Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:31 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 1:23 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:44 am

lol is the only thing you got right there.

What has science got to do with religion?

There are physicists that are theists (with many different forms of consideration of God, not necessarily confining themselves to any particular religious movement.)

At least they are wise enough to keep an open mind, and I very much doubt it changes their scientific methodology, even if indeed any of them intentionally make that consideration a goal, to prove their conception of God is real.

You mean what does religion have to do with science?!

No I didn't. I stated "What has science got to do with religion?"

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 1:23 pmMy argument was about the fact that politics exists in science of the 'fringes' [the boundaries of the most uncertain], like 'consciousness'. But if any science is found to make these sufficiently clear and obvious, they tend to go against religion as a viable justification for existence. So politics will tend to intervene BY those interested in the utility of religion as a means of control. IF science demystifies the need for religion, religion's effectiveness as a powerful political tool is lost. So there is a tendency to challenge those who attempt to make those fringes clearer by using the tactics that make them more remote and harder to understand and forces the layperson to rely on authority or have a greater burden to invest in trying to make sense of the increasing complexity unnecessarily being added to convolute the topic.

Religion in North America does play a mayor role in politics, in the more decent political world it's far more secular.

So.

I don't see any conflation between science and religion. ..and as one that has gnosis, clearly I see no contradiction as if science and God are mutually exclusive, since God\'God' exists, then there must be a reasonable scientific explanation as to its existence, physicists just haven't discovered it, yet. (I have some ideas regarding some of their findings that to me suggest such an intelligence behind what we perceive as reality, but perhaps another time and thread).

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:18 am I notice, most would just find a new term to add to the confusion so that others couldn't follow.

Given that I am struggling to find out why anything remotely critical of Big Bang theory (not replaced by religion but for a Steady State model) is strongly censored in more formal science-authorized forums, there exists a minimal desire to prevent anything that might remotely threaten the last potential vestigial 'save' for anything scientific that might dislodge religion absolutely in the realm of politics. As such, I believe that no matter how someone attempts to avoid religious bias in science, the advocacy of those wanting to conserve religion as a minimal justification in political forums will do whatever it takes to undermine another term or additional set of them to make it harder for the scientist to appeal with better clarity an understanding of signficant philosophy regarding things like consciousness.

"Hallucination" will thus just be challenged as a term forcing those proposing it to have to find another model of appeal to try to clarify it. But as it gets more complex where it needn't be, nobody outside of the deepest thinkers would be able to follow....and the religous advocates have won in the same way a corporate lawyer would use overburdening tactics to make it more difficult for opposing council to find the evidence that could discover to prove anything serious enough to stick.

• “In Buddhist tradition we don’t rely on faith to cultivate compassion and peace of mind, we employ reason. We follow the Buddha’s advice not to accept his words at face value, but to examine and test them as a goldsmith tests gold. As a result, followers of the Buddha in India, and later in Tibet, valued taking a logical, investigative approach – and this accords with a scientific attitude.
  https://www.dalailama.com/news/2020/bud ... compassion

• I have often said that if science proves facts that conflict with Buddhist understanding, Buddhism must change accordingly.
  We should always adopt a view that accords with the facts. If upon investigation we find that there is reason and proof for a point, then we should accept it.
  https://www.themarginalian.org/2018/10/ ... -emotions/

I hate the politics of it all but am finding that I'm being forced into having to look at it more and more closely because it is effectively getting its claws into science everywhere! Religious thinking is at its lowest points (again, that is....., considering it is historically cyclic) and so they are fighting back with more fervor because it is threatening the powers of those wanting the best tool to exploit others capitalistically and selfishly at the expense of democratic intelligence.

[ If you have a hard time reading, then this just proves by this example how struggling to find better words to express issues scientifically is discouragingly in favor of the religious hoping that the particular scientific ideas that threaten them gets too hard for anyone to follow. ]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:27 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:18 am I notice, most would just find a new term to add to the confusion so that others couldn't follow.

Given that I am struggling to find out why anything remotely critical of Big Bang theory (not replaced by religion but for a Steady State model) is strongly censored in more formal science-authorized forums, there exists a minimal desire to prevent anything that might remotely threaten the last potential vestigial 'save' for anything scientific that might dislodge religion absolutely in the realm of politics. As such, I believe that no matter how someone attempts to avoid religious bias in science, the advocacy of those wanting to conserve religion as a minimal justification in political forums will do whatever it takes to undermine another term or additional set of them to make it harder for the scientist to appeal with better clarity an understanding of signficant philosophy regarding things like consciousness.

Not too sure of your point.
The Big Bang is reducible and inferred from what is observable, i.e. the expanding and inflating universe. Scientists by default believing there is no certainty [thus in formal science-authorized forums] could only accept the Big Bang up to the last minute and not accepting there is actually a one moment 'Bang'.
Religion and politics are independent from Science as a subject matter regardless whatever the exploitations and abuse by the formers.

"Hallucination" will thus just be challenged as a term forcing those proposing it to have to find another model of appeal to try to clarify it. But as it gets more complex where it needn't be, nobody outside of the deepest thinkers would be able to follow....and the religous advocates have won in the same way a corporate lawyer would use overburdening tactics to make it more difficult for opposing council to find the evidence that could discover to prove anything serious enough to stick.

The concept of hallucination and its mechanics is represented by neural connectivities in the brain and this can be empirically verified and justified, i.e. scientifically based.
If the religious oppose they are merely making noises to maintain their consonances.

Note this exception re the religious from the Dalai Lama;

• “In Buddhist tradition we don’t rely on faith to cultivate compassion and peace of mind, we employ reason. We follow the Buddha’s advice not to accept his words at face value, but to examine and test them as a goldsmith tests gold. As a result, followers of the Buddha in India, and later in Tibet, valued taking a logical, investigative approach – and this accords with a scientific attitude.
  https://www.dalailama.com/news/2020/bud ... compassion

• I have often said that if science proves facts that conflict with Buddhist understanding, Buddhism must change accordingly.
  We should always adopt a view that accords with the facts. If upon investigation we find that there is reason and proof for a point, then we should accept it.
  https://www.themarginalian.org/2018/10/ ... -emotions/

I hate the politics of it all but am finding that I'm being forced into having to look at it more and more closely because it is effectively getting its claws into science everywhere! Religious thinking is at its lowest points (again, that is....., considering it is historically cyclic) and so they are fighting back with more fervor because it is threatening the powers of those wanting the best tool to exploit others capitalistically and selfishly at the expense of democratic intelligence.

[ If you have a hard time reading, then this just proves by this example how struggling to find better words to express issues scientifically is discouragingly in favor of the religious hoping that the particular scientific ideas that threaten them gets too hard for anyone to follow. ]

As I had stated elsewhere, knowledge from the scientific framework is the most credible at present despite they are at best merely "polished conjectures."
If is not only politics and religions but also many fields of activities which twist and exploit the credibility of science to justify their causes.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:36 pm Then you are not sufficiently familiar with the actual background. The logic and science are flawed and intentionally done so to prevent the Steady State Theory from keeping its place. "Steady State" is NOT the "Static" universe theory prior to both. The Steady State means that all things should be defaulted to be assumed equal in physical laws AT ALL TIMES. It interprets the apparent 14 Billion year inference as an appropriate illusion in the way one would see a railway line appear to converge in the distance at a point on the horizon.

I mentioned this because the Big Bang theory was intentionally sought out by the Catholics via the Belgian priest, George Lemaître. He sought a way to make Einstein's theory FIT to it. This is no accident. Even Einstein attempted to find a Steady State theory but was scrapped likely due to the political pressures from all around him, including the proponents of the Jews hoping to establish their Zionist state in Palestine. He was defeated on all fronts including in Quantum Mechanics.

If you want to discuss more of the details on this, see the thread on 'Singularities' by Socrat44
Otherwise just think of the instute of Science in general as a democratic political community who votes on what they agree to regarding observations and conclusions through peer review, etc. It is a political institute necessarily because they rely on the community of scientists to function. But for the fringes, it is relatively more contentious to find CRITICAL points that do not infringe on the fiscal political-proper supports of the various governments and cultures.

............

I don't doubt the general scientific framework, only the critical postulates and interpretations of the fringe areas. Consciousness is one of them. Note that the methodologies differ with respect to astrophysics and quantum mechanics both of which have to dip into a metaphysical dialect to establish ingoing postulates. For instance using a more 'localized' example, when you look back in history to determine whether Jesus walked on water or other miracles, do you default to assume the nature of the physical world with intervening gods existed back then but stopped? Many use 'post hoc' conclusions of successful predictions of "Prophets" in religion. We also do this in astrophysics with things like inflation theory that presumes the Big Bang true because they used discrepancies that should raise questions about the theory but instead assume it correct and then retrofit a new theory to justify why the universe appears only 14 Billion years old.

The point I was making though might be also more helpful by reading my last point in responding to attofishpi. And also, given you were asking others, what did you find most interesting about Anil Seth or what criticisms do you have or differ on?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 4:30 am
What is implied by Seth in relation to your point is;

The uncontrolled hallucination of a unicorn is that of a [controlled hallucinated] horse and a [controlled hallucinated] horn. Note both the horse and horn whilst controlled hallucinations can be verified empirically at present while the unicorn is not.

The uncontrolled hallucination of a God is that of a [controlled hallucinated] of empirical realities.
Note empirical realities whilst are controlled hallucinations can be verified empirically at present while God [uncontrolled hallucination] as outside the domain of the empirical cannot be real at all.

There is no ultimate reality.
Your ultimate reality is merely a speculation which is illusory.
How do you justify an ultimate reality exists when you are apart from it?

To say there is no ultimate reality and then say "all" is a hallucination is to say that an ultimate (all) reality exists.

1. All is a "hallucination."
2. ALL hallucinations are conditioned upon the human conditions
3. Whatever is ultimately hallucinated is conditioned upon human conditions.

There are degree of hallucination from the sane to the insane.
In this case, the hallucination is with reference toward more the of sane.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:10 pm
To say there is no ultimate reality and then say "all" is a hallucination is to say that an ultimate (all) reality exists.

1. All is a "hallucination."
2. ALL hallucinations are conditioned upon the human conditions
3. Whatever is ultimately hallucinated is conditioned upon human conditions.

There are degree of hallucination from the sane to the insane.
In this case, the hallucination is with reference toward more the of sane.

****The degree of hallucination and the reference points of sanity and insanity are hallucinations as well from your stance.

1. If all is hallucination then human conditions are a hallucination.

2. If the conditions of a hallucination are premised within a prior hallucination then a cycle occurs.

3. Hallucinations are a cycle; this is not a hallucination for if it is a hallucination then hallucinations are "hallucinations" thus hallucinations do not exist. Either way it ends in an absence of hallucination.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:29 am
1. All is a "hallucination."
2. ALL hallucinations are conditioned upon the human conditions
3. Whatever is ultimately hallucinated is conditioned upon human conditions.

There are degree of hallucination from the sane to the insane.
In this case, the hallucination is with reference toward more the of sane.

****The degree of hallucination and the reference points of sanity and insanity are hallucinations as well from your stance.

1. If all is hallucination then human conditions are a hallucination.

2. If the conditions of a hallucination are premised within a prior hallucination then a cycle occurs.

3. Hallucinations are a cycle; this is not a hallucination for if it is a hallucination then hallucinations are "hallucinations" thus hallucinations do not exist. Either way it ends in an absence of hallucination.

Note P1 edited with the obvious,

1. All [that exists] is a "hallucination" [in degrees]
2. ALL hallucinations are conditioned upon the human conditions [also hallucinations]
3. Whatever is ultimately hallucinated is conditioned upon human conditions.

Re P1 all that exists are hallucinations.
The point here is one cannot extricate the human conditions from hallucinations.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:40 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:08 am

****The degree of hallucination and the reference points of sanity and insanity are hallucinations as well from your stance.

1. If all is hallucination then human conditions are a hallucination.

2. If the conditions of a hallucination are premised within a prior hallucination then a cycle occurs.

3. Hallucinations are a cycle; this is not a hallucination for if it is a hallucination then hallucinations are "hallucinations" thus hallucinations do not exist. Either way it ends in an absence of hallucination.

Note P1 edited with the obvious,

1. All [that exists] is a "hallucination" [in degrees]
2. ALL hallucinations are conditioned upon the human conditions [also hallucinations]
3. Whatever is ultimately hallucinated is conditioned upon human conditions.

Re P1 all that exists are hallucinations.
The point here is one cannot extricate the human conditions from hallucinations.

Hence point three:

"Hallucinations are a cycle; this is not a hallucination for if it is a hallucination then hallucinations are "hallucinations" thus hallucinations do not exist. Either way it ends in an absence of hallucination."

If a hallucination is an absence of truth and hallucinations are a "hallucination" then there is an absence of an absence thus a positive, ie "truth". To hallucinate about hallucinations means there is an absence of hallucination.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:40 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:35 am

Note P1 edited with the obvious,

1. All [that exists] is a "hallucination" [in degrees]
2. ALL hallucinations are conditioned upon the human conditions [also hallucinations]
3. Whatever is ultimately hallucinated is conditioned upon human conditions.

Re P1 all that exists are hallucinations.
The point here is one cannot extricate the human conditions from hallucinations.

Hence point three:

"Hallucinations are a cycle; this is not a hallucination for if it is a hallucination then hallucinations are "hallucinations" thus hallucinations do not exist. Either way it ends in an absence of hallucination."

If a hallucination is an absence of truth and hallucinations are a "hallucination" then there is an absence of an absence thus a positive, ie "truth". To hallucinate about hallucinations means there is an absence of hallucination.

Your "hallucinations do not exists" does not follow with my P1.
P1. All [that exists] is a "hallucination" [in degrees].

Hallucinations by individuals exist within all that exists [reality] which in turn are "hallucinations."
This meant that if an individual hallucinates, [say, seeing a flying carpet], his psycho-hallucinating is real by itself [the hallucinating is real, not the flying-carpet] and that exists within reality [all there is] which itself is the mother of all hallucinations.

Something is wrong with your logic.
Try presenting your argument in syllogisms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:47 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:40 pm

Hence point three:

"Hallucinations are a cycle; this is not a hallucination for if it is a hallucination then hallucinations are "hallucinations" thus hallucinations do not exist. Either way it ends in an absence of hallucination."

If a hallucination is an absence of truth and hallucinations are a "hallucination" then there is an absence of an absence thus a positive, ie "truth". To hallucinate about hallucinations means there is an absence of hallucination.

Your "hallucinations do not exists" does not follow with my P1.
P1. All [that exists] is a "hallucination" [in degrees].

Hallucinations by individuals exist within all that exists [reality] which in turn are "hallucinations."
This meant that if an individual hallucinates, [say, seeing a flying carpet], his psycho-hallucinating is real by itself [the hallucinating is real, not the flying-carpet] and that exists within reality [all there is] which itself is the mother of all hallucinations.

Something is wrong with your logic.
Try presenting your argument in syllogisms.

1. If hallucinations are false, and hallucinations are universal (ie one may hallucinate about hallucinations), the hallucination of a hallucination is the falsity of a falsity (double negation thus absolute truth exists).

2. If hallucination occurs in degrees then hallucinations are not the totality of reality as a degree is a part of something; as partly false (the hallucination) then a partly true exists too.

3. The "I" is a part of reality, hallucinations exist within all that exists, the "I" is a hallucination. If the "I" is a hallucination then any hallucinations that result from the "I" are a hallucination of a hallucination (a double negative/a falsity of falsity). Dually if the "I" is a hallucination then any observation of hallucination through the "I" is a hallucination of a hallucination.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error;
but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion,
which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:47 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:59 am
Your "hallucinations do not exists" does not follow with my P1.
P1. All [that exists] is a "hallucination" [in degrees].

Hallucinations by individuals exist within all that exists [reality] which in turn are "hallucinations."
This meant that if an individual hallucinates, [say, seeing a flying carpet], his psycho-hallucinating is real by itself [the hallucinating is real, not the flying-carpet] and that exists within reality [all there is] which itself is the mother of all hallucinations.

Something is wrong with your logic.
Try presenting your argument in syllogisms.

1. If hallucinations are false, and hallucinations are universal (ie one may hallucinate about hallucinations), the hallucination of a hallucination is the falsity of a falsity (double negation thus absolute truth exists).

2. If hallucination occurs in degrees then hallucinations are not the totality of reality as a degree is a part of something; as partly false (the hallucination) then a partly true exists too.

3. The "I" is a part of reality, hallucinations exist within all that exists, the "I" is a hallucination. If the "I" is a hallucination then any hallucinations that result from the "I" are a hallucination of a hallucination (a double negative/a falsity of falsity). Dually if the "I" is a hallucination then any observation of hallucination through the "I" is a hallucination of a hallucination.

You are making a bad assumption here.
On a Philosophical Realism's basis you assumed there is something-X that is fixed out there independent of the human conditions.
As such when I mentioned 'degrees' you take that it is related to degrees of something-X which is fixed out there.
Nah, your thinking is wrong here.

Here is an example of what I meant.
Take for example, a person-A is angry.
That person-A's anger is relative in degrees to the anger of B and the average.
There is no absolute fixed 100% [degrees] of anger that we must use as a fixed standard to match all impulse of anger.

It is the same with hallucinations experienced in degrees by different people.
There is no absolute standard of hallucination that can be used to compare the various degrees experienced by others.

It is also the same with something-physical, there is no absolute something-physical-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
Whatever is something physical, it is an emergent that cannot be independent of the human conditions [individually and collectively].

Why you are stuck with the Philosophical Realism stance is due a very strong fundamental psychological impulse within you which is driven by an inherent & unavoidable existential crisis.

As such you are caught with a high degree hallucination [uncontrollable] in this case, and you will continuously be mocked and tormented by it. Here is Kant which is relevant to your case the likes.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error;
but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion,
which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

I won't be surprised you will wriggle out and present another bound to fail counter.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:47 pm

1. If hallucinations are false, and hallucinations are universal (ie one may hallucinate about hallucinations), the hallucination of a hallucination is the falsity of a falsity (double negation thus absolute truth exists).

2. If hallucination occurs in degrees then hallucinations are not the totality of reality as a degree is a part of something; as partly false (the hallucination) then a partly true exists too.

3. The "I" is a part of reality, hallucinations exist within all that exists, the "I" is a hallucination. If the "I" is a hallucination then any hallucinations that result from the "I" are a hallucination of a hallucination (a double negative/a falsity of falsity). Dually if the "I" is a hallucination then any observation of hallucination through the "I" is a hallucination of a hallucination.

You are making a bad assumption here.
On a Philosophical Realism's basis you assumed there is something-X that is fixed out there independent of the human conditions.
As such when I mentioned 'degrees' you take that it is related to degrees of something-X which is fixed out there.
Nah, your thinking is wrong here.

Here is an example of what I meant.
Take for example, a person-A is angry.
That person-A's anger is relative in degrees to the anger of B and the average.
There is no absolute fixed 100% [degrees] of anger that we must use as a fixed standard to match all impulse of anger.

It is the same with hallucinations experienced in degrees by different people.
There is no absolute standard of hallucination that can be used to compare the various degrees experienced by others.

It is also the same with something-physical, there is no absolute something-physical-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
Whatever is something physical, it is an emergent that cannot be independent of the human conditions [individually and collectively].

Why you are stuck with the Philosophical Realism stance is due a very strong fundamental psychological impulse within you which is driven by an inherent & unavoidable existential crisis.

As such you are caught with a high degree hallucination [uncontrollable] in this case, and you will continuously be mocked and tormented by it. Here is Kant which is relevant to your case the likes.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error;
but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion,
which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

I won't be surprised you will wriggle out and present another bound to fail counter.

1. If all is an illusion and illusions are fixed on human dependent conditions, which are illusions if "all is an illusion", then there is an illusion of illusion (a double negative).

2. To say all is dependent upon human conditions is to make a fixed non-relative statement therefore absolutes exist.

3. If "man is unable to free himself from illusion" then this statement is not an illusion and a contradiction occurs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:53 am
You are making a bad assumption here.
On a Philosophical Realism's basis you assumed there is something-X that is fixed out there independent of the human conditions.
As such when I mentioned 'degrees' you take that it is related to degrees of something-X which is fixed out there.
Nah, your thinking is wrong here.

Here is an example of what I meant.
Take for example, a person-A is angry.
That person-A's anger is relative in degrees to the anger of B and the average.
There is no absolute fixed 100% [degrees] of anger that we must use as a fixed standard to match all impulse of anger.

It is the same with hallucinations experienced in degrees by different people.
There is no absolute standard of hallucination that can be used to compare the various degrees experienced by others.

It is also the same with something-physical, there is no absolute something-physical-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
Whatever is something physical, it is an emergent that cannot be independent of the human conditions [individually and collectively].

Why you are stuck with the Philosophical Realism stance is due a very strong fundamental psychological impulse within you which is driven by an inherent & unavoidable existential crisis.

As such you are caught with a high degree hallucination [uncontrollable] in this case, and you will continuously be mocked and tormented by it. Here is Kant which is relevant to your case the likes.



I won't be surprised you will wriggle out and present another bound to fail counter.

1. If all is an illusion and illusions are fixed on human dependent conditions, which are illusions if "all is an illusion", then there is an illusion of illusion (a double negative).

I don't get your point, it appear to be rhetorical,
note,

In one perspective,
1. Reality - i.e. all-there-is is an illusion not independent of human conditions.
2. Whatever-X is part and parcel of reality,
3. Therefore whatever-X is an illusion, not independent of human conditions

I don't see how there in an illusion of illusion.

2. To say all is dependent upon human conditions is to make a fixed non-relative statement therefore absolutes exist.

How can a statement be absolute itself if it MUST imperative be made by a subjective which is always conditional and relational?

When Reality, i.e. all-there-is is an illusion not independent of human conditions, how can such a reality be absolute, i.e. absolute independent of the human conditions?

3. If "man is unable to free himself from illusion" then this statement is not an illusion and a contradiction occurs.

You are stuck with 'statement' which must be related to the human conditions.
No statement can be made without humans!
Note

1. Reality - i.e. all-there-is is an illusion not independent of human conditions.
2. Whatever the statement- it is part and parcel of reality,
3. Therefore whatever the statement, it is an illusion, not independent of human conditions.

As I had stated many times,
your basis is grounded on Philosophical Realism, i.e. making the ASSUMPTION reality is independent of the human conditions setting up a case for dualism and messing up your epistemology. This is due to an inherent psychological problems within all humans which you and the majority are heavily infected with more seriously.