Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

1. If there is an illusion of illusion then illusions self negate into truth, ie it is an illusion that there are illusions.

In the context of the OP [not your context] there is no question of absolute truth at all in this case, so

1. If there is an illusion of illusion then it is an illusion that there are illusions.
Whatever is claimed as truth, it will be ultimately an illusion.

Example,
1. The sun exists as real [verified and justified scientifically] but
2. Statement 1 is illusory in the OP context.
3. Statement 3 is illusory in the OP context.
4. Statemen 4 is illusory in the OP context and so on...

Despite the above,
1. One will not stare directly at the Sun for a long time, but
2. Statement 1 is illusory in the OP context.
3. Statement 3 is illusory in the OP context.
4. Statemen 4 is illusory in the OP context and so on...

I say again,
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.

You are not taking the above into consideration in your response at all,
thus whatever you counter is a STRAWMAN.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.


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?



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.

1. If there is an illusion of illusion then illusions self negate into truth, ie it is an illusion that there are illusions.

In the context of the OP [not your context] there is no question of absolute truth at all in this case, so

1. If there is an illusion of illusion then it is an illusion that there are illusions.
Whatever is claimed as truth, it will be ultimately an illusion.

Example,
1. The sun exists as real [verified and justified scientifically] but
2. Statement 1 is illusory in the OP context.
3. Statement 3 is illusory in the OP context.
4. Statemen 4 is illusory in the OP context and so on...

Despite the above,
1. One will not stare directly at the Sun for a long time, but
2. Statement 1 is illusory in the OP context.
3. Statement 3 is illusory in the OP context.
4. Statemen 4 is illusory in the OP context and so on...

I say again,
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.

You are not taking the above into consideration in your response at all,
thus whatever you counter is a STRAWMAN.

1. There is absolute truth in saying illusions exist; to say "a truth will inevitably be an illusion" is a truth thus inevitably an illusion therefore leading to self contradiction.

2. I am neither a realist nor antirealist; this is a false dichotomy. Somethings are dependent upon human conditions other things are not. A self-aware universe, ie being reflecting being, necessitates everything being conditioned on observation but not limited to human observation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. If there is an illusion of illusion then illusions self negate into truth, ie it is an illusion that there are illusions.

In the context of the OP [not your context] there is no question of absolute truth at all in this case, so

1. If there is an illusion of illusion then it is an illusion that there are illusions.
Whatever is claimed as truth, it will be ultimately an illusion.

Example,
1. The sun exists as real [verified and justified scientifically] but
2. Statement 1 is illusory in the OP context.
3. Statement 3 is illusory in the OP context.
4. Statemen 4 is illusory in the OP context and so on...

Despite the above,
1. One will not stare directly at the Sun for a long time, but
2. Statement 1 is illusory in the OP context.
3. Statement 3 is illusory in the OP context.
4. Statemen 4 is illusory in the OP context and so on...

I say again,
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.

You are not taking the above into consideration in your response at all,
thus whatever you counter is a STRAWMAN.

1. There is absolute truth in saying illusions exist; to say "a truth will inevitably be an illusion" is a truth thus inevitably an illusion therefore leading to self contradiction.

First of all there is no such thing as "absolute" [absolutely absolute] truth. All truths are conditional truths.
There is no way one can arrives at truths that are totally unconditional.
In the context of the OP, all truths are ultimately illusions.

"A truth will inevitably be an illusion" is a meta- statement.

2. I am neither a realist nor antirealist; this is a false dichotomy. Somethings are dependent upon human conditions other things are not.
A self-aware universe, ie being reflecting being, necessitates everything being conditioned on observation but not limited to human observation.

Ultimately you are a philosophical realist as reflected in the last statement, note the bolded phrase.

[Eodnhoj7]

In the context of the OP [not your context] there is no question of absolute truth at all in this case, so

1. If there is an illusion of illusion then it is an illusion that there are illusions.
Whatever is claimed as truth, it will be ultimately an illusion.

Example,
1. The sun exists as real [verified and justified scientifically] but
2. Statement 1 is illusory in the OP context.
3. Statement 3 is illusory in the OP context.
4. Statemen 4 is illusory in the OP context and so on...

Despite the above,
1. One will not stare directly at the Sun for a long time, but
2. Statement 1 is illusory in the OP context.
3. Statement 3 is illusory in the OP context.
4. Statemen 4 is illusory in the OP context and so on...

I say again,
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.

You are not taking the above into consideration in your response at all,
thus whatever you counter is a STRAWMAN.

1. There is absolute truth in saying illusions exist; to say "a truth will inevitably be an illusion" is a truth thus inevitably an illusion therefore leading to self contradiction.

First of all there is no such thing as "absolute" [absolutely absolute] truth. All truths are conditional truths.
There is no way one can arrives at truths that are totally unconditional.
In the context of the OP, all truths are ultimately illusions.

"A truth will inevitably be an illusion" is a meta- statement.

2. I am neither a realist nor antirealist; this is a false dichotomy. Somethings are dependent upon human conditions other things are not.
A self-aware universe, ie being reflecting being, necessitates everything being conditioned on observation but not limited to human observation.

Ultimately you are a philosophical realist as reflected in the last statement, note the bolded phrase.

1. "All truths are conditional truths" is an absolute statement.

2. "A truth will inevitably be an illusion" is a truth thus an illusion.

3. "Not limited to human observation" still necessitates anti-realism; it is a false dichotomy to say realist vs anti-realist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. "All truths are conditional truths" is an absolute statement.

Demonstrate how the statement
"All truths are conditional truths" is an absolute statement?

Note philosophically, there is a two types of 'absolute', i.e.
1. relative-absolute
2. absolutely absolute


In the above you are implying
"All truths are conditional truths" is an absolutely absolute statement, i.e. it is totally unconditioned upon anything.

Absolute as "Totally unconditional" is an impossibility because whatever is the truth, it is always entangled with the human self.
In the ultimate sense [not common nor conventional sense], there is no way you can be apart of the reality [all there is] that you are intricately part and parcel of and then view that reality and the things therein, independently of yourself.

2. "A truth will inevitably be an illusion" is a truth thus an illusion.

That is my point.
We have to live with an illusion of which there is a continuum of degrees.

3. "Not limited to human observation" still necessitates anti-realism; it is a false dichotomy to say realist vs anti-realist.

Note sure of your point.

Note this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I claimed you are ultimately a philosophical realist regardless of how you want to get away from it.
My views are that of a anti-philosophical realist [Kantian].
I suggest you use Philosophical Realism as a starting point, if you are not, how?

[popeye1945]

Our everyday reality is termed apparent reality, as opposed to ultimate reality, and science tells us that this ultimate reality is a place of no things. I do not think that apparent reality could be termed a hallucination, hallucination infers delusion, but the whole thing is quite strange so it might be considered somewhere in or around that ballpark. Apparent reality is created by one's biology, if one changes the biology one would necessarily change that organisms apparent reality. The physical world is really all wave frequencies, sound, light, a kaleidoscope of meaningless vibrations and frequencies without biology, they remain meaningless, or no things. Most of what is out there is not available to our senses, that which is available to our senses comes into us and is read, so apparent reality is a little like an adding machine, this stuff is fed in and we project out in a biological readout, a sum if you like, which is apparent reality. It is strange and the more we learn the stranger it gets. So, the actual things of apparent reality are in effect the experiences of our bodies of the world of the unmanifested, made manifest through our bodies. Biological readout remember it, it is a significant term. I said it was strange, kind of a dream world, the world processes created us and is known through us and we are a unity, and it get even stranger with the quantum world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Our everyday reality is termed apparent reality, as opposed to ultimate reality, and science tells us that this ultimate reality is a place of no things. I do not think that apparent reality could be termed a hallucination, hallucination infers delusion, but the whole thing is quite strange so it might be considered somewhere in or around that ballpark. Apparent reality is created by one's biology, if one changes the biology one would necessarily change that organisms apparent reality.

The physical world is really all wave frequencies, sound, light, a kaleidoscope of meaningless vibrations and frequencies without biology, they remain meaningless, or no things.

Most of what is out there is not available to our senses, that which is available to our senses comes into us and is read, so apparent reality is a little like an adding machine, this stuff is fed in and we project out in a biological readout, a sum if you like, which is apparent reality.

It is strange and the more we learn the stranger it gets. So, the actual things of apparent reality are in effect the experiences of our bodies of the world of the unmanifested, made manifest through our bodies.

Biological readout remember it, it is a significant term. I said it was strange, kind of a dream world, the world processes created us and is known through us and we are a unity, and it get even stranger with the quantum world.

When the OP discuss 'hallucinations' it is not specifically directed as the usual sense illusions e.g. the typical optical illusions, e.g. a bent stick in water, mirage and the likes.

What the OP is trying to convey the common and altered states hallucinations are triggered by the same neural mechanics and main processes in the brain and self as our normal perceptions and realization of reality BUT they are of different degrees along the same continuum.
As such what we perceived and realized as normal "reality" is more controlled than the optical illusions and other drugs induced hallucination which are uncontrolled.
If you do the relevant research on this, you will understand [not necessary agree] what the point of the OP is about.

You differentiated between 'apparent' versus actual/ultimate/unmanifested reality.
This is because you are trapped psychologically with dualism, i.e. if not this, then it must be that.

What is really real is what emerge and are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically. There is also the not-yet-known but possible-reality but it must be possible to be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

I can speculate there are human-like aliens existing in a planet 100 light years away, because all the stated elements [variables] are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically. So it is a matter of bringing such possible evidences to be verified and justified.

OTOH, what you speculated about the unmanifested, actual [not apparent], ultimate reality is logical [crudely] but it is an impossibility to be real. This is a mere speculation by crude reason and there is no way and possible for anyone to bring any evidence for it to be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

Realistically one should suspend the urge [or lust] to insist upon the possible existence of an unmanifested, actual [not apparent], ultimate reality. It is merely driven psychologically from within to reach for certainty.

[Sculptor]

I had a bit of anil seth but the doctor gave me some arse cream to clear it up

[Eodnhoj7]

1. "All truths are conditional truths" is an absolute statement.

Demonstrate how the statement
"All truths are conditional truths" is an absolute statement?

Note philosophically, there is a two types of 'absolute', i.e.
1. relative-absolute
2. absolutely absolute


In the above you are implying
"All truths are conditional truths" is an absolutely absolute statement, i.e. it is totally unconditioned upon anything.

Absolute as "Totally unconditional" is an impossibility because whatever is the truth, it is always entangled with the human self.
In the ultimate sense [not common nor conventional sense], there is no way you can be apart of the reality [all there is] that you are intricately part and parcel of and then view that reality and the things therein, independently of yourself.

2. "A truth will inevitably be an illusion" is a truth thus an illusion.

That is my point.
We have to live with an illusion of which there is a continuum of degrees.

3. "Not limited to human observation" still necessitates anti-realism; it is a false dichotomy to say realist vs anti-realist.

Note sure of your point.

Note this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I claimed you are ultimately a philosophical realist regardless of how you want to get away from it.
My views are that of a anti-philosophical realist [Kantian].
I suggest you use Philosophical Realism as a starting point, if you are not, how?

1. Because stating all things are subject to conditions is unchanging.
1a. Stating that there are 2 types of absolutes is an absolute.

2. Conditions occuring through conditions necessitates the condition as self-referential and as self-referential is a singularity which is unconditional.

3. Truth is not always entangled with the human self given the human self has changing observations with this change necessitating a potential to all actualized truths which is unobserved.

4. "We have to live with an illusion of which there is a continuum of degrees."....this is not an illusion and if it is it is false as illusions are false.

5. Truths are both observed and un-observed by the human condition given the relativity of the human condition necessitates all truths as partials/degrees. This nature of a partial/degree necessitates a thing as both observed and unobserved.