Tulpa.info - tulpa-questions-2

Yes, it's part of the emergent behaviour, of course it does. I'm not saying the emergent behaviour doesn't exist.

What do you mean by illusion of self

Emergence.

I still don't understand what illusion of self is

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?

You're asking the right questions :3

Emergence is a fascinating topic and I spent a lot of time thinking about it, but I don't see how that connects to illusion of self

7:41 PM

or what illusion of self even implicates (edited)

Not a whole lot other than the brain can make selves at will.

Why are they illusory?

7:42 PM

And what does that mean?

How about this for starters: Are we all agreed that it's nonsensical to label experience(ing) as illusory?

Because on a baseline level they are not part of the system.

7:43 PM

And yes. The brain absorbs data, this is known.

Zen, when you say the self is illusory you refer to the understanding one has that "I" did this or that?

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

“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).

Gods I love that.

I don't think you understand my question Zen

7:44 PM

So maybe different question, what would be the difference between illusion of self and a self that is not illusory?

The brain absorbs data, this is known.

That may be how experience is created, but what I'm saying is "you are experiencing (or maybe better to say, there is experiencing) right now, and there is no reasonable way to label that as illusory" (edited)

if it's an illusion who is experiencing the illusion if the experience is an illusion?

A self that is not illusory would not be emergent. There would be a part of the brain that regulates selves and selves would be stored in a concrete way.

I don't understand why you think emergence makes it illusory which is probably because you didn't explain what illusion of self is

7:46 PM

You just defined illusion of self to be a result of emergence and that's it...

You don't see why ant colonies aren't actually intelligent?

7:47 PM

That is emergent intelligence.

Does ant colony experience sense of self?

Actually as a group they seem to develop culture, yes.

Deleted User

Does ant colony experience sense of self?

I've wondered this since I was a kid

Is culture = self?

In rudimentary ways.

I am tempted to argue ~~yes~~ that they are an experiencer, although we fail to recognize it and do not want to wrestle with the idea that what we think makes us special also exists in a colony of ants (edited)

I think you are very loosely using the word "self"

7:48 PM

you need to define what you mean by that

7:48 PM

and by illusion of self

7:48 PM

because you ended up saying that ant colony experiences self because they have culture

No, I'm saying it's an emergent system.

7:48 PM

It's a parallel not the same phenomena.

And you compared emergent intelligence to emergent sense of self

Deleted User

I was thinking on a sub-atomic level when I said gravity could be ignored in some cases.

Ahhh, gotcha.

Those might be completely different phenomena

7:49 PM

I still don't know what illusion of sense even means

Do you understand what emergence is? It is something that does not exist in a concrete way being produced behaviourally.

7:49 PM

That is by definition, illusory.

And here, we are experiencing sense of self

7:49 PM

Who is experiencing it?

7:50 PM

I really am struggling to follow what you mean because you just don't define what you mean...

7:50 PM

well anyway I need to go

The brain is generating an experience and writing it to memory. There is no self, self implies identity.

Zen

Do you understand what emergence is? It is something that does not exist in a concrete way being produced behaviourally.

Not sure I understand that definition, would it annoy you to elaborate a little? (edited)

But what is self!

7:50 PM

ughh

identity? Past tense of consciousness, perhaps?

Deleted User

But what is self!

And with that, huge swaths of psychology and philosophy over the past centuries was successfully summarized.

Lmao

well sense of self is actually well understood by psychology

Oh is it?

Unfastened Belts

Not sure I understand that definition, would it annoy you to elaborate a little? (edited)

Emergent intelligence, is something which appears to be intelligent due to a complex series of interconnected sub-systems. To bring it back to the ant analogy. Ants have a number of pheromonal signals and instincts which make them; as a group; do interesting, unified behaviour which isn't actually intrinsically part of an ant. A colony does not meaningfully gain awareness of danger, it simply responds instinctively to certain chemical signals. Thing is. We are this too, whether people like it or not. We're a big damn cluster of neurons in a funny shape, talking electrically with one another and self-regulating chemical inputs collectively referred to as emotion and sensation. The ants that are neurons are not individually capable of intelligence. The intelligence arises from the whole system of a functional brain. Self is nothing more than those chemical inputs causing us to behave in a certain manner. The brain doesn't have to operate that way, it can as I'm sure people agree here, have more than one sense of self. We also know it can have none, though it will try to fill the void after a certain age by rebooting it's notable that ever ego-death you do reform new neural pathways, though you possess the same memories, that new self will act noticeably differently than the previous one even if it identifies the same using the same chemicals.

Nice, I can agree with most of this

8:05 PM

which isn't actually intrinsically part of an ant

This part trips me up a bit though haha

The distinction is this: An individual ant doesn't have the capacity to go "This chemical means danger." That's something the group-mind is experiencing. A neuron cannot by itself experience emotion, that is something the parts of the brain which regulate those chemicals are receiving as input. The neuron, like the ant, does not see the chemical and think danger. The ant simply responds and it causes the whole system to appear to be intelligent. And that might be how intelligence itself simply is.

all i see is that sense of self is emergent, i can't see why it makes it an illusion (edited)

I get it, even though I don't think I can explain it

Depends on your definition. It exists; but it does not exist concretely.

define yours pls

8:08 PM

it's your claim

? In what way. I don't get why you can't see that emergent things don't really exist in the tangible sense?

Zen

The distinction is this: An individual ant doesn't have the capacity to go "This chemical means danger." That's something the group-mind is experiencing. A neuron cannot by itself experience emotion, that is something the parts of the brain which regulate those chemicals are receiving as input. The neuron, like the ant, does not see the chemical and think danger. The ant simply responds and it causes the whole system to appear to be intelligent. And that might be how intelligence itself simply is.

Got it

KiTkAT( •̀ .̫ •́ )✧/jk

define yours pls

How about you supply yours, I mean, the one well understood by psychology?

Culture is another example. Humans also have emergent group intelligence, but it's based on how we react to one another rather than an innate group culture.

Unfastened Belts

How about you supply yours, I mean, the one well understood by psychology?

i am not making a claim

Culture does not tangibly exist either.

i want to know what he's talking about, i don't assume anything

It shifts entirely based on what we as individuals do.

i still don't understand what are the implications of self being illusion

I'm not saying you're making a claim, I just wanna hear the psychological explanation as relayed by you!

it doesn't really matter what i mean by that, because that wouldn't fit what zen is saying probably

8:12 PM

we should avoid assuming what someone else means

Functionally it doesn't really have implications other than the assertion itself: Consciousness and self are behavioural expressions, rather than some sort of concrete thing.

8:13 PM

Functionally it works exactly the same, except when that illusion breaks down of course.

8:13 PM

Which is usually mental illness.

Zen

Depends on your definition. It exists; but it does not exist concretely.

Not to be a bother, but what do you mean by "concretely"? Just because individual ants/neurons aren't intelligent, I don't see why you would say "the ant colony/human brain isn't intelligent"

I definitely don't think brains and ant colonies aren't intelligent. I'm inclined to think all intelligence is distinctly emergent. I have not seen another example of an intelligent system and don't know if such a thing is even conceivable.

so is ant colony intelligent, or illusory intelligent?

Intelligence is illusory because it is emergent. It's the result of overlapping simple systems.

i really can't see why emergent=illusory

8:18 PM

if an experiencer is emergent, then

8:18 PM

"i am an illusion" says the experiencer

8:19 PM

do you experience being?

8:19 PM

when you say illusion, what does it mean? that it doesn't exist?

8:21 PM

why call it illusion rather than emergent, if those two seem to mean the same to you?

8:21 PM

if it's not the same, what\s the difference?

an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.

This is the definition of an illusion. We perceive a self, but cannot point to one.

1

who is perceiving if not the self?

Science.

this is why i asked you to define terms, i sitll don't know what you are talking about

8:22 PM

you use terms very loosely and probably differently than i think of them

Our own senses fail us in this regard, tools are required to show emergence on such a small scale.

While it's a fair question, I have always felt turned off by the "What does it really mean to be a person?" question. It's like asking about if heaven and hell are real and then someone saying "What does it mean to be a good person?". In the wrong context, it feels like it's avoiding the question entirely. There's usually an underlying assumption that the only real identity is the one other people recognize. You are what they think you are, and you're labeled by your body, name, sex, and face. I think the simple answer will be no, tulpamancy will never be real because the only real part is the body and whatever the body does infront of you. You have to redefine what an identity is in order for tulpamancy to make any sense. (edited)

Zen

Our own senses fail us in this regard, tools are required to show emergence on such a small scale.

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

8:29 PM

if you are using illusive tools, are the results also illusory?

8:31 PM

if everything emergent is illusory, how are your tools resulted in emergence not illusory?