waffles

Members
  • Content Count

    1196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About waffles

  • Rank
    no capital

Converted

  • Sex
    Undisclosed
  • Bio
    "The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people see "reality" differently." - Principia Discordia

    "It don't matter. None of this matters." - Carl Brutananadilewski

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This sounds like a sensible idea. I had intended to do this - the most recent voting stuff was open indefinitely - but maybe that was unclear or too formal. I still worry about a too-small number of people, but I guess we can see if this works before doing anything else. Do you mean rejoining the GAT and voting on guides as well, or just managing without voting? I would prefer for the manager to be active doing guide stuff as well, since most of the day-to-day is really corralling people and making decisions on guides - I guess Apollo fits that bill. Otherwise, I guess having a manager at all is better than me, who neither votes nor manages right now. This goes for Tewi too. This is an interesting idea. Possibly the poll could be along the lines of "Has this helped you?", since a lot of dis/approval work is based on trying to judge how helpful something would be. Though I would worry that (especially newer) people might not self-assess helpfulness that well. Still, it's probably worth trying.
  2. People have been somewhat concerned about how slowly the wheels of the GAT turn recently (for a while I guess); this is because most people on the GAT currently are inactive (including me). So, this is me asking for anyone who wants to become a sanctioned guide-approver (yes, you) - step forward now. Your forum needs you. Name yourself or whoever you think would be good in this thread, and I guess unless anyone objects, I'll bestow upon you or your nominee the power of life and death over guides, etc. We can have voting if people want that, but I doubt that there will be enough people around to make it worthwhile. Also, since I haven't been around, I'm not a great fit for GAT manager. So, whoever thinks they or another are fit for this prestigious and onerous role, say so. I guess after new people come in, active members can vote on a new manager. Now might also be a good time to ask for comments about the GAT process in general. The system was designed to have a reasonable number of active GAT members; it's kind of fallen apart lacking that. So, if not enough people come in: how should we handle things in the future?
  3. Abvieon - that's an interesting survey. I guess from my own (non-systematic) observations, people will report being able to do "some" parallel processing, but it being fairly trivial or token, or just not really examined. I would be very cautious extrapolating "people can parallel process" from "people say they can parallel process", in light of people being fairly nebulous on what exactly constitutes parallel processing and not really examining it in too much detail. To elaborate quickly on why - people are notoriously motivated as thinkers. When they think about things and come to conclusions, they may have (implicit) motivations other than truth-finding; identity, worth, status, etc; and they can come to conclusions which suit these motivations as well as truth-seeking. I guess you would call that a "conflict of interest" in a sense. This community puts (again, not necessarily explicit) value/status to tulpa abilities, particularly 'advanced' ones like switching, parallel processing, imposition. So if you wonder why there's a consistent downward pressure in the community to make the usage of these terms weaker, I think it's because people are motivated to claim that value. And I wouldn't really trust people reporting any of these abilities - actually, I would be uncertain on virtually any self-reporting - just on the basis of them identifying with these terms, because that identification is heavily motivated. It's not that people lie or don't understand their experiences, or that I distrust people in the sense that "maybe they're roleplayers" - more that I don't trust people's cognition on the matter when there's a huge conflict of interest (and also driven by experience; as I said in the previous post, I do see this evidenced in practice). So I would prefer to rely on more concrete, pointed questions - "can you do x particular thing" - or tests like I described in the last post.
  4. It's an interesting topic. I agree with the document on this, I guess. Verifying parallel experiences is kind of difficult because of confabulation, as the doc says. But you can try with more intensive things, like doing maths problems in parallel. A test would look like: Get some task (e.g., 2 digit multiplication) where the answers can be reached with a few steps of conscious thought and memory, but aren't readily apparent; and the answers can be easily verified. Get the tulpa to 'go into wonderland' and do it, while the host does, well, maybe nothing, maybe something else. See if they can produce answers. I've got a few people to try this, and none have been able to, so far (even those whose tulpas report having separate experiences in wonderland). Strong parallel processing seems hard and uncommon; maybe if someone had good parallel processing then it would be possible for their tulpas to have separate experiences (I have doubts), but it's not something that comes 'automatically' and it's a red flag that tulpas will report these experiences when they can't parallel process at all. I guess the most promising candidates for separate experiences are hosts who can switch and have experiences while switched out. A couple of people who I got to do the test above were like that, and weren't able to do it, though. So I guess you might be able to put that down to confabulation too. I guess the tl;dr from me would be no, it's not really real, in the sense of 'tulpas having separate experiences in WL'. Also, as a note, I get the impression this is a sensitive subject. People often react to being challenged about this with hostility or dismissiveness, which seems to me like a sign of cognitive dissonance. I don't think this is the only topic regarding tulpas which is like this, either; tulpas having separate memories is closely related, as an example, and tulpas having interesting abilities is sometimes treated this way.
  5. (A.1) 1 tulpa. (A.2) 5ish years (A.3) Pretty close. We share memories, thoughts, feelings, tend to think about similar things. Unlike Lucilyn up there our memories don't have that feeling of ownership. We have different attitudes and preferences, and so on. (B.1) Possession yes, the other two, no. (B.2) No. (B.3) Yes, although kind of one way. Typically whoever is controlling the body will get bleed from the one out of the body but not so much vice versa. (B.4) No. (B.5) N/A I guess.
  6. Well, that's a week for you lot, and everyone is positive, so, you're all GATs now. Congratulations; review the sticked threads in Submissions to start off.
  7. Okay, I'll change to a +1 for Vampire. And, Ponytail, the GAT doesn't need to be big so much that you should be on it if you don't think you're a good fit. You can downvote yourself, but better to just decline the nomination.
  8. Enny: Having a tulpa used to be an official requirement. I guess it's not necessary now, but IMO it would still be odd. You don't need to be GAT to comment/critique on guides; non-GATs are absolutely welcome to provide that. You're welcome to do that, if you want.
  9. Nominations and downvotes need reasons. Upvotes don't (although encouraged). No issue with mod staff being GATs anymore. And yeah, you can nominate and vote as many times as you want. Removed Sock from the list; thanks. Jean-luc is already GAT; marked as absent now, but either way doesn't need a vote to return. Other nominations: give reasons for them. It's helpful to know what you really think, especially when I (and maybe others) don't know the people very well. I'm going to not vote on a lot of them for that reason. I'll add nominations without reasons before this post, but they won't become GATs until someone gives them a proper nomination. +1 tulpa001, for the reasons Beatles said. Provisional -1 to Vampire, since they seem pretty meta-oriented, though that's open to discussion. And -1 to Enny and Stevie unless they show up and show interest themselves. They've been around for a long time and seen several iterations of voting already, so I'm sceptical they'd be interested.
  10. What is the GAT? How do nominations work? It's about time to have new GATs. You review guides and so on, see the above links for details. This is going to be a combo nominations/voting thread, since I don't think we need to go through the formalities. I'll keep the thread open indefinitely. Nominate yourself, other people, anyone you think would be good. And up/downvote anyone who's been nominated (downvotes need a reason). Nominees who have a nonnegative score a week or so after their nomination become GATs. To start off with, I nominate anon; good guy, is more active in the community than the forum account lets on, is a good fit, etc. +1 him. anon: +3; 04/06/2017 tulpa001: +5; 04/06/2017 Beatles: +7; 04/06/2017 Vampire: +4; 04/06/2017 Ponytail: +1; 04/06/2017 Heckhound: +1; 04/06/2017 Stevie: +6; 04/06/2017 (For my own reference: last post I counted was Heckhound's.)
  11. Well, this is exactly the kind of claim that started the "tulpas can give you eidetic memory" thing. It goes like this: That last line is very tricky. The thing is that people suddenly remember things as a matter of course. That thought can take the form of something that feels like a conscious realisation, feel like a thought that just pops into your head, or maybe feel like a realisation on the part of your tulpa. Does that really mean that your tulpa remembers things you don't? Well, in a sense, but your memory hasn't improved at all. I mean, that's just one example of a way in which people can see these spurious abilities. But while you'd expect them to improve with development, they don't, they actually diminish or stay constant. You don't get from a spurious weak skill to a strong one via tulpa magic. As for changing body temperature, yeah, feeling warmer or colder a few times isn't really amazing. People can do it normally, trained or otherwise, and it doesn't translate to some kind of lower-level body control on the part of the tulpa. But anyway, people are happy to attribute random feelings to their tulpa, so it becomes even more suspect when the tulpa can't or won't do it consistently, or the host is unwilling to earnestly test or verify the tulpa's or their own ability. To an extent, these things happen as a fairly weak and perhaps uninteresting consequence of just doing things differently in your mind. But when people start talking about their tulpas having special abilities, it tends to come with the smell of delusion to me. My experience in this community is that people will claim weak spurious things but not strong things, and that's very suspicious.
  12. rimshot I disagree with Lucilyn, in that there's no symbol that people habitually wear, but most people in the community may recognise this: Stick it on your bumper, tattoo it on your forehead. If I saw someone displaying this I would probably avoid them, but who knows who you might attract. No, but I can direct you to to a certain tulpa subreddit that's more for the single tulpamancers: [NSFW] Lessons are $30/hour, let me just get my Paypal info ... People who take money for advice are in a bad position here, pretty much being in a group with a couple of people who sell weird methods for exorbitant prices. Of course someone who charges will be undercut by everyone who doesn't, but no-one who does will give you the same attention because they're not getting paid to do it. Weird huh. There are all kinds of one-on-one/group free tuition options lying around though, like the mentorship here. You'd have to look for group things if you really wanted them.
  13. Here's what I would suggest: keep it short, to a couple of minutes, focus on good production value - honestly there's plenty decent written about tulpas, but most presentations of it are boring at best. It doesn't need to be that long and I don't think you need to go overboard with interviews; it's a journalistic device that's not relevant for something introspective, and it's just a lot more work and more to go wrong. Also, there are plenty of video intros/explanations of tulpas made by people in/around the community already. Take a look at these videos as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ8gcgGqR4g, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juy6qtcugX8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JcVlwTxpVg. What's good or bad about them? If you had to do another one, how would you use/change the format and content in them? You don't need a 30-minute PBS-style whatever. I suggest Writing a script of a couple of minutes of explanation/exposition - it will be way easier if one person just goes and does this, then everyone else who wants a voice can feed back into it Narrating that, either one person or collaboratively - preferably someone who can speak well and has a decent mic Edit the narration together on top of a pretty video track - I don't know what you would want for this. Stick figure animation seems kind of uninteresting, but I guess it's a popular format. I don't have any good ideas for this. I'm kind of interested in this and I'd happily help. My advice for getting things done collaboratively is to strike out unilaterally, meaning do a bunch of work yourself and then let others modify it. I don't want to ignore my own advice, so I could do a first draft or something if others don't want to first.
  14. I probably wouldn't pay much attention to "the masses". In scientific circles there's academic consensus to look at, but we don't have here. Still, we should look at those who are at least familiar with the subject, if not necessarily insiders. That basically leaves us - say, 'insiders', who are into tulpas and stuff - those who have had tulpas but changed their mind, and those who've watched the community without taking part.
  15. I know it's easy to hold that position now, but you know, plenty of people who are "attracted" here aren't nutcases or anything. To the 'curious' who did end up here, something must have caught their eye in a positive light. I think it's easy to see how tulpas can be presented positively if you come across it through the internet, ending up on tulpa.info or something. It's much harder for me to imagine the same people getting the same impression from this, for example. I don't think it has to be that way; tulpas haven't had much airtime, so it's too early to be fatalistic about it. On the other hand, I don't think it's okay if our publicity does become dominated by this tone. Or, you know, if it already is, that's probably not great. You'd never be setting the tone, unfortunately. From what Sam & KT said, they were interviewed for a couple of hours, and that was edited down into a 3-minute segment. Whatever tone the producers want is shaped in the editing room, ultimately.