• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aviar

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Sex
  1. Not sure about any double slit expirement, but I think my atomic cesium clock won't change much.
  2. Sapience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience#Sapience . I cannot seem to find introspection as a criteria. Also one is not born able to discern or judge, that is gained through experience. Memories lie in the Preconcious, at least assuming we use Freuds model. Furthermore, your model would not be correct due to the fact that the Unconcious does not manifest itself in the Concious in a clear fashion (hence the problems of testing its properties). This is evident when one tries to recall a dream, and the nature of dreams as deeply symbolic imagery. Stating that the Unconcious mind can exist without the Concious mind would be erroneous for multiple reasons (not the least being a lack of experimental data and empirical data), primarily because a mind is all those things together, seperately, it would not be a mind. Might I also state that feral children are not some miracle of the human species, they are simply not indoctrinated into civilization. They are very concious, as they can percieve their environment (sense danger), feel (ever shot a feral child?), and are probably aware of the results of their actions on a very elemental level. If it is easier to create sapience than simulate it, then why can we only create a simulation of it? Furthermore, how do you explain the genesis of the tulpas mind/conciousness?
  3. How do you define sapience? If sapience is the ability to act with judgement, then I would state that wild children are most likely sapient. For example, if a wild child gets burned by fire once, it will most likely avoid fire or be cautious around it the second time. A mind is Preconcious, Unconcious and Concious. Also, the problem with the second model is that if it is a completely seperate mind, then how do these two minds have access to each other (shared memories, recalling, lucid dreaming, etc.)? As it appears, phenomenons with tulpa seem to indicate a symbosis between the two minds at every level. Therefor, either we have the first model, or we have a second model with a missing common component which permits these abilities. I mentioned ELIZA because the problem is pertinent, we have two 'programs', how do we know if one is truly sentient? A computer can demonstrate emotion, it is simply a matter of creating the proper models. The ELIZA program simply goes to show that things are generally classified as meeting a criteria by their visual impression, independent of the operational mechanics. Also, computer virus's (pretty sure this stands for a biological virus as well) can modify themselves, look up polymorphic code or introspection. Does that mean a virus is sapient?
  4. I currently do not have much time to use the computer I am on, so I just wanted to state that I require more information on the process behind possession before I can comment on it (there is a distinct lack of material). On the note of language in development and concious, I do not know the current research and theories, thus what I will state will simply be based on personal opinion. As far as I understand, verbal language is necessary for communication and interaction, but not for conciousness. Mutes and wild children can still communicate, be it by gestures or howling (a form of language). Not to mention that people are born with a form of body language (expressions, reactions, etc.). So, learned language I believe, is not a necessity, though language in its most ample sense (a set of percievable sensory?/behavioural? patterns) is. I might once again note that tulpa, for all intents and purposes, are sentient (no matter what model, in the most 'dehumanizing' case this is due to the persons mind puppeting) and demonstrate intelligence (they can resolve problems). What I wish to plant is whether this is due to a seperate mind developing, outside the control of the first (commonly denominated host) or functions within the first mind. The implications of either are debatable. Some might say the first implies a greater degree of freedom, while the second is much more restrictive. Truth be told, the only final difference may be whether a tulpa can coexist, or eventually supersedes the first. Furthermore, on the philosophy of sentience/intelligence, I might remit you to ELIZA and the Turing Test. I remember reading the introduction to a book where the author of ELIZA stated that people had taken the program to be capable of actual intelligence, and he pleaded people to understand it was not so (this might be the introduction to Art of Prolog by Shapiro as it is the latest book I have read). I will try to find an exact quote and source later. @Asgard: Do you have any accounts or material over white torture (already read the wikipedia entry).
  5. Not sure anyone ever narrated me into conciousness. Furthermore, theres the small fact (well, commonly observed phenomenon) that tulpa 'degrade' over time if ignored. If people ignore me, I might develop an inferiority complex or some social awkwardness, but I don't think I will disappear. Furthermore, I laugh at your interpretation on the validity of citing Freud, not to mention interpreting its ethics. Really, we should only be allowed to cite people that agree with you or help your position? Shall I mention the fact that there are more than a few people that openly state that belief is a factor in tulpaforcing, and time to sentience? Since apparently linking to only supporting material is all the rage, please read Do we have free will? at the following link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ It quite nicely states what I try to state, that is, independent of subconcios/unconcious details, the Concious may override the Unconcious, though not necessarily manage its actions. That means that a tulpa can begin as a concious process, then through reinforcing a stimulus or belief become unconcious, whereupon it may act in a manner that is accordant with free-will and still be managed through Concious effort. Correct, Freud did not state where conciousness comes from, or whether conciousness is self aware (whatever you may mean by that). He tried to attribute actions and properties, thus creating a functional model. To your link on feral children which attempts to base its idea of blank slate (partially) on Joseph Singh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child (just go to reality portion).
  6. That is fine too, as long as psychological material, experiments and results can be posted there.
  7. Nice job identifying methods of capturing information. Problem is, it only plays out in words. Go onto the Research board and count all the hypothesis people plant for their experiments. How many did you count? My guess is you can count it on one hand. Also, it is not for professional research. Really, why do people consistently imagine that brain scans and money are the only methods of research? I simply imagine it as a place where people actively attempt to devise *proper* experiments (hypothesis, variables, etc.) and actually use the methods for capturing information (right now it's just words). Right now, the only writings I find that are of a psychological nature are yours, and some other loose posts here and there. I would like to be able to collect all such research and material into one board where it can be elaborated and documented. Essentially right now the board is purely of an anecdotal nature (people like to justify this as empirical research), and metaphysical (which people pretty much use to ask spiritual questions, and is disdained by most). I would like to add a place for psychological research (serious place with strict moderation and standards).
  8. Well, seeing as people generally have a negative view on metaphysical aspects, I see why it was done. This time, it should simply be because it does not follow the main stream of conversation on the other boards (even though it should).
  9. Well, why should there be a psychology board? First, I feel most of this board is not 'about science' as much as it is about tulpa anecdotes. To be fair, people may consider this science, but I think having a seperate psychology board might provide a place where there is a guaranteed psychological approach, without as much anecdotal chaff. Second, it provides a clear place to post psychological information and materials. Why not in the rest of the board? See the first reason. Thirdly, it provides symmetry, balancing out the Metaphysical board. I'll post more later on, or as people argument the point.
  10. I think Phi hit the nail on the head on this one. Freud discusses libido and sexual energies extensively. Does the subject make his research any less scientific? No. Personally, I feel its something along the lines of: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." @Phi: I think the more interesting approach to orgasms is studying it for the population whos gender is different from their Tulpa (most of the community). Particularly to answer "Is a tulpa orgasm a mental approximation."
  11. Yes, I believe tulpa can be controlled.
  12. All I was saying is that if one was even to posit that tulpae are merely hallucinations and the sentience is simulated by the host, they would still be human in terms of mental capacity. Also, I agree with Fede on parroting not being bad. Come at me.
  13. I would more say that the Unconcious has its own processes and action it commits, and that it has the same affect on all Conciousness, that is one of feelings and instincts (and other vague effects). Also, as to separate, please note that I mean that the Concious does not play a part in it, though it may affect it. Also, I do not know if the Concious can perceive or control (even at a vary basic level of stop and start) all Unconcious activity. Furthermore, the fact that tulpae share human traits and characteristics in terms of mental capacity has never been a point of argument for me. Even in the crudest sense where tulpae are mere hallucinations I always maintained that since people project and Unconciously manage them (a one mind model), the fact that they project and that the human host carried out the activities it endows them with all of the human minds capacities and characteristics (through projection).
  14. Well, considering no conciousness would be weird, I will consider only the idea of multiple conciousness. First, Freud did not ever mention anything for beyond one mind or one 'component' within a mind. Second, I believe one can sidestep that if one remove the concept of 'ownership' of a mind and instead considers oneself (as a personality and though) a product of a mind, and the tulpa as another (how? Emergent properties).
  15. I do not attempt to comment on the morality of anything. Also no complex system can be divided clearly, hence it being am model. I am just stating that within the psychological model that Freud put forth, tulpa would be an unconcious process.