The Nature of Tulpae | Help Me Help You

[waffles]

 

Do you realise you are committing Ad hominem here?

 

It's not ad hominem. Ad hominem is when an attack on an opponent's character, personality [etc.] is made, and this has not happened. What this is is false accusation, simple as. Not that you aren't right, I just wanted to point that out.

 

 

 

Oh, someone posted something that I agree with. Say, do you also agree that a consciousness should arise from the subconscious?

Well, that's a somewhat general statement. By definition, a consciousness cannot reside in the subconscious because the whole point of the subconscious is that the consciousness is not aware of it. But if you mean it is the subconscious that creates the tulpa, then not really. The unconscious, I'd say.

 

 

OMG, there is someone here who thinks the same as me.

That's unfortunate. The subconscious is not a blanket term for unconscious thought process by any means. The subconscious is a theoretical proposal mostly concerning personality, and contains elements that are not directly accessible to the consciousness but feed into it. It is in the subconscious that you will find [Freud] the id and superego, as well as [theorised] memory retrieval.

 

Most unconscious thought goes on in the unconscious, which is generally accepted. It is in the unconscious that you will find homeostatic and bodily functions, as well as most 'systemic' processing such as auditory or visual processing.

 

Something else to prove this: you can create a backstory to your tulpa and he/she would think it is his/her actual memory. It means your tulpa was not always conscious and always had some kind of personality, but you actually created his/her personality, in the case of course that you did so and didn't let her simply develop her personality. If your tulpa believes that the thoughts you put into her are her real memory, then it means she wasn't conscious on the moment she received them, or else she would know that those memories are fake or rather "artificial".

 

It means the consciousness is created, and also points that it isn't the split of one consciousness, but from it's subconscious, because you consciously know that the memories you put on her in this backstory are fake, but your subconscious may not, which would explain why they believe they are real.

 

I don't think that many say that the tulpa exists prior to the creation process. It just doesn't make sense.

Your proof is not valid either: you can take a walk over to the memory modification thread to see that memories implanted while the subject of which is conscious don't have to be recognised as such.

[motorheadlk]

You guys are screaming "ad hominem" like it was something terrible. Ad hominem may be used validly, for example, you say to the other that he's defending the way of life of a vegetarian, but he eats meat, this is a type of valid ad hominem, because even if you're using himself as the subject of the discussion, it is relevant because it means he's being an hypocrit of some sort.

[waffles]

You guys are screaming "ad hominem" like it was something terrible. Ad hominem may be used validly, for example, you say to the other that he's defending the way of life of a vegetarian, but he eats meat, this is a type of valid ad hominem, because even if you're using himself as the subject of the discussion, it is relevant because it means he's being an hypocrit of some sort.

 

Well, Alba and Purlox are.

Anyway, ad hominem is a fallacy, and thus is never valid. What you're describing isn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be you saying that his reasoning is invalid just because he eats meat, whereas here you are just pointing out hypocrisy.

[motorheadlk]

Well, that's a somewhat general statement. By definition, a consciousness cannot reside in the subconscious because the whole point of the subconscious is that the consciousness is not aware of it. But if you mean it is the subconscious that creates the tulpa, then not really. The unconscious, I'd say.

 

Actually, as I stated, I'm using "subconscious" as "everything you don't directly consciously control all the time" so I'm including unconscious in the subconscious. Technically, a lot of people do so, because the term "sub" indicates "something below", and people believe the unconscious is below the conscious, so both unconscious and subconscious can be grouped into the same definition, both being the subconscious.

 

That's unfortunate. The subconscious is not a blanket term for unconscious thought process by any means. The subconscious is a theoretical proposal mostly concerning personality, and contains elements that are not directly accessible to the consciousness but feed into it. It is in the subconscious that you will find [Freud] the id and superego, as well as [theorised] memory retrieval.

It is, but I'm not using the term that represents the subconscious excluding the unconscious, to understand it, see above.

 

Most unconscious thought goes on in the unconscious, which is generally accepted. It is in the unconscious that you will find homeostatic and bodily functions, as well as most 'systemic' processing such as auditory or visual processing.

Like I said, don't disagree with my terms, I'm actually only using them because I've been used to read them in such way. I already explained my reasoning.

 

 

I don't think that many say that the tulpa exists prior to the creation process. It just doesn't make sense.

 

It doesn't, but many say. There are people who say that tulpas are actually existent and need to be "discovered" or "find". Its mostly metaphysical bullshit, but even then there are people who believe it.

---

 

Well, Alba and Purlox are.

Anyway, ad hominem is a fallacy, and thus is never valid.

 

You're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

 

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] or fallacist's fallacy.[3]"

 

What you're describing isn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be you saying that his reasoning is invalid just because he eats meat, whereas here you are just pointing out hypocrisy.

 

It is a ad hominem.

"Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words."

 

Your proof is not valid either: you can take a walk over to the memory modification thread to see that memories implanted while the subject of which is conscious don't have to be recognised as such.

I didn't understand your reasoning here, could you please put in another way?

[waffles]

 

Actually, as I stated, I'm using "subconscious" as "everything you don't directly consciously control all the time" so I'm including unconscious in the subconscious. Technically, a lot of people do so, because the term "sub" indicates "something below", and people believe the unconscious is below the conscious, so both unconscious and subconscious can be grouped into the same definition, both being the subconscious.

 

But that's wrong, and the people who use subconscious like that are wrong. If you have to use one term then 'unconscious' is much better, but you should really distinguish.

 

It is, but I'm not using the term that represents the subconscious excluding the unconscious, to understand it, see above.

But you really need to differenciate here. It's relevant and important.

 

Like I said, don't disagree with my terms, I'm actually only using them because I've been used to read them in such way. I already explained my reasoning.

Whatever you are used to, everyone should try to use the generally accepted usage for terms such as 'subconscious' and 'mind'. Otherwise we won't get anywhere.

 

It doesn't, but many say. There are people who say that tulpas are actually existent and need to be "discovered" or "find". Its mostly metaphysical bullshit, but even then there are people who believe it.

Metaphysics is not science. We are trying to follow accepted scientific theory. We need not take it into account so long as there is not good evidence for it.

 

You're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

 

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] or fallacist's fallacy.[3]"

My point was that ad hominem is a fallacy and thus is always wrong in itself, not that it invalidates the argument.

Anyway, you've made a splendid and subtle contradiction. If what I am saying about fallacies is a fallacy since fallacies don't invalidate arguments, then my point stands as my own fallacy doesn't invalidate my argument.

[motorheadlk]

But that's wrong, and the people who use subconscious like that are wrong. If you have to use one term then 'unconscious' is much better, but you should really distinguish.

They aren't wrong, they just use different words. But hey, if you want me to use unconscious and not subconscious, I'll do so. It's just because I'm used to it, but don't get me wrong, my other posts aren't contradicting or anything like that.

 

But you really need to differenciate here. It's relevant and important.

I will since you asked so nicely.

 

Whatever you are used to, everyone should try to use the generally accepted usage for terms such as 'subconscious' and 'mind'. Otherwise we won't get anywhere.

I agree with it. I used my terms because they were enough for the purpose of my posts, but like I said, if you want to, I'll differenciate.

 

Metaphysics is not science. We are trying to follow accepted scientific theory. We need not take it into account so long as there is not good evidence for it.

 

I said it's mostly metaphysical, and actually metaphysics are science, they are just a crazy and stupid science, but most research of physics right now are things that were discussed back in the day of the Greeks in methaphysics. But let's not argue about that, I think that what most guys say in the metaphysics board is 'stupid'. But even then, not everyone who believe that their tulpas always existed are people who believe in metaphysics, I really can't cite one here, but I know there are from my experience in here.

 

My point was that ad hominem is a fallacy and thus is always wrong in itself, not that it invalidates the argument.

Oh, then it makes more sense. Still, a fallacy disproves (or proves) nothing.

 

Anyway, you've made a splendid and subtle contradiction. If what I am saying about fallacies is a fallacy since fallacies don't invalidate arguments, then my point stands as my own fallacy doesn't invalidate my argument.

No contradiction here friend, what I'm pointing here is that if you think that fallacies make the conclusion wrong, (which I believed until you posted you didn't) then it means that you would have to think that your own conclusion is wrong, contradicting yourself. Since now I know you don't actually think a fallacy disproves something, then I know you're not contradicting yourself, but that was just a interpretation mistake.

[waffles]

They aren't wrong, they just use different words. But hey, if you want me to use unconscious and not subconscious, I'll do so. It's just because I'm used to it, but don't get me wrong, my other posts aren't contradicting or anything like that.

 

I will since you asked so nicely.

 

I agree with it. I used my terms because they were enough for the purpose of my posts, but like I said, if you want to, I'll differenciate.

Thanks. It just makes collaboration (which is seemingly the point of this thread) easier.

 

I said it's mostly metaphysical, and actually metaphysics are science, they are just a crazy and stupid science, but most research of physics right now are things that were discussed back in the day of the Greeks in methaphysics. But let's not argue about that, I think that what most guys say in the metaphysics board is 'stupid'. But even then, not everyone who believe that their tulpas always existed are people who believe in metaphysics, I really can't cite one here, but I know there are from my experience in here.

Metaphysics used to be science, sure. But the Greek model of the world is not still valid, and even they didn't believe in much of current metaphysics.

Regardless of whoever believes it, they need to give evidence.

 

I wonder when Alba will come back.

[motorheadlk]

Thanks. It just makes collaboration (which is seemingly the point of this thread) easier.

 

Metaphysics used to be science, sure. But the Greek model of the world is not still valid, and even they didn't believe in much of current metaphysics.

Regardless of whoever believes it, they need to give evidence.

 

I wonder when Alba will come back.

 

Yes, but this is not the thread to discuss metaphysics so let's not.

Maybe he's taking his time to read what we've wrote and to reply everything, I guess it will take some time.

 

But since we're still here, tell me why my proof for Albatross having to acknowledge the existence of something else than the "mind" but also the "unconscious" and "subconscious" was invalid.

[waffles]

 

Yes, but this is not the thread to discuss metaphysics so let's not.

Maybe he's taking his time to read what we've wrote and to reply everything, I guess it will take some time.

 

But since we're still here, tell me why my proof for Albatross having to acknowledge the existence of something else than the "mind" but also the "unconscious" and "subconscious" was invalid.

 

Alba hasn't been online since 5AM GMT.

 

I definitely never said to discuss metaphysics here.

I also never said that Alba shouldn't include the subc and unc. I was the one who first said it.

 

I take issue with this:

The subconscious is a blanket term for all of the processes running in brain that you don't have conscious awareness of, but affect your conscious experience. I would argue that consciousness is emergent from subconscious processes.

I think that a tulpa is the result of adding more of these subconscious processes. At first they are very dependent upon the host because they are piggybacking on their already developed processes, they become more autonomous when they get more of those processes of their own. To what extent what is always shared is pretty up in the air for me.

But yeah, anything any of us say is conjecture.

Something else to prove this: you can create a backstory to your tulpa and he/she would think it is his/her actual memory. It means your tulpa was not always conscious and always had some kind of personality, but you actually created his/her personality, in the case of course that you did so and didn't let her simply develop her personality. If your tulpa believes that the thoughts you put into her are her real memory, then it means she wasn't conscious on the moment she received them, or else she would know that those memories are fake or rather "artificial".

 

It means the consciousness is created, and also points that it isn't the split of one consciousness, but from it's subconscious, because you consciously know that the memories you put on her in this backstory are fake, but your subconscious may not, which would explain why they believe they are real.

 

You and Hush aren't making much sense. It's likely a misunderstanding to say that the mind has 'processes' that can be created or ended within the subconscious.

However, I really took issue with your proposed proof. Memories are by no means permanent. Let's look at the host's memories, since any of their memories will have been made when they were conscious.

People remember things wrong. Eyewitness testimony alone is not valid in British courts because people are terrible at remembering details. Someone could swear an oath, take the stand and testify by their life that there were 4 bank robbers, when CCTV says there were 5. This alone shows that 'false' memories don't have to be recognised as such.

Tulpas can also (probably) modify the host's memories (thread here). This undoubtedly shows that memories can be purposely fabricated but not recognised as such by a personality that was active at the time of fabrication.

This is invalidating as it demonstrated that your backstory could be created after the tulpa and still be remembered as real.

 

I do think that tulpas are non-existent before creation, but that's not a valid proof for it.

[motorheadlk]

You and Hush aren't making much sense. It's likely a misunderstanding to say that the mind has 'processes' that can be created or ended within the subconscious.

However, I really took issue with your proposed proof. Memories are by no means permanent.

 

You do know that I was in the memory modification thread, right? I know they're not permanent.

 

 

Let's look at the host's memories, since any of their memories will have been made when they were conscious.

 

You just started wrong here. You may have memories of a dream in which you were not conscious. Additionaly, a tulpa may create a memory, so the thing you think you experienced may not exist. But let's carry on.

 

People remember things wrong. Eyewitness testimony alone is not valid in British courts because people are terrible at remembering details. Someone could swear an oath, take the stand and testify by their life that there were 4 bank robbers, when CCTV says there were 5. This alone shows that 'false' memories don't have to be recognised as such.

 

Oh, now I see when you lost me. Let me make it clear for you. If a tulpa is conscious and is recieving a memory, then she is consciously receiving a memory, however, she should also have a memory that points that the memory that she recieved is artificial! A memory of recieving the the artificial memory. Therefore, if she has no memory of recieving memories, she wasn't conscious yet.

 

Tulpas can also (probably) modify the host's memories (thread here).

Uhm, yeah, I said that lol.

 

This undoubtedly shows that memories can be purposely fabricated but not recognised as such by a personality that was active at the time of fabrication.

 

It does not. Tulpa and Hosts are different, you can't say one doesn't remember something because the other also doesn't, but I get your point.

What you failed to see is that tulpas have more knowledge about the differences between our conscious, unconscious, subconscious and ourselves than anyone, even us. It's what the discussion of the Queen Chrysalis thread I quoted was about. If a memory is modified, they should know because on the moment they are conscious, right from the start they are able to differenciate themselves from the host. That's what we've discussed on the Queen Chrysalis thread, again.

 

This is invalidating as it demonstrated that your backstory could be created after the tulpa and still be remembered as real.

I do think that tulpas are non-existent before creation, but that's not a valid proof for it.

It is because tulpas, from the moment they are conscious, should also acquire memories, and since they know who is the host and who is she, she knows if a memory is coming from her or someone else. That's just what Queen Chrysalis said: "We hosts, we don't get it" because we can barely differenciate ourselves from our tulpas, let alone differenciate ourselves from our conscious and subconscious. But tulpas are capable and if they are conscious when they recieve a backstory, they should be able to deny it as real. This, of course, proves that they are not conscious when they recieve a backstory, which means that they are not always conscious.