Where are tulpas located, exactly?

[Yakumo]

why is my tulpa's processing' date=' her behaviour.. not evident in my neurobiology? [/quote']

Because even high-res EEGs are unsuitable for answering such questions.

The data may reflect your overall state of mind but nothing more. I highly doubt you could observe your tulpas thoughts which such a device. So be careful with making bold assumptions.

Also a single scan doesn't tell us anything. It would be interesting to do repeated (and I mean a lot of) scans, randomly letting host or tulpa solve mental tasks and look for variations. Obviously the analysis would have to be carried out by someone not knowing whether host or tulpa did the thinking. That would be a feasible experiment.

 

Anyhow my tulpa and me still don't believe you.

We do not believe you possess an EEG device, neither do we believe you are qualified to analyze EEGs which is by no means an easy task.

But hey, prove us wrong. If you can do it why don't you conduct experiments and publish some results? I am sure the whole community can't wait to get their hands on some reliable data.

You could at least start by posting a pic of your EEG device with timestamp and tell us the model, how and where you got it and for how much. But so far we haven't seen anything from you except big words.

 

Nothing personal but if you want to do serious research you will have to put your results up for discussion and yes, you will face criticism. That's how science works.

 

As for the original question, as said, with EEG I see a faint chance that tulpa activity could produce slightly different patterns than the same activity carried out by the host. It would certainly be worth looking into. fMRI might be a lot more promising but prohibitively expensive, not to speak of interpreting data correctly. I feel this is something most people underestimate. Machines don't spit out conclusions. These have to be drawn by professionals which requires a lot of knowledge and experience. Nothing to do at home in your free time.

But I think J. Iscariot's question was more on the psychologial side. Don't know much about that, yenu summed it up pretty well. We still know little about the unconscious, one theory proposes neuronal networks that need to cross a certain threshold of excitation for a signal to be forwarded into the 'conscious' regions of the brain. I'd say a young tulpa draws a lot from unconscious processes as you listen for its answers, probably lowering the threshold for signals to be forwarded into consciousness. At least that's how it seems to me.

Samuel Veissière also theorized that the ability to create thoughtforms is derived from the brain's desire to predict the actions of people around us which is essential for both getting along in a society and fending off potential enemies.

[Aiko_M]

I am measuring activity in certain regions, for this, namely, the DSLPFC/PFC. Not looking for particular thoughts, as you said, EEG's cannot do that. They are not a mindreading device.

If there's no activity in the regions associated with executive thought for example, you can assume there's very little to no executive thought processes at that moment in time.

 

I have an Olimex EEG-SMT, (Software processing: Brainbay) and don't care if you believe me or not. I don't answer demands of toxic people online. It says a lot about you that you assume someone is lying and demand things of them.. who the hell do you think you are? I don't have motive, I can't say the same about you.

 

I will not be providing "proof" to you, you can just say that it is fake anyway. I certainly will not be giving you video footage as I do not trust you. Once again, I don't answer to the likes of you. I have seen other posts from you around here. If you wanted details, you could have at least tried to be a little less toxic.

 

"Science", doesn't entail being a toxic jerk. People don't walk into a lab, jump up and down and make demands. You can go bark up another tree. Frankly, I don't believe there is anything I could do to appease you. Your motive seems to be destructive, demanding and generally toxic. It's too bad you are like that, otherwise I could have worked with you or provided data for your own processing. (Brainbay is free)

 

Take everything I say at face value because I will not be giving you personal details to prove a thing. Don't bother continuing to complain, you are blip on the internet and I owe you nothing.

[J.Iscariot]

That escalated quickly.

[Aiko_M]

That escalated quickly.

 

Ended quickly too. Toxic people *sigh*. Some people cannot take things at face value. This is the internet. Everything is at face value.

 

As for the rest of you, I cannot do a full study because as far as I know, there are no other tulpamancers in my area. I now live in a very remote area.

 

A single person is not a suitable sample size. I do experiment on myself, I have had an fMRI and 2 neurologist performed EEG's (in hospital). I have established a baseline via multiple methods. I am neurobiologically healthy. It is still not enough to reach a generalised conclusion. I can only state how things are for me.

 

But hey, if anyone else wants to buy an EEG that has raw output and share data, let me know. (Please make sure your EEG, if you buy one, has raw output. Otherwise you are limited in what you can do with the output. Some can be modified for raw output but that will void your warranty)

Read more here..

[Ido]

Oh boy...

Look, I'm sorry, I actually tried to keep my host from posting this but sometimes escalation is better than remaining silent.

Lemme point out why we have issues with you. Its not about us or you, it's about how research is seen in this community and the public in general. And this is no joke.

 

We didn't even know olimex made such a device. While it's cool to have such a lowcost opensource device you have to understand that this is more a toy and will not produce any trustworthy results. Seriously. Look it up on the net. There's a reason a medical grade EEG costs several grands and even results obtained from such devices are mostly meaningless.

We've had this discussion with fordaplot a while ago, he wanted to use an Emotiv Epoc as EEG device.

>lolno

 

But at least he was humble enough to accept that he could not conduct the experiments he wanted to with the devices he was able to afford. Look, we wanted to believe that this was possible too, but I see no chance to obtain serious EEG results in home use. So far no one has delivered anything. Even if you bought a good device, do you honestly want to tell me you can analyze EEGs?

Well, we can't and we don't know anything who could either. Sharing results online might help, but don't expect too much from that, especially if your device's SNR is bad from the start. It's cool that you have the olimex but pls make experiments and tell us about them instead of throwing around with results and getting mad at anyone demanding proof. You're neither doing yourself nor anyone else a favor.

 

TL;DR

Of course ya don't have to answer to any demands but rest assured we will not remain silent while you or anyone else makes claims they are unable or even unwilling to back up with solid evidence. Others may be fooled by pretty words but not us. Evar.

 

Hate us if you must, we are irrelevant. The truth however, isn't!

[Aiko_M]

Why do you think I said to take it at face value? How many times do I have to say it?

 

This is why I went to get a professional, neurologist performed, test done. I even took my device to someone at the Florey institute. It is functioning perfectly.

 

Got a problem with me? I don't care. YOU CHOOSE whether to be a jerk or not about it. You can just ignore me, if you are capable.

 

If someone wants to ask for something decently, I'll provide it. But be a jerk and you can go jump. Do you really think I am going to cooperate with someone who is being an ass? Do you really think you can make demands of someone online? There's a huge difference between working with someone and against them. I do not comply with your demands and will not do so, no matter what you say, think or believe.

 

If you were a person who was not being toxic, if you were working WITH me or at least showing common courtesy, the situation would have been different.

 

Once again, TAKE EVERYTHING I SAY AT FACE VALUE. Maybe you should learn to be silent, your motives are showing.

As I said, ONE PERSON IS NOT A SUITABLE SAMPLE SIZE.

 

Hate you? No. I just think you are being a pain in the ass, deliberately. Go away. There's no point to your post but to "escalate". I am not mad in the slightest either. I am responding to you in the only way you deserve. Your motive appears to be to shut me up because you do not personally approve of what I say. Guess what? I don't care and I will not comply with your desires.

 

TL;DR: Stop complaining and learn how to take things at face value. You are not the internet police, you personally do not define what people are permitted to say online. I am not answerable to you. Both of your accounts are now ignored. That is the last response you will get from me.

[Ido]

All we are asking you is to be a bit more humble.

You present your personal conclusions as solid facts and jump at anyone questioning them. But doubt and scepticism are essential, as much as a pain in the ass they may be. Science is not a hugbox. It is pain. In this business your personal feelings are as irrelevant as ours.

 

Anyway, I don't see an issue with just testing yourself for a start. Just repeat the same experiment over and over again and treat the replicates as parallel samples. From the point of statistics that's even better than testing several persons, who are not true parallel samples anyway, with few replicates. Should yield lower deviation.

 

Now show us that we were wrong, that should be some motivation. At least do it for this community.

 

Peace, we're going to sleep!

[Drakaina]

It has to be said.

Only a fool takes the word of a stranger on the internet without a big cup of salt.

 

Cool as results might be, Aiko if you intend to speak with any authority, especially on an internet forum where anyone can claim to be anything. You have to be prepared to back up what you say, and have no right to get upset when someone doubts you or doesn't simply take your word as fact.

 

It seems there's already history with this between you and Ido. Were it not for that I'd say their initial post came off as...less than polite. I don't think it should be unexpected though that when someone says they have hard science and brain scans that people want to see the information for themselves.

 

---

Back on the topic though,

I'd say a young tulpa draws a lot from unconscious processes as you listen for its answers' date=' probably lowering the threshold for signals to be forwarded into consciousness. At least that's how it seems to me.[/quote']

Its interesting you'd say this. I would guess it'd be the other way around. Using more of the conscious mind to create the tulpa and form the neural pathways that'll become their mind later in their development. Then they'd slide into being run by the unconscious once they re well worn and established.

[Aiko_M]

Actually.. I don't have to back anything up. Nor do you. I'd be wrong to insist that you do. We are not answerable to anyone. Should I demand proof of your tulpa? No, and certainly in such a rude manner.

 

It would be different if I were to challenge an assertion, politely. "Why do you believe that?". We are all entitled to our perceptions, opinions and statements. A suitable answer to that question would be, "Because I choose to." Who am I to contest your beliefs?

 

There's no history between me and that person. It is just someone having a bawww on the internet.

 

Anything other than that is censorship. Especially when a person insists on being vocal and toxic for no other reason than they don't like what they hear. That is astoundingly immature and deconstructive.

 

Thing is, I can provide certain things. Obviously I am not going to provide the hospital raw feeds which include camera footage. But I am establishing a data repository for my EEG feeds. I actually hoped that other people would be able to provide the same. That would be of value.

 

I can explain what I was looking for, the results, and possibly even provide the standard European data format (.EDF) file/s. There's EDF readers available. (Free)

 

What I am doing at this point is establishing baselines for various tasks. For example, observation of various types of material, as recorded at various points. This way I can then have my tulpa "do things" and compare. I have been working on maintaining a very low, slow state, and have succeeded. Any deviation from the norm is quite well expressed, even without filtering.

 

I can compare observation of say, a youtube video, to observation of my tulpa doing the same. Then I can compare it to a memory of that. The possibilities are virtually endless.

 

I have a permanent EEG station set up, separate laptop, filtered power, minimal interference. I even use active electrodes. My place is fairly soundproof as well.

 

What I stated is very easily seen and does not need a high resolution test. A response, a deviation from the baseline, on certain events. That is a lot different than medical analysis.

 

I am also optimising filters and configuration to tailor to specific testing.

See that "dark patch", that is the baseline. As you can see on this, any deviation from that is very visible. (Not a very clean reading, FP1-FP2, active electrode)

 

[Drakaina]

@Aiko

Of course you don't. It can be clear cut into two neat sushi rolls. The first is you state what you want, findings, ect. People want to see proof, option 1 is you provide it and we all "ooh and aah" at science. Option 2 is you stick to your motto of not needing to prove anything. Which is true, you don't. But then don't be surprised by the "we call BS" response from the rest of the internet.

There's a meme that more or less sews up these kinds of debates. "Pics or it didn't happen."

 

Obviously with the metaphysical this doesn't work, we can't document such phenomena satisfactorily yet. But brain scans are a new and relatively respected science. So someone with access to said tech, people kind of expect them to go about scientific procedure. Peer review, counter tests, and reporting/supporting findings with the data.