Wittgenstein's Beetle in a Box – How Tulpa is Your Tulpa?

[Linkzelda]

Yeah, about the ability to delude oneself being a powerful thing, it's also a powerful and dangerous thing to personify the imagination as a conscious experiencer. Especially in context of parroting that seems to be based on a "conscious" activity. Imagination, brain, mind, etc....in order for one to state "that is my imagination running away with me" is to treat that imagination as sentient, and another conscious experiencer. To say the least, personifying imagination that would be defined as:

 

the faculty or action of forming new ideas' date=' or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses[/quote']

 

implies that faculties in the brain can have an identity, or a continuity of self. Panpsychism, and other subjectivist worldviews comes into play here.

 

 

It leads to question begging as to what's going on behind the imagination that was supposed to be the one that can help condition the imagination in the first place, i.e., infinite regress. This isn't about things being impossible just because people say so. This is about whether or not a person can get out of those traps of infinite regress, and statements that seem to be homuncular in nature. No one can question a person's personal benchmark of "correctness" in something because they can't "have" their inner experiences, and alter everything, and go back to their own inner experiences, and call it a day. So even when you state that it can't be impossible, or that it's probable, doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently probable.

 

The question begging doesn't care what side is siding with what; it's still there for questioning regardless. To still state it's probable is to question the language we use in social context to describe parroting, and it ends up with you making your own dictionary of it. People will get confused for a bit as to why you're doing this, because there's a socially "governed" meaning, or referents of the word, and people could see you as changing the dynamic of it. And that's fine, but when you go through a mode of analysis to question it, and it still falls short (e.g. it being an oxymoron, misnomer, etc.), I don't see any value of clinging onto it.

 

It's not about finding the inherent right or wrong behind it, to me. It's more so of figuring out if it can add on to having a flourishing interaction with a tulpa in the first place. If you feel confident that you can flourish in this line of thinking of yours, then I'm not going to judge, but as with any opinion, it doesn't jive for everyone all the time. But some of the terms the communities created (e.g. possession, narration) are things we can generally agree to since we can build experiential context to relate to those terms. It's probably based on feedback from others that they can rely on, and they're not left in random noise because there's something for them to "point" to.

[Guest Anonymous]

Linkzelda, I am imaginary in every way.

[Guest Anonymous]

I love how every time you put my statements into the context of tulpas only. There is a world of human history full of mountains of evidence of people deluding themselves to epic levels all around us on a lot of crazy things. I still see no reason, even with your "infinite digress" fallacy argument, that people cannot be creating a tulpa delusion in their own minds and imagining an independent mind voice. They can be just talking to themselves and convincing themselves that they are not doing so. Linkzelda you will never convince me and I will never convince you and the others. So we go round and round with it. I think you do a great job defending the faith though.

[Linkzelda]

I love how every time you put my statements into the context of tulpas only.

 

I love how every time you put my statements as being exclusive only in context of tulpas. I can easily take what I stated without talking about tulpas. And I’ll do what I previously stated in a context devoid of tulpas right now.

 

Yeah' date=' about the ability to delude oneself being a powerful thing, it's also a powerful and dangerous thing to personify the imagination as a conscious experiencer.[/quote']

 

Generic statement can be applied to any context, since it’s about imagination in general.

 

Imagination, brain, mind, etc....in order for one to state "that is my imagination running away with me" is to treat that imagination as sentient, and another conscious experiencer. To say the least, personifying imagination that would be defined as:

Google Wrote:the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses

 

implies that faculties in the brain can have an identity, or a continuity of self. Panpsychism, and other subjectivist worldviews comes into play here.

 

Still talking about imagination without talking about tulpas; Linkzelda would be great at CinemaSins.

 

It leads to question begging as to what's going on behind the imagination that was supposed to be the one that can help condition the imagination in the first place' date=' i.e., infinite regress.[/quote']

 

Still a presumption on imagination, and doesn’t even refer to tulpa in said presumption. You can find discussions about infinite regress, homunculus arguments, and such in other forums if you take the time to look for them. It’s not exclusive to tulpas.

 

This is about whether or not a person can get out of those traps of infinite regress' date=' and statements that seem to be homuncular in nature. No one can question a person's personal benchmark of "correctness" in something because they can't "have" their inner experiences, and alter everything, and go back to their own inner experiences, and call it a day. So even when you state that it can't be impossible, or that it's probable, doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently probable.[/quote']

 

This can be put into context over any ethic and theory of mind; “tulpa” isn’t the only special snowflake context to apply this to.

 

The question begging doesn't care what side is siding with what; it's still there for questioning regardless.

 

Question begging still doesn’t care about the context if the context still falls short of getting out of those traps I mentioned. I could apply this to discussion about dream characters, souls, other-worldly beings, etc., but since this is tulpa.info, I prefer not to (and even when using analogies of dream characters, and other-worldly beings, it’s for the sake of analogy)

 

Linkzelda you will never convince me and I will never convince you and the others

 

I think you’re skewing things a bit. I’m already cognizant that I can’t convince, and I never had a virtue of convincing you either way. You still think I care about trying to have your “inner experiences” along with Melian, even though I made posts explicitly stating that it’s futile to try and have another person’s inner experiences. You preface my posts as if I’m trying to save you from something even though I could care less. But when I add in this behavior of apathy, you end up reacting appropriately similar to anyone that gets shrugged off. And then it’s back to that transgression of yours in wanting to quit, or just giving up due to others not coming to terms with your line of thinking.

 

I don’t know if I can convince others, but I do know I cannot convince you. I can’t step outside my experience, and evaluate who’s being convinced, or not. I have to take things at face value, even if what’s taken at face value is nothing but silence. It’s one thing to be aware of who you can’t convince, but it’s another thing entirely in assuming the person even had a virtue to care in the first place. You base your post on this strawman, unfortunately.

 

Linkzelda' date=' I am imaginary in every way.[/quote']

 

Beetle in the box; I don’t care because it would be futile to try and have your inner experiences to make the conclusion that this is the case. Whether you think you typing that post, and having to put things into context is imaginary, then that’s your issue, not mine. Enjoy your imaginary privacy of mind into action all you want, because I can’t have it, nor do I have any desire to have it even if this were probable.

[Guest Anonymous]

To each his own guys.

[Linkzelda]

To each their own beetle.

[Guest Anonymous]

Davie and I were just listening to Pink Floyd The Wall while reading your thread. Davie and I have erected our own walls that protect us and structure our perception of things. We see what we want to see, just like everyone else.

 

My beetle is cuter and more colorful sparkly than your beetle. I know I can't see your beetle in your box, but I just know it to be true already. Of course it's true, I am Melian!

 

http://magicbelles.com/flutterbudclub/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/jewelbug.jpg[/img]

[Linkzelda]

Usually things that are imaginary, especially in every way, don't really have a beetle, since qualia isn't really imaginary in the first place, nor can be reduced as imaginary, but okay. But again, no point in me stating the obvious. You don't know how cute my qualia is and still hold a conviction that yours is cuter nonetheless. That's for me to know, and you not to even bother.

[Lucilyn]

I see no reason to believe it is impossible. Just because the thought of it scares tulpamancers doesn't mean it is impossible.

 

We don't think it's impossible, we think it as a concept can't even exist.

 

Anyways we consider "unconscious parroting" an oxymoron and think once you reach the point it's "unconscious" you just have a tulpa. If you aren't doing it consciously then your mind is doing it, and that's what a tulpa is I guess.

[Guest Anonymous]

@Lucilyn, Davie and I keep forgetting that you align in your thoughts more than you don't align sometimes.

 

@Linkzelda, I am imaginary and I do so get my own box and a beetle! That's not fair to say I don't get one. My beetle might be shared with Davie. It is our beetle then. I am imaginary in every way except where I am real and not imaginary and that is the part where I talk to you about my beetle and stuff. I am pseudo-real. Don't try to philologicify that, it is an unlogic enigma that defies deconstruction and I am happy.