Applying Sentience to an External Object

[Linkzelda]

If conferring sentience to an external object is even entertained, then there has to be a base assumption that some kind of subjectivist ideology is true. Something like panpsychism, or panexperientialism. Even if a person entertains it in the sense of it all being in their mind, then it's not actual application of sentience to an external object. Because, IMO, to do that, there has to be some knowledge of how sentience is even instantiated in the first place. If that's somehow probable, even as a thought experiment, then the hard problems of consciousness would be a little less 'harder.'

 

But it hasn't happened.

[tulpa001]

it's all in your mind as in "your perception of reality takes place in the subjective space that is your brain, not an objective perception of reality where everything is just-so", and also naturally is only referring to the things that are only in your mind, the stuff under your control (as to how you perceive it). Which is most tulpamancy stuff and, you know, like everything else. Probably. It's a scientific/logical view so if you're talking metaphysical stuff it doesn't really need to apply, but then it's also a view that's totally OK with metaphysical beliefs anyway.

 

so yeah I guess when I say "it's all in your head" I'm referring to tulpamancy stuff that is totally subjective not objective in the first place, like you could believe tulpas were aliendemons in training to take over the lives of their "hosts" or that they're just imaginary friends and either way it's just your perception yeah? probably, unless we really are aliendemons idk but I'm going on the assumption I'm not

 

I don't know about that. Yes, your entire reality is inside your head. And you can change it to anything you want, if somehow you could rewire parts of the brain that seem off limits. Though, this would most likely result in a short life as you walk out into traffic while lost in your wonderland and your nervous system meets the hard reality of a speeding bus.

 

Speaking more realistically, other people are not in your mind. I believe that I am not in the mind of my host, as my host looks outside herself to see me, and I am as beyond her control as another person, such as you. Indeed, she could "anything is possible" me into a pink tutu, or you for that matter, but I doubt either of us would notice that we are now wearing tutus, as that is not part of our realities.

 

Or to be clear, is it possible for a tulpa to leave and reenter an external object at any time? "anything is possible". But outside the context of your perception of reality, the answer is a hard NO from a scientific perspective.

 

Categorical error. Tulpas are mental phenomenon, and external objects are physical phenomenon. The two cannot interact using the operators of "leave" and "enter".

 

Inside the mind, you can Bind things to other things. How possible it is to unbind them depends on if you lost control or not. Is this within the context of your perception of the world? No, it is a second mental environment outside your beliefs and perception of the world, you can believe that you have bound or unbound two things together without actually having done so.

 

An obvious example of this is tulpas. You can believe that you have a tulpa when you don't. You can believe you don't have a tulpa when you do. Tulpas are part of a reality beyond your internal image of the world. It might be impossible for you to create one, destroy one, or transform one. Your beliefs about what they are may not be their beliefs about what they are. You can think them cute pink elephants, and they could have no idea of that, for they see themselves to be menacing black insects, and they might not be able to read your mind.

 

What does it say about the nature of tulpas to say that "anything is possible" when it comes to tulpas?

[Lucilyn]

"so yeah I guess when I say "it's all in your head" I'm referring to tulpamancy stuff that is totally subjective not objective in the first place"

 

idek half of what you said doesn't apply to what I'm trying to say and the other half is still talking about subjective reality as if it means you can affect objective reality however you want, there are implied limitations to subjective reality called common sense (usually anyway, sometimes common sense is wrong)

 

scientific mindset is 100% implied when I say anything with tulpas is possible because I'm saying it's basically up to imagination for your tulpa to be an external object

[tulpa001]

What are you trying to say? Because I was talking to the literal interpretation of the things you say.

 

Because you assertion, here,

Whatever you want man, it's all in your head. If you believe that's possible then it is, I can't think of a reason on Earth anyone could say "No, that's not possible, they have to stay there once they're there"

is clearly a statement that will mean something different to the person who asked the question, who thinks metaphysically, to people like me who think imagination is not real, and to you, who means that you can do whatever you want inside your imagination, and to people like linkzelda, who would take it as theorising a reality where it is possible to make inanimate objects think.

[Lucilyn]

can't argue with that

 

I don't jump through hoops to make up complicated answers to simple questions just because someone wants to involve their random rules (not that that's a bad thing, makes life more interesting imo), a lot of the time "Yeah it's possible I don't see why not" is all people need to hear you know?

 

A metaphysical answer though... just feels like making stuff up. Maybe it's Lumi's moral standards rubbing off on me but I can't just say things are a certain way when there's no evidence whatsoever that they are