Tulpa.info - metaphysics

Ah, I see. When we hear that we have a flag go off and address it. "I'm not good enough" "That's not true <headmate's name>" And then we try to talk about a healthier way to think about it I think I more or less forgot about that stuff because our brain likes to jump to boom suicidal ideations and then if we struggle to ignore them we have to do something about it.

goodness, those are definitely the kind of thing that shouldn't be ignored. --- Since I've said so much about the book I may as well drop the title, for anyone else that's following along and enjoys reading. The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle

1:59 PM

This book unironically changed how I thought about life experience and how I related to myself in my mind.

@Reisen hey I just tried to go to the link for metaphysics on the forum I learned that I can't even see that section unless I sign in. Something about strange metamagic topics not showing up in the google search results or something. Anyway, the link acts like a broken link for guests of the forum.

"Sorry!
We could not locate the item you are trying to view."

Luminesce: Oh haha, yeah (edited)

3:49 PM

I forgot that board was signed-in only

maybe edit the message you pinned to say that? Guess I should create an account now

(Board requires signing in to see) https://community.tulpa.info/forum/16-metaphysics-and-parapsychology/

Reisen pinned a message to this channel. 1/5/2023 3:50 PM

oh heh, yea you could have just gone back and edited the original pin

Light OCD makes me not like (edited) on important messages

oh dear

3:51 PM

carry on then

I wonder if you had any meta experiences with meditation, Lusovius?

@Yuka (@Aya) - jump i had experiences during meditation that are very hard to put in words and it’s hard for me to not put them in the metaphysical category (although i really don’t like the label), which I think you can imagine is quite hard for me to come to terms with since all my involvement in metaphysical conversations before was mostly trying to find secular explanation for other people’s descriptions of metaphysical experiences my whole life i was secular and anti-spiritual and i started meditation exclusively for my mental health and despite my anti-spiritual approach and not trying to achieve anything metaphysical i did get ineffable experiences

Yuka

I wonder if you had any meta experiences with meditation, Lusovius?

I've had a few, mostly through shamanic meditation practices with drumming, or guided meditations. I don't get the opportunity to do that often enough sadly

i had experiences during meditation that are very hard to put in words and it’s hard for me to not put them in the metaphysical category (although i really don’t like the label), which I think you can imagine is quite hard for me to come to terms with since all my involvement in metaphysical conversations before was mostly trying to find secular explanation for other people’s descriptions of metaphysical experiences my whole life i was secular and anti-spiritual and i started meditation exclusively for my mental health and despite my anti-spiritual approach and not trying to achieve anything metaphysical i did get ineffable experiences

@Leiko (@KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk) - jump I see! I guess I wonder, what made them ineffable/meta-like given you don't like or believe those things?

3:40 PM

I've gotten some odd sensations and some odd effects while meditating, but it's nothing that needs metaphysics to explain

We have had some interesting experiences with Dream that feel borderline meta at times. I'm not sure how to describe it though, usually it's all in the moment and we're not thinking clearly because we're so absorbed in the moment

3:46 PM

I wouldn't call those experiences meditation though. Maaaybe hypnotism but I don't like using that word if I can avoid it

May I ask why you avoid the word hypnotism?

Every time I hear about hypnotism there's a new definition for it and a different understanding of what the experience is. I more or less have given up asking what it means and I think it's more productive just to describe my experiences. Which is saying a lot because switching is also a fairly meaningless word but at least I have a clue about what you're talking about. Hypnotism is a loaded meaningless word with experts who get licensed for it and psychology jargon/context/whatever, so it's even worse (edited)

i only know 1 definition of hypnotism, and it seems fairly consistent to me

@Moderator

Hmm, in my experience hypnotism is fairly consistent in it's structure. Wider hypnotic phenomena can be quite complex and overlaps with most of psychology though. I certainly wouldn't call it meaningless if you are doing the right research. Perhaps check out a more academic text like the Oxford book of hypnosis

4:58 PM

https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handbook-Hypnosis-Handbooks/dp/0198570090

The Oxford Handbook of Hypnosis (Oxford Handbooks)

You can also find access to many academic hypnosis journal articles for free online. For more common man hypnosis you could do worse than Mike Mandel's work. While he would probably make a scholar have a migrane his teachings are both accurate for the layman and easy to put into practice. Another good hypnotist is James Trip who's work brought into question many older ideas of what hypnotism is or isn't, such as being able to cause hypnotic phenomena without trance inductions. (edited)

5:12 PM

The classical masters of what hypnotism is though are Dave Elman and Milton H. Erikson, the first being a very influential authoritarian/direct hypnotist and the other being the Father of conversational hypnosis

This is my jam

Sera 🕯

You can also find access to many academic hypnosis journal articles for free online. For more common man hypnosis you could do worse than Mike Mandel's work. While he would probably make a scholar have a migrane his teachings are both accurate for the layman and easy to put into practice. Another good hypnotist is James Trip who's work brought into question many older ideas of what hypnotism is or isn't, such as being able to cause hypnotic phenomena without trance inductions. (edited)

In all honesty I'm not mentally prepared for this conversation. I'll need to come back to it some other time

Going back to Meditation... While not necessarily metaphysical, I consider meditation to be esoteric in nature. By which I mean that meditation often (though not always) comes with experiences that don't necessarily have a physical basis, can't be quantified by science, and are largely hard to find words to describe due to the abstract nature of that which is perceived within the mind.

I see! I guess I wonder, what made them ineffable/meta-like given you don't like or believe those things?

@Yuka (@Aya) - jump it's a very good question, but i wouldn't be comfortable sharing it publicly if you and some other people are interested to hear we could form a temporary group chat

i am absolutely interested

3

If you're okay with sharing, sure

1

We would be interested

1

Mathematics https://travelnevada.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/HooverDam74_SM.jpg

Hmm... if some of you had access to the most advanced tech, do you think it would be possible to transfer a tulpa's "soul" into a machine or artificial body? How? Would you need a direct link of neurons going from your brain to the new body? Would it be fine if it was high-speed wireless instead? Or does there need to be any physical communication at all? Would digital hardware that's 100% deterministic work, or would there be need for "error" from outside? (i.e., undervolting or analog)

Personally, I think there needs to be room for "error", and there doesn't actually need to be a physical connection, but I would really want the wireless one to keep in communication.

Hm, I'm not sure on transferring a tulpa to a machine body It'd be no different from trying to transfer yourself I can't see how it'd work but, also that's not metaphysical?

Oh, I thought it was metaphysical because it was a question relating to the soul?

the advancements of AI recently have been massive. Sometime this year you will be able to create your tulpa in a machine so convincingly that it will be indistinguishable from actually putting them in your pc

12:07 AM

but yeah, no metaphysics involved

Well, I agree the Turing test definitely isn't metaphysical. I think the question of: 'would they then have a soul?' is though, isn't it? It's also the part I care about most. If I did do that, I'd want the real thing, and not to be fooled by some soulless mimic. (edited)

12:17 AM

I think this is related to the mind-body problem, actually.

what do you mean by it having a soul and why does it matter?

I mean, would it have any consciousness? Would it perceive reality, or would it be no different than an NPC in a video game following a script? As for why it matters... imagine a universe where every human was replaced with these things, and they had no 'souls'/'consciousness, that is, there was no subjectively experiencing things from the perspective of those machines. Wouldn't that be just like a dead or empty universe? (edited)

it seems to me the question if it is conscious is more driven by you feeling comfortable by knowing you talk to a conscious agent. you could really be fooled either way (that it is conscious when it's not, or that it's not conscious when it is), we just don't know enough about the phenomena. Noone knows what consciousness is or if computers or even humanity as a whole already are conscious. As far as we know, even abacus could be conscious

12:27 AM

an alternative is to just enjoy the experience of talking to a convincing ai tulpa

True. I know there's no 100% provable answer, since it's the soul we're talking about. I was more curious what people's takes would be. Speaking of, your take is a bit surprising. A lot of people I meet have strong beliefs on this, like "if I made a copy of me and deleted the original, I'd immediately be conscious in the copy because it has the same information." Which would mean a tulpa made with good enough info would be the same. Or "Consciousness is related to the physical world, so if you destroy the brain, you destroy consciousness", in which case the only hope of moving the 'soul' would be a direct physical link between your brain and the transferred tulpa. I wonder though... would there be any beliefs that implied that even transferring a soul with a physical link between brains wouldn't work?

in my view both sides just pretend to know the answer. Your question assumes that there is only one possible nature of consciousness, where there are a lot of tiny consciousness floating in the universe that can disappear. But what if consciousness is just one, omnipresent, it doesn't die, just experiences all parts of the universe as subjective experiences, all at once, it experiences the universe through the senses of single atom, cells that make your body, but also you and whole humanity, on all different levels? if that was the case, the question "if I made a copy of me and deleted the original, what would happen to my consciousness?" doesn't make sense, because it assumes that certain mechanisms rule the consciousness are real without really knowing that that's the case. it might be the case that there is no "your consciousness" or "mine consciousness" but just consciousness

Ah, I see. With that axiom, the process really doesn't matter, because the result is conscious no matter what.

Yeah exactly

12:46 AM

you got it

12:47 AM

and you know, it might be something completely different, too

Yeah. Though, if I have a system that gets a 'yes they have a soul' answer under every belief, I think it's more believable that they actually do have a soul.

...there might be too many beliefs though.

KiTkAt( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧

Click to see attachment 🖼️

heh, fair

what if even when you speak to an unconscious AI agent, it becomes a mental construct in your brain by interacting with you and immediately becomes conscious as long as you think about it?

12:51 AM

if you would say that tulpas are inherently conscious, that would be an easy case to make

12:52 AM

it's just the soul wouldn't be in the chip or in the cloud

...huh.

12:52 AM

Consciousness through socializing, or as long as humans are around. That's an interesting idea.

12:54 AM

I guess that could actually work, and even just by the axiom of "tulpas have souls". Then, as tech improves, you could use more advanced methods to ensure they had a soul.

consider a tulpa personality forced not by you, but by computer's output

12:55 AM

it is still created in your brain

12:56 AM

but all that the tulpa is is fed by what's on computer's screen

12:56 AM

as opposed to the information stored in the brain

Yeah

12:57 AM

I wonder about contradictions between the brain and the screen in that case though

12:57 AM

Small contradictions could work with forcing, but I feel like large ones could cause a break.

12:58 AM

...if I had a bit more powerful GPUs, I might try this...

12:59 AM

The smaller AIs would absolutely cause breaks like that.

human brain is no stranger to cognitive dissonance

True. But it's more like "Me: what's heavier, steel or feathers?", "AI: Steel heavier. S>F------..."

sounds like a human reply to me!

Lol, fair enough

KiTkAt( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧

Click to see attachment 🖼️

there are no facts, only interpretation. by thinking in terms of language and symbols i change reality to my whim. lmao

SimLeek

Hmm... if some of you had access to the most advanced tech, do you think it would be possible to transfer a tulpa's "soul" into a machine or artificial body? How? Would you need a direct link of neurons going from your brain to the new body? Would it be fine if it was high-speed wireless instead? Or does there need to be any physical communication at all? Would digital hardware that's 100% deterministic work, or would there be need for "error" from outside? (i.e., undervolting or analog)

Not with current tech, but it is not technically impossible to extract the structure of a part of the brain and simulate it. (edited)

KiTkAt( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧

the advancements of AI recently have been massive. Sometime this year you will be able to create your tulpa in a machine so convincingly that it will be indistinguishable from actually putting them in your pc

I highly doubt that. I dont think current trends and models have the capability to model intent. Some fundamental change of perspective is needed for that. Although current language models are completely credible in writing, they can still be broken in conversation and this is in my opinion the result of them making up their reality on the fly and not having a consistent model of internal "intention". Not to mention the fact that replicating your tulpa to the point of indistinguishability would be an extremely hard job. (edited)

Another question is if just tulpa's soul would be able to be extracted without the rest of their system.

The simplest method wouldnt probably be an extraction tho, that would require actually destroying the neural conections on the original brain. It would be just a copy. But depending on how you define the boundaries between a tulpa soul and anotherones soul, and given that you can actually differentiate them, it is technically possible to assign what parts are who...

7:57 PM

I dont think this will ever be within the reach of humanity tho.

By extraction I meant extraction a copy not removing them. If tulpa has a soul I think it's too intertwined with the rest of a human.

SimLeek

Well, I agree the Turing test definitely isn't metaphysical. I think the question of: 'would they then have a soul?' is though, isn't it? It's also the part I care about most. If I did do that, I'd want the real thing, and not to be fooled by some soulless mimic. (edited)

How do you know that i have a soul? And if you cant tell the difference why would it matter?

Alejandro

By extraction I meant extraction a copy not removing them. If tulpa has a soul I think it's too intertwined with the rest of a human.

Do you mean soul in a metaphisical way?

8:06 PM

You yourself can know what actions are done by your tulpa and assign them to them, thats why they are separate to you, then for example an AI could be trained to use your own brains capabilities of understanding that separation to know what parts are your tulpa and which yours and make a copy of the correct parts. This is of course all highly hypothetical as there is no tech nearly capable of doing anything similar. (edited)

I feel like neuralink, or just an MRI scan, could identify the parts. It depends on how large the regions dedicated to the tulpa and the host are though. I think that's on-going research though, and making a copy or moving things is much harder to do safely than just identifying.

It wouldnt. A lot of testing would be needed. And the parts are very likely highly intertwined with your own brain parts as every functioning person needs a bit of every part of the brain. (edited)

8:42 PM

A mri is capable of scanning your whole brain but it cannot generate inputs for it to be able to distinguish your tulpas. While a neuralink cannot scan your whole brain.

That's probably the case. I expect tulpas to have different patterns and maybe a few different neurons under MRI and other stuff, but from what I know... well, it's kind of like a hologram and adding an object to the scene: it will use the same material, and even splitting the hologram in two will still give you a view of both the scene and the object, just from a smaller window.

The problem is the part in which you extract ONLY one tulpa.

8:44 PM

For that you need to be able to distinguish. (edited)

MRI can scan your whole brain, but it can't see anywhere near individual neurons, let alone synapses. Neither can neuralink. I think it's most likely that a tulpa uses a set of synapses that overlaps with the hosts.

Yeah but thats a limitation on resolution not on the technology itself i believe...

true

8:46 PM

Hmm... I wasn't thinking copying or extraction though. More like, you have another brain growing, and you're connected to it at many points in your own brain. So, as your brain changes over time, so does the other, and perhaps a tulpa could choose to move over.

Then there is the problem of actually converting brain activity into actions which is higly non trivial.

8:46 PM

You could scan the whole body to corelate brain activity to muscle activation. (edited)