Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

Mauriby 6/20/2018 6:38 PM

Sure, jas

I know what it is, but I cannot use english to organize the thought.

So there are physical things and abstract things.

6:39 PM

Abstract things exist only because we "make sense" of things.

@Abvieon {Alex} , te problem is, tulpa can act both as a voice you hear and your alternative identity.

If all living things were dead, the wind would still blow.

6:39 PM

No one would wonder if it meant anything, though.

6:39 PM

That's the difference between the physical and the abstract.

6:39 PM

The physical is and the abstract means something

6:40 PM

An identity is illusory because it is essentially abstract. Identity as a concept is just that, a concept.

The difference is that a tulpa feels separate from you, in that you have no control over their actions, so a tulpa is not seen as being connected back to one's own identity or consciousness

the physical truth of tulpas is that there is one body that acts within the world.

So most people do not experience a tulpa as an alternate identity of their own (edited)

The conceptual truth of tulpas is that there are multiple abstract identities that make sense of the world.

Does it? Tulpa is still the same human and original identity affect it a lot.

Does what?

[I am the abstraction the physical is what contains the abstractions. What makes it occur on a physical layer.]

You are nothing but physical phenomena interpreted by other identities as an identity.

6:42 PM

Just like I am the same, and everyone else.

Is it* Speaking to Abvieon. It's not like you are creating new, entirely separated from you human being. You are interacting with fictional character.

Well, you're interacting with a new identity.

6:43 PM

That identity can be compared to the original identity, the host.

Well, at the begining not necessarily

It can be similar or different, but it's always in juxtaposition.

6:44 PM

I mean, the whole idea of tulpas is that you pretend it's a new identity until it functionally is.

6:44 PM

right?

Or you have weird dreams and realize you have one

Some of those fictional characters do become your alternate identity.

@Ruethus the Silver Sorceror if that's the case, then you meme'd yourself into engaging with a new identity.

But some of them remain something that we cannot prove different from imaginary friends with illusion of independent agency.

luna i feel like you're not using identity in the way I outlined

Well... there's more to what happened than I mentioned

@Ruethus the Silver Sorceror all tulpas are meme'd into existence, consciously or unconsciously

And mine was apparently unconsciously

yep!

Since I didn't even know tulpas existed at the time

I like that explanation. It sounds pretty.

exactly

6:46 PM

@Jas which

Illusory.

Especially if you know the real definition of "meme"

[Identity has a dual meaning here. That of an alternate state of 1 associated being and that of a separate(tulpa). Of course you can also argue that the tulpa type is just an extension/more advanced/separate form of the first. But it's still somewhat different concepts that you are using 1 word for.]

oh, yeah, thank you

6:46 PM

I'm glad you like it, i saw that dome irl

6:46 PM

and it made me think really hard for awhile about this

6:46 PM

you're doing linguistic games, silina

Identity is being used with a consistent meaning by 恋なんてただのゲーム -, Jas, and myself

I wish to be so adventurous, but I fear that travel too much to do it. I am fine with natural wonders.

6:47 PM

If someone has a conflict, I would like to know. Specifically I want to know where Silina disagrees.

We laid out what the definition being used was enough to come to terms with its meaning

^

6:47 PM

Luna is using it differently and so are you, silina

[So I am doing philosophy? Well that aside I disagree with the meaning you use so I won't use it that way. I prefer "being" or "entity" for what you are using.]

and that's okay, but don't pretend like that's not what's happening

I like to have understanding where people don't agree, I think. I don't think it's important to convert the meaning other people use, just knowing is enough.

If you don't attempt to synchronize definitions, arguments are going to nowhere

no, you're doing the opposite of philosophy, rhetorical bullshit

Alright, I need to ask: what does that kanji in your name mean?

you can't prefer those for what i am using if you disagree with what I am saying

6:48 PM

It means love is just a game

It bothers me that I can't shorten your name

you can call me sous

6:48 PM

or himself

6:48 PM

or valerie

6:48 PM

or joshua

Sous will work

I can't read the kanji either, it looks like heart on the bottom and the top looks like six with two lines under it.

Good, i'm unintelligible. Back to the conversation?

Yes please.

Sure

I see awareness and consciousness as something the brain automatically generates in response to outside sensory input. A tulpa is created via someone giving sensory input in the form of talking and attention towards some sort of "point", which is usually the idea/impression that the host creates of someone other than themselves being in their brain. This sensory input being directed at this "point" over time creates a second awareness/consciousness. This is almost exactly how any person's consciousness is formed, the difference being with hosts or originals that the consciousness is generated naturally through the senses taking in input from the outside world.

Untrue

I like part of what you say, may I ask how one demonstrates a second consciousness?

actually, hm

It's impossible to demonstrate consciousness itself. This is just a theory.

if you're gonna talk about the unprovability of consciousness, why even bother talking (edited)

One can only truly "prove" the existence of their own consciousness

I agree with the part about naturally generating a being for sure

Oh, okay. Well if you mean two parallel awarenesses, I feel such a statement has some inherent strength that can be demonstrated.

Uh, if I can't talk about something that cannot be proven, why talk about consciousness at all?

I can compose a few tests for such a claim, but I don't know if that's what you mean by "separate consciousness". (edited)

because provability has never been the only road to truth

6:52 PM

logical consistency

6:52 PM

has been one

6:52 PM

damn STEM getting in the way of truth

6:52 PM

validity is not always truth

Logical consistency is insufficient. Believe me, one can live in a logically consistent and ultimately imaginary world.

yes and guess what jas

6:52 PM

there are others

6:53 PM

it doesn't always reduce down to logical positivism

Logical consistency is possible... if you avoid logical fallacies

The idea of separate consciousnesses makes intuitive sense to me. If you get caught up in what consciousness means, exactly, beyond being "the thing that allows for observation and awareness" you won't take anything away from what I say

I'm just saying, I used to live in a logically consistent world that was based on lies.

And remember that it's always possible that more rules are in play than you know

Consistency does not prove something being real.

Consistency can be constructed quite easily

i should never have spoken

Abvieon: If that's the case, how can we be sure we don't agree yet simply do not use consciousness in the same way?

we do agree. @Abvieon {Alex} is talking about identity as consciousness

6:54 PM

they're just using their own terms for