From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In the FAQ on, it mentions that "The only possibility of “proving” tulpas is by doing scientific experiments with expensive fMRI or EEG machines, which so far, have been out of reach of the community." I've also seen a lot of other community members who see it as an entirely mental phenomena and in fact the vast majority seem interested in doing research to understand what is actually going on in the brain. Extremely new, so I'm not even gonna try to edit the page in case I'm biased, but do with that info what you will. Maybehollow (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing can be 100% proved scientifically outside of math. This is usually not a big deal, but it's a much greater factor for a subjective phenomenon that is highly esoteric. The people over at don't have a 100% solid understanding of what is scientific, and discussing what is "provable" over there will take a bit of a political bent. I'm actually surprised this obscure topic has any article at all on this website. (FYI, there's been periodic battles over at wikipedia over control of the article) (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Proving consciousness is a very unfair goalpost[edit]

(Almost) nobody is skeptic about the sentience of dogs. We realize we are conscious, notice other beings act in similarly to us, and conclude they are probably as conscious as we are. I believe this reasoning applies here. Furthermore, here the negation would imply philosophical zombies.