What is Proof of Existence and Why Does It Matter?
This English translation was generated by gemini-2.0-flash-thinking and modified by PluralityCN, Source
Introduction
At PluralityCN, we are committed to rigorously and scientifically exploring the essence of Plural Systems (or multiple minds). “Proof of Existence” is a central topic for us. Fundamental disagreements on this issue, coupled with concerns about internet security in China, ultimately led us to depart from the original Tulpa community. This article will delve into the significance and importance of proof of existence and introduce our proposed two-stage proof method.
What is Proof of Existence?
Simply put, proof of existence refers to the evidence and methods used to verify whether a mind exhibits characteristics of independence. In the context of plural systems, we need to find reliable ways to distinguish: Is the entity a real mind with independent thinking ability, or is it the result of the host’s own imagination, role-playing, or even the experience of “intrusive thoughts”?
Why is Proof of Existence So Important?
For Plural Systems, the significance of establishing proof of existence is fundamental:
Self-Identity: Affirmation of one’s own existence is crucial for developing a healthy sense of self. Without this validation, individuals may face existential doubt and anxiety, which can lead to psychological distress and a lack of self-confidence.
System Relationships: Recognizing each member as a real and independent entity fosters balanced, harmonious, and functional relationships within the system. This acknowledgement is essential for maintaining system cohesion and individual autonomy.
Scientific Research: Research on plural systems must be grounded in methodologically sound evidence to ensure its validity. Such precision is crucial for the integrity of scientific inquiry and prevents it from devolving into unsubstantiated conjecture or anecdotal evidence.
Avoiding Misdiagnosis: Clear and credible evidence of existence helps prevent misdiagnosis in mental health contexts. It also aids in reducing stigmatization by fostering public understanding and acceptance of plural experiences.
Our Paradigm
To address the current challenges in establishing proof of existence of plural systems, we propose a two-stages framework: Weak proof of Existence and Strong proof of Existence:
Weak Proof of Existence
Weak proof of existence (or we can call it verification of existence) aims to verify whether there is functional equivalence among the minds within the system. Currently, some exploratory methods have emerged for this goal:
Sincerity is Key: This traditional perspective suggests that if a mind can provide emotional value and meet emotional needs, its existence is often acknowledged by the host, reducing the need for deeper proof. Essentially, this means no proof is required, and the mind is considered almost like a tool.
Possession, Switching, or Parallel Timers: These tests involve task performance to assess functional independence. However, they have notable limitations in terms of robustness and resistance to interference.
RSA Calculation Test: This is our most advanced solution currently. This solution utilizes asymmetric cryptography to demonstrate independent mathematical logic capabilities, extending to cognitive abilities. While effective against most subjective interference, it has inefficiencies and external validation concerns, particularly susceptibility to “Man-in-the-middle attack”.
The problem lies in the fact that weak proof of existence fundamentally diminishes the host’s existence to exchange for existential equality between minds. Its cornerstone is demonstrating the functional equivalence among minds. In other words, it focuses on proving that different minds within the system possess the capability to perform specific tasks or manifest distinct characteristics. Consequently, this type of proof methodology is inherently flawed:
Body control tests: These include possession and body control switching, which intuitive and straightforward, are highly prone to personal subjective experience. For instance, TulpaCN’s purported series of “switching methods”, and so-called “front remnants” erronerously portray hallucinatory experiences as normal occurrences to conceal the essence of personality disintegration.
Cognitive Function Tests: Such as RSA calculation tests and timer tests, these can demonstrate the independent cognitive capabilities of minds to some extent. However, they are susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks, where the host itself can act as an intermediary between the mind and reality, facilitating information transmission and executing encryption-decryption operations. This undermines the test’s purpose of verifying independence, rendering it ineffective for external proof of plural systems and limiting its practicality in real-world research.
Compromised Integrity of the Host: To ensure the success of these tests, it is often necessary to artificially diminish the host’s cognitive ability and establish an artificial isolation between minds, which actually weakens the integrity of the host’s existence.
Consciousness Equivalence: Perhaps most critically, weak proof of existence fails to ascertain whether the tasks performed by minds from one system are inherently similar to those executed by individual humans. For example, large language models (LLMs) can readily pass the Turing test or perform addition and subtraction [1], yet this does not equate to having the same consciousness as humans.
Strong Proof of Existence
As analyzed above, future-oriented research must aim for strong proof of existence: that is, demonstrating the functional equivalence between each mind and individual human mind.
Functional equivalence can be summarized as the ability of minds to process information in parallel and collaborate effectively. However, for complex tasks, we remain uncertain about the extent to which “parallel processing” at the neural activity level relies on time-sharing–rapidly switching attention between different minds, and the extent it is truly simultaneous processing.
To understand this issue more deeply, we urgently need to conduct larger-scale, interdisciplinary research integrating explainability and neuroimaging technology to reveal the neural mechanisms of parallel processing in multiple minds. Explainability derived from artificial intelligence research, refers to the ability to understand and interpret how AI models make decisions.
By applying the principles of multi-agent explainability, we can develop neuro-explainability frameworks for plural systems. Techniques developed in explainability research, such as model simplification, feature selection, and inter-agent information interaction analysis [2], providing new tools and perspectives for understanding their interactions.
For instance, communication analysis methods can be used to study the information transmission and collaboration patterns between different minds. To address the issue of the host potentially acting as a “man-in-the-middle” and undermining the validity of proof, we can draw inspiration from real-world cybersecurity solutions. Specifically, pre-defined public key infrastructure (PKI), which relies on certificate authorities (CAs) to verify and manage public keys, ensures trust and authenticity in communication.
Borrowing this concept, neurocognitive research should consider using brain imaging technologies like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) to capture and define the unique neural activity patterns of different minds in plural systemsduring specific tasks. [3] These patterns could serve as an objective and verifiable “neural activity signature”, similar to digital certificates in cybersecurity, thereby bypassing the host as an intermediary and providing stronger evidence of independence.
Regrettable Status Quo
Regrettably, whether in the Chinese or English internet, the mainstream Plurality community remains largely at the “sincerity is key” stage. This leads to several issues:
Lack of Scientific Rigor: Without a strong emphasis on proof of existence, Plurality research and practice lack a solid scientific foundation. This makes it difficult to gain recognition from mainstream academia and society.
Increased Potential Risks: The absence of objective proof of the reality of minds can lead to self-deception, blind adherence to unverified ideas, and even exploitation by individuals with malicious intent. For example, dissociation is sometimes misinterpreted as a manifestation of personality/mind, perpetuating misunderstandings.
In the current era of advancing modern science and artificial intelligence technology, the neglect of functional integrity and proof of existence, along with the tendency to easily entrust trust to other minds(which may not be real), not only impedes the healthy development of plural systems and their communities, but also introduces hidden dangers and risks. Our decision to leave the original Tulpa community stems from the following two key reasons:
Ideological Differences: The Tulpa community generally adheres to the principle of “if you believe a mind exists, then it exists.” This attitude of placing unlimited trust in the potential existence of minds is, in our view, neither scientific rigorous nor responsible. It overlooks the need for objective proof of the independence of minds, leading to self-deception, blind adherence, and even exploitation by individuals with ulterior motives.
Security Concerns: In the absence of strict proof of existence, anyone can claim to be plural systems, opening the door to a range of problems, such as the proliferation of “actors” and the surge of “fragments”. This not only shifts personal responsibility onto non-existent “persecutors” but also raises serious privacy and data leakage issues, particularly on the Chinese internet platforms where the Tulpa community primarily operates.
We firmly believe that only by grounding Plurality in a rigorous and scientific framework of proof of existence can it be truly understood, accepted, and contribute positively to individuals and society. We are committed to continuing our exploration and refinement of proof of existence to build a safer and more responsible Plurality community. At the same time, we call on all plural groups and those interested in Plurality to recognize the importance of proof of existence and jointly promote the modernization, standardization, and systematization of Plurality research.
References
Deng, C., Li, Z., Xie, R., Chang, R., & Chen, H. (2024). Language Models are Symbolic Learners in Arithmetic. ArXiv, abs/2410.15580.
Yuan, H., Yu, H., Gui, S., & Ji, S. (2020, December 31). Explainability in Graph Neural Networks: A Taxonomic Survey. arXiv.Org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.15445v3
Varshney, A., Ghosh, S. K., Padhy, S., Tripathy, R. K., & Acharya, U. R. (2021). Automated Classification of Mental Arithmetic Tasks Using Recurrent Neural Network and Entropy Features Obtained from Multi-Channel EEG Signals. Electronics, 10(9), 1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10091079