jean-luc

Jean-luc's thoughts on all the things people argue about.

Recommended Posts

Haha, shoot itself in the foot by giving you a gun huh? But he did say earlier the belief thing, they're sentient if you believe they are and such. While you're defending the reason we try and figure out tulpa sentience, his view is he's tired of seeing people argue over something that can't be proven again and again. I think you two can meet in the middle.

 

There can be things that would be problematic in spite of them being improved over time. For instance, transportation, e.g., via by airplane, gets improved progressively, but at the same time, transportation is still problematic either way. It's not a matter of transportation being impossible to crack down on, it's just a matter of human curiosity slowly, but surely, realizing how to improve instead.

 

And just like discussions of sentience can be problematic in cracking down, the level of awareness over theories of mind, philosophy, science, and such can be improved over time. It's not in vain, because if there was an absolute certainty in this, then we have to eradicate all forums that discuss about the tulpa phenomenon in general. Instead of for science, or whatever pursuit in raising awareness over what sentience could entail for a tulpa, it would just be us holding hands, but not getting much information since we would already become defeatists in becoming aware of the potentials. Imagine a period where we didn't go so far into discussing, and the end-game belief was that one should always force a tulpa naked because clothes could stagnate their existence.

 

Some people are just not willing to see that taking great pains to understand each other, tulpa and host, will involve things not in their comfort zone. It may seem futile, and it may seem in vain, but the curiosity and yearning for knowing more and more in spite of there not being any potential objective truth is influenced by a care of understanding a tulpa, and understanding how one could improve the quality of life they have with them. If anything, there not being any potential objective truths creates a greater sense of liberation rather than dead-ends, and one would have to carve in their own subjective meaning. If that's not a form of caring, then maybe the other type of caring is influenced by ignorance being bliss. But hey, different strokes for different folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this thread is titled the way it is for a reason and you don't want to argue about things, just state your thoughts. It's kinda nice to have it all in one place, I like this format, at least as a one-off. Anyway, I don't really disagree strongly with most of what you said; but, since going by the agreement you're getting these are common views, I guess it'd be nice to point out what I disagree with. And I'll try to not repeat things too much, but maybe we're doomed.

 

 

 

Tulpas cannot be proven to be real or not. Because the experience is entirely subjective only those on the inside can say anything for sure. This also applies to a tulpa's sentience.

 

Well, human brains all work in similar ways, mostly, so it's not really implausible to verify someone's experiences, given a reference, understanding, etc. We can't really do that now, but that's just circumstantial.

 

 

 

Inside the brain, belief is reality. There is no placebo effect. If you believe that your tulpas are sentient, then they are. If you believe that a pill will make your tulpa russian, it will. If you are skeptical, it may or may not.

 

Within narrow bounds. This isn't the case for anything that can't be done easily or at all - you could worry about philosophy regarding true and implicit internal beliefs, and whether you can actually be wrong about your experiences, I guess. But disregarding that, you're clearly not going to learn Russian by belief magic. What if it's impossible for tulpas to be sentient? Then that's not going to happen with the power of belief either. And so on. I don't just mean things that are physically impossible, I mean anything that requires time or effort.

 

 

 

If ever any laws are created, we must treat the entire physical body as one (with some exceptions), since it is not possible to determine how many tulpas a person really has. This is more of a practical thing and not really a belief, but I put it here because I've found myself repeating it. A notable exception being this site, where a single person in a system can be banned while letting the others in the same system participate.

 

I'll challenge you on this one, this is a fun topic. I sort of agree, or let's say I'm undecided, but I don't agree with this reasoning. Suppose you had perfect knowledge about how many tulpas someone had; if you would now choose to treat each one of these as a person, and value someone with three tulpas four times as much as someone with no tulpas, then you know that that's what you see as the morally right choice. I'm going to call this position the 'tulpalib' position for brevity.

 

The problem is that in the absence of this knowledge, it's still the right thing, it's just harder to do. Yes, practicality should inform legislation, but I think you're not really dedicated to the tulpalib cause if you're so happy to give up. For one thing, accepting the idea of tulpalib, it's really important - like, you're marginalising enormous amounts of people (if lots of people made tulpas). For another, the current liberal, shall we say Enlightenment, social value system has tended to try to enact social change upon a change in thought. No-one said emancipation was easy, or anything else, but they didn't just give up as a matter of practicality.

 

 

 

God is a tulpa. If you look from the outside, it all makes sense: Constantly talking to it (praying), the personality is developed through stories told to the person (responses are not expected, so anxiety about lack of progress doesn't really exist). Often times “god's” thoughts are contradictory between different people, suggesting that each person's god is different. Same for ghosts, demons, spirits, angels, etc.

 

I disagree with this because it's oversimplified. I don't think that it's the usual or common religious experience to converse with God or gods for most people. This is, as you might say, from the inside: most people who go to Church just go and listen and repeat or sing along and so on, and they don't have ecstatic spiritual communion in which they hear God speak to them. Certainly not regularly. So I think that an explanation like this doesn't really explain why religions actually affect people who aren't holy people, or anything else.

 

It's also oversimplified in another way, which is a kind of over-neatness. No, not everyone who hears their god in some way has done things analogous to tulpa creation, I think. If the Oracle at Delphi was high on petrochemical fumes, what she heard or saw was maybe not exactly a tulpa, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this thread is titled the way it is for a reason and you don't want to argue about things, just state your thoughts.

 

No, I wanna do both

 

Well, human brains all work in similar ways, mostly, so it's not really implausible to verify someone's experiences, given a reference, understanding, etc. We can't really do that now, but that's just circumstantial.

And I don't think we'll be able to do it ever. Either way, we can't right now. If we could, it would change more things than the fire nation attacking

 

Within narrow bounds. This isn't the case for anything that can't be done easily or at all - you could worry about philosophy regarding true and implicit internal beliefs, and whether you can actually be wrong about your experiences, I guess. But disregarding that, you're clearly not going to learn Russian by belief magic. What if it's impossible for tulpas to be sentient? Then that's not going to happen with the power of belief either. And so on. I don't just mean things that are physically impossible, I mean anything that requires time or effort.

 

You're right. I need to restructure that since I think there's still some truth to it (Your tulpa can't posses you if you don't believe they can), but you can't learn russian by believing you know it.

 

I'll challenge you on this one, this is a fun topic. I sort of agree, or let's say I'm undecided, but I don't agree with this reasoning. Suppose you had perfect knowledge about how many tulpas someone had;

 

This does not exist and cannot exist; The lines between tulpa and not are far too blury.

 

if you would now choose to treat each one of these as a person, and value someone with three tulpas four times as much as someone with no tulpas,

 

I would not do this

 

I disagree with this because it's oversimplified. I don't think that it's the usual or common religious experience to converse with God or gods for most people. This is, as you might say, from the inside: most people who go to Church just go and listen and repeat or sing along and so on, and they don't have ecstatic spiritual communion in which they hear God speak to them. Certainly not regularly. So I think that an explanation like this doesn't really explain why religions actually affect people who aren't holy people, or anything else.

 

They don't have two-way conversation, but they are encouraged to pray often. Remember, words are not required, only attention. However, I have heard many stories of god communicating in other ways; Sometimes it's simply the feeling of another person being there, sometimes it's an emotional change, and I've even heard of head pressures (although it's rare). I've had this myself; I was raised as a mormon, and I remember one night where I couldn't sleep (I was young, probably scared of monsters), so I prayed to god, and all the sudden I was much more relaxed and I was able to fall asleep, just by praying. It was something that tormented me and made me unsure after I became an atheist. Later, one day when I was talkind to Snow I told her “Make me happy!” or something. Not happy to be used like this (I'm making it sound more dramatic than it was), she put on a sour face and injected me with happiness. It was amazing! I had nothing to be happy about, and I knew it was 'fake' but that didn't make me any less happy. It was almost like being on drugs. At the time I didn't realize the connection with my earlier god experience, but when I did it all made sense.

 

It's also oversimplified in another way, which is a kind of over-neatness. No, not everyone who hears their god in some way has done things analogous to tulpa creation, I think. If the Oracle at Delphi was high on petrochemical fumes, what she heard or saw was maybe not exactly a tulpa, for example.

 

Just as there are many different types of mindforms, so there are many types of gods. I would agree that it's a lot messier than my original statement would imply.


Stats for LOTPW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't think we'll be able to do it ever. Either way, we can't right now. If we could, it would chande more things than the fire nation attacking

 

We can't right now, and it would change things if we could. Beyond that I wouldn't really be the guy that says, "Progress in science and technology will never be able to do this..." I'm too afraid of being on the wrong side of history for that.

 

 

 

This does not exist and cannot exist; The lines between tulpa and not are far too blury.

 

That's not really important in terms of legalities; the line between adult and child are blurry, but the law just puts solid ones in places, and that's how it's done. The point isn't that there is a clear distinction, but that a distinction must be made at the expense of the edge cases: if there's an important distinction between "definitely a tulpa" and "definitely not a tulpa", then you need to make that distinction, regardless of the "maybe"s.

 

 

 

They don't have two-way conversation, but they are encouraged to pray often. Remember, words are not required, only attention. However, I have heard many stories of god communicating in other ways; Sometimes it's simply the feeling of another person being there, sometimes it's an emotional change, and I've even heard of head pressures [...]

 

Okay, well, you are really, really stretching the definition of "tulpa" to places that are just some aspects of the human brain that aren't particularly tulpa-like. NyQuil™ also helps you sleep, but it ain't a tulpa.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure how people pray in general, but at least in my more relaxed Catholic experience, yes, you're encouraged to pray, but it's more or less the repetition of either whole prayers, or a fairly formulaic sort of communication. Yes, prayers, like hymns, are seen as a form of communication with God, but this isn't two-way; it's barely even one-way, if what you're doing is repeating phrases. These people are not talking to a tulpa, they're not getting responses. Like I said, it may be that some have tulpa-like experiences, but it's not what engages laypeople - it's silly to say, "They're creating a tulpa..." if they don't end up with a tulpa!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't right now, and it would change things if we could. Beyond that I wouldn't really be the guy that says, "Progress in science and technology will never be able to do this..." I'm too afraid of being on the wrong side of history for that.

 

Fair enough, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

That's not really important in terms of legalities; the line between adult and child are blurry, but the law just puts solid ones in places, and that's how it's done. The point isn't that there is a clear distinction, but that a distinction must be made at the expense of the edge cases: if there's an important distinction between "definitely a tulpa" and "definitely not a tulpa", then you need to make that distinction, regardless of the "maybe"s.

 

But the problem there is that I'm not sure there is any way to differentiate the two in a way that isn't easily fakable. With child/adult I agree that some people mature faster than others, but the age is a very definite thing. However, with tulpa I don't know of any equally good determination (the tulpa's age? What about people that give up for 2 years and then come back to it? What about people who only force once a week?).

 

Okay, well, you are really, really stretching the definition of "tulpa" to places that are just some aspects of the human brain that aren't particularly tulpa-like. NyQuil™ also helps you sleep, but it ain't a tulpa.

 

Sorry, I was baiscially trying to point out yet another similarity; God can make a strong emotion happen seemingly out of nowhere, and so can a tulpa

 

Anyway, I'm not sure how people pray in general, but at least in my more relaxed Catholic experience, yes, you're encouraged to pray, but it's more or less the repetition of either whole prayers, or a fairly formulaic sort of communication. Yes, prayers, like hymns, are seen as a form of communication with God, but this isn't two-way; it's barely even one-way, if what you're doing is repeating phrases. These people are not talking to a tulpa, they're not getting responses. Like I said, it may be that some have tulpa-like experiences, but it's not what engages laypeople - it's silly to say, "They're creating a tulpa..." if they don't end up with a tulpa!

 

I was too cut-and-dry, and I have changed to "God is a thoughtform similar to a tulpa."

However, even repeating formulaic phrases is still attention (see #4). You don't have to talk to a tulpa (and/or thoughtform) at all to give it attention.

 

However, unfortunately this is where most of my knowledge stops. Most of what I know about inner workings of religions is from being in one for awhile, which of course only applies to that particular religion (mormonism, or officially: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). In that, we were always encouraged to be reverant, aka relax, both throughout church and especially while praying. There was a certain structure to the prayers, but none of them were an exact repitition (that was discouraged).

 

But most important was the same thing that is most important here: Having faith. Believing that God/your tulpa was real.

 

I still see many similarities, and I see them with other religions however I only see other religions from a very outside perspective, so I could be wrong.


Stats for LOTPW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the problem there is that I'm not sure there is any way to differentiate the two in a way that isn't easily fakable. With child/adult I agree that some people mature faster than others, but the age is a very definite thing. However, with tulpa I don't know of any equally good determination (the tulpa's age? What about people that give up for 2 years and then come back to it? What about people who only force once a week?).

 

Yeah, and that's a more tractable problem, because now you're asking about positive solutions to a question of jurisprudence, rather than saying that it's impossible. I do think that it's a hard problem - but one that needs to be solved if you hold the tulpalib position.

 

Anyway, my suggestions would be, well, maybe there is an external signature, or something else that we don't know now, that would make determination obvious. I guess that's optimistic. Failing that, you might just have to conduct interviews with people about their internal experiences; ask questions that people who are lying will slip up on, develop a toolkit for analysis, that's kind of an extension of what some psychologists do.

 

I'm not sure what you think the biggest problem is, though. Faking, or people who are genuinely trying to make tulpas but didn't really get there? But I think the solutions to those two problems are similar.

 

 

 

I still see many similarities, and I see them with other religions

 

I guess the basic problem that I have with your conclusion is that you're looking for similarities, not differences. If you conclude that "God is a tulpa" (I know you changed that) then you're saying that the two things are the same. So obviously there will be similarities between the two, but crucially there will be no differences.

 

People use the term "thoughtform" in a vague sense, and frankly "thoughtform similar to tulpa" is too vague for me to guess at what you mean. And I guess if what you're saying is that some religious experiences have something in common with the tulpasphere, I agree. Really, the problem I have isn't the exactitude of "tulpa", it's about the generalisation of "God" instead. I guess what I'm saying is that instead of correcting to "God is similar to a tulpa", it should be "Some people's Gods are similar to tulpas." Where 'some' isn't 'most'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"God is a thoughtform similar to a tulpa."

I'd formulate it "For a certain type of believer, God is a thoughtform similar to a tulpa."

 

(Not all theistic people pray on regular basis or even at all)


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can never be friends! :p

 

Just look at that rule one! A singular person cannot argue with themself. ... Uh... A singular person cannot have [censored] with themself. ... Uh...

 

But seriously, I have to disagree with rule seven. Either our love is real, or it is fake. And the answer matters to both of us. Like life or death a lot.

 

Also, rule three, that's not how reality works. Or, if it did work that way, we'd regard that as a magical system of physics.

 

Also seriously, there are a small number of things you can do way easier than normal with a tulpa, and not just a little easier. Of course, those things are not very useful.


Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

But seriously, I have to disagree with rule seven. Either our love is real, or it is fake. And the answer matters to both of us. Like life or death a lot.

 

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Although I would ask, can you not love something/someone even if they're not sentient? I know there are people who would say they love their dog, but I doubt you'll find them arguing about the dog's sentience.

 

Also, rule three, that's not how reality works.

 

Why not? Isn't "reality" just a concept of truth in an attempt to bring the things we percieve into a consistent image of the world? If something can only be observed by one brain, then that brain's experiences define the reality of that something.

 

 

Or, if it did work that way, we'd regard that as a magical system of physics.

 

Huh? I don't follow.

 

Also seriously, there are a small number of things you can do way easier than normal with a tulpa, and not just a little easier. Of course, those things are not very useful.

 

Really? Like what? I'm sure everyone's different, but I'm curious what you've found easier.


Stats for LOTPW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.