My tulpa can be seen by other people

[solarchariot]

You're not even on the topic of the thread anymore. And, you might not know this but... our tulpas don't actually believe they are real dragons. Shocker, I know. Anyway, either keep this thread on-topic or it'll probably get split.

 

 

Hello, Apollo. Please share with me how I got off topic.

 

The thread is "my tulpas can be seen by other people..."

 

People either believe this, or they doubt this. The person who brought tulpamancy to the west believed this. I used that, hopefully with a persuasive argument, that this is a possibility that shouldn't be readily dismissed. I am not sure how I can be more on topic.

 

As for you tulpas don't really believe they are real dragons... That could be off topic, but I think I can keep it on topic by suggesting that though the thread is tulpas can be seen, you're position is they aren't what we think they are. More directly, you're stating that tulpas aren't real things... And that is the fundamental discussion underlying this whole concept... Is this real or not. Are the things we think, real or not. Is anything we think real or not. I will even give you most the tings in my brain and thoughts aren't real, but I respond to those things as if they are very real... and if others, even in the slightest, respond to them as if they are real, the effect is real, which sort of make it real? If Loxy said something profound, and changed one person's life outside of my own... By god, that's pretty real.

 

Are we really off topic?

[Tewi]

I am kind of annoyed that it wasn't left in general discussions for at least a moment.

 

I had a lot of things to say when I saw this thread, typical killjoy stuff. Then I saw it was in Metaphysics and left it alone. This section basically gives a safety net so metaphysical discussion is possible without people immediately saying "That's impossible this can't happen such and such isn't real" - as they would if it were in GD, as I was about to myself. Seems to get along just fine, as people know what to expect from each section.

 

You're not even on the topic of the thread anymore. And, you might not know this but... our tulpas don't actually believe they are real dragons. Shocker, I know. Anyway, either keep this thread on-topic or it'll probably get split.

 

The last paragraph's talk of dragons was still part of the metaphor from the previous one.

 

On-topic or not is blurry here. There's very little room for discussion past "That can't be real", so talk of whether or not it's possible and how is all we've got. May apply to metaphysics in general. The definition of metaphysics and morals about them are somewhat off topic maybe. Given the lack of activity on the forum this thread is probably fine for a conduit of discussion on the topic - because again, all productive conversation strictly on-topic here was stated immediately.

[Guest]

Well, then. This thread has quite a few replies that aren't particularly related to the original post, nor are they even very responsive to the post they are ostensibly responding to.

 

For my part, I do believe this falls firmly into the realm of the "metaphysics" board as it proposes a form of telepathy, which is thus far undemonstrated as a legitimate phenomenon in a controlled environment. For the same reason, I do doubt that it is what is actually occurring here.

 

People do have quite a good ability to determine information about what another person is thinking solely based off of body language or implied meaning (overt or not). I would be happy to propose a possible experiment to test this, but that depends on the precise limits of the claim - does it occur regardless of distance? Regardless of whether you are in the same room, or have the ability to physically perceive the other person (primarily sight/sound)? Does it occur at random, or only when you focus? Can the other person/people perceive the location, actions, or form of your tulpa?

 

Once the limits of the claim are explored, then it can be qualified on that basis.

[solarchariot]

Well, then. This thread has quite a few replies that aren't particularly related to the original post,

 

Hello, Winter... Please help me with this 'off topic' part. Isn't any mechanistic explanation for an experience on topic? Wouldn't an exploration of what is happening, how it might happen, be better than a conversation, 'no you didn't,' "yes, I did,' ad infinitum. Just mentioning telepathy makes it off topic? Here is a bias, I don't think Alexandria's Friar Tuck manifested in physical form... I think this was consciousness related experience, not a physical one... We can explore that in psychological terms. Anthropology has numerous accounts of things being true in a society that others outside the society can't experience... How is that transmitted? Psychologically. Physically through body language and no verbal communication. Maybe telepathy as magical word is incorrect, but maybe, too, we are using it to describe something in the human experience that is poorly understood by science. That doesn't mean something isn't happening.

[Tewi]

Since this misunderstanding continues to be a problem, I'll post here what I said in the Discord:

 

"Solarchariot was talking about the fact that Apollo (probably) moved this thread out of General Discussion and into Metaphysics immediately. He gave a metaphor about "posting signs about dragons" to discourage people from giving credit to strange ideas, stating that the community has many strange ideas and if we're too quick to discourage trying to look at a seemingly strange idea scientifically (in this thread, the ability or lack thereof of others to see your tulpa), we may accidentally end up discouraging critical thought about other "strange ideas" that might be legitimate.

 

Not that I agree this thread topic was worth discussing again, but it is a valid point.

And I don't like misunderstandings."

[TheGreenQueen]

You're not even on the topic of the thread anymore. And, you might not know this but... our tulpas don't actually believe they are real dragons. Shocker, I know. Anyway, either keep this thread on-topic or it'll probably get split.

 

 

One of my dragon tulpas would like to speak up on that point. 

 

First of all. What do you mean by "real"? If a dragon tulpa is not "real" in the general sense, then neither is any other tulpa, including human ones, so the definition pertaining to dragons specifically is useless and void. If you mean to say that dragons do not exist in the material world, but could, per this thread discussion, 'exist' in the mental world/perception/etc in that they feel, react, have their own thoughts, help, hinder, and potentially could physically harm people the way demons do in reports of exorcisms, then that is a distinction you need to clarify. 

 

Do your tulpas think of themselves as fundamentally formless, and therefore cannot 'be' dragons? Or just pretending? Or does it have something to do with what I said above? Because I, my wife, and my friend all consider ourselves dragon, fullstop. 

 

For the purposes of deconstructing the Ego, I suppose, I should say that most of us in here believe 'real' humans are also fundamentally formless in soul, so you also have to reckon with that. 'Ego' says I am a dragon. And for the purposes here, that is not a bad thing. Because Ego is allowed to say "I am this" "I am that." Only when it becomes rigid and begins governing perception instead of being a humble aspect of it does it become a problem. Anyway, a bit of a tangent. Back to the actual question.

 

 

I do not myself believe that dragons were ever a biological creature that evolved. However. (and my host has not committed to believing this, but my wife and I most certainly do!) Dragons, through 'collective thoughtforms'- have existed throughout human history. They were sung into existence during what the Aborigines refer to as Tjukurrpa, or Dreamtime, and as belief in the supernatural diminished, (and therefore projection power decreased) they still persisted as shadowy guides to whomever sought them out, or menacers, depending on their creaton's deliberate intent and/or unconscious tone. 

 

 

 

---

But only by a select few. Is this normal?

 

My experiments with this:

 

https://community.tulpa.info/thread-more-possible-independent-confirmation-of-my-tulpa

[evgenirus]

I think this actually might be possible, in a way. No tulpa of my own yet, but I happen upon what looks like telepathy way too often to dismiss it out of hand.

 

Sometimes I think about something, seemingly unrelated to what's going on around, and someone else speaks pretty much the same stuff out loud a few seconds after. Or a song starts playing in my "mental jukebox" (I wish it had proper playback controls, or at least an "off" switch) for no apparent reason, and someone in the same room starts whistling it in about a minute or so. I think such things happen at least once or twice a year, but I cannot say for sure as I have no records.

 

Granted, there are other ways to explain those happenings. Mere coincidence is one. I've seen some very bizarre coincidences in my life, and I refuse to attribute them to "fate", so I guess I have to accept that some things are not as improbable as they seem to be. Plus, I think all those happenings were with people I know pretty well and spent quite some time with, so I could have been subconsciously guessing what they think based on their behavior, or they were observing me and getting the same ideas that I had.

 

As for tulpas, I guess if someone knows you and your tulpa well enough, they might be able to guess what they are doing by observing you, and seeing their own internal model of your tulpa do those things.

 

Just my 2¢ on the matter. Of course, there is a possibility that our universe is in fact a giant physics simulator, and the "god-creator" cheated when making humans and used separate AI processes to control the bodies by directly affecting their brains. In that case, many of the paranormal stuff would easily be possible, including arbitrary range telepathy, reincarnation and real ghosts, at the very least. (P.S.: Another cheat would be lazy physics computations, leading to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, and also causing quantum coherence to collapse quickly whenever scientists try to build a quantum computer larger than just a few qubits. And the finite speed of light is just an arbitrary constraint introduced to decrease simulation timestep on the available hardware.)

[Guest]

Interesting

[evgenirus]

Interesting

 

Which part? The possible experience of telepathy, the possibility to model someone else's tulpa well enough, or my idea that some fundamental laws of the universe are due to some student being lazy and/or clever with their university project?

To add to the list of cheats for the latter, planck length would be the precision of fixed-point numbers used for coordinates in the simulation. (Disclaimer: I don't specialize in quantum physics.)

I cannot say I'm completely sold on the idea, but it does not really make much difference. In this model, the "god" likely does not care about us, at least not beyond statistics, and does not mess with the universe as a rule of thumb. And unless there are bugs in the implementation, it should not be possible to distinguish from the "physics just are the way they are" case from the inside.

Still, would be fun to hack the universe and find a way out of the sandbox, if my idea somehow is correct.

I don't think it would be possible to affect much by messing with physics, so the more complex AI processes are the most viable attack surface.

People here are doing some serious brain hacking anyway, so why not also try approaching it from the cybersecurity standpoint?

Anyway, I am more inclined to think that there are no AI processess, in which case hacking the universe is a job for physicists and mathematicians.

 

This is a bit offtopic, though, so further discussion, if any, should probably be in a new thread.

[Guest]

There are so many subjects here, i just get dazzled and crawl into a ball. Can you pick one and give at least experiential testimony, relevant constructive links, or expound on it?

 

Just any of them is fine as a start. I'm not picky, they all interest me as an open minded person. I want to learn how.