• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sea

  • Rank
  1. The burden of proof is on you, saying that I must create a Tulpa is not grounds for arguing the existence of your Tulpa. No, it's the same process. Especially with children who are indoctrinated into a religion. To build the idea of god you must truly hammer his name and idea into your head as you may do with Tulpas. Just realize that there is no strange voodoo going on in anyone's brain. Your brain is a complex organ and we still don't fully understand how it works but to say that there is a separate conscious is not proof of anything. Your brain can and will respond to what you want to hear. It's self assertion, anyone who has studied psychology understands that it's a coping mechanism. Sorry if I didn't respond to you at that time, now that I am all of your accusations are wrong and heres why. For one, the base of my argument is that the people who are creating Tulpas have a tendency to believe that their Tulpas are legitimate sentient being without evidence. And to claim such is no more truthful than any theistic claim of god. Secondly, there's nothing wrong with being skeptical of a claim with no proof. I do believe that you think Tulpas exist as you and many other have. But when I visited the website it was strikingly apparent that people were asserting them as being a legitimate sentient being that should be treated as such. Furthermore the argument that I must create a Tulpa to understand it's existence is the same as the religious argument that you must experience god to prove his existence. As I've been saying for the past few posts, I'm not directly comparing god to Tulpas. I'm comparing the weak arguments that are attempting to prove the existence of them. I'm assuming "Melian" is one of your Tulpas and if so I can't imagine that they have been around since your childhood, maybe it's an imaginary friend that you haven't let go of but it's not relevant to disproving my point. Your experiences are unfalsifiable, I can't prove that Melian exists no more than you can prove he/she/they do. ------- I can understand that having a Tulpa(s) can benefit people and I'm glad that I got the responses that I did so I can have a better understanding of the subject. I hope non of you were too overly offended by any remarks I've made as I was looking for rebuttals to prove otherwise. The only conclusions that I was able to make out of this was that having a Tulpa is a good coping mechanism for helping people who need help in either productivity or loneliness. I'm happy to know that Tulpas help people through their struggles but when I read questionable content then I'm going to be looking for some sort of evidence to back it up. I will be asking for the moderators to close this thread as I will no longer be posting or viewing content here.
  2. Again, confirmation bias... lets start by defining Sentient or rather Sentience. According to the oxford dictionary sentient is defined as "Able to perceive or feel things". As previously discussed how do you differentiate your personal sentience to your Tulpas? you're not going to be able to, when you've come to believe that you are this persona how do you claim they exist? The only argument that's readily available to you is circular logic. You want to imagine that Tulpas are real so you "talk to" the Tulpas and that's somehow it's proof in your mind of their existence when you're just talking to yourself.
  3. Confirmation bias is not grounds for validity of Tulpas. Attempting to argue that biological reactions are any less real than self created personas is extremely ignorant. I can imagine that you feel that your Tulpas are real people and that questioning their existence would be a bad things but as I've been saying all along this is the reactions I get from religious groups. It's not fun to be told your wrong and we're wired to believing such. What I'm trying to put forth is not an attack on your community but at least spark a conversation of this new subculture. So there's no difference between real and fake? Do you really believe that? By your "pure logic" you can't differentiate TV cartoons from reality? if so I suggest seeking help.
  4. I'm not directly comparing god to Tulpas but the arguments behind them. But as you were mentioning this along with theism requires faith. I can understand why people would want a Tulpa but my issue lies with the message that the website is giving off. It's attempting (or at least it appears) to be validating the existence of Tulpas. The argument that thinking about an imaginary character makes it sentient is illogical. When you spend enough time imagining stories they become more in depth but it's not grounds to declare them to be sentient being. In the second underlined statement this still doesn't validate that they aren't just a figment of your imagination. He's essentially stating that if you feel it's different from any other aspect of an imaginary friend then it must be a tulpa, this is an absurd claim. As the author stated prior the imagery friend is created by the "Host" and they begin to convince themselves of this person being real. This is arguably the same method used to convince people that god exists. I'm not saying that Tulpas don't help the people who created them but Tulpamancy is no more logical than any theistic religion as it claims to be.
  5. @Brassow In that case you could have a trusted member of the forum undergo the scans. I would assume that Tulpas are a meaningful part of your being so wouldn't it be an incentive to have research backing it up?
  6. I'd like to have a rational discussion about the legitimacy of Tulpas. I've already read the FaQ but I found some rather questionable arguments being made by it and by the website in general. When I arrived at the home page I became skeptical of the legitimacy of Tulpas. "It’s currently unproven whether or not tulpas are truly sentient, but in this community, we treat them as such. It takes time for a tulpa to develop a convincing and complex personality; as they grow older, your attention and their life experiences will shape them into a person with their own hopes, dreams and beliefs." What makes this any different than a religious person convincing themselves that god exists? This appears as if the person creating the tulpa knows that this being doesn't actually exist but over time convinces themselves that they are real. Q: Prove tulpas! A: Tulpas can only be observed subjectively, inside one’s mind. The only possibility of “proving” tulpas is by doing scientific experiments with expensive fMRI or EEG machines, which so far, have been out of reach of the community. If you are skeptical about the phenomenon, you can observe others who have made tulpas, read progress reports, and determine for yourself whether you think it’s possible for a tulpa to exist, and come up with your own ideas as to how tulpas may work. First off, saying that Tulpas can only be observed subjectively is the same argument used by theists to prove the existence of god. Subjective experiences are not means of proving the existence of Tulpas. I would also like to know with a community like this why there have been no fundraisers for the EEG/fMRI research as previously stated?