GodBless

[Luminesce]

As Tewi once mentioned, humans are in no place to be worrying about objective truth. All we can have is ~universally shared subjective truths. Experiencing is subjective. You cannot experience objective reality, only your biology's interpretation of it. What they were trying to say is that your perception of reality takes place inside your mind. Everything you see, feel, hear, whatever, all of that - the perception itself - is inside your head. Though the source of those sensations should be coming from outside of it, yes. That's the "reality" we share as fellow people who exist. But it's not objective. No matter how many humans agree something looks or feels a certain way, it's not an objective experience.

 

Don't know how much that matters though. It really only serves as a proof of concept for subjective reality and the power of belief to affect your perception and experiencing of reality. Or maybe you can use it to tell people what they think is true is wrong. But like I said before, anyone who understands that in the first place should know better than to bother bringing it up, because they're "wrong" too.

 

Me, I consider everyone right. Everyone's right about what they're experiencing and perceiving. Maybe there's a different way to do so that aligns more with a larger number of people though.

 

 

 

Edit: Oops, I ate Solune's post.

There are individuals who walk through this life having never heard the word "tulpamancy", and yet they have tulpas.

Our community created labels for things that have existed probably before the spoken word itself... why?

Because labels give us the illusion of power. If you can name a thing, you have power over it. Isn't that the foundation of magick?

We desire control (power) over our own lives, and so we go in search of this place and most of us find it eventually.

We proceed to put things into boxes, and argue over what color the boxes are and whether we should even call them boxes.

 

It's the same with science. It's the same with everything.

This place gives us an alternative identity, an alternative means of control. We delight in in, we fellowship with each other for the same reason any animal seeks its own kind.

So it doesn't feel alone, so it feels safe, so IT FEELS IN CONTROL.

Ultimately, no matter how many labels you create... no matter how many people you bring into your life... no matter how many scientific mysteries you delve into...

We are all going to die. And THAT is why I call it "false" security. Because ALL security is false. All control is an illusion.

You have no more control over your life than does a leaf on the wind.

[Luminesce]

Our community created labels for things that have existed probably before the spoken word itself... why?

Because labels give us the illusion of power. If you can name a thing, you have power over it.

 

That's not the only reason, or the reason I assume first. Naming things helps us share our subjective experiences. Likely none of us have quite the same things in our minds, but because we've defined general circumstances and given it the name "Tulpa", we can communicate. It helps bridge the gap between conscious experiencers. Even though no one is experiencing exactly the same thing here, people manage to learn and apply what they've learned anyways. That's a reason labels can help.

 

People just need to be aware that they are vague labels only, not objective "things". If your "tulpa" falls slightly outside of what we consider a "tulpa", it perhaps may not match the label, but it probably doesn't invalidate most of what we have to teach and learn from each other. Labels are for communication, but they are only labels of generalities, not rules.

[Guest Anonymous]

Get your damn labels off of my boxes! Also, Melian's box is purple and sparkly and the prettiest and she wants to be the only one in that particular box. Label it "Melian Enigma."

[Floh]

Reality is subjectively objective. What we labelled "reality" is the addition of "things"(stimuli?) that our senses make us detect, and our brain makes us interpret, creating our personal world, our subjective reality.

Given that, "reality" is what Mistgod describes : gravity, speed and physical existence of bodies and cars. On the other hand the subjective reality is what Lumi, Niteo and Tulpa001(and others, sorry) describe as this 100% subjective, personal reality.

 

Labels again *sigh*

[Solune]

 

That's not the only reason, or the reason I assume first. Naming things helps us share our subjective experiences. Likely none of us have quite the same things in our minds, but because we've defined general circumstances and given it the name "Tulpa", we can communicate. It helps bridge the gap between conscious experiencers. Even though no one is experiencing exactly the same thing here, people manage to learn and apply what they've learned anyways. That's a reason labels can help.

 

People just need to be aware that they are vague labels only, not objective "things". If your "tulpa" falls slightly outside of what we consider a "tulpa", it perhaps may not match the label, but it probably doesn't invalidate most of what we have to teach and learn from each other. Labels are for communication, but they are only labels of generalities, not rules.

 

Communication is a function of the survival instinct.

The survival instinct is the purest form of the illusion of control.

I find great comfort in the idea of illusions. I personally believe that we are all illusions in our own way.

That being said, I have no desire to die in a fiery car accident as Mistgod so dramatically illustrated.

I admit that I seek control in my own life. Internalizing all of this is just another form of control, isn't it?

 

I'm like a person who has been told their medication is a placebo, decides to take it anyway, and somehow it continues to work.

[Solune]

Get your damn labels off of my boxes!  Also, Melian's box is purple and sparkly and the prettiest and she wants to be the only one in that particular box.  Label it "Melian Enigma."

 

Luna: I will only concede the title of prettiest if I may have the title of "most badass".

My box shall be metal as fuck. With spikes and skulls and a little speaker that plays Dethklok songs non-stop.

I challenge anyone to fight me irl if they think their box is more metal.

[KarlYoshimura]

@Solune:

 

yeesh, sorry I asked. To be truthful I don't much care about "security", "power" or any items regarding control. An elder Yiddish saying is as thus: "Man plans, God laughs." Outside of His designation, I have no control. Yet as a creature with volition, I've chosen to invest in tulpas, and am pleased with what was incurred. If you must make blanket-statement regarding everyone's need for purpose or design, I ask you do not include me with them - as far as I am concerned, that which matters is my tulpa and the assistance I can provide to new and old hosts alike. Before you get the wrong idea, no, I don't consider myself superior nor any less insecure. I just think it's unfair to include everyone in such generalisations because they may be considered part of a community.

 

However, I must disagree with your epistemological frustrations regarding learnt inquiry - if reality is indeed a composite of subjective experiences, I will contend that empirical and philosophical quandry is but one of the few ways one can learn more regarding the nature of this life. As for the illusory or ersatz  properties regarding existence, well, keep in mind that tulpas were dreamt up by Tibetan monastic orders and magicians for plumbing and comprehending these very characteristics.

[tulpa001]

I think comparing a human brain to a computer is a poor analogy.  You don't have to go very far to find the science that refutes that concept. Ten Important Differences Between a Human Brain and a Computer

 

"For years it was tempting to imagine that the brain was the hardware on which a “mind program” or “mind software” is executing. This gave rise to a variety of abstract program-like models of cognition, in which the details of how the brain actually executed those programs was considered irrelevant, in the same way that a Java program can accomplish the same function as a C++ program.

 

Unfortunately, this appealing hardware/software distinction obscures an important fact: the mind emerges directly from the brain, and changes in the mind are always accompanied by changes in the brain. Any abstract information processing account of cognition will always need to specify how neuronal architecture can implement those processes – otherwise, cognitive modeling is grossly underconstrained. Some blame this misunderstanding for the infamous failure of “symbolic AI.”"

 

Whoever wrote that article needs to go back to school. They made the beginner's mistake of confusing computers for modern microcomputers. For shame. Points for trying. The human brain is not different from a computer. It is a completely legitimate type of computer.

 

Oh, and yes no, the mind does not arise directly from the brain, it is an emergent phenomena. Major fail.

 

That IS what you are going to say next isn't it,  that there is no objective truth?

 

I am not saying there is not one, one universal objective physical universe. There probably is. But we can not know it for sure, due to our limitations. I say physical universe, because math runs on different rules, and I am not willing to make the same claim for math.

 

 

It impresses me the variety of belief in this thread. Even if they are all probably the same basic understanding under different skins.

[Guest Anonymous]

 

Whoever wrote that article needs to go back to school. They made the beginner's mistake of confusing computers for modern microcomputers. For shame. Points for trying. The human brain is not different from a computer. It is a completely legitimate type of computer.

 

Oh, and yes no, the mind does not arise directly from the brain, it is an emergent phenomena. Major fail.

 

 

I am not saying there is not one, one universal objective physical universe. There probably is. But we can not know it for sure, due to our limitations. I say physical universe, because math runs on different rules, and I am not willing to make the same claim for math.

 

 

It impresses me the variety of belief in this thread. Even if they are all probably the same basic understanding under different skins.

 

I just find it hard to believe that the mind is somehow magically transcendental from the physiology of the brain, just because people so wish it to be that way. When someone gets brain damage, like from a major stroke, it can change their entire personality. The personality is in the brain because the mind is in the brain not outside of it. Most computers use the Von Neumann architecture which is unchanged from the old PCs to the newer PCs. It is way too simple to be compared to how a human brain functions. People are oversimplifying the human brain with that analogy, and that was my point.

[Solune]

@Solune:

 

 An elder Yiddish saying is as thus: "Man plans, God laughs." Outside of His designation, I have no control.

 

Believing that God is in control is just another form of control.

Even when people say they are willing to let go of control, that's just a much more subtle form of control.

Everything we do is self-deception. Chief among these deceptions is the idea of self-awareness.

Ironically, there is nothing more human than seeking to transcend one's humanity. Which is why I don't subscribe to many Buddhist ideas about enlightenment.

You're mistaken if you think this bothers me in any way, I am very much at peace.

 

I use sweeping generalities to explain my beliefs because they encourage debate. I fully expect people, like yourself, to disagree with me. My goal isn't to sway you one way or the other, I simply enjoy the exercise. Nihilism can easily lead to stagnation if one isn't careful.

To be honest, I kind of enjoy people thinking I'm this or that... it's fun to see how people treat you differently based on what they think of you. In a way, it reflects what they think of themselves.