unknown entities lurking within your space.

[Linkzelda]

I'm not into wizardry, and I do believe keeping a relatively materialist meeting ground is a necessity for this place to function properly. But, I also think it's largely unnecessary to jump on someone for not being a strict materialist in their interpretation of things. At most, I'd just point them to the metaphysics section.

 

Then I would have to point you to the metaphysics section as well since a materialist paradigm would fall under that category if we’re talking about Metaphysics pertaining to the nature of being and the world that encompasses it. If said paradigm is presumed to be a necessary common ground in your opinion, then all metaphysical presumptions of reality, existence, and epistemology that are associated with theorizing tulpas in general would be clustered into Metaphysics, or Metaphysics & Epistemology.

 

Unless somehow the materialism paradigm isn’t that, then that would imply that the monism in which its rudiments is derived from isn’t Metaphysics either, which would probably just be misinformation on the definition of the viewpoints. Or even worse, it's people that garner favoritism over one world view, and feel it's the end-all be-all viewpoint that doesn't have to be categorized as Metaphysics along with other theories with reality, mind, etc. So pointing people to the Metaphysics section when that same paradigm is tied with that just creates an impasse, and doesn’t really do anything other than pointing at each other. Unless I read the post wrong, I don’t think we can point to anyone to the Meta forums unless we feel the supernatural, and anything beyond our cognitive horizon is the only contingent factor in defining Metaphysics, and having materialism absolved from that category when it’s clearly a form of philosophy with Metaphysics in general.

 

There are other forms that imply some way of conceiving what reality could be instead of a basic black and white with material vs. non-material, i.e., there's truckloads of gray. And even with the section with Q&A and General Discussion do involve us combining certain theories with Metaphysics & Epistemology (Ontology even), albeit we don't frequently say, for example, "Hey, I'm going to use an eliminative materialist paradigm as a supplement to explain tulpas." (That paradigm, IMO, would be interesting if used as a way to support a theory about tulpas instead of being used against the theories of tulpas.).

 

If those kinds of materialist paradigms would really be considered to function this place correctly, then all I would really see is either said mental states pertaining with tulpas are false and can't be defined, or the other way around, and we're back to the impasse once more, unfortunately.

[Argentum]

I've been reading alot on this form (sounds like im gloating, I think), and what always interested me the most is the post about people dealing with strange forces they have no control over (I someday would like to experience this encounter, sorry if I ufended anyone ).

 

But I would like to know if anyone has had any of these experiences that they may have not posted on the fourms that they are willing to share, . Or have posted it and I missed it.

 

http://ponystasha.tumblr.com

[Yakumo]

I already feel sorry I started this discussion. Didn't mean to jump at anyone, but it's true that my previous post probably sounded a bit too aggressive.

 

Let's be fair, if we were put in front of them, the scientific community would likely declare all of us to be delusional and in need of immediate mental help.

Yes, probably.

I wouldn't even disagree with them on the first part. Maybe we are delusional, completely crazy or just roleplayers who have become extraordinary good at lying to themselves. For me personally, it doesn't matter at all.

The second part however entirely depends on how you define a mental disorder requiring treatment, and this is highly subjective.

A popular definition would classify it as abnormal behavior that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in society, expressed by the four Ds: Deviance, Distress, Dysfunction and Danger. This sounds relatively reasonable and should exclude any healthy tulpa-host relationship.

In a broader view however, a disorder might be just about anything that violates social norms and this is where the definition becomes problematic and prone to abuse. For example, a radical atheist society could declare any religious person mentally ill while a fundamentally religious society might do the opposite thing with agnostics. In the end such a concept is merely a matter of subjective taste and of no scientific value whatsoever.

I am neither proficient in sociology nor psychopathology, but in my opinion a good doctor should keep both the well-being of his patient and his impact upon society in view. And I think it's safe to say that claiming to have a tulpa does not pose a threat to either.

 

We hardly have the hard evidence to prove our own phenomenon, aside from our own collection of personal experiences, which is likely to be tossed aside as anecdotes at best, and mad ravings on a normal day.

Absolutely true, and we should never forget this.

I see tulpas as a part of our very own imagination, or a form of faith or philosophical concept, whatever you want to call this phenomenon. I also believe there is little difference between the faithful who claims to communicate with god and the tulpamancer talking to his tulpa. It (hopefully) makes both feel good and both usually hope to get something more or less profane out if it. Anyhow, the idea of trying to disprove what another person actively imagines is somewhat absurd, if you imagine it, it exists in your imagination. And that's what tulpas do. Asking whether they are 'real' in this context is equally pointless.

Functional MRT or other brain scanning techniques may one day be able to determine if tulpas indeed have an organic background in the brain by comparing tulpamancers to 'normal' people or persons with multiple personalities. Maybe this could show if a fully developed tulpa is somewhat 'equal' to the host's consciousness and therefore could be considered as some sort of independent personality. But for now the only scientific answer (and the most honest one ever) is, we just don't know.

Now how is this view of the tulpa phenomenon different from the concept of supernatural beings I ranted about, you may ask?

While first are commonly considered to be a consciously created thought in one's mind and serve as a companion or 'advanced imaginary friend'

with benefits

, the latter are believed to truly exist in the outside world, directly interact with it, or are used explain certain phenomena. I see absolutely no problem with the tulpa concept from a scientific point of view. It's your own imagination after all. Nothing more but nothing less either. The supernatural concept however is superfluous at best from a scientist's view, as it is impossible to disprove and does not make any useful predictions, even though it claims to be universally valid and independent of the actual believer.

 

Finally about Linkzelda's comment about the metaphysics section of the forum - I guess like in most philosophical questions it boils down to a matter of semantics. Metaphysics can mean a lot, maybe it should rather be called 'unpopular opinions- board'. But then again, what's unpopular? I'm too tired and not bored enough to give it further thought.

[Linkzelda]

Finally about Linkzelda's comment about the metaphysics section of the forum - I guess like in most philosophical questions it boils down to a matter of semantics. Metaphysics can mean a lot, maybe it should rather be called 'unpopular opinions- board'. But then again, what's unpopular? I'm too tired and not bored enough to give it further thought.

 

The analogue with the “unpopular opinions” that you provided was rolling through my mind beforehand, and that’s pretty much how I would say at the least.

 

As for giving it further thought, I would imagine that the more people get tired of basic queries, they would want to dive more into theories, and actually apply Metaphysics (the “what is reality” instead of people using it as an umbrella term for the Supernatural, and stripping out all other viewpoints of reality) with the concept of tulpa that could be supplemented with theories of mind and consciousness, i.e., property dualism, reductive materialism, etc.

 

So if we wanted to forego any metaphysical commitments that people will have varied responses on whether or not it makes things more complicated, and wanted to go with something like common sense/naïve realism instead for the sake of neutrality (even though it probably won’t take us anywhere), I don’t really see one theory of mind, or one metaphysical commitment that the forum will strive for. It’s just, IMO, people that seem to be limited by their subjective experience, and utilizing anecdotes and experiential cases in hopes that they can be heuristic/learning tools for others to derive from.

 

Because if you could experience my qualia, and vice versa, then we have to question several things like:

- If I could interpret your qualia/subjective experience the same way you would

- If I can even comprehend the essence of what’s going on in that experience

- If I can encompass your awareness to have shared experiences, and reach a common ground on presumed experiences being potentially apparent for others as well

 

- If I can even consider what you presume to be a tulpa to fit whatever framework I, or anyone else would develop with treating them as sentient

 

 

Because Sock makes a good point that even if we could somehow do this, it may just be thrown out of the window since finding some epistemological commitment that could provide us sound results is even more difficult. This is why I mentioned what Metaphysics would generally mean along with the epistemological standpoints that could maybe supplement, and reconcile with those metaphysical commitments. But if there’s no clear common ground on either of those two, and then some, this is where I feel the impasse is apparent, and we’re just holding each other by the collar to maybe hide the frustration that we just don’t know for the time being.

 

 

 

TL;DR:

 

But in laymen’s terms, yeah, “unpopular opinions” seems to resonate with potential dogma of what’s “supposed” to be normal based on how people believe said notions are so; which only begs the question on what’s really unpopular. If we wanted to get technical, it’s akin to an argumentum ad populum, i.e., appeal to the populace where if a large audience of people believe something to be so, it becomes so without anyone caring if there’s sound anecdotes, or just empirical evidence to sustain that; this is how things like self-fulfilling prophecies, and other faith based systems can prosper, and also become an adversity at the same time.

 

Or people can just absolve themselves from those commitments, and revel in their own private, subjective experience with their tulpas. IMO, there’s many ways than only having to utilize empirical foundations (if any can be mentioned in the future) to validate that the tulpa one is furthering their propensity in treating as sentient can be something everyone can experience.

 

But I feel the matter is akin to how we refer to other people’s existence; we don’t really rely on Science itself as the only contingent factor in comprehending that the people we meet day-today exist, we just have qualia, and other means of self-referential systems to infer that on our own (and this isn’t talking about systems that draw a parallel with tulpas). So by that presumption, the charades and militant dogmas that are created from others to have Science welcome us gracefully just seems to be an aspect for them to refer to themselves, and to their tulpas that their companions’ existence can be justified and validated; maybe deep down, it’s mostly for that, and partially, or barely for the sake of finding sound frameworks with empirical foundations.

 

But again, just rhetorical stuff where we’ll probably end up going, “Meh, I’ll just go back to living, now.”