• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jake0

  • Rank
  1. I never said anything about a second brain. I said they could be separate minds within their hosts' brains. Learn to read. "Proof" is a term that only applies to logical absolutes in fields such as mathematics. One doesn't "prove" anything in science. One only develops models to explain and predict things, models which are always being improved and revised. And why are you picking on psychology specifically? To investigate what a tulpa physically is, we'd need to turn to neuroscience. I never said anything about psychology. Alright, you don't trust psychology. You have a very distorted view of how psychology works, but I understand that it's not the most well-understood area of study, although it's certainly not as nebulous as you seem to think it is. But I don't care. I'm not talking about psychology specifically. We have other methods of investigating what is actually happening within the brain. You talk as if psychology is literally the only field of study that attempts to understand the brain. And yet other people dispute what you have said. Many people claim that tulpas act in unexpected ways and make decisions that their hosts disagree with. All you have to go on is a bunch of personal experiences. My point is that you can't simply provide what is, by your own admission, a "shoddy" argument for your point of view and claim that you're being scientific. You haven't investigated anything. You haven't cited any studies. The only difference between you and everyone else on these forums is that you're the one who's claiming that science supports your position, when in fact you have no scientific evidence. You can't just provide your point of view and then claim you're being "realistic" about the whole thing. It could be that we investigate tulpas using neuroscience and we learn that they are actually separate consciousnesses within one brain, or that some of them are figments of imagination and that others are actual minds of their own. We do not know until we actually investigate. So stop pushing your close-minded, pseudo-scientific agenda on us and do something useful for a change: start by reading about the scientific method and how it relates to psychology and neuroscience.
  2. I don't think you people understand what science is. Science is just a method for investigating reality. "Science" does not make tulpas sound lame. You did that, Bin, by making a bunch of assertions for which you had no evidence. If people actually did serious scientific investigations into tulpas, they might find that tulpas are indeed hallucinations with no sentience, or they might find that they are separate minds within their hosts' brains. You can't just assert that they aren't conscious and then call that "realistic" or "scientific" when no one has actually investigated this scientifically.
  3. So Bin, does your tulpa only perform actions you expect it to? Does it not have its own free will? Also, are you saying tulpas aren't alive, or that they aren't even self-aware? Because they are definitely not alive under any biological definition, but do you think they are not self-aware (conscious)?
  4. Do you believe it should be considered morally wrong to kill a tulpa? Maybe I don't want to bring up abortion but the two seem to be similar issues. I generally hold that if something depends on living in your body, and you don't want it to live in your body, you have the right to kill it. And of course I'm talking about benevolent tulpa who haven't tried to cause you harm. Probably most people would agree that malevolent tulpa can be killed. EDIT: I don't mean to inflict physical harm upon it, I mean to ignore it until it goes away.
  5. Good guide, but can you edit it to look nicer? The white text really hurts my eyes, plus the italicized text is annoying too. I made my own version with standard black, non-italicized text on white paper, but it would be nice if you had an option to download a nicer version.