They can demonstrate that something is taking place, neurochemical activity, but nothing about the experience of consciousness itself or even what it is.
This really isn't true at all. Neuroscience is in big part about finding the correlation of states of consciousness with with specific layouts of brain activity. Furthermore, we can see what consciousness itself is: It's emergent behavior and not an actual mechanism in the brain. The lack of a visible consciousness does have real implications.
but the experience of who i am remains somewhat illusive, an effect of numerous different processes from electrochemical to quantum collapses across such a broad area.
First of all, that last statement is quantum mysticism and has no basis in real science. Second of all... why? Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that serotonin for example is what your brain is literally doing when it's feeling happy and stable? Experience is profoundly simple. It's chemical response; it's input-output. The complexity of the brain comes from its enormous overlapping structure, not how individual mechanisms work - those are actually super simplistic.
why would anyone need prove of tulpas in the first place? i don't get it
Why would anyone need proof of gods? I don't get it.
The question is not whether your experience is valid. It's whether something true or not. Make no mistake, I have no insecurities about my experience at all - I choose to experience it regardless of whether or not it's an illusion because that doesn't matter to the quality of the experience in the slightest. But the desire to pursue truth to me is to me one of the single noblest traits in humanity, and I would never want to see it squelched.
"Why would anyone need proof of gods? I don't get it."
i don't think a tulpa created the universe, and i don't tell other people to worship my tulpa
what truth about tulpas do you expect to see from mri scan?
i don't think a tulpa created the universe, and i don't tell other people to worship my tulpa
I did not mean from the point of view of someone being preached at. I mean it from the point of view of the preacher or philosopher or whatever. In a vacuum, when you are not imposing upon anyone, and you experience a divine happening due to suggestion... I would still want to know the truth.
what truth about tulpas do you expect to see from mri scan?
I don't. That's something Obsidian and yourself mentioned. Identity also seems to be emergent. So with that in mind the differences between a brain running with a tulpa and brain not running one would mostly be that one would probably be feeling consistently differently and having different thought patterns. But that's achievable through any number of means.
That said, a mechanistic part that interests me is: What mechanism dictates perspective association from the point of view of host (If I recall, dissociation is typically a limbic system thing but my understanding is pretty low on that front)? It seems clear that we fully run images of other persons in specific emotional states to rationalize, but what causes the specific feeling of being distant from that; merged with it; or in some other state? Are we capable of seeing that mechanism is activating in regards to a tulpa's thoughts?(edited)
I was going to type something up last night but decided not to. It can say a lot about how the experiences are generated, and how tulpas function, but it cannot definitively answer whether they are "real" or not, it's a semantics question. A committed doubter can always say, "ahh, but these are still just states of the same person and this is just showing what is going on during these different states", and there's nothing that would make them inherently "wrong". It all hinges on how you define "individual". This can be informed by science, but the question of how that word is defined is ultimately semantics.
And like what kitkat said, if you're having the experience you're having the experience, so it can also always said to be "real" also, regardless of what mechanism in the brain is generating that experience.
The dissociation part puzzles me. Does that mean once you have any headmate at all you're always going to see some dissociative activity whenever there is ever anyone that isn't fronting, or are we thinking that only applies to the host?
That said, to be clear, it is entirely possible we could establish differences in different types of tulpa or broader plural experiences and use that to consider some "fake", or be able to tell when someone isn't having the same experience but I wouldn't generally consider anything "fake" unless the person is outright lying about their experience, which is difficult, maybe impossible, to measure. I think the most important focus is on determining what types of experiences are possible, and for a given system, whether they are satisfied with theirs.
3:17 PM
I suspect though, given some of Zen's prior statements, that we are not that far apart in view on this topic.
lily i think zen meant dissociation as in disconnected/not integrated parts of the brain which i think is necessary for the headmates to experience being separate from each other
it's one of the proper use of that word it doesn't always mean derealisation/depersonalisation/trance states
On the point of doubt here - I consider doubtful skepticism to be clearly a not-useful version of the mindset of "acquiring knowledge" but I think people see doubt and presume that's what everyone who wants to pursue knowledge is experiencing.
The more useful, healthy, and pleasurable state is to pursue knowledge entirely for its own sake, rather than hinging your worldview on a specific answer. Which is also actually a bad state of mind to even conduct real science in. It results in very clear biases. In an ideal scientific environment you should be able to do an experiment without any extraneous presumptions or without looking for something specific that isn't there.
With that in mind I'm not trying to say there will be any concrete conclusions made about the realness of tuppers or consciousnesses or whatever. I'm merely saying I'm super invested in seeing what the data has to say, even if the conclusions are not absolutes they will have meaning. It's just fascinating, and it doesn't have to be a drain on my ability to achieve realness with a tulpa or anything like that, or cause me any cognitive dissonance. I've said it before but if the EEGs somehow showed tulpas were fake all along tomorrow my response would probably be "Oh that's fascinating. Also that implies that they've figured out what's not fake so did we just learn how to codify consciousness? Brain transference tech here we come!" Tulpa having existential crisis in the background(edited)
With that in mind I'm not trying to say there will be any concrete conclusions made about the realness of tuppers or consciousnesses or whatever. I'm merely saying I'm super invested in seeing what the data has to say, even if the conclusions are not absolutes they will have meaning.
I ABSOLUTELY agree with that. It will definitely still say a lot. And certainly can say enough to impact whether people regard it as "real" or not.
Deleted User
lily i think zen meant dissociation as in disconnected/not integrated parts of the brain which i think is necessary for the headmates to experience being separate from each other
it's one of the proper use of that word it doesn't always mean derealisation/depersonalisation/trance states
I would posit that a way to prove tulpas were fake would be to first codify what the primary ego or host is, and then show that they are not the same thing meaningfully. But again that doesn't seem likely because egos seem to be emergent and are already themselves... fake.
Yeah obviously there's not much point in saying that a particular experience is fake. The experience is not what's possibly fake, it's whether it's a controlled delusion or based on something the brain can actually do(edited)
Of course but it's the distinction between a vidya game character seeming perfectly real to an observer and an actual General AI being fully intelligent.
Vidya (Sanskrit: विद्या, IAST: vidyā) figures prominently in all texts pertaining to Indian philosophy – to mean science, learning, knowledge and scholarship; most importantly, it refers to correct knowledge which cannot be contradicted and true knowledge which is the knowledge of the self intuitively gained. Vidya is not mere intellectual knowl...
Upon reading a fair few articles now it seems apparent that there is no absolute standard when it comes to explaining consciousness nor scientific consensus. There are many hypothesized ideas which are useful in different fields of research and are more akin to philosophy in some respects. It would be wrong to accredit any particular one as the principle explanation of what consciousness is.
In terms of our own experiences the Marian Webster Dictionary in its broadest attempts would suggest "sentience or awareness of internal and external existence".
Realness is something that amusing surfaces in many studies because it has been posited that if it is possible to function as a psychological zombie, a machine that behaves as if it were conscious, then there would be no way to tell the difference between that and one that is conscious. Which raises a few questions as to behaviour vs experience, if this is illusionary/emergent from a complex set of particles then what is witnessing the illusion? What would the benefit be compared to one that is simply mechanical and behaved as it if were?
Real in that context becomes if it behaves as if it is real, then for intents and purposes, it is. If we were then to apply a principle of emergence to that then anything that has the outwards function of consciousness, regardless as to whether it has a brain (in the biological sense) would be. It would somewhat undermine the premise that it originates purely as a function of a brain - given that not all creatures with brains are regarded as having consciousness (sufficient particulate complexity, awareness etc) or that all living things actually have brains at all.
And damnit Natters.. I thought i was in line to be fake!!!
I may send an extremely pretentious essay that we had to read for English regarding the nothingness of personality
9:08 PM
At first it hurt to read this whole essay about my own self not existing, but I've come to console myself with the idea that nobody's self exists, really
9:10 PM
Honestly, it's not as if I'll ever come close to understanding the mechanical functions of consciousness; the learning curve required to believe the psychology of it is, in my opinion, more trouble than it's worth; I'll stick to philosophy for now
9:10 PM
But yes, I would concur, I am not real and neither is my host ;)
Hopefully I can find time to read it as it sounds like I'd enjoy it.
Mai
At first it hurt to read this whole essay about my own self not existing, but I've come to console myself with the idea that nobody's self exists, really
I'm inclined to tentatively think that the only reason we have a sense of self at all is because we have the ability to produce a somewhat unnamed feeling/emotion/whatever of perspective (which is distinct from actual physical perspective) that our brain can apply to thoughts. But it can take it away at any time or change the feel of the final output to create a new perspective. It also seems to be able to adjust pre-existing thoughts to have a new or different perspective-sense attached to it.
If that hypothesis is correct then the conclusion is that it's obviously just a trick of emotion and sensation that we generate the concept at all. But it's largely conjecture.
well. look into evolution and the biological advantages of a sense of "self" and self awareness
1:46 AM
actually.. I've got a vid on the topic that I'll drop in media.. its got sources and such linked in it
Zen
I'm inclined to tentatively think that the only reason we have a sense of self at all is because we have the ability to produce a somewhat unnamed feeling/emotion/whatever of perspective (which is distinct from actual physical perspective) that our brain can apply to thoughts. But it can take it away at any time or change the feel of the final output to create a new perspective. It also seems to be able to adjust pre-existing thoughts to have a new or different perspective-sense attached to it.
If that hypothesis is correct then the conclusion is that it's obviously just a trick of emotion and sensation that we generate the concept at all. But it's largely conjecture.
YES, and like this is how we work and facilitate switches and such. We've each got a certain feel/aura/like identifiable signature on our core that everything else gets wrapped around and tied to. And when that core or whatever is in front, and in mind, it primes everything that is it tied to be more accessible (raises the priority of those things/lowers activation threshold, whatever you wanna call it)
If it's arbitrary, and can be changed arbitrarily, then it lacks permanence. For something to have meaning or presence or substance, it's presumed it must have these things to be real, otherwise it's fake, like a crude copy.
Well, I've come to the conclusion that self is arbitrary and can be changed arbitrarily. If something's arbitrary, it can be arbitrarily anything. If it can be anything, and not everything is real. Like any hypothesis, it's true until there is at least one instance where it's false. Since self can be made false any number of ways, arbitrarily, then it's false. Even the times it appears real can't be trusted after that.
12:39 PM
Conditioning can be thought of as the constraints of self, but once conditioning is removed, so are the constraints. Then self isn't unique or predictable.
well, no need to nitpick over semantics. if self = true, within limited constraints then that's all that matters. gravity can be provably overcome or ignored completely, within certain constraints, that doesn't invalidate it.
The "false self": A psychological belief structure along the lines of "I'm an independent agent separate from life, and my life purpose is to find validation by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain"
The "true Self": The unchanging aspect of the human being that's already at peace - formless awareness and the impersonal sense of "I exist"(edited)
I'm not talking about a soul or anything like that. I'm just talking about our personal perception as a higher-thinking sentient animal that lets us claim we exist.
most of semantic discussions are happening when people invovled assume everyone understands what they mean by certain expression, while everyone uses slightly or completely different meaning of it
Deleted User
well, no need to nitpick over semantics. if self = true, within limited constraints then that's all that matters. gravity can be provably overcome or ignored completely, within certain constraints, that doesn't invalidate it.
I mean you can overcome gravity (by utilizing other types of force), but I'm not sure that it can be ignored or what it means to say that you can in this context.
I mean very literally the self, both in terms of identity, and consciousness does not exist. I gave the example of an ant colony before. They appear to be, as a collective unit, intelligent - but all they are really doing is individually following various pheromonal signals. The brain is largely this way too - It causes the appearance of a self, but really consciousness emerges from its simple functions working collectively. But there's no individual part of the brain that generates selves and consciousness. It's just something we feel because it's useful for us to have the illusion so as to develop a cohesive set of learned behaviours.(edited)
“If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (Chapter 2, Aristotle and Greek Science, Part 3, The Foundation of Logic).
Of the types/components of self, I know of:
The thinking and acting brain parts that make up "you".
The "experiencer" which is you that we know exists but do not know the origin of/how it is created for certain.
Your self perception/your narrative of being able to choose what you do.
Your concept/model of yourself, how you fit in the world with others, stereotypes regarding how you behave, etc.
I think the question of self as obsidian raised it was largely centered around the existence of the "experiencer". If that experiencer something that is real, or is it an illusion that we think exists but does not actually?
I think the questioning of if the experiencer exists or is real is somewhat absurd, barring a radical upset in how I understand the world, basically because what KitKat just said.(edited)
That's actually the only part there that I don't contend exists
7:27 PM
The brain observably experiences. It thinks from numerous perspectives easily. It perceives numerous narratives often conflictingly, as is convenient. It stores models in memory but they aren't associated with identity strictly.(edited)
I think I might look at memory as I look at our ability to write and re-read our actions from the past, or our ability to express ourselves with language. They enhance and increase the range at which we can be "conscious", but are not a requirement and are not essential to the process. To draw a bad analogy, they are turbochargers in a car. They make it run better, but can be excluded without issue.(edited)
Reguile
I think I might look at memory as I look at our ability to write and re-read our actions from the past, or our ability to express ourselves with language. They enhance and increase the range at which we can be "conscious", but are not a requirement and are not essential to the process. To draw a bad analogy, they are turbochargers in a car. They make it run better, but can be excluded without issue. (edited)
Yes, and that's something that therapy is using. You revisit your memories, but you are different person now with different experiences so you will react to those situations differently, and with that you rewire the believes or reactions that were a result of your previous interpretation of what happened
Calyra 👻
I mean you can overcome gravity (by utilizing other types of force), but I'm not sure that it can be ignored or what it means to say that you can in this context.
If memory was intrinsically linked with identity memory blocks and fabricating memory would be impossible. But as it stands memories can be cut up at will and handed out to thoughtforms, as long as the brain feels it's justified. Memory is a core part of how the illusion of self is created, but the brain doesn't store memory in terms of "this is memory x and it belongs to person y". It stores it in terms of the lived experience and feeling of the memory, which as mentioned, is creating perspective through illusion.
Integration of experience is caused by emotional and physical responses to stimuli, and those things are stored in memory; yes. But also not infallibly. You absolutely can change memory, and there's nothing preventing a hypnotist from creating one wholesale with whoever's identity behind it or altering an existing memory. Memories are repeatedly changed every time you access them.
How easy is it for someone with headmates to say "Was that you or me?". Then slowly convince yourself it was them, even when the experience itself may have been inconclusive. Then the memory slowly alters itself and you justify it and the memory becomes their memory. That's a more minor example of memory in action.
1
1
4
️ see what you mean
1
1
1
1
1