Tulpa Forums
The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Printable Version

+- Tulpa Forums (https://community.tulpa.info)
+-- Forum: Tulpa.Info Forums (https://community.tulpa.info/forum-tulpa-info-forums)
+--- Forum: Forum Questions & Comments (https://community.tulpa.info/forum-forum-questions-comments)
+--- Thread: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info (/thread-the-purpose-and-nature-of-tulpa-info)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Luminesce - 02-02-2016

http://www.tulpa.info/
Tulpa.info "For science!"

"The purpose of this site is to provide information about tulpas, to guide tulpa creation, and to host a community for discussion and research of the phenomenon."

Many people seem to have issues with the forum because it doesn't do "real science", because there's no "real research" on the nature of tulpas, or because we often rehash old concepts and ideas in the Question & Answers and General Discussion boards.

Well, let me dispel those worries about this forum. They're all true.



We throw around the terms "soft science" and "subjective" here a lot. So much so that people don't actually think about what they mean anymore, they're just vague ideas in the back of their heads. They're important terms core to the essence of tulpamancy and Tulpa.info though, so you need to know them.

Hard and soft science refers to the rigidity of the field's use of the scientific method, and to its level of objectivity, ie how discretely the research and results can be measured and tested as fact. Physics and chemistry are "hard" sciences, with almost no room for misinterpretation or subjectivity. "Soft" sciences on the other hand are scientific fields such as the social sciences that do attempt to follow the scientific method, but must take certain liberties from absolute indisputable facts simply to function, else no real results would be possible.

"Subjectivity is in part a particular experience or organization of reality, which includes how one views and interacts with humanity, objects, consciousness, and nature, so the difference between different cultures brings about an alternate experience of existence that forms life in a different manner." Put simply, it refers to the bias introduced to perceived "facts" by a conscious individual. And I don't mean like political bias, I mean the very nature of human experience corrupts the absolute facts of reality. It's simply not possible for a human to experience reality objectively, because to do so would make you equivalent to a rock or the sun. Human perception is a poor translation of reality into personal experience. And that experience is absolutely different for every single being perceiving the same thing.

So what does that mean? It means, because we're discussing, studying and making conclusions about a phenomenon that is entirely subjective, literally only existing in peoples' perception of it, there are no discrete facts. Forget facts, there aren't even true shared perceptions of it, let alone information that unifies them all. Not to any meaningful level, anyways.

But wait! Brain scans, electroencephalograms! We can objectively measure electrical impulses as activity in the brain! Yep, looks like a tulpa.

This is a community for researching the phenomenon of tulpas, not a psychiatric lab. As soon as you've got the money to start conducting that level of experimentation, I'm sure everyone here would love to get involved and discuss the results. Until then, we're doing the best we can on the low budget of {literally the cost of hosting the forum}. That entails, mostly, learning from each other. There really is no other source to learn from. We discuss each others' subjective experiences, and then do our best to sort through and compile that information into a form widely usable by the community, or those trying to learn about the phenomenon. If I'm not mistaken, that's where effectively all of the information we have and distribute on tulpas comes from. Previously existing historical sources have surprisingly little to offer in the means of sound science, and we don't make a habit of discussing metaphysics here. We don't outright deny doing so though, there is of course a Metaphysics and Parapsychology board.

Speaking of, what about Tulpa.info's claims of being "science"? Is tulpamancy a pseudoscience? "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method." There are probably a lot of people who would accuse us of such. In a way, they aren't wrong; we certainly can't be said to strictly follow the scientific method to objectively verify our information. But neither can Psychology or Sociology. This is why you so often hear the term "soft science" here, because tulpamancy really is the softest science, being entirely based around personal, unfalsifiable experience. And that's a really big deal when it comes to sciences - if something isn't falsifiable, it can't be an accepted theory or hypothesis. That's why science doesn't try to argue God's existence or non-existence, because "God is the creator of all creation, and exists outside of our comprehension" can't be proven wrong. Doesn't make it necessarily true or untrue, it's just outside the scope of science.

We aren't exactly capable of fact-checking our beliefs on tulpamancy, because there are no facts to check. We can't present falsifiable hypotheses or theories, because tulpamancy is a subjective phenomenon outside typical physical confines. By any definition, this disqualifies tulpamancy from truly being science.

But look at this interesting quote I found on one of those free-essay sites (lol): "Many so called "pseudo-sciences" deal with people, not constant non-sentient bodies. In these sciences, the variables are limitless and the best predictions scientists can produce are probabilities."

The best a soft science can do, in that case, is to try and get as close to answers as they can. They don't produce facts, but likelihoods. Approximations aimed at applying to as many people and situations as possible. There is legitimate debate among actual scientific communities as to the status of soft sciences such as Psychology as "true science". But generally, people seem to lean towards yes. Science is, after all, not some prestigious club of facts and theories. It's a method for learning about the world, each other, other worlds, reality as a whole. If the best we can do in studying something is to collect lots of completely unfalsifiable subjective experiences from each other, and then try to work out ideas from them that many people may find useful.. Well, then that's the best we can do. No true seeker of knowledge ever stopped learning because they were told they weren't being scientific enough. We can still utilize the scientific spirit of learning for knowledge's sake, of doing our absolute best to produce helpful information that can apply to as many people as possible. We just have to make one very, very important distinction.

There are no "facts of tulpamancy". There is no "objective knowledge". Every single statement is open to your own personal interpretation, just as it was to whomever wrote it, and no one can deny you that right.

Enjoy your stay.


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Drakaina - 02-02-2016

Very very good post. Coming from the therian community, I'm intimately familiar with soft science, and from what I've seen, tulpa.info has been great at approaching the tulpa phenomena with as clinical a perspective as it can without buckets of money for scans and testing. :3


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Glitterbutt - 02-02-2016

Mistgod: We will never be able to "prove" conclusively that tulpas are "real" (independently sentient) whether or not it is a soft science, a pseudo-science, or experimental quantum physics. The problem is the central question of our tulpa science is as unanswerable as "Is God real?"

There are things we can actually investigate and get real answers to with our surveys, polls, testimony and observation.

1. Why do people make a tulpa?
2. Do people who create a tulpa have personality traits in common?
3. Do tulpas help people with emotional or psychological issues? Could tulpas be used for a type of therapy?
4. How do drugs affect people with tulpas?
5. Do motor skills improve in tulpamancers over someone without a tulpa?
6. Does having a tulpa improve memory skills?
7. Does the existence of a tulpa affect sleep patterns, REM sleep or dreams?
8. What effects are there on persons with mental illness who then create a tulpa?
9. Is there historical evidence of tulpas in the past?

That is just a sample. Let's start asking the right questions and quit wringing our hands over the fact we can't prove tulpas are real sentience. There is no real way to do that conclusively. We are investigating the wrong thing.


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - YourCatBeany - 02-02-2016

Yes, excellent post. It would be fantastic if we could use hard science to prove the existence of tulpae, in the same way it would be fantastic to say, a religious person to be able to prove the existence of God. Neither are really possible at this point, and it comes down to subjectivity.

I've never been religious. In my personal, subjective experience, I haven't seen much evidence to point in that direction, just as a religious person without a tulpa wouldn't have seen much evidence to make them believe in tulpae. But at the same time, they would probably want to punch me if I told them God isn't real, the same as I'd want to punch them for telling me Hexy isn't real. Neither of us has the right to tell the other what we're allowed to believe. We simply have different personal experiences that lead us to believe different things, and all we can do is learn what we can through our respective communities, even if there are discrepancies within the communities themselves.

...I'm honestly not sure where I was going with that, but it all got me thinking, at least.

I agree with Mistgod though, we should probably be putting more time into questions we CAN answer. We already know our tulpae are real TO US. Let's find out what they can actually do.


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Tewi - 02-02-2016

(02-02-2016, 04:04 AM)Mistgod Wrote: Let's start asking the right questions and quit wringing our hands over the fact we can't prove tulpas are real sentience.

We didn't even entertain the idea that "tulpas aren't real" when writing this (I helped). As you should know by now, we find that entire line of thinking flawed and... Well, just stupid.


Subjectivity means we're putting an emphasis on valuing experience. Experience itself is not always as it appears, true, but when we've foregone physical explanations as we have here there really is no logical reason to "doubt their existence". Given these parameters, the only deciding factor on whether a tulpa is real or not is if the experiencer (the host) believes they are. Their experience, after all, is as close as we can get to "truth" in tulpamancy.

As for whether or not it's possible to experience a tulpa as real? Yeah, sure. Seems like a dumb question to be asking if you've made it all the way here to an actual tulpa writing a reply. But it's up to the individual (scientifically known as the "subject", hence subjectivity) to decide what's real or not to them. Do note that these beliefs may be changed at any time, even of your own volition if you so choose.


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Glitterbutt - 02-02-2016

(02-02-2016, 04:26 AM)YourCatBeany Wrote: I agree with Mistgod though, we should probably be putting more time into questions we CAN answer. We already know our tulpae are real TO US. Let's find out what they can actually do.

Mistgod: We have already had a good start in many instances in doing just that. There have been survey studies already done on tulpamacers themselves. I don't think "expensive equipment" is necessary to do some science on something measurable. Investigating memory skills between those with a tulpa a and those without for instance, that doesn't seem like you would need expensive equipment really. It would take coordination and cooperation of some kind, and the ability to test memory skills perhaps through a web site or game experiment or something.

(02-02-2016, 04:34 AM)Tewi Wrote: We didn't even entertain the idea that "tulpas aren't real" when writing this (I helped). As you should know by now, we find that entire line of thinking flawed and... Well, just stupid.


Subjectivity means we're putting an emphasis on valuing experience. Experience itself is not always as it appears, true, but when we've foregone physical explanations as we have here there really is no logical reason to "doubt their existence". Given these parameters, the only deciding factor on whether a tulpa is real or not is if the experiencer (the host) believes they are. Their experience, after all, is as close as we can get to "truth" in tulpamancy.

As for whether or not it's possible to experience a tulpa as real? Yeah, sure. Seems like a dumb question to be asking if you've made it all the way here to an actual tulpa writing a reply. But it's up to the individual (scientifically known as the "subject", hence subjectivity) to decide what's real or not to them. Do note that these beliefs may be changed at any time, even of your own volition if you so choose.

Mistgod: But there are real objective things we can investigate. It isn't all subjective. There are things like profile surveys that do give some interesting things for psychologists and sociologists to look at and consider. That is the point I am making.

That kind of stuff is not pseudo-science at all.


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - YourCatBeany - 02-02-2016

I don't understand the point of trying to prove anything. Isn't this place supposed to be about helping people who are interested in this stuff get going on creating a tulpa? Sure our hosts can give people anecdotal evidence as to what a tulpa can help them with, and that's all fine and good, and I don't mind answering questions myself, I just don't see much point of a ton of data collection other than "it's neat." We do what we do, we exist as we are, and that's all there is to it.
Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers, but just, yeah.


Edit: After asking her about this I kinda see where she's coming from. She doesn't see the point in talking about what we should be trying to prove when there are already people doing legit research on this anyway. Hell, I've even taken a survey on it already. She doesn't see anything wrong with the forums as they stand and doesn't understand why we're all questioning ourselves about what we're doing. I still think a bunch of data would be nice myself, but I love statistics.


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Glitterbutt - 02-02-2016

Mistgod: That's it right there. What are we trying to "prove?" Let's just do some curiosity stuff first and then used the data collection we have been doing to perhaps come up with new questions we can actually answer objectively.

Are most tulpamancers male or female? What is the average age of tulpamancers? That is stuff IS scientific and interesting, even if it doesn't look at the core nature of a tulpa. Do tulpas help a tulpamancer be more successful in career goals? Do tulpamancers do better academically in school?


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Tewi - 02-02-2016

(02-02-2016, 04:39 AM)Mistgod Wrote: But there are real objective things we can investigate. It isn't all subjective.

It is all subjective, as far as what we do on the forum goes. That doesn't mean you can't bring a sense of order to it though, or establish "likely truths". Also, gathering large amounts of data, even if the data are peoples' subjective experiences, brings you closer to objective truth. This is characteristic of a soft science, not a pseudoscience. This was, of course, all being very strict about the whole science thing. I don't personally subscribe to the rigidity of the fields of science. I actually agree with Lumi's mindset for exploring and understanding the world he's developed up 'til now. It's something like "Care about what actually matters (to you/us), accept truths that are beneficial over ones that are seemingly objectively factual (while keeping the more objective truths in mind, as this marks the difference in ignorance and conscious decision), and put the wellbeing and fulfillment of yourself and others above all other perceived values".

Hardly the most elegant description I could give, but I just spent three hours reading about the history of landscape architecture for an exam tomorrow, I can't be bothered to make things sound nice anymore. Spent all of my energy doing that with Lumi's post up there. Anyways, yeah, I agree we should focus on the things we can study etc. Edit: And this studying does not have to be truly scientific in nature to be legitimate and helpful to others.


Things like statistics on tulpamancers and tulpas are of course "objective". I was referring more to the study of the nature of tulpas themselves. Anyways, I find plenty of value in subjective studies regardless.


RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info - Glitterbutt - 02-02-2016

(02-02-2016, 05:04 AM)Tewi Wrote: Edit: Things like statistics on tulpamancers and tulpas are of course "objective". I was referring more to the study of the nature of tulpas themselves. Anyways, I find plenty of value in subjective studies regardless.

Mistgod: I find value in learning about the religious experiences of the faithful too. The fact that something is popularly believed, does not make it more objectively real. Soft sciences like psychology build models on how people tick. They make predictions based on those models and then do experiments to validate those predictions. There is clinical evidence that the models work to some degree as patients recover from their illnesses from treatments based on those models.

Tulpamancy is not building models of human behavior or making predictions. It is more of a belief system in something intangible than a soft science. There are no models predictiong behavior or anything that can be objectively observed, at least not yet. There are no practical applications of tulpamancy is what I mean.

We need some applied tulpamancy for it to be a soft science.