Drawing Lines Without Solid Research/ Documentation etc.

[SomethingDire]

@Sock

Thanks for the reply. The only part that bugged me about your response is the "we can never find the truth ever" part, I'm going to take the rest of it as criticism and will change the OP accordingly, I'll especially take the "this seems like the exact opposite of this line of thinking" part.

 

Let me summarize why that part bugs me:

 

I never said we won't (or can't) find the truth ever, I just said that we have very limited sources that even hint at the said "truth" let alone covering it completely. I'm a big supporter of research, be it subjective or not, because you're still going to find important things about yourself (and your companion, in this case.) I will never, ever be against asking questions. Actually, the OP is a question in itself. "You did this and you believe that this is the standard for what a tulpa should be, yet there is nothing else for you to support you and your company other than your own experience. How?"

 

The only part I am against here is using your own subjective experiences as the standard of what a tulpa should or should not be. That's why I made the thread.

 

@Lumi

 

Yeah, I did understand that, I was only poking a bit of fun at myself.

 

@Drakaina

I'd also go with that if this wasn't the Internet.

[Drakaina]

Since it is the internet more than ever I take things at face value. Text has no inflection, and no body language to discern a hidden meaning, or untruth to a statement. Some are obvious blarney, like claiming to be the lord high lord of dragons, but with more reasonable claims, I have no real reason to assume people are lying, and in most cases I couldn't probe one way or another anyway. So I take things as they are presented. Leaving things open to the fact that the speaker may be wrong, but try not to assume such.

[Ayre]

Sorry it took me a few days, but here is a paper I mentioned. It's written by Dr. Samuel Veissière. He is a "Visiting Professor in the Culture, Mind, and Brain program at McGill University, where he is affiliated with the Department of Anthropology, the Cognitive Science Program, and the Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry."[1]

 

You can read about his research here.

[Linkzelda]

Intermission: Just to point out, if anyone is afraid of delving in the metaphysical, do note that theorizing objective vs. subjective reality would entail some rudiments from metaphysical viewpoints (e.g. subjectivist worldviews like panpsychism, solipsism). If one is trying to stay clear from that, but wants to know what sentience entails, and presumed modes of it, they're going to reach a dead-end.

 

Even trying to theorize, or finding solid research on sentience has to have some underpinning of metaphysical, epistemological, and such. But I wish you all the best in that if you're avoiding that.

---

 

@OP, I would be like Lumi, and state that I wouldn't know. Though, I think things like qualia, and other aspects that seem to tie together with sentience would be interesting. Though, that would be theorizing on viewpoints on consciousness, which ultimately becomes a metaphysical one. And unfortunately, due to the eyebrows that are raised when that's discussed, along with the ironic twist of us having to use those rudiments to even theorize certain things with tulpas the first place, I usually end up pulling my punches in discussions either way. Hopefully, the thread will make people realize that people want more of what makes sentience XYZ so that in turn, they would know, theoretically, what it really means to treat XYZ as sentient.

 

I remember some discussions on soft science vs. hard science, and I think the former might be a stepping stone for hopefully more concrete empirical studies on things like that.

[Tewi]

@OP, I would be like Lumi, and state that I wouldn't know. Though, I think things like qualia, and other aspects that seem to tie together with sentience would be interesting.

 

He was actually replying to the first sentence in the thread, though it was in a quote: "How can we even talk about tulpas being "actually sentient" without knowing about what sentience actually is?"

 

I suppose "I don't know" can be extrapolated from someone who doesn't care to try and explain such things. But neither of us would likely ever say "I don't know" when it comes to knowing ourselves. Either we know that knowing doesn't matter, or we find out, but we don't just not know.

[SomethingDire]

 

 

And unfortunately, due to the eyebrows that are raised when that's discussed, along with the ironic twist of us having to use those rudiments to even theorize certain things with tulpas the first place, I usually end up pulling my punches in discussions either way.

 

 

Great point. The base of the word "tulpa" comes from the metaphysical, and yet we're arguing about that while trying to keep the discussion around it psychological. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

Hopefully, the thread will make people realize that people want more of what makes sentience XYZ so that in turn, they would know, theoretically, what it really means to treat XYZ as sentient.

 

I remember some discussions on soft science vs. hard science, and I think the former might be a stepping stone for hopefully more concrete empirical studies on things like that.

 

I also agree with this.