sushi

Members
  • Content Count

    833
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sushi

  1. Yeah, it was pretty cold in spring and autumn, but I remember sweating like crazy during summer. It's not quite NYC, so perhaps the weather is a bit different. Another thing I discovered there that I think you'll find interesting is the yawning contagion. You know how when you see someone yawning, you yawn too? I noticed that many people there would yawn when I asked them to just imagine someone yawning. Or they'd yawn just from reading something I wrote about people yawning, something like this paragraph you're reading. And this would happen no matter how much they tried to resist yawning. Are you yawning right now? Let's go back over what I said... There are two explanations I can see here, depending on how you found out about this. 1. Your tulpa told you that he followed the guy. 2. The guy told you that he felt something following him, and your tulpa confirmed it. Either way, via confirmation bias and the power of suggestion, you matched what your tulpa told you to what the guy told you about his day. He probably had a pretty typical experience, like going to work and such, so your tulpa's report matched pretty well with it. This is a technique commonly used by cold readers: say things that apply to everyone, or at least to the group of people you've identified your target to be a part of. As an example, did you yawn when you read what I wrote about yawning? I'm guessing you did. I've noticed that people who are interested in metaphysics tend to have a lot of sensitivity, imagination, and empathy, and that combination of traits means that they'll yawn in sympathy with someone they've imagined yawning. So my little yawning paragraph is a demonstration both of how cold reading can work, and how suggestion can work. If I can suggest to you via text from other side of the world that you will do something, and you do it, is it so hard to imagine a being inside your own head being even better at influencing you with suggestions? Actually, you are. Most of my experience with hypnotism is via text, but it's even easier over the phone. People tend to think that you need to go into a deep trance for hypnosis to affect you -- you don't. Milton Erickson was a very influential hypnotist who worked entirely through conversation and storytelling. He wouldn't use any pendulums or pocket watches or spirals or even talk about sleep. He'd just talk about growing tomatoes or playing baseball, and his subject would be healed. There was even once incident where Erickson's secretary had horrible migraines and refused to be hypnotized, and he made her take dictation of nonsense jumbles of words he'd heard from schizophrenic patients. He mixed in some words of his own, and just nonsense jumbles of phrases was sufficient to cure her of her migraines. If you'd like to see how incredibly easy it is to suggest things like this, I recommend . Not just the third guy, but also the first and the second and you and your tulpas. This is why it's absolutely essential to do double-blind experiments. There was a famous experiment where a Russian woman said that she could see what was happening inside someone's body with her psychic powers, and she could diagnose diseases with it. The Russians tested this by doing brain scans and comparing the brain scans to what the woman said -- a lot of the time the brain scans actually matched what she was saying. Then James Randi got involved. He insisted on a double-blind experiment. The Russian scientists were divided into two teams: Team A showed the woman the people who were being scanned and recorded what she said. Team A never saw the brain scans themselves. Team B saw the brain scans, and recorded the correct answer the woman could give, but they never saw the woman's answers. Afterward, the results of Team A and Team B were compared, and they showed random chance. Basically, before Randi showed up, the scientists were looking for what they wanted to see, even if they were doing it unconsciously. That's the power of suggestion and confirmation bias. James Randi introduced the double-blind experiment, which removed the power of suggestion and confirmation bias from the results, and they could be analyzed scientifically. Unfortunately, not every experiment that comes out of a university is very scientific -- lots of people think they're doing science, but they don't understand double-blind experiments, so their results will always be contaminated by their own minds. To identify such contamination, the scientific community has peer review -- basically, if someone comes up with some amazing results to an experiment, several other groups around the country will do the same experiment, but trying to be more objective and scientific than the first group -- if they get the same results, it means something, but if they don't, the scientific community dismisses it. This is why things like telepathy, in spite of being experimented on many times, are considered metaphysics and not science. You're right, and I wish they would do this, but they don't. Christian Scientists will often say they've been cured of major diseases like Ebola (70% of the people infected die), when they've probably really been infected with diseases with similar symptoms like the flu (3% of the people infected die). Because they never got a proper diagnosis, their story sounds far more remarkable than it really is. Also, the Christian Scientists who actually die of Ebola aren't around to tell the story of their failure.
  2. Go here. Even if just for a weekend, but ideally you should work there a few months or a few seasons, like I did. You will meet so many people training some sort of physic ability, you wouldn't believe it. I actually went there to learn about tulpas, back before there was an online community. I was introduced to a lot of interesting subjects there, and I meet a girl with imposed wings. I highly recommend it. I have to disagree with this. 1. Metaphysics is far from "new", unless you're going by the geological use of the word "new". 2. Metaphysics is not science, because science is more than collecting data. This is important to me, even though I've always had a great interest in metaphysics, and I do believe that it has great value. The reason this is important to me is that my mother's parents are Christian Scientists. That doesn't mean that they're Christians and scientists. That means that they belong to a religion called "Christian Science" (even though many people would say that it's neither Christian nor science). If you've heard of this religion, it's probably because Christian Scientists are in the news every few years when a Christian Scientist child dies because his parents refused him medical attention. Christian Science is a faith healing religion. They believe in the healing power of prayer. The problem is, they haven't scientifically tested the healing power of prayer. My grandparents nearly died last year of a very minor illness. Eventually, they both agreed to be hospitalized. Next time we might not be so lucky. The fact is, Christian Scientists die ten years on average earlier than the rest of the population, and usually from illnesses that modern medical science has a nearly 100% success rate at curing. But Christian Scientists don't understand statistics, double-blind experiments, control groups, or confirmation bias. And it kills them. Christian Scientists collect stories of healing through prayer -- they collect data -- but they have no idea how such data should be analyzed. And no matter how much I try to show them, they refuse to believe it. Someday, probably someday soon, I will watch metaphysics kill my grandparents when science could have saved them.
  3. To my knowledge, nobody has ever noticed Fenchurch in any way. But maybe she had something to do with me successfully passing as female online for around a year.
  4. I'm on my phone for the next week, so I'm not going to try to write a full response, but I'll point you toward The Illusion of Independent Agency. This is a common experience among writers.
  5. Yeah, well, Mistgod and/or Melian cones up in every podcast. ;)
  6. I'm a celebrity! Mentioned by two of my names in a tulpaudcast. To give my own spin on what Enny was saying, if an eight year old child wants to be in a relationship with a 30 year old man, most people do not consider the child to be ready for that. But when a four *hour* old tulpa wants to be in a relationship with a 30 year old man, nobody questions it. Obviously nobody is saying that a tulpa should be 18 years old before a romantic relationship, but why is there a lower limit for humans, but no lower limit for tulpas? On Enny's visualization, it makes sense to me. I do the same thing he calls roleplaying (for about 22 years now) though I do it a little differently. But there's no visualization involved. It's more like telling myself a story than watching a (Melian) show.
  7. Well, I am a bit of a Bible scholar. I suggest you read Mark 3:22-27, Matthew 7:20, and 1 John 4:2-3. Also, check out Hound's PR, because he went through the same thing.
  8. Yes. For example, I don't think Fenchurch would get annoying much or argue with me much because we're both pretty introverted, tend to keep to ourselves, and we've already felt out each other's limits and know where not to go.
  9. Psychological, not neurological, I believe. But I get where you're coming from. I'm glad you mentioned that we still haven't defined "tulpa", which is my main interest here, and something I brought up over a year ago. I think that firmer terminology will help immensely. The difference between soulbonds and tulpas is the difference between astrology and astronomy, the difference between alchemy and chemistry, the difference between mesmerism and hypnotism. Also, I believe that sometimes over the years, people with other kinds of thoughtforms have come in here and suffered as they tried to fit something which was not a tulpa into a tulpa mold. If we had clear distinctions, it could save a lot of trouble--not to mention, open up new possibilities.
  10. That's neat. I just learned more meanings of those as well. To me, orthogonal has always meant the way a rook moves, as opposed to diagonal, the way a bishop moves. I know bromide from Chrono Trigger. An old man trades you something valuable for a bromide of an attractive female monster. I looked it up on the past, and found out that he was looking for a kind of picture, so I always assumed that a bromide was like a pin-up. Now I see that I was wrong -- bromide refers to the kind of paper, and has nothing to do with the image on it. There's a Mark Twain quote: "High and fine literature is wine, and mine is only water; but everybody likes water." I try to write water as well. I may use obscure words sometimes, but when I do, I try to define them. I imagine I'll reach a wider audience if my readers don't have to figure out on their own what somnambulism and the Esdaile state are, just to understand what I'm saying.
  11. What I mean is something metaphysical. As I understand it, it used to be a common belief in soulbonding communities that writers were tapping into another universe with their writing. So soulbonds would be different from character-based tulpas, because soulbonds were *real* beings in their own universe. Of course such things can never be proven, and I may have gotten the theory wrong, but I thought it would make a neat binary classification. Though as you point out, it's not really binary.
  12. Could we come up with mutually exclusive categories? I'm thinking something a bit like the Meyers-Briggs system. For example, one mutually exclusive division is your tulpa's origin. Tulpas that originated inside the mind include daemons, dream characters, accidental tulpas, conventional tulpas, and more. Tulpas that originated outside the mind include soulbonds, spirit guides, and more. What other mutually exclusive divisions are there?
  13. I took it. There are a few small errors. For example, a mindscape is not needed for active forcing -- active forcing can also take a form more similar to meditation. Also, I believe you asked if I had tulpamancer friends online twice.
  14. Well, I do consider myself a bit of an authority on hypnosis, and I agree with you about some of that. The reason hypnosis is not legal evidence in court is because of how easy it is to give someone false memories -- even by accident. It doesn't sound at all unlikely that Long John Nebel, the conspiracy show host, accidentally created memories of a conspiracy. But yeah, hypnosis is totally real, and the CIA totally did experiment with it from the late 40s to the early 70s. One of their experiments involved hypnotizing a girl to shoot another girl (unknown to her, the gun was not loaded) and afterward to have no memory of having done so, and another involved hypnotizing a girl to rob a sleeping man of his wallet and set a (fake) bomb, and having no memory of it. If you don't believe that, you can get this information directly from the CIA by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request and asking for the documents with IDs 190527 and 190691. The request should be free of charge. (Or you can just read the transcripts here.) But I think you're right that Nebel had probably heard rumors about this stuff before it became public knowledge. You're right about the connection to Freud, but you have the order reversed. Freud studied under Jean-Martin Charcot, who was one of the influential early hypnotists. Granted, hypnotism was pretty crackpot back then -- Charcot had this idea that only hysterics could be hypnotized, meaning that only women could be hypnotized, because the people of the time believed in a disease called "female hysteria", which was probably created by hypnotists who didn't know what they were doing to begin with. It was a big mess, and hypnotism didn't really become scientific until around the 1950s. The real puzzler for me is why the CIA would care about pre-existing imaginary friends rather than just creating a new personality. G.H. Estabrooks published Hypnotism in 1943, describing how to create a personality for a secret agent with hypnotism, so you'd think that the CIA would know about it. But the CIA definitely did study dissociative states in children, so the idea of working with a childhood imaginary friend isn't completely out there. Wikipedia does list some additional evidence for this story: However, note that most of this evidence came from Bain, a friend of Nebel's, and the man who wrote the book on Candy Jones being a secret agent. So it's a bit questionable. The story does seem pretty out there, but there's nothing blatantly wrong about it. It could be true or false, and both Candy and John have since died, so it's pretty hard to find anything pointing one way or the other at this point.
  15. Candy Jones was the most popular model of the 1940s. In 1946, she married Harry Conover, who not only didn't love her (he was gay) but also left her in 1958, taking over $100,000 of her money, leaving her with only $36. She sued Conover over the money he had taken, and eventually won, but by that point he had already spent all the money. He got two years in jail, and Candy was left in debt to her lawyer. Candy struggled to get by until 1972, when she started dating Long John Nebel, who ran a very popular conspiracy radio show. After one month together, they got married. Almost immediately, John noticed something strange about his wife: sometimes her voice would get deep and her personality would change. The normally loving and gentle woman would become harsh and aggressive. Candy had trouble sleeping. John offered to hypnotize her to help her sleep, but she insisted that she couldn't be hypnotized. He tried it anyway, not telling her that he was hypnotizing her, and it worked very well. She was able to sleep. This became a regular thing for them, John hypnotizing Candy every night, because she couldn't sleep without it. In spite of the regular hypnosis, John couldn't get Candy to admit that he had hypnotized her -- she firmly believed that she could not be hypnotized. John didn't tell her to, but often when he hypnotized her, she'd suddenly regress mentally to childhood, and he'd have a conversation with the child Candy, before putting her to sleep. One night, Candy regressed to a later age. John realized that Candy believed she was talking to a CIA psychiatrist -- the same man who told her that she couldn't be hypnotized. He also discovered that this other person that Candy seemed to become was called "Arlene". Sometimes when he'd hypnotize Candy, he'd talk to Candy, and sometimes to Arlene. Realizing that something unusual was going on, John started deliberately regressing Candy, and recording their sessions. John uncovered that "Dr. Jensen", the CIA psychiatrist, had interviewed Candy for a job. Candy was desperate for money after her divorce, so she was very interested. However, instead of asking normal interview questions, Jensen seemed more interested in talking about Candy's childhood. Candy had told Jensen that her childhood was very lonely. She didn't have real friends, only a cat, a dog, and sometimes the servant's girl. But when Candy was feeling lonely, she would go to her grandmother's room, where there was a large dressing table with three mirrors. Candy would sit in front of that dressing table, and pretend like all of the reflections of herself were different people, and have little tea parties with them. Eventually, she didn't even need the mirrors to talk to them. Jensen was most interested in Arlene, who was a very athletic girl with a domineering personality, who wanted to run things. Again and again, Jensen turned the conversation back to Arlene. He gave Candy a dose of what he called "vitamins", and began to hypnotize her. Jensen gave Candy a trigger: she would sit in front of a mirror, just like she did as a child, and he would say something, and she would become Arlene. He could even turn her into Arlene over the phone. They gave Arlene a last name: Grant. It had been Candy's grandmother's name. A passport was made for Arlene Grant, with a picture of Candy wearing a wig and makeup. Arlene was sent off for training, where she learned to search a room, conceal clues, commit suicide with a poisonous lipstick, or kill somebody by poisoning a needle with that lipstic. She learned to use acid and various types of guns, how to climb ropes, write coded messages on her fingernails and paint over them with polish. With this knowledge, she was sent overseas on several missions for the CIA. And in the 70s, Long John Nebel uncovered this story with hypnosis. It's easy to dismiss this story as fiction. After all, Long John Nebel was a host of a radio show about conspiracies, and he had been known to make up stories for his show before. The interesting thing though, is that the book about Candy Jones came out the year *before* the CIA went public about how they'd spent decades doing experiments on hypnosis, drugs, and mind control under the name MKULTRA. So was it true? It's difficult to say, but it's possible that Arlene Grant was the most famous and influential tulpa ever. Candy Jones information: 1, 2, 3.
  16. I believe that neurologist V. S. Ramachandran called instances like this "zombies". If I recall correctly, there's a case in his book where one of a woman's hands was trying to strangle her, and she had to fight it off with the other hand. It's very interesting, and looks like tulpas from the outside, but it's really quite different. Tulpas are a psychological phenomenon, whereas these "zombies" are a neurological phenomenon. To create a "zombie", there needs to be actual physical damage to the brain somewhere, whereas tulpas can occur in a healthy, functioning brain. I've used hypnosis to split someone's mind into different personalities (psychological split rather than neurological split) and you get exactly that same rubik's cube reaction: the part of the mind that isn't responsible for the action makes up a reason for the action, and fully believes it to be true. From the outside, psychological and neurological effects can look almost exactly the same, especially if you don't know what to look for. In this instance, you'd get a clue that this is neurological by asking both personalities to speak -- only one of them can. So this looks a lot like tulpas, but works a little bit differently.
  17. I imagine Linkzelda as a very serious scholar who references the writings of "Glitterbutt" with a straight face, as if he's talking about a well-respected scientist. It's hilarious. As for me, of course I researched. I first read about tulpas over a decade ago, and there was no tulpa community at the time. I read about occultism, neurology, psychology, hypnotism, hallucination, and dreams. There are a lot of techniques that can be applied to the practice in all of these fields. Melian and Mistgod, if you're interested in CILD/CALD, look at CyberD's PR, which is worth reading for several reasons.
  18. Well yeah, we're all neckbeards with spaghetti dropping from our pockets. But on a serious note, there's a grain of truth in that. Very few of us are the picture of mental health, whether or be maladaptive daydreaming, ADHD, depression, autism ... or social anxiety. I've gotten PMs from people who are so uncomfortable with posting because everyone else will see their posts that they communicate entirely by PM.
  19. Like others have said, I feel like the fiction thing is misleading. If you want to cover yourself legally, you should use something more like this. "Empirical" is not synonymous with fiction. "Bullshit" is. If someone tells a story about a giant frog that ate his cat, his friends are likely to say "He was just bullshiting", meaning "His story was fictional". If you're trying to present a book without bullshit, you shouldn't tell us it's bullshit right at the beginning. It's not entirely accurate to say that "visualization has nothing to do with hallucinations". It actually has quite a lot to do with hallucination. Also, where you say "If you came here because you have no friends in real life", I feel like you're alienating a fairly large chunk of the community. Interesting to see that Vipassana has caught on. I think you could just as easily call this a book about Vipassana as a book about tulpas. But it's up to the reader whether that's a good thing. All that being said, there is a lot of overlap between Vipassana and forcing, and following the practices of Vipassana and of this book will help many hosts.
  20. There isn't really much to say about Fenchurch. We're talking more, but haven't made any progress, and we're still not spending anywhere near as much time together as we used to. But Taco Bell is still sad.
  21. sushi

    Chat Thread

    I'm always amazed by how much Enny spends on audio equipment. "Expensive" for me means that I spent $20 on a mic instead of using my phone.
  22. That should be Akibaranger. But yeah, I dislike "tulpa" and "tulpamancy" for reasons I've stated before.
  23. An update: I got in some spirited debates with the people from my chat. I'd been noticing it getting slower and quieter for months, and several other people brought that up as well. However, several of the more vocal regulars were of the opinion that quiet is good, and the only problem with the chat was me complaining about it. So I left. I've been back to visit a few times. The forum has lain completely untouched for months -- actually, the last post is one of mine from before I left. The chat itself is quiet as the grave -- even during the times when it used to be most active. It pains me to see it like that. I put a year of my life into that chat, bringing people in, adding features, scheduling lessons, group sessions, and contests. I met friends there. I fell in love there. And now, it's like it never even happened. And the few people who are still there seem to be perfectly happy with that. After leaving the chat, I went back to a few other internet communities I've been a part of over the years. They're all dead. I know people don't think this place is exactly thriving, but compared to everywhere else I've ever been, it is. I've been having this feeling like I don't belong anywhere. Like the internet has moved on without me. I've been logging in here and reading posts, and even tulpa.info doesn't really feel like my place anymore.
  24. Now that you bring it up, I am seeing the parallels. Haven't been able to get any yet. I'm working on it. Not nearly enough, she says. Probably just for a few minutes every day. I'd like it to be more. I miss her. Thank you. I hope to return here as well. I'm definitely not one of those people who will forget his tulpa and leave forever. I'm just having trouble for the moment. But I'm still somewhere in the middle of compiling a tulpa guide, so I hope to finish that someday as well. Thank you. Good to see you here too. Back when I left, we were terminally low on mods. I was worried about the forum.
  25. Yeah, not exactly back, but thank you. :) I've been taking a look around, and this place is really different. When I am back for good, I feel like I'll have to meet everyone all over again.