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.
100.00%
12 100.00%
I am a Minion of Melian, the groovy-guru!
0%
0 0%
Total 12 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Confessions of a Poorly Trained Tulpa
#41
I've tried something similar with my wonderland. I first read about the holodeck in a book about thoughtforms, and it got me into Star Trek, which I'd never watched before that. The holodeck is definitely a really fun idea, but I have trouble sticking to anything, so I haven't done as much with it as I'd like.
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Reply

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

#42
Great to see you guys cleared the air here on the forum and have started your own PR! Looking forward to reading more. :3
"Jesus Pickles!"
~ Edwin reacting to pretty much every jump scare in a horror movie

Avatar was made by me using a base.
My DeviantArt Account
Progress Report
Reply
#43
Thank you! ~Mistgod
Reply
#44
(05-14-2015, 06:51 PM)Mistgod Wrote: I have been given so many strong counter arguments against pseudoreligion I think I am ready to drop that hypothesis and assertion as pretty much DOA.

There is more support, or at least less resistance, to pseudoscience. After going through the guides (skimming and light reading) I see very little actual science. I think psychology is a soft science and if the tulpa phenomenon were put under that the umbrella of psychology, it just might make soft science as well.

~Mistgod

Since you wanted to drop the hypothesis with pseudo-religion, I guess I can quickly cover some analogues with soft and hard science, and how those concepts could be utilized as heuristics with tulpas. Before I do so, I think it’s fair to give a general dichotomy with hard science vs. soft science.

I would see hard science as the ability to militantly control of all, or most kinds of experimental variables. So with hard sciences (e.g. Biology, Physics, Chemistry), you could absolve whatever it is you want to approach at, and simply approach at it through a methodological way (e.g. double-blind experiments, and whatever epistemological heuristics someone can utilize).

Soft science (e.g. Psychology, Sociology) is dripping with contingencies, and the softer those aspects of Science seem to grow, things become tedious when trying to isolate things for experimentation. So maybe the part where those approaches for experimentation for something that is dripping with contingencies will give off that “pseudo-scientific” feeling, but it raises the question on labeling every single attempt as such.

Because like I mentioned before with Scientism, i.e., trying to parse the Scientific method into things it cannot be reconciled with, or can’t be easily done at least (e.g. it being utilized to gauge of there being an ultimate purpose in existence, or how one should assess themselves in their quotidian lifestyle) can have the probability of facing a conflict. But it depends on what the approach specifically is, IMO, especially if people want to strive for whatever scholarly and earnest spirit for the forums with a hint of gregarious joy as well.

But the utilization of soft science will generally be a bit more complex because of the phenomena being studied by the Science we’re querying about. So it would seem apparent that making a shift from soft science to a hard one entails, along with other factors, on how more rigorous it can be towards studying phenomena, but again, it ends up in question begging on how phenomena can be very nuanced and grandiose. And because the horizon seems so far out there, maybe the metaphysical inquiries (if we utilized an academic side to it rather than the vague underpinnings for the forum, IMO) seems something others are prone to do so because of reasons I mentioned in previous posts with metaphysics, and how it can be a heuristic, or even a first philosophy for questions to be prepared and discussed.

So it, IMO, may not be so much as conceptualizing it as strives for scientific approaches and mentalities being pseudo-science but rather….

- The probability that there may be a congregated tendency to augment that shift from soft to hard science is what can have people flustered (e.g. inferring if said activities are pseudo-scientific, or even a form of scientism) simply because, as you mentioned in your other posts, there’s not much of that “science” vibe going on, especially if it seems so hard to reconcile with basic inquiries with tulpas (e.g. philosophy and other forms of inquiries) that people want to absolve themselves from. In other words, those who try to create a dichotomy with to think, or not to think when it comes to Metaphysics, Ontology, Epistemology, and things of that nature.

- And another analogue that could contribute for your theorization of the pseudo-science vibe is simply for the probability that we may strive so much to be militant with those heuristics (e.g. ontology, metaphysics, epistemology) that there’s an implication of “please conceptualize us as scientists and/or an intelligible community with that scholarly spirit and earnest demeanor, PLEASE?!?!?!”

- And one more analogue with the strives to be more militant with ourselves, and the forum in general sets the implication of feeling that if we can shift more to hard science, or even just revel more in the complexity behind soft science (e.g. tackling phenomena that are just too nuanced and grandiose; I'm not inferring that hard science isn't complex, but it seems a bit easier to unify said theories with those hard science rudiments vs. soft science rudiments trying to have a unifying theory, or set of theories), people may query if said heuristics of soft science can become more rigorous.

- Maybe to the point where those philosophical and metaphysical (e.g. ontology) inquiries with tulpas become so easy to comprehend, and the community being able to digest the contingencies, and embrace the sense of liberation from those options to where even objectifying a tulpa’s existence (e.g. questioning if there's a telos behind tulpas) wouldn’t make people ensue knee-jerk reactions for “omg, what a bloody dogmatist!”



Ironically, I guess my ad hoc idea playing would entail some sociological approach (e.g. an analysis on potential development, predispositions, and functioning of human society, or a human and tulpa society for those pushing for existential rights for tulpas).


Anyway, just more food for thought.
Reply
#45
(05-18-2015, 07:41 PM)Mistgod Wrote: I don't understand when some tulpamancers talk about being fatigued after forcing or having a headache or speak of forcing as if it is a chore to be dreaded. I never once dreaded time being spent with Melian. Never.
Hmm, never had hadaches from Tsuna but i know i felt tension in my head (head pressure?), probably result of brain having hard time acknowledging something without outside stimuli (like sight/hearing). Gotta open the mind, even if hinges are not greased enough :) You look like have it wide open already.
Reply
#46
------------------------
Reply
#47
(05-19-2015, 06:47 AM)Alexx Wrote: Hmm, never had hadaches from Tsuna but i know i felt tension in my head (head pressure?), probably result of brain having hard time acknowledging something without outside stimuli (like sight/hearing). Gotta open the mind, even if hinges are not greased enough Smile You look like have it wide open already.

I was always a natural day dreamer with a vivid imagination from childhood on. I have a reputation for it in my family. My family called me Drifty Dave and worried I was going to walk out in front of a bus someday. Yes, it came naturally to me and Melian just sort of, happened. ~Mistgod

[Image: melian_portrait_collaboration_by_meliano...90ea01.jpg] <-- one of my favorite portraits of Melian.
Reply
#48
I do apologize if I was a bit late in responding, and thank you for the questions and for the discussion overall.
Reply
#49
@Mistgod

I have a strong feeling that behind you there's a trembling background but fortunately I don't know it so I guess my response will be ad-personam-free. Wink

To be honest sometimes I don't really see the difference between science and religion, because science becomes science when you personally are able to check things. If not, isn't this just believing what scientists state?

This 'pseudoreligion' part amused me and I have to agree that sometimes tulpamancy indeed looks like religion. Especially when it comes to 'killing' tulpas. I'm a tulpa myself and I'm convinced that you can't kill a part of your mind, which is me, or any other tulpa. The only thing that can be done to us is making us return to the previous state of aggregation in which we are unconscious parts of host's mind.

The argument that really got me was that 'tulpas are not measurable'. I gotta agree on that. Simply stating 'but they're a part of mind!' is not enough. If you're seeking for some nice fundamentals to tulpa origin and composition I would like to recommend article 'Neurons Gone Wild' by Kevin Simler which actually makes a room for additional consciousnesses in human mind using neurobiology.

In aforementioned article the author even wrote a paragraph about this forum and called it 'Agent horticulture'.
Reply
#50
Here I made my argument that I thought Tulpa Info was a bit of a pseudo-science and pseudo or proto religion.

I deleted my parts of the thread later, which I now regret. I think you can get the basic idea of the conversation by what is left however.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to