Empiricism Leaves All Illusions as True

[Eodnhoj7]

If psychology is grounded in what composes it materially, according to the stance of materialism then the illusion is a by product of matter and is empirical. If it is empirical, then according to empiricism it is true.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If psychology is grounded in what composes it materially, according to your stance then the illusion is a by product of matter and is empirical. If it is empirical, then according to empiricism it is true.

How come you are so ignorant of the above?

Surely you know, the mental activities of projecting an illusion [an image in the brain not represented by a real external referent] are real.
But what is claimed of whatthe illusion is supposed to represent, is not real.

Note the example of the illusion of "seeing" a mirage in desert.
We know, what is real is the mental activities in the brain, but the supposed "oasis" that is 'seen' is not a real thing.
Those real mental activities causing the illusion can be verify via brain imagings and neural activities.
However when verified there is no empirical evidence for the "real oasis" [the illusion] at the specific location in the desert the "oasis" is supposed to be.

The above type of illusion is generally physical.

However in your case re the 'thing-in-itself' beyond man is a kind of non-physical illusion involving merely the messed-up of thoughts.
Your insistence upon the 'thing-in-itself beyond man' is real is merely an illusion and there like a physical illusion there is no way you can empirically and philosophically verify and justify it is real.
This illusion is due to the psychological drive to reify the illusory as something real.

At least in the case of the claim of seeing an oasis at a distance in a desert, it could be confirm as either really real or a mirage when we verify it as the location because an oasis is an empirically possible.

In the case of 'thing-in-itself beyond man' it is an empirical impossibility, thus there is no way to verify and justify it empirically and philosophically.
However we can confirm by reason it is a mental illusion driven by certain psychological forces, where else, if not from one's own brain.

Btw, scientists can induce the thought of 'things-in-themselves beyond man' with drugs and psychedelics. The mentally-ill and brain-damage can also sense such 'things-in-themselves beyond man.' These are all recognized as illusions and they disappear when the known stimuli that trigger them are removed.

[Skepdick]

If psychology is grounded in what composes it materially, according to your stance then the illusion is a by product of matter and is empirical. If it is empirical, then according to empiricism it is true.

Obviously. Every assertion is true within the reference frame in which it is made, but this is moot because such truths are very particular to individuals and their circumstances.

empiricism/science's primary concern is the generalizability of particular truths.

Take a phenomenon that you are experiencing (true for sample size of 1)
See if the phenomenon persists across other humans and contexts (true for sample size of n)
See if the phenomenon persists outside the confines of a laboratory (true outside of a well-controlled environment)

If it survives, then it means you have a "general truth". Those are (apparently) quite useful.

[Eodnhoj7]

If psychology is grounded in what composes it materially, according to your stance then the illusion is a by product of matter and is empirical. If it is empirical, then according to empiricism it is true.

How come you are so ignorant of the above?

Surely you know, the mental activities of projecting an illusion [an image in the brain not represented by a real external referent] are real.
But what is claimed of whatthe illusion is supposed to represent, is not real.

Then matter and what is empirical results in illusion. The same standard for measuring truth, matter, is the same standard for illusion. The standard contradicts itself.

Note the example of the illusion of "seeing" a mirage in desert.
We know, what is real is the mental activities in the brain, but the supposed "oasis" that is 'seen' is not a real thing.
Those real mental activities causing the illusion can be verify via brain imagings and neural activities.
However when verified there is no empirical evidence for the "real oasis" [the illusion] at the specific location in the desert the "oasis" is supposed to be.

The above type of illusion is generally physical.

See above.

However in your case re the 'thing-in-itself' beyond man is a kind of non-physical illusion involving merely the messed-up of thoughts.


Yet the messed up thoughts are grounded in a material nature, thus matter divides itself. If all is grounded in an empirical nature then that which grounds the illusion is the same which grounds the truth value.

Your insistence upon the 'thing-in-itself beyond man' is real is merely an illusion and there like a physical illusion there is no way you can empirically and philosophically verify and justify it is real.
This illusion is due to the psychological drive to reify the illusory as something real.

How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?

At least in the case of the claim of seeing an oasis at a distance in a desert, it could be confirm as either really real or a mirage when we verify it as the location because an oasis is an empirically possible.

In the case of 'thing-in-itself beyond man' it is an empirical impossibility, thus there is no way to verify and justify it empirically and philosophically.

False, all empirical objects are empirically justified by something empirical beyond it. The evidence of reality containing no thing in itself necessitates man, as part of this reality, as having that which is beyond it.
However we can confirm by reason it is a mental illusion driven by certain psychological forces, where else, if not from one's own brain.

Prove what constitutes reason empirically. Prove the number 1.

Btw, scientists can induce the thought of 'things-in-themselves beyond man' with drugs and psychedelics. The mentally-ill and brain-damage can also sense such 'things-in-themselves beyond man.' These are all recognized as illusions and they disappear when the known stimuli that trigger them are removed.

Yet belief in a thing beyond man occurs in people with no mental illness or drug use. Dually to argue belief in a higher power is a mental illness creates a logic loop where mental illness is redefined, unempirically, by group agreement as a higher power. Paradoxically this results in interpretation as being a higher power in itself yet the contradiction occurs as no-thing can be higher than man according to your stance.

The intrinsic emptiness of man as a thing in itself necessitates the possibility of something as beyond man.

[Eodnhoj7]

If psychology is grounded in what composes it materially, according to your stance then the illusion is a by product of matter and is empirical. If it is empirical, then according to empiricism it is true.

Obviously. Every assertion is true within the reference frame in which it is made, but this is moot because such truths are very particular to individuals and their circumstances.

empiricism/science's primary concern is the generalizability of particular truths.

Take a phenomenon that you are experiencing (true for sample size of 1)
See if the phenomenon persists across other humans and contexts (true for sample size of n)
See if the phenomenon persists outside the confines of a laboratory (true outside of a well-controlled environment)

If it survives, then it means you have a "general truth". Those are (apparently) quite useful.

The generality of truth requires an agreed upon set of circumstances through which a phenomenon is tested. In shorter terms the test is assumed as the correct quantity and quality of variables as no test occurs for testing itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If psychology is grounded in what composes it materially, according to your stance then the illusion is a by product of matter and is empirical. If it is empirical, then according to empiricism it is true.

How come you are so ignorant of the above?

Surely you know, the mental activities of projecting an illusion [an image in the brain not represented by a real external referent] are real.
But what is claimed of whatthe illusion is supposed to represent, is not real.

Then matter and what is empirical results in illusion. The same standard for measuring truth, matter, is the same standard for illusion. The standard contradicts itself.

Note the example of the illusion of "seeing" a mirage in desert.
We know, what is real is the mental activities in the brain, but the supposed "oasis" that is 'seen' is not a real thing.
Those real mental activities causing the illusion can be verify via brain imagings and neural activities.
However when verified there is no empirical evidence for the "real oasis" [the illusion] at the specific location in the desert the "oasis" is supposed to be.

The above type of illusion is generally physical.

See above.

However in your case re the 'thing-in-itself' beyond man is a kind of non-physical illusion involving merely the messed-up of thoughts.


Yet the messed up thoughts are grounded in a material nature, thus matter divides itself. If all is grounded in an empirical nature then that which grounds the illusion is the same which grounds the truth value.

Your insistence upon the 'thing-in-itself beyond man' is real is merely an illusion and there like a physical illusion there is no way you can empirically and philosophically verify and justify it is real.
This illusion is due to the psychological drive to reify the illusory as something real.

How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?

At least in the case of the claim of seeing an oasis at a distance in a desert, it could be confirm as either really real or a mirage when we verify it as the location because an oasis is an empirically possible.

In the case of 'thing-in-itself beyond man' it is an empirical impossibility, thus there is no way to verify and justify it empirically and philosophically.

False, all empirical objects are empirically justified by something empirical beyond it. The evidence of reality containing no thing in itself necessitates man, as part of this reality, as having that which is beyond it.
However we can confirm by reason it is a mental illusion driven by certain psychological forces, where else, if not from one's own brain.

Prove what constitutes reason empirically. Prove the number 1.

Btw, scientists can induce the thought of 'things-in-themselves beyond man' with drugs and psychedelics. The mentally-ill and brain-damage can also sense such 'things-in-themselves beyond man.' These are all recognized as illusions and they disappear when the known stimuli that trigger them are removed.

The intrinsic emptiness of man as a thing in itself necessitates the possibility of something as beyond man.

Note we are not justifying for things that are absolutely-absolute.

Whatever empirical that is justified as true and real is always conditioned [& qualified] to a framework and system, the scientific framework being the most credible, thus a standard bearer.

In the scientific method, we are relying on verification and justification of the empirical evidences from experiences and observations by humans.
There is no issue with your;
How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?

Yet belief in a thing beyond man occurs in people with no mental illness or drug use.
Dually to argue belief in a higher power is a mental illness creates a logic loop where mental illness is redefined, unempirically, by group agreement as a higher power. Paradoxically this results in interpretation as being a higher power in itself yet the contradiction occurs as no-thing can be higher than man according to your stance.

• The 'mentally ill humans believe in "a thing beyond man'
  When the mentally ill is cured, they do not believe in their "a thing beyond man'
  Thus the "a thing beyond man' the mentally believed was an illusion.
  A majority 'normal' humans believe in "a thing beyond man'
  Therefore that "a thing beyond man' believed by normal humans is an illusion.

Note this mentally ill guy claimed he experienced Jesus and God are really real.
When his mental illness was cured, he did not experience Jesus and God as real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Note this thread
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Therefore the normal person who believe in a God is hallucinating just the same as the mentally ill who believe God is real.
In both cases, they are unable to provide empirical proof of the reality of God.

In all other cases of the claim of reality [albeit are also hallucination of different degrees] they are verified and justified as real based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Thus your "a thing beyond man' is a hallucination, illusion that cannot be justified and verified empirically and philosophically as real.

[Eodnhoj7]

How come you are so ignorant of the above?

Surely you know, the mental activities of projecting an illusion [an image in the brain not represented by a real external referent] are real.
But what is claimed of whatthe illusion is supposed to represent, is not real.

Then matter and what is empirical results in illusion. The same standard for measuring truth, matter, is the same standard for illusion. The standard contradicts itself.

Note the example of the illusion of "seeing" a mirage in desert.
We know, what is real is the mental activities in the brain, but the supposed "oasis" that is 'seen' is not a real thing.
Those real mental activities causing the illusion can be verify via brain imagings and neural activities.
However when verified there is no empirical evidence for the "real oasis" [the illusion] at the specific location in the desert the "oasis" is supposed to be.

The above type of illusion is generally physical.

See above.

However in your case re the 'thing-in-itself' beyond man is a kind of non-physical illusion involving merely the messed-up of thoughts.


Yet the messed up thoughts are grounded in a material nature, thus matter divides itself. If all is grounded in an empirical nature then that which grounds the illusion is the same which grounds the truth value.

Your insistence upon the 'thing-in-itself beyond man' is real is merely an illusion and there like a physical illusion there is no way you can empirically and philosophically verify and justify it is real.
This illusion is due to the psychological drive to reify the illusory as something real.

How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?

At least in the case of the claim of seeing an oasis at a distance in a desert, it could be confirm as either really real or a mirage when we verify it as the location because an oasis is an empirically possible.

In the case of 'thing-in-itself beyond man' it is an empirical impossibility, thus there is no way to verify and justify it empirically and philosophically.

False, all empirical objects are empirically justified by something empirical beyond it. The evidence of reality containing no thing in itself necessitates man, as part of this reality, as having that which is beyond it.
However we can confirm by reason it is a mental illusion driven by certain psychological forces, where else, if not from one's own brain.

Prove what constitutes reason empirically. Prove the number 1.

Btw, scientists can induce the thought of 'things-in-themselves beyond man' with drugs and psychedelics. The mentally-ill and brain-damage can also sense such 'things-in-themselves beyond man.' These are all recognized as illusions and they disappear when the known stimuli that trigger them are removed.

The intrinsic emptiness of man as a thing in itself necessitates the possibility of something as beyond man.

Note we are not justifying for things that are absolutely-absolute.

Whatever empirical that is justified as true and real is always conditioned [& qualified] to a framework and system, the scientific framework being the most credible, thus a standard bearer.

In the scientific method, we are relying on verification and justification of the empirical evidences from experiences and observations by humans.
There is no issue with your;
How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?

Yet belief in a thing beyond man occurs in people with no mental illness or drug use.
Dually to argue belief in a higher power is a mental illness creates a logic loop where mental illness is redefined, unempirically, by group agreement as a higher power. Paradoxically this results in interpretation as being a higher power in itself yet the contradiction occurs as no-thing can be higher than man according to your stance.

• The 'mentally ill humans believe in "a thing beyond man'
  When the mentally ill is cured, they do not believe in their "a thing beyond man'
  Thus the "a thing beyond man' the mentally believed was an illusion.
  A majority 'normal' humans believe in "a thing beyond man'
  Therefore that "a thing beyond man' believed by normal humans is an illusion.

Note this mentally ill guy claimed he experienced Jesus and God are really real.
When his mental illness was cured, he did not experience Jesus and God as real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Note this thread
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Therefore the normal person who believe in a God is hallucinating just the same as the mentally ill who believe God is real.
In both cases, they are unable to provide empirical proof of the reality of God.

In all other cases of the claim of reality [albeit are also hallucination of different degrees] they are verified and justified as real based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Thus your "a thing beyond man' is a hallucination, illusion that cannot be justified and verified empirically and philosophically as real.

To say there is no absolute truth is to state an absolute truth, thus absolute truth exists.

If you have no problem with: "How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?" then by default a contradiction in the original source occurs as the same matter which is responsible for scientific truths is the same matter which is responsible for illusions.

You are defining mental illness as a belief system thus reverting to circular reasoning: only mentally ill people believe in God, belief in God is a mental illness. Yet there is no empirical process for proving a thought process. Mental illness is a classification which is assumed.

The thing beyond man is proven by reason: there is no thing in itself, man is not a thing in itself, thus a thing exists beyond man.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The intrinsic emptiness of man as a thing in itself necessitates the possibility of something as beyond man.

Note we are not justifying for things that are absolutely-absolute.

Whatever empirical that is justified as true and real is always conditioned [& qualified] to a framework and system, the scientific framework being the most credible, thus a standard bearer.

In the scientific method, we are relying on verification and justification of the empirical evidences from experiences and observations by humans.
There is no issue with your;
How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?

Yet belief in a thing beyond man occurs in people with no mental illness or drug use.
Dually to argue belief in a higher power is a mental illness creates a logic loop where mental illness is redefined, unempirically, by group agreement as a higher power. Paradoxically this results in interpretation as being a higher power in itself yet the contradiction occurs as no-thing can be higher than man according to your stance.

• The 'mentally ill humans believe in "a thing beyond man'
  When the mentally ill is cured, they do not believe in their "a thing beyond man'
  Thus the "a thing beyond man' the mentally believed was an illusion.
  A majority 'normal' humans believe in "a thing beyond man'
  Therefore that "a thing beyond man' believed by normal humans is an illusion.

Note this mentally ill guy claimed he experienced Jesus and God are really real.
When his mental illness was cured, he did not experience Jesus and God as real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Note this thread
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Therefore the normal person who believe in a God is hallucinating just the same as the mentally ill who believe God is real.
In both cases, they are unable to provide empirical proof of the reality of God.

In all other cases of the claim of reality [albeit are also hallucination of different degrees] they are verified and justified as real based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Thus your "a thing beyond man' is a hallucination, illusion that cannot be justified and verified empirically and philosophically as real.

To say there is no absolute truth is to state an absolute truth, thus absolute truth exists.

Equivocating again, i.e. absolutely-absolute with relative-absolute.

To say [by humans] there is no absolutely-absolute truth is to state [by humans] a relative-absolute truth,
thus a relative-absolute-truth stated by humans exists.

If you insist your absolutely-absolute truth exist, prove it as real.

If you have no problem with: "How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?" then by default a contradiction in the original source occurs as the same matter which is responsible for scientific truths is the same matter which is responsible for illusions.

I replied this in your other posts.
You are equivocating again and again.

You are defining mental illness as a belief system thus reverting to circular reasoning: only mentally ill people believe in God, belief in God is a mental illness. Yet there is no empirical process for proving a thought process. Mental illness is a classification which is assumed.

The thing beyond man is proven by reason: there is no thing in itself, man is not a thing in itself, thus a thing exists beyond man.

Mental illness is objectively verifiable from empirical evidences from external behaviors down to the levels of neurons in the brain.
Note DSM-V.
https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

It is based on such objectivity [not perfect] of the above, that many are cured from mental illness and preventing suffering to themselves and others.

Note,

• 1. Some mentally ill believe God is real
  2. It is confirmed empirically such belief of God is real is a hallucination
  3. Such hallucination are represented by certain set of activities [SA] in the brain.
  4. The majority of people [theists] belief God is real.
  5. Theists' belief in God is also represented empirically by the same set of activities [SA] in the brain.
  6. Therefore normal theists belief in God are similar to the mentally ill believe in God.

It is not only the mentally ill, but those who take drugs, have brain damage, severely stressed, mediators, various spiritualists, also have the same activation when they experience, claim or sensed God is real.

Therefore the emergence of the idea of God upon the conscious of theists are merely psychological [which can be verified and justified] and there is no God-existing-as-real [not verifiable since based on faith-only].

[Skepdick]

The generality of truth requires an agreed upon set of circumstances through which a phenomenon is tested. In shorter terms the test is assumed as the correct quantity and quality of variables as no test occurs for testing itself.

Tests can't test themselves.

Testers can test themselves.

[Eodnhoj7]

The generality of truth requires an agreed upon set of circumstances through which a phenomenon is tested. In shorter terms the test is assumed as the correct quantity and quality of variables as no test occurs for testing itself.

Tests can't test themselves.

Testers can test themselves.

Tests are extensions of the observer thus are subject to being tested through further tests.

[Eodnhoj7]

Note we are not justifying for things that are absolutely-absolute.

Whatever empirical that is justified as true and real is always conditioned [& qualified] to a framework and system, the scientific framework being the most credible, thus a standard bearer.

In the scientific method, we are relying on verification and justification of the empirical evidences from experiences and observations by humans.
There is no issue with your;
How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?

Yet belief in a thing beyond man occurs in people with no mental illness or drug use.
Dually to argue belief in a higher power is a mental illness creates a logic loop where mental illness is redefined, unempirically, by group agreement as a higher power. Paradoxically this results in interpretation as being a higher power in itself yet the contradiction occurs as no-thing can be higher than man according to your stance.

• The 'mentally ill humans believe in "a thing beyond man'
  When the mentally ill is cured, they do not believe in their "a thing beyond man'
  Thus the "a thing beyond man' the mentally believed was an illusion.
  A majority 'normal' humans believe in "a thing beyond man'
  Therefore that "a thing beyond man' believed by normal humans is an illusion.

Note this mentally ill guy claimed he experienced Jesus and God are really real.
When his mental illness was cured, he did not experience Jesus and God as real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Note this thread
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Therefore the normal person who believe in a God is hallucinating just the same as the mentally ill who believe God is real.
In both cases, they are unable to provide empirical proof of the reality of God.

In all other cases of the claim of reality [albeit are also hallucination of different degrees] they are verified and justified as real based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Thus your "a thing beyond man' is a hallucination, illusion that cannot be justified and verified empirically and philosophically as real.

To say there is no absolute truth is to state an absolute truth, thus absolute truth exists.

Equivocating again, i.e. absolutely-absolute with relative-absolute.

To say [by humans] there is no absolutely-absolute truth is to state [by humans] a relative-absolute truth,
thus a relative-absolute-truth stated by humans exists.

If you insist your absolutely-absolute truth exist, prove it as real.

If you have no problem with: "How do you empirically justify reality without using the same matter being tested in order to justify it?" then by default a contradiction in the original source occurs as the same matter which is responsible for scientific truths is the same matter which is responsible for illusions.

I replied this in your other posts.
You are equivocating again and again.

You are defining mental illness as a belief system thus reverting to circular reasoning: only mentally ill people believe in God, belief in God is a mental illness. Yet there is no empirical process for proving a thought process. Mental illness is a classification which is assumed.

The thing beyond man is proven by reason: there is no thing in itself, man is not a thing in itself, thus a thing exists beyond man.

Mental illness is objectively verifiable from empirical evidences from external behaviors down to the levels of neurons in the brain.
Note DSM-V.
https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

It is based on such objectivity [not perfect] of the above, that many are cured from mental illness and preventing suffering to themselves and others.

Note,

• 1. Some mentally ill believe God is real
  2. It is confirmed empirically such belief of God is real is a hallucination
  3. Such hallucination are represented by certain set of activities [SA] in the brain.
  4. The majority of people [theists] belief God is real.
  5. Theists' belief in God is also represented empirically by the same set of activities [SA] in the brain.
  6. Therefore normal theists belief in God are similar to the mentally ill believe in God.

It is not only the mentally ill, but those who take drugs, have brain damage, severely stressed, mediators, various spiritualists, also have the same activation when they experience, claim or sensed God is real.

Therefore the emergence of the idea of God upon the conscious of theists are merely psychological [which can be verified and justified] and there is no God-existing-as-real [not verifiable since based on faith-only].

1. Absolute perfection can be seen within the continuity of change as an absolute truth. Perpetual change results in perpetual relative perfection thus a continuity of perfection as absolutely true.

2. Illness is a classification as unjustifiable social behavior, considering what is acceptable behavior varies across cultures the DSM is a manual based upon social conventions.

3. Some mentally ill people believe in God but that is not all people. Non mentally ill people believe in God.

4. A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus you are equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination.

[Skepdick]

Tests are extensions of the observer thus are subject to being tested through further tests.

Sure. That's the "repeatability" part of science.

https://www.statisticshowto.com/test-re ... liability/

[Eodnhoj7]

Tests are extensions of the observer thus are subject to being tested through further tests.

Sure. That's the "repeatability" part of science.

https://www.statisticshowto.com/test-re ... liability/

There is no test to determine which test is true and which is false.

[Skepdick]

There is no test to determine which test is true and which is false.

What does that even mean?

Do you know how to test if a shoe fits?

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no test to determine which test is true and which is false.

What does that even mean?

Do you know how to test if a shoe fits?

1. To apply a test is to apply a specific quality and quantity of variables, a series of variables are determined.

2. Their is no test to apply to what variables are tested and which are not, parameters are subjectively chosen.

3. There are multiple tests to apply to a single phenomenon, which one is most accurate is not determined through a test outside the test.