5 ms·

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

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
  I think the point is, there are things that we have a hard time dealing with right now scientifically, just because we don't have the tools/theory/whatever. In these cases, you're right that we can't know truth from falsehood. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss such things and share knowledge about our experiences. Non-scientific discourse (meaning, outside of science, not anti-science) is still discourse that may be worth having, especially given something as subjective and experiential as the mind.
  - bena 8y ago
    But there's a line. It's fine and all to promote your tulpa, but the minute you use it as evidence, you have to actually demonstrate that it does exist. Or else it is not evidence. And you can't say with any certainty that the author is wrong. I mean, it's not non-scientific discourse when you're disagreeing with the hypothesis in a book about science. And I said that in his case, not only do we have tools to map his brain while he tulpas and that it could provide answers, but there is a test that could be conducted if we could find a way to implement it.
    - vinceguidry 8y ago
      If anybody wants to foot the bill for any of these tests, I'd be happy to take them.
      - vinceguidry 8y ago
        Also keep in mind, whatever part of the brain lights up when I'm tulpaing, even if we ascertain that there's brain activity there even when I'm not 'going there', we'd need some way of proving that it's actual thought that's not simply semantic.
        vinceguidry 8y ago
        This actually has been a productive discussion. Usually discussions with materialists don't really contribute to my musings, but this one has. Thanks.

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
I think the point is, there are things that we have a hard time dealing with right now scientifically, just because we don't have the tools/theory/whatever. In these cases, you're right that we can't know truth from falsehood. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss such things and share knowledge about our experiences. Non-scientific discourse (meaning, outside of science, not anti-science) is still discourse that may be worth having, especially given something as subjective and experiential as the mind.
- bena 8y ago
  But there's a line. It's fine and all to promote your tulpa, but the minute you use it as evidence, you have to actually demonstrate that it does exist. Or else it is not evidence. And you can't say with any certainty that the author is wrong. I mean, it's not non-scientific discourse when you're disagreeing with the hypothesis in a book about science. And I said that in his case, not only do we have tools to map his brain while he tulpas and that it could provide answers, but there is a test that could be conducted if we could find a way to implement it.
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    If anybody wants to foot the bill for any of these tests, I'd be happy to take them.
    - vinceguidry 8y ago
      Also keep in mind, whatever part of the brain lights up when I'm tulpaing, even if we ascertain that there's brain activity there even when I'm not 'going there', we'd need some way of proving that it's actual thought that's not simply semantic.
      - vinceguidry 8y ago
        This actually has been a productive discussion. Usually discussions with materialists don't really contribute to my musings, but this one has. Thanks.