Luke is just a stupid bitch.
When Vader found out his son was alive he totally wanted to team up on the emperor, would be awesome.

Vader: Join me, and together we can make the galaxy great again
Luke: Feel the BEEEEEEEERN (while falling)

HOLD the heck up, son, you're about to get knowledge all up in this thread.

Vader didn't want to kill the Emperor because he was good. He wanted to kill him so he could become the next Sith lord. See, waaaaaaaay back in the days of the Old Republic, the Sith weren't just a master and a apprentice, they were an entire order, just like the Jedi. However, due to the nature of the Dark Side this resulted in a bunch of infighting, rather than combating the Light Side.

Thus, Darth Bane tricked the rest of the Sith into offing themselves and initiated the Rule of Two: there would only be two Sith. The master would rule as Lord of the Sith until the apprentice had learned everything they could from the master, and became strong enough to overcome them. This would ensure only the most powerful and ruthless of the Sith would be in charge, and it would also ensure that the Sith would continue to grow in their knowledge of the Dark Side.

Whenever the Rule of Two has been usurped, it always ends up harming the Sith. For example: Darth Malak never fought his master, Darth Revan. He simply betrayed him to the Jedi so that he could become Lord of the Sith. This resulted in Revan turning back to the Light Side and royally kicking Malak's ass. Palpatine was also usurping the Rule of Two, but in a less obvious way. His reconstruction of Vader left him as a shadow of the man he once was. He was a brutal enforcer, to be sure, but his cybernetic implants and limbs greatly weakened his connection to the Force. Palpatine purposefully kept Vader like that because he knew that Vader wasn't strong enough to challenge him.

Thus, Vader's attempts to turn Luke (and earlier, his attempts to train his own apprentice, Starkiller) were him attempting to overcome the power imbalance between him and Palpatine. Ironically enough, I'm pretty sure it was Palpatine's efforts to stay in power that resulted in Vader turning on him in the end. Had Palpatiene helped Vader reach his true potential, and had Vader killed Palpatine to become the Sith Lord, I'm pretty sure Luke wouldn't have been able to turn him back to the Light Side.

In Episode III Darth Pope Benedict lied to Anakin, claiming he killed Padme.
When he found out his son was alive i'm sure he got pissed off and wanted nothing more but to get even with the emperor.
So i he wants to team up with his son.

I actually have no idea what i'm talking about, get off my back i just wanted to make a political reference
Also, tell me more about Darth Bane
Why does he wear the mask?

This part of the story was not made when empire strike back was released. The prequels are more like a retcon really.

well fuck, his name is Bane and he wears a mask.
Thats just lazy writing from somebody

he actually wears a mask?

I laughed, thumbed you to a solid neutral.

He wanted to take over the empire, it would literally change nothing, he would still be a sith lord and would just have Luke as a sith on his side as well.

it might have actually made shit worse...civil war among the empire, and the rebel alliance fighting them.

I started off at swinging bridge and I went to lower Yosemite falls, and some how I accidentally went to curry village.

Yea you can only use an isolated example when you are talking about shootings in ggun free zones.

You don't seem to get the idea that it's very hard (read: nearly impossible) to disprove the existence of something.
Russel's Teapot mean anything to you?

In fact, your whole spiel about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only half the story. The full quote goes: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except in cases where evidence should be present"
Meaning: If there is a Loch Ness monster, we should've seen evidence of it, and we haven't. Evidence of absence.

The religion thing is actually my prime example.
Assuming there's any kind of logic in the world (as in, X cannot be both X and "not X" at the same time), most people are wrong about religious claims, as they contradict each other.
If christians are right, muslims and jews are wrong, and vice versa. That means that at least most of the population of planet earth is wrong. No matter who's right, most people are wrong.
Since you're so keen on using fallacies, you used the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I'll paraphrase you: "So many people believe this and spend so much time in it, it doesn't make sense if it's not true"
And my examples are perfect to refute this idea of yours.
Yes, many people can in fact be wrong. As a further proof, most people are wrong about this particular topic that many spend their entire lives devoted to.

"It's not like those religions don't have the capability of being true"
Which is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, most (if not all) of the world religions are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the others are necessarily false.
And since no one religion is followed by the majority of earth's population, most people will be wrong.
Unless you accept that logical contradictions can exist, you must agree with this conclusion.

Not sure if you mean to use fractions as a way to refute a argumentum ad populum fallacy, but if you are, then that doesn't add up.

Yes, only certain religious views in the world can be right, while the rest are wrong, in this case the minority whatever it is will be right. But that's irrelevant to our entire conversation, because it's probably pretty safe to say that the majority of the world's people are not going to believe in tulpas. Then the fallacy cuts the other way, instead being "Most people think this is false, so it must be false." So majorities and minorities are irrelevant, because for pretty much any argument (depending on it's broadness, religion being far more broad than the discussion we're having), is going to leave anyone who disagrees with your argument, part of the demographic of people that disagree with you, which will add up as a majority over your minority.

Our argument is a true or false question, while the one you're making example of is a multiple choice question, which dozens more than 2. The logic that would apply in that argument, is not really logic that applies as well in this argument. So yes, 2 logic systems can contradict each other, but only if you purposely use it in a place where it doesn't apply, in this case religion versus this true or false question.

Your argument would have been fit to refute the statement "The religion that the majority of people follow must be the correct one". Which would be stupidly easy of course, because no religion has 51% of the population. My point being, we're not arguing a multiple choice argument, we're arguing a true/false argument. So religion being your prime example is irrelevant.

As for the Loch Ness monster, you basically argued for what I already said. And for the quote you state I misinterpret, you yourself are actively misinterpreting. As for this argument, versus the lochness monster or Bigfoot, this isn't necessarily a case where evidence (that you find acceptable) should be present. Your attitude implies "evidence should always be present" despite heavy differences between these cases, being your examples.

So I state again, your examples are not worthy comparisons of what we're talking about. Two large, undiscovered, creatures, versus a difficult to detect mental phenomenon.

"A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about"
And instead of seeing this as an issue, you see it as confirmation that he's right?
This is me claiming I have a dragon in my back yard that only I can see.

As for your last two lines, I have a very short response.
Christianity.
Islam.
UFO sightings.
Loch Ness Monster.
Bigfoot.

Millions if not billions of people believe in these things, spend their entire lives devoted ot it, etc etc.
Saying "well they wouldn't put so much work into something that isn't true" is really just plain ignorant and naive.

You don't seem to get the idea that it's very hard (read: nearly impossible) to disprove the existence of something.
Russel's Teapot mean anything to you?

In fact, your whole spiel about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only half the story. The full quote goes: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except in cases where evidence should be present"
Meaning: If there is a Loch Ness monster, we should've seen evidence of it, and we haven't. Evidence of absence.

The religion thing is actually my prime example.
Assuming there's any kind of logic in the world (as in, X cannot be both X and "not X" at the same time), most people are wrong about religious claims, as they contradict each other.
If christians are right, muslims and jews are wrong, and vice versa. That means that at least most of the population of planet earth is wrong. No matter who's right, most people are wrong.
Since you're so keen on using fallacies, you used the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I'll paraphrase you: "So many people believe this and spend so much time in it, it doesn't make sense if it's not true"
And my examples are perfect to refute this idea of yours.
Yes, many people can in fact be wrong. As a further proof, most people are wrong about this particular topic that many spend their entire lives devoted to.

"It's not like those religions don't have the capability of being true"
Which is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, most (if not all) of the world religions are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the others are necessarily false.
And since no one religion is followed by the majority of earth's population, most people will be wrong.
Unless you accept that logical contradictions can exist, you must agree with this conclusion.

Not sure if you mean to use fractions as a way to refute a argumentum ad populum fallacy, but if you are, then that doesn't add up.

Yes, only certain religious views in the world can be right, while the rest are wrong, in this case the minority whatever it is will be right. But that's irrelevant to our entire conversation, because it's probably pretty safe to say that the majority of the world's people are not going to believe in tulpas. Then the fallacy cuts the other way, instead being "Most people think this is false, so it must be false." So majorities and minorities are irrelevant, because for pretty much any argument (depending on it's broadness, religion being far more broad than the discussion we're having), is going to leave anyone who disagrees with your argument, part of the demographic of people that disagree with you, which will add up as a majority over your minority.

Our argument is a true or false question, while the one you're making example of is a multiple choice question, which dozens more than 2. The logic that would apply in that argument, is not really logic that applies as well in this argument. So yes, 2 logic systems can contradict each other, but only if you purposely use it in a place where it doesn't apply, in this case religion versus this true or false question.

Your argument would have been fit to refute the statement "The religion that the majority of people follow must be the correct one". Which would be stupidly easy of course, because no religion has 51% of the population. My point being, we're not arguing a multiple choice argument, we're arguing a true/false argument. So religion being your prime example is irrelevant.

As for the Loch Ness monster, you basically argued for what I already said. And for the quote you state I misinterpret, you yourself are actively misinterpreting. As for this argument, versus the lochness monster or Bigfoot, this isn't necessarily a case where evidence (that you find acceptable) should be present. Your attitude implies "evidence should always be present" despite heavy differences between these cases, being your examples.

So I state again, your examples are not worthy comparisons of what we're talking about. Two large, undiscovered, creatures, versus a difficult to detect mental phenomenon.

I really don't care about the numbers, as I've said.
I care about having a civil discussion that isn't soured by someone thumbing me down as I talk to them.

Claiming you see or feel your tulpa is the same as the guy in the insane asylum who claims he can see spiders crawling up and down his legs.
The person who claims they have a tulpa needs to prove that they don't belong in the insane asylum with the spider guy.

I'll go ahead and assume you don't immediately believe in people who claim there are spiders crawling on them (when you don't see them), so what's your justification for believing in tulpas?
What's the fundamental difference?
That the tulpa people want to see the spiders? Doesn't make them any more real.

Well for one, asylums aren't for treating people just because they have mental anomalies. It's for treating people who have a mental anomaly that makes them harmful to themselves or others. The man who thinks spiders are crawling on his leg probably can't sleep at night very well and probably lives in a constant state of terror. He might harm his body as a means to escape this perceived terror or perceive this terror in others where it doesn't exist and harm them. That's the point it becomes a mental illness that needs to be treated for the good of everyone. People with tulpas, they just have companions in their minds. Not really harmful at all, also considering that only mentally healthy and mature people are encouraged to make tulpas, because of the commitment they're making on their own psyche, and it's not something that an easily fascinated teenager should just jump into, but unfortunately many of these teenagers likely avoid the warnings and do it anyway, which in the end is at their own peril.

Also difference between external perception. He sees with his eyes there are spiders crawling all over his leg, me and other witnesses (if you accept witness testimony) can look at his legs and see they are absent with spiders or bites. A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about (because we aren't asari from Mass Effect). I can't go into his mind and disprove the absence of a companion, but I can't disprove it either because I can't check. There is not sufficient evidence to disprove tulpas, just like how there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove, you're not just a brain in a vat.

As for the justification for believing it. It seems unlikely that trolls or roleplayers would write a ton of guides, making well established communities like tulpa.info and /r/tulpas with plenty of other people believing it, and all these people having so much information and research on a delusion. Not denying that these roleplayers and trolls exist of course they do, but they don't make up the entirety. I also doubt that all these delusional people are having such similar delusions and continuing to grow with more and more successful people all the time

My logic says that's too ridiculous, there has to be something to all of this. Besides the fact that all these thousands of people are just desperately pretending all their combined experiences and effort toward this are real. That's just too unfeasible for me. If everyone's experience was that fake, no way it would grow that much at all, besides having a shit ton of people say it's bullshit and leave. Which I'm sure some do, but they most likely just couldn't pull it off.

"A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about"
And instead of seeing this as an issue, you see it as confirmation that he's right?
This is me claiming I have a dragon in my back yard that only I can see.

As for your last two lines, I have a very short response.
Christianity.
Islam.
UFO sightings.
Loch Ness Monster.
Bigfoot.

Millions if not billions of people believe in these things, spend their entire lives devoted ot it, etc etc.
Saying "well they wouldn't put so much work into something that isn't true" is really just plain ignorant and naive.

You don't seem to get the idea that it's very hard (read: nearly impossible) to disprove the existence of something.
Russel's Teapot mean anything to you?

In fact, your whole spiel about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only half the story. The full quote goes: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except in cases where evidence should be present"
Meaning: If there is a Loch Ness monster, we should've seen evidence of it, and we haven't. Evidence of absence.

The religion thing is actually my prime example.
Assuming there's any kind of logic in the world (as in, X cannot be both X and "not X" at the same time), most people are wrong about religious claims, as they contradict each other.
If christians are right, muslims and jews are wrong, and vice versa. That means that at least most of the population of planet earth is wrong. No matter who's right, most people are wrong.
Since you're so keen on using fallacies, you used the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I'll paraphrase you: "So many people believe this and spend so much time in it, it doesn't make sense if it's not true"
And my examples are perfect to refute this idea of yours.
Yes, many people can in fact be wrong. As a further proof, most people are wrong about this particular topic that many spend their entire lives devoted to.

"It's not like those religions don't have the capability of being true"
Which is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, most (if not all) of the world religions are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the others are necessarily false.
And since no one religion is followed by the majority of earth's population, most people will be wrong.
Unless you accept that logical contradictions can exist, you must agree with this conclusion.

Not sure if you mean to use fractions as a way to refute a argumentum ad populum fallacy, but if you are, then that doesn't add up.

Yes, only certain religious views in the world can be right, while the rest are wrong, in this case the minority whatever it is will be right. But that's irrelevant to our entire conversation, because it's probably pretty safe to say that the majority of the world's people are not going to believe in tulpas. Then the fallacy cuts the other way, instead being "Most people think this is false, so it must be false." So majorities and minorities are irrelevant, because for pretty much any argument (depending on it's broadness, religion being far more broad than the discussion we're having), is going to leave anyone who disagrees with your argument, part of the demographic of people that disagree with you, which will add up as a majority over your minority.

Our argument is a true or false question, while the one you're making example of is a multiple choice question, which dozens more than 2. The logic that would apply in that argument, is not really logic that applies as well in this argument. So yes, 2 logic systems can contradict each other, but only if you purposely use it in a place where it doesn't apply, in this case religion versus this true or false question.

Your argument would have been fit to refute the statement "The religion that the majority of people follow must be the correct one". Which would be stupidly easy of course, because no religion has 51% of the population. My point being, we're not arguing a multiple choice argument, we're arguing a true/false argument. So religion being your prime example is irrelevant.

As for the Loch Ness monster, you basically argued for what I already said. And for the quote you state I misinterpret, you yourself are actively misinterpreting. As for this argument, versus the lochness monster or Bigfoot, this isn't necessarily a case where evidence (that you find acceptable) should be present. Your attitude implies "evidence should always be present" despite heavy differences between these cases, being your examples.

So I state again, your examples are not worthy comparisons of what we're talking about. Two large, undiscovered, creatures, versus a difficult to detect mental phenomenon.

Doing it afterwards would be like having a (proper) discussion with someone, end on good terms, and then shit-talking them after you leave. Slightly less rude, but still being an asshole.

No, I consider it about as rude as having a face-to-face discussion with someone, and when a random person walks by, you turn around and say "Hey, this guy I'm talking to is a moron, lol"
I'll remove the reds I put on you.

That's not an absurdity, if you know anything about philosophy, you probably know about the brain in a vat theory. The point of that being is that there is no evidence you aren't just a brain being fed imaginary stimuli, where you only think you're living a real life, using a real computer, talking to real people on the internet.

The point of it being, is that it's a claim that is impossible to find a way to refute, until I don't know, the scientist taking care of your brain reveals it to you. Point being "there's nothing to suggest that this is anything other than self-delusion." the same concept applies to brain in a vat. There's nothing to suggest you aren't just a brain in a vat besides the fact that you don't believe it, which isn't evidence.

If that's an absurdity, so is automatically assuming it's all self delusion because there's no evidence (evidence that you see anyway) proving otherwise.

Claiming you see or feel your tulpa is the same as the guy in the insane asylum who claims he can see spiders crawling up and down his legs.
The person who claims they have a tulpa needs to prove that they don't belong in the insane asylum with the spider guy.

I'll go ahead and assume you don't immediately believe in people who claim there are spiders crawling on them (when you don't see them), so what's your justification for believing in tulpas?
What's the fundamental difference?
That the tulpa people want to see the spiders? Doesn't make them any more real.

Well for one, asylums aren't for treating people just because they have mental anomalies. It's for treating people who have a mental anomaly that makes them harmful to themselves or others. The man who thinks spiders are crawling on his leg probably can't sleep at night very well and probably lives in a constant state of terror. He might harm his body as a means to escape this perceived terror or perceive this terror in others where it doesn't exist and harm them. That's the point it becomes a mental illness that needs to be treated for the good of everyone. People with tulpas, they just have companions in their minds. Not really harmful at all, also considering that only mentally healthy and mature people are encouraged to make tulpas, because of the commitment they're making on their own psyche, and it's not something that an easily fascinated teenager should just jump into, but unfortunately many of these teenagers likely avoid the warnings and do it anyway, which in the end is at their own peril.

Also difference between external perception. He sees with his eyes there are spiders crawling all over his leg, me and other witnesses (if you accept witness testimony) can look at his legs and see they are absent with spiders or bites. A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about (because we aren't asari from Mass Effect). I can't go into his mind and disprove the absence of a companion, but I can't disprove it either because I can't check. There is not sufficient evidence to disprove tulpas, just like how there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove, you're not just a brain in a vat.

As for the justification for believing it. It seems unlikely that trolls or roleplayers would write a ton of guides, making well established communities like tulpa.info and /r/tulpas with plenty of other people believing it, and all these people having so much information and research on a delusion. Not denying that these roleplayers and trolls exist of course they do, but they don't make up the entirety. I also doubt that all these delusional people are having such similar delusions and continuing to grow with more and more successful people all the time

My logic says that's too ridiculous, there has to be something to all of this. Besides the fact that all these thousands of people are just desperately pretending all their combined experiences and effort toward this are real. That's just too unfeasible for me. If everyone's experience was that fake, no way it would grow that much at all, besides having a shit ton of people say it's bullshit and leave. Which I'm sure some do, but they most likely just couldn't pull it off.

"A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about"
And instead of seeing this as an issue, you see it as confirmation that he's right?
This is me claiming I have a dragon in my back yard that only I can see.

As for your last two lines, I have a very short response.
Christianity.
Islam.
UFO sightings.
Loch Ness Monster.
Bigfoot.

Millions if not billions of people believe in these things, spend their entire lives devoted ot it, etc etc.
Saying "well they wouldn't put so much work into something that isn't true" is really just plain ignorant and naive.

You don't seem to get the idea that it's very hard (read: nearly impossible) to disprove the existence of something.
Russel's Teapot mean anything to you?

In fact, your whole spiel about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only half the story. The full quote goes: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except in cases where evidence should be present"
Meaning: If there is a Loch Ness monster, we should've seen evidence of it, and we haven't. Evidence of absence.

The religion thing is actually my prime example.
Assuming there's any kind of logic in the world (as in, X cannot be both X and "not X" at the same time), most people are wrong about religious claims, as they contradict each other.
If christians are right, muslims and jews are wrong, and vice versa. That means that at least most of the population of planet earth is wrong. No matter who's right, most people are wrong.
Since you're so keen on using fallacies, you used the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I'll paraphrase you: "So many people believe this and spend so much time in it, it doesn't make sense if it's not true"
And my examples are perfect to refute this idea of yours.
Yes, many people can in fact be wrong. As a further proof, most people are wrong about this particular topic that many spend their entire lives devoted to.

"It's not like those religions don't have the capability of being true"
Which is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, most (if not all) of the world religions are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the others are necessarily false.
And since no one religion is followed by the majority of earth's population, most people will be wrong.
Unless you accept that logical contradictions can exist, you must agree with this conclusion.

Not sure if you mean to use fractions as a way to refute a argumentum ad populum fallacy, but if you are, then that doesn't add up.

Yes, only certain religious views in the world can be right, while the rest are wrong, in this case the minority whatever it is will be right. But that's irrelevant to our entire conversation, because it's probably pretty safe to say that the majority of the world's people are not going to believe in tulpas. Then the fallacy cuts the other way, instead being "Most people think this is false, so it must be false." So majorities and minorities are irrelevant, because for pretty much any argument (depending on it's broadness, religion being far more broad than the discussion we're having), is going to leave anyone who disagrees with your argument, part of the demographic of people that disagree with you, which will add up as a majority over your minority.

Our argument is a true or false question, while the one you're making example of is a multiple choice question, which dozens more than 2. The logic that would apply in that argument, is not really logic that applies as well in this argument. So yes, 2 logic systems can contradict each other, but only if you purposely use it in a place where it doesn't apply, in this case religion versus this true or false question.

Your argument would have been fit to refute the statement "The religion that the majority of people follow must be the correct one". Which would be stupidly easy of course, because no religion has 51% of the population. My point being, we're not arguing a multiple choice argument, we're arguing a true/false argument. So religion being your prime example is irrelevant.

As for the Loch Ness monster, you basically argued for what I already said. And for the quote you state I misinterpret, you yourself are actively misinterpreting. As for this argument, versus the lochness monster or Bigfoot, this isn't necessarily a case where evidence (that you find acceptable) should be present. Your attitude implies "evidence should always be present" despite heavy differences between these cases, being your examples.

So I state again, your examples are not worthy comparisons of what we're talking about. Two large, undiscovered, creatures, versus a difficult to detect mental phenomenon.

It's not about the numbers, it's about the intent behind them.
I find it rude to thumb down the person you're currently talking to.

>>#188

Fair enough, the thread numbers are approximately equal now, besides you having 60 thumbs of course.

I really don't care about the numbers, as I've said.
I care about having a civil discussion that isn't soured by someone thumbing me down as I talk to them.

If that's the case then apologies you saw it that way. Hopefully my explanation has made you see what the intent actually was. Also did you imply it would be fine if I thumbed you down after our discussion concluded? Because the result seems the same, except maybe the fact the bandwagon would likely already have begun at that point.

Doing it afterwards would be like having a (proper) discussion with someone, end on good terms, and then shit-talking them after you leave. Slightly less rude, but still being an asshole.

No, I consider it about as rude as having a face-to-face discussion with someone, and when a random person walks by, you turn around and say "Hey, this guy I'm talking to is a moron, lol"
I'll remove the reds I put on you.

What makes you think I haven't already tried it?

See I did actually go through the whole thing. Remove doubts, practice daily, yadda yadda, and I did this for several months.
In the end, there was no way for me to verify that the "feelings" or "thoughts" I thought i was "receiving", were anything else than wishful thinking and my own subconscious.

There's no doubt that you can condition your brain into thinking that there's something there.
The question is whether there's actually another "entity" in there, and there's nothing to suggest that this is anything other than self-delusion.

There's also nothing to suggest you aren't just a brain in a vat.

That's not an absurdity, if you know anything about philosophy, you probably know about the brain in a vat theory. The point of that being is that there is no evidence you aren't just a brain being fed imaginary stimuli, where you only think you're living a real life, using a real computer, talking to real people on the internet.

The point of it being, is that it's a claim that is impossible to find a way to refute, until I don't know, the scientist taking care of your brain reveals it to you. Point being "there's nothing to suggest that this is anything other than self-delusion." the same concept applies to brain in a vat. There's nothing to suggest you aren't just a brain in a vat besides the fact that you don't believe it, which isn't evidence.

If that's an absurdity, so is automatically assuming it's all self delusion because there's no evidence (evidence that you see anyway) proving otherwise.

Claiming you see or feel your tulpa is the same as the guy in the insane asylum who claims he can see spiders crawling up and down his legs.
The person who claims they have a tulpa needs to prove that they don't belong in the insane asylum with the spider guy.

I'll go ahead and assume you don't immediately believe in people who claim there are spiders crawling on them (when you don't see them), so what's your justification for believing in tulpas?
What's the fundamental difference?
That the tulpa people want to see the spiders? Doesn't make them any more real.

Well for one, asylums aren't for treating people just because they have mental anomalies. It's for treating people who have a mental anomaly that makes them harmful to themselves or others. The man who thinks spiders are crawling on his leg probably can't sleep at night very well and probably lives in a constant state of terror. He might harm his body as a means to escape this perceived terror or perceive this terror in others where it doesn't exist and harm them. That's the point it becomes a mental illness that needs to be treated for the good of everyone. People with tulpas, they just have companions in their minds. Not really harmful at all, also considering that only mentally healthy and mature people are encouraged to make tulpas, because of the commitment they're making on their own psyche, and it's not something that an easily fascinated teenager should just jump into, but unfortunately many of these teenagers likely avoid the warnings and do it anyway, which in the end is at their own peril.

Also difference between external perception. He sees with his eyes there are spiders crawling all over his leg, me and other witnesses (if you accept witness testimony) can look at his legs and see they are absent with spiders or bites. A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about (because we aren't asari from Mass Effect). I can't go into his mind and disprove the absence of a companion, but I can't disprove it either because I can't check. There is not sufficient evidence to disprove tulpas, just like how there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove, you're not just a brain in a vat.

As for the justification for believing it. It seems unlikely that trolls or roleplayers would write a ton of guides, making well established communities like tulpa.info and /r/tulpas with plenty of other people believing it, and all these people having so much information and research on a delusion. Not denying that these roleplayers and trolls exist of course they do, but they don't make up the entirety. I also doubt that all these delusional people are having such similar delusions and continuing to grow with more and more successful people all the time

My logic says that's too ridiculous, there has to be something to all of this. Besides the fact that all these thousands of people are just desperately pretending all their combined experiences and effort toward this are real. That's just too unfeasible for me. If everyone's experience was that fake, no way it would grow that much at all, besides having a shit ton of people say it's bullshit and leave. Which I'm sure some do, but they most likely just couldn't pull it off.

"A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about"
And instead of seeing this as an issue, you see it as confirmation that he's right?
This is me claiming I have a dragon in my back yard that only I can see.

As for your last two lines, I have a very short response.
Christianity.
Islam.
UFO sightings.
Loch Ness Monster.
Bigfoot.

Millions if not billions of people believe in these things, spend their entire lives devoted ot it, etc etc.
Saying "well they wouldn't put so much work into something that isn't true" is really just plain ignorant and naive.

You don't seem to get the idea that it's very hard (read: nearly impossible) to disprove the existence of something.
Russel's Teapot mean anything to you?

In fact, your whole spiel about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only half the story. The full quote goes: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except in cases where evidence should be present"
Meaning: If there is a Loch Ness monster, we should've seen evidence of it, and we haven't. Evidence of absence.

The religion thing is actually my prime example.
Assuming there's any kind of logic in the world (as in, X cannot be both X and "not X" at the same time), most people are wrong about religious claims, as they contradict each other.
If christians are right, muslims and jews are wrong, and vice versa. That means that at least most of the population of planet earth is wrong. No matter who's right, most people are wrong.
Since you're so keen on using fallacies, you used the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I'll paraphrase you: "So many people believe this and spend so much time in it, it doesn't make sense if it's not true"
And my examples are perfect to refute this idea of yours.
Yes, many people can in fact be wrong. As a further proof, most people are wrong about this particular topic that many spend their entire lives devoted to.

"It's not like those religions don't have the capability of being true"
Which is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, most (if not all) of the world religions are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the others are necessarily false.
And since no one religion is followed by the majority of earth's population, most people will be wrong.
Unless you accept that logical contradictions can exist, you must agree with this conclusion.

Not sure if you mean to use fractions as a way to refute a argumentum ad populum fallacy, but if you are, then that doesn't add up.

Yes, only certain religious views in the world can be right, while the rest are wrong, in this case the minority whatever it is will be right. But that's irrelevant to our entire conversation, because it's probably pretty safe to say that the majority of the world's people are not going to believe in tulpas. Then the fallacy cuts the other way, instead being "Most people think this is false, so it must be false." So majorities and minorities are irrelevant, because for pretty much any argument (depending on it's broadness, religion being far more broad than the discussion we're having), is going to leave anyone who disagrees with your argument, part of the demographic of people that disagree with you, which will add up as a majority over your minority.

Our argument is a true or false question, while the one you're making example of is a multiple choice question, which dozens more than 2. The logic that would apply in that argument, is not really logic that applies as well in this argument. So yes, 2 logic systems can contradict each other, but only if you purposely use it in a place where it doesn't apply, in this case religion versus this true or false question.

Your argument would have been fit to refute the statement "The religion that the majority of people follow must be the correct one". Which would be stupidly easy of course, because no religion has 51% of the population. My point being, we're not arguing a multiple choice argument, we're arguing a true/false argument. So religion being your prime example is irrelevant.

As for the Loch Ness monster, you basically argued for what I already said. And for the quote you state I misinterpret, you yourself are actively misinterpreting. As for this argument, versus the lochness monster or Bigfoot, this isn't necessarily a case where evidence (that you find acceptable) should be present. Your attitude implies "evidence should always be present" despite heavy differences between these cases, being your examples.

So I state again, your examples are not worthy comparisons of what we're talking about. Two large, undiscovered, creatures, versus a difficult to detect mental phenomenon.

You're "attacking" me in the hope that others won't "attack" you, essentially.

In the hopes that the chances that you and me aren't "attacked" or "defended" because of the numbers that were already there. So in the interest you, technically no unless you care about fairness as well, in the interest of fairness which is right, yes.

Besides do you really care? the 53 (+4 from just a few minutes ago) is hardly torn down by 3 thumbs. Don't know why you're so butthurt in a number battle you're winning no matter what.

It's not about the numbers, it's about the intent behind them.
I find it rude to thumb down the person you're currently talking to.

>>#188

Fair enough, the thread numbers are approximately equal now, besides you having 60 thumbs of course.

I really don't care about the numbers, as I've said.
I care about having a civil discussion that isn't soured by someone thumbing me down as I talk to them.

If that's the case then apologies you saw it that way. Hopefully my explanation has made you see what the intent actually was. Also did you imply it would be fine if I thumbed you down after our discussion concluded? Because the result seems the same, except maybe the fact the bandwagon would likely already have begun at that point.

Doing it afterwards would be like having a (proper) discussion with someone, end on good terms, and then shit-talking them after you leave. Slightly less rude, but still being an asshole.

No, I consider it about as rude as having a face-to-face discussion with someone, and when a random person walks by, you turn around and say "Hey, this guy I'm talking to is a moron, lol"
I'll remove the reds I put on you.

So you change the score from all zeroes to me having reds and you not having reds.
Is that not starting the bandwagon?

No. Because, you're giving me reds as well, now we both reds to start with, and you have a high thumbed comment of 49 thumbs so far. If no one thumbed like this now, everyone would universally be thumbing for you because you would be the one with a shit ton of thumbs and I with 0. Then people would start thumbing me down immediately because I'm the one opposing an upvoted comment, sheep logic.

But now hopefully the bandwagon effect is countered, to increase the chances of our comments being voted fairly by people reading them.

You're "attacking" me in the hope that others won't "attack" you, essentially.

In the hopes that the chances that you and me aren't "attacked" or "defended" because of the numbers that were already there. So in the interest you, technically no unless you care about fairness as well, in the interest of fairness which is right, yes.

Besides do you really care? the 53 (+4 from just a few minutes ago) is hardly torn down by 3 thumbs. Don't know why you're so butthurt in a number battle you're winning no matter what.

It's not about the numbers, it's about the intent behind them.
I find it rude to thumb down the person you're currently talking to.

>>#188

Fair enough, the thread numbers are approximately equal now, besides you having 60 thumbs of course.

I really don't care about the numbers, as I've said.
I care about having a civil discussion that isn't soured by someone thumbing me down as I talk to them.

If that's the case then apologies you saw it that way. Hopefully my explanation has made you see what the intent actually was. Also did you imply it would be fine if I thumbed you down after our discussion concluded? Because the result seems the same, except maybe the fact the bandwagon would likely already have begun at that point.

Doing it afterwards would be like having a (proper) discussion with someone, end on good terms, and then shit-talking them after you leave. Slightly less rude, but still being an asshole.

No, I consider it about as rude as having a face-to-face discussion with someone, and when a random person walks by, you turn around and say "Hey, this guy I'm talking to is a moron, lol"
I'll remove the reds I put on you.

You thumb me down in the hope that it attracts attention?

No, you can hardly influence attention here, also not what I said. It's to lessen the chance of the bandwagon effect of people thumbing blindly without doing either because they agree with me or you

So you change the score from all zeroes to me having reds and you not having reds.
Is that not starting the bandwagon?

No. Because, you're giving me reds as well, now we both reds to start with, and you have a high thumbed comment of 49 thumbs so far. If no one thumbed like this now, everyone would universally be thumbing for you because you would be the one with a shit ton of thumbs and I with 0. Then people would start thumbing me down immediately because I'm the one opposing an upvoted comment, sheep logic.

But now hopefully the bandwagon effect is countered, to increase the chances of our comments being voted fairly by people reading them.

You're "attacking" me in the hope that others won't "attack" you, essentially.

In the hopes that the chances that you and me aren't "attacked" or "defended" because of the numbers that were already there. So in the interest you, technically no unless you care about fairness as well, in the interest of fairness which is right, yes.

Besides do you really care? the 53 (+4 from just a few minutes ago) is hardly torn down by 3 thumbs. Don't know why you're so butthurt in a number battle you're winning no matter what.

It's not about the numbers, it's about the intent behind them.
I find it rude to thumb down the person you're currently talking to.

>>#188

Fair enough, the thread numbers are approximately equal now, besides you having 60 thumbs of course.

I really don't care about the numbers, as I've said.
I care about having a civil discussion that isn't soured by someone thumbing me down as I talk to them.

If that's the case then apologies you saw it that way. Hopefully my explanation has made you see what the intent actually was. Also did you imply it would be fine if I thumbed you down after our discussion concluded? Because the result seems the same, except maybe the fact the bandwagon would likely already have begun at that point.

Doing it afterwards would be like having a (proper) discussion with someone, end on good terms, and then shit-talking them after you leave. Slightly less rude, but still being an asshole.

No, I consider it about as rude as having a face-to-face discussion with someone, and when a random person walks by, you turn around and say "Hey, this guy I'm talking to is a moron, lol"
I'll remove the reds I put on you.

No. I disagree with the overall statements in 119 and 126, but not 150. Also considering that your comment of 14 is steadily getting more thumbs, the thumb situation in our argument thread is bound to reverse itself as per the bandwagon effect.

Or the odd combination of green and red will make viewers read the argument before they let the already voted thumbs decide for them, as per the bandwagon effect, and make an actual decision instead of a sheep one. All in the interests of a balanced argument I assure you.

You thumb me down in the hope that it attracts attention?

No, you can hardly influence attention here, also not what I said. It's to lessen the chance of the bandwagon effect of people thumbing blindly without doing either because they agree with me or you

So you change the score from all zeroes to me having reds and you not having reds.
Is that not starting the bandwagon?

No. Because, you're giving me reds as well, now we both reds to start with, and you have a high thumbed comment of 49 thumbs so far. If no one thumbed like this now, everyone would universally be thumbing for you because you would be the one with a shit ton of thumbs and I with 0. Then people would start thumbing me down immediately because I'm the one opposing an upvoted comment, sheep logic.

But now hopefully the bandwagon effect is countered, to increase the chances of our comments being voted fairly by people reading them.

You're "attacking" me in the hope that others won't "attack" you, essentially.

In the hopes that the chances that you and me aren't "attacked" or "defended" because of the numbers that were already there. So in the interest you, technically no unless you care about fairness as well, in the interest of fairness which is right, yes.

Besides do you really care? the 53 (+4 from just a few minutes ago) is hardly torn down by 3 thumbs. Don't know why you're so butthurt in a number battle you're winning no matter what.

It's not about the numbers, it's about the intent behind them.
I find it rude to thumb down the person you're currently talking to.

>>#188

Fair enough, the thread numbers are approximately equal now, besides you having 60 thumbs of course.

I really don't care about the numbers, as I've said.
I care about having a civil discussion that isn't soured by someone thumbing me down as I talk to them.

If that's the case then apologies you saw it that way. Hopefully my explanation has made you see what the intent actually was. Also did you imply it would be fine if I thumbed you down after our discussion concluded? Because the result seems the same, except maybe the fact the bandwagon would likely already have begun at that point.

Doing it afterwards would be like having a (proper) discussion with someone, end on good terms, and then shit-talking them after you leave. Slightly less rude, but still being an asshole.

No, I consider it about as rude as having a face-to-face discussion with someone, and when a random person walks by, you turn around and say "Hey, this guy I'm talking to is a moron, lol"
I'll remove the reds I put on you.

I have done so all along, as you can tell by >>#119

Allow me to explain this as clearly as I can.

If you cannot tell that there's something off about the picture, then you are beyond an uncanny valley reaction, and this picture falls beyond the valley, to you

Excellent. So you agree with me that's a subjective experience?

No. I disagree with the overall statements in 119 and 126, but not 150. Also considering that your comment of 14 is steadily getting more thumbs, the thumb situation in our argument thread is bound to reverse itself as per the bandwagon effect.

Or the odd combination of green and red will make viewers read the argument before they let the already voted thumbs decide for them, as per the bandwagon effect, and make an actual decision instead of a sheep one. All in the interests of a balanced argument I assure you.

You thumb me down in the hope that it attracts attention?

No, you can hardly influence attention here, also not what I said. It's to lessen the chance of the bandwagon effect of people thumbing blindly without doing either because they agree with me or you

So you change the score from all zeroes to me having reds and you not having reds.
Is that not starting the bandwagon?

No. Because, you're giving me reds as well, now we both reds to start with, and you have a high thumbed comment of 49 thumbs so far. If no one thumbed like this now, everyone would universally be thumbing for you because you would be the one with a shit ton of thumbs and I with 0. Then people would start thumbing me down immediately because I'm the one opposing an upvoted comment, sheep logic.

But now hopefully the bandwagon effect is countered, to increase the chances of our comments being voted fairly by people reading them.

You're "attacking" me in the hope that others won't "attack" you, essentially.

In the hopes that the chances that you and me aren't "attacked" or "defended" because of the numbers that were already there. So in the interest you, technically no unless you care about fairness as well, in the interest of fairness which is right, yes.

Besides do you really care? the 53 (+4 from just a few minutes ago) is hardly torn down by 3 thumbs. Don't know why you're so butthurt in a number battle you're winning no matter what.

It's not about the numbers, it's about the intent behind them.
I find it rude to thumb down the person you're currently talking to.

>>#188

Fair enough, the thread numbers are approximately equal now, besides you having 60 thumbs of course.

I really don't care about the numbers, as I've said.
I care about having a civil discussion that isn't soured by someone thumbing me down as I talk to them.

If that's the case then apologies you saw it that way. Hopefully my explanation has made you see what the intent actually was. Also did you imply it would be fine if I thumbed you down after our discussion concluded? Because the result seems the same, except maybe the fact the bandwagon would likely already have begun at that point.

Doing it afterwards would be like having a (proper) discussion with someone, end on good terms, and then shit-talking them after you leave. Slightly less rude, but still being an asshole.

No, I consider it about as rude as having a face-to-face discussion with someone, and when a random person walks by, you turn around and say "Hey, this guy I'm talking to is a moron, lol"
I'll remove the reds I put on you.

I have done so all along, as you can tell by >>#119

Since you speak of science, you know damn well that belief is only justified in the event that there's evidence to support the belief.
As it stands, there's no evidence that these people are anything other than deluded.

If they can prove that there's something real going on, fine.
Until that time, they're either consciously or subconsciously faking it, like people who speak in tongues.

Well many of the skeptics of this topic proved themselves wrong once they started achieving results. So if you wanted to follow in their footsteps, you'd have to create your own tulpa, and you wouldn't deny what you're perceiving with your own mind. However these people at least wanted to find out if it worked (I'm sensing you'd be significantly biased, which is fatal for a scientific investigation), and made efforts to remove their doubts because that's required for the process. Obviously this yielded fruit since their tulpas were evidence against their own skepticism.

Or for the solution that will take a while, wait for scholars and scientists like Samuel Veissiere put out concrete information. Like their studies and hopefully someday, a number of MRIs with subjects experienced with this phenomenon.

What makes you think I haven't already tried it?

See I did actually go through the whole thing. Remove doubts, practice daily, yadda yadda, and I did this for several months.
In the end, there was no way for me to verify that the "feelings" or "thoughts" I thought i was "receiving", were anything else than wishful thinking and my own subconscious.

There's no doubt that you can condition your brain into thinking that there's something there.
The question is whether there's actually another "entity" in there, and there's nothing to suggest that this is anything other than self-delusion.

There's also nothing to suggest you aren't just a brain in a vat.

That's not an absurdity, if you know anything about philosophy, you probably know about the brain in a vat theory. The point of that being is that there is no evidence you aren't just a brain being fed imaginary stimuli, where you only think you're living a real life, using a real computer, talking to real people on the internet.

The point of it being, is that it's a claim that is impossible to find a way to refute, until I don't know, the scientist taking care of your brain reveals it to you. Point being "there's nothing to suggest that this is anything other than self-delusion." the same concept applies to brain in a vat. There's nothing to suggest you aren't just a brain in a vat besides the fact that you don't believe it, which isn't evidence.

If that's an absurdity, so is automatically assuming it's all self delusion because there's no evidence (evidence that you see anyway) proving otherwise.

Claiming you see or feel your tulpa is the same as the guy in the insane asylum who claims he can see spiders crawling up and down his legs.
The person who claims they have a tulpa needs to prove that they don't belong in the insane asylum with the spider guy.

I'll go ahead and assume you don't immediately believe in people who claim there are spiders crawling on them (when you don't see them), so what's your justification for believing in tulpas?
What's the fundamental difference?
That the tulpa people want to see the spiders? Doesn't make them any more real.

Well for one, asylums aren't for treating people just because they have mental anomalies. It's for treating people who have a mental anomaly that makes them harmful to themselves or others. The man who thinks spiders are crawling on his leg probably can't sleep at night very well and probably lives in a constant state of terror. He might harm his body as a means to escape this perceived terror or perceive this terror in others where it doesn't exist and harm them. That's the point it becomes a mental illness that needs to be treated for the good of everyone. People with tulpas, they just have companions in their minds. Not really harmful at all, also considering that only mentally healthy and mature people are encouraged to make tulpas, because of the commitment they're making on their own psyche, and it's not something that an easily fascinated teenager should just jump into, but unfortunately many of these teenagers likely avoid the warnings and do it anyway, which in the end is at their own peril.

Also difference between external perception. He sees with his eyes there are spiders crawling all over his leg, me and other witnesses (if you accept witness testimony) can look at his legs and see they are absent with spiders or bites. A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about (because we aren't asari from Mass Effect). I can't go into his mind and disprove the absence of a companion, but I can't disprove it either because I can't check. There is not sufficient evidence to disprove tulpas, just like how there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove, you're not just a brain in a vat.

As for the justification for believing it. It seems unlikely that trolls or roleplayers would write a ton of guides, making well established communities like tulpa.info and /r/tulpas with plenty of other people believing it, and all these people having so much information and research on a delusion. Not denying that these roleplayers and trolls exist of course they do, but they don't make up the entirety. I also doubt that all these delusional people are having such similar delusions and continuing to grow with more and more successful people all the time

My logic says that's too ridiculous, there has to be something to all of this. Besides the fact that all these thousands of people are just desperately pretending all their combined experiences and effort toward this are real. That's just too unfeasible for me. If everyone's experience was that fake, no way it would grow that much at all, besides having a shit ton of people say it's bullshit and leave. Which I'm sure some do, but they most likely just couldn't pull it off.

"A person claims they have a tulpa companion inside their mind, which can only be perceived by the recipients mind. I can't go into his mind to see what he's talking about"
And instead of seeing this as an issue, you see it as confirmation that he's right?
This is me claiming I have a dragon in my back yard that only I can see.

As for your last two lines, I have a very short response.
Christianity.
Islam.
UFO sightings.
Loch Ness Monster.
Bigfoot.

Millions if not billions of people believe in these things, spend their entire lives devoted ot it, etc etc.
Saying "well they wouldn't put so much work into something that isn't true" is really just plain ignorant and naive.

You don't seem to get the idea that it's very hard (read: nearly impossible) to disprove the existence of something.
Russel's Teapot mean anything to you?

In fact, your whole spiel about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only half the story. The full quote goes: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except in cases where evidence should be present"
Meaning: If there is a Loch Ness monster, we should've seen evidence of it, and we haven't. Evidence of absence.

The religion thing is actually my prime example.
Assuming there's any kind of logic in the world (as in, X cannot be both X and "not X" at the same time), most people are wrong about religious claims, as they contradict each other.
If christians are right, muslims and jews are wrong, and vice versa. That means that at least most of the population of planet earth is wrong. No matter who's right, most people are wrong.
Since you're so keen on using fallacies, you used the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I'll paraphrase you: "So many people believe this and spend so much time in it, it doesn't make sense if it's not true"
And my examples are perfect to refute this idea of yours.
Yes, many people can in fact be wrong. As a further proof, most people are wrong about this particular topic that many spend their entire lives devoted to.

"It's not like those religions don't have the capability of being true"
Which is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, most (if not all) of the world religions are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the others are necessarily false.
And since no one religion is followed by the majority of earth's population, most people will be wrong.
Unless you accept that logical contradictions can exist, you must agree with this conclusion.

Not sure if you mean to use fractions as a way to refute a argumentum ad populum fallacy, but if you are, then that doesn't add up.

Yes, only certain religious views in the world can be right, while the rest are wrong, in this case the minority whatever it is will be right. But that's irrelevant to our entire conversation, because it's probably pretty safe to say that the majority of the world's people are not going to believe in tulpas. Then the fallacy cuts the other way, instead being "Most people think this is false, so it must be false." So majorities and minorities are irrelevant, because for pretty much any argument (depending on it's broadness, religion being far more broad than the discussion we're having), is going to leave anyone who disagrees with your argument, part of the demographic of people that disagree with you, which will add up as a majority over your minority.

Our argument is a true or false question, while the one you're making example of is a multiple choice question, which dozens more than 2. The logic that would apply in that argument, is not really logic that applies as well in this argument. So yes, 2 logic systems can contradict each other, but only if you purposely use it in a place where it doesn't apply, in this case religion versus this true or false question.

Your argument would have been fit to refute the statement "The religion that the majority of people follow must be the correct one". Which would be stupidly easy of course, because no religion has 51% of the population. My point being, we're not arguing a multiple choice argument, we're arguing a true/false argument. So religion being your prime example is irrelevant.

As for the Loch Ness monster, you basically argued for what I already said. And for the quote you state I misinterpret, you yourself are actively misinterpreting. As for this argument, versus the lochness monster or Bigfoot, this isn't necessarily a case where evidence (that you find acceptable) should be present. Your attitude implies "evidence should always be present" despite heavy differences between these cases, being your examples.

So I state again, your examples are not worthy comparisons of what we're talking about. Two large, undiscovered, creatures, versus a difficult to detect mental phenomenon.