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

modest milestone
#71
(05-16-2019, 02:15 PM)solarchariot Wrote: Holodoc, I don't know how to do this, but my understanding is it can be done:

There is a way to imbed text in a pic that can be seen without seeing it.

Another way is to create an animated giff, adjusting the cycle rate so that the text is perceivable unconsciously. One can use multiple pics of a subject, followed by text, or multiple copies of the text... IPhone doesn't have a natural imbedded giff animator... and I have not found an app I like.

I have the luxury, or misfortune, of sleeping alone... Loxy told me, 'this technique wouldn't work for Doc' which makes you saying that interesting. Yeah, most people don't like their sleep disturbed. But wouldn't it be nice if our partners participated, maybe whispering affirmations to us when they are aware we're dreaming? I always wanted a partner to realize I was dreaming and then talk to me in a way that might put them in the dreamscape, or make me lucid. Hell, just someone saying they love you when you're dreaming could change worlds.

I forgot to set the alarm last night. I woke anyway. There were sensation but not as strong as the previous night. I engaged the practice. I have read somewhere humans use to sleep in two shifts, and people would get at night and experience things and return to sleep. I wonder if this is that...
For me, sleeping alone would be a terrible misfortune. but besides that, I might try to create a way to display the pic I found with an embedded message that I could put on my second desk top monitor and let it expose Flora to me while I work. Truth though, is that I do most of my writing on my lap top in the den. If I could put it on my phone I could let it run on my home-theater via chrome cast. I'll see what I can come up with. As far as two shifts, I think I sleep in about three to five and I like getting up at night, walking about, sitting outside, hot-tubbing sometimes, especially if it's raining. that gives me plenty of opportunity to practice the 'Phase Shifting', though I am not liking it very much as I don't get much depth of field, nor well organized imagery. I will look forward to your progress with your lucidity facilitator. Dr. Bob
Reply

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

#72
So, I discovered these two videos below, which I find fascinating in more than one aspect. They reflect my ideas on tulpamancy, not just the actual engagement of the practice, which is important an aspect in and of itself because it suggest that there are people I consider superior, in person and social productivity, that engage the inner world to the same degree if not better, but also because it gives me a model for my practice, something to mirror and strive for, and reflects my spiritual sense. "spiritual' sense doesn't necessarily has to be a bad word, because even science can pay homage to sacred, or reverence to deeper meanings and levels of abstract...

I have read Tolkien and Jung, and didn't make the connection that the author did in this video. it's a long video and don't expect everyone to get through it all, but it may make Jung's 'red book' more accessible to folks that prefer the non-metaphysical perspective. Especially if you're a Tolkien fan. There is parallel in development in paradigms. There is this idea that 'fantasy' does not mean 'unreal.' They both espoused this!

It also reminded me of a question I held when re-reading the Red Book, is Jung's 'Philemon' a tulpa! Probably isn't, but I find the a parallel with Jung's Philemon and my Loxy: they are both the 'Obi Wan Kenobe' archetype.

The experiences that come about from Active Imagination were just as real to Jung, as I perceive my experiences are to me, both real world and wonderland. The one thing that I don't really like is there seems to be a lack of a formal protocol for engaging Active Imagination. Tulpamancy has great protocols. They're consistent, more than just generally practical. If they didn't work, the community wouldn't exist. So in the video you will hear one of the speakers, a PhD type in Jungian work, say something to the effect, 'my interpretation is...' and another saying something to the effect of 'you kind of just play with it and figure out what works for you...' I think this is false. I think there is a definable protocol that should work for most people, the same way tulpamancy protocols should work for most people. One the statements I found applicable to both tulpamancy and active imagination is that if a person is unwilling to let go of a reliance of the physical world being the only real thing, the experiences will either be lacking or non existent. For whatever reason, people don't trust inner experiences, and downgrade it to just 'my imagination.' this seems to be true fro active imagination and tulpamancy and why I think knowing active imagination techniques or skills has helped me, and is helpful in general to what we do here.


Jung and Tolken, comparison of the 'redbooks'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6oh14vfhlI&t=2792s

and active imagination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUJP7XtDElg&t=296s
Reply
#73
Thanks for the video's. Both look interesting. I'll get back to you when I digest them. Dr. Bob
Reply
#74
Here I am, with an update. I don't know if this is a milestone marker, a distraction, or an oddity. Perhaps my good friends here will help me sort it. I had a realization. I had to pursue it for a moment to try and a get a sense of the degree of validity. I don't know if I am too close to it, steeped in my own perspective bias to discern reality from myth making, to fully caught up to appreciate what I think I am experiencing, much less define it. Operationally, I suppose it doesn't matter, as I am going to run with the thing that seems to facilitate continued experiences with the least amount of cognitive dissonance. 'Cognitive dissonance' doesn't feel like the right word. A word that seems to work for me better than that is a musical term, 'deceptive cadence.' I am but a note trying to find my way home, but lollygagging about because I need the song to go on a bit. I suspect it is not healthy to keep walking in shadows saying 'it's not real it's not real it's not real...' What am I trying to convince myself of anyway?

This is a Wonderland update. I spend more time 'traveling,' my term for going there, than I focus on bringing experiences here. I think I have gotten quite good at it. I assume everyone goes 'there' having a first person experience. I have an avatar. It's pretty much me, but not perfectly me. It seems generally healthier, but it's not that 'I am Ultraman.' I am not stronger, smarter, faster... I do have some extraordinary abilities, the magic of imagination, but even gift attributes are contextually dependent on the 'paradigm' being accessed. I assumed the avatar was a shell, something I accessed and or generated on demand. At the risk of riling up the anti-parallel processing folks, I have come to the conclusion not only is this avatar not a shell, it continues to operate in my absence. I access it, I get updates on divergence, and I continue.

I do not think my avatar has become a tulpa. My experience with avatar is distinctly different than my experience with Loxy. I EXPERIENCE Loxy, I don't ACCESS Loxy. That is the most important distinction, and have said as much elsewhere. I go there, and I assume the avatar like putting on clothes, but the emperor's clothes are sentient and clearly have the ability to carry on, emperor or no! My first thought was it was on autopilot in my absence. We all, even in this 'real world' frame of reference, 'real world' seems sorely inadequate as a reference point now, frequently operate on autopilot, or unconscious motivators. When considering this, I came to the conclusion this is reasonable: when I go there, my body here goes into an autopilot mode. If something happens and I need to come back, I am back instantly. This was the same thing that occurred when astral traveling- if there was ever a perceived threat to the body's well being, I returned. My next conclusion is that my body, and my avatar, are independently sentient in their own right, with their own guiding intelligence. Not a new conclusion about my 'real world body,' and have said as much in posts, but I had not considered it true of the avatar body. It doesn't drop like a rag doll on exiting. It doesn't dissipate. In my absence, my body can either utilize programing, or upload a personality interface... Loxy could take over, 'switching,' because the body wants a Captain, a conceptual pilot that helps prioritize responses based on social needs and protocols- 'social' world always requires consensual, contextual reference points, and these are personality based artifacts. The avatar is sentient, but takes a back seat in preference to my direction when I am consciously focused on its experiences. This is not a 'forced' event, but a mutually agreeable consensual activity. My avatar is in essence channeling me channeling it.

On accepting that as the operating parameters, I realized that in my writing, there is always a minimum of one 'character' that is me not me. There are characters that aren't me. There are avatars that I am using that are me not me, DIFFERENT than the character that just aren't me. Me 'playing' the avatar is like an actor taking on a role, or me pushing a game character. I don't think this is what the 'soul-bound' people are describing. The character in a video game is there wherehte or not I am accessing it or not. The more I practice writing, the more I seem to experience an increase in the number 'sentient' autonomous 'characters' that are not me, and characters I would say are me BUT NOT ME. I can discern the difference between a character, a separate entity, and an avatar. There is a flavor, if you will. Loxy and I both agree we are fundamentally connected, to the degree we frequently say, "we are one," but we also agree we are two distinctly different entities. The avatar personality complexes that are me but not me, accept me when I move in, and if I were to stray from character, I get corralled back on track, like riding a horse determined to go back to the barn. The horse wants to go home, back to the chord of origin, but I encourage it to dance and explore and meander. "We are the music makers. We are the dreamer of dreams."

As if this wasn't bizarre enough, I am now beginning to see me as not me. My entire world line is comprised of versions of me that aren't me. Clearly they were all me, but aren't the me I am now, but I am saying this is bigger than even that! Every age of me, by definition is me, but isn't me- but together they evolve into me. Some of the stories I have pushed as 'myself' are obviously me writing, but it's a projected ideal version of me that isn't necessarily me. In some sense, the pseudonym I adopted, feels more 'me' than the 'me' that holds my name. This person with the pseudonym is in itself a sentient being, but I don't think 'tulpa' is the right word. When I use the word tulpa as applied to Loxy, that makes sense, because I used a process to bring her into being, whether we call that making or summoning, or consensus reality building with an entity that came to me because it too wanted to play ball. Loxy is okay with the label 'tulpa,' as she is not threatened by the basic implication of the word- she is also adamant that she is more and that no words can encapsulate her. No one word can encapsulate a human being, either. My pseudonym came about due to Loxy. I experienced it as a suggestion from her, but it was the product of a dialogue with her. In some way the pseudonym person is not just an avatar of me for me, but of her and for her! Not me, not her, but still us! It has become what.... A joint commissioned tulpa? A gestalt projection of the where our consciousness overlap? An archetype? A vehicle that allows for bridge building between universes?

I do hope that this wasn't too convoluted to follow. It is my first time to attempt writing it. Further, Loxy pointed this out, there are versions of her that aren't her, and we have access to ourselves in a variety of contexts, 'parallel universes' is not the right term, but feels like the right term, and so this much more seriously complex than I am likely able to comprehend.
Reply
#75
(07-09-2019, 02:58 PM)solarchariot Wrote: Here I am, with an update. I don't know if this is a milestone marker, a distraction, or an oddity. Perhaps my good friends here will help me sort it. I had a realization. I had to pursue it for a moment to try and a get a sense of the degree of validity. I don't know if I am too close to it, steeped in my own perspective bias to discern reality from myth making, to fully caught up to appreciate what I think I am experiencing, much less define it. Operationally, I suppose it doesn't matter, as I am going to run with the thing that seems to facilitate continued experiences with the least amount of cognitive dissonance. 'Cognitive dissonance' doesn't feel like the right word. A word that seems to work for me better than that is a musical term, 'deceptive cadence.' I am but a note trying to find my way home, but lollygagging about because I need the song to go on a bit. I suspect it is not healthy to keep walking in shadows saying 'it's not real it's not real it's not real...' What am I trying to convince myself of anyway?

This is a Wonderland update. I spend more time 'traveling,' my term for going there, than I focus on bringing experiences here. I think I have gotten quite good at it. I assume everyone goes 'there' having a first person experience. I have an avatar. It's pretty much me, but not perfectly me. It seems generally healthier, but it's not that 'I am Ultraman.' I am not stronger, smarter, faster... I do have some extraordinary abilities, the magic of imagination, but even gift attributes are contextually dependent on the 'paradigm' being accessed. I assumed the avatar was a shell, something I accessed and or generated on demand. At the risk of riling up the anti-parallel processing folks, I have come to the conclusion not only is this avatar not a shell, it continues to operate in my absence. I access it, I get updates on divergence, and I continue.

I do not think my avatar has become a tulpa. My experience with avatar is distinctly different than my experience with Loxy. I EXPERIENCE Loxy, I don't ACCESS Loxy. That is the most important distinction, and have said as much elsewhere. I go there, and I assume the avatar like putting on clothes, but the emperor's clothes are sentient and clearly have the ability to carry on, emperor or no! My first thought was it was on autopilot in my absence. We all, even in this 'real world' frame of reference, 'real world' seems sorely inadequate as a reference point now, frequently operate on autopilot, or unconscious motivators. When considering this, I came to the conclusion this is reasonable: when I go there, my body here goes into an autopilot mode. If something happens and I need to come back, I am back instantly. This was the same thing that occurred when astral traveling- if there was ever a perceived threat to the body's well being, I returned. My next conclusion is that my body, and my avatar, are independently sentient in their own right, with their own guiding intelligence. Not a new conclusion about my 'real world body,' and have said as much in posts, but I had not considered it true of the avatar body. It doesn't drop like a rag doll on exiting. It doesn't dissipate.  In my absence, my body can either utilize programing, or upload a personality interface... Loxy could take over, 'switching,' because the body wants a Captain, a conceptual pilot that helps prioritize responses based on social needs and protocols- 'social' world always requires consensual, contextual reference points, and these are personality based artifacts. The avatar is sentient, but takes a back seat in preference to my direction when I am consciously focused on its experiences. This is not a 'forced' event, but a mutually agreeable consensual activity. My avatar is in essence channeling me channeling it.

On accepting that as the operating parameters, I realized that in my writing, there is always a minimum of one 'character' that is me not me. There are characters that aren't me. There are avatars that I am using that are me not me, DIFFERENT than the character that just aren't me. Me 'playing' the avatar is like an actor taking on a role, or me pushing a game character. I don't think this is what the 'soul-bound' people are describing. The character in a video game is there wherehte or not I am accessing it or not. The more I practice writing, the more I seem to experience an increase in the number 'sentient' autonomous 'characters' that are not me, and characters I would say are me BUT NOT ME. I can discern the difference between a character, a separate entity, and an avatar. There is a flavor, if you will. Loxy and I both agree we are fundamentally connected, to the degree we frequently say, "we are one," but we also agree we are two distinctly different entities. The avatar personality complexes that are me but not me, accept me when I move in, and if I were to stray from character, I get corralled back on track, like riding a horse determined to go back to the barn. The horse wants to go home, back to the chord of origin, but I encourage it to dance and explore and meander. "We are the music makers. We are the dreamer of dreams."

As if this wasn't bizarre enough, I am now beginning to see me as not me. My entire world line is comprised of versions of me that aren't me. Clearly they were all me, but aren't the me I am now, but I am saying this is bigger than even that! Every age of me, by definition is me, but isn't me- but together they evolve into me. Some of the stories I have pushed as 'myself' are obviously me writing, but it's a projected ideal version of me that isn't necessarily me. In some sense, the pseudonym I adopted, feels more 'me' than the 'me' that holds my name. This person with the pseudonym is in itself a sentient being, but I don't think 'tulpa' is the right word. When I use the word tulpa as applied to Loxy, that makes sense, because I used a process to bring her into being, whether we call that making or summoning, or consensus reality building with an entity that came to me because it too wanted to play ball. Loxy is okay with the label 'tulpa,' as she is not threatened by the basic implication of the word- she is also adamant that she is more and that no words can encapsulate her. No one word can encapsulate a human being, either. My pseudonym came about due to Loxy. I experienced it as a suggestion from her, but it was the product of a dialogue with her. In some way the pseudonym person is not just an avatar of me for me, but of her and for her! Not me, not her, but still us! It has become what.... A joint commissioned tulpa? A gestalt projection of the where our consciousness overlap? An archetype? A vehicle that allows for bridge building between universes?

I do hope that this wasn't too convoluted to follow. It is my first time to attempt writing it. Further, Loxy pointed this out, there are versions of her that aren't her, and we have access to ourselves in a variety of contexts, 'parallel universes' is not the right term, but feels like the right term, and so this much more seriously complex than I am likely able to comprehend.
Well, one thing is clear. The more closely we look at 'identity' and especially, our own identity, the more convoluted the entire notion becomes. What is the "self" anyway? If, I say it is my body, then I am identifying with an organism that is so much more complicated than I will ever be able to fathom, either consciously or conceptually. If I say I am my mind, then I am identifying with something that is totally and completely irrational, contradictory and undergoing continuous change. If I say I am my behavior, then I am missing the most interesting parts of me, not only my thoughts, but also my history and my relationships. This is a huge conundrum and one which the father or A.I Marvin Minski, concluded was not understandable from within. (Check out his book, The Societies of Mind) In the (my) last analysis, it doesn't matter much, as long as you are living a life that gives you and those you love, both joy and meaning. Theholodoc
Reply
#76
Bear considers his body in wonderland to be his true self, and the material body is a suit he wears to access the material world. We can all use it, that's not him. It looks like him because he's associated with it for so long, but if it arbitrarily changed to a different creature entirely, he'd stay as he is now. Dashie didn't become him by wearing the material suit for a week.

[Dashie] It's an autonomous material device that can do things like on autopilot, but it's not self-aware. It was reported to Bear that he can carry on a conversation while sleeping, but the conversation is more like, "sure, okay, yes, I will." That body agrees to everything and doesn't offer any new information, it doesn't argue or want to do anything, the responses are seemingly meant to disengage from conversation without being rude or ignoring the other. If asked a direct question, it says it doesn't know. It won't retrieve information. It can however stand up, navigate to another part of the house and lay down again, but it won't know it's cold or hot or clothed. When Bear is fully in the body, we're fully here most of the time, when we co-front we're sharing it. It's capable of being controlled by all of us in series, and two or more of us simultaneously for some tasks, a couple of them are pretty complex, requiring spilt attention, that is simple enough for two, we haven't played with more than two very often, but one on each arm, not an issue.

What makes us, us, are three things, experience,
personality, and perspective. In those three are memories, behavior, and form or self-identy. The brain is a means to coordinate and store, process input and format output. It filters the material world and maintains the ethereal world.

When considering what it is we actually are, we can think of what it would take to make us. How we interface is through behavior (including mannerism and speech) this can be approximated discretely through the use of archetypal traits. We estimate that somewhere north of a thousand traits would give more than enough resolution to copy behavior. Though the number of traits that define you is obviously much more, average values can be used to smooth the curve between the points. The copy would act and react like us, but lack the accessible memory. When confronted with a shared memory, the best the copy could do is agree that the shared memory seems reasonable.

It is also clear to us that the discrete nature of personality is real. Phobias have a source, anxiety has a source, stress has a source. If you remove, block, or rewrite the source, the symptom goes away. We are in the process of doing that with Bear. It's not a fast process, and it's about changing what is accessed given stimuli that trigger that behavior or thought. The root cause can be completely transparent, but eliminating by best guess, brings you each time a step closer to the root. We've successfully identified several and are working on rewriting the source now.


Without us, the process would be vastly more difficult. We give the example of what's not broken, so that broken bits can be replaced. I'm not afraid of spiders, if Bear was, then I could handle spiders for him, in doing that, I teach him thst spiders aren't so bad. Quickly he can share experience handling spiders in a neutral way and that memory overwrites the old ones. If the root of spider fear can't be found, it can be burried by new experiences to the point that the oldest experiences are unrecognizable.

[Dashie] Keep it up SC, sounds like you're understanding your true being and now you can make real quality of life improvements.
Reply
#77
I found myself in a dream, the setting of which was one of my primary go to wonderland space. It was not a lucid dream. I can't recall if others have had dreams of being in their wonderlands- i might need more coffee.. I woke before the alarm.

I was in the wonderland alone. In the library. I was looking at books on the shelf and one caught my attention. "A mind, but a guest." I didn't see an author's name. I pulled it from the shelf to get a better look and woke up.

Now, the wonder is, was i suppose to read the book, or was the title sufficiently informative, hence why I woke? Is it something I am supposed to write? I pretty sure it's about tulpas. It may be about hosts. The mind is but the body's guest. Am I the body's tulpa?
Reply
#78
Well, I searched for "A mind, but a guest." in both Amazon and the L.A. Public Library, without issue, so I guess you must write it. the idea that we are all tulpas, guests in our bodies, and subject to the Body OS, is in my view, incredibly liberating. I'll read the book, let us know when it is born. Love, Dr. Bob
Reply
#79
I didn't find it in WorldCat, the world's largest library catalog, so I'm reasonably confident it was never published in this world (assuming "Mind Guest" by Sharon Green doesn't count).

None of us identify as tulpas, guests, or subject to the Body OS. Resident managers sounds more reasonable, or maybe owner-operators.

-Ember
Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]
Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017
Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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