total proof.
I asked for conventional proofs based on the empirical and the philosophical, e.g. on a scientific basis.

I stated if you cannot produce empirical evidences now, then demonstrate to me that-which-exists-beyond-man is empirically possible.
Example, I don't have evidence now but I believe [a hypothesis] human-liked aliens exists in a Planet 100 light years away. This is empirically possible because the bolded variables are empirically true, thus the hypothesis is empirically possible.

1. That which exists as beyond man is possible given man and his interpretations are no thing in themselves.

As stated above, they are possible as long as they are empirically-possible.

2. God cannot be scientifically proven as one definition of God is derived from God's untestability. "You shall not test the Lord your God. To scientifically prove God exists is to limit him to a testable framework thus necessitating God as subservient to the framework, thus not God, while raising the framework to a state of God. God can neither be scientifically proven or disproven. To make God testable is to negate the very definition of God one seeks to prove.

3. Unscientifically the proof of God is in the totality of being.

That is the point, not subjecting God to a scientific test is merely an escape from reality into the illusory world.

To insist God cannot be tested unscientifcally at all but yet real is delusional.

God as the totality of being in a totally unconditional state is an impossible to be empirically real.
The idea of God can be a real-thought but not a real thing that can be thought of.

Note the problem from another perspective;
The fact why you are so desperate in reifying what-is-empirically-impossible [merely a thought] as an empirical possibility [a real object] is due to some internal existential psychology.
You should research this primal psychological impulse within yourself instead of arguing for it and making so much irrational noises about it.
You cannot deny all the above thinking and speculation is confined totally within your human brain, mind and body.
Non-humans do not speculate on the above.
Can you counter this point?

[Eodnhoj7]

I did not ask for total proof.
I asked for conventional proofs based on the empirical and the philosophical, e.g. on a scientific basis.

I stated if you cannot produce empirical evidences now, then demonstrate to me that-which-exists-beyond-man is empirically possible.
Example, I don't have evidence now but I believe [a hypothesis] human-liked aliens exists in a Planet 100 light years away. This is empirically possible because the bolded variables are empirically true, thus the hypothesis is empirically possible.

1. That which exists as beyond man is possible given man and his interpretations are no thing in themselves.

As stated above, they are possible as long as they are empirically-possible.

Yet empiricism is grounded in time, what may not be observable now may be observable in the future. Dually empiricism is empty in itself. You cannot empirically prove empiricism without relying on something non empirical, such as number, to justify it.

2. God cannot be scientifically proven as one definition of God is derived from God's untestability. "You shall not test the Lord your God. To scientifically prove God exists is to limit him to a testable framework thus necessitating God as subservient to the framework, thus not God, while raising the framework to a state of God. God can neither be scientifically proven or disproven. To make God testable is to negate the very definition of God one seeks to prove.

3. Unscientifically the proof of God is in the totality of being.

That is the point, not subjecting God to a scientific test is merely an escape from reality into the illusory world.

Provide a test that all empirical reality can be tested. It can't.



To insist God cannot be tested unscientifcally at all but yet real is delusional.

God as the totality of being in a totally unconditional state is an impossible to be empirically real.
The idea of God can be a real-thought but not a real thing that can be thought of.

The totality of matter is not empirically real, yet matter is used as the assumed starting point of any given scientific test.

Note the problem from another perspective;
The fact why you are so desperate in reifying what-is-empirically-impossible [merely a thought] as an empirical possibility [a real object] is due to some internal existential psychology.
You should research this primal psychological impulse within yourself instead of arguing for it and making so much irrational noises about it.
You cannot deny all the above thinking and speculation is confined totally within your human brain, mind and body.
Non-humans do not speculate on the above.
Can you counter this point?

Yet the internal existential crisis is argued as a real empirical phenomenon yet no proof for this occurs. Provide a test which proves it is limited merely to human thought. How do you test what constitutes a crisis and which does not without using an assumption? You cannot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. That which exists as beyond man is possible given man and his interpretations are no thing in themselves.

As stated above, they are possible as long as they are empirically-possible.

Yet empiricism is grounded in time, what may not be observable now may be observable in the future. Dually empiricism is empty in itself. You cannot empirically prove empiricism without relying on something non empirical, such as number, to justify it.

2. God cannot be scientifically proven as one definition of God is derived from God's untestability. "You shall not test the Lord your God. To scientifically prove God exists is to limit him to a testable framework thus necessitating God as subservient to the framework, thus not God, while raising the framework to a state of God. God can neither be scientifically proven or disproven. To make God testable is to negate the very definition of God one seeks to prove.

3. Unscientifically the proof of God is in the totality of being.

That is the point, not subjecting God to a scientific test is merely an escape from reality into the illusory world.

Provide a test that all empirical reality can be tested. It can't.



To insist God cannot be tested unscientifcally at all but yet real is delusional.

God as the totality of being in a totally unconditional state is an impossible to be empirically real.
The idea of God can be a real-thought but not a real thing that can be thought of.

The totality of matter is not empirically real, yet matter is used as the assumed starting point of any given scientific test.

Note the problem from another perspective;
The fact why you are so desperate in reifying what-is-empirically-impossible [merely a thought] as an empirical possibility [a real object] is due to some internal existential psychology.
You should research this primal psychological impulse within yourself instead of arguing for it and making so much irrational noises about it.
You cannot deny all the above thinking and speculation is confined totally within your human brain, mind and body.
Non-humans do not speculate on the above.
Can you counter this point?

Yet the internal existential crisis is argued as a real empirical phenomenon yet no proof for this occurs. Provide a test which proves it is limited merely to human thought. How do you test what constitutes a crisis and which does not without using an assumption? You cannot.

Are you claiming you and all normal humans will not be automatically triggered with fear [emotion] upon an immediate threat of being torture to death?
Surely you are not that ignorant?

This real fear upon the threat of death will reverberate throughout your system, i.e. external and internal.
The fact of mortality is fed to your subconscious [90% more powerful] by your conscious mind [10%], thus automatically triggering fears at the subconscious level leading to the existential crisis.

It is this existential crisis is driving you to churn out your illusory 'that which is beyond man' or a God, as a consonance to soothe the arising dissonance.
The same psychological process is pulsing within all theists that drive them to the arms of a God for their salvation.

[Eodnhoj7]

As stated above, they are possible as long as they are empirically-possible.

Yet empiricism is grounded in time, what may not be observable now may be observable in the future. Dually empiricism is empty in itself. You cannot empirically prove empiricism without relying on something non empirical, such as number, to justify it.


That is the point, not subjecting God to a scientific test is merely an escape from reality into the illusory world.

Provide a test that all empirical reality can be tested. It can't.



To insist God cannot be tested unscientifcally at all but yet real is delusional.

God as the totality of being in a totally unconditional state is an impossible to be empirically real.
The idea of God can be a real-thought but not a real thing that can be thought of.

The totality of matter is not empirically real, yet matter is used as the assumed starting point of any given scientific test.

Note the problem from another perspective;
The fact why you are so desperate in reifying what-is-empirically-impossible [merely a thought] as an empirical possibility [a real object] is due to some internal existential psychology.
You should research this primal psychological impulse within yourself instead of arguing for it and making so much irrational noises about it.
You cannot deny all the above thinking and speculation is confined totally within your human brain, mind and body.
Non-humans do not speculate on the above.
Can you counter this point?

Yet the internal existential crisis is argued as a real empirical phenomenon yet no proof for this occurs. Provide a test which proves it is limited merely to human thought. How do you test what constitutes a crisis and which does not without using an assumption? You cannot.

Are you claiming you and all normal humans will not be automatically triggered with fear [emotion] upon an immediate threat of being torture to death?
Surely you are not that ignorant?

This real fear upon the threat of death will reverberate throughout your system, i.e. external and internal.
The fact of mortality is fed to your subconscious [90% more powerful] by your conscious mind [10%], thus automatically triggering fears at the subconscious level leading to the existential crisis.

It is this existential crisis is driving you to churn out your illusory 'that which is beyond man' or a God, as a consonance to soothe the arising dissonance.
The same psychological process is pulsing within all theists that drive them to the arms of a God for their salvation.

How do you empirically test a mere thought process?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you claiming you and all normal humans will not be automatically triggered with fear [emotion] upon an immediate threat of being torture to death?
Surely you are not that ignorant?

This real fear upon the threat of death will reverberate throughout your system, i.e. external and internal.
The fact of mortality is fed to your subconscious [90% more powerful] by your conscious mind [10%], thus automatically triggering fears at the subconscious level leading to the existential crisis.

It is this existential crisis is driving you to churn out your illusory 'that which is beyond man' or a God, as a consonance to soothe the arising dissonance.
The same psychological process is pulsing within all theists that drive them to the arms of a God for their salvation.

How do you empirically test a mere thought process?

This is already done within psychology, neuropsychology and the various neurosciences.

Crudely, you can use alcohol, drugs and other means to vary a person's thought process.
Scientists has also change a person thought process by triggering specific areas of the brain with electrodes.

There are already tons of research and experiments that had been done on this subject.

You research and show me why it is impossible to test a mere thought process.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you claiming you and all normal humans will not be automatically triggered with fear [emotion] upon an immediate threat of being torture to death?
Surely you are not that ignorant?

This real fear upon the threat of death will reverberate throughout your system, i.e. external and internal.
The fact of mortality is fed to your subconscious [90% more powerful] by your conscious mind [10%], thus automatically triggering fears at the subconscious level leading to the existential crisis.

It is this existential crisis is driving you to churn out your illusory 'that which is beyond man' or a God, as a consonance to soothe the arising dissonance.
The same psychological process is pulsing within all theists that drive them to the arms of a God for their salvation.

How do you empirically test a mere thought process?

This is already done within psychology, neuropsychology and the various neurosciences.

Crudely, you can use alcohol, drugs and other means to vary a person's thought process.
Scientists has also change a person thought process by triggering specific areas of the brain with electrodes.

There are already tons of research and experiments that had been done on this subject.

You research and show me why it is impossible to test a mere thought process.

Because a single thought cannot be empirically proven, an example of this is the number 1. The thought process can be changed but the thought itself cannot be proven as a real entity. You cannot point to a single thought without pointing to the neurons but you would have to point to the neurons responsible for the study of neurons and this is not done. Reducing thoughts to neurons is to reduce one thought about neurons to another thought. Neurons are a classification resulting from thought.

Thoughts are not empirical entities. There is no series of neurons responsible for the number 1.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How do you empirically test a mere thought process?

This is already done within psychology, neuropsychology and the various neurosciences.

Crudely, you can use alcohol, drugs and other means to vary a person's thought process.
Scientists has also change a person thought process by triggering specific areas of the brain with electrodes.

There are already tons of research and experiments that had been done on this subject.

You research and show me why it is impossible to test a mere thought process.

Because a single thought cannot be empirically proven, an example of this is the number 1. The thought process can be changed but the thought itself cannot be proven as a real entity. You cannot point to a single thought without pointing to the neurons but you would have to point to the neurons responsible for the study of neurons and this is not done. Reducing thoughts to neurons is to reduce one thought about neurons to another thought. Neurons are a classification resulting from thought.

Thoughts are not empirical entities. There is no series of neurons responsible for the number 1.

You missed the point.

I did not claim we can identify different numbers [1, 2, 3, 10,000 ] to a precise specific thought activity down to the specific individual neuron.

What is a thought-process [of a single or many thoughts] is represented by a set of neural activities within the brain in connection to the whole body.
This can be confirmed by imagings of neural activities in the specific parts of the brain. Currently neuroscientists are getting more precise to track various thought-process to specific types of thoughts.
Note the Human Connectome Project
see: http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Anyway there is no such thing as an absolute single-thought.

Suggest you increase your research into a more broader range of subjects especially those related to your own internal mechanisms in the brain/mind.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is already done within psychology, neuropsychology and the various neurosciences.

Crudely, you can use alcohol, drugs and other means to vary a person's thought process.
Scientists has also change a person thought process by triggering specific areas of the brain with electrodes.

There are already tons of research and experiments that had been done on this subject.

You research and show me why it is impossible to test a mere thought process.

Because a single thought cannot be empirically proven, an example of this is the number 1. The thought process can be changed but the thought itself cannot be proven as a real entity. You cannot point to a single thought without pointing to the neurons but you would have to point to the neurons responsible for the study of neurons and this is not done. Reducing thoughts to neurons is to reduce one thought about neurons to another thought. Neurons are a classification resulting from thought.

Thoughts are not empirical entities. There is no series of neurons responsible for the number 1.

You missed the point.

I did not claim we can identify different numbers [1, 2, 3, 10,000 ] to a precise specific thought activity down to the specific individual neuron.

What is a thought-process [of a single or many thoughts] is represented by a set of neural activities within the brain in connection to the whole body.
This can be confirmed by imagings of neural activities in the specific parts of the brain. Currently neuroscientists are getting more precise to track various thought-process to specific types of thoughts.
Note the Human Connectome Project
see: http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Anyway there is no such thing as an absolute single-thought.

Suggest you increase your research into a more broader range of subjects especially those related to your own internal mechanisms in the brain/mind.

You missed the point, a thought such as the number one cannot be localized yet exists a real. It cannot be empirically proven yet is used to prove an empirical phenomenon as true.

The single thought is a point of change to further thoughts, for example the one and the number line as succession of one.

"There is no absolute single thought" is a single absolute thought.

Being is an absolute single thought as all other thoughts from it are being itself.