[split] Are tulpas subjective and in the mind?

[Linkzelda]

Metaphysics is exploring the fundamental nature of reality. Physicalism is a metaphysical worldview that has propositions and such to dictate some rudiments about this reality. So, either you’re using metaphysical as an umbrella term for more mystical, or supernatural types of beliefs in relation to the fundamental nature of reality, or you truly think metaphysical is exclusive to every other theory of mind and reality other than physicalism; it’s putting physicalism on a pedestal, as if it’s free from metaphysical rooting.

 

I think its incontestable that physicalism is a metaphysical viewpoint. I guess this, not physicalism (just the confusion you seem to have of it, and others as well) just portrays the unfortunate misinterpretation of Metaphysical being solely mystical rooting, or something like that. Whatever those aspects of theories of reality that seem to be the case for you are merely branches of Metaphysics, but isn’t Metaphysics as a whole. Maybe the literal meanings with ‘meta’ being beyond or after creates the impression that it’s exclusive to supernatural events.

 

Metaphysical theories are any theory here other than physicalism.

 

Metaphysical theories are any theory in relation to theorizing the fundamental nature of reality – including physicalism.

 

Panpsychism fits probably in idealism, and protopanpsychism in physicalism. This set of theories don't belong in the other two categories for sure.

 

By my guess I take it you are referring to idealism when you refer to subjectivist theories.

 

It’s not exclusive to idealism, and Wikipedia links can only go so far, and I also don’t think of Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as the only source to get the bigger picture with objectivity and subjectivity. Also, to clarify with the ism’s, let me use an analogy:

 

For instance, Scientism is a type of dogma in which one would believe the Scientific Method alone, which is powerful in epistemological, e.g., truth-seeking phenomenon about a knowable reality, can somehow go beyond that, and start dictating teleological, i.e., ultimate agendas with life. However, you wouldn’t assume ‘Scientist’ is someone that vouches for Scientism. It’s just a term to describe someone in a general sense with Science in general. Scientism is a type of end-all be-all worldview. The same with Subjectivism, albeit, it’s another extreme.

 

However, there are subjectivist ideologies, but it doesn’t mean that term, subjectivist, is exclusive to ‘Subjectivism’ that’s more of an extreme view.

 

Another analogy to clarify this (and it is confusing at times as I had that in several forums in the past): Materialism – there’s a more extreme side to it called eliminative materialism, but it wouldn’t be fair to assume all Materialists to be eliminative materialists. This is why for the sake of discussion, I use ‘subjectivist’ to chalk up ideologies with preference of mind-over matter. However, dualism notions can be a part of that as well; it's more than you think it's exclusive too.

 

Panpsychism and protopanpsychism are essentially subjectivist ideologies because, they have an attachment towards the probability of all matter having individual consciousness, or at least the potential to exhibit consciousness. Since we know consciousness would be exclusive to sentient entities such as us, it can’t really be an objectivist ideology as it raises several questions like one of the hard problems of consciousness in how matter somehow mysteriously conforms itself in a way to exhibit subjectivity and consciousness.

 

Yes, the two ideologies seem to revel in matter, but it’s a type of dualism where there doesn’t seem to be a preference over one or the other. It’s just that with those two ideologies, it’s an extreme view, ironically on the other side than one might think, into thinking physicalist notions can chalk up mental events through referents like:

 

- Neurons firing a certain way

- Matter in the brain formatting itself in a way to experience subjectivity

- Mental events being identical to brain states; if that’s the case, then the thought experiment of Mary, the color Scientist will show the holes with physicalism (but this can be the case for any Philosophy of Mind theory that tries to correlate with this reality we would assume is objective because it can exist with, or without conscious evaluators. If panpsychism and the proto version of it acknowledges the potential, or complete assurance of consciousness in all of matter, then it raises questions as to how a reality like that can be still be objective; it just can’t because even if we didn’t exist, and this type of reality exist, it would be some kind of universal conscious evaluator, which is just weird, and it can’t step out of its own subjectivity to be objective

 

- Now, if you have theories as to how it can do that, I’m definitely open to those probabilities, but just for the sake of knowing another angle.

 

 

Though I know that metaphysical refers to anything other than the study of the physical, in my mind, it always triggers thoughts of dualism. I forget about the other non-physicalist theories. My bad.

 

That’s what causes your confusion – the metaphysical being exclusive to dualism. But, it’s not exclusive to dualism -> dualism would be a branch of metaphysics. In other words:

 

Metaphysics first -> Branches of it (physicalism, dualistic ideologies, ontology, etc.)

 

Not Dualism -> Metaphysical being a branch of that. Dissipating that triggering can help a lot, and it can help the forum as well since it’s not exclusive to whatever triggers you into chalking up Metaphysics as.

 

Your question as to how you can know your tulpa if they exist independent of your subjective perspective has a trivial solution. The same way you can know other humans. By communication.

 

If you remember the beetle-in-the-box analogy, is that it reveled in the futility of knowing other minds outside of one’s subjectivity. Adding it to tulpas, and the confusion I had leads to this line of reasoning of mine:

 

- If the beetles are analogous to qualia, or subjectivity, then we can’t access another person’s subjectivity.

 

- Tulpas, IMO, are exclusive to one brain, and all that goes on within one’s subjectivity. Now, the issue in previous posts that may prefer tulpas being completely independent of one’s own subjectivity is probably conscious horizon of the reality inwardly, and outwardly. But, it seems ‘subjectivity’ in this opinion is a placeholder for ‘consciousness,’ which makes one wonder if people think independence is exclusive to the futility of there being access to other people’s subjectivity.

 

- But that’s the thing…it is, but that’s in relation to other minds outside of one’s subjectivity. If it’s within one’s subjectivity, and one entertains the thought of absolute independence being possible from a tulpa (e.g. them stepping out of that overall subjectivity), then that creates a dilemma in whether or not one can know their own mind.

 

- Communication, yes, is a bridge for understanding something, but communication can also pinpoint the holes in this subjective-yet-objective-from-subjectivity that gets touted about in the forums.

 

- ‘The same way you can know other humans. By communication’ The irony with this is that yes, we know sentience in other minds through various means (communication, behavioral observations, etc.), and yet we can’t even figure out how consciousness is even instantiated, or if it even needs to be (e.g. it being reflexive, or something). But, in spite this challenge (how consciousness comes to be), we use communication to try to create referents. But those referents are contingent on subjective interpretation. In relation to the inner machinations of a person’s mind…it would, IMO, create a false dilemma: Which is figuring out if one should adopt an inclusive ideology within their own mind, or exclusive ideology within their own mind. I personally choose the former, inclusive, because it doesn’t deny the shades of gray with interdependence.

 

- I ask about opinions towards this in the past in a thread here: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-wittgenstein-s-beetle-in-a-box-%E2%80%93-how-tulpa-is-your-tulpa

[tulpa001]

This forum uses metaphysical as shorthand for spiritual theorising about tulpas. This is not restricted to this forum, but is rather a common shorthand. A discussion must be established to be a formal philosophical discussion to rule out this usage when the word is not used directly to refer to metaphysics.

 

In its use as referring to metaphysics, the word is no more than a specifier of category of inquiry. Rather, the theories themselves are not metaphysical. But our current discussion and exploration of these theories is metaphysical.

 

Usage of the theories, as opposed to discussion of the theories, would be physics.

 

---

 

Since we know consciousness would be exclusive to sentient entities such as us, it can’t really be an objectivist ideology as it raises several questions like one of the hard problems of consciousness in how matter somehow mysteriously conforms itself in a way to exhibit subjectivity and consciousness.

How do we know consciousness would be exclusive to sentient entities?

 

This statement seems particularly suspect in light of the fact that consciousness forming emergently in the brain implies that conscious awareness is a perceptual illusion that the intelligence in our brain simulates and imposes upon itself.

 

The third possibility is that human brains are invested with souls arbitrarily and exclusively, which is a belief system that although popular is well explained by human creativity and a need to anthropomorphise absolutely everything, and a tendency to invent stuff in the absence of easy explanations.

 

In this whole debate there is only one thing I know for sure. All one way dualism is false, as we are actively discussing our sentience. Which is a type of communication from that other side.

 

However, if this physical reality of ours has an access channel to the world of the mind like this, then science has a way of studying it. This implies that mental phenomena are part of the physical world, which is directly opposed to the fundamental assumption of dualism, that there are two worlds, not one. So there are no valid two way theories of dualism.

 

If panpsychism and the proto version of it acknowledges the potential, or complete assurance of consciousness in all of matter, then it raises questions as to how a reality like that can be still be objective; it just can’t because even if we didn’t exist, and this type of reality exist, it would be some kind of universal conscious evaluator, which is just weird, and it can’t step out of its own subjectivity to be objective

All perspective is subjective. The objective perspective is a theoretical construct that sees things in a way free from any viewpoint. It is always impossible to step out of subjectivity. Things are only ever seen, analysed and evaluated from within subjectivity.

 

However, to say that the universe has objective reality is not to say something about the way the universe experiences itself or to say something about how the universe is seen from within. Both of these are completely independent questions from the question of if the universe exists in a way that is independent from how it is seen from within a perspective.

 

The logical negation of a universe, or anything really, having objective reality is something whose nature is such that some perspective changes, or creates the reality as it actually is.

 

---

 

If you remember the beetle-in-the-box analogy, is that it reveled in the futility of knowing other minds outside of one’s subjectivity. Adding it to tulpas, and the confusion I had leads to this line of reasoning of mine:

Directly related to what I said above about how things are perceived is a separate question to how things exist.

 

The beetle in the box experiment does show that there is an ineffable quality to experience. And it does show that it is impossible to know another directly, through direct experience of their experience. However, it is still possible to know another through evidence, by means of communication.

 

This is a separate question from if a tulpa has objective reality. A question of if anything has an objective reality is a question that asks nothing about the perspectives that may be used to see that thing.

 

- But that’s the thing…it is, but that’s in relation to other minds outside of one’s subjectivity. If it’s within one’s subjectivity, and one entertains the thought of absolute independence being possible from a tulpa (e.g. them stepping out of that overall subjectivity), then that creates a dilemma in whether or not one can know their own mind.

This is contingent on the assumption that a tulpa is part of your own mind. If you adhere to this assumption, then it follows that the tulpa exists within your subjectivity, so it all makes sense.

 

I do not. However, it is also worth knowing that you cannot know your entire mind anyway. We may feel as if we know ourselves, but a great deal of what we think we know is from an outside perspective of us looking in and seeing a small amount of what goes on inside to generate our thoughts. It is indirect evidence and guesswork even here.

 

---

 

I should note that when I use the word communication I am using the mathematical/programming perspective on communication. Yes, it includes natural language communication, but also includes body language, observational evidence, and similar.

 

I wonder, both as to what you mean by inclusive ideology and exclusive ideology, and to whether this is the type of thing where the ideologies are just different ways of looking at the same thing, or if one of them is objectively true.

[Linkzelda]

However, if this physical reality of ours has an access channel to the world of the mind like this, then science has a way of studying it. This implies that mental phenomena are part of the physical world, which is directly opposed to the fundamental assumption of dualism, that there are two worlds, not one. So there are no valid two way theories of dualism.

 

I think the real concern is that there isn’t a two-way theory of dualism that can encompass everything. The soft and hard problems of consciousness seem to be a testament towards the strive of encompassing everything for closure in understanding the inner workings of the mind, and the reality in which it’s confined to. But, for the sake of using the theories as tools instead of etched-in-stone philosophy, e.g. worldviews that are dogmatic into thinking the tool can be end game, it’s quite apparent that one needs several reference points, i.e., a mix of certain worldviews.

As for other angles, I’m agnostic towards the ideas of souls and such. I have certain beliefs, but they’re more of temporary reference points. I guess one could even see the angle of souls in the arbitrary sense as describing consciousness (because if they mentioned souls, they’d have to mitigate the inquiries towards that term).

This statement seems particularly suspect in light of the fact that consciousness forming emergently in the brain implies that conscious awareness is a perceptual illusion that the intelligence in our brain simulates and imposes upon itself….

The third possibility is that human brains are invested with souls arbitrarily and exclusively, which is a belief system that although popular is well explained by human creativity and a need to anthropomorphise absolutely everything, and a tendency to invent stuff in the absence of easy explanations.

 

I’m not particularly fond of the inference made about conscious awareness being a perceptual illusion as that would lead into the support of p-zombies. I’m not really one to endorse that ideology, but physicalists like Daniel C. Dennett seem to entertain the thought. And the statement, or rather, the question I posed isn’t exclusive to tackling physicalist notions, but rather how other worldviews can somehow compensate, or provide a workaround towards this mystery of emergent and phenomenal (definition #2 to those that aren’t aware of it) event.

 

This forum uses metaphysical as shorthand for spiritual theorising about tulpas. This is not restricted to this forum, but is rather a common shorthand. A discussion must be established to be a formal philosophical discussion to rule out this usage when the word is not used directly to refer to metaphysics.

 

In its use as referring to metaphysics, the word is no more than a specifier of category of inquiry. Rather, the theories themselves are not metaphysical. But our current discussion and exploration of these theories is metaphysical.

 

Usage of the theories, as opposed to discussion of the theories, would be physics.

 

Here’s my opinion on that:

- It being a common shorthand is what leads to confusion, and a type of stigma that ends up in misunderstandings. Metaphysics is a first philosophy, in other words, it comes after physics. Separating the two just causes more apprehension as they’re meant to be intertwined. In other words, after studying matter and energy and its existence through space and time (physics) automatically has metaphysical rooting (theorizing the fundamental nature of reality). Because of this, it shouldn’t be used as a common shorthand towards spiritual theorizing of tulpas.

 

- And even in other forums beyond this, from my experience, actually are specific in which branch of Metaphysics would be discussed (E.g. occult, supernatural, etc.) So, whatever forum that also uses Metaphysics to be solely chalked up as spiritualistic notions is just a typical forum that condenses everything not related to the content of the forum in one section. But, it’s clear that with a concept like tulpas, it has to be more specific, and can’t be used as shorthand.

 

- In other words, people have to brush up on their philosophy. I’m not saying this in regards to you, but the fact that it’s used as a shorthand for that exclusive notion of spiritual theorizing is what, IMO, stagnates discussion. And even if it doesn’t stagnate, it shrugs off common discussions in this forum that, IMO, are automatically metaphysical inquiries in discussion.

 

- To go back on my point with physics and metaphysics. Usage of those theories and discussion of theories go hand-in-hand because it’s about finding a way to see how those theories could apply to real world events, and the inner experiences of the mind. If Physics is used as going further than just being a study of matter and energy (e.g. figuring out ultimate agendas), then it leads to Scientism. It’s just a branch of natural Science, and we know that Science is a systematic way in organizing epistemological rooting of the world, people, the Universe, etc.

 

- That’s what I’m emphasizing on – the fact that Science becomes a first philosophy when it’s really not; it’s just a tool that is useful for conceiving a knowable world, but not knowable agendas that are the ultimatums of that reality it’s trying to figure out. Metaphysics is that first philosophy because it branches off into other virtues to try to reconcile with what could be a fundamental nature of reality.

 

 

However, to say that the universe has objective reality is not to say something about the way the universe experiences itself or to say something about how the universe is seen from within. Both of these are completely independent questions from the question of if the universe exists in a way that is independent from how it is seen from within a perspective.

 

They’re not independent questions as if that’s the case, it would be a distraction into creating two problems that are really just part of the whole, bigger question. If objective reality is a reality that exists with or without conscious evaluators, then assuming it can experience itself, or have self-awareness to some extent raises the question as to whether if it can exist with, or without its own conscious evaluation. Homunculi fallacy, p-zombie, one-way dualism, and such can be utilized to critique this question.

 

The logical negation of a universe, or anything really, having objective reality is something whose nature is such that some perspective changes, or creates the reality as it actually is.

 

Yeah, but objective reality exists with, or without those perspectives changing. If it can’t exist without, then it’s not really as objective as one might think.

 

This is a separate question from if a tulpa has objective reality. A question of if anything has an objective reality is a question that asks nothing about the perspectives that may be used to see that thing...

 

I wonder, both as to what you mean by inclusive ideology and exclusive ideology, and to whether this is the type of thing where the ideologies are just different ways of looking at the same thing, or if one of them is objectively true.

 

Some theoretical questions for you:

 

- If beetle-in-the-box, i.e., the analogy of beetles representing qualia, and how no one else (other minds) can access it (their subjectivity, first-world perspective) shows the futility of this third person, direct access…if we added tulpas to that – does this mean the host in question cannot know the ‘beetle,’ or rather, the ‘subjectivity of their own tulpa? That would end up in cruel irony as the thought experiment acknowledges that one knows their own subjectivity.

 

- If this awareness isn’t incontestable to them, then the thought experiment shoots itself in the foot if the person tries to incorporate it. And even saying ‘yes communication is a bridge for that,’ then here’s another question:

 

- Like you, I agree that communication can be a bridge to build reference points that there are other minds outside my subjectivity. But, if from within, one has a tulpa they assume to have their own beetle-in-the-box, then it would just be a beetle within a beetle, and the irony that kicks in here that I’m not sure everyone is aware of is how we all are demystified as to how sentience, sapience, or consciousness is instantiated in the first place; this apprehension adds on to the hard problems of consciousness…it’s not separate from it.

 

- This is why, and it’s not to be considered an end-game philosophy, interdependence seems to be more acceptable, to me, because reveling in that absolute objectivity within one’s own mind actually downplays the vastness of subjectivity (e.g. altered states of consciousness). Instead of saying consciousness, or subjectivity is limited to one person, I would make the assumption that consciousness is vaster than to be confined to one first person perspective as, like others that create and interact with tulpas, are treating them as sentient so the mind does whatever it does to instantiate this.

[tulpa001]

I agree with much of that.

 

They’re not independent questions as if that’s the case, it would be a distraction into creating two problems that are really just part of the whole, bigger question. If objective reality is a reality that exists with or without conscious evaluators, then assuming it can experience itself, or have self-awareness to some extent raises the question as to whether if it can exist with, or without its own conscious evaluation. Homunculi fallacy, p-zombie, one-way dualism, and such can be utilized to critique this question.

Here however, I do not agree. In order to be susceptible to the homunculus fallacy, an explanation must give rise to another question that has the same problem as the original.

 

If one merely says that perspective is a fundamental part of the universe, but that also the universe is not fundamentally dependent on a perspective, there is no pushing of the problem forward.

 

There is a distinction to be made between producing awareness, and being caused by awareness. Observing a correlation is insufficient to establish the direction of causation.

 

There is no reason to tie the question of if something exists or not to the question of how it is perceived. Doing so implies a belief system where everything that exists is assumed to be a dream of some sort, being thought into existence by some sort of thinker.

 

- If beetle-in-the-box, i.e., the analogy of beetles representing qualia, and how no one else (other minds) can access it (their subjectivity, first-world perspective) shows the futility of this third person, direct access…if we added tulpas to that – does this mean the host in question cannot know the ‘beetle,’ or rather, the ‘subjectivity of their own tulpa? That would end up in cruel irony as the thought experiment acknowledges that one knows their own subjectivity.

I am afraid I miss the irony. As I stated, I do not hold the assumption that a tulpa is within your own mind, therefore it is not immediately obvious that a tulpa exists within your own subjectivity.

 

one example of my reasoning here is my personal experience with playing around with our awareness, and my consciousness. Though I can't switch, I can get into a state where I am the conscious one and my host is essentially a tulpa to me. So while in this state, it is impossible to say that I am inside my host's mind or subjectivity. Instead, it becomes possible to say my host is inside my mind or subjectivity.

 

My host sits in disagreement with me on this point, saying that during this inversion, she does not lose her sense of self or identity or sentience.

[Linkzelda]

That's the irony of the situation: You feel inclined that it's probable to say your host is inside your mind, or subjectivity, but it can't be the other way around? Wouldn't that be an example of a one-way dualism where you exclusively deem that, but the host can't have that experience, or assertion? Like, it would be possible for them to be within your own subjectivity, or within your own beetle, and yet it doesn't seem, to you, probable the other way around?

 

This is why I think of the question posed with this exclusiveness from subjectivity (which seems to be an umbrella term for consciousness) becomes a false dilemma. If not a false dilemma, it seems to be some kind of double standard, and I don't know why this is the case. Anyway, what I've gathered, and was probably something going in my mind for a long time now is that it could be probable that there's multiple, first-person perspectives within the same mind (brain, I guess) that can have their own continuity of self that can occur simultaneously. But, it seems there's some notion of not entering the other's subjectivity, and I feel maybe something personal actualizes that assumption within both of you two's subjectivity, I guess.

[tulpa001]

Yes, there is something personal, we place a high value on my independent identity, and reality.

[Lucilyn]

I think I know how people used to feel when Lumi & Linkzelda & co. would have huge philosophical discussions in their threads that weren't exactly the same topic. But then Lumi would say, "It's alright, your thread was just a good conversation starter, we're just discussing things for fun now" or whatever

 

so I'm just gonna note that I didn't intend whatsoever to start a conversation on this topic, literally, I didn't mean to even pose the question that the thread is now named. I didn't mean tulpas only existed in the mind.. I meant, as opposed to other people doubting your experience, that your experience(ing of your tulpas) is subjective and nobody else's opinion necessarily mattered to how you experienced them. Basically, if you feel like your tups are real they might as well be, you know?

[tulpa001]

What if you think your tulpas are not real, but your tulpa's friends think they are and value them?

[Lucilyn]

tulpas aren't the question, you're just asking what if someone else's subjective experience is different from theirs, to which I say I dunno that's pretty normal. And we already got a few threads on people caring about other hosts' tulpas whose hosts don't necessarily care as much about them

[Linkzelda]

I think tulpa001 is asking irrespective to the host thinking their tulpa isn't real, that friends, i.e., other minds outside one's subjectivity, can still think they are, and value them. I think it goes without saying that our subjectivity is unique in some form. The question can even be extended towards whether or not other minds can infer that they're talking to someone sentient vs. just a p-zombie being apparent (which I don't think is possible).

 

Also, Luci, I wasn't targeting you, or anyone specifically. It was just one of those cases where I was actually confused on this subject of subjectivity, objectivity, other minds, other-worldly implications (e.g., tulpas outside one's consciousness, or whatever).