Stanford Tulpa Study looking for more participants
(if you're chosen they'll pay for travel and lodging!)

Random Guide Reviews thread
A thread for posting random reviews for tulpastuff.

This first review is for a guide that is not hosted on this site. So some of you may want to click this link.

As the first post, review is in a hidden section below.
-Seems fine. Top marks

Nature of switching:
-Dances around issue, so we learn nothing, really, but not a major problem.

Conceptual depersonalization:
-Excellent discussion.

Exercise: Your body is a car:
-This one seems high quality, so top marks. Unfortunately, my host has been doing doing A++ at this for years given her philosophy. So, this is not our holdup.

Exercise: Someone else:
-This seems unwise, like trying to turn the automatic behaviours of the body into another tulpa. Not sure...
-If you have a tulpa, it is probably easier to just ask them to possess for long periods, then you don't have to pretend. Your body actually is being controlled by another person.

Physical dissociation:
-Obviously key. But this section only contains two "this is what it would feel like" exercises. This is probably inadequate for a section that needs far more detail and varied training.
-We've been getting numbness recently. But I don't really see the value with freezing your legs off.
-The time loss thing seems useful if we can get it to work. Unfortunately, I am getting a really strong vibe that this is leading into a "Time loss and switching is not really real" place, given how it is written.

-Major flaw, this section only helps with tulpas associating with the body. It completely skips the greatest stumbling block of all, the host associating with something other than the body.

Exercise: It's all you:
-For the most part good, although I don't like the idea of pretending. This seems counter to the goal of creating something real.
-That last bullet point though, that's really troublesome. My host got all anxious as I was reading through it, and we had to stop for a while. But it was unnecessary. Unpleasant read it may be, but the bullet is also bullshit. Why would we risk intentionally destroying our separation of identity merely for the goal of switching? Unsafe.

Exercise: Fake it till you make it:
-This can probably trigger a switch of dominance. But it does so in such a dangerously blendy way. Behaving like one of your other's is a good way to accidentally merge with them. Only a person who thinks tulpas are just imaginary personalities could fully support this exercise.

Exercise: You are your host:
-Same problem with pretending not being real. In particular, why pretend? Just possess.
-There is a major problem that this section implies that emotions belong to the body and not the thoughtform. This is definitely false, and makes me doubt the authority of the author.

Exercise: The control room:
-This really helps me see the problem with symbolism. I have no idea how a control room would help either of us.
-I think the older idea of just letting your essence flow into the body and your host's essence flow out to get into possession would work just fine.

Overall, good ideas, not a good roadmap. Pick and choose with extra caution from this one.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

I for one approve of this thread and it's contents.
"...the last thing you wanted a witch to do was get bored and start making her own amusements,
because witches sometimes had famously erratic ideas about what was amusing.”
   - Terry Pratchett

Discord: Ivy#8937

This is probably the best parallel processing training guide I have ever seen. All the others mostly suggest things my system won't be able to manage at our early state. Or that I can't imagine being particularly useful. I would not be surprised if we got results off this.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Oh, I like this one. None of the stages are a particularly good fit for what we experience. But it is interesting finally seeing some of what it can look like to impose. Interesting.

For us, it looks like ghostly one minute, then disappeared the next, and motion is often jumpy, and random details are often missing, but in a way that you just don't notice. Eh.

Making myself solid gives me a headache.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.
I think I ran out of switching guides not hosted on this site to review, so have a scientific article on tulpas. Also, if anyone wants me to review a document please suggest it in this thread.

The start of this document is pretty poor. It is jargon filled, and dense, making for a very difficult read. Several times I noticed examples of three word lists, that are just about impenetrable without some research:

"In doing so, I argue that personhood is shaped, induced, and automatized in ontogeny through largely uncon-scious selective processes of joint attention that are best described as hypnotic."

The rest of the document is much better. But it does contain a few glaring errors. For example confusing a study of a subject for the subject itself in describing what a psychological belief entails.

"In the psychological community, neuroscience (or folk neuroscience) is the explanation of choice."

Tulpas are neurological, not neuroscience.

The document does not seem to be so much about tulpas, but rather a discussion of religion and spiritual beliefs, using tulpas as a case in point. It appears in sections to be a veiled overthrow of the notion of religious experiences more than anything else. Comparing religious fervor to tulpas, and declaring them possibly the same phenomenon.

The document makes some points about sociology, about a city being like the internet, and how communities are isolated in a city, and they function on selective ignorance of the things that go on around them. This highly philosophical section of the document had a high degree of sophistication and a feel of pretence.

The document goes into detail on the demographic makeup of the community. I do not know what procedures the author used to collect this data, but the conclusions are highly suspect in my mind, based on my own observations.

"From coding of qualitative interviews collected in large surveys, the most common tulpa-mancer profile to emerge is one of a highly cerebral, imaginative, articulate, upper-middle-class, formally educated person with many consistently pursued interests, talents, and hobbies, but limited channels of physical social interaction."

The document outlines a few interesting experiments into the community, including an interesting one on the episodic-diachronic spectrum of tulpamancers and the public. The document takes liberties in theorising in this section. However, not included is sufficient evidence of the way in which these studies were conducted to check the results.

It is clearly a study of the very early community. Some of the projections in the ending sections are humorous to read in hindsight.

"Thus, getting rid of a tulpa, for a seasoned tulpa-mancer, could be analogically situated somewhere between unlearning the piano or correcting one’s posture. Should the practice survive, gain public acceptance, and formalize itself for another decade, it will be as hard as willing oneself to forget how to read or completely unlearn a language in which one is fully fluent."

Is this document worth reading? Probably not. You won't make it through the difficult to read introductory paragraphs, and the dense language to interesting ideas ratio is not good.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Absolutely great forcing tips section from a system with accidental tulpas. Very basic, good for introduction.

Switching guide from same author.

Pretty basic, but I bet it will work great for some people. I suggest people actually start here when trying to switch for the first time.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.
Neuroholographic Organisms. An early research paper on tulpas. Cocreated alongside the varieties above.

Ever wanted to know about the Buddhist connection to tulpas? Turns out you're not alone. According to this paper, there are actually two connections.

In this text, the words homeostasis, holonomic, and diffraction appear to be used incorrectly. However, I can't rule out jargon too obscure to make it into the dictionary.

Aside from taxing English to the breaking point, the paper also investigates a lot of stuff.

First, the word tulpa is followed to its roots, and reveals tulpas are a thing in Buddhism. Tulpas are mental constructs, or thought-forms. And they are often an artifact of certain meditations.

Then another word is followed, yi-dams. These are constructed vessels, used to communicate with gods (angels). Also created through certain meditations.

Neither word matches what we call Tulpas, but there you go. This is a solid part of the text.

Then a plain and simple answer to that question people keep asking. "How are tulpas possible?" is put forward. Though it relies on a holographic notion of mind. So not a great theory.

Then the question of how many tulpas a person can support is analysed. With the answer 2. Which is incorrect, as about half of us know. This was probably based on a series of misunderstandings. Extending from this misunderstanding is a discussion that if you aren't trained in ancyent Tibetan arts, tulpas will make you crazy. And your subconscious will trade places with your conscious.

Then Alexandra David-Neel's story is presented. This is followed by warnings that you will regret it if you start, but fail to finish creating your thoughtform. Also, that you will be plagued by headaches for forcing too much.

It then introduces two meditation styles, passive and active forcing.

Then we come to the sciency bit. (with the charts and graphs) 53 tulpas are divided into four levels of personlikeness. And basic stats are measured. Nine people are followed to measure their forcing hours. (apparently, people force less later on)

Then we come to a part which says that the human mind is a computer. As it is. And tulpas are AI.

Then a hypothesis called the Default Network is introduced. It is not explained well enough for me to have an opinion based solely on this text. Disabling of this network is hypothesised as a cause for loss of contact with your thoughtforms under the influence of head trauma or certain medications.

Finally, we explore the prevalence of mental conditions in the community, noting how you are four times as likely to have something than the general population. (against all odds, the conditions in the study sum to 100%) The default network is back, and here it is giving depressed persons an advantage in tulpamancy, and autistic persons a disadvantage.

Now, I know some of that sounds inaccurate, but this paper is mainly proposing theories to be tested.

In other words, someone has been here before you, and scientifically answered all your questions, then named their research paper something that will never turn up in your search results.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Lolflash - click it, you know you want to