• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About waffles

  • Rank
    no capital


  • Sex
  • 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. I don't think I have a lot to add to this obvious disapproval. What I would say is that generally speaking, this advice seems to betray a lack of understanding as to what's going on. You're treating tulpas like a black box and maybe to you some things, like whipping them or teaching them the doctrine of Utilitarianism, seem to work some of the time, a bit like training an animal. But tulpas are going on in your mind, they're something that you can achieve a much greater understanding of. Seeking that understanding should be what you should be doing. At that point, misbehaving becomes a matter of a couple of different things, depending on what exactly you're doing - either fixing control/boundaries of your imagination a bit better (cf. controlling intrusive thoughts), or making your expectations on behaviour clearer (of course, if you just want to play at having a misbehaving tulpa, I can't help you).
  4. Firstly, apologies for this commentary coming so late. I'd previously read through it and moved it, but perhaps I should have written this comment publicly at the time. As far as what Enny is saying - whoever is left coming to a consensus - I'm the only one left aside from Piano, as far as I can tell. So hopefully this comment will explain my reasoning. I'll let it stand for a few days before moving it in case anyone else wants to comment. If you're unhappy with this, I strongly encourage you to get involved with the GAT process yourself (or else suggest an alternative process that we could transition to). There aren't many formalities left with regards to the GAT (it was designed for a much larger and more active team than this) so getting involved is really a matter of nominating yourself in this thread - https://community.tulpa.info/thread-new-gat-nomination-voting With that out of the way, I think this is a very good guide, and its advice is spot on. I wonder if perhaps it's a bit difficult to understand what's being explained if you haven't experienced possession yourself, but I have little doubt that understanding what's being said is the key to possessing. So perhaps simple and easy are not quite right - rather, it's not a guide in a format that really renders down to a couple of easy steps and you're done. More, it's 'easy' after you've understood something. Understanding that thing is not necessarily trivial; it seems to me like it's explained well, but since I already understood it, it's hard for me to gauge that. Anyway, approved.
  5. A couple of things. I think this will be unpopular but I broadly agree with what you're saying. And it will be unpopular because the mindset you're talking about isn't just the newcomer mindset, it's the prevailing mindset in the community. Although that has been changing very quickly in recent months, it's still, I think, the minority opinion even among old members about #3 ("Your tulpa frolics in the wonderland in their free time"), for instance. So I think that claiming this is just a newcomer mentality is perhaps claiming too much authority. It's a mindset, you're providing an alternative one based on your observations of yourself and others - one which I agree with, but still, it's not something you can claim is the sole mentality of experienced people. What's more, it's misleading to label the alternative as 'magical thinking' - although it's appropriate in a certain sense, that is, ascribing too much power to tulpas, it's awkward given the juxtaposition with belief in actually magical things like the astral plane and so on. So on the basis of those two things, I think you should rethink how you present this, and how you cast the alternative mindset. Secondly, it seems to trail off at the end, with, "I know this is the most open-ended part of the paper, but it’s because it’s the culmination of everything I’ve said. Tulpas, are, say it with me, human." - it seems like this was meant to be in its own section, but instead it's under the heading of #7. Lastly, this is more something I just disagree with you with, but with regards to #6 - I think in the main this is correct. Typically 'mature' tulpas with the same cognitive capabilities as the host will use the same cognitive faculties as the host, and that doesn't feel particularly alien unless you try to make it. However, when you use the example of "There are probably some people you have a deep enough understanding of that you could hold an imaginary conversation with “them.”" - this is not necessarily the same thing. On one level you can emulate them in a conscious way, but when people have imaginary conversations with other people, they're often more like using some social cognition and imagination to do a 'fill in the blanks' exercise. This is not the same as what the host is using to think, and it will feel different (to the host, somewhat, and also to the former mode I mentioned). And I think this is what early responses are for many people. Hence why you have tulpas doing weird and random things when they're 'immature', and seem to lack cognitive capabilities - because if you're letting your imagination fill in blanks and finish sentences, that's pretty different to having conscious cognition and intent behind responses. I do agree that achieving vocality this way shouldn't be hard - rather, typical methods don't really aim at it very well, and some people can end up getting much closer to the mark than others. With a bit of practice with 'letting go' of your imagination I think 'vocality' - in the sense of being able to grant imaginary characters a degree of autonomy that lets them give apparently 'sentient' responses - could come pretty quickly. With that said, that's not the same thing as what you said with "a tulpa uses the same parts of the brain to think that you do" - learning to do this is more like learning to dissociate identity from thoughts, which again, could come fairly quickly, but I'm not sure. People don't seem to practice it directly, it just comes with letting their tulpa interact with the outside world. Anyway, bottom line: approved. It can go in Articles or Tips, I guess, Your pick.
  6. 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.
  7. I think this is a fairly clear and down-to-earth guide, I approve. I do have some feedback though. Some positives: It's pretty nicely written and very clear. I'm glad that you generally tell people not to stress about the details; lines like "Do not get too hung up on how much you do of each: simply getting into the habit of consistently interacting with your tulpa is what you should be more concerned about." really make it. Your section on narration is nice. Negatives: It's frustrating how dated a lot of what you say is to me, considering this is a guide that's been written recently and you haven't been in the community for too long. People writing them into guides is how they get propagated and hang around, I guess. Section 5 is an exemplar of this for me: all the 'signs of sentience' like head pressures, even coming up with some new ones; assuming sentience from the start and an extreme attitude of always attributing everything to your tulpa; the strong separation between sentience and vocality (to the point of not even listing vocality as a 'sign of sentience' - it's by far the most important). In section 2 you make sure to remind everyone how hard making a tulpa is, too. Greeting stage (I guess people still do this?). You also put a lot of emphasis on visualisation and wonderland. The negatives there are really more opinionated and possibly more people would agree with you than me. Still, I would say that there isn't much new here as opposed to rehashed. But it is a good rehash, so I'm approving.
  8. 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.
  9. (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.
  10. I think this article itself is fine. I also don't really object to cross-site linking per se. So I'll approve for articles - it doesn't look like others are happy with it as is though. What I'd suggest is make sure there's some mirror somewhere. Maybe an archive link somewhere. I'm mainly concerned about dead link syndrome.
  11. Sorry for lateness. I've watched these, I think they're fine. As far as providing scripts go, I guess it's not necessary. If people don't want to watch videos then a video guide isn't for them. What I might suggest is mirroring the videos somewhere.
  12. The Dropbox links are dead. Archive URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20150101123219/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50202089/Tulpa%20Guide.pdf And I attached the same to this post for good measure. Tulpa Guide.pdf
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.