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

[Guest Anonymous]

philologicify = attempts to prove something using logic and philosophy. Some have tried to philogicify that Melian is somehow real in Mistgod's mind (and that tulpas in general are real). Trying to philologicify anything with Melian is futile. She is an enigma of unlogic, like a cloud of unlogic nonsense.

[Linkzelda]

philologicify = attempts to prove something using logic and philosophy. Some have tried to philogicify that Melian is somehow real in Mistgod's mind (and that tulpas in general are real). Trying to philologicify anything with Melian is futile. She is an enigma of unlogic, like a cloud of unlogic nonsense.

You’re the first person that I’ve ever seen to actually think philosophy and logic can be split apart. Especially when epistemology, i.e., the study of knowledge is actually a subset of philosophy itself. This is actually cringing me to the heart, seeing you post this.

 

 

@Linkzelda' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Unlogic enigma? Defying deconstruction? So Bat-Mite + Melain + Mister Mxyzptlk = Mistgod? Man, some people can be pretty edgy these days.

 

Here’s the harsh reality behind the beetle in the box analogy; it’s relevant towards qualia, and those that happen to have it. Psuedo-real doesn’t have a home for qualia, as qualia is just making out the “ness” of something. To make out a “ness” of something, there has to be an experiencer that can put things into context, utilize their stored memory and identification of things to have a reliable fallback even if that fallback isn’t 100% accurate. Another way to question qualia is to go for the indirect realism route and ask, “If this red I’m seeing on this Old Spice Re-Fresh Body Spray isn’t part of the real world, then what am I seeing?”

 

But if you’re pseudo real, and yet still feel that sharing the same mind allows you to be that, and still presumably answer that question I made with the indirect realism, then what you’re really doing is lying to yourself; a pathological lie, even. Because after all, you are considered, at least to your host, as a personified unlogical nonsensical sense of nonsense. You know, I try to think that in the back of my mind, that decades from now, I would understand the relationship between you two. But, then I keep thinking how horrified I would be as a host to even treat my tulpas in this manner. This constant state of freely undermining another that I treat as sentient; to presume they can still exhibit qualities of sentient beings that require a conscious experiencer, and still chalk them up as pseudo-real, I would be going through so much existential questioning as to why I would treat someone like complete, and utter shit.

 

And to have them preface with a smile that they’re okay with being a complete, utter shit, is just as horrifying. Sometimes, it’s hard to even stomach this as being flourishing, even though I know at the end of the day, I don’t know what’s inside that person’s box. There’s just so much self-hate with these transgressions of yours.

 

I sometimes wonder that if you truly feel you’re pseudo-real, or even kinda real, why even bother having existential questioning, crises, or even concerns over things that would probably be exclusive to those that presume they are real; that they have qualia, and have inner experiences? How are you even capable at arriving, or even acknowledging you have these moral dilemmas as anyone else can? You seem to be more interested in being a walking example of a p-zombie, even though the thought experiment itself cannot exist in this reality.

 

Of course, I could assume that it’s just your host is using you as a meat shield, but then, that would be a bit too cruel.

since you’re pseudo-real, it wouldn’t really matter if I still deconstructed things, because all you’re spewing is random thunders of context anyway. Because in theory, you can’t just happen to conveniently react to any posts I make to deconstruct and analyze something, because I would question how you’re able to apply those reactions when you needed them the most; no one that’s pseudo-real can even pull that off, I think.

 

[Guest Anonymous]

Yeah but I am not lying. I don't feel at all that I am being treated like utter shit and never have. David and I are claiming that fantasy make believe and method acting/role playing can create a thoughtform that can be a profound and meaningful experience and can seem very real but still be imaginary. We have our personal obsession, persistence and dedication as evidence in support of it being profound, supported by example evidence testimony from things like Leonard Nimoy and Spock to show that others have experienced something similar. We offer research evidence with Fantasy Prone Personalities of people who can "experience imaginary phenomenon as real." You ignore that. We offer evidence from psychological research that people can do an extreme form of immersive day dreaming. You ignore that.

 

You don't want to believe any of it. You dismiss it all as impossible using philosophical logic, totally rejecting our own testimony and evidence as misguided or delusional. Then you make insulting false accusations about how I feel or how I am a liar and how Davie is treating me. I can tell you that you are dead wrong on that.

 

It may very well be that the experience Davie is getting with me is fundamentally different from the experience one gets with a tulpa. So? We don't really care! We will find out if we ever successfully make a tulpa maybe. But the experience is still profound and life changing. I still feel like a person! Yet I recognize, and Davie recognizes, that I am only a fantasy figment of his own mind.

 

With Leonard Nimoy, he felt the character Spock lived within him. Spock was imaginary. Yet he thought of Spock as a person and could have portrayed or channeled Spock to tell you very similar things. You don't want to believe it, but here we keep telling you and you call me a pathological liar and accuse my host of treating me like utter shit. I am sick of you Linkzelda. You want us to believe your testimony, but you don't offer us the same courtesy in return.

[Linkzelda]

You want us to believe your testimony, but you don't offer us the same courtesy in return.

________________________________________

This is just another sham argument. Where have I demanded for you to believe in my testimony, or anecdotes that I’ve made? Where have I stated that I wanted you to have my inner experiences, and believe them whether you like them or not? Even though I made it explicitly clear that it would be futile to do this. All I was really talking about is an analogy about qualia, and using whatever social context created in order for others to make inferences about it regardless of who they believe resides in the inner confides of their mind.

 

I’m shedding light on how you’re intimidated by a person’s use of philosophy and logic (which seems odd since they’re basically the same), and you expect that whatever random words you and him make (e.g. philologicify) to be something I can relate to; something that I must accept as an actual term that people can agree on socially. You end up creating your own philosophy and logic that seems to go into random noise, and fight against terms for generic use that can be relatable to anyone that can put things into context, and the assume others want their testimonies to be believed in even though it’s really a matter of definitions laid out that allows us to try and relate to things we’re experiencing?

 

It’s creating a double standard, and you keep showing that you don’t care, but you keep reacting appropriately to someone who does care of having their feelings hurt. For you to even feel sick of me, and still come to me with this strong conviction that you’re pseudo-real, I’m going to be convinced that you shouldn’t even have the capacity to even feel sick of me since it’s really in guise of the host feeling sick of me. And I’m only capitalizing on this probability because your host has made it explicitly clear that he can go in and out of his cognitive processes, know what they’re played out to do, and still embrace this feigning of sentience of your end. You should not feel intimidated by this presumed emotional intelligence he has in dictating how you should feel, and how you should present yourself to others.

 

All of these feelings of yours, he feels he conditions them to no end, and holds on to the fact that because his mind is his own, that he can become the back office of that same mind, and condition the imagination that’s supposed to condition you, which is a bit homuncular. These types of reasoning that were discussed long before we were born that can still be relatable today. You, nor your host can preface your post of “oh, people did before, and stood the test of time” as your only line of defense because I can easily state the same thing with these counterarguments, thought experiment, and such. Us stating whatever happened in human existence is only a crutch, but it doesn’t mean it makes it so as some intrinsic right or wrong.

 

This is why this thread in particular will show that no matter how a person wants to create their own private language (e.g. philoogicify, unlogical enigma of nonsensical nonsense, etc.), if they cannot get feedback from others that can relate and understand the potential meaning and referents of the word, it will get lost in random noise. All you’re really doing is using me as a scapegoat for society creating words that others can relate to arrive at their own conclusions that they can have qualia even though we cannot know if they have qualia in their box; their beetle in the box.

 

You’re saying I’m not offering the same courtesy when you yourself reject social context of grammar and language that even allows you two to even communicate to anyone in the first place? I didn’t mandate this words, and I most certainly didn’t coin them. And using me as a scapegoat, and using strawman arguments isn’t going to work out. And I’ll keep emphasizing how they’re not going to work out. And the more you show you don’t care about these things even though I explicitly made it clear that one cannot even bother to care about figuring out how to “have” another’s inner experiences, you’re pretty much preaching to the choir.

 

You have to end up constructing what I already stated, and presume I wanted to negate those statements of apparent futility with “having” inner experiences. You both have to use your imagination to create a pathological lie that I want to argue over something I already supported: the futility of “having” a person’s inner experiences, and it being shared amongst other minds.

 

This is concerning, because when I hear a person like your host thinking this community is on shrooms, or something negative like that, it seems awfully ironic for them to not realize that their imagination just gets the best of them, and prevents them from even relating to types of language that have sound reasoning; just as much as you feel testimonies from things like Leonard Nimoy and Spock. We get that a person can still treat someone imaginary with respect and kindness, but what I’m really concerned about is this:

 

- You acknowledge that you are imaginary in every way; that you are a figment of his imagination. Big deal. Anyone can have this conviction, and no one can give them a benchmark on how they should go about being “correct” in that in a certain way. It’s concerning when another person tells you that you’re pseudo-real, and that you are a figment of his imagination, and yet you still react in a way of any tulpa that feels their existence is objectified. These statements of mine shouldn’t even affect you if you embrace that you’re imaginary in every way because that same qualia can only be relatable to those that feel they have the capacity to put things into context. If someone embraces that they’re pseudo-real, then they’re really just that. No in-betweens, or “kinda,” “sorta,” because one cannot be more/less pseudo-real than the other if they have no proof of comparing inner experiences empirically, or being scientifically measured.

 

 

I am doing you a favor by offering you courtesy in accepting that you’re probably pseudo-real, and you are a figment of his imagination. I am also doing you a favor of offering you inferences of what it would mean for someone to be pseudo-real, and a person’s figment of imagination. But you react to it defensively as anyone that seemingly sentient even though through inferences alone, pseudo-real in that regard is akin to a p-zombie. You constructing these posts is really in guise of your host doing so, because they refuse to believe that you could be sentient enough to even put these words into context.

 

There shouldn’t be any need for you to feel sick since after all, it’s your host that’s emulating that for you. These talks of him parroting you at an unconscious level is really just that; you’re just a walking p-zombie based on the thought experiments alone. You shouldn’t even feel bad about this because you embrace being imaginary in every way as the thought experiment of p-zombies is imaginary in every way.

 

The same concern can be questioned to tulpas that feel they are sentient; to be revealed of the probability that they themselves could be p-zombies is something they may have to deal with as well. It’s not exclusive to just you; the thought experiment, and this analogy knows no bounds in questioning all sorts of a person’s imagination. That’s what’s astonishing about it; because it makes us question, but it’s not telling us what to do. You can’t preface your posts as me telling you want to do because I’m really doing is making inferences over what you post. That’s it. I don’t mandate how you express yourself because again, I cannot step into his inner experiences, have them, and alter them to my heart’s content.

 

Your concern is an example over how Wittgenstein realized others can make a philosophical misunderstanding of the analogy because there's a large oversight in that mode of analysis that the analogy takes part in.

[Guest Anonymous]

AND there he goes again. Pretty textwall. I didn't read it past the first sentence. We are just repeating ourselves anyway and nobody cares. I am going on to other things. Good luck with your beetles in a box thread and have fun.

[Linkzelda]

Good, because we're just shedding light on the pathological lie you two create for yourselves. Glad we're on the same page. And thank you for being a useful case study.

[Guest Anonymous]

You just have to insult me don't you? Fine I will return the favor.

 

Is it possible someone can be so smarty pants that their smarties actually wrap around like an odometer back to a special form of embarrassingly stupid? I told you we are not lying about anything one way or the other. You are so smartie you can't even see when I am being honest with you. You are also so smartie pants you can't see when I am joking with you with sarcastic silly made up words. You are so smartie you got me totally, completely dead wrong on almost every level. I am a complete mystery to you, yet you think you have me all sorted out and can hold me up as a "case study" example. It is a case study in how too much smartie pants can totally blind you. You have only one track and its not the same track I am on for sure.

 

Whatever. Linkzelda you go on with your delusions of super smarty pants concerning Mistgod and Melian and pat yourself on the back. I am glad it makes you happy and fulfilled.

[Linkzelda]

Melian, I’m not insulting you because you two accepted that you’re a figment of his imagination. Me saying “pathological lie” can be used in other forms:

 

Pathological:

- Compulsive

- Unreasonable

- Obsessive

- Irrational

- Extreme

- Enigmatic

o These are all words that you two stated at some point in this forum that you brag about

 

Lie:

 

- Delusion

- Imagination

 

Me insulting you would technically be you insulting yourself, and you did just state in a few posts ago that you are the epitome of being an unlogical enigma. I’m going to take you seriously on that because if I start laughing uncontrollably at you, you will feel that I’m undermining you. And prefacing this as sarcasm on your end really shows how strong the pathological delusion really is for you. It doesn’t dampen the blow at all; it makes it worse, and I will philosophize it like white on rice.

 

If I have to accept that you stating that you're sick of me, and you then saying, "dah haaha hur, just kidding silly pants," then that's really sick.

[Guest Anonymous]

Using imagination is one thing. Deliberately lying to other people about myself is another. Mistgod and I are not lying to ourselves or to others.

 

The way you are using "pathological lying" now, so you say, is actually getting closer to finally agreeing with us. If you are saying we are doing make believe and then very skillfully ignoring that we are doing make believe...

 

YES THAT'S IT!!!!

 

at least I hope you are getting it...maybe you're still not getting it....

[Linkzelda]

Masking oneself from cognitive processes that can help condition their imagination, and going about with method acting, for example, is living in a pretense, which is in a way, a lie. Not a little white lie over stealing cookies in a cookie jar, but a cultivated lie to allow oneself to embrace that make believe. This was obvious from the start, but the reactions you were giving me made me think that I was looking at this wrong.

 

But again, if this revelation of yours is something we can relate to, then we're preaching to the choir. Lie definition #2, I guess. Just don't be offended if I treat you as a p-zombie, as that seems to be the thought experiment that describes what's going on for you, especially since sentience, and having the capacity for conscious experience is thrown out of the window for you by your host. You can't escape this thought experiment because it resonates within you, and is your nature. I guess you just have to get used to that probability of being a p-zombie, because it clearly explains who you could be.