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

[Lucilyn]

Why not just say it is all subjective and be done with it? Why do we need beetles in a box?

 

I tried that once and they don't wanna. It's like saying you don't like the game some people are playing so they should play something else. It's kinda rude, you should just find another game instead of telling them to stop theirs. IE ignore the philolosophy threads if they aren't fun to you.

 

 

@Thread

Why do we need to "prove sentience"? I'm gonna pull a super-philosophy move here for all you philosophizers: why do we worry about the "truth" behind our experiences, whether what we think we're experiencing is really what we're experiencing or not - when what we're experiencing is our reality? Who are we proving ourselves to? Who's there judging us with their perfect worldview, so that there can be a "wrong" and a "right"?

 

I mean we do that stuff to try and relate to others, of course. We can't just say willy-nilly and have others understand what we're talking about. BUT, who has actually-sentient tulpas to compare to in order for other people to have sentient or not-sentient tulpas? Who do we have to compare to to judge if any of us are "right" or "wrong"? And the philolosophy: if we're all having subjective experiences of these tuppers being "seemingly sentient", why are we still trying to prove them sentient or not? If we all experience autonomous people in our heads... Oh wait, we don't huh? We do, but not everyone does. So I'll tell you guys why we talk about all this philosophy stuff instead of just "saying it's subjective and being done with it".

 

First, lotsa people are trying to prove their tulpas are real against the rest of society's worldviews. 'Cus imaginary friends and all that, society already has views on imaginary people and we have to challenge those views to feel good about our own. And second, we are .info! We can't just say "seems good to me" and be done with it because there are people who don't have tulpas that want to. So we have to figure out how to communicate with them, so they can have tulpas too! Philosophy's important!

 

Unless! You personally don't care! Lol, and then you can say "seems good to me" and be happy with how you see tulpas. That's me. But Tewi and Lumi are really dedicated to the .info of tulpa.info, and I share a head with them. So I have to answer questions they would normally answer sometimes because I'm sure as heck not switching back so they can do it. Otherwise I would agree with you Melian, I don't really think it matters to me what all these philolosophiers think they've figured out. I was me since the day I was born and that won't ever change. But hopefully you see why they (still) discuss all this philosophy stuff now, it's so they can communicate clearly with people who don't have tulpas. (And/or so they can feel confident about their beliefs)

 

 

I paid you back, Linkzelda! Philosophy about why I don't care about philosophy, I really outdid myself. Ok I've got orange juice and chocolate waiting for me now.

[Linkzelda]

Because someone waits for me to breathe again.

[Guest Anonymous]

@Lucilyn,

 

Oh my gods this thread needed you! Thank you so much! Why do I not listen to you and Luminesce and Tewi?

 

@Linkzelda,

 

Just for the record, Mistgod and I do not care the tiniest fraction of a bit for your beetle in a box and it makes no impression on us at all. You are free to use it of course, but we don't understand it. We just are not bright enough in that kind of thing to fully comprehend what the beetle in a box analogy is supposed to mean. Most philosophical concepts leaves us staring like a deer in headlights. It is like you are speaking another language we can't comprehend most of the time. I know you mean well, but it just comes off like you are trying to sound smart and instead of putting things plainly to us like Lucilyn does. It's not fair we think that way because rhetoric and philosophy and logic are your thing and what you enjoy doing. I would ask that you refrain from making negative comments about my nature and my relationship to Davie in your threads however. This again is also not your entirely your fault as Mistgod and I start talking about ourselves in your threads, so we open up the conversations and then get mad when we continue to be the subject of your philosophy. For our part we will try not to set you up like that in the future. That will be a big challenge.

[Lucilyn]

Oh my gods this thread needed you! Thank you so much!

 

Ooh, I really did pay you back Linkzelda! We're even now because I helped one of your philosophy threads.

 

 

@Melian Luckily, I'm fluent in both languages. The beetle in a box analogy is basically this:

Everyone has their own beetle in a box that they see - Everyone has their own interpretation of reality based on how they experience it

 

Nobody can see others' beetles, and have to rely on others' descriptions to know what they're like - Nobody can directly experience someone else's reality, so we have to rely on learning language and using that

 

Despite having words to describe our beetles, if those beetles were the only things we ever saw, we can only describe our beetle with features of our beetle, because we've never seen another beetle to compare it with - Even though we think we've got a good grasp of how others see things, we can only ever compare it to our own experience and so it'll never be exactly right. It could be way off, who knows! What you're calling a beetle might be a butterfly. So you're telling us your beetle is super pretty but your description seems a bit off to us. But we're just taking your word for it that you really are seeing a beetle, it's all we can do.

 

Here's a good video!

I love Vsauce. Tewi really loves Vsauce. I think that video will explain what this thread is about pretty well, in under a minute no less. But you should watch the whole thing it's good for your brain.

[Guest Anonymous]

Wait a minute. That makes sense and I think I actually understand it.

[Linkzelda]

Okay, I need to clarify some things. Because dealing with reactive comments before that ruined another person’s thread shows me that common sense isn’t so common:

 

Linkzelda pulling shit out of his ass

 

I understand that some posts of mine can make other people’s eyes bleed. I get that. I can use the analogy of the beetle in the box to state that no one would know how many pages, articles, and such I had to read to come up with these generalizations. No one takes into consideration of the effort I took to look around discussions other than this forum that talks about these things. No one takes into consideration of bookmarks upon bookmarks I have saved as a backup for these generalizations. There’s no way I, Linkzelda, was able to somehow arrive at these presumptions with anything without the help of others through other means.

 

I am just a messenger that ends up generalizing something. So if one tenth of a forum page makes a person’s eyes bleed, well, my eyes have been bleeding trying to generalize the hundreds of pages in forum discussions, and pages of articles, and just about any source of information I can manage to salvage. I can only do so much to condense down those textwalls because it’s not easy generalizing all of that information to where a person doesn’t have to be forced to learn it themselves through other means.

 

It would be the same for whatever information Mistgod and Melian would make a hub section for others to look at, and view. It’s because they have their own little list of things to source from others that are they able to have their own impression, through others, over their capacity in anything. Every time I see a person complain about text walls, which are literally shorter than all the research collected in general, if that’s really a problem, then actually taking part in those discussions, and doing personal research for themselves will be suicide.

 

Even when a person admits to being a messenger to generalize what they learned through others, even if they try to condense it down, people will take the post at face value as the person’s own entirely. It is through the knowledge of others, and sources of information that allowed me to even come up with these discussions. I couldn’t have possibly coined these things; that’s absurd. Instead of over-hyping me as smarty pants, self-absorbed tool, or anything like that, see me more as the newspaper boy saying “EXTRA EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT!”

 

Because without the power of others and their knowledge, and how they arrived at things, I, like anyone else, would have nothing substantial to point to. People point and laugh over the textwalls, when they’re not aware of the level of effort the person took to collect, and try to generalize it.

 

 

 

Devil’s Advocate

 

I thought prefacing all these threads with that would help, but there was one member that thought that I had “all the answers.” Which kind of pissed me off because playing devil’s advocate is about ironing out the pros and cons in anything for the sake of discussion, and the sake of understanding. It’s due to that paranoia from them that I somehow had ill intentions for something that made me convinced to drop the whole devil’s advocate formatting altogether. I thought it was obvious that through that formatting, people would attack the OP, and not the person that’s discussing it because there has to be someone that starts it out.

 

The Mistgod Problem

 

No, this isn’t making another thread of that closed thread. This is me stating to Mistgod now that the reason why I’m being so pushy towards you and Melian is the fact that I do see you as a potential “me” in the future. I’m sure indirectly, others can share this same sentiment because you claim to have gone through years of imagining Melian. Some may see it as you treating her as sentient, but you preface it as make believe. No one is trying to correct you in your journey with her. But when you come to a forum that has their own social context of rules with language and terminology, you just need to know that it’s a matter adapting to that for the sake of getting others to understand you, and why you believe in things like “unconscious parroting,” and such.

 

If there’s nothing to point to, it’s what the analogy was getting at, and you already read the statement I’ve made on that. The reason why you seem to be a “problem” is because people can’t bear the potential that over time, they will be like you, except instead of the journey being prefaced as living imagination, or make believe, it will be prefaced as “treating as sentient” and how much the person is willing to dive into that conviction. You have a lot of contrast that is good for discussion. And because of that contrast, and because of how discussions usually are in a forum, you think you’re being attacked, but you’re contributing to the community through these discussions nonetheless.

 

I thought it would go without saying that you understood what “devil’s advocate” would imply since it’s kind of obvious that you know what idea playing means, and what it means to play out a role to iron out thoughts, and learn something potentially new. The reason why you’re the problem is because people start realizing that it takes a lot of effort to believe in someone in your head to where there are blueprints of them that are burned into their mind that is pretty much hard to change.

 

And this thread is to show that we’re not trying to change that. It’s understanding the futility, but that doesn’t mean we stop trying to correlate psychological, scientific, and philosophical rooting of concepts to help us make inferences over the things we do. I’m not in it for having an injection shot of X person’s qualia, as all I can rely on is my own, and treating tulpas as sentient to where they can share that mind.

 

The word “problem” that gets correlated with you isn’t a “problem.” It’s really not a strife at all, but because of people’s paranoia, they make it out to be. They hate the fact that you went into research of finding examples to validate what you believe in. They hate anyone, even me, who would read textwalls more textwall than my own for the sake of literally spoon feeding it to them so they don’t have to care much about researching it on their own.

 

But when they come and tell me about it being text walls, the don’t know my beetle in the box of the pain, and bleeding of my eyes that I went through to try and understand those sources of information. So when they’re calling me self-absorbed tool, or anything like that, it’s really them attacking how any person of any caliber, given enough time and devotion, can gain more knowledge through others because without that feedback loop, they’re basically nothing.

 

We all fall under this without the help of us. But because people are too busy creating a brand of Linkzelda that is the only person in the world to coin these terms, which is another oversight they make. And this thread that talks about oversight in modes of analysis, people are underestimating the fact that I too, went through way worse. But something that convinced me to still do so regardless is because of that short post I made before this one. That is what motivates me to figure out something, but not for the sake of proving it empirically, but to arrive at my own conclusions and enjoy the privacy of my own mind, and those I interact within it.

 

It’s about finding your own thesis in this journey, and to stop comparing oneself to another. It’s not a You Vs Them, this is a struggle with inner turmoil instead, and finding a way to flourish with a tulpa. The reason why it seems like I’m shrugging you off is that I already stated for any of that that you’re “preaching to the choir.” Why should I beat around the bush over something we agree on? Even if there’s a slight difference in that agreement, I acknowledge that it’s similar, it’s just prefaced with a different conviction; two sides of the same coin.

 

And yet people are getting the implication that I want to bring you down. But no, that’s what happens when people get paranoid over a formatting I wanted to use to prevent that implication, and the fact that people don’t think my eyes bleed through the pursuit of information to talk about these things. No one knows that beetle in the box of mine, and that’s what allows them to imagine all sorts of things about me.

[Guest Anonymous]

I read the entire textwall carefully Linkzelda. I do agree with almost everything you had to say and your points are well made. I am sorry if Melian and I painted you in a false light and I guess people could say the same things about me, that I am "just trying to look smart." I do need to make a few of my own points in response about myself and Melian.

 

1. People persist in assuming that Melian is evolving to something "higher" or needs to evolve when she isn't and doesn't.

 

2. It seems to me people seem to think creating "independent sentient tulpas" ought to be the goal for everyone. It is not my goal. People make moral judgments about me based on this bias (such as I am treating Melian bad).

 

3. Many in the forum are not listening to me because of that "social context." They only see the tupamancy paradigm. I am not on some journey to make Melian "more autonomous and sentient." LOL Melian is pretty much what she is supposed to be already. I am not needing to evolve in my understanding of her. I am not climbing the tulpamancy mountain to suddenly arrive at tulpamancy enlightenment. I am just sharing Melian as she already is. If anything I am trying to teach others about something that perhaps they haven't considered.

 

4. We will continue to disagree on unconscious parrotting forever. It is possible and people are doing it, including me. We will continue to disagree here without end because it is central to the experience I have with Melian.

 

5. Most of the misunderstanding between you and I (and Melian) are not based on your research, your knowledge of tulpamancy, the difficult words we have to google (which we learn from) or your interesting textwalls. It is based on points one through four.

[Linkzelda]

Here's another video that sums it up:

 

 

 

"wall of text

A piece of writing that does not use proper grammar and generally looks like a giant essay with 20 to 400 sentences without using paragraphs or any bit of spacing at all."

 

 

It's not really a textwall if that's the definition of it. Seems there's a misunderstanding, here. It's kind of ironic, though, that it's still considered one even those there is spacing, and clearly has several paragraphs spaced out. Guess textwall gets thrown out of the window, too. :P

 

[Guest Anonymous]

Melian and I actually like text walls. I hope we didn't imply that we don't like text walls or, that is, a lot of interesting well formatted writing.

[Lucilyn]

Melian and I actually like text walls.

 

hello I am here to verify this, Melian and Mistgod are extremely good about always reading everything. They read even more than Lumi does, he tends to skim textwalls if he's not participating in the discussion (since he still reads every post on the forum)

 

Also as far as I'm concerned a textwall on a forum is when the text fills your whole screen with nothing to break it up, like bold headers or a picture or video embed or something. But, sometimes that's important, if you want to learn a lot you gotta read a lot. People say "You'd get your message across better by saying less" but that's not true, all the simple things about tulpas have already been said. All that's left is complicated stuff, theories and all that, and that takes a lot of text. If you don't want that ok, but it's not stuff that can be accurately summed up in a few sentences.

 

Obviously I usually skim over most textwalls just to know what's going on on the forum, but I read them when it's important. And like every one has been important in the last two days.. so much reading.. needs more picture and video embeds..