Kindly comments on Post ridiculous munchkin ideas! - Less Wrong

55 Post author: D_Malik 15 May 2013 10:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1240)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kindly 16 May 2013 01:58:37PM *  1 point [-]

Yes, but we already know tulpas don't actually exist.

Comment author: Plasmon 16 May 2013 03:53:18PM *  1 point [-]

Only in a very specific sense of "exist". Do hallucinations exist? That-which-is-being-hallucinated does not, but the mental phenomenon does exist.

One might in a similar vein interpret the question "do tulpas exist?" as "are there people who can deliberately run additional minds on their wetware and interact with these minds by means of a hallucinatory avatar?". I would argue that the tulpa's inability to do anything munchkiny is evidence against their existence even in this far weaker sense.

Comment author: shminux 16 May 2013 04:10:26PM *  0 points [-]

I would argue that the tulpa's inability to do anything munchkiny is evidence against their existence even in this far weaker sense.

What do you mean by munchkiny (having apparent free will separate from the host?) and how do you know they cannot?

Comment author: Plasmon 16 May 2013 04:36:45PM 0 points [-]

I was taking a statement from this great-grandparent post and surrounding posts at face value

If domain experts say that the obvious ways to exploit having a tulpa fail, they are probably right.

By "do something munchkiny", I meant these "obvious ways to exploit having a tulpa", presumably including remembering things you don't and other cognitive enhancements.

Why do I think they can't? Because the (hypothetical?) domain experts say so.