I am assuming from your username and the language that you use that you are a fellow user of .info or /r/tulpas. Funny coincidence for such a small community.

I'll go ahead and propose my own alternate ideas and theories of what tulpa are, as I think they are a bit more solid and somewhat more digestible to the skeptical onlooker.

The average person goes through their life with many assumptions. The sun will come up. They open their eyes to see. Punching someone will hurt your fist. These assumptions are very built into the mind, and determine as much of what we see as the physical world around us. The mind auto-corrects and fucks with every input we get from our senses every day, most often without our knowledge.

For most all human beings, raised from birth being called a name, taught to see other objects as other things, and so on, one of those assumptions is "I am a single person".

When you think of it, on a deeper level, such an identity is a very arbitrary and odd thing to say. We aren't "a single person", we are a collection of thousands if not millions of systems working together to form an emergent trait that is "us". To call that thing "a single person" can very well change.

So, where there is a possibility, people have tried, learned, and found that these assumptions can actually be changed, and there is a somewhat repeatable process that produces said change.

So you do this process, you take those steps, and "you" can become "me and my tulpa" in the sense of there being another, smaller, being in your mind. It can also become "me and my tulpa" in the sense of two equal beings within one mind, or more.

Now, you have this new assumption. You change your view of the world to be that "I am not just me". And by doing it in the "proper way", and not having this caused by trauma, anger, annoyance, or just a plain lack of control over your own thoughts, you are a happy, healthy, and functional human being(s).

So, now, the brain has to think differently. Before, there were internal and external thoughts, but now it has to take thoughts and add a new dimension. Internal, external, and "who is this thinking this?".

So it does, it looks at thoughts and learns to arrange and screw with them in a way that produces the effect of many speaking and active entities in one mind. Some have the opinion that their tulpas are conscious all the time, and they experience that as reality. Most have a tulpa in the background, some little thing they can address and speak to at any time, and it is there, and they experience that as reality.

So this isn't truly a practice of making some new person in your head. It is still one train of thought, just twisted into curves so that if you line the pictures up correctly it looks like two trains at once. There aren't two separate thinking beings in anyone's head, as it's actually impossible to accomplish such a thing. Humans do not multitask, as is proven in many, many, studies.

It is a practice of changing your biases through a process and community. Very similar to how people believe in things like exorcisms, and INCREDIBLY interesting to note that such a unstudied and unrealized process can be discovered and used in such a way.

So is it ethical? Yes, so long as it doesn't result in a net harm to society, and I would argue it is a net benefit.

Sounds like a bad idea. In this case badges would have no "out" but be constantly be produced, and a lot would start to exist, causing badges on posts to be a worthless identifier.

Assuming those who get badges always turn around to spend them, but if we assume they aren't than why have the feature in the first place?

We exist to produce and be slightly unhappy, and the ideals we are given of achievement are always based on where we stand today.

I like to think about human beings nowadays as a species evolved to function in a society, and when you look at our traits and actions things start making a lot more sense.

Consider eyesight, you'd figure having bad eyes would have killed off humanity, but we tend to be either long-distance deficient, short-distance deficient, or old. In a group where all three types exist you work together to get optimal results.

Same goes for people being gay. Can't have kids, but can still contribute to society and is an extra set of hands to help their group handle kids. Alternatively they are good candidates for things like war, as they will have no attachments, or not as many as a normal group.

Our various quirks and ideals, the weird kid standing in the corner looking around the room, the talkative bunch who are super friendly, the quiet sort who keep to themselves, each of these people, I believe, are driven into specialized roles in society by their genetics, despite the fact it is all human genetics. One watches out for danger, one remains isolated and forms new ideas outside of the thoughts of the group. One binds the group together and serves as a leader.

It's amazing how incredibly diverse and functional human society is when you think about it. So many things just work so perfectly when all the gears fit together, and all these people who don't know what the heck they are doing outside of natural tendencies serve to create systems that end up launching rockets to the moon or dominating our entire planet.

It's why eugenics was so horribly wrong. To get rid of disease, to get rid of issues in the human genome is to rid ourselves of the diversities those things bring. Autistic people may be dysfunctional, but I'll guarantee you that gene serves very important function in hundreds of people who are functional, serve very important roles in society, and likely show some of the same traits that those with various mental diseases have. Schizophrenics may be crazy and delusional, but I'll bet it takes a bit of that disconnect and paranoia to make art or analyze systems to strong degrees.

I don't know, I think there are a lot of people who see mankind as this bleak, dull, thing that is headed on a crash course with destruction while we all yell, scream, and fight. In reality I think there is order to the chaos, and I tend to feel a sense of pride when I see a market crash or riots break out.

The bad isn't necessarily bad. Riots destroy property, but I think they serve much more important function than that in sending information and/or making a point. A market crashing is a correction of ideas, a learning process on a grand scale. The system we live in is smarter than it looks, I think, even when it looks stupid and broken.

It's why we can't let people dictate our actions and clean the world of all that is bad. The black goo over the machine isn't bad, it's oil.

I think the future of programming lies in the same place the future of the motor does. A quick era of massive expansion followed by the technology hitting a fairly impassable brick wall and our ideals about it's possibilities becoming sensible.

There are still people out there that believe it is possible to create a technological singularity where a computer can become infinitely smart by improving itself. This is like people pre-relativity thinking we will travel instantly to anywhere if we keep making vehicles faster.

Ultimately we've had hyper efficient, complex, thinking machines around for years, easily produced, and constantly finding ways to improve their capabilities. They just demand food, water, and payment, and aren't great at menial tasks.

So we make something that is, and we are finding that with things like neural networks and machine learning, as computers become as smart and capable as humans are they are losing that "ultra efficient" trait and start making the same stupid mistakes, generalities, and creative failures that humans are.

We will reach a day where the computer is nothing more than a device we use for things. Today it is a cultural and technological icon of the present power of technology, tomorrow computers will be a fact of life like the telephone, the atom bomb, or the car.

Japan should learn "profound lessons from history", China's defence ministry said after Japan's parliamentary vote.

China should stop putting tons of money in it's military and laying claim to contested islands then.

Barack Obama got the votes of 92 percent of Democrats in 2012, and she'll be in the same neighborhood.

This isn't really a good comparison to make. Obama was the Sanders of the last election, he just wasn't as extreme and his sandersism was mostly created by inexperience.

People aren't happy they voted "Sanders" in the form of Obama and got "Clinton" instead last election, and they aren't going to be happy about it this year either.

This will be beautiful.

Supposedly the button will be for disasters, where liking is inappropriate "ten million die in eruption" "I like this!", so it's more a :( button than a dislike button.

(I stole the sad face button thing from reddit)

"tech culture" started as a interesting groups of people dedicated to a new hobby that just took off.

Modern tech culture seems like a bunch of overhyped idiots looking to make big money off of ideas that aren't going to work at all.

I hope I can get a good programming career at a company that produces things here in the midwest before this bubble goes pop.

The contrast between our comments is beautiful.

When it comes to muggers, you never know how or why they are in the state they are in, and many of people on the street, desperate, are that way due to mental health issues.

Meaning saying the wrong thing can, and will, enrage the person, and may get you stabbed, shot, or beaten.

Better to always not befriend the mugger, give the person your money, and call the police when you are safe.

What this article says to me is that I, just naturally, whatever, cannot be as great as men. Not all men, but, you know, like 50% maybeish.

No, what it's saying is that women produce fewer Stephen Hawkings, Einsteins, and so on. People who aren't normal. People who didn't speak for years, or have genetics that create muscular dystrophy. Traits that, in an ancient time, are more damaging to exist in women than to exist in men.

You may well be an exception, you may well be an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking. However, if women as a group produce fewer of these sorts of people, then society will develop a bias against women as being incapable of doing those abnormal things. You should fight that bias, but understand it's origins at the same time. Without doing that, you cannot understand it, and will never defeat it.

Calling it "Narc" at all makes me feel like whoever is speaking will end up in jail someday. The only time I've heard is used it was a threat against me by a schoolmate who didn't want me to tell the teacher about anything when I was in high school.

If you call someone a snitch, a narc, or any similar term, I have zero empathy for you. Reporting people who break the law, within reason, should be encouraged promoted and congratulated.

Looks to me like your problem is that they don't put enough effort into their Mac app

spam?

Okay, I have to make another comment about this, because you know that comparison about that one guy I made a bit ago?

The point of the rules is not to outright ban all things which can be dangerous at all, the point of the rules is to protect and ensure that nothing which is of imminent danger to an airplane is allowed onto the plane.

People can cause havoc with lithium ion batteries. People can cause havoc with dry ice. The measily little pop and fire isn't going to kill people, and the smoke and warning the device gives off, the tampering required to get the battery to explode are all too difficult to cause substantial harm with.

People aren't going to cause the instant death of 5 nearby people with a dry ice or a lithium ion explosion, and setting those things in motion is a very clumsy and hard to pull off sort of thing within the compartment of an aircraft.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the people running the TSA and making policy decisions are experts at what they do. Despite that their decisions may not seem logical, I am almost certain that if you had the scope and knowledge of the TSA that the people who set these rules do then you would undoubtedly consider the policies relatively tame and reasonable.

If the AC goes out, and assuming the lines of oxygen masks suddenly stop working?

What sort of danger would a big thing of dry ice have in those conditions? People would just put on their O2 masks and the airplane would scrub/release the CO2 from the atmosphere in time. As well, dry ice is CO2, so it would be noticable as everyone gets short of breath, and the big cloud of fog would be a massive tell as well.

3.2 oz of shampoo is an amount not enough for any of the conventionally existing gelled explosive materials to cause significant damage. The limit isn't arbitrary or stupid.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/more-on-liquid-rules-why-we-do-things.html

Lithium ion batteries are required for phones and other tech to work. Secondly, the "explosions" that these things make aren't anywhere near severe or dangerous enough to damage the plane or be worthy of death. As well, it can take quite some time to get one of the things to explode in a decent fashion so far as I am aware.

Cargo holds likely experience a lot of depressurization, heat, cold, and other factors. these would likely damage or cause batteries to have issues and as a result the batteries should probably be kept in a fairly safe, controlled, environment.

My point was that carrying a foot long bullet/metal container onto a plane should be something that isn't allowed. Even if they couldn't be used as a weapon directly as they were designed, a giant bullet can still do damage outside of the gun.

If there is reasonable expectation that the things you mention could be used to smuggle things onto a plane, and that they are too difficult to check, they should be banned as well.

A round that large could possibly contain a lot of explosives that you'd have to open the round up to confirm are not there.

So I don't blame the TSA from banning carrying aboard things like that bullet.

I think you need to shift your focus a lot more towards your comments and thoughts of what you'd have thought about any of these points as a young earth creationist, how you'd have thought about obvious counterparts, and them some reasons your thoughts about the counterpoints are flawed as well.

As is this seems to be more a thunerf00t style "laugh at stupid christian videos" than it is a series aimed at people who aren't yet atheists. I think that you should play more to your strengths and unique situation here.

Despite my criticism, I did enjoy the video. You have a somewhat "martimer81" vibe about you at the moment.

eg:

I will agree entirely that the TSA has a whole lot of excessive abuse of power and misuse of funding and resources.

I assume the pilot or passengers can manually trigger them, no?

Most self driving systems today are using neural networks, I don't think expert systems would be able to manage the complex issues that pop up with driving.

As a result, I don't think we could really understand all the nuances that these systems are capable of knowing once they have been trained for so long to drive. It's easy to create a network that learns to do a task relative to learning how the completed system is thinking.

These aren't brute force approaches anymore, there is a system that is learning as time passes, and getting better at what it does as time continues forward.

As such, these networks have one job, and do that one job very well. In this case that job is to prevent crashes.

Fiddle with that network to impose artificial limitations and you impose on a system optimized to do something, and more crashes will result in the long run. Although I'm sure there are cases where things go wrong with the program, or things need tweaked, these aren't the same as directly interfering with the car when it decides to take a course of action that could lead to hitting a schoolbus vs a normal car. It may well be that hitting the schoolbus causes less total harm for some reason, and we be sure that we understand the reasoning of the machine before we decide to mess with it.

Natural medicine and Natural Health is something that should be looked into.

It is, has been, and the stuff that works well and is cheap enough to turn into a pill and distribute becomes known as "medicine".

Nvidia thinks so:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/drive-px.html

In a car brain, software, processors and an operating system need to run algorithms that determine what the car should do

Within a journalistic article like this, neural networks more than fit this definition. They are, after all, just a bunch of big arrays with a bunch of weights and activation functions.

Ultimately the human mind can only store so much, and human beings are more than happy to settle in a routine. People already spend 20+ years doing the same thing every day, what's to say we couldn't spend an eternity doing something like that? Do we really only enjoy life because we see or feel new things?

We would lose a sense of fear only after we experience something many times, and learn it does not cause us pain, or we learn to endure the pain and treat it as normal. Ultimately fear in humans is more attuned to culture and pain than it is to fear of death. Maybe some things we would fear more, such as being buried alive in concrete, thanks to immorality.

The host cannot host an eternity of life, assuming these people continue to have kids. If we control the population and outlaw those who live forever to have kids, and say that those who have had kids cannot live forever there would be no issue.