Tulpa.info - metaphysics

Then all data is false and you are the universe.

1

5:44 PM

Well, on some level you have to define existence at some point.

5:45 PM

We don't typically accept hallucination as reality for instance.

But theoretically it "exists"

5:45 PM

In that it is being experienced.

A hallucination exists in that you can point to something in the real world and say "here is what produces the hallucination"

This is where we debate if tulpas can be fake

Not so, as I mentioned all of that relies on a presupposition: That reality exists.

Where's JGC?

It is distinct from "real"where you want to know if your model of reality matches the reality it models

if everything is a hallucination then hallucinations are merely a defect in the system

But, in the same way that you exist, so does the thing you feel and touch. We do not know its nature, why it exists or what drives/inspires it to exist, but we know, in some way, it is there.

5:47 PM

Be it a convoluted hallucination, a real objective reality, or something else

Sounds presupposed to me. I don't think the cohesiveness of a model necessarily implies anything about its realness

It is "equal" to the assumptions you have to make about yourself existing

5:49 PM

If I think therefore I am is true, I experience therefore it is will be true as well.

In fact, consider that our minds seem to break down their reality in some point: From a certain purely rational point of view doesn't this mean that reality is somewhat... tenuous? Schizophrenia can be internally consistent, I'd point out.

Reguile

But, in the same way that you exist, so does the thing you feel and touch. We do not know its nature, why it exists or what drives/inspires it to exist, but we know, in some way, it is there.

This also presupposes that the body that touches the object is "you", rather than just another object that's experienced

Not at all, or I don't think it does, it only assumes that "it exists"

Let's say I am experiencing an internally consistent psychosis. By your definition that is reality purely because it can verify itself circularly.

5:50 PM

But verifying something with itself is exactly that: circular logic.

If your psychosis isn't real, why are you experiencing it?

That gets into somewhat muddy waters because involving two people means you can have objective/subjective reality. To the person in the hallucination, they can deduce that both they and their hallucinations exist, and that is true. They cannot verify that those hallucinations are the real world.

Personally I prefer to just acknowledge that "reality exists" is a presupposition. It's an extremely useful and pragmatic one because it allows us to then make a model of that reality that is cohesive. But there's nothing about reality I'd say that says anything about whether it might be a simulation. Even if there were errors in the system from within the system it might be internally consistent. What if all hallucinations were us actually breaking out of system! (which is veering dangerously close to how schizophrenia actually makes you think)

(I have to head out here, don't mind me if I stop responding, lunch over)

Any sort of deduction that reality exists is ultimately based in presupposition so it can never be 100% trusted. This leads to the notion that reality may or may not be static, which leads in turn to us being more flexible in approaching the idea of reality. This is good; because though it is less comforting to not know, it means we are less rigid. To bring it back to the Cogito's syntax-based flaws: Presuming "I" in that statement is comforting, though superfluous, and can lead to people rigidly believing there is an "I" when there doesn't really seem to be one meaningfully in the brain. At that point they are actually opposing reality if there is alternative evidence by falling back on flawed logic. The same might be true of our reality. There might be evidence that we would entirely overlook that reality isn't actually real in some way, because we don't allow ourselves to entertain the notion though a logical statement that we internalized. Remembering that all logic is fundamentally reliant on at least one supposition is just good practice IMO; there are always alternative ways of viewing the world, whether they are consistent with evidence or not logic is usually internally sound. (edited)

But is the Cogito a presumption, or a definition?

6:07 PM

I want to use more latin, so I'll also ask: does the Cogito count as a priori knowledge?

As-written I'd say it's priori: it's a logical statement that is derived from conceptual knowledge. Whereas I would say the rendered down form of it that experience means there is a reality of some kind, is posteriori knowledge.

6:15 PM

The concept of priori/posteriori knowledge is interesting, having a look at it. Priori knowledge seems to basically define rationalism as a philosophy whereas posteriori knowledge is the root of empiricism. With that in mind I'd point out that rationalism as a system is, frankly, a failure. Priori knowledge can essentially never be trusted, according to empiricism.

6:16 PM

And empiricism provides consistent correct results in comparison.

6:16 PM

With failures that can mostly be measured by unintentional inclusions of presuppositions without noting them.

6:17 PM

IE, allowing them to be influenced by priori knowledge instead.

With failures that can mostly be measured by unintentional inclusions of presuppositions without noting them. IE, allowing them to be influenced by priori knowledge instead.

So is a priori knowledge a presupposition, then?

Well, with perhaps the exception of raw maths, there's always a presupposition somewhere in it, yes. And usually more than simply "reality exists" and "it can be measured/consistent"; which is hypothetically only two empiricism allows without particular acknowledgement of its own flaws.

Why do you think raw maths is perhaps an exception?

Looking at the wiki for examples they give Priori: King George reigned for at least four days. Therefore George reigned for more than three days. Posteriori: King George was observed to reign at all points between 1910 and 1936 But here's the kicker: only the second one is actually fact. The top one requires presuppositions on the nature of time and it's linearity and the nature of George himself. Maybe there was two Georges? Whereas the second does not actually need to refer to it at all.

You incorrectly copied the top one.

6:30 PM

It has an 'if' statement.

It was paraphrased, I don't see any inconsistency with it though, a therefore statement is effectively equivalent to an "if"?

Nope. Missing the 'if' makes it a presumption.

I would point out that if it's not a presumption then it's actually posteriori

Missing the 'if' means you are claiming King George existed, and that him actually factually reigning for at least 4 days is part of your reasoning.

6:34 PM

It can't be a priori if it's based on something that actually factually happened, or maybe didn't, since that'd be tied to experience.

Ah I see what you're getting at.

6:35 PM

But doesn't that imply that nothing outside of maths unrelated to any real phenomena can actually be truly priori?

6:38 PM

The knowledge that George reigned at some point had to come from somewhere, no? Otherwise priori statements can only refer to things which are hypothetical, such as King Blorg VIII of a hypothetical distant planet. I had presumed that the knowledge George V existed and reign > 4 was at some point, fact, otherwise even examining priori knowledge makes it fall apart on some level? (edited)

Not sure what you mean. "If King Blorg VIII reigned for at least four days, King Blorg VIII reigned for more than three days." is a priori knowledge. Doesn't matter if the Blorg line existed or not. It can be considered part of the definition of the concept of the numbers 3 and 4.

6:44 PM

Which is why I agree that maths is an exception.

I would also actually point out that this isn't how we derived math.

6:44 PM

Math is modelled on reality not the other way around.

6:45 PM

If there are at least four cows in the field, there are at least three cows in the field is not derived as a logical conclusion. It's derived because we first saw what that looked like, and then internalized the lesson about how math works.

6:46 PM

But ... there are still logical exceptions based on literally anything you might talk about, presumptions.

Had to define what 3 and 4 actually means at some point, tho?

Zen

But doesn't that imply that nothing outside of maths unrelated to any real phenomena can actually be truly priori?

Only experience is truly priori... ~ (edited)

Blorg might be a hive mind. The cows might be multidimensional god-cows.

6:46 PM

posteriori*

6:47 PM

Priori refers to something not based on experience

Wait what?

6:47 PM

Lol I think I'll leave y'all to it

Was the meaning of '3' defined or discovered?

Defined, I would say.

6:52 PM

Based on the observation that the units of things appear to be consistent.

What's a unit? :p

I would say it was defined as it is because that definition proved useful in the reality we appear to inhabit. Maths isn't modelled on reality; it is used to model reality.

It's used for both. Maths is created by modelling reality, and in turn can predictively model reality. (edited)

6:58 PM

However I would posit that it's unlikely we independently decided 1 + 2 = 3 first. That's something that arises after the model is complete, after all. It's more likely that we observed that if we added 1 object to 2 objects it then equaled 3 objects.

6:59 PM

And then concluded that sequentially we could derived that adding a further object would equal 4. However empirically we would then have to do that experiment to verify the model.

6:59 PM

And lo and behold, we empirically made math.

7:00 PM

Keep in mind that there is also definitely inconsistent or inconceivable math that exists. Take for example the concept of mass and time at the centre of a black hole. That may be an instance where our priori knowledge of math actively breaks down

Btw lmao at Alex' bracket

1

The development of maths may have been inspired by reality, but it can hardly be called empirical.

7:01 PM

Take for example the concept of mass and time at the centre of a black hole. That may be an instance where our priori knowledge of math actively breaks down

The a priori knowledge isn't breaking there.

7:01 PM

You're just using the wrong model.

Unfastened Belts

Btw lmao at Alex' bracket

Proposed Definition of Tulpa: see my bracket

ahahaha

It's a bold statement to say the model of relativity is wrong when it's more likely that we just... can't conceive what a point of infinite time actually is. And no I don't think that math itself is empirical. Merely that it was empirically made, and can be used to make empirical statements when in conjunction with evidence.

7:07 PM

But it should be noted that as something which is derived from logic, it can always be flawed or incomplete.

7:09 PM

For instance the implication that parts of science have not yet been reconciled relative to one another implies that there is a way to have them mathematically relate but we don't know all the variables or haven't worked out the correlation. As you say, the model may be wrong.

7:10 PM

A strange result doesn't necessarily imply that something is wrong, though.

Have to go now, but before I do I must register my satisfaction that you are talking about something that is beyond current physics in metaphysics channel.

That's possibly my favorite gif, lol

Amazing

Anyone know any good servers for the metaphysical end of Tulpamancy?

Hey everyone, my name is Bennett. I’m a tulpa with a deep passion for writing. This includes learning more about tulpamancy and various internet subcultures. For my latest project, I had the idea to interview two people: A tulpamancer who views the practice as purely psychological, and a tulpamancer who believes that there is a metaphysical or spiritual aspect to tulpamancy. I’ll be asking the same questions to both groups in order to see the differences between the two. There will be less than twenty questions to answer, as I want answers of decent length and quality. You’ll be able to view the questions prior to answering. This interview will be posted to r/tulpas, as well as logged in a text document for ease of access. We’ll be needing a name or nickname. There is no monetary compensation; you will be working on a volunteer basis. Please reach out to me if you seem interested in this, thank you!

it's an interesting idea, but keep in mind people's opinions about tulpamancy and how it works differ a lot even even among the people in those two camps so even if you take a person with a metaphysical and a secular approaches, it will be far from being representation of those two groups

I would second that notion. A sample size of one per group isn't of much empirical value. Beware establishing false dichotomies through the answers you receive. Though if you want answers I'd be happy to fling essay-sized responses at you as is my wont. As an example, I don't know/think there are all that many people here who would agree with me that all thoughtforms are thinking beings - even the most basic empathic constructs, just more rudimentary and with less suggestion-based feeling behind them. That's a response that in a vacuum I would be more likely to expect from a meta-physicist with animistic beliefs.

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

it's an interesting idea, but keep in mind people's opinions about tulpamancy and how it works differ a lot even even among the people in those two camps so even if you take a person with a metaphysical and a secular approaches, it will be far from being representation of those two groups

Yeah, I definitely agree here. I'll probably be putting a disclaimer at the top of the interview confirming this. There are a ton of metaphysical beliefs, all very different and unique. The same goes for secular or psychological tulpa systems; everyone thinks differently, and that's okay. This may not even be something I post - I'll figure it out once I have the answers and wording - but I still think it would be a somewhat interesting view into tulpamancy.

Zen

I would second that notion. A sample size of one per group isn't of much empirical value. Beware establishing false dichotomies through the answers you receive. Though if you want answers I'd be happy to fling essay-sized responses at you as is my wont. As an example, I don't know/think there are all that many people here who would agree with me that all thoughtforms are thinking beings - even the most basic empathic constructs, just more rudimentary and with less suggestion-based feeling behind them. That's a response that in a vacuum I would be more likely to expect from a meta-physicist with animistic beliefs.

Also agree here. I still need to proofread my questions, but if you're willing to answer them I'm very thankful.

Would be really cool if you could find both in the same system.

Lula! | 👻

Would be really cool if you could find both in the same system.

It would be. No luck so far, though.

Lula! | 👻

Would be really cool if you could find both in the same system.

imagine the cognitive dissonance and the scale of internal conflict, lol

as mentioned in #tulpa-discussion I've been experimenting and trying to see if I could use the unconscious to gain information I wouldn't ordinarily know

1:23 PM

I've basically found that the input-output of the unconscious is highly deterministic and in order to get pure outputs you need to completely master yourself to keep yourself from using negativity as input

1:27 PM

once I had mastered myself I began to see how everything was connected and fractal, and I believe that is what makes it easy to extrapolate information that you wouldn't ordinarily know. I believe in the timing and placement of things there is infinite information if everything is fractal so this is how it extrapolates across time and space so easily

1:29 PM

basically I hold an idea in my head, then consider another as a context and see how it reacts. I feel the mental signal of an idea then hold another idea to it to gain insights I wouldn't ordinarily know. It seems like it can predict the future and gap time and space. The ideas are emotional charges, and if you talk to them enough they begin to intersect your conscious mind and gain memories and become tulpas