Hello There, Guest! Register

The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
YourCatBeany Offline
Accidentally a moth
Registered

Posts: 45
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2016
#11
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-02-2016, 05:04 AM)Tewi Wrote: 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.

I'm not sure if I'm just reading that wrong, but I don't think there will ever be anything objective about the nature of tulpae, even though they may have similar properties in the grand scheme. There are tulpae that people set out to create and work on for hundreds of hours actively, one thing at a time, who may end up very sentient yet lack something as basic as a form. Then there's tulpae like mine or AGguy's, who more or less popped in out of nowhere nearly full fledged that we took on from there. Then there's even others such as SparrowNR's soulbonds where they were born and developed into sentient beings through story writing. The ways they come to be and develop can vary so widely that it'd be impossible to come to any objective conclusions about their nature, and therefore isn't worth researching, imo.

Edit: I did read it wrong. My bad. Even so, considering how incredibly different each host's experience with their tulpa can be, I'm not sure if anything would come out of it, even as a subjective study.

It's best to just call me Beany.
Tupper: Hexferry / d.o.b.: 11/04/2015
Hex will speak in italics, if she decides to.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2016, 05:42 AM by YourCatBeany.)
02-02-2016, 05:33 AM
Find Reply
Glitterbutt Offline
Melian

Posts: 1,554
Threads: 50
Joined: May 2016
All Accounts Posts: 1,554
#12
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
Melian: I am stopping Mistgod here. I am in charge on the forum for us and he has made his points. We will let others carry on the discussion. It is a good one.
02-02-2016, 05:35 AM
Find Reply
Drakaina Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 230
Threads: 8
Joined: Jan 2016
#13
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
I can see MistGod's points regarding collecting quantifiable data (ages, locations, ext) of tulpamancers, but I feel using this data to try and draw conclusions relating to tulpa is either pointless or would walk into the hasty generalization fallacy.

The internet is a wonderduk, wide world, but it opens up too many problems for conducting studies such as allowing people to lie more easily. It also excludes many people who either don't live in a first world country, or don't have the financial means to own a computer or use the internet. Then there's the language barrier to consider. English is taught in many countries now but we're still far from a globally shared language. I think there are just too many problems with a survey that are taken for granted sometimes.

Then there's even the point of gathering this data. Say there's a survey that shows 70% of tulpamancers are between the ages of 18-25. Other than being an interesting bit of trivia (which may still be false because of the natural skew of her surveys targeting the western world), does it really accomplish anything? It's like finding out most trekkies are over 40. We can still only guess at why they are trek fans.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Howe's Egg Principle
02-02-2016, 05:59 AM
Website Find Reply
Tewi Offline
Amaranthine Rabbit
Registered

Posts: 398
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,215
#14
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-02-2016, 05:33 AM)YourCatBeany Wrote: I'm not sure if I'm just reading that wrong, but I don't think there will ever be anything objective about the nature of tulpae

Yes, you read it wrong, I was referring to Mistgod's example of an objective study we could do, ie collecting information on tulpamancers and tulpas. No special attachment to that myself, but it is an "objective" study relating to a subjective phenomenon, I suppose.


You're right, MG, that psychology is by far more scientific than tulpamancy. Psychology is a true soft science, but a science nonetheless. Tulpamancy as we practice it here has influence from soft sciences, but yes, it's much further from true science than the examples we gave. Really we're just holding on to the "For science!" and scientific reputation the forum likes to uphold. I don't personally care to call tulpamancy a science, because I don't personally care if it is or not. Others do though, so we pointed out the ways in which it is one.

At the very least, what we do is founded in the same spirit as science, which is a value of learning and spreading understanding over all else. That's what we were going for with that last paragraph. But admittedly, even Lumi doesn't share all of his beliefs on tulpamancy because there's a level of "suspension of disbelief" surrounding it in general that many are too afraid to look past. And we also promote positive subjective beliefs that science would consider biased. Which is fine. But it does separate us rather cleanly from true science, if you ask me.

... And that's fine. "For science!" means "For no other reason than to gain knowledge!" And I appreciate that mentality, whether following the scientific method or not.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.
All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.
Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2016, 06:03 AM by Tewi.)
02-02-2016, 06:00 AM
Find Reply
Drakaina Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 230
Threads: 8
Joined: Jan 2016
#15
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-02-2016, 06:00 AM)Tewi Wrote: ... And that's fine. "For science!" means "For no other reason than to gain knowledge!" And I appreciate that mentality, whether following the scientific method or not.
I really like this line. I may just make this my motivational phrase for the month. The spirit of pursuing knowledge to the best of ones ability is a noble one.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Howe's Egg Principle
02-02-2016, 06:09 AM
Website Find Reply
Anonymous
Unregistered

 
#16
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-02-2016, 06:00 AM)Tewi Wrote: I don't personally care to call tulpamancy a science, because I don't personally care if it is or not. Others do though, so we pointed out the ways in which it is one.

For me it's a bit different.
Basically... it's not that I hate things like religion, or believing in supernatural things. Neither do I hate the people who practice these things actively, believe in them.

Rather... well... I refuse to use excuses.
When there's something I can't explain, I don't allow myself to go the easy route of saying "It's supernatural, so whoop-dee-doo!".

And by the very way our world works, there can't ever be anything supernatural.
If it exists, that already means it's explainable and not supernatural at all. Otherwise... well, it wouldn't exist.
It only becomes supernatural when you willingly accept it as such.

And about the direct topic at hand...
... well, first of all: What a beautiful post by you, Tewi and Lumi.
Very well-written.

As for my personal thoughts... well, I think that asking the question of "Are tulpas real?" makes no sense.
After all, the members of this forum are members of this forum because they (subjectively) know they are real.

Not to mention, and this is much more significant: Why waste your time researching something, gathering knowledge and information about it, when you're not even willing to not doubt the basic premise?

We're not here to ask this question.
This question of "Are tulpas real?".
We're all here because we all found the answer to said question to be a yes.
And the ones among us seeking to research the matter do so because of that.

Be it objective information gathering via host-focused surveys or research into the worlds of individual, subjective experience reports, that's what we need to look into.
That's where the questions lie, the ones we need to ask.

How interested I am in that?
Well, some here know how interested Esterina and me are in the how and when of her birth. Her to a greater extent than me, even. That should speak for itself - of course I am greatly interested in learning more, and seeing the community learn more.

Of course the process of gathering knowledge can be a tedious one, that's only natural. And it can also be a very long process, and a hard one.
But I think it's worth it. I think that there's much yet to know about tulpas, soulbonds and so on, so much that not even our own headfolk could tell us for the life of them.

And I would love to see much, much more of it right here on the forums.
Way more tough questions, way more theories, way more direct and willing involvement in the part of this forum that tries to head deeper into the subject matter and bring to light new knowledge about the very thing so many of us are so deeply involved in.

Alright... before I go to any greater ridiculous lengths, I will leave it at this.
Again, you two, great post.


Greets,
AG
02-02-2016, 09:21 AM
Reply
Yakumo Offline
Kurama
Registered

Posts: 112
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2014
#17
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
As one of those people who have issues with the forum because it doesn't do "real science", because there's no "real research" on the nature of tulpas I am not entirely sure what to make of Lumi's post. While it looks good at a first glance, I don't think it addresses the fundamental problem.

My main issue with the forum is that by clinging to the whole 'science' label it claims to be something it is not and by its nature cannot be. This in turn leads to unnecessary criticism which could be avoided by a more humble approach.

As I have expressed several times before, in my opinion the forum should be an interesting and fun place where like-minded people can exchange their experiences. It will never be a platform for academic research.

Now why do I have a problem with the whole 'science' thing?
Because I feel it is used as a badge to make the forum look more 'serious' and 'cool'.
It somehow reminds me of those TV shows where people in white lab coats blow some stuff up 'for science'. You get the idea. It may be fun and appealing to a certain audience but you can't take something like that seriously. On the contrary. I think pretending to do 'science' actually hurts the credibility of the community more than admitting that we are not capable of doing so. Look at the research section. A large part of the projects are just polls no different from the ones in other parts of the forum and most of the few actual research projects are rather cringeworthy and inevitably lead to nothing. I am sure people put lots of work and good intentions into them but that's not how science works.
What science actually means depends on the definition you choose but it should involve systematic and well-planned gathering of reliable evidence and the creation of falsifiable theories and testable models from the obtained information. And believe me, that's even harder than it sounds.

I have made a proposal for improving scientific research on the forum a while ago but I have no illusions about the feasibility of such projects. There are some things we could research but it would be really (I mean really ) hard and the results obtained probably would not knock you off the table. So not sure whether it's worth all the fuss.
Which is my main point.
Do we have to be a scientific community? No.
We should remain skeptical and try to apply scientific methods where feasible but I think the whole science thing is a bit far out.

Conclusio
Sorry for being so negative today but I fail to see anything substantial linking this forum to any sort of science. And the more I think about it, the more I agree with Mistgod that in its present state tulpamancy could be described as a pseudo-science and proto-religion. Not that this is necessarily bad, but it should be kept in mind. Tulpas in their modern form are a relatively new phenomenon on the very border of our understanding. If anything we should strive to develop tulpamancy from a pseudo- to a proto-science.

That said, I'd say it's better to spend our time with our tulpas than trying to do 'science' that will probably yield little more than cheap laughs or sad headshakes from my tulpa at least
02-02-2016, 09:01 PM
Find Reply
Anonymous
Unregistered

 
#18
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-02-2016, 09:01 PM)Yakumo Wrote: As I have expressed several times before, in my opinion the forum should be an interesting and fun place where like-minded people can exchange their experiences. It will never be a platform for academic research.

Now why do I have a problem with the whole 'science' thing?
Because I feel it is used as a badge to make the forum look more 'serious' and 'cool'.

You entirely miss the point.
Most of it was said already in the opening post, but let me add that, no, this forum is not a research site primarily.
The other side of saying this is a scientifically oriented community is simply that this is not a metaphysics-/parapsychology-focused forum, but the opposite.

I don't really know why this has to explained, though.
It should be obvious what it means.
We are science-focused not because our main focus is doing research, but because we stay on the science side of the tulpa force.


(02-02-2016, 09:01 PM)Yakumo Wrote: What science actually means depends on the definition you choose but it should involve systematic and well-planned gathering of reliable evidence and the creation of falsifiable theories and testable models from the obtained information. And believe me, that's even harder than it sounds.

Again, read the OP and some of the other posts.


Greets,
AG
02-02-2016, 09:33 PM
Reply
Tewi Offline
Amaranthine Rabbit
Registered

Posts: 398
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,215
#19
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
(02-02-2016, 09:01 PM)Yakumo Wrote: While it looks good at a first glance, I don't think it addresses the fundamental problem.

We didn't really intend to address any problems with the forum, just to make it clear that peoples' expectations for true science were misplaced. This forum has a purpose, and we wanted to make that purpose clear. As for the forum's status as a place of science..

(02-02-2016, 09:01 PM)Yakumo Wrote: My main issue with the forum is that by clinging to the whole 'science' label it claims to be something it is not and by its nature cannot be. This in turn leads to unnecessary criticism which could be avoided by a more humble approach.

Now why do I have a problem with the whole 'science' thing?
Because I feel it is used as a badge to make the forum look more 'serious' and 'cool'.

I agree. Although I tend to place the fault more on people that expected "hard science" and were upset at its absence (Editing this for clarity: I meant long-time members, not those just finding the forum), it's true that technically speaking we don't do actual science. We do layman's science, which is what the general public thinks of as science. It means we ask questions, look for answers, debate our findings and refine them over time to come up with a relatively logical and reliable product. That I will claim we do. And to all the non-scientists (or everyone who doesn't know what science is) that works just fine. But there are people who are misled I suppose. I still think they're the stupid ones for expecting more, though (Again, in reference to long-time members, who often sit in silence until finally posting a year later in the Mass Leaving thread). Ten seconds on this forum and you should realize we aren't conducting lab experiments and writing academic papers. Sticking around for more than a year and then suddenly leaving and throwing a fit because you had persistent unreasonable expectations, I can't respect.

(02-02-2016, 09:01 PM)Yakumo Wrote: in my opinion the forum should be an interesting and fun place where like-minded people can exchange their experiences. It will never be a platform for academic research.

Not academic, no. But it is a place of research. This is a place of learning, a place of sharing experiences (which, keep in mind, are the basis of tulpamancy), and of critiquing and refining beliefs. Not true science, but it is what the average person sees as the essence of science nonetheless. (This does not make tulpamancy actual science. It is the spirit of science.)

As for true academic research, if I'm being completely honest, I feel like this community would be the first to involve itself in such a thing. Most likely it's going to come from some universities and completely external (not part of a community) sources. But still, true science or not, I feel we have the largest community of science-minded individuals. We are not however the largest community dealing with plurality, so it's possible we could be beaten in that respect too. Regardless, I see the potential for academic activity stemming from Tulpa.info. The whole site will not follow suit, but I feel we house a lot of the people that will.

I could be wrong, though.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.
All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.
Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 03:53 AM by Tewi.)
02-02-2016, 10:02 PM
Find Reply
Glitterbutt Offline
Melian

Posts: 1,554
Threads: 50
Joined: May 2016
All Accounts Posts: 1,554
#20
 
RE: The Purpose and Nature of Tulpa.info
The one thing Mistgod and I have taken away from this discussion was our own realization that tulpamacy is definitely not a true soft science either. Mistgod had the insight that a true soft science creates models based on observation that are then used to make predictions. Those models and resulting predictions can be tested by experiment. The models can then be used, like in applied psychology or applied sociology.

Mistgod was right months ago when he argued that tulpamancy is closer to a pseudo-science and a pseudo-religion than a soft science. Of course he was right. He said then that he likes pseudo-science and pseudo-religion and tulpamancy. He was just trying to make an observation and people jumped his shit for it then, not so much in his thread but elsewhere. https://community.tulpa.info/thread-pseu...-of-evil-1 (In general frustration he deleted his posts on the thread, but regretted it later. It was a legitimate thread and observation then as it is now).

We have never liked the "For Science!" motto much.
02-02-2016, 10:26 PM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication