• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Uguubee

  • Rank


  • Sex
  1. [citations needed] clearly a very trustworthy site
  2. A pretty concise and informative guide posted on /sci/ that provides scientific explanation into that experiment to do with the reconstruction of movie footage from memory, which could be applied to eventually constructing images of tulpae.
  3. ;_; that was quite sad to read. I wish you and Chess the best of luck
  4. I probably got everything wrong so just read these scroll to bottom of post for TL;DR Classical tulpaforcing: 1. An unconditioned stimulus emits an unconditioned response. eg. Looking at a picture of the tupper causes it to be more easily able to be visualized. 2. The conditioned stimulus emits no relevant response. eg. You click your fingers. You can think it sounds cool, but this response isn't relevant. 3. The unconditioned stimulus is paired with a conditioned stimulus to emit a response. eg. Whenever the picture is shown, which triggers visualization of the tulpa, you click your fingers. 4. The original unconditioned stimulus is taken away, and the conditioned stimulus should emit a conditioned response similar or identical to the unconditioned response. eg. Clicking your fingers allows you to visualize your tulpa without thinking about the picture. ('cutting out the middle man') The aim of this method is to allow the host's complete awareness of the tulpa to be turned on and off (this includes visualization, sentience, etc.; complete awareness) like a light switch - hence binary. However other applications of the classical conditioning concept may be used in general tulpaforcing. Reasons for wanting this may be that the host does not want his tulpa around him all the time for reasons such as work and other situations that would prove hindering. It could also be used if the host does not want the tulpa anymore. Ethical issues: -Tulpa do not wish to annoy the host and their company is pleasant - why would you want to 'turn them off' ? -'Turning off' the Tulpa is essentially the same as killing it for a short period of time. -Counterargument: only the host's AWARENESS of the tulpa is turned off. When the host becomes aware of the tulpa again the mind 'fills in the gaps', ie. the tulpa assumes it was alive during the time it was in the off state. -But still 'Turning off' the Tulpa may offend or annoy it - Tulpa need attention otherwise emit negative emotions that could be psychologically hazardous. Operant Tulpaforcing The reinforcement or punishment of behavior can be used to allow the individual learn wanted behaviors and unlearn unwanted behaviors. Possible applications in tulpaforcing: eg. Higher accuracy in shaping characteristics of tulpa. While tulpaforcing, if conversing with your tulpa or ascribing it an attribute in a manner undesired, apply punishment. If the opposite is true, and a desire trait is ascribed, then apply positive reinforcement. The reinforcement may apply to the host rather than the Tulpa, as punishment on the Tulpa will subtract your mind's desired 'behaviour', ie. forming the desired Tulpa won't take place as the Tulpa will undergo punishment. Example host-reinforcements/punishment: (+) Cookies, money, watch an episode of anime, fap (-) Do some push-ups, slap self in face, don't fap for a day. Possible benefits of this method include a more active and dynamic rather than meditative role of the host during the tulpaforcing process that can be supplemented with more ease into the host's daily life and schedule. ___________________________________ TL;DR: I want to see what happens when transposing classical conditioning and operant conditioning concepts to tulpaforcing. I might experiment with this later if I ever get around to making a tulpa. Let me know if this is stupid or at least somewhat worth testing. Also note that this isn't applying actual classical/operant conditioning to the tulpaforcing process per se, rather, it's just applying similar concepts.
  5. The ability for tulpa to recall or not would be dependant on what or whether memory can be transferred or read through genetics in the first place, I would think. Yeah, I wouldn't speculate that tulpa would actually be able to read genetic memory.
  6. I mentioned it to some people when I was stumped for conversation topics a few months ago. Something about university research to do with delusional christians praying to god and then hallucinating him, except you can go that with any idea really not just god. It's followed up by some jokes about what tulpae would be possible to make, or how tulpa-robots would be pretty sweet, and then it's easy to segue from there into something else.
  7. Would you speculate that some who do, have dreams?
  8. went to irc from sci went to here from irc
  9. I see exactly what FAQ man is saying. If OP's tulpa turns out different, who says it wasn't one of the of numerous factors that differs among individuals involved in tulpaforcing that made it's different? How can we know if it is just age involved or not? What IS testable is variables that relate to tulpaforcing methods themselves. Well, we may be able to say something about age is a massive change is made, but correlation doesn't always imply causation, and children are the most exploited subjects in the topic of 'imaginary friends'.
  10. Ah, on technology I came across another idea: I kind of touched on this idea when I was giving a Tulpaeist interpretation of Serial Experiments Lain, which deals exactly with this type of subject. The main difference is that neurologically, these aren't the same as Tulpae, I think the author was talking about it metaphorically. To suggest they are is an interesting idea.
  11. Tesla, Tesla Tulpe. She reports that Tesla helped her out with maths mainly, which is in correlation with our accounts.
  12. In terms of experimenting with dangerous subjects relating to tulpae, there's two; 1. Creating an 'evil tulpa' to see if it's possible to actually administrate individual harm via tulpa. Someone's already onto this. 2. The relationship between age and tulpa - is there any correlation? You'd be an appropriate test subject for this. I'd suggest starting your tulpaforcing considering the following elements; i. experience - I'm hypothesizing that less experience given to the individual produces an incomplete or 'lesser' tulpa. This directly relates to if age affects tulpaforcing. ii. your interpretation of instructions may be incorrect due to your age.
  13. I did say research, as in actual research, not just articles. Though articles are welcome too, just no Wikipedia, anyone can Google that.
  14. It isn't possible to create anything, nor destroy anything - the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed, only transformed. Of course here we're defining energy in the formal sense, that is, in physics, the physical capacity to do work. In psychology this concept can be somewhat transmuted as the perceived mental capacity to do work, and thus subconscious perceptions can be destroyed and projected under this hypothesis out of 'nothing', because we're not dealing with matter, we're dealing with ideas, which are formations of the mind. Nothing is being molecularly created or destroyed, you only think that it is. You're tricking your own brain essentially. Okay now with that out of the way; other people can definitely not see you tulpa under our current hypothesis yes, without technological aids, such as neurological brain scanners, computers, ect. Now, Tulpae do have access, we hypothesize, from deductions based on several different testimonies, to memories of their individual host. Ie. because it's from your subconscious it can access memories. Yeah, we don't know how it works either. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that your memory of when the photo was taken, as perceived by your consciousness, will be assumed by Tulpa and therefore it can, whether it's automated or choice-based, project a visualization onto it? If true for photos, what of movies? If movies, what of sounds; music (if a recording was taken and the Tulpa was speaking at the time to you)? If all of these things, then why not memories in general? Using neurological scanners there's potential to prove or disprove all of these things, but until then we're stuck in hypothesis land, and continue building our hypothesis on other hypotheses, ect. ect., all of which were founded on shaky ground. TL;DR: I personally think situation ii is possible.
  15. Links to existing research which prove relevant to the scientific study of Tulpae, because you can't write a credible scientific document anymore without listing thirty others.