Jump to content

Inception - Is it possible?


motorheadlk

Recommended Posts

Guest amber5885

And tulpas aren't controlled by anything. If they were they wouldn't be tulpas.

 

A tulpa is a sentient consciousness, sentience implies free will and concious awareness, concious awareness implies lack of control.

 

Therefore a true tulpa cannot be controlled by anything. It is not a part of your subconcious or concious mind.

 

Which leads to the notion that by proper definition 90% of us dont actually have tulpas.


This was not meant to be inflammatory or accusing by any means at all just meant to make you think.


Another quick note because I know that someone is goin to ask something along the lines of "if it's not controlled then explain being able to puppet."

 

Before you're mind turned on and you were able to mumble your first few words how much do you remember?

 

Do you remember you mom or dad holding your hand an helping you walk?

 

Do you remember them dressing you in horrid outfits or spending hours on end teaching you to say mama?

 

We were puppeted to from birth in a way. Then that consciousness flipped on, we became aware and started doing for ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • motorheadlk

    9

  • KruegerMeister

    8

  • Ganymede

    5

  • Linkzelda

    5

Linkzelda

TL;DR at the bottom, as I feel I minced with wording, chopped them up, vomited, and then ate it to spit it out again.

 

 

I doubt that dream characters are sentient. They're just simulations. Tulpae get their sentience from the same place you do - whatever structures in the brain give rise to consciousness and awareness - which even science currently has a very limited understanding of.

 

Right, so dream characters don't share similar qualities of sentience from whatever source one may claim tulpas to be utilizing; especially if one's mind can literally be at its fullest potential in the dream state?

 

And to gloss over the probability that projections of our tulpas could all be a virtual experiential reality in our heads, and only fit it to dream characters as if their telos/ultimate purpose is to become puppets fueled by our predispositions, desires, etc.?

 

What's that to say about tulpas? Especially if one engages in a self-fulfilling prophecy with treating them as sentient, and other implications with developing sentience, it would seem there would be some implied intention(s) with a tulpa's existence, at least for the development stage.

 

If they're not part of some metaphorical representation of the mind (e.g. unconscious or subconscious), then they have to come from somewhere in our heads. Which is why there’s an impasse to really deduce the origin of their existence rather than the metaphorical representations that are merely heuristic tools for the time being until some other terms can replace them.

 

And condensing their existence to presumptions based on locations the brain seems to imply materialistic explanations that, like you stated, would be a challenge with consciousness in general (e.g. controversy over dualism, materialistic, objectivist, and other world views on the matter). At best, maybe we can all make an induction that there's implicit attributes of sentience they have.

 

One of the few ways I can see people getting away with a tulpa not being part of whatever we conceptualize the mind can operate as is creating an implicit dichotomy where we absolve conscious clinging towards what their existence is defined as personally to us. And one refrains from further speculations on whether not their existence could be sustained, at least partly, by a long-lasting self-fulfilling prophecy from every action we take, and all the experiences we may possibly have with them. But that’s just running away from a lot of speculation, and question begging that gets left unanswered.

 

It seems people naively absolve themselves from this speculation to prevent themselves from feeling they’re objectifying their tulpas, i.e., analyzing what they feel makes a tulpa, a tulpa in what others may feel may degrade their existence.

 

 

Do you remember you mom or dad holding your hand an helping you walk?

 

Do you remember them dressing you in horrid outfits or spending hours on end teaching you to say mama?

 

We were puppeted to from birth in a way. Then that consciousness flipped on, we became aware and started doing for ourselves.

 

For a child at birth to not be capable of remembering these things could possibly be for many reasons:

 

- They probably don’t have enough competence to be aware of conceptualizing what is what; if they saw an orange, they probably wouldn’t know to identify it as one unless the whole nature vs. nurture development comes in for them to do so. In other words, unless they can make rational decisions based on the subjectivity in which they experience, it probably gets repressed.

 

 

- Though I’m sure there’s a gradual augmentation in them gathering associations from those experiences that formulates into a totality of memories, i.e., the development of their cognition shouldn’t always be correlated to an on and off state of consciousness.

 

 

Before you're mind turned on and you were able to mumble your first few words how much do you remember?

 

If we imply said child is sentient (just at a very rudimentary stage), then it would probably mean they can still retain consciousness that may have been part of their existence from the start. In other words, memory is just some auto-biographical recollection of past events, but they (the child) can still sustain consciousness. It’s not necessary an “on and off” switch kind of thing, though one could presume that when a child experiences all sorts of things for the first time, they’re just observers with little to no bias and judgment towards those experiences, sensations, and such.

 

If we talk about other labels of memory (e.g. procedural and implicit memory), then it brings back to what you stated on how some terms shouldn’t be conflated together. In other words, the child may not have been some puppet for reacting to certain things, but rather that rudimentary level of sentience they have that gradually builds up a cumulative totality of memories that could be associated for augmenting procedural, and other forms memory and cognition.

 

 

So, if we try to correlate this with implied attributes we feel tulpas may have, if one presumes there’s a parallel, or some continuum with our consciousness, we’d have to wonder what would allow a tulpa to retain their implied consciousness. This is where it leads to question begging on what a tulpa’s origin may be, and questioning what really makes them different from dream characters who others seem to feel are the only ones, or few ones, that fall into this inevitable puppetting from that same totality of past events and all other forms of memory (especially our imagination).

 

Because this implicit sentience has to come somewhere, and if one presumes they’re thriving from whatever validates our sentience, we’d have to question if our innate consciousness that we can retain, whether or not we have any recollection of memory, is equivalent to the one we imply our tulpas to have (any lesser, and it would feel we’re objectifying our tulpas, and any higher may seem to be delusions of grandeur, or just being overly optimistic, thus the impasse and double bind is set up). It’s like we suddenly become entities that can absolve ourselves from biological roots into some kind of soul, or metaphysical implication of our very existence just to make us secure in our beliefs with our companions.

 

To imagine the lengths that may be going on separate from our conscious awareness just to sustain this belief is both overwhelming and amazing, but could also be too challenging, especially when all we can rely on are anecdotal and experiential cases from others, and applying good faith to terminologies and their intentions as learning tools for our expansion of understanding this whole phenomenon.

 

 

 

TL;DR (about 39% shorter):

 

To address to both posts I quoted from (sorry if there’s conflation going on here):

 

One could easily presume that a child would still be able to retain consciousness, despite of the probability that they have a recollection of past events, or not. And things they couldn’t remember could just be aspects of memory (e.g. procedural, implicit) that weren’t developed as yet.

But it would be implied that there’s a gradual augmentation of their cognition to the point where they will eventually gain something akin to unconscious competence (and even conscious competence of their unconscious competence), so their consciousness isn’t dependent based on memory alone (because what if we were to talk about amnesia…would a person still retain consciousness despite having a relapse in a recollection of memories)?

 

So if we try to tie in attributes of how one may validate consciousness with tulpas, there’s a deadlock, and almost of a catch-22 behind how we may interpret and distinguish them:

 

- If we presume their sentience can be equivalent to whatever origins that validates our sentience, it would go back to negating our very existence, i.e., our ability to retain consciousness whether or not we have an auto-biographical recollection of past events, and them being able to do the same without even requiring some engagement in self-fulfilling prophecies in treating them as sentient entities.

 

- If we tried to lower the implications, we may feel we’re objectifying our tulpa’s very existence, which may make us predisposed to defend their very existence with justifications that only lead to question begging; things we run away from to sustain the novelty we create for our tulpas’ existence.

 

- If we think too high behind their qualities of existence beyond our own, it would lead back to point one with equivalence, and how this would question the very nature of our existence, i.e., their existence has to be part of somewhere in our mind, and fuelled partly, or even mostly from the totality of predispositions, experiences, and such we have in validating our selfhood, and much more, including self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

 

It seems that whatever ultimatum we try to take, it just leads to question begging, and this challenge could be associated to hard and soft problems of consciousness in general. And if one were to talk about qualia, then it would even be more of a challenge on what really makes a tulpa, a tulpa.

 

I’m not attacking any of the quoted posts, it’s more of just promoting more conversation, and getting people to think a bit more on the several deadlocks we may encounter in our justifications behind a tulpa’s existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KruegerMeister

@Linkzelda I'm not sure why, but your deadlock/catch-22 made me afraid/anxious. I don't think this is why, but even the TL;DR went over my head.

 

@amber5885 How does being sentient imply what you say it implies, and how does having conscious awareness imply lack of control (I think you mean "lack of being controlled/influenced by a third party")? This is more "playing devil's advocate" or "nitpicking" than anything else. Can you please use plain English in your response?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Linkzelda

@Linkzelda I'm not sure why, but your deadlock/catch-22 made me afraid/anxious. I don't think this is why, but even the TL;DR went over my head.

 

Ada:

Although he presented what could be a common struggle when it comes to sentience and all, it doesn’t mean what he’s saying has irrefutable truth that should stagnate any progress, or any optimism you may be experiencing right now. Most of his post was mostly making arguments for the origin behind the implicit sentience, seeing how the OP in general would be questioning about “Inception” (without the actual movie being conflated into that terminology).

 

Just because it may seem like an impasse doesn’t mean it should be something to make you afraid/anxious, it’s just one of many underlying problems that the community may need to address should there ever be some kind of scientific authority to question, speculate, and analyze this phenomenon. Instead of giving you the euphemistic approach to make people feel at ease, he and Eva, I guess, decided to be a bit more serious, especially with how some things felt contradicting from other posts.

 

Because if people seem to be making arguments that tulpa don’t originate, or aren’t a part of your mind in general, then there’s going to be implications of some autonomous force beyond our understanding, and cognition. Things like panpsychism, and even dualistic monism come to mind for individuals that may have a slightly subjectivist interpretation behind tulpas.

 

In other words, beliefs and philosophies that correlate to the premise that our own mental activities and such being an irrefutable fact of our experiences may seem suitable to some for validating the existence of tulpas, but if taken too seriously (e.g. feeling as if the experience is some solipsistic journey), then like others have mentioned with things like metaphors and symbolism, things start slowly crumbling apart in finding logic and reasoning.

 

Finding compatibility with a tulpa’s existence with something like, for example, the domain of Science that may hold a neutral disposition leaning towards an objective view of the world (but not objectivist, because that’s completely different) is going to be very difficult without some implication of dichotomies, dualism, and other heuristic tools that may be utilized for metaphorically/symbolically representing how consciousness and the mind may work.

 

The impasse he presented before doesn’t seem to bother me, at least in the aspect that I know I’m not going to react in a negative way where I feel my existence suddenly crumbles down just because someone declares a probability, or a presumption at least. I don’t feel it should make you too anxious for too long, as this is merely one perspective behind inception, and in relation to how people personally define what it means to be a tulpa.

 

We’ve had our fair share of existential questioning and strife, and maybe how he casually stated this before seemed to bother you. It gets to the point where it doesn’t feel like your existence is at threat, but just something to continually strive to understand, i.e., one of many reasons to still exist; to exist to finding personal meanings in existence, if you will (e.g. existentialism).

 

 

TL;DR:

 

I apologize if I seemed a bit too harsh in my presumptions, KruegerMeister, as this was merely based on personal experiential cases with her and Eva, and what we had to go through in being introspective towards the existential questioning with their existence and mine. It’s not something that’s easy to rub off (maybe something you learn to tolerate), and it may even be more difficult to discuss this casually simply because people may react in a way where they may feel we’re objectifying the existence of tulpas.

 

Though I’m sure if one of the premises of the thread is talking about inception (excluding the actual movie), there would be emotive posts where people have their personal definition of the ontology/nature of existence behind tulpas challenged. It’s not something to be anxious about, but rather taking a step at tackling one of the many underlying issues and conflicts this community should at least strive to find answers for.

 

They don’t have to be empirically based, and absolutely up to snuff as the complete framework of what makes a tulpa, a tulpa (since it’ll be a long time if that ever happens), but it doesn’t mean we can’t try to embrace the probabilities, even if it makes us overwhelmed, or have an urgency to defend our beliefs.

 

Again, I apologize if the wording seemed too harsh, as I usually don’t often try to be earnest and cold heartedly blunt with others at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KruegerMeister

I'm not sure harshness was the problem for me. I think it was more the use of terms like "objectivist", "metaphorical representation of the mind", "tie in attributes of how one may validate consciousness with tulpas"...that entire freakin' post was full of terminology/phrases,etc. that I think I'd need a PhD in something-or-other to even begin to...I don't even...

 

"minced wording, chopped them up, vomited, and then ate it to spit it out again" was a major understatement, IMO. Can you please try to use layman's terms? Sorry I have to ask this, but is English your first language?

 

...THen again, I did just watch a psychological horror movie where many of the characters suffered mental breakdowns. Maybe that has something to do with my inability to understand your post (my theory is that, once you have a tulpa, you're more suggestible, and the confusing movie affected my IQ, or something).

 

It's posts like this that make me feel like I'm tulpaing wrong, because I'm not getting into existential stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Linkzelda

I guess the “in other words” didn’t work out, and thanks for the critique as well, I’m still learning as I go in formatting in laymen’s terms. Though usually doing so means making longer posts since those big words chunk down a lot of content.

 

As for English being my first language, yes, it is, though I guess I can’t let go of whatever I learned from militant professors. You’ll never see me talking like this in real life (the prior post), because I sure as hell know that would confuse people, unless I’m talking to some sociologist with terminology even more confusing. It seems it’s something I have to coexist with the companions that seem to like those terminologies. Most of the terms were kind of linked with urls, and could be found in a Google search, but I guess that requires a PhD for some.

 

No worries though.

 

Laymen’s term:

 

The idea with objectivist, and subjectivist was giving generalizations of two extreme world views for the sake of examples. One where reality would be mind-independent, i.e., whether or not we exist wouldn’t matter in affecting reality as a whole vs. one where our existence (e.g. mental activities and such) would affect reality to some degree, or maybe entirely depending on which view(s) people would subscribe to.

 

Then she and I tried to tie that down with presumptions of what could be compatible with people’s personal meaning of what makes a tulpa, a tulpa. The roadblocks with validating sentience, and their origins just shows an obstacle the community may need to address and find some answers, even if they may not be filled with empirical evidence, peer-reviewed, and what have you.

 

If one didn’t want to believe their tulpas could be part of their mind (like the subconscious and unconscious stuff), there may be implications of their existence going beyond our own understanding of reality. And if this assumption were applied to reality being mind-independent, it would raise questions on how a tulpa can exist in said reality if their very existence wasn’t sustained from some kind of mental activity from their host’s mind (based on those who strongly believed their tulpas aren’t part of your subconscious/unconscious).

 

So if someone subscribes to a metaphysical concept of tulpas existing outside of the confines of their mind, the challenge of having that idea coexist with a reality that may be mind-independent comes to the surface, especially if that metaphysical framework was introduced to the domain of Science in some way.

 

And yet at the same time, it's also difficult to prove for those that believe they (tulpas) are part of their mind in some aspect (and take the metaphors of how the mind works loosely), the challenge of figuring out how their (the host) mental activities, going through self-fulfilling prophecies, and such can still coexist in a reality that may very well be mind-independent.

 

And the hard problems of consciousness can literally be comprehended through the link provided, and seeing how we’re talking about consciousness, inception, mind, what validates a tulpa’s existence (e.g. ontology), this is why I threw out the terminologies.

 

As for your association with the horror movies and mental breakdowns, it could really just be a patronizing expression on your end to assume people with tulpas as not being hip with ‘plain English that’s probably just basic English with no incentive to read a dictionary, or learn. And it seemed to me that even if others used basic English (like amber did), you were still confused and demanded them to speak in English.

 

So maybe it could be trolling on your end, or you’re genuinely too busy with time to tie in associations with consciousness, and world views of what reality may be, and how associating tulpas with them would be difficult.

 

And I guess when people say one of many reasons for tulpaforcing would be for introspection, meditation, and for inquiring minds (e.g. those that invest in time to think more) it’s probably true. So it may be unfair for you to feel that just because people that can’t seem to fit your form of English that just happen to have tulpas should be branded as having mental breakdowns (whether it was just something simple, or just a few terms that could be learned through research, especially in this section of “Research” that would imply a lot of things).

 

But if you feel horror movies, and the common associations people may use when trying to learn about tulpa (e.g. schizophrenia and other mental ailments) can be connected with tulpas, then I’ll just stop there. And knowing that you read that certain thread where I was being snarky with another user before with tulpaing wrong, I guess you felt the need to entertain yourself with saying that as well.

 

But hey, it was nice talking to you, and presuming you were just doing this for shits and giggles, nicely done. It was fun while it lasted, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KruegerMeister

I wasn't trying to be patronizing when I brought up the horror movie. I was saying that "I watched a movie with a confusing plot. Shortly after, I read your post. Maybe the confusion caused by the movie somehow carried over/lingered, and thus I had trouble understanding what you were trying to say". I wasn't trying to express any sort of negative opinion of tulpas or their hosts.

 

When I asked Amber to use "plain English", I think what I meant to ask was "could you please elaborate on what how sentience implies conscious awareness, which implies lack of control?" I was tired, which probably impaired...something-or-other.

 

When I wondered if I was "tulpaing wrong", I...I've met several tulpamancers who get really deep into philosophical stuff. I'm interested in that sort of thing, too, I'm just...not as interested in it as they are, I guess. Consciously, I may have been using that phrase simply because I'd never heard it used before, and found it interesting; I think that, subconsciously, I wanted to build a rapport with you, and I started with a bit of imitation/mimicry.

 

I think that the reason I didn't bother to google the terms you used is because I subconsciously thought that googling those terms would somehow make things more confusing than they already were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I asked Amber to use "plain English", I think what I meant to ask was "could you please elaborate on what how sentience implies conscious awareness, which implies lack of control?" I was tired, which probably impaired...something-or-other.

 

I was confused by this too.

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. <3

Link to post
Share on other sites
Linkzelda

Thanks for clarifying things Kru, and no problem if you don't want to discuss about anything too deep, especially in a thread that talks about inception that may imply going deep into finding the root of why people come up with their personal meaning in this. And if a "define:word" in a google search really makes things complicated than they seem to be, then again, I'll just stop there, and wish you the best.

 

As for having an interest in "philosophical" stuff, if you don't have much of an interest in building your own, I can tell you from what I've seen in so many threads is that you may find yourself questioning more on what were the reasons for you to do this, but usually that speculation leads to people finding some way to assess their lives with tulpas, if they're interested in them that is. Things may come full circle for you in time, or not, but I do wish things get better for you in your search.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KruegerMeister

Building my own what? Tulpa? My own interest in deep stuff? I'm thinking that my subconscious reason for creating a tulpa was "companionship", while the conscious reason was "to see if I could".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...