• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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. 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.

  3. Why is it still not stickied?


    If your perception was that she was doing things on her own, why call it parroting?
    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".


    Unless you're assuming by default that a tulpa doing things "on their own" is an impossibility?
    Damn if I know.


    The assumptions themselves may be very hard to falsify, but their implications aren't "just a theory" - they're true as long as the originally assumed statements are true (even if we don't yet know if those statements are true) - this is basic analytic philosophy.
    It's true if it's true, but we don't know if it's true. Yep, basic analysis.


    It's more that their authenticity is far harder to doubt - it doesn't make other tulpas less "authentic", it merely makes the authenticity of those particular tulpas far more likely and more verifiable.
    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".


    As far as proof goes nowadays, that's as close as we can get without major advances in neuroscience.
    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.


    It's a chicken and egg problem - not enough people want to try something that may not be entirely safe, thus we can't know for sure if it's safe yet.
    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.


    Why does it never stop?
    The parroting never stops as far as the host is concerned. Watch your wording there.


    If you no longer perceive as you're causing their thoughts or they're doing all kinds of unexpected things you don't even fully understand/realize - then it's pretty obvious you're not parroting them.
    Damn if I know.


    Personally I like to think of it as a gradient - going from fully parroted to independent - the more the tulpa learns to use their will by themselves and the less you're doing it by yourself.
    Damn if you know.


    I'd like to add that I did at one time try a parroting-like method where the responses still came automatically, yet they felt entirely sourced from me, and I could interrupt or stop them if I wanted to, not only that, they were perfectly predictable and literally came from my own expectations - that's one possible trap people can fall into when excessive parroting is used.
    You probably didn't parrot enough.


    On the other hand, just stopping that, treating the tulpa like a human being and paying attention to the tulpa made replies unpredictable, involuntary (to a good dregree), and most importantly, they felt like they weren't generated by me in any form.
    Mindset frontload alert. We have a narrator in the building, I repeat, you must all evacuate.


    Because someone could think that parroting is all they can have, they may forget to stop that and just let things happen naturally.
    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.


    I do really want more data (such as you or some other people showing that their tulpa made using such a guide is capable of everything a tulpa made using more traditional guides can do).
    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.


    Assuming they don't get lost in a maze of guides or only encounter a single one and never become aware of other possibilities.
    I assume people know of the concept of experimentation, especially when most guides emphasise the importance of experimenting.

  4. Much of your post is making theories and wondering about life, so I'll just quote select bits of it.


    I'm sorry if I did misrepresent Fede's opinions here - I don't think I did, but it's really hard to figure out what they are. The only thing I can think that he'd object to is this claim "Fede himself did claim his tulpas do feel independent and that he has achieved unassisted possession, but that he has also changed his beliefs to treat them as being independent in a way" which is backed by what was said in an IRC channel in the lines:


    The relevant line being: "I find my tupperlady is pretty independent, partially gained over time from simply interacting with her, and partially from the reaffirmed belief that she *is* independent. I guess I can vouch for the second question about the unassisted possession."

    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".


    They may be what we believe they are for a while, however there may be a point where it may go beyond what we think they are.

    Can one prove this?

    That said, even if all we have nowadays are philosophical arguments, it's not like there couldn't be a future day when neuroscience is sufficiently advanced and we could show if the tulpa's thought processes (which one doesn't perceive) are the real thing or a shallow lie we imagine, so saying we'll never have proof is false as proof is possible in principle, just really difficult to obtain using only current technological/academic developments.

    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.


    At least for the group of persons that share the same class of 'extraordinary' psychological experiences - they can claim that's what a tulpa is - as that's a class of experiences they seem to have in common.
    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".


    Do all tulpa creation guides end up giving the same results' date=' or a tulpa developed in a similar way? It's an open question which so far has some answers pointing to 'yes',[/quote']And many answers pointing to "no".


    That's fine' date=' but it implies that you don't know or care if anything else goes beyond your own perception of it. [i'][/i]
    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.


    My argument isn't as much against your entire method, it's against the claim that 100% parroting with nothing else besides it would result in a tulpa capable of those things.

    I would even make a stronger claim - if someone can't feel on a gut level the tulpa being a separate person from themselves (for whatever subjective meaning of personhood they have, but it at least includes things like being able to will/do things by themselves and perceive things and so on), I don't think they can begin to achieve those "advanced" capabilities. That is, a purely parroted imaginary friend which doesn't feel like an independent person that seems to share a mind with you, won't be able to do such things *right away*. Is it possible to suddenly start interacting with your imaginary friend in the right way and them suddenly becoming that? Sure. It may even happen naturally and maybe even quickly, although I don't recall where this sort of thing is said to be a goal in Fede's guide(s). It may be that the tulpa would eventually just start doing whatever they damn please no matter what you're trying to parrot them to do and so on - of course, this isn't what everyone experiences - there's people who went for a decade without ever moving their imaginary friends or roleplay personas beyond this initial stage. What the "original" guides tried to do is get you into the mindset where you'd get such experiences right from the start (which may be hard for some people). What other parroting guides like JD1215's do is tell you to stop talking for them and just let the tulpa do their thing after some amount of parroting - and that usually works (in the sense of a tulpa capable of "everything") - I do have at least one experience report of someone making a tulpa JD1215-style and then switching with them. Would they work for someone using your guide? Maybe, if that's what they aimed for, but if they actually wanted that, they may still stop and try to observe the tulpa doing their own thing and when they do, the ball starts rolling downhill and the tulpa gains their independence. Still, your don't really advocate for doing this crucial step by yourself, instead you leave it to the one making the tulpa to have the luck to stumble upon this - hence why I said "Overall, I do think the effectiveness of the method depends on the person's attitude and beliefs, which would vary greatly." - that is, a lot of hidden beliefs which a guide might be better at setting - and which could radically change their experience - now end up deciding what their experiences might be like and the person may be oblivious to it all and may even have no idea why this or that guide isn't working - and just like Dane's guide can fail for some people, so can your guide.

    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.


    I still think that telling someone that it's okay to parrot no matter what' date=' even when it would make no sense, could be harmful to the development of the tulpa.[/quote']Again, the parroting never stops and I think you may be missing the point of this. Would you try to imagine something when it's already there? That's basically the same as asking "Would you parrot something that is already independent?" The host would be none the wiser in the first place.


    As long as someone is not a liar' date=' and they make an extraordinary claim such as their tulpa being capable of unfocus switching, then I can be sure (to some extent) that their tulpas are fully independent and conscious (due to the argument I made earlier). It's essentially the ultimate test one could put their tulpa through - or in this case - a guide's efficacy in producing an independent tulpa.[/quote']Sure. Just remember we all perceive the "independence" differently, as it presents itself in different ways for different reasons, even in the presence of an "unfocus-switch".

  5. 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.