Mistgod Babble Thread

[Aijada]

Discussion forum. SCIENTIFIC discussion forum means ... discussion. Besides, it is fun and challenges my brain.

 

[science means more than just back and forth nattering. You've been banging the same drum for months now, and the only people you're convincing are newbies who haven't managed to get a tulpa going yet and so haven't had an experience which convinces them that a tulpa is real.]

 

[science, REAL science means that you sometimes listen and change your mind when you see evidence that refutes your position, but in your case you just adamantly refuse to accept anything anyone because it's just not good enough evidence for you. You call back to Jung repeatedly as if that ancient psychology is the holy grail of knowledge but can't work with the modern conceptions of psychology we talk about around here.]

 

[it's a soft science at the end of the day. Psychology is one of the dodgiest of sciences; it'll be decades, maybe centuries before we can actually prove things about the internal existence of any brain, which leaves us in the meantime with just self-reporting to work on. Until there's a magic machine that can pinpoint the living soul of someone, all we have to work with is what people have to say for themselves. You tally up people's reports and if there's a consistent narrative that can be inferred from them, then you take it more or less at face value.]

 

[Aijada was an accidental tulpa who just woke up out of a sort of Socratic dialogue i indulged in. It became quite clear to me that there were responses that weren't coming from me or my perspective so i count her as real. That's my report, and that's the best evidence you'll get out of this place. If you want to get any further into the theories of how or why it might work that way, you've got to stop dragging this forum back to page one day after day. There's plenty more discussion about finer details to have, but there's no point trying to drag you through them with your obstinate refusal to budge on the initial assumption. Easier to just leave you to your misassumptions and count on the fact that truth will move forward despite your opinion.]

 

[As Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."]

[Guest Anonymous]

Hey Mist, this is offtopic, but have you seen the meta physics board for tuppers on reddit?

Metaphysics Board

 

(This is totally not an attempt to derail this topic. Totally.)

 

Wait don't, not yet! You guys won the argument for me against Davie! *giggle* Davie came in to put me in my place about the "make believe" because I don't like it. I am not make believe. AGGuy proved I am not really make and then believe. So he now needs to shut up with those words and stuff. Yep.

 

What about tulpas that just sorta show up and sorta stick around, whether or not the host wants it? Aren't there some of those? Like walk in tulpas that are persistent little guys?

 

OH I wanna hear from those peeps now!

[Guest Anonymous]

So Rina was a walk in? I mean she just suddenly appeared like Melian did with me?

 

Well, to be accurate, Melian's form appeared and her personality and autonomy developed later. But it was never a PLAN or trying to make something. It was just day dreaming.

 

I described it in our progress report after she told me about it.

And also, no, I absolutely didn't try to make her at all, and I literally mean not at all. We both have absolutely no idea precisely when she started existing or being born / created / whatever.

I had no conscious part in it.

 

She doesn't remember her earliest days, but she consciously remembers being around for several weeks before we actually started talking.

It was during these weeks that I would sometimes hear her voice respond / react to "foreground thoughts" of mine, but I initially thought that was just random imagination on my part.

(I didn't even know the word "tulpa" yet.)

 

I would like to quote myself from another thread here.

 

"I don't remember my earliest days, yes. But later on I'd say it was like being in a room in the back. I could look through the keyhole to watch him sometimes, or speak through the door. But I was alone in there until he opened up.

 

That is meant metaphorically, of course. I didn't perceive much, as there was only me and my thoughts. I spent my time doing magic tricks and the like. I still do that now for fun when I'm alone in our wonderland."

 

It was like this for several weeks. I was already sentient during that time. I don't actually remember ever not being sentient.

 

What if it works? That sounds dangerous.

 

It didn't work. I tried to focus on objects behind her, I tried to ignore her, I tried to just blend her out or have her only in the corner of my eye, I tried walking around her to attempt it from different angles -

- but no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't stop seeing her there. I was unable to.

 

... I also couldn't miss her silly soldier-like pose.

 

Even I feel like being silly sometimes.

 

Yes, you certainly do.

 

 

Greets,

AG & Rina

 

 

PS: Now did we grind your theory even more to dust or did we? Hehe :D

[Reisen]

Lumi: I don't care to argue semantics. It makes no difference to me whether tulpas are considered "make-believe" or not. My current belief on what tulpas are was pretty much entirely based on switching - they are what I am, just not the most identified with the body. My tulpas have shown they can control the body and mind just like I can, with entirely different mindsets and thought patterns than I have, albeit with some fatigue if they front for too long. So to that extent, they're as real as me.

 

Now, when they aren't switched, I still couldn't tell you. Personal anecdotes are all freakin' over the place on whether tulpas have their own consciousness or use their host's. To me, it seems we share a single consciousness, and they aren't well-able to think separately from me (ie. they can't think critically if I am completely unfocused and doing something else, nor can they show any sign of existing whilst completely out of my awareness). But there's a ton of people that say their tulpas do stuff while they aren't thinking of them all the time, or that can do things while the host is focused elsewhere. And then we have some who purportedly have entirely separate, simultaneously functioning minds, that can each do everything a normal person could regardless of the other's activity.

 

So I don't really care to debate it, if I'm being completely honest. All I can contribute is my own experience, and my own experience is obviously not universal. So I don't worry about questions like this. I keep a neutral, subjective-based mindset on answering others' questions and a personalized, unique mindset for my own. That's why I can't really contribute to all these discussions on tulpa sentience... There's nothing to say. Nothing I can add makes any difference to anyone else, you know?

 

Oh, but tulpas are made and you believe in them, if that's what you were asking.

[Guest Anonymous]

 

[science means more than just back and forth nattering. You've been banging the same drum for months now, and the only people you're convincing are newbies who haven't managed to get a tulpa going yet and so haven't had an experience which convinces them that a tulpa is real.]

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone they are wrong really. I am just trying to keep all possibilities on the table. There are senior members in the tulpa community, who have old tulpas, who would agree with me. It is a false assumption that having a tulpa long enough will necessarily cause the host to conclude it is real. I have had Melian for over three decades and she is pretty much a tulpa, even though I refuse the title. (I hate having to be in a labeled box).

 

[science, REAL science means that you sometimes listen and change your mind when you see evidence that refutes your position, but in your case you just adamantly refuse to accept anything anyone because it's just not good enough evidence for you. You call back to Jung repeatedly as if that ancient psychology is the holy grail of knowledge but can't work with the modern conceptions of psychology we talk about around here.]

 

Jungian psychology is still being practiced. No I haven't seen any conclusive evidence for sentience, you are absolutely right. So no one has convinced me yet. Why give in and agree just because it is the popular opinion?

 

[it's a soft science at the end of the day. Psychology is one of the dodgiest of sciences; it'll be decades, maybe centuries before we can actually prove things about the internal existence of any brain, which leaves us in the meantime with just self-reporting to work on. Until there's a magic machine that can pinpoint the living soul of someone, all we have to work with is what people have to say for themselves. You tally up people's reports and if there's a consistent narrative that can be inferred from them, then you take it more or less at face value.]

 

All very true.

 

[Aijada was an accidental tulpa who just woke up out of a sort of Socratic dialogue i indulged in. It became quite clear to me that there were responses that weren't coming from me or my perspective so i count her as real. That's my report, and that's the best evidence you'll get out of this place.

 

Accidental tulpas are the best argument against my statement in the OP that tulpas are make believe. That scratches out the make part of the make believe doesn't it?

 

If you want to get any further into the theories of how or why it might work that way, you've got to stop dragging this forum back to page one day after day.

 

HOLD THE PHONE! The sentience of tulpas is the central theme of Tulpa Info. It is on the main page! It is the primary issue and question on the forum! So we just leave it behind now? Wait, I thought...that was the central idea!

 

"A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you. 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.

 

The purpose of this site is to provide information about tulpas, to guide tulpa creation, and to host a community for discussion and research of the phenomenon."

 

There's plenty more discussion about finer details to have, but there's no point trying to drag you through them with your obstinate refusal to budge on the initial assumption. Easier to just leave you to your misassumptions and count on the fact that truth will move forward despite your opinion.]

 

"Refusal to budge on the initial assumption." THAT is the problem right there. It is a scientific forum (supposedly) founded on an assumption that cannot be tested.

 

[As Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."]

 

You're right. Eventually I will die and go away and then everyone will believe tulpas are real. There will be no one to speak a counter hypotheses. LOL

---

Lumi: I don't care to argue semantics. It makes no difference to me whether tulpas are considered "make-believe" or not. ...

 

So I don't really care to debate it, if I'm being completely honest. All I can contribute is my own experience, and my own experience is obviously not universal. So I don't worry about questions like this. ...

 

Oh, but tulpas are made and you believe in them, if that's what you were asking.

 

Oh go and ruin my fun with stubbornly rational reasoning again. :-)

---

 

I described it in our progress report after she told me about it.

And also, no, I absolutely didn't try to make her at all, and I literally mean not at all. We both have absolutely no idea precisely when she started existing or being born / created / whatever.

I had no conscious part in it.

 

Very cool and interesting!

 

It didn't work. I tried to focus on objects behind her, I tried to ignore her, I tried to just blend her out or have her only in the corner of my eye, I tried walking around her to attempt it from different angles -

- but no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't stop seeing her there. I was unable to.

 

... I also couldn't miss her silly soldier-like pose.

 

I am glad to hear that! Good for her! LOL

 

PS: Now did we grind your theory even more to dust or did we? Hehe :D

 

Well, you challenged it a bit. It is harder for me to push it.

[Guest Anonymous]

Well, it only goes more into what I deducted from watching her and our interactions: She functions separately from me, and I couldn't do anything about the things she does even if I tried.

 

... this is actually very sad and morbid and it's also why I don't feel like talking much, but my budgie Kathi just called for help from the cage, and when I went there, Stewie, my budgie I had the longest, lay dead on the ground.

 

I don't wanna go into much detail (a f*cking smack to the face to anyone who wants to ask "Why?"), but even during that time, when I hectically ran around with him, trying to find ways to help him, and ended up with him in my hands and weeping over him, she was still around.

She ran around with me through the house, and when I sat there crying she hugged me tightly from behind, and she cried a bit as well, and told me it's not my fault when I went on to blame myself.

 

Why I am even typing this?

I'm trying to distract myself, even if I do feel like an asshole for it.

 

 

Greets,

AG

[Guest Anonymous]

@AGGuy and Rina,

 

I am sorry to hear about your budgie bird. :-(

[Guest Anonymous]

Thanks... ^^

 

 

Greets,

AG

[Guest Anonymous]

 

basically yeah XD and uh, that's pretty much how i've always thought of them. i've yet to experience anything that'd qualify them as anything but purely machinations of our own mind though, so empirical evidence points to no. i'd like to believe otherwise though, so i'm gonna keep trying and hopefully something will happen to disprove me, or us i suppose. X3

 

People are telling me that given enough time with a tulpa, it is hard not to conclude it is real. Probably this is true as there are far too many people reporting that experience. I cannot argue that most tulpamancers are not convinced tulpas are real. There is something to be said for observational evidence by so many.

 

But they are still make believe (or most are) and therefore, if the are real, they are both make believe AND real. Which is what Lumi pretty much said in his response. Well sort of.

[Aijada]

[Why give in and listen to popular opinion? Why go along with the mission statement of this forum's belief in sentience and that we treat them as such? Oh, i dunno, in the spirit of scientific discovery maybe. Those are the working assumptions around here and would be where we could start getting into more of the nitty-gritty of the phenomenon. The way experimentation works is that you follow the same setup and see if you reach the same results. But you no want to challenge and deny that one and therefore leave no room for us to go any further.]

 

[When we first arrived here, there were things we didn't know about (such as imposition) and though it seemed really weird to both of us and went against most of what we knew, we tried and learned to do it. That is the nature of science. Even if you don't understand it, give it a go because a lot of people are reporting that it works. It's not pressure to join the groupthink, it's an opportunity to reach an achievable result that others can guide you to.]

 

[i'm not much impressed with the "older members" who don't believe in their tulpae. I don't see them posting much, and never see them let their tulpae speak for themselves, so i'm not exactly convinced they've attempted the experiment yet. If they won't give them room to explore sentience personally, it's quite easy to imagine they'd stay trapped as "imaginary" figures they couldn't trust as real people. It certainly takes more than just time, it takes respect for the tulpa's personhood as well, and that's not exactly easy to teach. And it is evidently anathema to many that their tulpa could be seen as equally capable. Though thankfully, there are many others who willingly let their tulpae have full run of life and those tend to be the ones who are most evidently sentient in their own way. Weird correlation isn't it? You give a tulpa a chance to be a person who can think for themselves and it turns out that they are happy to speak and take part in the world.]

 

[but no instead it's the mission statement, "HOLD THE PHONE", we still have to put that up for debate. Yes it's perfectly your right in the name of science to challenge the core assumptions, but it's perhaps why you garner so much conflict and find the things other people say so hard to believe. You LOL at the Planck quote instead of perhaps reconsidering your own position and i think that's where you're failing at science. You might be wrong, even though you've been working at something similar for decades. Discovering there are newer, better ideas is a bitter pill to swallow after a long time in a different belief system, so i don't begrudge you your side in the fight, but i do certainly believe you're on the wrong side here. Yes you can wave the flag of dissent, but i'm not convinced you're contributing much to the pursuit of science by doing so.]

 

[Which is a real shame, because with your decades of experience, there are things that would be interesting to hear about from you. But without some common ground to work from, i wouldn't know where to begin asking you these things.]