The ideomotor effect, tulpas, and possession.

[Guest Anonymous]

 

And I think it is ridiculous everyone is afraid of something absolutely intrinsic to tulpamancy, imagination and creating a believable mental illusion.  If someone could invent or find for me another set of words other than "delusion," "self deception," "figment" and "imagination" to describe what I mean, I would love to use them.  I did come up with pseudo-real, but few seem to really understand it.  

 

Melian has suggested "fabulous" before and wants me to say that tulpas are "fabulous beings."

 

I know most may not realize this, but many times when I go back and read our posts they scream EGO!   ...If it helps, I don't think any tulpa I know is the product of the ideomotor effect.  I don't think I am either.  Also Mistgod could come up with a better word than "delusion."  He could use the words "apparent autonomy" or "convincing personality" for instance and it would be better.  

 

EGO! 

 

[Solune]

 

Incredibly irrelevant to the human life, though.

 

I won't go into the specifics of my belief system here (you can PM me if it's of interest to you, but I won't hold my breath).

Suffice it to say that the lack of free will is integral to that system.

The system has brought me peace and confidence, and in that context I'd argue the concept has relevance.

If it were the only thing I believed in it would be quite meaningless, as you pointed out.

[Guest Anonymous]

I always thought arguments over free will were silly. I was somehow destined to write that just now.

[Faemon]

And I think it is ridiculous everyone is afraid of something absolutely intrinsic to tulpamancy, imagination and creating a believable mental illusion.

 

From what I've seen, it doesn't come from fear. It seems to cause a whole lot of really unnecessary fear, like, "Oh noes, because we don't know how it works let us spread around the worst conceivable effects about how this works, you know, just in case. Tally ho!" And that's so annoying that I almost want to scare people just to nip that nonsense in the bud.

 

But from what I've seen, it's simply an unnecessary distinction. Like, say tulpa and anyone who knows the word can hazard a guess that this is not corporeal. Maybe it's neat to have shared experiences, like cartoony special effects. Try to get deeper than that, though, stick in perpetual disclaimers and like...why? Just...why?

 

It comes off to me like attending a drag show and trying to get biological about it. Like, the costumes, choreography, and song lists don't or shouldn't have much to do with fabulously feminine presenters being chromosomally male. Why not just enjoy the show?

 

Is the ideomotor effect evidence in support of "voluntary self delusion" by tapping into processes of the unconscious mind?

 

For what you're going for? I say it's too small, too simple, to apply. No, we really can't trust most of our senses. Look:

 

 

That doesn't mean we can't own our experiences or interpretations as such.

 

Melian has suggested "fabulous" before and wants me to say that tulpas are "fabulous beings."

 

How about phant'sy-ful? Whimsy-cal? (I call mine "guisers" as in like a theater troupe, except for the pirates who are now "me hearties." Because I also waffle between psychological interpretations and...other...claims to really super duper realness.)

[Guest Anonymous]

 

From what I've seen, it doesn't come from fear. It seems to cause a whole lot of really unnecessary fear, like, "Oh noes, because we don't know how it works let us spread around the worst conceivable effects about how this works, you know, just in case. Tally ho!" And that's so annoying that I almost want to scare people just to nip that nonsense in the bud.

 

But from what I've seen, it's simply an unnecessary distinction. Like, say tulpa and anyone who knows the word can hazard a guess that this is not corporeal. Maybe it's neat to have shared experiences, like cartoony special effects. Try to get deeper than that, though, stick in perpetual disclaimers and like...why? Just...why?

 

It comes off to me like attending a drag show and trying to get biological about it. Like, the costumes, choreography, and song lists don't or shouldn't have much to do with fabulously feminine presenters being chromosomally male. Why not just enjoy the show?

 

I would agree with all of this.  I always feel like the "show" is being ruined for me by almost arbitrary conclusions and unsupportable claims that become social expectations.  

 

 

For what you're going for? I say it's too small, too simple, to apply. No, we really can't trust most of our senses. Look:

 

 

That doesn't mean we can't own our experiences or interpretations as such.

 

Good point.   Yeah I thought it might be a bit of a stretch.  I think it does say something about the power of suggestion in general however.  

 

 

How about phant'sy-ful? Whimsy-cal? (I call mine "guisers" as in like a theater troupe, except for the pirates who are now "me hearties." Because I also waffle between psychological interpretations and...other...claims to really super duper realness.)

 

Awesome.

[tulpa001]

Gotta crush this self imposed delusion nonsense.

 

---

 

I will start by introducing three concepts. First a belief. Belief is when we know something to be true for a fact. Belief in god is when we know god is real for a fact. Second, a delta belief. A delta belief in god is the belief that in order to be moral, one must believe in god. A delta belief is a belief or feeling that one must believe another belief. Soundness is the quality of being actual in reality. A sound truth is one that is true ultimately and fundamentally.

 

One important thing to note is the effect that a delta belief will have on a person. A person who believes they must believe in god will go around telling people that they believe in god. They may convince themselves that they believe in god. They may deny that they don't believe in god. They may do all this and still not believe in god in actuality. This cognitive dissonance is usually translated into english as the word doubt.

 

Next, how does this relate to delusion? A delusion is a false belief. It is a belief in opposition to a sound truth.

 

Let us look at this ouigi board.

 

The scientist sits at the ouigi board and puts her fingers on the thingamabob.

 

The scientist notes that the thingamabob appears to move on its own. Sound truth.

 

The scientist notes that the thingamabob is not actually moving on its own. Sound truth, assuming the scientist's disbelief in spirits is a sound truth as well.

 

The scientist notes that she is the only person in the room. Sound truth.

 

The scientist notes that she does not feel like she is moving the thingamabob. Sound truth.

 

The scientist hypothesises that she is moving the thingamabob subconsciously. This is a hypothesis that is probably a sound truth.

 

Which of the scientists beliefs is a self imposed delusion? Or using the language I introduced, which of the scientist's beliefs is a false belief induced by a delta belief of the scientist?

 

---

 

Let us look at another example. Willing suspension of disbelief. Let us examine if this is a misnomer or not.

 

The art critic watches the movie Inception.

 

The art critic chooses to immerse herself in the movie. This is not a belief, as this is not a truth valued statement.

 

The art critic feels happy at the happy moments. This is not a belief, as this is not a truth valued statement.

 

The art critic feels sad at the sad moments. This is not a belief, as this is not a truth valued statement.

 

The art critic knows that the events in the movie never happened. Sound truth.

 

At what point does the art critic delude herself into believing something that is untrue? Identify the delta belief. Identify the false belief.