Community Glossary

[Linkzelda]

No, this isn't an issue. The two overlap slightly, yes, but for the vast majority of people they are clearly distinct. The rest consists of you trying to confuse things.

 

Yes they overlap slightly, no argument there, but for the "vast majority of people" can mean several things. It's fairly obvious, and I agree completely with you that anyone can get the bigger picture.

 

But there will still be the disputes from other members (not you) that may not agree to this. There will still be some confusion, but I'm not striving to sustain that.

 

Your freedictionary quotes already show you what I mean, and I'll highlight the key parts:

In short, hallucination seems real but imagination does not.

 

Let's talk a bit more about these definitions, though. In English, 'hallucination' does not solely refer to what is here the most common usage - apparitions to the senses. It can mean a delusion, in the sense of belief rather than sense. It can also mean a mistake, and there are probably finer shades of usage still.

 

I can agree with this statement, and since there's varying definitions on those terms means that it's good that we're trying to eliminate the ambiguity.

 

And yes, the terms can also mean an error in perception and other usage, but this doesn't seem to be sequential to the statement you're presenting that we're trying to reduce "also" and making things more "precise".

 

 

Looking at synonyms, then, is not helpful because in common usage "hallucination" often goes beyond the precise meaning that we use.

 

Again "we" is fairly vague, since it's mostly just what a few people agree on. The community in general clearly doesn't have a "precise meaning." It's safe to presume what's really precise is speculated at an individual level while anything at an aggregate level are generalizations.

 

 

 

So all in all, 'imagination' and 'hallucination' are completely pragmatic terms, and you're the one playing the semantics game.

 

Note: When I said pragmatic, this was in relation to individual circumstances (e.g. how everyone has their own definition). Everyone that's presenting their own definitions (to follow along the thread's purpose/intention) is part of the semantics game.

 

 

As a side note, you're also abusing dictionaries and thesauruses; take a look at a wider selection of dictionaries - I've chosen Wiktionary:

 

Waffles, I'm not trying to be selective and abusing dictionaries, they're used examples, not something I feel that should be put into effect.

 

Just like how you're using Wiktionary as an example, but I'm not going around saying you're abusing it along with the OED's or any other sources you want to use.

 

I could pull more definitions from other links, but they're just going to have the same correlation, and I don't want to spam quotes.

 

I definitely agree to what you've presented waffles, I wasn't trying to say your definitions or someone's definition is wrong. It's just that we have to explain things a little more if we're going to add in "imagination" and such to "visualization" in general to make them "plausible."

 

Patching things up with add-on words means there needs to be more explanations. Not novel-length descriptions, obviously.

 

 

Most of the redefinitions happen on the IRC' date=' keep that in mind, Linkzelda. [/quote']

 

It’s pretty obvious that when I stated people will deviate from general definitions and making their own definitions, this includes (but not limited):

• IRC (e.g. tulpa.info, redditulpas)
  
• tumblr
  
• This whole forum
  
• And any sub-communities related to tulpas

That should’ve been obvious, but you’re just explaining things that can be easily deduced from where "redefinitions" originate from. You’re only adding on to what I’ve stated, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

The people coming in here from IRC usually are the ones who don't quite understand the terms. Or they're just new people who sorta know what a term means but never actually bothered to read the actual definitions in the glossary. For the most part' date=' the forums actually agree what a certain term means. Also you are overcomplicating things by trying to define hallucination and imagination in whatever way you want to do it. Which is confusing.[/quote']

 

Just because you’re having a difficult time with what I’ve presented is completely irrelevant with what you're presenting.

 

What I presented (so far) is not me saying “Hey, because of how vague these terms are, we HAVE to use these no matter WHAT.”

The whole purpose of this thread is people giving their own perspective on certain terminologies to hopefully reach a consensus. We’re all aware of this.

 

Speaking of using a thesaurus and looking at a synonyms list to make you text nicer, don't.

The lists are pretty bonkers most of the time and it's just the sign of a bad writer when you go through them and try to replace every word for "red" with something that is listed as a synonym.

 

Where did you get the implication that I’m trying to replace every word for “this” or “that”? And your example is just non-sequential to the argument you’re presenting.

 

This isn't to make the text "nicer," it's used for an example, not something that must be put into effect. Huge difference there Sands.

 

 

Again, you’re assuming I’m trying to replace everything, even though people like Zero, Nobillis, and anyone else that will respond with their own interpretations is contributing to the thread's purpose of hopefully reaching a consensus.

 

Your argument can only work if I thought my words or presentation of terms is absolute, and anyone that disagrees with me is wrong. It’s just false implications you’re making that is not consistent with whatever you're trying to defend.

 

I’m not trying to hold more dominion with my interpretation of terms over yours or anyone's interpretation Sands.

 

I can't say I really get how you're arguing about semantics when you're the one trying to overcomplicate everything with useless words or pointing out how this or that word I used means everything I said is moot or something.

 

Of course this is debatable Sands, everyone’s interpretations are debatable. Remember, like you’ve stated in the past, anyone that doesn’t know how to take critique well shouldn’t be presenting their opinions in the first place right?

 

But when we’re discussing what others have stated, it’s not a personal attack to them or anything, just the concepts they presented. Nothing wrong with having a discussion where others are challenging each others' interpretations, it’s all for the sake of making this community better, right?

 

Everyone is free to provide critique and also take critique Sands. If you start defending yourself and state that what you’re saying shouldn’t be debatable (e.g. moot), pay close attention to what that means.

 

Because you feel that your interpretation is debatable, that you should be absolved from anyone’s input on it, that's just making yourself look like a hypocrite.

 

Those synonyms are not what I want to use whatsoever, they’re merely examples to show there’s a correlation. So whatever “useless” terms you think I’m trying to replace with every single term you or others are using is a false inference you’re making.

 

It’s one thing to provide examples for the sake of presentation, but it’s a completely different matter when the person wants every single term replaced with whatever they deem fit.

[waffles]

In that case, I just don't think that people do misuse 'hallucination' or 'imagination'. Perhaps you could give a few examples.

 

And regardless of whether or not it happens, the obvious solution would be to gloss 'hallucination' and 'imagination' as well, rather than eliminating them. They are awfully convenient.

[Linkzelda]

In that case, I just don't think that people do misuse 'hallucination' or 'imagination'. Perhaps you could give a few examples.

 

Will get back to you on that.

 

And regardless of whether or not it happens, the obvious solution would be to gloss 'hallucination' and 'imagination' as well, rather than eliminating them. They are awfully convenient.

 

Exactly.

[Sands]

You know Linkzelda, when you start writing all this stuff, I just don't really feel like I want to even start responding to you because there's just so much text to respond to. It makes it kind of a chore, but I guess I gotta try. I'll just skip to the parts I think I should respond to, then. Sorry, means I won't talk about everything you might want to know about.

 

It’s pretty obvious that when I stated people will deviate from general definitions and making their own definitions, this includes (but not limited):

• IRC (e.g. tulpa.info, redditulpas)
  
• tumblr
  
• This whole forum
  
• And any sub-communities related to tulpas

That should’ve been obvious, but you’re just explaining things that can be easily deduced from where "redefinitions" originate from. You’re only adding on to what I’ve stated, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

Tulpa.info=/=Tumblr or other tulpa communities. Tulpa.info=Tulpa.info, which unfortunately sometimes means #tulpa.info. Which is the redefinition paradise because people who can't switch want to say they can switch.

 

 

What I presented (so far) is not me saying “Hey, because of how vague these terms are, we HAVE to use these no matter WHAT.”

The whole purpose of this thread is people giving their own perspective on certain terminologies to hopefully reach a consensus. We’re all aware of this.

 

Sure, do that. Hard to see how you're planning to hold a debate like that and I don't know why we're doing this now. If you don't see the point waffles is making this far, I'm not sure if you ever will. We might as well want to save a few thousand words.

 

Where did you get the implication that I’m trying to replace every word for “this” or “that”? And your example is just non-sequential to the argument you’re presenting.

 

This isn't to make the text "nicer," it's used for an example, not something that must be put into effect. Huge difference there Sands.

 

 

Again, you’re assuming I’m trying to replace everything, even though people like Zero, Nobillis, and anyone else that will respond with their own interpretations is contributing to the thread's purpose of hopefully reaching a consensus.

 

Your argument can only work if I thought my words or presentation of terms is absolute, and anyone that disagrees with me is wrong. It’s just false implications you’re making that is not consistent with whatever you're trying to defend.

 

I’m not trying to hold more dominion with my interpretation of terms over yours or anyone's interpretation Sands.

 

A lot of shit to quote because you wrote it all using multiple paragraphs, but imagine that the following responds to all of it more or less. My chat about thesaurus rape wasn't necessarily directed at anything you said and more to waffles seeing that he brought it up because you brought it up as well. It's true, what thesaurus lists as a synonym isn't always actually completely identical in meaning, so you should watch out when you go there. Don't expect yourself to be able to use the terms interchangeably. When I say "you", it could also be the plural you, you know. Which it often is. You said you wanted to be a writer, so I guess you could say that my little thesaurus chat was sort of a pointer to you and any writer here. Just... Don't do it. It's a bad habit.

 

Seriously, I have to read through a lot of shit and I hate it when the character's eye or hair color keeps changing shades or when legs are referred to as "pistons". I kid you not. I've read it. It was awful. Don't do it. In a way you were right saying that what I said had nothing to do with what we were talking about, because it was. It only had something to do with the thesaurus part. You are assuming that I am assuming you are trying to replace everything. You assume wrong.

 

Of course this is debatable Sands, everyone’s interpretations are debatable. Remember, like you’ve stated in the past, anyone that doesn’t know how to take critique well shouldn’t be presenting their opinions in the first place right?

 

---

 

Everyone is free to provide critique and also take critique Sands. If you start defending yourself and state that what you’re saying shouldn’t be debatable (e.g. moot), pay close attention to what that means.

 

Because you feel that your interpretation is debatable, that you should be absolved from anyone’s input on it, that's just making yourself look like a hypocrite.

 

Sure, I think you missed the entire point. You're getting very caught up on my words like (because I felt like it) and "I don’t think" as if using those makes everything I say not valid. You know, you're not really pointing out what's wrong with the actual point in there but how I wrote a couple of words. That's semantics? Also I'm not sure where you got a lot of the stuff you're claiming I did here. A lot of words I don't just see. Was there something I said wrong or did you misunderstand something?

 

I agree with waffles about the words hallucination and imagination. This far you are the only one complaining about this. Oh, and when I say "we", I mean most of the people I talk to. In my entire life. I mean, if I didn't, then we'd get confused because no one knew what people were talking about. Hallucination and imagination have never been as complicated as you're trying to make them.

[Zero]

[Yori]

Hallucinations is when you perceive stimulis that's not there and imagination is your imagining stuffs. K.

[Linkzelda]

 

Tulpa.info=/=Tumblr or other tulpa communities. Tulpa.info=Tulpa.info, which unfortunately sometimes means #tulpa.info. Which is the redefinition paradise because people who can't switch want to say they can switch.

 

Note this was mentioned as examples. Tulpa.info has members from other sub-communities. It's clearly obvious we're trying to condense things down for the approach this community is trying to present, unlike the others. I'm well aware that tulpa.info=tulpa.info, you're just stating the obvious. Glad we can agree to this.

 

 

Sure, do that. Hard to see how you're planning to hold a debate like that and I don't know why we're doing this now. If you don't see the point waffles is making this far, I'm not sure if you ever will. We might as well want to save a few thousand words.

 

I think it's clear that I was agreeing with waffles, I was merely clearing up some misconceptions is all. Again, you're back to those false implications Sands. :)

 

Also, you don't have to worry about anyone saving a few thousand words. I'm perfectly fine, but if you want to save yourself the hassle, hey, nothing against you Sands.

 

 

 

A lot of shit to quote because you wrote it all using multiple paragraphs' date=' but imagine that the following responds to all of it more or less. [/quote']

 

 

 

My chat about thesaurus rape wasn't necessarily directed at anything you said and more to waffles seeing that he brought it up because you brought it up as well.

 

It's still being directed at me, you're contradicting yourself.

 

>Wasn't necessarily directed at anything I said

>In more of the lines of what waffles stated (whom I've agreed on after he explained his points)

>Still directs this to me

 

 

 

 

It's true, what thesaurus lists as a synonym isn't always actually completely identical in meaning, so you should watch out when you go there.

 

You're implying that I think synonyms are always completely identical, even though I clearly stated they're merely examples. So this statement of yours is pretty much useless.

 

Don't expect yourself to be able to use the terms interchangeably. When I say "you", it could also be the plural you, you know. Which it often is. You said you wanted to be a writer, so I guess you could say that my little thesaurus chat was sort of a pointer to you and any writer here. Just... Don't do it. It's a bad habit.

 

No one is stating certain terms should be used interchangeably. No one is stating those examples must be put into effect. You're implying, don't do it, it's a bad habit.

 

Seriously, I have to read through a lot of shit and I hate it when the character's eye or hair color keeps changing shades or when legs are referred to as "pistons". I kid you not. I've read it. It was awful. Don't do it.

 

Nice anecdote, completely irrelevant though.

 

It only had something to do with the thesaurus part. You are assuming that I am assuming you are trying to replace everything. You assume wrong.

 

So we can all agree that inductive reasoning (e.g. assumptions, inferences, conjecture) are prone to be fallacious, good.

 

 

Sure, I think you missed the entire point. You're getting very caught up on my words like (because I felt like it) and "I don’t think" as if using those makes everything I say not valid.

 

And here you're back to the same inferences again. I'm not missing the point, you're just defending yourself with the presumptions I've made of presuming you made the presumption of whatever I presumed. We're just walking around in circles.

 

 

You know, you're not really pointing out what's wrong with the actual point in there but how I wrote a couple of words. That's semantics?

 

Also I'm not sure where you got a lot of the stuff you're claiming I did here. A lot of words I don't just see. Was there something I said wrong or did you misunderstand something?

 

Pro-tip: It's good to read back what you've stated below:

 

I can't say I really get how you're arguing about semantics when you're the one trying to overcomplicate everything with useless words or pointing out how this or that word I used means everything I said is moot or something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with waffles about the words hallucination and imagination. This far you are the only one complaining about this.

 

Oh, so this statement I've made where I'm agreeing with waffles with words like "hallucination" and "imagination" was completely non-existent to you.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and when I say "we", I mean most of the people I talk to. In my entire life. I mean, if I didn't, then we'd get confused because no one knew what people were talking about. Hallucination and imagination have never been as complicated as you're trying to make them.

 

Well, it's fairly obvious you're going by your own experiences and interaction with others. But again, your anecdote is non-sequential to the false presumption of me trying to make things complicated.

 

Like you've stated sands, guess we'll have to save a few words and get back on-topic now.

[Sands]

It's still being directed at me, you're contradicting yourself.

 

>Wasn't necessarily directed at anything you said

>In more of the lines of what waffles stated (whom I've agreed on after he explained his points)

>Still directs this to me

 

It wasn't directed to what you said, but to what waffles said and I felt the need to continue it because I have a lot of personal experience of shitty thesaurus use. It was meant for aspiring writers, which I believe you are. So in that way it would be directed to you, yes, but not directed to what you said.

 

You're implying that I think synonyms are always completely identical, even though I clearly stated they're merely examples. So this statement of yours is pretty much useless.

 

Then why did you bring up synonyms for the words we're talking about?

 

No one is stating certain terms should be used interchangeably. No one is stating those examples must be put into effect. You're implying, don't do it, it's a bad habit.

 

Well you did bring up synonyms for certain words which weren't actually identical, so... I don't know why you did that, then. I guess at this point we both can just say the synonym lists mean nothing and shouldn't have been brought into this in the first place, because it being a synonym doesn't mean it means the same thing? That's something many writers abusing the thesaurus miss, by the way. Me bringing up using "synonyms" interchangeably also was a part of that, because it only ends up being wrong. So it's a tip to anyone who is into writing who happens to read this.

 

 

And here you're back to the same inferences again. I'm not missing the point, you're just defending yourself with the presumptions I've made of presuming you made the presumption of whatever I presumed. We're just walking around in circles.

 

And I still don't get a lot of what you said I supposedly said, here.

 

Pro-tip: It's good to read back what you've stated below:

 

Yep, read it. Still looking back at your point about blah blah hallucination and imagination definition as well as the entire "you used word x so it's not valid" thing, so I stand my ground. You're trying to overcomplicate something that doesn't have to be so complicated (at least in that first post you made) and you're the one talking about semantics gymnastics despite yourself being the one actually doing it for the most part. Which I found pretty funny.

 

Oh, so this statement I've made where I'm agreeing with waffles with words like "hallucination" and "imagination" was completely non-existent to you.

 

It was nonexistent when I started writing, yeah. And you would have to show people using the words incorrectly for us to really see people are using them incorrectly, because we haven't seen it. We being me and woflo here.

 

When I say you try to overcomplicate things... Well, I mean it. Even if you don't actually mean to do that, the way you write things definitely makes it seem so or at least make your point overcomplicated and hard to follow.

[Linkzelda]

It was meant for aspiring writers, which I believe you are.

Okay, but this isn’t related to the purpose of this thread.

 

So in that way it would be directed to you' date=' yes, but not directed to what you said. [/quote']

 

Glad you've clarified on this. I agree now.

 

 

Then why did you bring up synonyms for the words we're talking about?.....I guess at this point we both can just say the synonym lists mean nothing and shouldn't have been brought into this in the first place, because it being a synonym doesn't mean it means the same thing?

 

It’s clear they have similar meanings, but not all the time. Some may be more appropriate to use in different circumstances, and some won’t be appropriate. All you have to do is pick, filter out what isn’t appropriate, and move on.

 

 

and you're the one talking about semantics gymnastics despite yourself being the one actually doing it for the most part. Which I found pretty funny.

 

As a statement, yes, I was the one that talked about semantic gymnastics since this thread is to settle disputes on how people apply word usage in relation to tulpas.

 

Yep' date=' read it. Still looking back at your point about blah blah hallucination and imagination definition as well as the entire [i']"you used word x so it's not valid" thing[/i], so I stand my ground.

 

http://i.imgur.com/7LkiFVF.png

 

Note: I used the word “plausible,” not “valid," and I didn't imply you had to give a valid statement.

 

Something that’s “plausible” is what is seemingly reasonable. Something that is “valid” is something mostly backed up through deductive reasoning, a well-grounded set of statements and such.

 

I never stated your interpretations had to be valid, nor did I imply that

"you used word x so it's not valid' date='"[/quote']...they just weren’t “plausible.”

 

 

 

When I say you try to overcomplicate things... Well, I mean it. Even if you don't actually mean to do that, the way you write things definitely makes it seem so or at least make your point overcomplicated and hard to follow.

 

Okay.

[Yori]

Oh yeah it's hard to read what you say sometimes Linkzelda