What would you do if your Tulpa were offended?

[Ranger]

11 hours ago, Andre1115 said:

 

https://pluralitycn.org/zh/blog/existence-proof-plurality/

 

They also have an article on "proof of existence" and cite some scientific papers, but I personally don't think the papers they cite have much to do with cobud

 

No, they're not cobud relevant, or even plural relevant.

 

The first two have nothing to do with psychology. The first (just by looking at the title in the citation) is about Language Models or LLMs, basically programs like "ChatGPT", not humans. The second is about studying neural networks in computers, more specifically, AI computer models, not people.

 

The last one, "Automated Classification of Mental Arithmetic Tasks Using Recurrent Neural Network and Entropy Features Obtained from Multi-Channel EEG Signals", does actually look like a neuroscience paper, but it has nothing to do with proving plurality. Reading the abstract, they're trying to make it easier to read the results of EEGs, medical equipment, that record brainwaves. They created a program that helps identify the brainwave patterns neuroscientists and doctors already have rules for classifying. The point of this paper was to test their program and they found it was effective at recognizing those patterns.

 

Based on the Google Chrome translation I used, it looks like the author just said, "We should have rules for brainwaves like what paper 3 does to prove plurality!" But this assumes plural experiences can even show up on an EEG recording, and they don't link any papers that suggest that.

 

Hopefully this helps. I realized at least the last two papers are written in English, and I don't know if translation software in general is good at translating academic language and phrasing.

Edited March 7 by Ranger

[Andre1115]

6 hours ago, Ranger said:

 

No, they're not cobud relevant, or even plural relevant.

 

The first two have nothing to do with psychology. The first (just by looking at the title in the citation) is about Language Models or LLMs, basically programs like "ChatGPT", not humans. The second is about studying neural networks in computers, more specifically, AI computer models, not people.

 

The last one, "Automated Classification of Mental Arithmetic Tasks Using Recurrent Neural Network and Entropy Features Obtained from Multi-Channel EEG Signals", does actually look like a neuroscience paper, but it has nothing to do with proving plurality. Reading the abstract, they're trying to make it easier to read the results of EEGs, medical equipment, that record brainwaves. They created a program that helps identify the brainwave patterns neuroscientists and doctors already have rules for classifying. The point of this paper was to test their program and they found it was effective at recognizing those patterns.

 

Based on the Google Chrome translation I used, it looks like the author just said, "We should have rules for brainwaves like what paper 3 does to prove plurality!" But this assumes plural experiences can even show up on an EEG recording, and they don't link any papers that suggest that.

 

Hopefully this helps. I realized at least the last two papers are written in English, and I don't know if translation software in general is good at translating academic language and phrasing.

So our current conclusion is not wrong, they are just talking a bunch of plausible nonsense, right?

[Ranger]

4 hours ago, Andre1115 said:

So our current conclusion is not wrong, they are just talking a bunch of plausible nonsense, right?

 

Yes, basically.