Jump to content

Just really think about it.


Magicman5443

Recommended Posts

Here's my Complimentary Feedback to your own:

I'm neither Zero nor able to perfectly ascertain what he was going for with his points but I'll offer my Complimentary Complimentary Feedback to your own.

 

 

~ They aren't? So you don't have two consciousness in your brain? Your lack of explanation makes you sound like a bitter stick in the mud.

'Consciousness' is usually defined as either subjective experience or something capable of having it. In this sense the idea of a consciousness being within another is ill-defined.

 

 

Someone once related the experiences of Tulpae to that of having Boot Camp running in a mac. You know, both Windows and Mac in one computer. Two entirely different programs but one is running n the background whilst the other is dominant.

I bet this is some logical fallacy but the key issue is that mind/computer analogies don't prove anything. Just because you can do something on a computer, doesn't mean that you can do it in your mind.

 

 

~ I understood his reference to Possession. I could've sworn there was even a Guide section about that. Hmm... are you sure you shouldn't take your own advice about not being on drugs, mate?

We're in a context where a definition of 'you' is more pragmatic used as 'your own personality, experiences, etc.' than 'your body'. Although the OP didn't make it clear which it is, the fact that he talks about 'you' switching implies the former - your body can't really travel into the wonderland. In this sense, we generally think that your tulpa can't really 'control' your thoughts and decisions much more than any convincing 'external' person.

 

 

~ I believe you were asked to "think of it as a Dimension." It's a shift of perspective.

A most illogical instruction. Unless he means 'dimension' in the sense of 'place' - which he clearly doesn't seeing as he explicitly says not to think with that in mind - then the analogy isn't apt.

 

 

This game of telephone might already be completely off the mark mind you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello, Waffles.

 

So you agree that it's perfectly alright to slam a newcomer with a pseudo-saccharine 'welcome' after rejecting their ideas offered and not even bothering to explain why it was done?


Either way, I'll play your little game.

 

'Consciousness' is usually defined as either subjective experience or something capable of having it. In this sense the idea of a consciousness being within another is ill-defined.

 

Usually defined. But clearly it was being referred to in a different sense. An enthusiastic one. Surely you wouldn't punish someone for not using your semantics. At least, that's what I hope. And in either case, that is precisely why I stressed specifying why you're shooting such enthusiasm down.

 

I bet this is some logical fallacy but the key issue is that mind/computer analogies don't prove anything. Just because you can do something on a computer, doesn't mean that you can do it in your mind.

 

What, exactly, is a logical fallacy? The fact that I mentioned someone once referred to the Tulpamancy being as the reference of a computer sharing two programs? Explain. My point is that, people have many examples to symbolically express their experience or thoughts on Tulpamancy. And one should not be deemed superior over the other.

 

We're in a context where a definition of 'you' is more pragmatic used as 'your own personality, experiences, etc.' than 'your body'. Although the OP didn't make it clear which it is, the fact that he talks about 'you' switching implies the former - your body can't really travel into the wonderland. In this sense, we generally think that your tulpa can't really 'control' your thoughts and decisions much more than any convincing 'external' person.

 

That would be assumption. You don't really know how he implied it. Again, we don't all talk like computers. Not everyone is precise and therefore may not cater to how you deem 'worthy enough to not scrutinize.' Hence my stress upon 'specifying.'

 

A most illogical instruction. Unless he means 'dimension' in the sense of 'place' - which he clearly doesn't seeing as he explicitly says not to think with that in mind - then the analogy isn't apt.

 

That would be your opinion if it's illogical. What may not work for you, may work perfectly for another. Since we're on the topic of tulpas, many would deem you illogical for even attempting to create another consciousness in your mind. Which, some may argue, has consciousness. Hence the dodgy wording of "a consciousness within your consciousness.." Again, it's all semantics. Does that really mean we should lose our humanity and ignore what a fellow person is trying to convey to us?

 

 

This game of telephone might already be completely off the mark mind you.

 

Indeed.

My Tulpa

Name - Julian

Form - Moon Elf

Sentience - Beginner stage

Personality - Calm, Enlightened, Intellectual, Observant, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread seems to be moving in a very not-meta direction. Sounds more like a newbie trying to wrap his mind around the concept of tulpas. The 'dimensions' thing was the only bit of potential meta in it, and now it's looking more like thinking of a mindscape as like a separate dimension. I'm moving it back to General Discussion with a weeklong redirect so people who remember it being in meta can find it.

 


 

Pretty much. This is an area where not a whole lot is known for sure. There are plenty of theories about things like what tulpas actually are and how they work in the brain. There are plenty of people who would like to be seen as experts or present their opinions, beliefs, and pet theories as fact. Any such claims should be taken with a mountain of salt.

 

I've been around here since fairly early on, but don't take my "admin" badge as an indication that what I say is necessarily right -- it just means I can do stuff like ban spammers and move threads posted in the wrong board.

 

Separate consciousness or simulation? I tend toward separate, given things like switching and parallel processing. But we can't tell for sure. It's probably possible to do things like that with a simulation. For instance, you can continue to act while your mind is somewhere else entirely. Somehow inside your consciousness or separate from it? This is probably more a question of where you draw boundaries in defining what is inside and outside of your own consciousness.

 

Able to control you? People have certainly been able to let a tulpa control their body temporarily, and a tulpa seems to be able to influence your thinking a bit. At least most people are able to seize back control at any time if they want. Some claim to have a tulpa who can forcibly take control -- it's not known whether this is just a really strong tulpa, a bit of some mental disorder, just not willing it in the right way, or the result of an intentional 'weakening' of one's own control through forcing a belief that the tulpa can grab control. The general consensus is that a tulpa can't force you to do something you really don't want to do.

There was one person here who said she had a tulpa who would take control and make her do things she truly didn't want to do, but she came back later to say it wasn't a tulpa, at least in our sense of it, and that she'd just been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

 

 

Switching? Yeah, some people have been able to go and live in their wonderland like a tulpa normally lives, entirely detached from their body, and leave a tulpa in charge of it while they're out. Whether it's something anyone can learn isn't known, but like everything here it's at least way easier for some than for others.

 

Dimensions? Unless you subscribe to a belief in some astral realm (in which case, discuss in the meta board), your wonderland is no more a separate dimension than your imagination or dreams. It's basically learning to imagine things in far greater detail than what most people normally do, and having a consistent place you imagine. Tulpas tend to report experiencing the wonderland you make for them (or they make) as being as real to them as, say, a lucid dream is to you. This is pretty much consistent with them being a separate consciousness that simply isn't attached to bodily senses and thus experiences imagined senses as real instead.

 

...However, if you make your visualization of your wonderland vivid and detailed in multiple senses, "another dimension" is about the closest analogy for how it feels -- it's like being in both places at once and directing your attention more to one or the other. The two aren't on equal ground though: While it's easy to be entirely attached to the real world and ignore imagined things, letting go of the physical senses entirely can be quite difficult, and isn't something I've managed yet. Doing so *ought* to result in basically an out-of-body experience, and combined with letting a tulpa control the body, switching.

Lyra: human female, ~17

Evan: boy, ~14, was an Eevee

Anera: anime-style girl, ~12; Lyra made her

My blog :: Time expectations are bad (forcing time targets are good though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree that it's perfectly alright to slam a newcomer with a pseudo-saccharine 'welcome' after rejecting their ideas offered and not even bothering to explain why it was done?

Although Zero wasn't clear in his explanations, they are widely-held viewpoints and so shouldn't need it. So yes, I do.

 

 

Usually defined. But clearly it was being referred to in a different sense. An enthusiastic one. Surely you wouldn't punish someone for not using your semantics. At least, that's what I hope.

I don't think that was clear. Yes, I will happily punish someone for using words to mean what no-one else uses them to as well as not making this clear. That said, the OP used "conscious" instead of 'consciousness' so perhaps he wasn't thinking about definitions very much in the first place.

 

 

What, exactly, is a logical fallacy? The fact that I mentioned someone once referred to the Tulpamancy being as the reference of a computer sharing two programs? Explain. My point is that, people have many examples to symbolically express their experience or thoughts on Tulpamancy. And one should not be deemed superior over the other.

I don't know if what you keep saying is a logical fallacy but if it isn't it should be. A logical fallacy is an argument that is flawed in a specific way. In this case it is that having an analogy proves the point analogised. You don't have an example of a consciousness being inside another, you have an example of an operating system being run inside another. So I think you have confused 'analogy' with 'example'. In any case, the superior example is obviously the one that better demonstrates the point at hand.

 

 

That would be assumption. You don't really know how he implied it. Again, we don't all talk like computers. Not everyone is precise and therefore may not cater to how you deem 'worthy enough to not scrutinize.' Hence my stress upon 'specifying.'

No, it's his fault for using unclear and contradictory language in that case. He used the same word to have very different meanings in two consecutive sentences without telling the reader, if we take your reading. That's a level of consistency way below what anyone should expect, since it really does render anything longer than a few lines incoherent.

 

 

That would be your opinion if it's illogical. What may not work for you, may work perfectly for another. Since we're on the topic of tulpas, many would deem you illogical for even attempting to create another consciousness in your mind. Which, some may argue, has consciousness. Hence the dodgy wording of "a consciousness within your consciousness.." Again, it's all semantics. Does that really mean we should lose our humanity and ignore what a fellow person is trying to convey to us?

Bear in mind that he made it clear that 'dimension' here does not mean 'place'. Otherwise I would have no problem swallowing him telling us to imagine a wonderland as an alternate dimension. I guess this one is the most semantics-y but in any case he wasn't clear enough.

 

And your comparison isn't quite on. His instructions were illogical because they were either contradictory or nonsensical (in my opinion). Many would describe making a tulpa as irrational, but that's not quite the same thing. Hey, if we're talking about semantics we may as well go the whole hog, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Zero wasn't clear in his explanations, they are widely-held viewpoints and so shouldn't need it. So yes, I do.

 

So being vague = widely held views? Hmm.. sounds like you're in favor of the watered-down mass mentality option. Would explain a lot.

 

 

I don't think that was clear. Yes, I will happily punish someone for using words to mean what no-one else uses them to as well as not making this clear. That said, the OP used "conscious" instead of 'consciousness' so perhaps he wasn't thinking about definitions very much in the first place.

 

Ah, so you're the punisher of those who don't use words to your liking. And you do it in the name of the masses! Hope there are no foreigners around to accidentally mispronounce a word. Your methods of 'punishing' instead of teaching are revolting. But hey, at least you're honest about it, right?

 

Making mountains out of the molehills of my asking someone not to be a jerk to a newcomer = top priority!

 

I don't know if what you keep saying is a logical fallacy but if it isn't it should be. A logical fallacy is an argument that is flawed in a specific way.

 

Indeed, I don't think you really know what is being said here. Lol! But I love how you just jumped at the chance to act as if you're educating me on a word's definition. Completely taking my question out of context. *Ahem* But you seem to believe you're some kind of mind-reader, right? What with knowing exactly how/why Zero acts, what he meant, and why it was okay for him to be snarky.

 

In this case it is that having an analogy proves the point analogised. You don't have an example of a consciousness being inside another, you have an example of an operating system being run inside another. So I think you have confused 'analogy' with 'example'. In any case, the superior example is obviously the one that better demonstrates the point at hand.

 

Wrong. I never said any point was proven through an analogy. Read again. I was explaining that people have many ways to express their experiences with tulpa. Hence, the analogies. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make your opinion a fact. It may be a fact in your world.. but does not warrant for rude replies.

 

 

You don't have an example of a consciousness being inside another, you have an example of an operating system being run inside another. In any case, the superior example is obviously the one that better demonstrates the point at hand.

 

Lul. Wow, you're hellbent on distorting my point just to get a high off of a "superiority ride," eh? All of a sudden, being extremely specific really matters, doesn't it? *wink*

 

Again, refer back to my point.

 

No, it's his fault for using unclear and contradictory language in that case.

 

Ah, I see. So you're looking to blame.

 

 

And your comparison isn't quite on. His instructions were illogical because they were either contradictory or nonsensical (in my opinion). Many would describe making a tulpa as irrational, but that's not quite the same thing. Hey, if we're talking about semantics we may as well go the whole hog, eh?

 

In your cocky-tone, you contradict yourself. Since we're "going the whole log.." I might as well point it out.

 

"His instructions were illogical because they were either contradictory or nonsensical (in my opinion)."

 

Your opinion =/= not a fact.

 

"Many would describe making a tulpa as irrational, but that's not quite the same thing."

 

Again, a tulpa being irrational would just be their opinion. Of course it's not the same thing. But then again, you seem to mistake opinion =/= fact. So I'm not quite sure what you're even going on about, anymore.

 

You're probably just blindly warping this all to defend a friend. And that's cute and everything, but there are better ways to carry out the task without perpetuating the rudeness. XD

My Tulpa

Name - Julian

Form - Moon Elf

Sentience - Beginner stage

Personality - Calm, Enlightened, Intellectual, Observant, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So being vague = widely held views? Hmm.. sounds like you're in favor of the watered-down mass mentality option. Would explain a lot.

No, that's not what I said at all. What I said was that expressing a widely-held view does not require a detailed argument. This is because the arguments for it are commonplace.

 

This is, of course, only true somewhere where views tend to be rational. But I think that should be true here.

 

 

Ah, so you're the punisher of those who don't use words to your liking. And you do it in the name of the masses! Hope there are no foreigners around to accidentally mispronounce a word. Your methods of 'punishing' instead of teaching are revolting. But hey, at least you're honest about it, right?

Actually, you're damned right. I'll happily and proudly punish people who use words wrongly. Especially if they contradict definitions as established by everyone else who uses the language. Who said I can't teach as well? I did explain how he used the word wrong and how it should be used. But yes, I am an honest and a righteous crusader of linguistic justice.

 

 

Indeed, I don't think you really know what is being said here. Lol! But I love how you just jumped at the chance to act as if you're educating me on a word's definition. Completely taking my question out of context. *Ahem* But you seem to believe you're some kind of mind-reader, right? What with knowing exactly how/why Zero acts, what he meant, and why it was okay for him to be snarky.

That was a joke. And I mentioned in my first post that I couldn't read Zero's mind.

 

 

Wrong. I never said any point was proven through an analogy. Read again. I was explaining that people have many ways to express their experiences with tulpa. Hence, the analogies. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make your opinion a fact. It may be a fact in your world.. but does not warrant for rude replies.

My point still applies to the analogy. The fact, then, that someone analogises their experience to a computer proves nothing about what is happening to them. If the OP was talking about experiences then he should make it clear - if that were the case then I'd accept your point, however trivial it is.

 

 

Ah, I see. So you're looking to blame.

Well, I don't go looking to blame people but if the opportunity is there then I'll take it. I will happily blame the OP or anyone else for mistakes that they have made. Why shouldn't I? It will help them fix their mistakes, for one thing.

 

 

Your opinion =/= not a fact.

At this point I have to stop and call you an idiot.

 

No fucking shit my opinion isn't a fact. Guess what? I qualified my opinion explicitly as "my opinion" because

I am aware of that fact.

 

However, that doesn't make my opinion untrue. Unless you give reasons as to why you think it's untrue, or even just tell me that you think so, I'm going to continue to believe that it's true.

 

 

Again, a tulpa being irrational would just be their opinion. Of course it's not the same thing. But then again, you seem to mistake opinion =/= fact. So I'm not quite sure what you're even going on about, anymore.

Exactly fucking right it's their opinion. But since you haven't quite grasped my sublime logic, here it is again:

'Irrational' is what you're on about, 'illogical' is what I'm on about. They are not the same thing. Alright?.

 

 

You're probably just blindly warping this all to defend a friend. And that's cute and everything, but there are better ways to carry out the task without perpetuating the rudeness. XD

Unsurprisingly, if my logic is unsound then it should be trivial to demonstrate so. You don't need to call me cute or dot smiley faces around in your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol! Considering you just took a lot of what I said out of context again, I'm just going to brush over it and get to the last part: (without "punishing you" about your reading comprehension).

 

See, I didn't call you cute, I said the antic of blindly defending your friend was cute. And yes, I meant it in the same saccharine way that Zero wished MagicMan a "welcome to the forums." You didn't seem to like that gesture very much, however.. hehe

 

Anyway, we don't need to make this any more long-winded than it is. You tend to miss big chunks of the point in order to distort the whole situation, so allow me to compress this in a more plainer message for ya.

 

You've already expressed that you think it's perfectly alright to "happily punish" those who don't use words to your ideals.

 

I feel that there are more productive ways to handle the matter. In your own words, "In any case, the superior example is obviously the one that better demonstrates the point at hand."

 

Punishing people rarely demonstrates that point.

 

So it's clear that we're at odds. You think it's alright to be rude, I think it's much better to treat every person as if they're a human being. You obviously don't like the treatment handed back to you (or your friend) so there you have it.

 

Let's still try to keep things on topic without hijacking the OP's forum. Have a nice night.

My Tulpa

Name - Julian

Form - Moon Elf

Sentience - Beginner stage

Personality - Calm, Enlightened, Intellectual, Observant, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've already expressed that you think it's perfectly alright to "happily punish" those who don't use words to your ideals.

If this is the crux of the matter then we can end it here. My ideals are what are found in dictionaries and common usage. I'm not arbitrarily picking meanings, I'm using what everyone else is. If you don't like that then maybe we really are at odds.

 

 

I feel that there are more productive ways to handle the matter. In your own words, "In any case, the superior example is obviously the one that better demonstrates the point at hand."

 

Punishing people rarely demonstrates that point.

You keep accusing me of skipping things out, so I'll include this in my response. But I don't get your point. This doesn't have anything to do with examples.

 

 

So it's clear that we're at odds. You think it's alright to be rude, I think it's much better to treat every person as if they're a human being. You obviously don't like the treatment handed back to you (or your friend) so there you have it.

If your point is that it's more humane to soften every blow, then my refute would be that it's better to give it to the OP straight than mince words. He can learn from his mistakes and others' corrections. Great. And dealing with rudeness is a staple of life. I don't think I've ever said that I mind you being rude to me, so I don't know where you got that from.

 

 

Notice how the above is conditional: because you keep telling me that I'm misrepresenting your arguments, but not telling me how, I kind of have to assume that I'll keep doing it unless corrected. I don't understand how I could have taken your replies out of context when I usually quoted them in their entirety.

 

And hey, this is relevant too; if I'm misunderstanding, or whatever, please tell me how. As we've both said, I'm not a mind-reader, so you saying that I'm distorting the situation without telling me how isn't going to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet Jesus. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."-unknown. If your viewpoint were that good to begin with why wouldn't I adopt it? There must be a reason for me to have my own ideas about stuff. And another reason for me to not shove my ideas down someone else's throat like I used to. The purpose of debate is not to win or shoot some one else down. Maybe the purpose of debate is to get us thinking. I hope we can get back to that in this thread and in this section of the board. After all, sometimes a tulpa is just a tulpa.

Enoch, Chancellor of Mars.

"Follow your bliss."-Joseph Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you've stated Enoch327, people spend more time trying to win, rather than realizing the discussion itself is to have people thinking in the first place. Which means they'll have to sit down, stop being indolent, and wanting people to spoon-feed things to them, and massaging their egos (by aligning to their preconceptions and confirmation bias). It's even stated as an unwritten rule on this forum to not be a kiss ass or too lazy to ask for clarification, but it seems people think that just because people gave valid arguments in how they present themselves, that the person will automatically lose.

 

The only loss is the potential for decent discussion about tulpas, but until then, people will question everything from diction, grammar, and completely derail the thread (they're okay to talk about, as long as the whole thread isn't only about those aspects of course). That's why every single attempt so far as died down, because no one really has a generalized acceptance of what a tulpa is, they merely presume they're using generalized terms that are constantly being debated in the first place. That kind of contradicting mentality is what stagnates any progress on people hopefully collecting plausible theories that may someday be filtered through rigorous scientific study and peer-review.

 

 

At least you're aware of the predicament though, Enoch327.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...