• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jyde

  1. I figure since my presence here is more or less acknowledged, I can still do the public one last, good service and inform it about Eye-Bo, the ocular fitness program. Some of you may or may not have occasionally seen me distributing it around various channels on Rizon since August last year. Eye-Bo is a suite of audio-visual entrainment tapes designed to entrain you into producing specific brainwave frequencies using blinking lights and pulses of audio synchronised to those very frequencies. They can be used to entrain yourself into improving your ability to, among many things, sleep, visualise, relax, or focus. They function much like isochronic tones, but more effectively due to the combination of visual and auditory stimulation. Eye-Bo has all the paces required to replace the ones used by the tones, and, as such, supersedes them. You can learn more about it here. [NOTE: Eye-bo involves flashing lights, avoid if you're prone to seizures. Also, read the manual. You're supposed to watch it with your eyes closed, otherwise it might give you a headache. Link updated to point to the actual info-and-download page. ~mod] I promise this is the only thread I'll ever make as Jyde.
  2. Best guide gets first approval, naturally.
  3. Feel free to remove the poll. It's irrelevant either way because the actual guide is at tulpanet, where I prefer people respond instead of here, mostly for the convenience of having posts concerning the guide centered at the relevant place, but also to encourage growth in tulpanet's userbase.
  4. I'm surprised you didn't write a 12-page essay of a review.
  5. Why is it still not stickied? Because that's what it originated from: parroting. If you'd ask me how she's sentient right now, I'll just answer "I parroted her and then she ended up doing things automatically with needing my conscious attention." without going on about baseless theories like "She became sentient from the parroting and took over through her own conscious will.", which is a complete guess about something we have very little understanding of. Like I know if there's any will or a different "thought stream". If anything, I can just choose to believe so, because I accept that I'll never know "the truth". Damn if I know. It's true if it's true, but we don't know if it's true. Yep, basic analysis. Depending on the person, you mean; I think a hallucination with no ability to possess whatsoever has just as high a score of verifiability as one that can switch. And what about dream characters? This pretty much means "it's true to those that believe it", and that's nowhere near actual "proof". Or maybe one should just stop trying to prove something that can't be proven. We can all live in the fantasy that "one day, we will have the devices to truly find out and get our big reveal", but you need to live in the present if you want to prove something. And they don't think it's safe because they've been frontloaded into believing so. And they've been frontloaded because...? That's right, because of ancient notions that still persist. The parroting never stops as far as the host is concerned. Watch your wording there. Damn if I know. Damn if you know. You probably didn't parrot enough. Mindset frontload alert. We have a narrator in the building, I repeat, you must all evacuate. Because parroting is so unnatural. Still gravely missing the point. It never stops as far as the host is concerned, in case I must repeat this to you. But these "reports of switches" are subjective experiences that are heavily determined by belief and conditioning. If people want to train possession while using my guide, they can go do that. It's just the lack of data making you nervous. Silly Ruffle, not believing in the power of beliefs. I assume people know of the concept of experimentation, especially when most guides emphasise the importance of experimenting.
  6. Much of your post is making theories and wondering about life, so I'll just quote select bits of it. The "change of my belief" is a thing that came naturally, and I'd say it's a thing that's been here nearly the entire time she's been around. When I started to notice that the parroting had been fully automated and she'd be doing her thing "on her own", as far as my perception was concerned, then I was more or less thinking "Oh, cool, it's automatic now. That's independence enough for me." So there was no snap-of-the-fingers change of beliefs, which is what I found you made it seem like in your representation of "my opinion". Alright, by "never", I meant "never" figuratively, not literally. Who knows what the future might hold in terms of technological advancements. I'm aware of that possibility. But I live in the now, baby. And the whole "switching is close to proof" is still only a theory that is based on wholly subjective and, in case it hasn't been noted, excessively imaginative experiences. However much the data "points" to "the truth" is based on points of view, and I'm guessing since you seem to support the theory that "tuppers that can switch are more authentic than the rest", it's no wonder the data suddenly "supports" this theory from your point of view, whereas I simply believe that it's due to the almighty frontloading cannon that my guide has been hammered by most people and thus hasn't had the opportunity to have as much data associated with it, meaning that if I didn't know any better, it's simply "the popular approach" that gains the largest favour of making the most "authentic" tuppers due to its larger share of subjects with reported experiences. Just like how there are tonnes of other groups of people with what they believe to be "common experiences", from which they can claim "that's what a tupper is". I was afraid you'd make that assumption. By "keeping attention to it", I basically mean "thinking about it on a regular basis", and I'm sure most of us with tuppers think about them multiple times a day, so no worries there. It's more in the case of people where, like, a whole month passes, someone reminds them of tuppers, and they go like "Oh, that? I hadn't even given it a single thought all month." In that case, there's probably not much of a tupper left if none of the subject's thoughts involve the tupper in any way. I feel you're forgetting the most vital point of my guide: the parroting never stops as far as the host is concerned. You never know when you've crossed the invisible line of going from manually parroted to automatic, so the thing you're proposing with "stopping the parroting and observing the tupper" is missing the point, because you don't just "stop" parroting. It's the very thing you've trained yourself to do so consistently that it's an ingrained habit you just don't "stop doing" overnight, ingrained to the point that you perceive the tupper as being independent, as I tell from my own experience further up in this post. Moreover, the whole thing about "putting people in the right mindset" is something I've pretty much always disliked. I want people to decide their own beliefs by themselves instead of being sucked in by the giant frontload vacuum like they are as we speak, so that we may have a more diverse community with more uniquely defined tuppers. My guide has the intentions of being a guide that teaches you how to consistently imagine a mental being to the point of being unable to stop unless you do your damnedest not to. That's why you may or may not find that much of it is a compendium of techniques and various methods of hallucinating, looking aside from the "focusing on the tupper and constantly parroting it during one's everyday life" thing. What it doesn't intend is to tell the reader to "avoid making a tupper if he's unsure", "warn him of the ~dangers~", or other frontloaded "advice" like that.
  7. Way to go, Ruffle. Thanks for trying to tell everyone what my opinions are when you're not me. I came up with the "automatic hallucination" definition the same time I came up with the "tuppers are delusions" definition. I rephrased this in the tulpanet version, but bottom line, it conveys the same: they're what you believe they are, and you will never ever have any proof. The "delusional" part is simply because it's an observed pattern that many people strictly claim them to be "seperate personalities" or whatever the damn they think tuppers "are". One would've hoped that the community would've grown out of this pattern and come to realise that saying "tuppers are seperate personalities existing in your mind" is nothing more but a simple frontload - an opinion. In the tulpanet version, I include the examples like "for some, they're invisible friends" and "for some, they're seperate personalities" for the sake of encompassing more "types" of tuppers. You make it seem as though there's a "general definition" of tuppers, when there's not, and my guide is not coming close (or trying to come close) to that "general definition". Want a summarised version of my definition? Imagine something and it sticks around as long as attention is kept to it. That's it. Your "review" of my "opinions" seems to reinforce the age-old notion that apparently still exists where people see tuppers created through parroting as not being "authentic" and are distinctively different from tuppers created through narration where you "can't predict" what they're doing. Depending on how good you are at using my method, you can very easily create a tupper that's entirely unpredictable and "thinks for itself" as far as the host would know, with the same "potential" to "learn" possession and all those other fads that float around. Whether or not the host in question would consider the tupper "seperate from himself" is up to the host's beliefs. Again, as illustrated with the examples in the tulpanet version's introduction, tuppers are not very seperate to some and very seperate to others, regardless of the method used. It should be pretty obvious at this point that I find my tuppers to be independent, seeing as they're unpredictable and can do the possessive stuff and whichever other nonsense criteria this community apparently has to tell between the "authentic" and "parroted" tuppers. Again, this notion is getting pretty old and it's tiring to see it continue even in the words of you. "We" don't have any testimony. You went to ask me a bunch of questions in the IRC, only to later make a post in an attempt to "summarise" my opinions in relation to my guide. I am only responding to you right now because I severely dislike seeing "versions" of my opinions that are inaccurate or wrong.
  8. Didn't bother to read rules. Typical me. I gave one now.
  9. My upvotes go to waffles and mayormorgan. Comma. And one for Colonel Sands. And a downvote for JD candybar. I have my reasons. He's too biased.
  10. Fede is indeed a tulpa.
  11. Fede is pretty cool. One should indeed be using his method and tones.
  12. Where do you find these images, Charlotte?
  13. This is Devano's method, pretty much.
  14. There was that guide generator idea, though...