• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Asgardian

  • Rank
    Neuroscience Nut

Personal Information

  • Sex
  • Location
  1. I usually go with Tulpas, because it is the most correct etymologically speaking. Actually in Classical Latin it would be pronounced "Tulpa-e/Tulpa-i", just like Caesar is pronounced "Ka-e-sar/Ka-i-sar". Modern Latin is mostly adapted to the respective regional pronunciation, so in German that would be for example 'ä', while it is in english more 'ei' or 'i'.
  2. I have to admit, that I like proposed layout very much, so everything I do not comment on is ok from my side. First of all, regarding further splitting general discussion; What I noticed is that many ask questions "just out of curiosity" there, like What does your tulpa smell like? or Has your tulpa changed after you made another one? etc. If that kind of stuff would get a designated section (other than Q&A), it would take away quite a bit of traffic from GD. I am furthermore not entirely sure if Experiments would warrant much content by itself, so maybe creating a kind of "Tulpa Babble" section might be feasible, where such questions, personal, more casual talk and those experiments for the funnies go. Might also take away a bit from off-topic's tulpa-related traffic (stuff like "How has your tulpa been molested by others unintentionally?" would rather belong in the new section). Then should the link to the progress report section be a bit further down in my eyes, as a place of everyone's personal space and subjective rambling does it seem a bit too much in the center of attention (stuff like "Fede's Major Fucking Shithole of Death" does not have to be in every newb's face. No offense Fede). Switching Articles and Progress Reports would probably suffice already. Mentoring sounds like a good idea, if wonder if that would be tied into a possible overarching system indicating a certain level of credibility/establishment/knowledge. I am pretty content with the research section, it generally speaking might need a few guidelines/axioms etc. to make it more productive, but I digress from the matter at hand. The general scientific talk section /would/ rather belong to off-topic if the whole board does not splinter (then it would get a more elaborate off-topic section, anyways). Then I would suggest making metaphysics a general philosophy section, maybe with a metaphysics and general philosophy subsection, that might still need some further polishing. Is Absurdity still going to be hidden, or are people just warned? That's it for now.
  3. And now, Asgard Corp. presents the newest shitty awesome le meme, forged by the most brilliant and creative heads out there: Frontloading. It is so witty and original, you have to love it and send it all your reddit/9gag/Facebook/Twitter friends immediately. It will also warn them about the highly radical meanings of this noxious neologism. Asgard Corp. Viral content with german quality.
  4. And there we are getting straight to the issue. By definition is what science does an approach thought up by philosophy, it is an epistemological approach to achieve knowledge. And unlike in most mysticism, religion and spirituality does epistemology apply to philosophy. This way the scientific (which would be psychological/neuroscientific) and the philosophical department share an approach they do not have in common with parapsychology and spirituality. This is why philosophy is by all means not "unscientific", and the fact that you not only call it that but also cram it yet again into one corner with "spiritual/metaphysical/parapsychological" shows all that much more that we require this difference.
  5. Too bad the community is not just about you. Grouping Metaphysics and Parapsychology was a bad idea in the first place, a misnomer to get rid of the spiritual people in the rest of the forum. And that is exactly what this board is. I wish for a philosophical board without stigmata and forced spirituality.
  6. Yeah, why not remove sections altogether and just mark the thread? See, I think you are just entirely missing the point of this thread, there is a fundamental difference most people here blissfully ignore. Furthermore do many people seem to frown upon spirituality, making cramming productive philosophy into the same section all that worse.
  7. One thing that has always bothered me in this community is, how much metaphysics and spirituality are crammed into the same corner. The difference is in reality enormous. Furthermore does it make serious and legit philosophical discussion hard to do. Metaphysics is a major and traditional branch of philosophy, dealing with the fundamental nature of being and the world in a philosophical and serious manner, and often tries to look at what is beyond the physical reality. It knows its place as school with partially hard/impossible to prove hypothesis and does not necessarily disagree with naturalistic worldviews. Parapsychology is the research of paranormal phenomena, and spirituality is the belief, and just that a belief, of an ultimate immaterial reality. Having this cleared up, I would like to suggest splitting them. My proposal is to have a Philosophy/Metaphysics and a Spirituality/Parapsychology board, separating them by definition and finally creating room for philosophical discussion, particularly detached from spirituality. Comments, input, objections?
  8. > Isn't the one built into the forum good enough? > built into the forum > good enough > good > enough .____. Mai boi...
  9. I know your problem all too well, Veo, being a slowpoke myself. Something that helped me a lot is this method, asking my tulpa to surprise me had literally more than surprisingly clear results. Otherwise I can just say, don't worry about the progress too much, all that matters is that you love her and that you can have fun together. I mean, you know that she is sapient, so forget the progress expectations and go on a wonderland adventure instead. All that helped me tremendously. I wish you and Mia-Daia good luck.
  10. Well, as a huge linguistics nerd was I a bit baffled that Reana really understands all of it, even though the narration was pretty much german-only with some sayings and foreign sentences mixed into it. Her french is even better than mine (mostly because she likes the language a lot), and all of her talk is also pretty flawless and accent-free, making me a bit jealous actually.
  11. Wow, in this thread the misconceptions are really flowing, aren't they? It is interesting that you manage to assume the tulpa is located in the brain while the host is not. Even assuming we manage to transplant a brain, reconnecting all the severed nervous tissue blood vessels etc. and it would not get rejected, the whole would be more of a body transplant for a consciousness (or multiple) than anything. This is why brain damage is so horrible, you cannot just sew some part of another brain in there, as every brain is unique. So the effect of your proposed idea would be that you are ,with your tulpa, in a new body, and the other guy is dead. If the consciousness would be located in the brain stem, then we probably would have had sapient species pretty early on this planet, it is the evolutionary oldest part of the brain. It is mostly related to very basic but nonetheless very substantial tasks, like controlling breathing, the heart rate, creating cortex activity and being the bridge from brain to spine. If anything, then some simple parts of the so-called protoself are located there. First of all is the cerebellum not part of the brain stem, it is mostly correlating with the cerebrum in humans. Evolutionary speaking are we dealing with another rather old part of the brain, it developed to coordinate complex motor tasks. And this is what it also does in humans. The cerebellum is very important and working as auxiliary for many higher tasks like speech too, but it certainly is not the main seat of the consciousness. If there is really any place that could rightfully call itself that, then the thalamo-cortical connections between the Thalamus located in the middle of the brain and the prefrontal cortex fields. Beside that there is really no specific place, all areas of the brain are important and doing their part to create the whole, another reason why brain damages is that detrimental. And raw emotion and desires are more the deal of the lymbic system located on top of the brain stem in humans. I am pretty sure the monkey was too busy being dead, trust me on this one.
  12. That all so fundamental difference is, that the tulpa is not continously bombarded by stimuli from the human body like the host who is in charge of it. And even then can long seclusion, loneliness and white torture damage the host in a similar manner to dissipation. Finally does switching turn the world upside down on that regard, quite literally.
  13. Well, even though the conscious of the moment as we perceive it is indeed rather limited, should we keep in mind, that many of the unconscious processes are specifically required to fill the consciousness with information (A third of the cortex' processing is just visual processing, for example). So, going with Gold's example, much more than the 60 bits would need to be spared in order to allow fully separate consciousnesses to concurrently and actively exist, without just being fed with what is inputted into the host. I am also pretty sure I mentioned on IRC already, that the bit comparison is rather silly, anyways. The brain does not work in bits and bytes. If it at least would work out for demonstration purposes... It is furthermore a fallacy that a large deal of the unconscious is unused. The brain is not a hard drive with blank space, if parts of the brain are unused, then because their function is not required, and if that is the case for a long time, their connections fade. Dunbar's Number seems interesting here, but there were cases of multiples having more alters than they knew personally, so it might not be the limit of existing alters. Another distinction we, as far as I am concerned, have to make is existing and concurrent. I am sure there can exist a few hundred tulpae/alters in a brain, but having them all concurrently active on the same level as the host is more than an herculean task, to say the very least. That does not mean they are entirely inactive either, though. A more dynamic look at the matter is required, as a consciousness is not one rigid system, but rather a huge collection of neural processes going on. Hence they might just be a bit "slower", so to say. What could become a problem is the working memory, which creates the consciousness of the moment. I can imagine it cycling the information of 5 consciousnesses' momentarily awareness around, but I am sure anything significantly more requires saving processing somewhere, maybe lessening the amount of consciousness for every single alter/tulpa. This is why I can very much see JD1215 running into problems like that already (without claiming he would), as the brain tries to actively allocate its power to where it is required.
  14. Well, from a neurological point of view, I'd assume it is generally the prefrontal cortex, maybe even the visual cortex when visualizing(duh). And since the brain itself has no nociception, I can imagine it is rather a blunt pain. Indirect perception of rearranging neurons.
  15. Well aviar, did you ever hear of white torture? Experiments in the last century showed (and where used for the sake of torture), that, if you place humans in bodysuits nearly nullifying their stimuli (sometimes coupled with loud music and humilation through nakedness), their personality and consciousness, whatever makes them what they are as a whole begins to degrade, even to disappear. It is of course harder to do it to you than to a tulpa, but it is very much possible to dissolve you the very same way. And you were narrated into consciousness, I doubt you were born with language, logic, moral culture etc. The people around you as child, what you perceived, managed to properly wire your executive functions, your langauge, and enculturated you.