Retroactive Fantasizing: Altering Our Own Memories

[Guest Anonymous]

The reasons why the FPP are exactly what we have been saying. It is a perfect description of Mistgod's personality. His tendency to live in a fantasy world led to me. I became a life long obsession and to him I am a person. I am very emotionally important to my host and even vital. We like FPP because it gives us some validity and vindication, finally, to what we have been saying all along. For some people imaginary things are very, very real seeming.

 

Now you are tipping the boat! You want to detract from our anchor of validity that we are so proud of that we found.

 

I opened this up and then it gets uncomfortable with the scrutiny. That actually should be telling Mistgod and I something. But I don't want to be on this therapist couch anymore.

 

HERE READ THIS -->Living Imagination is my DNA

[TheGreenQueen]

It's totally not something I can explain, discuss, or defend. It just happens that way. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of others that experience the same, though I don't think it's universal. I like it though, because it integrates your awareness of your environment at the time into a convenient perspective, even if it's slightly less accurate with the details it didn't know.

 

Dunno if I'm allowed to discuss metaphysics, here, as I already feel I've gotten some figurative dirty looks for that. (of course, maybe I'm making the reaction out to be more than it is, modifying those memories, haha!)

 

I just know that plenty of people on the asexual forum I frequent do not "identify" with their bodies very well, feel very detached, and I do, too.

 

Actually, it doesn't. Not in scenarios like that. The real problem is when you're acting as a witness - the Law knows full well witnesses don't know what the heck they're talking about 90% of the time, and we've documented proof of that well. People are really good at creating memories of what they think they should have seen, with their own biases. So if you're ever in that scenario, please take care to remain unbiased as possible.

 

Duly noted.

 

My parents are very good at saying when they don't know something for sure, and I can usually tell when I don't remember something. I'll be able to say, "I don't know" and leave it at that. If they press me, well, I can just fall back on poor episodic memory. Because it's totally true . . .

[Tewi]

Discussing metaphysics tends to bug people who don't believe in them, and since this forum is focused on being as scientific as possible, we try to keep that discussion in its intended section. No one's going to explode if you reply to a thread with a metaphysical view, but just try and make sure the post is still relevant even if someone isn't inclined to believe what you're talking about. We do discuss primarily subjective experiences, so that's fine. But making metaphysical claims in a thread discussing things scientifically (or logically as some people call it) will ruffle feathers.

[Linkzelda]

Something to point out, Science doesn't absolve itself from Metaphysics, especially if one of the epistemological intentions is to conceive a knowable world. If anyone has any sources of Science not doing this, then please link me to them, because I must be living under a rock.

[Tewi]

Whatever, I have no idea how to tiptoe around the word metaphysics. Basically: To filter out baseless claims that aren't falsifiable, we ask that discussion of metaphysics stays in the metaphysics board. But because it's scientifically wrong and not being a healthy skeptic to deny anything at all outright without evidence of it being wrong, we have a metaphysics board. It is not the subforum where people go to discuss things that are not true, else we would simply ban such discussion. It's to separate seemingly falsifiable discussion from seemingly unfalsifiable discussion that nonetheless may benefit some to discuss.

 

Of course, that's how a science versus metaphysics separation normally goes. I don't think most of the experiences we talk about here are "falsifiable" due to their subjective nature. It's more like the separation of "These are the things I believe to be true exclusively in my mind" vs. "These are the things I personally believe to be true, whether or not we can prove it yet".

 

But the more realistic reason is just that a lot of people are tired of hearing about metaphysics because they can't quickly work with them based on their experience/knowledge base, and so it bogs down discussion when mixed together. I dunno. Say whatever you want, just don't make claims of what is and isn't true. Like, ever, metaphysical or not. It's always dangerous to imply something is beyond a doubt true.

[Linkzelda]

I haven't hinted at things being irrefutably true, or not, but okay. It's just that even if these discussions would be hinged on inner experiences, they are still metaphysical in some context, and even imply some form of ontology. It's just unfortunately, people have yet to realize that a lot of these subjective experiences can be correlated with theories and speculations with theories of mind. The more said discussions are laid out, the less "naive" the subjective experiences will seem to be, but until then, people will be demystified and chalk it up as people making a dichotomy over what's true, or not. It's really about what would seem more sound, or less sound for a person's path in this journey.

 

Of course, this is merely talking through a phenomenological lens, i.e., the study of experiences and consciousness. It should go without saying that no matter how passionate said discussions can get, it's all just ad hoc until stated otherwise. That constant reminder over "you can't make this true, or untrue" is annoying because there's an implication that the person forgot about it, which was hardly the case. Taking things in a scientific light along with an intelligible pursuit over understanding oneself in some way will involve opinions being objectified, deconstructed, and such all for the sake of learning.

 

Because if we truly wanted to be militant on keeping metaphysics within a specific section in the board, any discussions over what makes a tulpa, a tulpa (especially this thread on FPP), would be a form of ontology, which would be a form of metaphysics; if you can talk your way out of that, then I'm all ears, but that's going to be very difficult for you, I guarantee it. To chalk this up, the forum is in denial that they have to refer to these assumptions to get a grasp over what's going on, or could be going on in their experiences. That hiding, or rather, that mask is what's stagnating progress here. If I need to squeeze it out in whatever way I can, I will.

 

If someone gets irritated, or melancholic, that's not my fault. The whole initiative with the forum was to bring things into a scientific light through psychological lens (and sub-sets of that that can be correlated with it, i.e., phenomenological presumptions with inner experiences and consciousness; surprise, surprise, you were emphasizing about subjective experiences which falls into that category that actually has pursuits in a scientific light).

[Tewi]

Because if we truly wanted to be militant on keeping metaphysics within a specific section in the board, any discussions over what makes a tulpa, a tulpa (especially this thread on FPP), would be a form of ontology, which would be a form of metaphysics; if you can talk your way out of that, then I'm all ears

 

Of course, that's how a science versus metaphysics separation normally goes. I don't think most of the experiences we talk about here are "falsifiable" due to their subjective nature. It's more like the separation of "These are the things I believe to be true exclusively in my mind" vs. "These are the things I personally believe to be true, whether or not we can prove it yet".

 

(Actually Lumi here at the moment) That's what she was trying to say there, that it's hard to differentiate between what truly belongs in Metaphysics or not since it's all subjective. It seems more like everyone agrees to some extent that tulpamancy is an "all in your head"/belief centered thing. Meanwhile, most "metaphysics" discussions are implied to be the 'truth' of reality, and even if supposedly not they're sure discussed like they are.

[Guest Anonymous]

- How can one acknowledge that they are consciously puppetting their tulpa, and yet objectively become a stand-in for unconscious processes in the mind, and claims they can view their tulpa’s actions, and coordinate their existence while absolving themselves from thinking they’re doing that? There seems to be an infinite regress, especially in regards as to who would be watching your host watching you experiencing this reality?

 

- Acknowledging conscious actions while deluding oneself from being aware of those conscious actions is like shooting oneself in the foot, is what I’m getting at. In short, I don't think it's plausible; maybe in intense hypnotic sessions, but after that, where does one reconcile with themselves anymore with life, and ultimately, their mind; where can they find a home to?

 

I came back and read these again now that I calmed down. People do things all the time and hide the fact that they are doing it. Haven't you ever driven a car and that process of driving the car just goes automatically without really thinking about how you are doing it? People fool themselves all the time about all kinds of things. Every time we watch a movie we get immersed into the story. In a scary movie we get scared. Why? We forget we are in the theater or at least partially forget. We get immersed in the fantasy. Doesn't watching a moive and really enjoying it require a bit of suspension of disbelief? We are aware it was created on a movie set with special effects, but we choose to ignore that fact in order to enjoy the illusion. Movies are figments of the mind as well as visual experiences are they not?

 

What about immersive virtual reality games? Why are they fun? The brain gets absorbed in the visual illusion yes, but there is more to it than that isn't there? Doesn't it require some imagination and suspension of disbelief?

 

I can tell you right now that David could talk to a sock puppet that he is animating and lose himself in the character and the conversation. He could do it as a child and he is doing it right now as I type this at you.

 

Right now, I am Melian, but it is really Davie, but it sure feels like Melian!

 

FPP, "experiencing imagined sensations as real" <---THIS

 

I don't understand how I can be reporting that Davie imagines me and we feel super real, but other people go "Nope, you can't be doing that. It is impossible obviously to imagine like that." I got some news fer you pal, yer wrong about that and the evidence is little 'ol me. So stick it in yer ear with a cork screw.

 

Excerpt from the Book of Melian:

 

Ever since I was a kid I have had a very vivid and active imagination.

I have always been a day dreamer. I have always been able to create

stories and characters and worlds in my mind that I can escape to. When I

made up characters, I could “see” them and “hear” them in my mind.

When I was really little, I had some regular characters that became

fast friends, what some people refer to as imaginary friends. These were

much more real than that! Some of them talked to me about things that

were bothering me or things they wanted to complain about. Each character

had a distinct personality.

 

I would get so lost in my day dreams, I would wander around the play

ground at school, the house, the yard, my eyes unfocused my head tilting

from side to side. I would hum and speak out loud to my imaginary friends.

I got into trouble at school and the teachers were concerned about my lack

of attention.

 

My father took to calling me Drifty Dave. He caught me talking to a

tree once and it became a favorite family story. My father ever after referred

to crazy people as “out talking to trees.”

 

Oh and by the way

 

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT5qxJ7wnTo

[Guest Anonymous]

I know this is "double posting," but I think a thread about memory is something I would like to keep going, occasionally adding research and ideas to it that I come across. I don't want everything to be in my Living Imagination thread if applies to one of these others that I have our in the General Discussion thread for people to discuss.

 

Anyway, I found some research here on how unreliable memory actual is and "adaptable" and "flexible." It backs up my assertion that Davie and I do in fact claim to have retroactive fantasy memories (or probably do). Our memories about our interactions, we believe, are probably affected by our "day dream filter" in which he and I perceive the world together.

 

The general initial reaction on this thread was "memories can't be self alterred like that" or more or less. But the research Davie and I are finding (and it didn't take a lot of digging) is totally supporting what we were saying.

 

From a Psychology Today article: "We tend to think that memories are stored in our brains just as they are in computers. Once registered, the data are put away for safe-keeping and eventual recall. The facts don’t change.

 

But neuroscientists have shown that each time we remember something, we are reconstructing the event, reassembling it from traces throughout the brain. Psychologists have pointed out that we also suppress memories that are painful or damaging to self-esteem. We could say that, as a result, memory is unreliable. We could also say it is adaptive, reshaping itself to accommodate the new situations we find ourselves facing. Either way, we have to face the fact that it is “flexible.” " https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory

 

Davie and I live in a fantasy world at every level. We see no reason why we can't also kinda look at the past through rose colored glasses. It is plausible and we have a hunch it is very true.

 

Here is some more --> How Many of Your Memories are Fake? "Memory distortions are basic and widespread in humans, and it may be unlikely that anyone is immune."

Want to know more about the unreliable nature of memory read this.

You Have No Idea What Happened

 

I could pull up dozens more articles just like these with little effort. I have no doubt I could follow the links to research studies. So retroactive fantasy memories about me are impossible guys?