Jump to content

Finally translated my thoughts about tulpa conciousness


Khagata-wm

Recommended Posts

Hello, everynyan.

I am the guy from russian community, have blog in russian, where usually post my thoughts and analysis about various aspects of tulpaforcing. Today I completed translation of one of my key posts, "Autonomous personality and conciousness", and I would like to share it and hear your thoughts and opinions about it. The post is about nature of tulpa, and my thoughts on possibility to actually create an parallel conciousness. I didn't hear too much criticism in our community about my theories, so my next posts were based on these ideas I throwed up there. But I didn't saw my ideas been developed in this community, and that caused kind of separation the way I understand tulpas and the way you understand them. And this separation just goes furter as the time goes, so I decided that I need this discussion. I think that understanding of tulpa nature significally affects the ways we develope them, so I suppose trying to make a point here shouldn't be useless.

Note that I mentioned servitors in my post, and that I have servitor instead of tulpa. Do not be confused, as mentioned there, my definition of servitor differs from one that is common here, and I have no clue where you guys took your from, so I decided to leaving my terminology as it is, just pointing on differences.

wtf russian tries spek engrish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you Xeare for your detailed response.

Anything that you visualize into your wonderland, be it a character or a tool, is technically a servitor.

Yeah, but how often do you say "I created a servitor of flower in my wonderland?" It's somehow redundant IMO.

The issue I have with that immediately is that I can think around THREE thoughts at once if I ever tried to. I can hear myself thinking on a main layer, a secondary layer, and a tertiary layer after that with each consecutive layer quieter and less prominent than the last.

I think it's not hard to prove. Try to multiply three-digit numbers, execute individual multiplying simultaneously. Will it be as fast as just only one multyplying? If so, I would believe you proved possibility of simultaneous thinking.

and by saying that tulpæ don't actually think on their own, you are denying them their existence and sentience

This is what I tried my best to not to say by that post. I knew someone might interprete it that way, but that is not what I'm saying.

Which brings up another question, why do you have your slave-like servitors? If you have something that is sentient, but born into a life of serving, wouldn't that go against whatever free-will it would have had otherwise had you not put it into that position in the first place? I that a major reason you are seeing tulpæ like this is because you have the mentality that it's possible for something sentient to be subhuman if it's a thoughtform, which I am already seeing as morally wrong.

Well, the questions of moral I tried to explain in this post. But answering detailed question, the way I am following called "pragmacy". My mental, which consists of my personality and my servitors', is constructed to correspond to the principles of expediency. Technically my servitors are constructed in way that they do not want absolute freedom, that might lead to conflicts and won't please anybody. I consider my servitors not as slaves, but as a coworkers. If servitor for any reason wants to "resign", the correction I make may be considered as replacement of leaving servitor by one with more expedient personality (but nearly the same). For further explanations please follow the link. If it's not enough, I would soon translate another posts which explain my morality about servitors and servepragmacy.

The biggest issue I'm having with you and your ideas with tulpæ is that you are saying that you don't think that it's possible for tulpæ to ever think autonomously, and as such are not "real" but rather simulations.

But I am not saying that. They are thinking using one's brain and processes that are available in it. So does host. Are you sure you have readed whole post, not just the beginning? It's closer to the end where I explain that.

The brain is physically capable of sending more than one signal through one place at a time, in fact it's job is to be constantly sending hundreds, or even thousands (dunno specifics, neuroscientist should tell me the average signals sent per second) of signals at any given time. The only thing that a tulpa would do is add more signals to be sent, which in turn could put more load on your brain. Or perhaps it could simply take the place of other thoughts that would have been useless and random and instead make sentient and beautiful thoughts.

I disagree that conciousness is just a bunch of signals and if you have more signals you have more conciousnesses. Brain has it's own structure, and the conciousness flow is a big and important part of it's structure. You cannot add third pilot seat in Boeing without massive re-engineering of nearly all it's components. Brain is more like Boeing, not just a bunch of peer neurons who can do any task anywhere in brain just if they need it at short-term. It's a tool that evolution made to solve problems.

Do you think you're sentient? How does it feel to be denied existence and as such equality?

I am result of processes in my brain, and I am okay with that. For me, there is something much more important than equality. I will be likely an unequal cogwheel in the mechanism that takes care of me and makes me happy and I agree with it's goals, than an equal individuality in the world which will end up with conflicts and disagreements between every single person. Especially I don't want to turn into that world stored in my brain. That wouldn't help anyone.

wtf russian tries spek engrish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless a neuroscientist comes in and says "After scanning many of your advanced Tulpamancers, we've found there is literally nothing that points to an alternate sentience in your brain", I'm sure of tulpæ being more than the way you described them.

 

Yeah, this is problem with my posts. I have theory and arguments, people who oppose me say "I don't think so, but I wouldn't argue against your arguments". I am not trying to offend Xeare, but what I need is a discussion. We do not have neuroscientists around, but responses like this just do not lead me anywhere, do not help my problem. You might say that it isn't important at all, but why am I continue reading then "tulpa is separate conciousness" in every guide, while no one can advocate that, and I can advocate my point of view? From this statement people make further reasoning about everything that relates to tulpae. So I am sure this is important.

wtf russian tries spek engrish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's /personal/ evidence for "tulpæ are sentient" and other evidence for "not so much".

Well, in my terms, "sentient" may mean many things. I do not argue against tulpas being self-aware or whatnot, I argue against "tulpa is different conciousness made up inside your brain".

we have an explanation explaining how they'd be sentient and whatnot from a psychological/neuroscience view.

I have clear arguments against this point of view. I know that it is present, but I don't know how it is been advocated against my arguments. It should be, right? It is how you pick up best theory, isn't it?

it's actually helped us progress faster by thinking as such

Now, my theory is not intended to make progress more difficult. On the contrary, it is intended to clear up the process of creating a belief about tulpa's sentience and make this process faster. Watching the process of creating belief might ruin it at first couple times, but the trick that servepragmatics teaches you is to be able to believe in pretty much everything you want to, knowing about that, but not feeling bad about that. It uses the same argument you just used: "while it is working, it is good". That's the idea about how you feel your constructed beliefs, and ability to do that makes your thinking processes really almighty inside your brain.

Especially my theory tried to explain cases, in which people just can not make their tulpas whatever they do. As long as I know, your theory provides no explanation for that, except for "they try not hard enough", which after some point does not help at all, but only frustrates people.

wtf russian tries spek engrish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your theory in a nutshell

 

Your personality is a component in a circuit

Your tulpa is another component

Whether which activates depends on which one the brain supplies electrical current to.

 

Am I right or am I miles from correct?

Chloe - That cheerful girl with ponytail.

Aigis - The male cyborg that looks like raiden in MGR.

Vixen - Half dragon female who looks like Mary in DMC3 when in human form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Currently, as it is, I have yet to really meet someone who is having trouble actually making their tulpa. I've seen people progress /really/ slowly, but never have I seen someone completely unable to. Give me a case of this and I'll figure out how it relates, but as it is it's just learning to get your brain into a more workable state for creating the neural net of your tulpa.

I asked in IRC whether your community have this phenomena or not, and my thoughts were confirmed.

 

07:53:54) Khagata: Hi, can somebody answer a couple questions about some phenomenas in tulpaforcers community?

(07:56:30) Khagata: I am russian, we have small community there, and there are some phenomenas there, that leaded me to certain conclusions.

(07:56:53) SmoothPorcupine: Go on.

(07:58:20) Khagata: And I just wonder if there phenomenas are based on the tulpae nature, or on some cultural features. So, my first question is, does anybody know if in your community exist people, who have real difficulties of getting any response even after months and months of following guides?

(07:58:49) SmoothPorcupine: Yes.

(07:58:49) JJosh: yeah totally

(08:00:10) Khagata: And nothing really helped them much, right?

(08:00:34) SmoothPorcupine: They're getting there.

(08:03:26) Khagata: Hm, ok. Do you have any explanation about this? Do you think that ability to tulpaforce is a talent, or you believe that anyone could tulpaforce, but there is a problem with structure of cognition of some sort or just misunderstanding the guides, or something else?

(08:10:24) Khagata: Let me explain my question a little bit. In our community we have a significant gap between largest amount of people, that are doing well, and some people who have really no progress, no matter what they do.

(08:12:33) Khagata: So if you have this phenomena, then the problem is in the people. If you haven't, then the problem is in our translation of guides, or methods, or something else. There is not much of interaction between our communities after the Irish and FAQman guides, so we might went along different ways.

(08:15:22) MQQSE: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

(08:16:17) Biotech: heya MQQSE

(08:16:22) Khagata: Hi. I am here with some questions about the tulpa community, could you help me with that?

(08:16:52) SwiftCurls: instructional moosen go

(08:16:53) MQQSE: Could try. I'll have to read the backlog, after I get tea and check pings.

(08:27:18) MQQSE: Right, since I actually read a tiny touch of the backlog, we do have that phenomena to a degree, Khagata.

(00:02:02) Khagata: Ok. So you said that there exist a number of people, who had real troubles to begin tulpaforcing, maybe spending months without any results, am I right?

(00:02:35) waffles: I didn't myself but I would agree.

(00:02:43) Khagata: Not you personally, of course.

(00:04:17) Khagata: So my question is, did someone tried to explain why that might happen? Any theories about that? I mean, we will probably agree that ability to tulpaforce isn't a talent, isn't something that rather exists or not. But then, why that happens?

(00:04:54) waffles: for fear of giving a weasel answer, people are different

(00:05:05) waffles: some people may be less prone to the processes that happen

(00:05:14) waffles: or less willing to accept their tulpa's independence

(00:05:26) waffles: or perhaps they are simply doing something wrong subtly

(00:05:49) waffles: I don't think anyone has a proper theory on it, but that would be the sensible answer I think.

(00:07:48) Khagata: Well, these seems to be rather simple answers. I thought there was a further investigation, I mean, if somebody is desperately spending months of time, he would proably try to ask for help, or use different ways and techniqes

(00:08:17) roflmao: Khagata, it could just be that people have underdeveloped imaginations and need to work on them. There's supposedly a really small precentage of the population which can't do mental imagery at all, but I still wonder if even they can't teach themselves to do it if they tried.

(00:08:54) waffles: they often do, but unfortunately the community's usual recourse is "have faith in your tulpa and don't give up" and so on

(00:09:05) waffles: which doesn't tend to lead to new approaches

So I do not know cases in English communities, but I do perfectly know couple cases occured in ours.

 

Your theory in a nutshell

 

Your personality is a component in a circuit

Your tulpa is another component

Whether which activates depends on which one the brain supplies electrical current to.

 

Am I right or am I miles from correct?

Essentially this is right way of understanding, yeah.

wtf russian tries spek engrish

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...