Jump to content

reguile

Administrators
  • Posts

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

Custom Title

  • Member Title
    Black Box Collector

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Undisclosed

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Trying to break down my thoughts. I'm assuming you're speaking about Kopase and tulpa central here with the guides in question being the tulpamancy video guides that were published a while ago. When I think about what I personally want to see from a community like .info - I want to know what is there. If a site is hiding something from me, protecting me from myself, deciding that I will become a racist if I view a guide link and see a community full of them, that really gets on my nerves. I generally want to see everything that is available when I visit a website, even the bad stuff, and I'd generally prefer that quality filters are really strictly about quality of the guides and how effective they're going to be at helping people to make tulpas. But - if I did come to a site and I noticed a general trend of the guides and materials leaning a certain way - if the average guide was just casually mentioning racism and it seemed like half the people were scumbags, I wouldn't want to associate with the website at all and I would leave as well. Then there are bigger scale values. Not being about me vising the site and the utility I get out of it, but the drive to ensure that as few people hold wrong or harmful views as possible and leveraging counters to anyone who expresses them. So you have to judge what's going on in this case if you're going to decide if it's going to be removed. 1 - How much information are you removing - are you composming how much information is on your website? 2 - How does your site appear? Is this guide making you look bad. 3 - How is this going to impact bigger scopes? Is this guide going to do harm in general if people read it? I weight 1 in this case pretty heavily. The guide in question is kind of a "common keystone" for a very large number of tulpamancers and its absence will be felt. If someone can't find it on .info because it was removed since we don't like it, they're likely to hear of it elsewhere and go seek it out. I do not see much impact in the case of 2. The guide itself is pretty clean (as far as I'm aware - if there's anything really bad in it that may not be the case). The title is fine and nothing about the guide would lead me to think, coming to dot info and clicking around, that this sort of view is present or representative of the community. I see a much stronger case for point 3, but still not more significant than point 1. Tulpa central is a 4-chan style community. There are 4-chan communities all over the place, and this very community even started as one. It's not super likely that the presense of these links are making any significant change in the opinions of anyone, and at worst I see it as an outlet for people to go to that helps keep the pressure off .info. As far as I'm aware the guides don't really strongly advocate for people to join the communities, and the communities in question are unquestionably overboard, but I think it's pretty readily apparent and obvious to anyone who joins that they're getting into a 4-chan community. Based on all that it doesn't really cross any lines for me. If they were active advocates for something like white supremancy, or they were somehow leaking or pushing their viewpoint in other communities instead of growing their own, if they were an active threat to this community, that wouldn't be the case.
  2. I'm honestly not sure. I was able to create a new account when testing, so it isn't a universal issue. Make sure you answer the right answer to the spam questions when answering. If you're using a VPN that may be the cause. Sometimes anti spam gets touchy because VPNs are often used by spammers. It could be that your IP is flagged as being a spammer? Try using your cell phone connection or your home connection, whichever you haven't tried yet. The email account shouldn't matter - there's no way to tell how old it is. What the account is can matter - using gmail or yahoo will be less likely to be flagged as a spam account.
  3. Fun fact regarding fireplaces. They're environmentally better for heating your house than using electricity, since wood is renewable and coal/natural gas is not. It creates soot and other temporary city-wide pollution issues, might be sources of cancer-causing stuff getting into your house (mmmmm, sweet wood burning smell), but if we were all still using wood power somehow, ignoring that we'd need to turn the whole planet into a wood farm, we'd be better off long term than with "cleaner" not wood sources of heat.
  4. You don't win this game by posting, you win this game by being the last one to post. They are very different games
  5. You've run into the grand brick wall of tulpamancy. A very large percentage of people coming into the community do so with views and expectations like yours, then they eventually discover over the course of a year, a few years, that their expectations just don't meet the reality. The way a person copes with this brick wall largely defines their future in tulpamancy. What you're seeing from the other members is something that is one way of doing exactly that. It's a rebuilt philosophy that survives the brick wall and still lets you have a tulpa. Some survive by redefining what it means to be a person. Some survive by lowering their standards. Some survive in other ways. Consider: There are still reasons to treat a tulpa well. They are not the explanations you've been given so far, but there are very good reasons (If you're empathetic and you view your tulpa as a person, which is the whole point, you should be inclined naturally to want to treat your tulpa well no matter what, shutting off empathy selectively because "just my brain" isn't normal, natural, or good). No, you aren't going to abuse your tulpa into livelong trauma like you can abuse a separate physical person into lifelong trauma (Well, not for the same reasons at least, expectation is a strong driver of behavior). However, the way you act still matters. The way you treat your tulpa still matters. There is still joy in the empathetic boon of treating another well, even if that other isn't quite as other as you first expected. You can make similar explanations for most aspects of tulpamancy if you're so inclined to do so. If you're interested, I can list them off. Just like in the case of moral treatment, the reasons are generally weaker but they also generally hold up. You seem to be going the route of throwing it all out and walking away because you're not happy with the other possible explanations. That's perfectly fine. I don't think you should have any hard feelings about walking away because this has all disappointed you, and I don't think you should be required to accept one of these alternative systems. With that said, this is how you should be viewing all of these explanations here. I don't think anyone here (maybe someone is, they are around) wants to convince you your original expectations were realistic. It's all a matter of what you want out of it all. You can spend your time trying to achieve the highest standard you can possibly experience while not letting your feet leave the ground, but that requires you accept that the highest ceiling might be lower than what you expected it to be. If you're happy and alright with that, good! If you're not, also good! If this sounds like a load of bologna, not substantially different than speaking to yourself, that's understandable, especially when your expectations started way high in the sky and you're being let down. However, I do pretty strongly believe the ceiling here is higher than that of a delusion of an imaginary friend. There is something here to achieve and experience. It's not all hogwash, and there's something you can salvage out of this mess. You've just got to start over from square one and see if you can build back up from a more stable foundation. If you want to do so is up to you.
  6. What ranger explained is correct, the ideal is not to shut off your train of thought, it's to listen to the responses you get normally, and let them build on them themselves. If you try to silence your mind you're going to silence everything, it's about being able to disconnect from your thought process, it's about observing and listening and expecting more instead of responding to them. So if you are looking at a white wall, your tulpa might comment hey that's a white wall. on its own, that's a pretty simple thought and you can probably get that normally. The trick to what I describe as complex thoughts is that you don't immediately respond to that, you just keep listening and expect an explanation for why your tulpa thinks it's a white wall, or maybe they might have a comment about the color white, or maybe there's something else about the wall they're going to mention. if you can pull it off, this lets your tulpa speak in sentences. Imagine that they are responding to themselves, instead of responding to you. If you don't get anything, you might just need to practice some more, you might need to read some other guides. It's definitely good to read around and get all sorts of opinions. If you're having trouble, one thing I didn't include in my guide, but I do plan on eventually is recommending you put a lot of focus on imagining your tulpa existing in the real world. Speak to them, try to imagine where they would be, look them in the eye. Little things like that are ammunition, it helps get your brain to think that someone is there and a location they're speaking from. I also definitely recommend you pick a voice, a form, and so on. I feel like you should have some sort of idle background process if you just sit in a room and be for a while, you may want to look into meditation that encourages you to do that and see if you can observe that state of mind as well?
  7. When I saw what you wrote I thought "this is defensive and going back and forth on it is only going to make it worse" and checked out. There was only one way forward and it was into a pit. I'm not, and I don't think anyone else should be in the business here on making this a big challenge where you have to prove or disprove if your experiences are valid or not. That isn't a healthy way to go about things. A thread like this can be great, but it must be rooted in curiosity on you part with how others might see you. I feel like this one is rooted in insecurity, a desire to prove yourself. I have my opinions and thoughts on how these things ought to work, and you do have yours as well. Beyond where I may express disagreement where you defend your ideas and I defend my own, I think that ought to be let be and that the "diversity" of you being around talking about how you have these experiences is a strong point of the community. I think it's great to have a couple of people around insisting they can do parallel processing, and a few people who cite about the fact that they don't think it's possible and don't experience it. The way I see it here there are two categories of "toxic" disagreement for matters like this. There is defensiveness over being invalidated by others, and there is defensiveness in the fact that others have opinions that can invalidate your experiences. In the former case, the "invalidating party" needs to be brought into line. I've been that guy before. This is when you're talking about your experiences and someone comes along to spout the many theories of how your experiences are impossible. I'm sure there are people like that out here on .info today, and that sort of behavior tends to sneak under the radar for longer than it should. If you see it, I can't speak to the way the forum is moderated since I'm not a forum moderator, report it to a forum mod. In the latter case, someone speaks their own opinion and that opinion invalidates your experiences, so you feel like you've been attacked. You respond to defend yourself instead of out of curiosity and discussion. I believe that hostility is what people are referring to when talking about your incivility. I certainly saw some of that hostility in your response to what I said. In this case, you're the one in the wrong and you need to tamper your reaction before you get reported to the mods. Don't look to convince people. Don't feel like you have to back yourself up. Be happy to express your thoughts, to be you, and when people are "calling you out" instead of expressing their own opinion bop them on the head with the fact they're doing that. Focus on the fact that you're just talking about your experiences. Focus on telling yourself that opinions from people like me aren't attacks on everything you know and that I'm not "out to get you" or I'm not out to say that someone reporting experiences like yours needs to be shut down, invalidated, silenced, etc. We should be proud that there are those out there claiming to do what is impossible, or at least willing to tolerate that they have those experiences and limit our disagreements to appropriate times and places. Threads like this won't contribute to that, they'll detract from it.
  8. Short and sweet because this sort of thing has the opportunity to turn into a nasty argument. I don't really have any personal attachment to the confabulation term, I mostly use it because it has been used in the past. In a vacuum I'd probably say false memories or "on-the-spot invented experiences". Confabulation is a weird term you use when you want to sound smart. Time and experience is an appeal to authority rather than an appeal to fact. Appeals to authority are not known to reveal truth. Instead, an authority should also be expected to back up their claims and experiences with rational explanation. There are those out there who have a genuine belief they were abducted by a UFO. People with hundreds of followers who claimed they could use magic to take their opponents out without even touching them. All of them seem convinced of what they're capable of, some have years and years of experience, but systematically fail to prove themselves when held to a test instead of being held to the expectation and following of those who follow them. Appeals to authority or experience would not serve to disprove many things that should be disprove and are demonstrably false, so I do not believe any appeal to authority should be used when speaking about tulpamancy either. Those with years of experience should be looked at as more capable of backing themselves up and have finer knowledge of what's going on in their head/their ability to explain it, not as more capable because they have years of experience. As for research on multitasking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking https://health.clevelandclinic.org/science-clear-multitasking-doesnt-work/ https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794 https://hbr.org/2010/12/you-cant-multi-task-so-stop-tr https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/if-multitasking-is-impossible-why-are-some-people-so-good-at-it/248648/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11512469/Multitasking-is-scientifically-impossible-so-give-up-nowMultitask.html https://blog.rescuetime.com/multitasking/
  9. Short relatively in context response that is good enough to be considered a response but also serves to make sure I'm the most recent one to post.
  10. To start things off, someone set my nose wiggling by saying my name. I don't really agree here with the appending of my name as a term used to describe underdeveloped tulpa. I've never been much to encourage people to have "mind dolls", although I certainly don't question their validity either. My system of understanding and thinking about tulpas tries to include both those which are very well developed and those which are very undeveloped. There's no reason to draw a line. I'll defend these types of tulpa all day any day, but I also would highly enourage anyone who has them to also look into doing more if they want to. If I were to get in the business of invalidating people.... I've been in that business before. It didn't go very well. I've tried to leave it. And I set a very high bar personally when it comes to my experiences with tulpa. I started in this community when the old ways were common, and I still see those old ways as the perfect ideal "unachievable" standard of what a tulpa should be. "Reguillian" an underdeveloped tulpa is not. The only "Reguillian" tulpas are tulpas who belong to a brain that has a specific understanding of the way their mind works to explain their experience, not the quality of their experience. It's an explanation-framework, not a limit or a set of experiences that is "allowed". I'm a huge fan of the idea that you can have a tulpa do things that are impossible, and a huge part of what I do in my explanations of tulpa is to "allow for" those things to be explained and understood from a "scientific" point of view even while contemporary scientific facts says such things are impossible. A few years ago, maybe you'd be correct in your phrasing. That isn't me anymore. I'm still skeptical, but I also feel I'm still very open to a wide ranges of experiences. I'm just not open to a wide range of explanations for those experiences. I require pesky proof/reasonable "predictive" backing hypothesis (which is a big part of why I don't think the argument of time/experience when talking about bear is a valid one. To cite fallacies, it's an appeal to authority.). Giving such an explanation is very important to people like me to be able to engage with those experiences at all. Without these explanations the choice to be skeptical renders them very difficult to impossible to achieve. I think it's a shame people largely see the "it's fake confabulation" and not the "it's possible with confabulation". I very much think the latter is the end goal. Some of my prime experiences with tulpamancy I understand as being "just" confabulation, but I treasure the experiences regardless. It isn't "just" confabulation, it's an experience I had, AND it's confabulation. ___ In response to the overall post: I think I agree here with the overall idea/goal. Bring back hour counts and get tulpamancy "serious" again. The abandonment of hour counts and ritual and so on and so forth has made us lazy, and in that lazyness we forgot that a big part of what we do/should aim to do is push boundaries and improve our skills/ability. (with full disclaimer, I'm as lazy as the next guy) I'm focusing right now on trying "force for at least five minutes every 3 hours" tracked by an external program, and that regularity (with a clear indication of when it's not being kept) has felt great so far. I think that's the best way to do it. You have to put in some work. This is serious business, do the work. We don't use hour counts and say "you must do X hours or you won't have a tulpa". Instead, we say that you should be putting in the work for the sake of putting in work. If you aren't pushing yourself to new boundaries you're failing to practice tulpamancy. However, do I believe this will lead to parallel processing? No. I believe the brain's ability to think complex thoughts is severely constrained by working memory and no amount of practice will break that limit. I can see there being some degree of parallel thought in the form of fairly short-form works of action that don't require "reprocessing". Emotional reactions, quick responses to stimulus, interjections of semi-random thought, and so on. Where I'm far more skeptical is the possibility of "complex "thought going on in the background. Stuff that you have to think, listen to yourself think, then re-think for it to make any sense. Things like performing a math problem, having a reasoned debate, coming to a strong conclusions, and so on. I'm skeptical this will be a possibility, even with training. JGC mentioned a date calculation, but I'm thinking more of novel mathematical proofs, "novel" untrained thoughts and behaviors, the stuff you conscious mind excels at. Such things need working memory, and according to what I've seen your brain just physically doesn't have it. If I were to guess, if there was something that was thrown out with the throwing out of hour counts it was the creation of "vivid" experience through training. I think that someone with years and years of training at communication is going to have a "stronger mind" like pleeb mentions in the OP. I don't necessarily believe that will lead to an unlocking of the ability to have complex parallel processing (training in humans has not been known to increase multitasking skill), but I do think that strength will lend itself to the creation of far more vivid experience. The stronger your brain is at "general-tulpa-things", the stronger your belief is in your tulpa, the more easy a response may flow and the better your brain will be at filling in the gaps and bridging impossibilities as brains do best. So, I agree that the old style of work your ass off is good. I think it may lead to more experiences of these "magic" scenarios like parallel processing, but I don't ultimately believe there will be actual "complex" parallel processing gone on.
  11. 75 percent seems reasonable to me if it doesn't apply for mobile devices.
  12. I am posting here only to take your crown, breloo
×
×
  • Create New...