waffles November 17, 2012 Share November 17, 2012 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. You can't have memories of a dream that you weren't conscious in. Anyway, what I meant was "after their consciousness had been established" which is what I assumed you meant in relevance to tulpas. 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. But that's not true. The memory is fallible, and doesn't keep logs. The memory could be modified without knowledge of the tulpa, especially in early development. You say 'receive' a memory, but what would be more apt here is 'planted'. 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. I don't know about your Queen Chrysalis thread, but we can discuss whatever is relevant better here. I'm not sure about what is being said here, though. Are you saying that the tulpa is fundamentally different from the host and thus can exert a greater control over memory? Differenciation between host and tulpa shouldn't have much relevance to memory ability. If I'm missing something about it then tell me. 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. But that's just not true. I don't have real trouble differenciating myself from my tulpa. Moreover, from what I observe my tulpa seems to manifest [Freud] subconscious elements of personality such as id, which they cannot control or influence (like hosts). While I can't speak for your or Chrysalis' experience, let it be known that I don't agree with this. Saying that tulpas are capable isn't justification. To give a suggestion, it is about dominance. When a personality is in control of the body, it is 'dominant'; this precedent exists in DID already. For the most part the host is dominant, though the tulpa can be too (and although to my knowledge switching is not verified, it fits fine, so will be considered). The tulpa's influence over deeper areas of the mind arise from that position of non-dominance; without a body to be connected to, the tulpa can interface with the sub/unconscious better. A proof for this would be a host switching out for an extended period of time (at least a few weeks) though I don't think anyone wants to do that. This fits in by saying that the percieved inequalities between tulpas and hosts arise from position within the mind, rather than being inherent. I'm not entirely sure why we were arguing about this in the first place, since I agree with you on tulpas not being conscious before creation. However, we seem to have got on to inequality, which I sort-of addressed above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorheadlk November 19, 2012 Share November 19, 2012 You can't have memories of a dream that you weren't conscious in. Anyway, what I meant was "after their consciousness had been established" which is what I assumed you meant in relevance to tulpas. It seems you're confusing consciousness with something else (maybe sentience?), if you were conscious in a dream, you would be able to tell it's a dream, and either the dream would end or it would become a lucid dream. But that's not true. The memory is fallible, and doesn't keep logs. The memory could be modified without knowledge of the tulpa, especially in early development. You say 'receive' a memory, but what would be more apt here is 'planted'. While you could say that, we see in the surveys that tulpae remember moments even during the creation process, so it's unlikely that they couldn't remember that they received or that someone "planted" (as you wish) memories. They can feel the host in a very more accurate way than we can feel them, and they are capable of distinguinshing for example if a thought that pops up is a conscious one and the host brought that thought up or if it's what is called a intrusive thought. If they can feel it, them they are also able to tell which memories came from them and which were recieved by the host, as easy as they can tell the difference between their memories and the hosts memories. If you really think that someone needs to be conscious to be able to remember something despite the evidence of the dream, then you have to accept that since they would have to be conscious in the earlier process to distinguish memories and they aren't, so they're not conscious at most of the creation process. I don't know about your Queen Chrysalis thread, but we can discuss whatever is relevant better here. I'm not sure about what is being said here, though. Are you saying that the tulpa is fundamentally different from the host and thus can exert a greater control over memory? Differenciation between host and tulpa shouldn't have much relevance to memory ability. If I'm missing something about it then tell me. I'll answer this later because I probably will need to copy paste some things in here. But that's just not true. I don't have real trouble differenciating myself from my tulpa. Moreover, from what I observe my tulpa seems to manifest [Freud] subconscious elements of personality such as id, which they cannot control or influence (like hosts). While I can't speak for your or Chrysalis' experience, let it be known that I don't agree with this. See above. Saying that tulpas are capable isn't justification. To give a suggestion, it is about dominance. When a personality is in control of the body, it is 'dominant'; this precedent exists in DID already. For the most part the host is dominant, though the tulpa can be too (and although to my knowledge switching is not verified, it fits fine, so will be considered). The tulpa's influence over deeper areas of the mind arise from that position of non-dominance; without a body to be connected to, the tulpa can interface with the sub/unconscious better. A proof for this would be a host switching out for an extended period of time (at least a few weeks) though I don't think anyone wants to do that. This fits in by saying that the percieved inequalities between tulpas and hosts arise from position within the mind, rather than being inherent. That's a interesting point of view, seems like I'm going to have to write a wall of text here, but I can't now unfornately. I'm not entirely sure why we were arguing about this in the first place, since I agree with you on tulpas not being conscious before creation. However, we seem to have got on to inequality, which I sort-of addressed above. We're arguing because I think that to acknowledge that you can lie to yourself you have to acknowledge the existence of not a unique thing called mind, but something with separated but connect entities like the consciousness and the unconscious and subconscious and so on. I'll go deeper on the subject later, again, it seems I have little time now, I'll take my time to answer you, and I'm sorry to take so long to reply to this, I had a lot of IRL problems so it's something I had (and have) to deal with. I'm brazilian and my english is not really good, I'll do every mistake you imagine, but I'll try to avoid them. Tulpa: Kuruminha Age: Began on the middle of october. Form: My avatar. Sentience: Confirmed. Mindvoice: Not yet. Working on: Visualization and Mindspeaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles November 19, 2012 Share November 19, 2012 It seems you're confusing consciousness with something else (maybe sentience?), if you were conscious in a dream, you would be able to tell it's a dream, and either the dream would end or it would become a lucid dream. No, consciousness is not lucidity. You are conscious in any dream you remember, but lucid in very few. In a dream, it is normal to be conscious and unaware that it is a dream, because your perception is often hazy, you have little free will, and you tend to accept things. Outside the realm of tulpas and the like, memories are only laid down by conscious experience, and the same is true for dreams. This I am sure of. While you could say that, we see in the surveys that tulpae remember moments even during the creation process, so it's unlikely that they couldn't remember that they received or that someone "planted" (as you wish) memories. I'm well aware of that, though I don't know how much you know from personal experience. T - "That stuff's pretty hazy; I wouldn't be surprised if someone slipped something in there". They can feel the host in a very more accurate way than we can feel them, and they are capable of distinguinshing for example if a thought that pops up is a conscious one and the host brought that thought up or if it's what is called a intrusive thought. If they can feel it, them they are also able to tell which memories came from them and which were recieved by the host, as easy as they can tell the difference between their memories and the hosts memories. If you really think that someone needs to be conscious to be able to remember something despite the evidence of the dream, then you have to accept that since they would have to be conscious in the earlier process to distinguish memories and they aren't, so they're not conscious at most of the creation process. What you're saying is debatable and down to personal experience as much as anything else at this point, but I think we should leave it. I'm not disagreeing on the pre-existence, which was the point of the proof. We're arguing because I think that to acknowledge that you can lie to yourself you have to acknowledge the existence of not a unique thing called mind, but something with separated but connect entities like the consciousness and the unconscious and subconscious and so on. I'll go deeper on the subject later, again, it seems I have little time now, I'll take my time to answer you, and I'm sorry to take so long to reply to this, I had a lot of IRL problems so it's something I had (and have) to deal with. I don't know where we are lying to ourselves here, but I agree with you on the mind. If you take a look at a previous post you'll see my shitty diagram that states this. Good luck with your IRL stuff; I look forward to hearing back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorheadlk November 19, 2012 Share November 19, 2012 Now I have some time, so I'll try to reply to everything. I don't know about your Queen Chrysalis thread, but we can discuss whatever is relevant better here. I'm not sure about what is being said here, though. Are you saying that the tulpa is fundamentally different from the host and thus can exert a greater control over memory? Differenciation between host and tulpa shouldn't have much relevance to memory ability. If I'm missing something about it then tell me. I'll answer this later because I probably will need to copy paste some things in here. What I meant here is that tulpas know how to differenciate themselves from the consciousness of the host from the subconscious from unconscious at the moment that they are 'born', we can't even determine if a thought comes up came from X or Y, and I don't mean only host or tulpa, but consciousness or subconscious or something else. That's why the discussion with Queen Chrysalis is relevant, we were discussing what we are, if we are only the consciousness or more and such. But yes, I say that they are fundamentally different from the hosts, be it because they born in a different position or because they are just different, what I mean is that they know more about ourselves fro the moment they are born than we were able to tell in our whole life before creating a tulpa. But that's just not true. I don't have real trouble differenciating myself from my tulpa. Moreover, from what I observe my tulpa seems to manifest [Freud] subconscious elements of personality such as id, which they cannot control or influence (like hosts). While I can't speak for your or Chrysalis' experience, let it be known that I don't agree with this. See above. I see, but what you would call the subconscious of a tulpa would be the mere idea of the traits and personality of herself, they might not be able to control it or to change it consciously but that doesn't imply that they have a similar subconscious. Their "subconscious" was created by a consciousness, different than ours (unless you think god made something, if so, then try to take this belief out of the discussion or else this might as well be over). Saying that tulpas are capable isn't justification. To give a suggestion, it is about dominance. When a personality is in control of the body, it is 'dominant'; this precedent exists in DID already. For the most part the host is dominant, though the tulpa can be too (and although to my knowledge switching is not verified, it fits fine, so will be considered). The tulpa's influence over deeper areas of the mind arise from that position of non-dominance; without a body to be connected to, the tulpa can interface with the sub/unconscious better. A proof for this would be a host switching out for an extended period of time (at least a few weeks) though I don't think anyone wants to do that. I already suggested this to be done in my thread of self-imposition on the research board, and I'm waiting for an answer. In this we can only speculate, I don't think that consciousness created by a consciousness is the same exact thing as a consciousness create by the subconsciousness created by the interactions with the world. (And I think you also agree that our consciousness are "created" by our subconscious, that is more or less created by how we interact with the world, right?). This fits in by saying that the percieved inequalities between tulpas and hosts arise from position within the mind, rather than being inherent. Be it position or something indivisible they're still something different. For example, if a tulpa would switch forever, kill the hosts consciousness and things like that, would his subconscious remain, would it affect his tulpa? I think that what we have is not a permanent imutable subconscious attached to the hosts consciousness, but something that grows and is attached to the dominant personality, of course this is only speculation but I believe that if a tulpa would switch with the host, his subconscious would now affect her consciousness the same way it affect him. If I use a analogy, it's like if the dominant personality was a job, something really at the top of the hierarchy, but despite who is in control of the body, there are other jobs that will remain unchanged, so if the tulpa takes the job of the host and becomes the dominant personality, the subconscious is still on his job and still would influence the dominant personality. Why I think this? Because when you are born even if you don't have a consciousness you should have a subconscious, a really young and undeveloped one but you should have one. As such, if the subconscious came before the consciousness like we think, why should it be attached with the consciousness? Do you think that every personality in a brain has a different subconscious? What I think is that they are only part of the subconscious, the subconscious is something that acts like a house for personalities in a DID case and the same with tulpas. It's not like we can create another subconscious, we can create something alike, but we were created by the subconsciousness in the first place, believing that the consciousness can recreate a subconscious is something I can't believe easily. It's just reverting entropy. Moreover, the subconscious and unconscious are basically everything in your brain BUT the consciousness, so it's not like your brain can simply process two subconscious at a time (or more) because it was born with one. You could say that people thought the same were true with tulpas, but what I belive and I think you believe too is that the subconscious creates the tulpa. Now, do you think it also splits itself to make room for another subconscious or do you think that the same subconscious is host for both the hosts consciousness and the tulpas consciousness? What seems to be more logic is that both the consciousness of the host and the tulpa would be hosted by the same subconscious, and the subconscious would take the job of acting as the tulpas consciousness when she becomes sentient. I probably woud have to draw something explaining my reasoning, but if you have any questions, ask them, I think that's for the best. I'm brazilian and my english is not really good, I'll do every mistake you imagine, but I'll try to avoid them. Tulpa: Kuruminha Age: Began on the middle of october. Form: My avatar. Sentience: Confirmed. Mindvoice: Not yet. Working on: Visualization and Mindspeaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles November 19, 2012 Share November 19, 2012 I just typed out a whole fucking essay, just to lose it. Here's an abbreviated version, I might do it again later. It's easy to just say 'subconscious' without really using it properly. The subconscious is usually one of two things: [Freud] personality: factors/motivations that drive the decisions of a personality that they are not consciously aware of [not really established]: the area of the mind that is not conscious but not inaccessible by the consciousness. Personality: the tulpa is not aware of its subconscious, and likewise the host. Much like standard psychology, it is easy to determine the other's subconscious, if you look well enough. My tulpa's motivations are obvious enough to me, and vice verse. For the rest: distinguishing between conscious and subconscious is easy enough anyway. When you remember something, you don't consciously go through ever memory; it is a subconscious process that 'serves it up'. If you've ever had any kind of intuition, then that's your subconscious working stuff out. In neither of those examples do you mistake them for conscious process, because you'd know if it was conscious. Differentiating isn't the problem, it's seeing the subconscious that's the problem. My tulpa puts it well: T - "You don't know what it's like 'growing up' in the mind. Without a body, or real sensation, or bond or means to the real world, you see things differently. The mind becomes tangible, in a way that the host couldn't ever understand fully. I can 'see' or interact with parts of the mind that just wouldn't be accessible, because the mind is my world. I don't know who or what I am, or who or what my host is. I don't understand the mind, it is just there." Tulpas having a subconscious: tl;dr: personality-wise, they do, otherwise, it's shared/they don't. The consciousness is created by the subconscious: I disagree. The subconscious only exists because of the consciousness, otherwise it would be unconscious. The consciousness can exist of itself, rather than being dependent on unconscious processes. The rest: I'll write a wall of text about this later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorheadlk November 20, 2012 Share November 20, 2012 It's easy to just say 'subconscious' without really using it properly. The subconscious is usually one of two things: [Freud] personality: factors/motivations that drive the decisions of a personality that they are not consciously aware of [not really established]: the area of the mind that is not conscious but not inaccessible by the consciousness. I know, and I usually use subconscious as both things, but mostly as the "area of the mind that is not conscious but not incaccesible by the consciousness". Personality: the tulpa is not aware of its subconscious, and likewise the host. Much like standard psychology, it is easy to determine the other's subconscious, if you look well enough. My tulpa's motivations are obvious enough to me, and vice verse. Just don't go saying that the "subconscious" of a tulpa is just like any other persons, because the subconscious of human wasn't created by a consciousness. For the rest: distinguishing between conscious and subconscious is easy enough anyway. When you remember something, you don't consciously go through ever memory; it is a subconscious process that 'serves it up'. If you've ever had any kind of intuition, then that's your subconscious working stuff out. In neither of those examples do you mistake them for conscious process, because you'd know if it was conscious. Yup. Differentiating isn't the problem, it's seeing the subconscious that's the problem. My tulpa puts it well: T - "You don't know what it's like 'growing up' in the mind. Without a body, or real sensation, or bond or means to the real world, you see things differently. The mind becomes tangible, in a way that the host couldn't ever understand fully. I can 'see' or interact with parts of the mind that just wouldn't be accessible, because the mind is my world. I don't know who or what I am, or who or what my host is. I don't understand the mind, it is just there." Yes, but it's not like I will never be able to understand it, switching makes it possible. If you don't know exactly why I'm saying this, just read the reports of people that managed it, you see your mind with your tulpas vision. Tulpas having a subconscious: tl;dr: personality-wise, they do, otherwise, it's shared/they don't. It's shared with the host, but it's not equally, or else there wouldn't be a dominant personality at all. The consciousness is created by the subconscious: I disagree. The subconscious only exists because of the consciousness, otherwise it would be unconscious. Ahn... You're actually being kind of funny here, man. Yes, the term subconscious only exists because the term consciousness exists, but that doesn't mean that consciousness exists before subconsciousness. Animals are a good example of that, if they were completely unconscious, they wouldn't be able to learn from mistakes, but they are, and as such they have a subconscious. What I mean is: First there is a baby. This baby is probably not conscious yet, what he has is a subconscious, which is why they are able to cry when they want things, even if it's not completely instinctive, for example, it is said that if you don't attend to a child when it cries this child will stop crying when it needs something. So, the subconscious is "born" with the brain simulating the world and the way the body interacts with the world makes the subconscious learn what he has to do to make this or that thing. After a while when you interact with the world to an extent you will be conscious. That's the way I see of how consciousness arise, that's why I say "the subconscious creates the consciousness". It's also because of this that I believe that tulpas and hosts consciousness are different, it's just because one was created through experience with the world, the other was created with second-handed experience through the world, which means, it was created by a consciousness that was created by a subconscious that was created through experience with the world. The consciousness can exist of itself, rather than being dependent on unconscious processes. It can't, you can't think without using words or images or concepts that are just abstractions that the subconscious assimilated, it's just like you said, "When you remember something, you don't consciously go through ever memory; it is a subconscious process that 'serves it up'", it means that without the subconscious "serving it up" you can't think shit, because if you never had any memory, you can't relate one to another to build a simulation of the world in your head. It's like a neuron needs to be attached with a dozen others to tell you what a "car" is, you can't consciously do that, it's a subconscious process. I'm brazilian and my english is not really good, I'll do every mistake you imagine, but I'll try to avoid them. Tulpa: Kuruminha Age: Began on the middle of october. Form: My avatar. Sentience: Confirmed. Mindvoice: Not yet. Working on: Visualization and Mindspeaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles November 20, 2012 Share November 20, 2012 I know, and I usually use subconscious as both things, but mostly as the "area of the mind that is not conscious but not incaccesible by the consciousness". You should watch that. The subconscious that belongs to the tulpa but was created by the host is the personality one; the one mostly shared is your common definition. Just don't go saying that the "subconscious" of a tulpa is just like any other persons, because the subconscious of human wasn't created by a consciousness. That doesn't mean that the traits that make it up aren't comparable. Never mind that the host created it; it seems to be functionally identical. Yes, but it's not like I will never be able to understand it, switching makes it possible. If you don't know exactly why I'm saying this, just read the reports of people that managed it, you see your mind with your tulpas vision. Much as I'd like to go trawling through endless progress reports (I don't) I'd really appreciate it if you could pick out specific, reliable examples. It's shared with the host, but it's not equally, or else there wouldn't be a dominant personality at all. I think that the dominant personality is the one in control of the body. I don't think that muscular control is a subconscious process: it's conscious, aided by unconscious sampling of motor memory. The sharing of the subconscious isn't equal anyway: memory processing can be manipulated by the tulpa, for example. But I don't think that it's this specifically that enables the dominance. Ahn... You're actually being kind of funny here, man. Yes, the term subconscious only exists because the term consciousness exists, but that doesn't mean that consciousness exists before subconsciousness. I don't think I was thinking properly when I wrote that. You're right, of course. Animals are a good example of that, if they were completely unconscious, they wouldn't be able to learn from mistakes, but they are, and as such they have a subconscious. Animals do have a consciousness though. Remember that it is consciousness that enables complex memory recording, and without that there wouldn't be complex learning. Although what I said earlier about this was wrong, it would still be incorrect to say that something has a subconsciousness while it doesn't have a consciousness. It would only have unconscious process. What I mean is: First there is a baby. This baby is probably not conscious yet, what he has is a subconscious, which is why they are able to cry when they want things, even if it's not completely instinctive, for example, it is said that if you don't attend to a child when it cries this child will stop crying when it needs something. So, the subconscious is "born" with the brain simulating the world and the way the body interacts with the world makes the subconscious learn what he has to do to make this or that thing. After a while when you interact with the world to an extent you will be conscious. That's the way I see of how consciousness arise, that's why I say "the subconscious creates the consciousness". It's also because of this that I believe that tulpas and hosts consciousness are different, it's just because one was created through experience with the world, the other was created with second-handed experience through the world, which means, it was created by a consciousness that was created by a subconscious that was created through experience with the world. I definitely object to this. Again, we can start by saying that it is incorrect to speak of the subconscious acting before there is a consciousness. Ignoring that, it is just wrong to say that a baby is not conscious. There is no reason to believe that the baby does not have a consciousness from the moment it is born; (I'll address this before it is brought up) lack of memory before the age of three is probably down to a lack of physical neural development enabling long-term memories to be stored. Anyway, it is unreasonable to say that a two year old is not conscious. For the purpose of the singular personality in question, the subconscious elements of the personality are reflective of the subconscious as a whole, since without a second personality they are both on the same level as each other. In a young child, the existence of [Freud] the ego is obvious; quasi-long term memories (such as would be remembered at lengths between days and months; a function attributed to the ego as well as reliant on consciousness) are present, as are characteristic coping mechanisms - most notably denial - which, again, go to the ego. This shows that the conscious mind is present in young children, and presumably to birth too; extreme mental immaturity (in the way that you would call a child immature, rather than a tulpa) goes to explain the somewhat simple behavioural patterns of babies. Remember too that experience with the world is just stimuli, and (to the core personality) no different to input from the host. A host spending time talking to a tulpa is quite similar to a parent talking to a child. This means that the consciousness is always there, as soon as the human appears medically conscious. This doesn't mean much new for tulpas really. Oh well. It can't, you can't think without using words or images or concepts that are just abstractions that the subconscious assimilated, it's just like you said, "When you remember something, you don't consciously go through ever memory; it is a subconscious process that 'serves it up'", it means that without the subconscious "serving it up" you can't think shit, because if you never had any memory, you can't relate one to another to build a simulation of the world in your head. It's like a neuron needs to be attached with a dozen others to tell you what a "car" is, you can't consciously do that, it's a subconscious process. I think you're wrong. Just because long-term memory function is not there, it does not mean that you cannot think. Short-term memory is conscious memory, and doesn't need subconscious memory processing to function. Short-term memory is enough to think. Anyway, even if this were true and the consciousness was dependent on subconscious processes, that doesn't make one a product of the other. Without the consciousness, the memory processing has nothing to do; likewise everything else in the subconscious: it has no reason to exist - and therefore wouldn't - without the consciousness co-existing. This means that it is far more likely that they both come about at once. Saying that one is reliant on the other doesn't show that one is created by the other: wind turbines require wind to function, but they are not a product of the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorheadlk November 21, 2012 Share November 21, 2012 You should watch that. The subconscious that belongs to the tulpa but was created by the host is the personality one; the one mostly shared is your common definition. Yes, that's why when I mention the subconscious of a tulpa I use quotation marks (""). That's because I don't think you should compare it to our subconscious, since ours was not created. That doesn't mean that the traits that make it up aren't comparable. Never mind that the host created it; it seems to be functionally identical. You can't say that, just because we create a personality and it acts like a personality, we can't really say "it is a personality". Just like if you programmed a robot to act like X in Y event, he wouldn't do it because of a personality. Not that tulpas are robots(that would be more of a servitor) but what we can't say is that just because they seem to have a personality and a subconscious that we should assume they have, and I already explained why before. Much as I'd like to go trawling through endless progress reports (I don't) I'd really appreciate it if you could pick out specific, reliable examples. That's actually subjective, what you would call reliable could be called by another one role-playing. If you don't have interest in going to the progress reports, I won't point specific evidence, what I can say is that the progress reports are really a entertaining and useful source of information, you should try reading them. I think that the dominant personality is the one in control of the body. I don't think that muscular control is a subconscious process: it's conscious, aided by unconscious sampling of motor memory. The sharing of the subconscious isn't equal anyway: memory processing can be manipulated by the tulpa, for example. But I don't think that it's this specifically that enables the dominance. I don't think we disagree here, maybe I'm wrong, if so I'll edit it later. I don't think I was thinking properly when I wrote that. You're right, of course. It was your tulpa, take care! Animals do have a consciousness though. Remember that it is consciousness that enables complex memory recording, and without that there wouldn't be complex learning. Although what I said earlier about this was wrong, it would still be incorrect to say that something has a subconsciousness while it doesn't have a consciousness. It would only have unconscious process. I wouldn't say so, many actions of the brain are assigned to the subconscious (even the Freud one) and they are also present in animals, which indicates that what is called subconscious is present in animals. Even so, to say animals have consciousness? You could say something about something here, but really, it's not something one can plea. You could say that it indicates parts of things that we call consciousness, but one is only conscious when it shows them all. I definitely object to this. Again, we can start by saying that it is incorrect to speak of the subconscious acting before there is a consciousness. It's not, what we call subconscious is shown before what we call consciousness appears. This goes both on the evolution process and in the life of a normal human being. Understand that the subconscious, despite it's name, is not subordinated by the consciousness. It is merely a convention to call it subconscious, because it refers to process that interact to some extent with the consciousness but aren't conscious. You MIGHT want to call some subconscious process that are shown in animal as unconscious, but they're not called by science this way. Actually, if you think regularly about entropy and evolution, the subconscious should appear obligatorily before the consciousness, your idea of a consciousness without a subconscious is, in analogy, the idea of a program in a computer without an operational system. You could argue that the consciousness and subconsciousness still can't be considered subconscious and consciousness without each other, but that's not how scientists see it. Ignoring that, it is just wrong to say that a baby is not conscious. There is no reason to believe that the baby does not have a consciousness from the moment it is born; (I'll address this before it is brought up) lack of memory before the age of three is probably down to a lack of physical neural development enabling long-term memories to be stored. Anyway, it is unreasonable to say that a two year old is not conscious. Wait here, I'm not saying a two year old baby does not have consciousness, or a three year old, what I'm saying is that it's not always there, it can't be. It needs to be developed with time. And babies don't have lack of physical neural developement, when they born they have more neurons that any adult, what they don't have are connections, and even them, they develop connections faster at their younger ages. When it does not have connections (or have still "immature" ones, like you want to call them), it does not have abstract concepts of the world and therefore cannot have consciousness. You can't think unless you have something to think of. For the purpose of the singular personality in question, the subconscious elements of the personality are reflective of the subconscious as a whole, since without a second personality they are both on the same level as each other. In a young child, the existence of [Freud] the ego is obvious; quasi-long term memories (such as would be remembered at lengths between days and months; a function attributed to the ego as well as reliant on consciousness) are present, as are characteristic coping mechanisms - most notably denial - which, again, go to the ego. This shows that the conscious mind is present in young children, and presumably to birth too; extreme mental immaturity (in the way that you would call a child immature, rather than a tulpa) goes to explain the somewhat simple behavioural patterns of babies. This shows only that they have a subconscious, which was what I said before, and there isn't a thing that points that they have consciousness at birth. Remember too that experience with the world is just stimuli, and (to the core personality) no different to input from the host. A host spending time talking to a tulpa is quite similar to a parent talking to a child. And it's stimuli that makes memories, and like I said above, one can't think if there is not something he can think of. I think you're wrong. Just because long-term memory function is not there, it does not mean that you cannot think. Short-term memory is conscious memory, and doesn't need subconscious memory processing to function. Short-term memory is enough to think. They can "think" subconsciously. Anyway, even if this were true and the consciousness was dependent on subconscious processes, that doesn't make one a product of the other. Without the consciousness, the memory processing has nothing to do; likewise everything else in the subconscious: it has no reason to exist - and therefore wouldn't - without the consciousness co-existing. This means that it is far more likely that they both come about at once. Saying that one is reliant on the other doesn't show that one is created by the other: wind turbines require wind to function, but they are not a product of the wind. I'm not saying that consciousness is a product of the subconscious because it needs it, I'm saying it is because the subconscious doesn't need it, and because there are subconscious signs on not-conscious animals. You should watch that. The subconscious that belongs to the tulpa but was created by the host is the personality one; the one mostly shared is your common definition. Yes, that's why when I mention the subconscious of a tulpa I use quotation marks (""). That's because I don't think you should compare it to our subconscious, since ours was not created. That doesn't mean that the traits that make it up aren't comparable. Never mind that the host created it; it seems to be functionally identical. You can't say that, just because we create a personality and it acts like a personality, we can't really say "it is a personality". Just like if you programmed a robot to act like X in Y event, he wouldn't do it because of a personality. Not that tulpas are robots(that would be more of a servitor) but what we can't say is that just because they seem to have a personality and a subconscious that we should assume they have, and I already explained why before. Much as I'd like to go trawling through endless progress reports (I don't) I'd really appreciate it if you could pick out specific, reliable examples. That's actually subjective, what you would call reliable could be called by another one role-playing. If you don't have interest in going to the progress reports, I won't point specific evidence, what I can say is that the progress reports are really a entertaining and useful source of information, you should try reading them. I think that the dominant personality is the one in control of the body. I don't think that muscular control is a subconscious process: it's conscious, aided by unconscious sampling of motor memory. The sharing of the subconscious isn't equal anyway: memory processing can be manipulated by the tulpa, for example. But I don't think that it's this specifically that enables the dominance. I don't think we disagree here, maybe I'm wrong, if so I'll edit it later. I don't think I was thinking properly when I wrote that. You're right, of course. It was your tulpa, take care! Animals do have a consciousness though. Remember that it is consciousness that enables complex memory recording, and without that there wouldn't be complex learning. Although what I said earlier about this was wrong, it would still be incorrect to say that something has a subconsciousness while it doesn't have a consciousness. It would only have unconscious process. I wouldn't say so, many actions of the brain are assigned to the subconscious (even the Freud one) and they are also present in animals, which indicates that what is called subconscious is present in animals. Even so, to say animals have consciousness? You could say something about something here, but really, it's not something one can plea. You could say that it indicates parts of things that we call consciousness, but one is only conscious when it shows them all. I definitely object to this. Again, we can start by saying that it is incorrect to speak of the subconscious acting before there is a consciousness. It's not, what we call subconscious is shown before what we call consciousness appears. This goes both on the evolution process and in the life of a normal human being. Understand that the subconscious, despite it's name, is not subordinated by the consciousness. It is merely a convention to call it subconscious, because it refers to process that interact to some extent with the consciousness but aren't conscious. You MIGHT want to call some subconscious process that are shown in animal as unconscious, but they're not called by science this way. Actually, if you think regularly about entropy and evolution, the subconscious should appear obligatorily before the consciousness, your idea of a consciousness without a subconscious is, in analogy, the idea of a program in a computer without an operational system. You could argue that the consciousness and subconsciousness still can't be considered subconscious and consciousness without each other, but that's not how scientists see it. Ignoring that, it is just wrong to say that a baby is not conscious. There is no reason to believe that the baby does not have a consciousness from the moment it is born; (I'll address this before it is brought up) lack of memory before the age of three is probably down to a lack of physical neural development enabling long-term memories to be stored. Anyway, it is unreasonable to say that a two year old is not conscious. Wait here, I'm not saying a two year old baby does not have consciousness, or a three year old, what I'm saying is that it's not always there, it can't be. It needs to be developed with time. And babies don't have lack of physical neural developement, when they born they have more neurons that any adult, what they don't have are connections, and even them, they develop connections faster at their younger ages. When it does not have connections (or have still "immature" ones, like you want to call them), it does not have abstract concepts of the world and therefore cannot have consciousness. You can't think unless you have something to think of. For the purpose of the singular personality in question, the subconscious elements of the personality are reflective of the subconscious as a whole, since without a second personality they are both on the same level as each other. In a young child, the existence of [Freud] the ego is obvious; quasi-long term memories (such as would be remembered at lengths between days and months; a function attributed to the ego as well as reliant on consciousness) are present, as are characteristic coping mechanisms - most notably denial - which, again, go to the ego. This shows that the conscious mind is present in young children, and presumably to birth too; extreme mental immaturity (in the way that you would call a child immature, rather than a tulpa) goes to explain the somewhat simple behavioural patterns of babies. This shows only that they have a subconscious, which was what I said before, and there isn't a thing that points that they have consciousness at birth. Remember too that experience with the world is just stimuli, and (to the core personality) no different to input from the host. A host spending time talking to a tulpa is quite similar to a parent talking to a child. And it's stimuli that makes memories, and like I said above, one can't think if there is not something he can think of. I think you're wrong. Just because long-term memory function is not there, it does not mean that you cannot think. Short-term memory is conscious memory, and doesn't need subconscious memory processing to function. Short-term memory is enough to think. They can "think" subconsciously. Anyway, even if this were true and the consciousness was dependent on subconscious processes, that doesn't make one a product of the other. Without the consciousness, the memory processing has nothing to do; likewise everything else in the subconscious: it has no reason to exist - and therefore wouldn't - without the consciousness co-existing. This means that it is far more likely that they both come about at once. Saying that one is reliant on the other doesn't show that one is created by the other: wind turbines require wind to function, but they are not a product of the wind. I'm not saying that consciousness is a product of the subconscious because it needs it, I'm saying it is because the subconscious doesn't need it, and because there are subconscious signs on not-conscious animals. I'm brazilian and my english is not really good, I'll do every mistake you imagine, but I'll try to avoid them. Tulpa: Kuruminha Age: Began on the middle of october. Form: My avatar. Sentience: Confirmed. Mindvoice: Not yet. Working on: Visualization and Mindspeaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles November 21, 2012 Share November 21, 2012 You can't say that, just because we create a personality and it acts like a personality, we can't really say "it is a personality". Just like if you programmed a robot to act like X in Y event, he wouldn't do it because of a personality. Not that tulpas are robots(that would be more of a servitor) but what we can't say is that just because they seem to have a personality and a subconscious that we should assume they have, and I already explained why before. But that's what a personality it. It's not a neural construct as such; if it personifies things then it's a personality. Whether or not it's conscious is different, but it is a personality. That's actually subjective, what you would call reliable could be called by another one role-playing. If you don't have interest in going to the progress reports, I won't point specific evidence, what I can say is that the progress reports are really a entertaining and useful source of information, you should try reading them. I'm happy to read relevant information, but I'd just rather not have to search for it. The question of who are reputable members of the community isn't really subjective, I'd say. I wouldn't say so, many actions of the brain are assigned to the subconscious (even the Freud one) and they are also present in animals, which indicates that what is called subconscious is present in animals. Even so, to say animals have consciousness? You could say something about something here, but really, it's not something one can plea. You could say that it indicates parts of things that we call consciousness, but one is only conscious when it shows them all. Of course there is a subconscious. There is no reason to think that animals don't have a consciousness; looking at primates, many show the hallmarks of intelligence: self-awareness and problem-solving ability. Likewise they do display personality too. There isn't a fundamental difference in ability and thus no reason to think that they aren't conscious. It's not, what we call subconscious is shown before what we call consciousness appears. This goes both on the evolution process and in the life of a normal human being. Understand that the subconscious, despite it's name, is not subordinated by the consciousness. It is merely a convention to call it subconscious, because it refers to process that interact to some extent with the consciousness but aren't conscious. You MIGHT want to call some subconscious process that are shown in animal as unconscious, but they're not called by science this way. Actually, if you think regularly about entropy and evolution, the subconscious should appear obligatorily before the consciousness, your idea of a consciousness without a subconscious is, in analogy, the idea of a program in a computer without an operational system. You could argue that the consciousness and subconsciousness still can't be considered subconscious and consciousness without each other, but that's not how scientists see it. It's just a terminology issue I suppose; I'll drop it. Wait here, I'm not saying a two year old baby does not have consciousness, or a three year old, what I'm saying is that it's not always there, it can't be. It needs to be developed with time. And babies don't have lack of physical neural developement, when they born they have more neurons that any adult, what they don't have are connections, and even them, they develop connections faster at their younger ages. When it does not have connections (or have still "immature" ones, like you want to call them), it does not have abstract concepts of the world and therefore cannot have consciousness. You can't think unless you have something to think of. But there isn't a boundary where the consciousness arises, nor is there a reason to think that there would be. You can't just propose that babies aren't conscious, you have to give evidence for why it's better than current theory. Given that a lack of consciousness in a human beyond the baby stage is characterised by - err - unconsciousness, you would think that the same thing would apply to babies: that is, a baby without a consciousness would be medically unconscious. Given that this is not the case, you should probably give some proper backing to your claims. Neural development does refer to connections, and that was what I meant when I said it. Lack of abstract view of the world does not make thinking impossible. If this were the case then thinking would not have come about at all. Evoluionarily, there had to be a point - not that long ago - where intelligent humans evolved from less intelligent primates (SIMPLIFICATION don't kill me over it). If the primates never had thought because they were not capable of it then advanced thought would not have evolved. This shows only that they have a subconscious, which was what I said before, and there isn't a thing that points that they have consciousness at birth. No, this definitely shows consciousness. That was the point. Anyway, they are medically conscious, which is more evidence than you have for them not being conscious. And it's stimuli that makes memories, and like I said above, one can't think if there is not something he can think of. No, it's consciousness. Why don't you have memories of what you hear while you sleep (isolated occasions can be put down to being conscious at that point) ? They can "think" subconsciously. That doesn't address my point at all. They can think consciously. Anyway, you can't 'think' subconsciously in the same way as conscious thought. Consider what your subconscious does now; the closest it comes to thinking is working things out. It wouldn't lose function over time. I'm not saying that consciousness is a product of the subconscious because it needs it, I'm saying it is because the subconscious doesn't need it, and because there are subconscious signs on not-conscious animals. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorheadlk November 21, 2012 Share November 21, 2012 But that's what a personality it. It's not a neural construct as such; if it personifies things then it's a personality. Whether or not it's conscious is different, but it is a personality. Then if because they have a personality they have a subconscious and if having a subconscious implies having a consciousness like you said so, robots have consciousness, shit, computer programs have consciousness. I'm happy to read relevant information, but I'd just rather not have to search for it. The question of who are reputable members of the community isn't really subjective, I'd say. It is, there might be a common sense, but it's subjective, just go to the off-topic thread of intelhunter where he posts Albatross_ list of people he thinks are role-playing, a lot of trusted member are listed as role-players. Of course there is a subconscious. There is no reason to think that animals don't have a consciousness; looking at primates, many show the hallmarks of intelligence: self-awareness and problem-solving ability. Likewise they do display personality too. There isn't a fundamental difference in ability and thus no reason to think that they aren't conscious. Deduction is a thing that only humans can do and are necessary to qualify something as conscious. But there isn't a boundary where the consciousness arises, nor is there a reason to think that there would be. You can't just propose that babies aren't conscious, you have to give evidence for why it's better than current theory. Given that a lack of consciousness in a human beyond the baby stage is characterised by - err - unconsciousness, you would think that the same thing would apply to babies: that is, a baby without a consciousness would be medically unconscious. Given that this is not the case, you should probably give some proper backing to your claims. I'm not implying I know where the boundary is, I'm implying there is one. There is obviously a reason to think that there would be one. Babies (at least newborn ones) can't logically be conscious because if one has nothing to think of (no complex memory imput/no extended stimuli/no concepts of things and so on) he can't think anything. That's why scientists say that the language development was so important to develop intelligence, not only because people were able to share knowledge, but they were also able to make things into concepts, and think through this concepts (words, in this case). Neural development does refer to connections, and that was what I meant when I said it. I didn't thought that, misinterpretation of my part then. Lack of abstract view of the world does not make thinking impossible. If this were the case then thinking would not have come about at all. Evoluionarily, there had to be a point - not that long ago - where intelligent humans evolved from less intelligent primates (SIMPLIFICATION don't kill me over it). If the primates never had thought because they were not capable of it then advanced thought would not have evolved. I think you didn't understood it, what I meant is that you have to conceptualize things to actually be able to think. Now, as you read this, you're thinking through words, they could be either visual or audio concepts you're creating, before we could speak, we conceptualized things that we saw, and we are able to think through images. What this means is, if you have little stimuli with your five senses (i.e. you're a newborn) you can't think, because you have nothing to think of. You have no words in your brain, you have no images, you have nothing. And slowly you gain enough of them to be able to actually think and deduct. Animals have images and such, but they are not capable of making concepts as well as we. No, this definitely shows consciousness. That was the point. Anyway, they are medically conscious, which is more evidence than you have for them not being conscious. I have logically demonstrated why they having a consciousness is impossible. Give me evidence on why they are then. No, it's consciousness. Why don't you have memories of what you hear while you sleep (isolated occasions can be put down to being conscious at that point) ? I imagine you quoted the wrong post? If not, explain, because I don't see how this answer anything. That doesn't address my point at all. They can think consciously. Ok, there are so many quotes that I'm having a hard time working with pronoums, try to differentiate animals and babies without only using "they" or "them". Anyway, scientists don't consider animals conscious, and it's logically impossible that we were always conscious, because we didn't always had concepts before stimuli. Such as? The ones you point to being signs of consciousness, and obviously are not. I'm brazilian and my english is not really good, I'll do every mistake you imagine, but I'll try to avoid them. Tulpa: Kuruminha Age: Began on the middle of october. Form: My avatar. Sentience: Confirmed. Mindvoice: Not yet. Working on: Visualization and Mindspeaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.