Your Rationale Behind Tuppers

[Akecalo]

This post has me slightly confused. Given the inclusion of this:

we're special snowflakes.

I must assume that it was in part at least, intended as a response to my post.

 

I do not have much time in which to respond and clarify my point, but I will endeavour to do so, briefly. My apologies in advance if this post is ill constructed and of low quality. I was rushed.

 

Ugh, you people give me a f**king headache.

I am not sure that your biological state has a direct, medically supported correlation with anything that I have done, or that I can in any way be responsible for your reaction to words that I have posted on "the internet". You appear to have a strong external locus of control.

 

Can't you see that what you're trying to prove, "that a tulpa is not sentient because their is no evidence they are", is a logical fallacy?

Please direct me to the post where this assertion was made, or where anyone attempted to prove it. I read through the thread quickly to be sure, but I don't think that I have seen any post in which anyone seriously attempted to prove this, or if they did, they failed miserably - due to the reasons given in my own post above.

 

In fact I have seen no post in this thread in which anybody has tried to prove anything at all.

 

As far as the statement that you have made in the above quote, you are quite correct, it is a logical fallacy. It is known as Argument from Ignorance, or argument by appeal to ignorance.

 

I find it interesting that you stridently accuse others of committing this logical fallacy (when in fact they did not), then immediately proceed to commit the same logical fallacy yourself:

There is no evidence to show that they are not sentient either!! It really can be either way, so I don't see the point of trying to disprove a way of thinking until we have actual empirical evidence!

 

...

 

In my opinion, the tulpa is no different from the host, if we're just talking about the mind and nothing else. I don't see why that has to mean we're special snowflakes.

So, your point seems to be that it is ok (logical? rational?) to believe whatever we like while there is no evidence that can either support or refute our belief? Surely "there is no evidence to support X, therefore I support X without evidence" is as silly as "there is no evidence to support X, therefore I support Y without evidence", which is what you have erroneously (AFAIR) accused others of saying?

 

In addition, in calling out the "Logical Fallacy", you seem to be referring to my support for the scientific method as a way to draw conclusions about things that are currently unknown in this field. Do you believe that advocacy for the scientific approach to this field is a demonstration of a logical fallacy?

 

It is at this point that you appear to attempt another logical fallacy:

(Going for that MD degree, by the way).

The age old Argument from Authority. This one has an extra little amusing twist, however. Ordinarily I see this fallacy applied in the form; "My arguments do not stand on their own merit, but I have a qualification in field X, therefore you should uncritically accept my competence and by extension the points I have made in relation to the almost completely unrelated field Y".

 

In this case however, we have a slightly different form; "My arguments do not stand on their own merit, but I may one day achieve a qualification in field X, therefore you should uncritically accept my competence and by extension the points I have made in relation to the almost completely unrelated field Y".

 

I could try this too. I could say with complete truthfulness, that I have been employed for decades in scientific/engineering (and related technical) fields, during which time thousands to tens of thousands of lives (and millions to tens of millions of local monetary units) were directly dependent upon my skill, competence and rigour. Does this have any bearing on the validity of the opinions that I have expressed in this thread? Of course not. Only an idiot would claim otherwise. An argument that cannot stand on its own merit is not a valid argument, and will not be saved by appeal to authority.

 

Honestly, how can you prove that you're even real anyway?

I have never made the claim that I can prove that I am real. I have in fact frequently mentioned (on this site and others) that I cannot convincingly prove any such thing.

 

In addition, I have never even made the claim that I am real, let alone that I can prove it. I even alluded to this in the post to which you appear to be responding.

 

The next part confused me again:

Just found this Is the Mind Real?, which is probably relevant.

The page appears to be set up as a place where people can make comments, which are supposed to contribute to some form of "debate". In this case the debate subject that is presented is "Is the Mind Real?" The definition of the word Mind in this context is left undefined, as is the definition of the word Real. This has led to each poster using their own private definition of mind (and possibly of real), resulting in a series of posts that are in large part unrelated, in any meaningful way to the earlier or later posts. There is no debate. In addition the fuzzily defined terminology resulted in an implicit drift of the debate subject to the tangentially related "Is the Mind Real, and What does Mind Mean Anyway."

 

Again there was no debate on the matter. A number of people made unrelated posts, stating a personal opinion as fact, with little or no reasoning shown, with no appropriately referenced evidence to support their claimed personal beliefs.

 

The site itself judged the "winner" of the "debate", based not on the validity of the arguments, but on which side could be bothered to post the largest number of poorly written, ill thought out, largely unfounded personal opinions.

 

I am not entirely sure what you thought was relevant to the discussion in this thread.

 

Still, thank you for the link.

[Guest Anonymous]

Akecalo, my gods, you are a gem to this community! I wish Mistgod and I had your abilities to articulate and present rational counter arguments.

---

@Raetin,

 

Sorry bout the headache sweetie. We still love you my buddy!

[Luminesce]

This seems to be my working definition of "person" ... Sentience is actually not something I associate with "person" or "personality" - more like something the body does.

 

Well, this thread was a more vague "your rationale behind tulpas" rather than "your rationale for believing tulpas to be sentient". That post was focusing more on the independent existence of tulpas than whether or not they're sentient, which was sort of implied. She did note at the end that whether or not she or anyone else was sentient was irrelevant, if that was relevant. I dunno.

 

I don't understand this sentence. If "you" is defined as mind+body, then there can be only one of that "you" - but why would I define a personality as the whole body+mind?

 

That was one of the two options for belief she presented. That was the inconsistent, tulpas-aren't-sentient/-don't-exist aspect I guess. You fall on the same side as us, that a person is what we defined as opposed to the whole, which explains the legitimacy of tulpas and hosts as equals rather well IMO.

 

Well, I did come up with all of that myself, I guess. I shouldn't be agreeing with it as if I didn't. Tewi certainly seems more adventurous in posting our beliefs here, though. I've held those as true for quite a while without posting about them in-depth like that.

[Akecalo]

@Melian, Thank you. Your very kind words are appreciated.

[Drakaina]

I had a great time reading that last response, Akecalo. Smart with a hint of snark is my favourite flavour. X3

 

I've seen the idea mentioned, and yenu wrote it the easiest way to paraphrase, that "'you' = body + mind" which I have to vehemently disagree with. Speaking as someone with a variant identity I feel I can say with confidence that mind and body have loose ties to each other at best. The hardware is linked to provide feedback and allow your body to function, but your entire personality, thoughts, everything that makes you you is located in the brain. Floating inside a void, with no real ability to see first hand what's going on, and trusting that the feedback its getting from your other organs is accurate.

 

Putting it that way, I can see more readily how the brain might invent a companion for itself. One that it doesn't require the other senses to interact with.

[Guest Anonymous]

"Smart with a hint of snarky" Would that be "smarky?"

[Raetin]

This post has me slightly confused. Given the inclusion of this:

I must assume that it was in part at least, intended as a response to my post.

 

I do not have much time in which to respond and clarify my point, but I will endeavour to do so, briefly. My apologies in advance if this post is ill constructed and of low quality. I was rushed.

 

I read your post. I agree with almost everything you said, actually. Reading your post again, I'm assuming you associated my "special snowflake" comment with your "special" comment you made? Big misunderstanding here. I think my post earlier might have been arguing the same thing actually. If this is what a rushed post is for you, I'd hate to experience a real one, jeez.

 

I am not sure that your biological state has a direct, medically supported correlation with anything that I have done, or that I can in any way be responsible for your reaction to words that I have posted on "the internet". You appear to have a strong external locus of control.

 

It has nothing to do with my argument, I was just expressing my emotional state at the time. I don't see why you need to comment on it if it's not meant to further my own argument. That's like commenting on someone who says, "They have butterflies in their stomach" or simple, "I'm so happy" statement. What's the point?

 

Please direct me to the post where this assertion was made, or where anyone attempted to prove it. I read through the thread quickly to be sure, but I don't think that I have seen any post in which anyone seriously attempted to prove this, or if they did, they failed miserably - due to the reasons given in my own post above.

 

In fact I have seen no post in this thread in which anybody has tried to prove anything at all.

 

Looking at the posts on this thread again, you're right, there isn't any. I guess I got pretty angry reading other threads and started looking at this one with an accusatory mindset. I apologize for that. This is why I shouldn't post things when I'm angry.

 

As far as the statement that you have made in the above quote, you are quite correct, it is a logical fallacy. It is known as Argument from Ignorance, or argument by appeal to ignorance.

 

I find it interesting that you stridently accuse others of committing this logical fallacy (when in fact they did not), then immediately proceed to commit the same logical fallacy yourself:

So, your point seems to be that it is ok (logical? rational?) to believe whatever we like while there is no evidence that can either support or refute our belief? Surely "there is no evidence to support X, therefore I support X without evidence" is as silly as "there is no evidence to support X, therefore I support Y without evidence", which is what you have erroneously (AFAIR) accused others of saying?

 

In addition, in calling out the "Logical Fallacy", you seem to be referring to my support for the scientific method as a way to draw conclusions about things that are currently unknown in this field. Do you believe that advocacy for the scientific approach to this field is a demonstration of a logical fallacy?

 

Oh god, why. I'm not even going to answer this. If you want, you can say I'm making another logical fallacy by avoiding this particular argument, but I really don't feel like it right now.

 

It is at this point that you appear to attempt another logical fallacy:

The age old Argument from Authority. This one has an extra little amusing twist, however. Ordinarily I see this fallacy applied in the form; "My arguments do not stand on their own merit, but I have a qualification in field X, therefore you should uncritically accept my competence and by extension the points I have made in relation to the almost completely unrelated field Y".

 

In this case however, we have a slightly different form; "My arguments do not stand on their own merit, but I may one day achieve a qualification in field X, therefore you should uncritically accept my competence and by extension the points I have made in relation to the almost completely unrelated field Y".

 

I could try this too. I could say with complete truthfulness, that I have been employed for decades in scientific/engineering (and related technical) fields, during which time thousands to tens of thousands of lives (and millions to tens of millions of local monetary units) were directly dependent upon my skill, competence and rigour. Does this have any bearing on the validity of the opinions that I have expressed in this thread? Of course not. Only an idiot would claim otherwise. An argument that cannot stand on its own merit is not a valid argument, and will not be saved by appeal to authority.

 

Are you serious? You're absolutely nitpicky, oh my god. Of course I don't have authority or knowledge on the subject, it was just a reference that I am heading towards that kind of subject in the future and eager to share new relevant information that no one seems to have here. That knowledge does not exist yet, however. Talk to me in a decade and I might be able to tell you some more stuff about the brain.

 

I have never made the claim that I can prove that I am real. I have in fact frequently mentioned (on this site and others) that I cannot convincingly prove any such thing.

 

In addition, I have never even made the claim that I am real, let alone that I can prove it. I even alluded to this in the post to which you appear to be responding.

 

Which I appear to be responding, huh...

 

The next part confused me again:

The page appears to be set up as a place where people can make comments, which are supposed to contribute to some form of "debate". In this case the debate subject that is presented is "Is the Mind Real?" The definition of the word Mind in this context is left undefined, as is the definition of the word Real. This has led to each poster using their own private definition of mind (and possibly of real), resulting in a series of posts that are in large part unrelated, in any meaningful way to the earlier or later posts. There is no debate. In addition the fuzzily defined terminology resulted in an implicit drift of the debate subject to the tangentially related "Is the Mind Real, and What does Mind Mean Anyway."

 

Again there was no debate on the matter. A number of people made unrelated posts, stating a personal opinion as fact, with little or no reasoning shown, with no appropriately referenced evidence to support their claimed personal beliefs.

 

The site itself judged the "winner" of the "debate", based not on the validity of the arguments, but on which side could be bothered to post the largest number of poorly written, ill thought out, largely unfounded personal opinions.

 

I am not entirely sure what you thought was relevant to the discussion in this thread.

Still, thank you for the link.

 

The reason why I posted that link was to show the similarities of people arguing if tulpas are real or not to the link I posted about whether the mind is real or not.

 

*sigh*

 

Edit: You should write my humanities papers for me, this is the kind of analytical writing that I need to do. This is a compliment, by the way.

[Akecalo]

I read your post. I agree with almost everything you said, actually. Reading your post again, I'm assuming you associated my "special snowflake" comment with your "special" comment you made? Big misunderstanding here. I think my post earlier might have been arguing the same thing actually. If this is what a rushed post is for you, I'd hate to experience a real one, jeez.

 

Ah, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

It has nothing to do with my argument, I was just expressing my emotional state at the time. I don't see why you need to comment on it if it's not meant to further my own argument. That's like commenting on someone who says, "They have butterflies in their stomach" or simple, "I'm so happy" statement. What's the point?

 

Fair enough.

 

Looking at the posts on this thread again, you're right, there isn't any. I guess I got pretty angry reading other threads and started looking at this one with an accusatory mindset. I apologize for that. This is why I shouldn't post things when I'm angry.

 

Easily done. Thank you for clarifying.

 

Talk to me in a decade and I might be able to tell you some more stuff about the brain.

 

I perhaps thought that you were saying something slightly different there, than you had intended to say.

 

I will certainly look forward to that future discussion. It will be enlightening I am sure, to talk to someone who has studied the brain formally while being interested in this particular field. Good luck in your endeavours in that area by the way.

 

The reason why I posted that link was to show the similarities of people arguing if tulpas are real or not to the link I posted about whether the mind is real or not.

 

Ah, I see. Thank you.

 

Edit: You should write my humanities papers for me, this is the kind of analytical writing that I need to do. This is a compliment, by the way.

 

Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Good luck with the papers and with the rest of your efforts.

[Akecalo]

I had a great time reading that last response, Akecalo. Smart with a hint of snark is my favourite flavour. X3

 

Thank you. You are very kind.

 

I've seen the idea mentioned, and yenu wrote it the easiest way to paraphrase, that "'you' = body + mind" which I have to vehemently disagree with. Speaking as someone with a variant identity I feel I can say with confidence that mind and body have loose ties to each other at best. The hardware is linked to provide feedback and allow your body to function, but your entire personality, thoughts, everything that makes you you is located in the brain. Floating inside a void, with no real ability to see first hand what's going on, and trusting that the feedback its getting from your other organs is accurate.

 

Putting it that way, I can see more readily how the brain might invent a companion for itself. One that it doesn't require the other senses to interact with.

 

From my own subjective point of view, I have felt on some level that I am somehow separate from the body (even to the point that I just referred to it as the body, without even realisng it until I read back what I had written) since I was very young. Later, sometime before my teenage years, having been introduced to the concept of software, I came to think of myself (and Maya) as software running on the brain. I do not know the reason for this, but it may have something to do with forming a defense mechanism by which to deal with certain interesting idiosyncrasies of the brain and body, concerning the sensory systems. We have since seen evidence that this analogy is not quite as descriptive as it seemed at that time.

 

During the first and second period of time that I was trying to make Maya "more real" as I thought of it then, not having the term "imposition" to use (although towards the end of that time, I became familiar with the concepts surrounding the related film making techniques, and began to think in those terms), one of the things that I tried concerned the modification of my perception of the messages that the sensory systems of the body were sending. Could I feel my limbs as being different lengths, could I see my hands age before my eyes, could I feel wings on my back (the answer to all of these turned out to be yes)? This highlighed to me, more than anything else that we are connected to the outside world through our senses and the only knowledge of it that we can attain, is through the medium of those senses. And our perception of those senses can be modified. This is probably one of the reasons that I came to like the idea of using science to find out about the world. It is a way to get to the bottom of things despite the limitations of our senses and our perceptual biases.

 

We definitely understand your suggestion that it is possible to perceive the mind as being loosely bound to the body, we can identify with that. And perhaps it does help the ease of development of, or ability to believe in the presence of a tulpa.

 

It is an interesting thought.

[SomethingDire]

 

I've visited this thread multiple times over multiple days and this question sill makes no sense to me. There's nothing I need to rationalize or justify.

---

Some of the replies remind me of this great quote from James Randi:

 

[video=youtube]

 

I'll have to agree with Jean-Luc here. If you asked me this question about 9 months ago, I'd probably start sweating nervously and explain my thoughts on how our brains are not well known by anyone and that anything is possible or some stupid stuff like that.

 

Now though, I simply don't care. Especially after the recent atmosphere that's been around the forum.