• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hierophant

  • Rank
  1. Not necessarily. Puppeting is an okay path to take in developing a tulpa as long as you know when to stop after they gain sentience.
  2. R: we would absolutely remain alive!! you can't kill me that easy!
  3. Conscious vs unconscious - those things aren't important to me. I treat p-zombies and "actual" humans exactly the same, and put them in the same mental bucket.
  4. if we're talking about mind and thoughts then stuff like "humans have flesh but robots have metal" seems very irrelevant at least fmpov psychologically an AI can be made to imitate almost any typical human psyche
  5. I subscribe to the "fake it till you make it" school of thought re: tulpamancy, which believes that believing that your tulpa is real immensely aids the process of disassociation, so it's an important step in creation.
  6. There's no fundamental difference between humans an AI. Even if you argued that AIs are just a chinese room while humans are somehow magically not, it still wouldn't be a fundamental difference because the inputs and outputs are the same
  7. No, we definitely know enough about how thoughts work to know that it's possible to experience another person's thoughts. What do you mean? Hallucinations are caused by neurons false-alarming, and firing when there's nothing there. Let me put it this way... I see my tulpa in front of me through visual imposition. This is my experience. The experience is fake. It has nothing to do with what is actually going on. What is actually going on: my neurons are going pew pew pew and my brain receives the pew pew pew and goes bang bang bang and the bang bang bang is processed by another bit in my brain whose only job is to take in bangs and spit out images and it processes it and spits out the image of the tulpa. All of this is accomplished through electric signals, purely physical. What do you mean by "random firing of neurons"? The neurons fire in fixed patterns based on how they've fired in the past. A human life is just neurons firing over and over and over altering their patterns based on previous fires. All of this is, once again, physical. If you consider this random firing and that humans are p-zombies, then I guess they would be p-zombies by my definition. And if that means I'm not sentient, I don't particularly care. I've never had it and don't want it. Oh yes, it definitely does. Because humans are bad at processing shit and lump stuff they can't explain under "ineffable". Nonsense. Since all illusions are caused by misfiring neurons, all illusions are neurons, and neurons are physical. So all illusions are physical. They're just not the physical you think they are(you think they're physical in terms of flesh and bone, they're really just brain cells rubbing). Uh... this seems simple enough. My brain is at coordinates (X, Y, Z, .....) on the space-time continuum, so that's how it occupies that position. Investigation complete! Good work, gang. Inner experiences do not actually exist. I repeat, inner experiences do not exist. This is the most critical point that I am trying to make. It makes no sense to talk about a person's inner experiences, because they do not exist.
  8. My tulpa's probably a chinese room, but so am I, and I've never given a shit about "actual" understanding. Something that's indistinguishable from the real thing is the same as the real thing imo
  9. This is not "wishful playing with science fiction". We know, on a definite level, that thoughts are caused by neurons firing. It's not unreasonable to say that if we learnt how to manipulate neurons, we would be able to tap into the thoughts of others. We are not p-zombies - we are actually sentient. Try to grasp the fact that your experiences can be explained in purely physical terms while still allowing you to remain sentient. Reality is independent of the mind, but the reality that you see is mind-dependent. That's why it's possible to make mistakes, like thinking that a random stranger on the street is your friend from afar. Absolutely correct. Anything in the world that you think is non-physical is an illusion. Sometimes it's an illusion hiding a real thing, like the illusion of "smell" thrown over the olfactory signals in your brain. Sometimes it's an illusion hiding nothing at all, and you're just fooling yourself. Can you explain this statement further? Absolutely not. There is nothing that is non-physical. Non-physical things will not "emerge" - they will simply never exist, and anyone who says they does are just falling for the illusion their notoriously quirky brain generates.
  10. Inner experiences are accessible. A civilization with sufficiently advanced technology would be able to do it with trivial ease. I'm not sure how they'd do it, because I don't know what sort of sci-fi tech they would use, but it's definitely possible for them to do so. There's no such thing as "experiential matter"; everything is physical. The "experience" you have is more or less an illusion generated by your brain so it can more efficiently process information. Ordinary seeing: - photons hit object - photons bounce into eye - eye sends signal to brain - brain gets visual signal - you "see" something("seeing" here being an illusion to indicate that the visual signal is received and processed) Imposition: - nothing to bounce off - you force your brain to process an artificial signal - brain gets what it things is a visual signal - you "see" something What does this mean?
  11. The inner experiences are physical - the "redness" of red is not a thing in and of itself, just a collection of neurons in Mary's brain that point a certain way. Mary is shocked or feels a profound feeling, that feeling is due to the neurons firing when they have never fired before. Minds are pretty accessible, if you have sufficient knowledge(which we do not, since neurobiology is very difficult), a scalpel, and a sterile operating room.
  12. I don't believe that Mary obtains any significant new information. At most she learns what it feels like to have her retinas stimulated from the inside, rather than just understanding the process. Physicalism is in line with this. Can you explain clearly how it is not?