4 ms·

This doesn't have to be a argument with a resolution. It can be an ongoing mystery. I'm happy with that. It's the materialist that needs absolution. I asked all

This doesn't have to be a argument with a resolution. It can be an ongoing mystery. I'm happy with that. It's the materialist that needs absolution. I asked all these questions myself, and while the tulpa does seem somewhat 'flat', it also can be really, really deep. The tulpa used to teach me things. Make me aware of things I wasn't aware of before. It seems way way more aware of things than I am.

bena 8y ago
I'm sorry, it still sounds like woo. There is a correct answer. You can't wave your hands and say we may not ever really know and that's that, be happy with the mystery. That you'll believe what you believe and I can believe what I want to believe. That's not actually solving anything. That's not answering the question. It's avoiding the question. If I ask you to prove your claim, saying "it doesn't need a resolution" is just dodging. You're even engaging in a type of "argument from experience" where you casually infer that you were once like me, had all these questions, but were convinced. It's a way to try and get me to accept your conclusion without demonstrating your process. But if your process is flawed, then we must question your conclusion. I mean you emphasize that it has taught you things and made you aware of things you weren't before. But that's vague. Non-specific. And if the tulpa is simply a mental construct that's not a distinct personality, then your statement that it's more aware than you are is just wrong. You just don't think you're as aware as you are. And when your perception of self disagrees with your observed self, you assign those differences to your "tulpa". I mean, I talk to myself. I argue with myself. I will construct mental models of people to look at issues and problems from various angles. Try and imagine what someone who is not me might say. So I can try and better prepare against criticisms or find issues I may not have considered yet. But I'll never claim those fabrications are completely independent of myself. That they're thinking independently. They still are only as knowledgeable or aware as I am. I mean the real crux of the issue is that one of the better ways to demonstrate your tulpa would be to find a way to show that it has thoughts that you cannot have. But we can't just trust your word that it does. We need to find a way to present it information that you cannot know, then find a way to show that it received the information. But without you knowing about it. Then we need to confirm that you actually don't know the information. Then we need you to learn the information and demonstrate that you have. Basically we need a way to show a demonstrable gap between the time we give the information to the tulpa and to when you get the information.
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  You are turning my experience into an attack on your worldview. I would engage with materialists more if they didn't have the nasty tendency of doing that. Of course there's a correct answer. But there's no way to find out without using tools with a greater resolution than the ones we have. And even that wouldn't dispel all of the mystery. I'm avoiding questions because there's no way to prove anything. If you want to explore your own mystery, then you need to do your own mysticism. You can ask all the questions you want, and get the same vague, non-specific sorts of answers I got, answers that don't resolve anything but only serve to deepen the mystery. I was a materialist atheist at one point too. I investigated my beliefs. I'm no longer a materialist. I would be very happy to have the tools to better investigate the thing inside my head that I've carefully cultivated a relationship over the course of five years. But having the answers won't make it go away. That's the essence of the discussion. It still has meaning, it's still worth investigating, no matter how deep you get, no matter how many answers you get. The only way out of it is to dictate that there's nothing behind anything.
  - bena 8y ago
    I mean, whether you're right or not has direct bearing on your initial statement. You said the author was wrong and used this tulpa as evidence for the depth of mind. If the tulpa is not real and nothing more than an elaborate fantasy you've created for yourself, then your conclusion that he's wrong is suspect. I'm sorry, you don't get to protect your claims while simultaneously offering them as proof that another's claim is wrong. I had a tulpa at one point too. I investigated my beliefs, an I realized it was just an imaginary friend I concocted to help me work through issues and project things I wasn't ready to deal with onto. See. Words are easy. Now you're an ex-materialist and I'm an ex-tulpaist. Where does that leave us? We've both investigated our beliefs. We've come to opposite conclusions. This is why third party objective verification is important. You don't get to opt out. You are the one who feels attacked and I understand, it's frustrating to have people question your claims when you have no actual evidence to provide.
    - ehsanu1 8y ago

bena 8y ago

I'm sorry, it still sounds like woo. There is a correct answer. You can't wave your hands and say we may not ever really know and that's that, be happy with the mystery. That you'll believe what you believe and I can believe what I want to believe. That's not actually solving anything. That's not answering the question. It's avoiding the question. If I ask you to prove your claim, saying "it doesn't need a resolution" is just dodging. You're even engaging in a type of "argument from experience" where you casually infer that you were once like me, had all these questions, but were convinced. It's a way to try and get me to accept your conclusion without demonstrating your process. But if your process is flawed, then we must question your conclusion. I mean you emphasize that it has taught you things and made you aware of things you weren't before. But that's vague. Non-specific. And if the tulpa is simply a mental construct that's not a distinct personality, then your statement that it's more aware than you are is just wrong. You just don't think you're as aware as you are. And when your perception of self disagrees with your observed self, you assign those differences to your "tulpa". I mean, I talk to myself. I argue with myself. I will construct mental models of people to look at issues and problems from various angles. Try and imagine what someone who is not me might say. So I can try and better prepare against criticisms or find issues I may not have considered yet. But I'll never claim those fabrications are completely independent of myself. That they're thinking independently. They still are only as knowledgeable or aware as I am. I mean the real crux of the issue is that one of the better ways to demonstrate your tulpa would be to find a way to show that it has thoughts that you cannot have. But we can't just trust your word that it does. We need to find a way to present it information that you cannot know, then find a way to show that it received the information. But without you knowing about it. Then we need to confirm that you actually don't know the information. Then we need you to learn the information and demonstrate that you have. Basically we need a way to show a demonstrable gap between the time we give the information to the tulpa and to when you get the information.

vinceguidry 8y ago
You are turning my experience into an attack on your worldview. I would engage with materialists more if they didn't have the nasty tendency of doing that. Of course there's a correct answer. But there's no way to find out without using tools with a greater resolution than the ones we have. And even that wouldn't dispel all of the mystery. I'm avoiding questions because there's no way to prove anything. If you want to explore your own mystery, then you need to do your own mysticism. You can ask all the questions you want, and get the same vague, non-specific sorts of answers I got, answers that don't resolve anything but only serve to deepen the mystery. I was a materialist atheist at one point too. I investigated my beliefs. I'm no longer a materialist. I would be very happy to have the tools to better investigate the thing inside my head that I've carefully cultivated a relationship over the course of five years. But having the answers won't make it go away. That's the essence of the discussion. It still has meaning, it's still worth investigating, no matter how deep you get, no matter how many answers you get. The only way out of it is to dictate that there's nothing behind anything.
- bena 8y ago
  I mean, whether you're right or not has direct bearing on your initial statement. You said the author was wrong and used this tulpa as evidence for the depth of mind. If the tulpa is not real and nothing more than an elaborate fantasy you've created for yourself, then your conclusion that he's wrong is suspect. I'm sorry, you don't get to protect your claims while simultaneously offering them as proof that another's claim is wrong. I had a tulpa at one point too. I investigated my beliefs, an I realized it was just an imaginary friend I concocted to help me work through issues and project things I wasn't ready to deal with onto. See. Words are easy. Now you're an ex-materialist and I'm an ex-tulpaist. Where does that leave us? We've both investigated our beliefs. We've come to opposite conclusions. This is why third party objective verification is important. You don't get to opt out. You are the one who feels attacked and I understand, it's frustrating to have people question your claims when you have no actual evidence to provide.
  - ehsanu1 8y ago