Can Unconscious Parroting/Puppeting Be Debunked?

[Guest Anonymous]

The terms Living Imagination and Narrative Imagination sound a lot alike. People will think you are inspired by Mistgod.

 

How about just leaving it as Unconscious Parroting?

[Linkzelda]

The terms Living Imagination and Narrative Imagination sound a lot alike. People will think you are inspired by Mistgod.

 

Thanks for applying to be my PR manager, but I’m not worried of who I was inspired from. I was actually inspired by Martha Nussbaum, who coined the term Narrative Imagination. If Living imagination sounds similar to it, then okay, that’s no problem; I can see the correlation with that.

 

How about just leaving it as Unconscious Parroting?

 

Unconscious Parrotting implies that a tulpa will, to some degree, be a marionette in a perpetual state of influence by actions controlled by the host unconsciously. That contradiction is not something that’s pragmatic, nor compatiable, in my opinion.

 

Narrative Imagination, on the other hand, is:

 

Narrative imagination' date=' as Martha Nussbaum (1996) discusses it, is ``the ability to be an intelligent reader of another person's story'', an ability tied to being a democratic and cultivated world citizen, one who understands the lives of others… Narrative imagination does not only need knowledge and logical reasoning but also love and compassion..[/quote']

 

From this, and stripping away the political context, I can infer something to you:

 

- One does not need to unconsciously parrot love and compassion

- One does not need to unconsciously parrot being logical and knowledgeable at something

- One does not need to unconsciously parrot these brain states as the brain is the one that’s conditioning them. To state that unconscious parroting is akin to narrative imagination is to state that these emotional states of being can be conditioned by our imagination; Imagination is just a placeholder for the brain in this context.

 

These are mental states that can be correlated with our reactive, and attentional faculties. But we don’t go around saying we’re parroting these mental states. We would literally be the parrot in the cage wanting a cracker all the time. In other words, can we get out of that cage with narrative imagination, and actually commit into actualizing these thoughts over sentience through whatever means necessary?

 

“Unconscious parroting” is even equivalent to us being able to marionette our own brain, but one would question why they would need a brain to control things in the first place?” It actually becomes a silly question because, surprise, infinite regress come into play. Don’t get me wrong, though, I think narrative imagination is a crucial, if not, existential fallback we utilize when treating a tulpa as sentient.

 

You do not know how much this terminology has changed my perspective in “treating as sentient.” But no, Living Imagination was not the source of inspiration. It was me actually connecting the dots with previous psychological terms that ended up being a useful tool in analyzing this phenomenon. I have Martha Nussbaum to thank for; who would’ve thought a concept since 1996 would still hold some potential value in this period?

[Guest Anonymous]

- One does not need to unconsciously parrot love and compassion

- One does not need to unconsciously parrot being logical and knowledgeable at something

- One does not need to unconsciously parrot these brain states as the brain is the one that’s conditioning them. To state that unconscious parroting is akin to narrative imagination is to state that these emotional states of being can be conditioned by our imagination; Imagination is just a placeholder for the brain in this context.

 

I am sorta, kinda beginning to understand a little maybe.

 

These are mental states that can be correlated with our reactive, and attentional faculties. But we don’t go around saying we’re parroting these mental states. We would literally be the parrot in the cage wanting a cracker all the time. In other words, can we get out of that cage with narrative imagination, and actually commit into actualizing these thoughts over sentience through whatever means necessary?

 

“Unconscious parroting” is even equivalent to us being able to marionette our own brain, but one would question why they would need a brain to control things in the first place?” It actually becomes a silly question because, surprise, infinite regress come into play. Don’t get me wrong, though, I think narrative imagination is a crucial, if not, existential fallback we utilize when treating a tulpa as sentient.

 

You do not know how much this terminology has changed my perspective in “treating as sentient.” But no, Living Imagination was not the source of inspiration. It was me actually connecting the dots with previous psychological terms that ended up being a useful tool in analyzing this phenomenon. I have Martha Nussbaum to thank for; who would’ve thought a concept since 1996 would still hold some potential value in this period?

 

"Narrative imagination, as MarthaNussbaum (1996) discusses it, is ``the ability to be an intelligent reader of another person's story'', an ability tied to being a democraticand cultivated world citizen, one who understands the lives of others. Narrative imagination does not only need knowledge and logical reasoning but also love and compassion."

 

Are you talking about loving your puppet and feeling love from them? Emotions not just animation?

 

Again, children do this when they play. It's projected imagination. That is what empathy is all about. I am trying to understand what you are saying but not really getting it at all.

 

Wait, are you saying that the parroting we think we are doing is just empathizing with an already sentient mind? Like we think we are pulling the strings but in reality we are just empathizing and kinda having foreknowledge of what we expect that a person we know will be doing? Sort of like mouthing the words you know for sure are gonna come out of your significant others' mouth, just to annoy them?

[Linkzelda]

Here are some more musings I created in a few minutes as to how I feel Unconscious Parroting isn’t real, or even probable (note: this is different from stating it’s impossible).

 

Narratives Capable of Creating Future Scenarios

 

I had a revelation a few days ago behind the “treat as sentient” philosophy. In conjunction with what I stated with narrative imagination, I think the philosophy is a type of narrative that has a capacity of creating future scenarios. Since narrative imagination involves imagining oneself in another person’s shoes, especially in regards to sentience, it’s easy for one to think that unconscious parroting is a real thing that can happen in a person’s mind.

 

But, like I stated before, in order for this meaning to actually be true, one has to have the assumption that their imagination, or subliminal thoughts are conscious experiencers that can control the actions of a tulpa. This can even be applied with an assumption of neurons, or physical matter in our brain that’s non-experiential matter can suddenly become experiential matter to control the actions of a tulpa.

 

Explaining that level of control through a materialistic worldview doesn’t seem to hold for very long as there’s still an explanatory gap – how non-experiential matter transitions to experiential matter. If this is possible, then one could state, yes, unconscious parroting is probable, but I’m not sure panpsychism, or other subjectivist viewpoints that encourage mind over matter is something that jives with everyone.

 

And even adopting a dualism in the abstract sense that one’s subliminal processes and thoughts can control a tulpa similar to conscious experiences of a host controlling a tulpa, it still begs the question on whether or not those same inner workings of the brain are conscious experiencers themselves. Parroting, by default, is exclusive to conscious acts, and if unconscious thoughts have the same capacity as the ‘self’ in terms of sentience, then unconscious, and even subconscious becomes a moot point, and creates more ambiguity.

 

If the mind can unconsciously parrot a tulpa, then it wouldn’t be a surprise that it can parrot our actions as well. There’s a difference between the mind anticipating certain things based on experiential learning, context, and such vs. it literally having us by strings, and dictating our lives for us. If this truly is the case, then we’re just like unthinking automatons. One could say that we can control the narratives that can create a future scenario for our tulpas, but when it comes to actually putting this into execution within our subjective experiences, it assumes we have an inner understanding of our mind to literally alter those unconscious thoughts at the blink of an eye.

 

But, unconscious thoughts can’t be changed at a blink of an eye, and no amount of auto-suggestion can suddenly create physical changes to suit this yearning. Unconscious parroting being real to a person is acknowledging the probability that they control that execution the brain does to find a way for seemingly impossible things. That’s equivalent to adopting the mentality that one can be all-knowing, in other words, imaginary omniscience. But, when one steps out of that God’s point of view, they’re going to be demystified as to what really causes sentience, or the impressions of it to bleed onto a tulpa. To say the least, it would be the misuse of a common usage in fiction where things can be read from a seemingly objective viewpoint because one can know what the character is doing, and thinking.

 

We use narratives to try and understand what it means to be someone, or something, but it doesn’t grant us some kind of magical ability to control the backoffice of our brain.

[Faemon]

To the topic thread title: umm, yes, please very much? I personally already consider it a contradiction, and especially question the motives behind the distinction. What, exactly, is it that people who "puppet" "unconsciously" want it to be instead, that must be made so hashtagging gatekeepingly difficult??

 

There’s nothing wrong if a person wants to embrace narrative imagination, as they can do whatever the hell they want with their cognition. But, to state that others can never get out of that narrative mode of thought that restricts them from going further in treating them as sentient is to invalidate everything we’ve been prescribing to the tulpa phenomenon in general at the expense for them to feel at ease that their line of thinking is what everyone’s going to be getting themselves into, no exceptions.

 

I disagree that the mere notion invalidates everything prescribed here: if anything gets to be too proscriptive here, it probably, uhh...should be...discarded (in my not-so-humble opinion). That's in and of itself, not because there's some Gordian Knot of a new idea that's supposed to do the opposite of proscriptive, but instead just does the same wrong thing so much harder. These are two completely different self-destructive things.

 

to feel at ease that their line of thinking is what everyone's going to be getting themselves into

 

Agree! Let me wave a tiny red flag over what's described here!

 

Imagination can be chalked up as the creation of new, novel circumstances, and there’s some kind of new twist every now and then; a nuance, if you will. Narration can be applied in many contexts, but I’ll be applying it in relation to unconscious parroting.

 

...the main issue with the narrative is that we’re avoiding in actually interacting with the other, because we’re prefacing them, unconsciously even, with “I can imagine them doing that.” In other words, one is too focused on determined existence, and determinate possibilities.

 

With “unconscious parroting,” it may presume that the person feels they can determine the possibilities for themselves, and even bring new, novel ideas when it’s really their imagination that’s conditioning that.

 

...how far can we go rather than just grasping a tulpa through a set of possibilities that becomes a reality within our subjective frames? In other words, this “otherness” we try to cultivate with a tulpa to make them unique to us in some way…imagination and narrative makes them reducible. Reducible in the sense of us speculating on the possibilities with determined existence, and determinate possibilities. Treating them as sentient would entail some degree of confidence that they can be a determined existence in the future.

 

This line of thought is what makes this quest for “otherness” mixed in with our imagination and narrative modes of thinking. This is probably what makes others think that “unconscious parroting” is something conceivable (since I can’t obviously “prove” anything empirically, obviously; big difference).

 

Perhaps instead of “unconscious parroting,” it can be called “narrative imagination.”

 

I disagree that imagination and narrative makes them reducible. What this (considering the dynamics of imagination and narrative) does, in my opinion, is grant us conceptual tools that would have remained otherwise unavailable. If anything, it's broaden-ible.

 

Because from what I've seen, there's a lot of content here that gets stuck on the laws and logic of the physical, and tries to apply that to what's essentially/substantially nonphysical. Full disclosure, my "tulpas" are all accidental. I tried to do it the hard way just to see what the difference or fuss around it was, but didn't bother to keep it up. But, instead of finding it common to get into a state of mind where a "tulpa experience" is invited, there's so much deliberation spelled out, visualization skills to be honed, tips to force autonomous action...It comes off as complex and involved as genetic engineering, to a point that I wonder how this even helps? It just comes off to me as more of a hindrance.

 

Because this is not genetic engineering, this is not any physical science, if anything, I think it's heuristics? So I can't fathom why there still is a target tulpa experience or Narrative Imperative (hat tip to Sir Terry Pratchett) to which to conform, rather than something like...codifying characterstics based on what already is experienced, or the way interviewees or surveyants would describe it.

[Guest Anonymous]

Big words and fancy gibberish.

 

Tulpamancers may just be talking to themselves and convincing themselves that they are not talking to themselves. <-- Whatya gonna do?

 

People have all kinds of crazy delusions and dissociations. The human imagination is pretty powerful.

---

From the Q and A:

 

"Q: Prove tulpas!

A: Tulpa are a highly subjective phenomena like hypnotic trance or lucid dreaming. We are looking into proving them eventually via formal psychological and neuroscientific study, but that is some time away from being realized. Your best hope of proving it to yourself is to try it."

 

But what if the tulpamancer himself believes it is only a hallucination or wakened lucid dreaming effect? Then what? Utlimately, he is talking to himself.

[Linkzelda]

I disagree that the mere notion invalidates everything prescribed here: if anything gets to be too proscriptive here, it probably, uhh...should be...discarded (in my not-so-humble opinion). That's in and of itself, not because there's some Gordian Knot of a new idea that's supposed to do the opposite of proscriptive, but instead just does the same wrong thing so much harder. These are two completely different self-destructive things.

 

I disagree that imagination and narrative makes them reducible. What this (considering the dynamics of imagination and narrative) does, in my opinion, is grant us conceptual tools that would have remained otherwise unavailable. If anything, it's broaden-ible.

 

I was looking over these two quotations and was wondering what you’re disagreeing with. It seems you acknowledge they’re conceptual tools that can expand a person’s horizon of things. In context of this thread, an expansion of determined existence, and probable, future scenarios with treating them as sentient. When I stated that treating them as sentient is reducible to these narratives, it doesn’t seem to restrict anything, in my opinion, as it’s just acknowledging, like you did, that they’re used as conceptual tools. The problem with unconscious parroting, in my opinion, is when the person gets saturated so much into those conceptual tools that they start using narratives to feel they can become the tools themselves to control a tulpa.

 

Those same tools would be exclusive to unconscious, and subliminal cognitive processing. It’s basically the same as a person personifying those cognitive processes as sentient to be a stand-in as a conscious experiencer, but, with infinite regress + homuncular argument, there’s question begging. I’m still not sure how my presumption of the treating as sentient being reducible to those narratives capable of future scenarios is restrictive. If anything, it’s acknowledging that we’re restrictive to our imagination, but fortunately, said imagination is quite broadening either way, e.g., how our imagination brings new, novel things. We can’t separate ourselves from it, and become independent from that imagination because it’s a conceptual tool instilled into us.

 

The word reducible is really just me presuming that we’re confined to our inner experiences, and can’t really go outside of it. To do so would be using a narrative, from that same conceptual tool, in imagining a God’s eye POV where we can objectively see what’s going on. The same goes for unconscious parroting -- using a narrative that one can separate themselves from the conceptual tools/processes, and watch them, the processes, consciously controlling the tulpa in question. Because doing so, in context of unconscious parroting, one can make their imagination reducible to conscious actions, i.e., conscious becomes a stand-in for unconscious, and vice versa; it’s creating a false dilemma, and that is what can invalidate everything we're doing, and can be self-destructive in itself.

 

Because this is not genetic engineering, this is not any physical science, if anything, I think it's heuristics? So I can't fathom why there still is a target tulpa experience or Narrative Imperative (hat tip to Sir Terry Pratchett) to which to conform, rather than something like...codifying characterstics based on what already is experienced, or the way interviewees or surveyants would describe it.

 

That alternative you set up is pretty much the same thing as narrative imagination. To codify characteristics on what already is experienced is the same as using conceptual tools, already there within our minds, to imagine what codifying characteristics would be. The same with how anyone, interviewees, surveyants, etc. would describe it because they have similar processes/conceptual tools to allow them to even describe it.

 

This doesn’t make them restrictive at all.

 

Also, I never thought this was genetic engineering, nor did I state there being a physical science anywhere that can prove this. Now, I did refer to physical examples with neurons, and what have you, but the follow-up on that was that physical explanations trying to explain something non-physical would create a huge explanatory gap. There’s even a thread I created on another thought experiment that focuses on how having all physical knowledge cannot completely explain non-physical facts and probabilities, e.g., qualia – phenomenal (definition #2) vision based on sense perception and such which are non-physical.

[Faemon]

I’m still not sure how my presumption of the treating as sentient being reducible to those narratives capable of future scenarios is restrictive (...) The word reducible is really just me presuming that we’re confined to our inner experiences, and can’t really go outside of it.

Thank you for clarifying that. I took "reducible" to mean an observation about how allergic tulpamancers seem to get around the word imaginary, and I was basically offering that everyone makes a fuss when there's no fuss required.

 

We're definitely not on the same page when it comes to personification, but let's both save time and typing-effort and decline to clarify. :p

 

That alternative you set up is pretty much the same thing as narrative imagination. To codify characteristics on what already is experienced is the same as using conceptual tools, already there within our minds, to imagine what codifying characteristics would be. The same with how anyone, interviewees, surveyants, etc. would describe it because they have similar processes/conceptual tools to allow them to even describe it.

That's great, sweet! But...it is? I might have misunderstood how we use conceptual tools as opposed to how we codify our use of conceptual tool (codification being a separate mode of operation, in that one doesn't have to be an active tulpamancer to do it, one can be an interested outsider. But using narration for tulpamancy is already tulpamancy) (or possibly soulbonding, where people are far more chillax about this until someone brings up anything in the DSM-V.)

 

Also, I never thought this was genetic engineering, nor did I state

You didn't; I did.

physical explanations trying to explain something non-physical would create a huge explanatory gap.

Yep!

[Linkzelda]

But what if the tulpamancer himself believes it is only a hallucination or wakened lucid dreaming effect? Then what? Utlimately' date=' he is talking to himself.[/quote']

 

[hidden]

It’s easy for anyone to conform to that end in regards of what goes on in their mind. But, with something like possession, and switching, which seems to imply some capacity of there being another conscious experiencer doing the tango with shifting awareness with another conscious experiencer, it raises questions:

 

- Can a tulpa be a stand-in for possession/switching, and still be labeled as someone imaginary/hallucination/waking dreaming effect?

 

- Are effects capable of becoming conscious themselves? If not, and a person is shifting awareness completely, e.g. switching, then who’s the stand-in…are they conscious, still?

 

Any other pursuit not interested in questioning someone, imaginary, or whatever, having the capacity for conscious experience will be reduced to imaginary, hallucinations, etc. This question of yours isn’t really the type of thing to make someone foam in their mouths, and go back to the drawing board.

 

It seems more like a thesis in which a person can create a different attitude towards the question. One person could react that even if that’s the case, it’s not a big deal, because the ethic, e.g. treat as sentient, seems, to the person exclusively, have some capacity of there being an “other.” Another could just think something completely different.

 

If you want to know how I would react to it: That end assurance that one is talking to himself can be explained through metaphorical contexts of there being degrees of self, and consciousness. It doesn’t really make me weak in the knees seeing any posts about this inquiry.

[/hidden]

 

But what if the tulpamancer himself believes it is only a hallucination or wakened lucid dreaming effect? Then what? Utlimately' date=' he is talking to himself.[/quote']

 

Second outlook:

 

[hidden]

Here’s how I would respond to these series of questions

- These series of questions seem to show interest of trying to understand what’s going on in a person’s private experience. The beetle in the box analogy kind of shows it’s pointless to even bother about what the tulpamancer themselves think because we can’t change their subliminal thinking at a blink of an eye. (Breaking the fourth wall here to others; if you don’t know what that is, it’s an analogy emphasizing on the inaccessibility of other minds, and our use of language to try and bridge that, even though we can’t have direct access either way)

 

- If acts like possession and switching can be reducible to hallucination/imaginary/wakened lucid dreaming effects, then are our experiences reducible to these same things? If they are, then, that’s a matter of certain metaphysical inquiries beyond the scope of this thread. Or, I could just point to the p-zombie (beings that can exhibit sentience while not being able to consciously experience things) argument as a stepping stone in this questioning of experiences.

[/hidden]

 

That's great' date=' sweet! But...it is? I might have misunderstood how we use conceptual tools as opposed to how we codify our use of conceptual tool (codification being a separate mode of operation, in that one doesn't have to be an active tulpamancer to do it, one can be an interested outsider. But using narration for tulpamancy is already tulpamancy) (or possibly soulbonding, where people are far more chillax about this until someone brings up anything in the DSM-V.)[/quote']

[hidden]

Some things I’m going to presume from this:

- Codification, to you, isn’t contingent on active tulpamancy.

- Narration for tulpamancy is already tulpamancy

From this, I’ll respond:

 

- Narrative imagination isn’t contingent on active tulpamancy either. Narration, the term in context of tulpamancy, is obviously already in context of tulpamancy. There’s no argument there. But, narrative imagination wasn’t even something in context of tulpamancy from the start. In other words, it’s not really part of the terminologies that were coined by the communities. Narrative imagination was coined by Martha Nussbaum.

 

- Narration, in context of tulpas, is when the host speaks to, or with their tulpa. Narrative imagination is just taking the perspective of others. Sure, the word narrative is apparent in either terminologies, but the difference is that narrative imagination is completely independent from tulpamancy. I just happened to be using it in context of this thread. So, I’m not sure why you’re bringing up narration, a completely different thing in how this community structures the word vs. narrative imagination, which is just taking the perspective of others. Taking the perspective of others (and concepts) can be something applicable to any other community. Narration, in context of tulpas, can do the same, but there seems to be some kind of constraint applied before it gets taken out of context. I'm just wondering why you brought it up. Also, narration, from the wiki, seems to be a form of passive forcing, not active tulpamancy/forcing; you may have taken it out of context.

 

 

 

- Narratives aren’t exclusive to tulpamancy, either. Narration seems to be exclusive to tulpamancy, but it’s just a terminology in a different context of actual narration one would find in a dictionary. And when I mention narratives, I’m not just talking about narratives in a book, it’s just a mode of operation with connected events; those events can be non-fictional, or fictional. In other words, the other definitions of narratives.

 

I still think it’s the same as narrative imagination in that you’re using a narrative to go about imagining codification, a mode of operation/tool to express something. In other words, I think you’re creating a false dichotomy, here with the “it is?”

 

We're definitely not on the same page when it comes to personification, but let's both save time and typing-effort and decline to clarify. :p

 

I’m interested in what you think about personification in regards to the thread. Because if you think unconscious parroting is a contradiction, but have a different outlook on the application of personifying subliminal thoughts that I expressed, I’m definitely interested. It would just show that in spite of the varied outlooks, the belief of it, unconscious parroting, being a contradiction is still there.

 

But since you don’t want to clarify, I guess we’ll forever be left being agnostic towards that other outlook on personification. It’s quite a bummer, but I won’t demand it from you since you wanted to decline.

[/hidden]

[Guest Anonymous]

Melian and I believe that even switching and possession can be a delusion. Switching and possession do not prove that tulpas are not an illusion. Holding up switching and possession proves nothing, since it is still all in the mind.