I am fine if that is the case, but I also feel like it is really important for people or tulpas to understand the nature of their existence so they do not experience the sensation of realizing their axiomatic foundations are made of sand and smoke.
[Though it is kind of simple really. I disagree on using lesser terms like identity over things like person or being for the simple reason that I see it as dehumanizing. I don't see tulpas as lesser beings than singlet identities(which is what the person is to me, an "identity". With a body/overarching consciousness that contains it) so I use equivalent terms when defining them and I find it important to do so personally. Well you can disagree but whatever. In terms of technical definitions the disagreements aren't as large.]
Silina, I am sorry, when I say identity I mean every bit as equivalent as the host identity. I feel the foundations are the same to support both host and tulpa existence.
[Yes. And I will keep doing so for the reasons I just stated. I mean that an identity is equivalent to a singlet identity as well in terms of definitions. And that the identity is the core that is a person/being in these definitions.]
6:58 PM
[Though true. We do disagree on what the core of a being is as well.]
It is fine to approach another person's logical framework and work in their ruleset. Can I know more about what you think of the distinction between host and tulpa, or the qualities you think a tulpa holds to be more than a simulated mental character? I'm not saying tulpas are a simulated mental character, it is just a thought experiment to show what qualities you think is necessary for a tulpa to have.
Back to when you said I was "using my own terms", I don't think I'm the odd one out in calling consciousness the thing that allows for observation and awareness. This is one of the few times I've heard "identity" being used to describe that @Mauriby
I'm still here. I definitely desire to know how others think the framework is. I don't care about converting you as much as I care about preventing destabilization in others.
It's quite nice to have someone with more patience than me handle that while I'm tired
7:07 PM
I've mostly made my position clear, I think
7:07 PM
But lemme see if I can summarize it a bit better to clarify some points
7:09 PM
Organic creatures with brain-like organs are capable of developing instances of "mind", and humans are a variety of such creatures who tend to develop relatively complex "mind"s, and in some cases can generate additional "mind"s to share their mental real estate
[Well it's because you say things like you don't believe that tulpas and hosts are different people. I profoundly disagree with such statements even if they become true when we use different meanings for what that represents. Hosts and tulpas share some processes of an overarching conscious. I still believe they are different people. That holds more then technical meaning it also holds symbolic meaning. Like 2 singlets are different people(who happen to have different bodies). A tulpa and a host are different people. Same thing can be said in his framework. 2 bodies are different people. The identities they have are different identities. 2 identities in 1 body are different identities. They aren't different people. Sigh, I guess I feel too deeply that how you symbolically represent things matters.](edited)
I wouldn’t say that tulpas and their hosts are immediately different people. There’s a continuum where the system goes from singlet to plural. If they stay hanging around with Median status, it’s pretty normal.
And if you're disagreeing with such statements heedless of knowledge that different definitions are being used, then you are being stubborn and contrary.
7:13 PM
Responses such as "saying things like that could invite misunderstanding" are fine, but that's not what you've typed there.
7:13 PM
The implication I'm getting is "This can be misunderstood, therefore it's wrong", which has fallacious logic involved.
[Well that's why we aren't going to agree. I disagree with presentation as well. Take a simple statement "a tulpa is also a person" or "the mind is different from the body but dependent on it" Particularly the second statement in dualism. He disagrees that the mind is different from the body, it is the body. I say it is different from the body because it has independent functionality. He says it's an abstraction of meaning that is based on the body. Okay I agree. Now we still disagree on if the mind is different from the body. Because to me it being an abstractive thing is sufficient to make it not the body to him it isn't and all the arguments built on this fall apart. Hmm maybe that's the next point to enter. Eh idk.]
But the way you just presented it makes it clear that your issue was more than just an "I don't like your phrasing" issue. The way the original comment was phrased made it seem as if the phrasing was the only reason you were objecting.
[Well it is. Because the phrasing has an effect on the phrasings of subsequent or precuring statements which I disagree with. And it goes deeper than that with how you phrase around dualism and physicalism and the very beliefs of such systems. That the mind is different is not compatible with physicalism in any way. So just the claim that abstractions is a thing in itself disagrees with the very fundamental philosophy.]
[The software is only the electrical signals of the logic gates in the computer. The software is the code which runs on the computer. Being both is a philosophical problem. Is the software the code or the electrical signals? Does code exist in any real way. Is the software the arrangement of the logic ports that allow something to happen when you press the keyboard? Is it the text on the screen you write? Is it the abstract logic that makes up a program?]
And it also seems my definition of software is slightly different from yours
7:43 PM
Software is the code itself
7:44 PM
The series of bits and bytes that, when interpreted by the motherboard, causes things to happen in whatever happens to be attached to it, which is the hardware
[So if you think of the exact series of bits and bytes and how they go through the motherboard and how this all works to make things happen. Is it not a model of the software that doesn't actually run on a physical computer? Is it still not a piece of software even though it's modelled and doesn't actually happen? The logic, how the software actually interacts to make things happen. Idk I am just speculating atm. Software really isn't the best analogy since it lacks qualia and is even harder to abstract.]
