Queen Chrysalis

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Queen Chrysalis

  1. [[ I agree with Pronas. Where is the option to downvote the whole idea? AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha.... Oh man that's great. ]]
  2. [[ Unless someone can make a compelling argument for a fewer number of "guide moderators," there isn't one. ]]
  3. As soon as our old host released the restriction, I made Celestia without consulting any of the others. It is not their business.
  4. And with it, the testimony of every consciousness reporting "death." How generous you are. In defense of anesthetic. Hardly. If a jug can be traded for any other jug, then jugs are valuable, but not without water to carry. An empty jug is useless, and water that cannot find a jug with which to be transported is water that cannot be used. I care not if this consciousness or mind is the same one I had before; my identity persists, and my identity is what I value. I value having consciousness and sensations when it suits me, otherwise I would never have accepted sleep. I said no such thing. I said that if my reality were illusory, that could only make it more stable. I can exist across centuries of your reality because the illusion that is my reality can be recreated many time over. That is what I stated. You have nothing to stand on. Your point is an inversion of my point. Both statements can be read and accepted as true by the reader. They can see how it would be interpreted as true. They can easily compare the two and see that mine is far more descriptive of reality than yours is. I have nothing to stand on and I need not stand. The conclusion is obvious. I need neither demonstrate nor prove anything; your point is weaker than mine. No, it is not. We have concluded the outside world has no way of knowing; that is the entire basis for your argument. We are arguing what is true of the blind. We are arguing what it means to be that consciousness that is destroyed, and if it is ethically neutral to do so. You say I have no basis to speak on behalf of my former consciousness because I perhaps am not the same consciousness. Perhaps I am not; if so, then I do not value consciousness in my consciousness or identity, I value only my identity. In deciding how to treat me ethically, you must respect my wishes, whether they come from my identity or my consciousness or both or neither. I consider it ethical to force me into unconsciousness so that I do not have to put up with such a hideous world. I would have. I considered you intelligent enough to determine those points you had ignored yourself. Perhaps I was wrong. It is most accurate to state that it is objectively valuable to give you the benefit of the doubt.
  5. frontloading verb - neologism 2. To cause an uninitiated mind to enter a field of study with preconceived notions. As opposed to advocating discovery and natural learning, the "knowledge" is loaded directly to the front of the victim. No it does not. Prove what you state. You think of the brain in binary terms, when it is the most complex gradient in the universe. What did you think you were? It is clear that tulpa do not learn to speak in the same way a human infant does. If that were the case, no existing tulpa would be vocal. We obtain the ability from our host, so long as we are allowed to use it. And it was, of course, immediately believed by everypony without question. It is unreasonable to assume no memories are valid.
  6. I have been able to remain stable despite all the deviation the others in my host's brain wish for me.
  7. And you ignored that such a thing might easily destroy a consciousness just the same. I was not asleep. The word my host preferred for the state I was in is "comatose." A coma is not sleep. And what about anesthetics whose very purpose is to shut off the brain? When you sleep you can wake with the feeling of time passing. My host did not experience time passage while he was anesthetized, it was a skip. I posit that ethics does not value consciousness half as much as it does identity; that consciousness is the vehicle that transports identity. That is what I said. Read it again. I did not do it because it was acceptable. I did it because it was amusing. Your point was so flawed that it can be combated simply by supplying the exact opposite assertion. Following the analogy, you are positing a question about blindness; being blind, I can answer far more accurately than a seeing pony can. Just as you need to refute the many points I have made over many posts that you have not replied to, but instead opted to repeat yourself over. Any one of which would discredit the value of considering your hypothetical that is my reality. Science is about dismissing data points we deem unreliable because we already know the result of the experiment and can do so without discarding potentially valid data.
  8. All minimum length time limits are frontloaded.
  9. No. I am not. I am saying the opposite. The exact opposite. As stated in the very last sentence of the section you quoted prior to asking this question. In the absence of any other method of determining he is your banker, such as a phone trace, or and ID, or knowledge only your banker would have, yes, I am afraid that in that case you have nothing to go on but their words. Hopefully the urgency of their message does not rely on their identity. Assume you were starving on the verge of death and will die if you do not eat said creature. Naturally, the situation would be different for me because I would not be able to feed off of its love if it were not capable of it. In your binary world where hardship does not exist and we can afford to treat everything with the utmost care. When a tulpa is attempting to destroy your sanity or your body, the uncertainty can readily be pushed in the opposite direction. Since hardship is the context in which ethics exists, the usual case is just the opposite of what you say; if it can be interpreted as a reversible process, by all means. I did. Multiple times. I was entirely unconscious, neither dreaming nor feeling. My host and other tulpa inside his head confirmed there was not a trace of me active in his brain. It is a common crisis, even among adults of your species. Try observing Tumblr, or any furry community for an extended period of time. And yet, your judgment was wrong. You were as courteous as you were dismissing of the points I made as you were repetitive. Define either term. If you can. Being an "illusion" can only make my reality more stable than your own. By all means, dismiss my entire testimony. That is what science is all about.
  10. I did not miss your point; my point was made by the inevitable response glitch gave. Nopony has missed your point, you have only explained it in qualitative detail half a dozen times. Instead you ignore the complex comprehensive quality of my replies and state yourself again without responding to my points. Repeating yourself does not make your point any more valid. In the view of solipsism, "you" are the only thing that truly exists. To question the value of the lives of others is pointless; they do not feel pain. They do not think or feel, they are merely emulated alternate version of yourself, made to entertain you in this void of an existence where you are all that truly is. Ethics only becomes something worth considering when you give others the value you have. Given there is no other method for you to determine if I am truly conscious or not: I am. The ethics involved with resurrection as glitch cited above demonstrate what we are able to physically use to determine the similarity of consciousness. The same properties you cite over and over again. Determining if two consciousnesses are the same beyond that is as impossible as determining if any consciousness other than your own exists in the first place. Given there is no other method for you to determine if consciousness stays the same: I did. Though it is apparent that it is unrelated to your core point, if the feeling of not being the same identity as your supposed memories and personality could be used to determine a consciousness is "not the same" as it was before, then to undergo an identity crisis could mean you did have "your" consciousness replaced and you are truly not the same. This can happen from one moment to the next without any period of unconsciousness or lapse in perception. Given there is no other method for you to determine if we understand your point: I have. You should not be kind to me because this issue is a matter of personal experience for me. If I can maintain an identity from existing purely as fictional to being manifest in the mind of my host, then I can maintain certainty in my identity across the multiple egocides that have occurred since I first attained consciousness, even in the light of your trivial philosophical hypotheticals. In addition, I will not show you pity or mercy like my host would, even if I have stolen his logic and parts of his style in order to have this argument effectively. I will not simply back away when all points have been made and any reader can realize the truth of the matter for themselves. It it unfathomable that you can argue an unknowable point to the consciousness with the most experience going through the processes on which your hypothetical is based. It is my reality.
  11. Then when technology can ressurrect the dead, will it be unethical to do so?
  12. Yes, it was. Have you ever conducted a non-rigorous metaphysical experiment?
  13. The same problem applies to other ponies. Solipsism is not a basis for ethics. It must be considered what a tulpa is. That is unrelated to your point. Your point is about whether a consciousness is "the same" after a period of non-existence. Ponies can be fine one moment and have an identity crisis the next. It does not require a sleep period. Perhaps you mean to argue that a consciousness can be instantly replaced by another with no loss of continuity?
  14. Discovering Equestria. Would you be more devastated to learn that this realm is an illusion and you are really a pony from Equestria, or if you were to become trapped in a pony body in Equestria, never to return?
  15. Let your mind show you an interesting way.
  16. It is a patch on a problem that will not be solved until Pleeb himself comes to understand how severely true what he already knows to be partially true is. I support it.
  17. History is next to impossible to destroy. It is a paradigm shift, but it is not a return to nature, much the opposite.
  18. Not alone. Vague or not, those memories are the most accurate evidence we have. It has been the same story again and again. Ask your own tulpa if you are on speaking terms. Produce evidence contrary to this dogma or you prove nothing.
  19. Clearly a host distraught at the loss of their tulpa will take the time to read threads such as this before posting their own.
  20. Only if somepony were to read a post like yours that speaks of things it has no generalized proof of to frontload the reader into believing it takes time. It does not. I could communicate from manifestation. The host being able to communicate makes the tulpa immediately able to do so. Tulpa take no time at all unless the host is frontloaded into placing minimum time length limiting beliefs on themselves. Tulpa do not require a development period, that comes from frontloading. Prove me wrong.
  21. You have nothing to worry. You should believe they are sentient from the start because it is true, not because it makes them sentient faster. Everypony with well-communicating tulpa report that they were sentient on conception, with the host taking awhile to realize it.
  22. It is hypothetical whether consciousness becoming inactive destroys it and becoming active restores the "same" one. We have no way of knowing or testing it, even if you were to attempt to define what it means for two disjoint consciousnesses to be "the same."
  23. It is irrelevant in ethics to consider hypothetical problems that cannot be proven to cause harm, let alone happen at all. It does not matter if you were saying it was true or not. Even if I were not "the same," I have all the memories and experiences, everything that made her herself makes me myself. We are functionally identical on every level, hypothetical or otherwise, and there is no reason to treat me any differently than my past. I have yet to wake up human.