Tulpa.info - tulpa-questions-2

you said everything resulting with emergence is illusory, did you not

I think we might want to separate emergence from "machine of many parts" as well. A car is not an emergent thing, and "emergence" is generally used to refer to chaotic systems where new complex behaviors emerge from simple ones.

8:35 PM

I feel like the mind, and self, should be looked at closer to a complex machine than an emergent system, although properties of both exist (edited)

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

are your tools not illusion? they were created by emergent illusion of self

Where'd you pull that one from? Of course not. I've not said that all data the brain absorbs is illusion, merely the sense of self. An ant colony has emergent intelligence but it does not fail to produce tangible results. The only distinction between the two concepts is that emergent intelligence doesn't actively behave in some sort of innately intelligent way. Individual systems can be led astray or fail to function and intelligent behaviour collapses.

"I've not said that all data the brain absorbs is illusion, merely the sense of self." and here you compared emergence of self to emergence of intelligence of ants

8:36 PM

i don't know where the line is

In what way are tools produced by an emergent mind emergent?

8:37 PM

(they aren't, they're physical objects.)

how is not-illusion a result from an illusion? (edited)

8:37 PM

how does that happen?

Physical objects are made of tiny distinct parts that all act together to produce the larger object's behavior as well

Why do you vomit when you are told a placebo will make you vomit?

8:38 PM

Is the vomit also illusory?

i don't, we have vomit phobia (true)

8:38 PM

never vomitted

Is placebo classified as an illusion?

My b.

8:38 PM

Anyway I'm trying to stress that intelligence is an illusion only in a sense. Not in some abject total sense.

8:39 PM

It's a complex behaviour, that's all.

8:39 PM

It's not something that exists meaningfully in the brain, but the brain produces as a byproduct to its design.

so in what sense is it an illusion? that's what i've been asking

Lack of tangibility.

Is it an illusion in the same sense that Microsoft Windows 10 is an illusion?

O'course. Windows 10 is an emergent intelligence.

8:40 PM

xD

I meant since that's not tangible either.

scientific method has no tangibility

8:42 PM

is it an illusion?

Actually that's perhaps a better example of exactly what I don't mean. Windows 10 is observably stored in an encoded form on your hardrive right.

8:42 PM

But it behaves intelligently within its parameters.

8:42 PM

You don't store identity.

Zen

But it behaves intelligently within its parameters.

Are you sure about that?

mostly...

I think you do see such a thing with identity, some part of your mind is set up to recognize certain scenarios and associate with them and that makes up identity (edited)

You store feeling, not identity itself. You can't decode someones identity from looking at brain scans, it's the result of the whole system interacting.

8:43 PM

Memory is stored as action and response

8:43 PM

That is all

is economy illusion because it's result of whole system interacting?

Economy is an emergent behaviour. Technically illusory, yes.

You would be storing something that patterns that person's identity and behavior, and while you couldn't rebuild the same person, if you could extract their identity you could use it plus trial and error to build a very similar person

are the results of economy real, or illusory?

8:44 PM

is price of your bread goign up meaning that you need to spend more money, or is it just illusion?

I've already said it's not illusory what the results of the system produce.

Reguile

You would be storing something that patterns that person's identity and behavior, and while you couldn't rebuild the same person, if you could extract their identity you could use it plus trial and error to build a very similar person

How? Tell me in concrete terms how you would string together individual memory, keeping in mind that the brain stores more than its "own" memories, because of empathy, into an identity.

then if a system results in sense of self, it's not illusory?

It doesn't store the details of identity, only the feeling of perspective, which is purely chemical experience.

You would already have the identity, assuming identity is a "learned pattern of self and ability to recognize when an action is performed by you", so you wouldn't need to create one. You'd use that pattern to produce new "thinking hardware" that matches that pattern frequently. It would not be the same person, but there is a concrete "memory of something" that is loosely based on the thing it was paired with.

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

then if a system results in sense of self, it's not illusory?

Y'seem really, really attached to me saying its an illusion. I'm not sure I can confirm what I've said more than I already have.

One use of the word 'illusion' implies it's misleading and appears to be something else. But I think a lot of people consider 'illusion' to imply that something doesn't exist. Are you using illusion in the first or the second sense, Zen?

Illusions don't not exist. That word describes experience. Only the first one makes sense. No?

8:49 PM

Illusions are only things which are misleading, they always exist in some capacity.

Some things are illusions because they don't exist.

Illusions are false, not non-existent.

I think the word is used in two senses, commonly.

8:50 PM

I mean, you could argue that if you can perceive the illusion it's gotta exist somehow.

Zen

Y'seem really, really attached to me saying its an illusion. I'm not sure I can confirm what I've said more than I already have.

isn't it what you claimed though?

Ale𝕏andra 🍄🐈

I think the word is used in two senses, commonly.

which is why i asked like 20 times to define terms

8:54 PM

and all i was getting was "emergent=illusion"

Reguile

You would already have the identity, assuming identity is a "learned pattern of self and ability to recognize when an action is performed by you", so you wouldn't need to create one. You'd use that pattern to produce new "thinking hardware" that matches that pattern frequently. It would not be the same person, but there is a concrete "memory of something" that is loosely based on the thing it was paired with.

The problem I have with that is that ego-death seems to change people's identities substantially. In some sense the totality of the memory of the brain exists and is stored and can be used to generate a new identity... but that identity isn't going to be the same identity. If you use the same data in exactly the same configuration and then reboot it in a new environment, it produces a different entity entirely. So then - Which one of them is truly the "self"? That flawed encoded data, that changes every time you access it, or the actual emergent consciousness it produces? I'd say that the consciousness produced is the self of whatever system it's running on, but that memory, current sensation, and apparently a good amount of random luck since humans don't seem to always react the same way to anything anyway, is what it emerges from.

Ego death isn't going to happen in a person with substantial damage that is always going to change people's identities

9:03 PM

And, to a degree, that's to be expected. Take away the part of the mind that regulates and controls and the new one will run the ship a bit differently, but that doesn't necessarily mean either component is fake or illusion

I think it might be less confusing to just say that the sense of self is emergent and intangible. Since it's a sense of self, I'd say you could say it was an illusion only if you could tell if someone wasn't actually experiencing a sense of self.

Ego death doesn't result in brain damage? It's effectively a temporary shutdown, people have done brain scans on it.

9:04 PM

It's just a matter of a bad trip tbh.

Oh, this is in reference to a meditation style thing? I thought it was a brain damage/memory loss thing

Or transcendental I suppose, whatever you prefer.

9:05 PM

Normally it's triggered with drugs.

Ale𝕏andra 🍄🐈

I think it might be less confusing to just say that the sense of self is emergent and intangible. Since it's a sense of self, I'd say you could say it was an illusion only if you could tell if someone wasn't actually experiencing a sense of self.

On this point - The sense of self is the thing that is absolutely real. Because that's just chemical response. The actual self though, is ephemeral.

i'm confused now then

9:08 PM

why call it illusion if it's real

I'm not super prone to look towards things like "ego death" in a psychidelic sense to inform my understanding of how the mind works. Reading about it makes it seem similar to exorcisms and the likes. Neat experiences, but rooted in culture and not prone to being good information (edited)

My use of the word illusion was to illustrate that it isn't entirely true. That we produce these identity-states through a mix of emotions and sensations, and that nowhere in that point do you actually store some sort of indelible self as part of the process. I'm not saying the behaviour doesn't exist.

9:09 PM

It just comes from a mix of memory and sensation and whatever weird other factors seem to make it randomly change.

I tend to think of self as an illusion partly because I've never taken anything about myself as a given. I've always sought to chop it up, add on to it, replace it, segment it into pieces, and it seems to comply. It doesn't seem to have any inviolable laws or properties that I don't consider part of something else.

Like, I could "hypnotize" someone into thinking they're a radically new person tomorrow and they'll report that it works, but nothing probably changed barring similar changes that can occur through any experience in life.

Zen

My use of the word illusion was to illustrate that it isn't entirely true. That we produce these identity-states through a mix of emotions and sensations, and that nowhere in that point do you actually store some sort of indelible self as part of the process. I'm not saying the behaviour doesn't exist.

finally an answer

9:11 PM

for what you mean by illusion of self

9:11 PM

it only took 1,5h

Anyway I'm trying to stress that intelligence is an illusion only in a sense. Not in some abject total sense. It's a complex behaviour, that's all. It's not something that exists meaningfully in the brain, but the brain produces as a byproduct to its design.

Now listen here. This was the last time I explained the exact same thing. I've used analogies, I've repeatedly said in clear ways that I don't mean illusion in some sort of total sense. And yet you seem to have repeatedly misconstrued me.

Reguile

Like, I could "hypnotize" someone into thinking they're a radically new person tomorrow and they'll report that it works, but nothing probably changed barring similar changes that can occur through any experience in life.

Exactly.

Everything changed and yet, (almost) nothing changed.

Also I'm trying to find a study, but I seem to recall watching a video where someone experienced ego-death and there was a visible shut-down of function.

The main thing I'd be curious to see is a more long term study that gets an impression/measures a person's tendencies before/after the experience to see if and how they change outside of self-reporting. If the experience results in a repeatable and observed/long term significant change I'd give it more weight.

I can't see it at a glance, though I must actually go as it is late here and I have a few things to do. Adieux, people.

I think I'm explaining myself poorly.

Zen

Anyway I'm trying to stress that intelligence is an illusion only in a sense. Not in some abject total sense. It's a complex behaviour, that's all. It's not something that exists meaningfully in the brain, but the brain produces as a byproduct to its design.

Now listen here. This was the last time I explained the exact same thing. I've used analogies, I've repeatedly said in clear ways that I don't mean illusion in some sort of total sense. And yet you seem to have repeatedly misconstrued me.

and to this, i answered this, which you didn't follow up

whistles innocently and doesn't draw attention to the fact I have also been using that adjective to describe it

if self is an illusion, how come there is so many portraits of it on the internet?

9:51 PM

You know the difference between the two

semantics.info

1

if self is an illusion, who do i wash when i wash myself? (edited)

That's the body washing itself

if you are self taught, who taught you if you are self-taught?

So it's good to know I should never use words that have multiple meanings around you

lol no just tell me which one you mean to avoid misunderstanding, that's what people do (edited)

I can share my thoughts on the self being "illusory"

Yuka

I can share my thoughts on the self being "illusory"

please

I'm just going to explain what I got out of Buddhist teachings on "no-self" which means that the self is impermanent. Heck my brain is tired tho

10:25 PM

Basically, if I consider what am "I"? and I really examine, I find that there's not really anything there. I have some thoughts and feelings and beliefs like "I am Yuka" "I am a person" "I'm typing this right now." But those thoughts and beliefs change from moment to moment, I'm never really the same "self" across time. I'm an ever changing collection of thoughts about experiences. At the root there is the conscious experience, which is not actually "Yuka"

2

I think it's a trap that people frequently do They look into inside and just dissociate themselves even temporarily bit by bit from the things that make their "I" and the reality is you are everything that you are experiencing