Debate Time get hype

[Argentum]

So here's a question for y'all.

 

How much information about tulpas can we reliably eliminate as being based on expectations and preconcieved notions about tuppers that make them seem true?

 

The first example I bring up is vocality times. How do we know for sure that it really takes a few weeks? What if it really takes 15 minutes?

[Quilten]

Pretty much all of it, given the state of tulpas. The thing is, this could just be one big role playing site (it's not, as far as I'm aware), and there would be little to no difference. I could be wrong on that point, actually, but you get what I'm trying to say here. Because of the subjectivity, the only way to collect data is from descriptions of experiences and analyzing those descriptions to find patterns. Since, in this case, the data is completely subjective in nature, could be a lie, and is most definitely influenced by other data in the set, we won't get anywhere any time soon. The best we can do is give rough estimates and averages based on what we've been told.

 

That's just my point of view, I'll be interested to see if it's changed.

[Linkzelda]

We'd have to question the concept behind self-fulfilling prophecies, as in my opinion, most of the experiences and means of developing their existence do involve behaving in a way to be consistent with the idea that they can be real to us. Like Quilten mentioned, and to add on to that, it's only natural for us to want to find patterns. Maybe even correlations for the sake of order, and hopefully come up with ad hoc claims, i.e., claims specifically, and dependent on the concept of tulpas.

 

And with the subjectivity and circumstances that seems overwhelming at times, there's obviously going to be discrepancies there for many reasons; one of which would be that we're all not able to have enough cognitive grasp to really set up a sound framework that could have empirical value, and some kind of objectivity in how we interpret it. It would be like figuring out conditions behind self-fulfilling prophecies, what seems to work despite the varying circumstances of people who take part in this, and acknowledging the possibility that those conditions could be changed by other things we don't know.

 

Though things like visualization, and just our imagination in general (without broaching the topic of tulpas) could be talked about through standpoints on genetics (e.g. debates on genetic predispositions that may aid someone in having a natural "ability," or "talent), psychologically (e.g. what level of cognition, and other cognitive skills an individual may ideally want to have to have an easier time being consistent with their imagination), and such.

 

In other words, the ad hoc claims stated in this forum are pretty much derived from expectations, convictions, predispositions, etc.; whether it's about people wanting the forum's consensus on topics like dissipation, sexual nature, moral and ethical implications, or philosophy, we are creating mental constructs of what we would feel is pragmatic at a communal level, and personal level. To find concepts that can be absolved from the idea of expectations and preconceptions would imply that there's something of empirical value/potential right in front of us that we can't seem to identity.

 

The community probably won't be at that level for quite some time, though. When people feel one thing is wrong to do, someone will find a justification to either cope with the struggles, impasses, or they just deny them, and move on with their lives.