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

Interesting Experiment about Precognition
#1
[Bear System]

This isn't meta, it's pure science and there are a couple of these papers, but we found this one interesting

Quote:participants’ emotional arousal were monitored as participants
viewed a series of pictures on a computer screen. Most of the
pictures were emotionally neutral, but a highly arousing negative
or erotic image was displayed on randomly selected trials. As
expected, strong emotional arousal occurred when these images
appeared on the screen, but the remarkable finding is that the
increased arousal was observed to occur a few seconds before the
picture appeared, before the computer had even selected the picture
to be displayed.

...

The presentiment effect has also been demonstrated
in an fMRI experiment that monitored brain activity
(Bierman & Scholte, 2002) and in experiments using bursts of
noise rather than visual images as the arousing stimuli.

We found this whole trying to figure out Body OS stuff like being able to wake up and hit the alarm a moment before it goes off, or wake up an an exact time, these are factual occurrences that we experience but don't know how they are really possible without a precise internal clock or some other means. These are at least explainable as we know they were going to happen, but the same sort of reaction to something that we didn't know was going to happen takes explanations into the clouds and they become as fanciful as the results themselves.

We chose one here as an example: Precognitive Detection of Erotic Stimuli

This is what the participants were told:

Quote:This is an experiment that tests for ESP. It takes about 20 minutes and
is run completely by computer. First you will answer a couple of brief
questions. Then, on each trial of the experiment, pictures of two
curtains will appear on the screen side by side. One of them has a
picture behind it; the other has a blank wall behind it. Your task is to
click on the curtain that you feel has the picture behind it. The curtain
will then open, permitting you to see if you selected the correct
curtain. There will be 36 trials in all.
Several of the pictures contain explicit erotic images (e.g., couples
engaged in nonviolent but explicit consensual sexual acts). If you
object to seeing such images, you should not participate in this
experiment.

Our thoughts:

So they knew at least that these pictures would be there, so an anticipation of that image could bias results except that they wouldn't know which time it was going to happen, so perhaps a high anticipation early, and after no erotic pictures were presented for some time,. a "counting cards" affect to anticipation may increase anticipation over time, still those changes would be baseline and not spike at one particular picture. Yet they did with statistically significant regularity in 5 of 6 experiments. Specifically, notes in the study, that the hit rate for erotic images were 53.1% correct and the regular images were not significantly different than the normal change, so it was the anticipation of something in particular, perhaps even more significant of the scenes were more disturbing or arousing, or even traumatic.

This experiment could very easily be repeated at home given a random set of images, randomly numbered and chosen randomly and your feeling for the image yet to be reveled noted before each image or simply choose if the image is blank or not. This is not the exact experiment but should yield similar results. This is not a blind study so those results can't really be defended well scientifically, but you get the experience anyway (you know you didn't cheat). Given 200 images (half blank), you might predict to find the erotic ones with higher accuracy. You can do this and get a real world experience of this happening. Perhaps even learn what that feels like. (What we're calling anticipation.)

They have noted a significant increase in this ability for extraverts (that's how they spelled it), so use the most estraverted member of the system for this. Extraverts were on average as high as 57.6% correct.

Given this is science, clearly, semantics aside, we claim that some of the things we experience here in tulpamancy are scientific yet follow the same logic, unexplained by normal typically scientific means. This pushes metaphysics one step further away if we can arrange studies like this to test our other hypothesis. More practical to us experiencing not necessarily pre-cognition or clairvoyance, but the more rare accounts of tulpamancy which seem to be metaphysics at first blush.

Our post is not meant to set any of them, but rather to open minds in this tulpamantic process and allow such events to happen naturally, given things that are not necessarily currently explainable can indeed happen on their own, and actually do wonders to eliminate doubt. While all the experiences we've had are just as real and easy if not more so than switching, and I believe imposition can occur, not only because it actually does occur on a daily basis with us, but because we allow the possibility of it occurring; other experiences are very similarly valid. We have noticed a number of experiences made by early tulpamancers that eventually go away or are self-refuted over time, our hypothesis on this is that when they share these and they are subsequently rejected or brushed aside by more established members of the community, they lose the belief that these can occur. Only the most stubborn of tulpamancers such as Bear resists this effect.

The point is, accepting, not just tolerating, rare experiences, and guiding the system reporting to give more examples or possibly even train this effect is much more valuable to end game tulpamancy than marginalizing them. We all want to know "what's next" yet some of us want to also protect "what's core" can't we have both?

Comment at your whim.

EDIT
There is a comment on Reddit that adds to the topic, and our rebuttal of that.

Our point stands for now.
Reply

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

#2
Can you elaborate on why you feel precognition would be relevant to tulpamancy? I'm familiar with the study you cited here, but I've only used it to support the existence of telepathy. Certainly, talking to tulpas can feel like having telepathy, but since they're sharing a brain with you it's not the same as having a telepathic bond with another person. The research also suggests that telepathy can't be used as a form of verbal communication, but instead people can convey feelings telepathically (i.e. one might transmit the correct target out of a set of four, or simply convey their own emotional state). Most of the time that telepathy is happening, one might just get the sense that the other person is thinking about them.
"Science isn't about why, science is about why not?" -Cave Johnson
Tulpae: Luna, Elise, Naomi
My progress report
Reply
#3
1, guess they wanted to talk about it and "General Discussion" has a more appropriate feel to it than "Lounge", although traditionally this sort of thread might go in Lounge.
2, their system has lots of experiences that are sort of treated like if someone claimed to have telepathy, so they're giving a relevant unrelated example to draw comparisons to.
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.
Reply
#4
We were just attempting to pry open the minds of some of the more science oriented among us. Successful or not, it was an attempt. So it applies to tulpamancy because to limit ourselves to what 'feels scientific enough' is as silly to us as the far opposite.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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