Stanford Tulpa Study looking for more participants
(if you're chosen they'll pay for travel and lodging!)

Poll: I want to give a hug to Melian, the groovy-guru! Outside the Lounge, she is all professionalism with her scientifical spectacles and lab coat! Hugs, sillies and lovies are for the Lounge!
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
A hug for Melian, the goddess guru of grooviness.
12 100.00%
I am a Minion of Melian, the groovy-guru!
0 0%
Total 12 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Confessions of a Poorly Trained Tulpa
EDIT: The original post here was deleted by the author back in May of 2015. I was arguing that Tulpa Info had elements of pseudo-science and proto-religion to it. I still think it does.

Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

None of my beliefs are pseudo-scientific. The entire phenomenon is subjective, taking place in your mind, and I acknowledge it as such. The community seems to have "rules" because otherwise uncreative/ignorant people have no idea what they're doing, so it's "a good way to go about it". Nothing should be treated as fact though. If anything feels limiting to you, then you personally have no reason to adhere to it. (But make sure to think about why it was made that way in the first place) But also remember that anything the community says probably came from a conglomeration of successful peoples' beliefs, which outweighs any one person's. Doesn't mean you can't try to contribute to the community's beliefs though, but that's different from just calling them incorrect. Just try and be productive.

Anyway, I can't say that not a single person here treats these "rules" like rules. Many probably do, honestly. But that wasn't the goal of the people who've created those "rules", so I still won't call it a psuedoscience. And I won't even acknowledge psuedoreligion as an extension of that. Pretty sure I explained the reason we don't kill tulpas very logically elsewhere. You can debate with everyone else about how much they believe the norms here are "rules", but I maintain the right to at any point explain why that's wrong, at least for me and a few other senior members.

Sorry, am in a pretty bad mood, but I tried not to come across as such. I might make another post here later.
Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
EDIT: The original post here was deleted by the author back in May of 2015.
"Illusion of independence" is pretty indistinguishable from "independence" when it's been going on for more than five years methinks. If you believe she's independent from you, there isn't much to say she's so different from the other tulpas here. Maybe just intent.

Anyways, it's nothing personal against you. But you're the first person I've ever seen argue for the third-person description thing. And we've had quite a problem with people roleplaying without actually having tulpas in the past, and according to some, to this day. As you can tell many members are already a little jumpy when someone seems like they might be illegitimate, and third-person narrating is undoubtedly going to set them off even more quickly. If you're just doing it on the forum.. I don't know if you're necessarily breaking rules, but I know that it won't give the intended effect you have for it. This is a different community than you're used to, you're going to have to be around for a while to learn the social norms so to speak. There are other places that do things differently than us, but that's probably what makes us different. There's room for fun, but this forum's motto is more "For science!" than "For fun!"

I dunno. Most of us manage just fine. Look around some progress reports maybe and you'll see what I mean. Nothing's really wrong with the forum, it just has its norms like any community does. And it probably won't react well to someone who doesn't yet understand them trying to change them.
Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
EDIT: The original post here was deleted by the author back in May of 2015.
OP Wrote:Definitions taken from Wikipedia:

pseudoscience - a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Now, I’m not sure if there’s been any threads where people utilized something like, epistemology, for example as a heuristic in treating the tulpa phenomenon as something that has empirical underpinnings. Because like some people would generally agree upon, at best, we have the totality of anecdotes and testimonials from others, along with a somewhat Frankenstein series of philosophies (e.g. morals and ethics) on how one should assess themselves in as many concepts as this community can salvage for discussion.

So it only seems natural that there may be a tendency for others to rely on those generalizations because it seems to be the only thing we can reconcile with, because if one were to assume there were empirical underpinnings, they would face the burden of proof, and what have you.

Another concept to bring up is “argumentum ad populum,” i.e., because so many believe so, it is so; that may be another tendency for others to rely on seeing how it reconciles with what I mentioned above with the anecdotal events and testimonials.

And there was a post I made here where I was talking to another member on what the community’s true stance on “Metaphysics” would really be. And if there were posts before within the thread that mentioned that the community hasn’t accepted any metaphysical concepts in the regular boards, I raised the topic of “ontology,” i.e., theorizing the nature of being/existing. And basically, if ontology itself is a branch of Metaphysics, and I’m talking about the academic application of Metaphysics rather than the vague implications for the forum that seems to be only made privy to those who can access the Black Box with an ancient translator, then any thread that questions things like (in the link I mentioned):

Linkzelda Wrote:- What is a tulpa?
- What is the meaning behind the existence of a tulpa?
- How much qualia, and other attributes of sentience is presumed towards a tulpa?
- Any thread questioning consciousness and other theories of mind pertaining to tulpa

These concepts would pertain to ontology, which itself is a branch of Metaphysics, so it would seem absurd to presume that the regular boards never accepted such discussions when one of many philosophies, e.g., treating them as sentient, would entail ontological underpinnings, which would also entail metaphysical underpinnings as well. Especially if the self-fulfilling prophecy, IMO, of treating them as sentient would entail some subsequent action of furthering one’s tendency to consistently (to the best of their abilities) to be assured that their tulpa is on this progressive journey in augmenting their degrees of sentience, implicit, or stated otherwise by anyone’s opinion.

So it ends up being a dichotomy where people either think of metaphysics, or not, and when there’s this constant recognition of striving for scientific standpoints and what have you, it begs the question as to why there’s such a negative stance on individuals utilizing metaphysical inquiry (the word “philosophy” tends to blend with that as well at times since it would be a "first philosophy") that could be utilized as a heuristic (and not an end-all, be-all empirical validation) for any future endeavors to empirically validate tulpas in some way (which seems to be an impasse for a while now).

And to bring this full circle, it’s understandable for you to question about any potential pseudoscience that may be apparent in the forum. And another concept is “Scientism,” i.e., trying to reconcile with areas where Science cannot have any relevance, which could in turn reconcile with the word “pseudoscience,” that you mentioned in the OP:

Wikipedia Wrote:a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

So if there are generalizations of the community not wanting to reconcile with the academic application of “Metaphysics,” which I would extend into being a first philosophy, i.e., a blank canvas where knowledge is looked out for, and questions are posed, it would seem perplexing if the community really strives for anything scientific, psychological, etc. Especially if it’s “presumed” as Metaphysics not having any kind of framework to refer to in this forum, that itself would technically have metaphysical underpinnings; people just choose to ignore to think about it, and those that want to end up being conflated into the camp of third-eye chakras, voodoo magic, witchcraft, and such (not saying these don’t have any potential for discussion taken in a light-hearted manner, though).

So the other term you brought with “pseudo-religion,” may have a better replacement as “Scientism” that I mentioned before. As I would imagine the word Pseudo-religion implies that the forum is trying to create a variant from already established religions, and said variant just isn’t “popular” enough, i.e., see argumentum ad populum. So for others that may not see Science as a natural philosophy, i.e., taking nature as it is, and presenting general theories of it (which would entail some metaphysical underpinning) and feel it's the end-all be-all validation on how one should live out their quotidian lifestyle (e.g. requiring empirical proof before doing any trial-and-error on a personal level that would be done through experiences that would mostly be non-empirical, or just requiring some application of the Scientific method before one takes a piss, or anything like that.)
EDIT: I love tulpamancers and Tulpa Info. Peace!

There that's better.
I think I may give you a few analogues in the near future with argumentum ad populum not necessarily being contingent on direct professions, along with the hard science and soft science dichotomy, but I just have to make sure that I have some clarity and time. Just pointing this out so there isn't an implication that I gave up on the discussion, and I look forward in addressing your queries.

If anything I've learned from this thread, this seems to be an interesting testing ground of how people would react to someone who may have been more militant on empirical underpinnings, and seeing how tulpas could even resonate with such tools to arrive at those underpinnings.
Pseudoreligion? I don't buy it. There aren't actually scriptures; most people are simply directed to read guides, most of which are fairly new and are updated. No prophets, sages, cult leaders or anything (David-Neel does not come up often, and when she does it's usually a historical curio). Rituals? Well, we do things to achieve things, really, like going to the gym or doing your homework. It's not ritualistic, although close, because everyone's trying to accomplish the end directly (a tulpa). And a core set of beliefs? To some extent, sure, as does every community - I'd like to say that as long as they change (they do) in the pursuit of new information, the whole process is antireligious.

Speaking of which, the pseudoscience claim is a bit more interesting. But really, you don't see many people even claiming to employ scientific methods anyway. People do, sometimes (and when they do it's quite often pseudoscientific), but it's far from core to the concept, or the community. Psychology is not pseudoscience; it is underpinned by studies and attempts are made at every point to quantify, e.g., effect sizes. How well this approach finds the truth is another matter, but really when you say 'pseudoscience' you call to my mind people selling healing rocks and things like that - a world away compared to psychology.

The idea as a whole is quite interesting from this perspective, and it's a bit of a shame to want to call it a religion. When site membership requires a 10% tithe, call me back on that one. It's clear that having a tulpa does not fill that role - really, there's nothing particularly spiritual about it, and those who do, uh, feel spiritually about their tulpa will do so in a way they're already inclined to, without replacement. But the community does have a certain collection of beliefs which are possibly unrealistic, and very often a desire to stifle internal inquiry in certain directions - c.f., 'doubting'. In early stages of creation, there is usually a good deal of deception, either handed down through guides or self-made, which is, I think, pretty beneficial. Even if a conceptual structure for creation is ultimately fabricated, it might contribute a lot towards creation, like a scaffold that'll come down after the edifice is erected. But you'll see things bubbling to the surface whenever someone complains their tulpas aren't real, or whatever - it happens at late stages, too.

Crucially, the way people cope with this is not to work it through; it is usually blind reassurance ("My child, God's hand is at work all around us."), or even simple suppression of such thoughts wherever they occur ("The Devil has possessed my thoughts, God purify my mind!"). But the comparison to religion is unfair, because the same patterns occur whenever people don't want to confront uncomfortable truths. For most other things I'd say, you fool, suck it up and change your beliefs. But in the case of tulpa creation, like I said, it might be beneficial to hold them, at least for a while.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Lolflash - click it, you know you want to