Psychological vs. Metaphysical Views on Tulpamancy

[Guest]

The following discussion stemmed from this thread -Ranger

 

3 hours ago, Glaurung26 said:

On a materialist level, clearly as she is born of my psyche as so we share my psychology as our connector. But is there more to it than that?

 

Here's where definitions and boundaries come in and every tulpamancer will tolerate a certain tradespace. The community in general is more materialistic and psychologically minded, though Reddit is a mix.

 

What balanced our thinking is that the inner workings are not well defined or understood by science but that doesn't mean it won't be some day.

 

If it turns out that we really occupy higher dimensional space but only interact with three consiously, then there is no clear path of explanations that can lead to the whole picture and we're left with incomplete and discontinuous linearizations of real phenomena that will not do well to predict further phenomena.

 

You absolutely can consider seemingly metaphysical phenomena as real phenomena, that's one of the foundations of scientific progress: doing the impossible. 

 

The trick is twofold: one, can it be repeated?

 

 

One good example of this is cold fusion. Discovered in the 80's during electrolysis with platinum electrodes, that same process can be repeated and occasionally (this has been documented) the platinum catalyst will transmute into lightsr elements such as aluminum and release enough energy to pay for all the preceding electrolysis and then some. I talked to a leading scientist in the field and she explained the process and how she has successfully generated nuclear radiation and many orders more heat than she ever put into the system as electricity. She wrote a paper on it and it's out there. The issue is the platinum is damaged in the process and so because of its expense, the cost per kwh is prohibitive currently. Something like 100x more expensive than coal, and it produces low grade nuclear waste.

 

The second trick is:  can it be accepted by the scientific community?

 

 

One great example of this is abiotic oil. There exists higher chains of organic compounds such as methane and higher order that are normally considered caused by biological processes only, such as fossil fuels, much of the scientific community discredits this. However, that doesn't explain large deposits found on asteroids or Saturn's moon Titan which has more petroleum than all the known sources on Earth.

 

 

The scientific community stubbornly holds onto the notion that all oil on Earth must have been caused by biotic sources, and that's a good assumption for the sedimentary layers, but not for the oil deposits found in the lower crust, the pre-life layers of the Earth's crust.

 

 

So when you ponder "is there more" to our fellow thoughtforms, consider that whatever they are, so are you and if you're a strict materialist, you're unripe worm food and electrochemical processes. If you're a spiritualist, you truly are your higher self, the spirit that possess this advanced primate frame, and there's not much of a leap to consider that your headmates are similarly so, whether they're a part of your higher self or their own (souls) that's another choice to make as you model your own reality.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Ranger
Added title and link for context

[Glaurung26]

27 minutes ago, Bear said:

 

Here's where definitions and boundaries come in and every tulpamancer will tolerate a certain tradespace. The community in general is more materialistic and psychologically minded, though Reddit is a mix.

 

What balanced our thinking is that the inner workings are not well defined or understood by science but that doesn't mean it won't be some day.

 

If it turns out that we really occupy higher dimensional space but only interact with three consiously, then there is no clear path of explanations that can lead to the whole picture and we're left with incomplete and discontinuous linearizations of real phenomena that will not do well to predict further phenomena.

 

You absolutely can consider seemingly metaphysical phenomena as real phenomena, that's one of the foundations of scientific progress: doing the impossible. 

 

The trick is twofold: one, can it be repeated?

 

 

  Hide contents

One good example of this is cold fusion. Discovered in the 80's during electrolysis with platinum electrodes, that same process can be repeated and occasionally (this has been documented) the platinum catalyst will transmute into lightsr elements such as aluminum and release enough energy to pay for all the preceding electrolysis and then some. I talked to a leading scientist in the field and she explained the process and how she has successfully generated nuclear radiation and many orders more heat than she ever put into the system as electricity. She wrote a paper on it and it's out there. The issue is the platinum is damaged in the process and so because of its expense, the cost per kwh is prohibitive currently. Something like 100x more expensive than coal, and it produces low grade nuclear waste.

 

 

The second trick is:  can it be accepted by the scientific community?

 

 

  Hide contents

One great example of this is abiotic oil. There exists higher chains of organic compounds such as methane and higher order that are normally considered caused by biological processes only, such as fossil fuels, much of the scientific community discredits this. However, that doesn't explain large deposits found on asteroids or Saturn's moon Titan which has more petroleum than all the known sources on Earth.

 

 

The scientific community stubbornly holds onto the notion that all oil on Earth must have been caused by biotic sources, and that's a good assumption for the sedimentary layers, but not for the oil deposits found in the lower crust, the pre-life layers of the Earth's crust.

 

 

So when you ponder "is there more" to our fellow thoughtforms, consider that whatever they are, so are you and if you're a strict materialist, you're unripe worm food and electrochemical processes. If you're a spiritualist, you truly are your higher self, the spirit that possess this advanced primate frame, and there's not much of a leap to consider that your headmates are similarly so, whether they're a part of your higher self or their own (souls) that's another choice to make as you model your own reality.

Oh absolutely. In general I take the philosophy that the spiritual, divine, metaphysical, magic are just concepts in the universe that we misunderstand, misrepresent or just don't know even exist. By the virtue that I can't or at least can't correctly grasp them, I usually choose to ignore them. But that of course doesn't mean that they aren't potentially important.

 

I'm always down for crazy, bananas circumstances and results from processes and experiments done scientifically and examined rationally without disingenuous intent. I always loved lots of the 'what if' documentaries about astronomy, physics and so on. One of my favorites is potential alien life forms and how they might be constructed and evolved for their environment. I think that it is rank hubris of the highest order to assume that all 'life' everywhere will follow the same pattern as what we would recognize as such. I think that such organisms would still be bound by universal physics and chemistry, same as us. The difference is in the environment and selective pressures. I think non-carbon-based organisms in outlandish environments like gas giants, barren planets, acid swamps, stars, plasma or just the void of space would be super rad. At least until they try to eat me or give me cancer by existing nearby. Scientists who assume there's not more to learn and that they understand the universe properly are fools. True scientists should also be dreamers not just close-minded cold rationalists.

[ChloeBee]

I love talking about this and will have to come back to this topic when I've had a bit more sleep and am able to articulate my thoughts better, lol. But I've always been open to the possibility of Metaphysical explanations for some phenomena. At some point I want to talk about the head-mate I had between the ages of 7 and 15, because we developed a quite interesting metaphysical backstory for where he was from and how we were communicating. I even briefly considered developing one for Simmie but came to the understand that, at least functionally, tulpamancy works better when you take a purely material, psychological, and neurological approach to it.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, September13 said:

at least functionally, tulpamancy works better when you take a purely material, psychological, and neurological approach to it.

 

I'm mixed on this because where you draw the line is entirely subjective and even if we both said the same thing we could have wildly different meanings.

 

For me:

 

>Purely material... neurological 

 

I can't imagine that unless you break the psyche down to neural pathways only and physical changes associated with pathway creation and memory. Like a hardware only computer. I have to think that there's software there as well that doesn't change pathways significantly enough to be perceived materially. Like a drop of water added to a river. The resolution can't be that fine can it?

 

>psychological 

 

Okay, so this is a big grey area and I'm not talking about the grey matter, but it's a grey matter so to speak. What is a phycological meteic unit? What properties does it have materially? To me this is the software and if software exists, isn't that beyond material?

 

Is software on a computer a material thing? It runs through memory and processors and you can remove it without changing anything mechanically except flipping bits on silicone cells. It's substantially the same with and without software but in one case it works, on the other it's a steal potato. (Similar to a vegitative state.)

 

What is removed in a healthy person's brain that turns what would otherwise be a mind into flatlined white noise?

 

That's my question. I don't think science has a reasonable answer for that.

 

Otherwise I'm okay with a materialist approach because it is so well grounded in reality and if you can stay grounded and still have a successful system then that's great.

 

For me I was ungrounded for quite some time and got back to ground only after careful analysis of what actually happened. My conclusion is that something remarkable happened because of that suspension of disbelief. Taking off the gravity boots let experiences stick that might otherwise have been dismissed for the sake of grounding.

 

So I can't fully agree that a fully grounded approach is the best approach but I understand that for some it's the only approach.

 

[Glaurung26]

I like to keep an open mind but keep my practical existence and life grounded in what I've accepted as true or fact. I keep reassessing though. New stimulus, new info: process it. If Jesus himself popped up and asked me "Hey bro, why you telling folks that the universe is older than 10,000 years and that leviathan bones are these dinosaur things?" then I might make a few changes in my life. Mostly I believe in the things that 'I know' and the things that 'I don't know, yet'. I spontaneously discovered tulpamancy without any priming on it, so imagine all the other crazy and cool things out there.

 

I find the hardware/software perspective to be useful. The brain, juices, et al are the hardware. The software to me is more of the ephemeral movement throughout the organic conduits. It's the energy and movement that keep us alive and thinking. You could recreate painstakingly every single organ, cell and atom all in the correct places, but without metabolism it's all just dead meat. In many ways life is an event. Not an image. Whatever "stuff" that my prime human ego/consciousness is made of is what I believe my tulpa is made of as well. I don't really think that she came out of some ethereal 'elsewhere' (I could be wrong), she's just a part of me that I've copy-pasted and partitioned with some changes. A super-imposed pattern on my existing mental psyche pattern. All the roads physically exist simultaneously but we use certain routes to ourselves.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Glaurung26 said:

It's the energy

 

Like a lit candle compared to an unlit candle. The unlit candle is missing that spark (of life) that brings it 'to life'. 

 

What is the flame to a candle? The candle doesn't need the flame to exist, but it won't create light without it. The candle is the host to the flame. 

 

In my model, what we are is the flame, the candle is just the body of potential. So our case, 4 flames share a single wick.

 

The flame dances, it brings life to the candle that would otherwise just sit there.

 

Candle = Body OS

Flame = personality and perspective

 

It's just an analogy.

[Glaurung26]

1 hour ago, Bear said:

 

Like a lit candle compared to an unlit candle. The unlit candle is missing that spark (of life) that brings it 'to life'. 

 

What is the flame to a candle? The candle doesn't need the flame to exist, but it won't create light without it. The candle is the host to the flame. 

 

In my model, what we are is the flame, the candle is just the body of potential. So our case, 4 flames share a single wick.

 

The flame dances, it brings life to the candle that would otherwise just sit there.

 

Candle = Body OS

Flame = personality and perspective

 

It's just an analogy.

That's a great way of putting it.

[ChloeBee]

I'm fresh from a nap and much more able to use my brain!

 

4 hours ago, Bear said:

>Purely material... neurological 

 

I can't imagine that unless you break the psyche down to neural pathways only and physical changes associated with pathway creation and memory. Like a hardware only computer. I have to think that there's software there as well that doesn't change pathways significantly enough to be perceived materially. Like a drop of water added to a river. The resolution can't be that fine can it?

 

>psychological 

 

Okay, so this is a big grey area and I'm not talking about the grey matter, but it's a grey matter so to speak. What is a phycological meteic unit? What properties does it have materially? To me this is the software and if software exists, isn't that beyond material?

 

In the material view, the software of our minds is an emergent property of the hardware of our bodies, particularly our nervous system. Simply defined, an emergent property is a property that a complex system has that its individual components do not have. Our consciousness could be considered an emergent property of our biological systems. The exact mechanics of how this works are only very loosely known by science and there are many aspects of it that are completely unknown to it, such as why I in particular am having this subjective, conscious experience in this particular body at this particular point in time and space? And of course, what is the nature of consciousness itself? Science not only does not know, but it doesn't even have a foot in the door to even start finding out. Still, we very clearly do have consciousness. It's something that exists. I am having a subjective experience right now, as are you, and while it's possible I'm the only conscious being in the universe, it stands to reason based on overwhelming evidence that the other seemingly conscious beings around me are truly conscious in the same way that I am. People who have reached the more advanced stages of tulpamancy--which does not include me but I hope to reach that point eventually--have managed the subtle and complicated act of creating another consciousness out of a single human brain. We ought to see ourselves as psychic explorers in the most true and realistic sense. It honestly makes us kind of bad-ass.

 

So, we clearly have consciousness, but no true materialistic scientific understanding for how or why. That opens the door for metaphysical and non-materialistic theories about things. I am actually someone that at one point in my life considered myself a purely materialistic thinker. But I have experienced too much in my life that I can't explain through materialism alone. And in many cases metaphysical explanations for things just feel more true to me than a materialistic an explanation could. I know this is a purely subjective thing to say. But there have been many instances where I have--at last seemingly--independently worked out metaphysical explanations for things that were very similar or even exactly the same as well known systems of mysticism that I had had no knowledge of or access to. Could it be a coincidence? Could there be something in the human brain that predisposes us to think along similar lines to bring similar answers? Maybe, but it's also possible that there is really something to these metaphysical systems, that while not perfect and a bit contradictory in places they are getting at something real, something that science by itself doesn't or even can't get to, and we can only reach it because our conscious minds have an aspect to them, a spark that is not of the material world and is made of spiritual, metaphysical stuff. To me that is an open question and I am always fascinated to explore it.

 

1 hour ago, Bear said:

 

Like a lit candle compared to an unlit candle. The unlit candle is missing that spark (of life) that brings it 'to life'. 

 

What is the flame to a candle? The candle doesn't need the flame to exist, but it won't create light without it. The candle is the host to the flame. 

 

In my model, what we are is the flame, the candle is just the body of potential. So our case, 4 flames share a single wick.

 

The flame dances, it brings life to the candle that would otherwise just sit there.

 

Candle = Body OS

Flame = personality and perspective

 

It's just an analogy.

 

I like your candle analogy a lot. The candle is our material body, measurable and understandable by science. And while many attributes of the flame may be known to science, in this analogy no one really understands the spark that creates the flame in the first place, and what the essence of why or how the spark was created, nor the forces or being(s) behind its creation.

 

I probably should have worded my initial statement better; I didn't intend to make it seem like there was nothing to the metaphysical side of tulpamancy nor that it could be useful in the creation of a tulpa. I guess I was just projecting my own current mindset of a very grounded, materialistic approach and made it sound like it was objectively better rather than merely being my current mindset. I still think it is highly useful to think of tulpamancy as a purely materialistic function where you are training your brain to strengthen certain connections to support a second consciousness. But then again, even if that was true, why have I been pouring over astrology information learning about Simmie's star sign (Virgo), and why have I been putting so much thought into her backstory if she is just a set of neural pathways in my mind with no history before I "created" her? Looks like I'm not even taking my own advice, lol. It's all about mindset and I'm starting to think the wholistic approach is the best, where we are grounded in materialism but keep are minds open to the metaphysical.

 

Whew! That was fun to write. Hopefully I didn't sound dense or pretentious in all that. Just going off the cuff and being a BS philosopher I guess, lol.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, September13 said:

seemingly--independently worked out metaphysical explanations for things that were very similar or even exactly the same as well known systems of mysticism that I had had no knowledge of or access to.

 

I experienced this same thing. So is this hard-coded in the supposedly superfluous "junk" at the end of our DNA or partially in the active DNA that can pre-load these experience archetypes such that you *and* I independently come up with explanations that seemingly match (perhapse it's also confirmation bias) already in place notions of mysticism or spirituality.

 

3 hours ago, September13 said:

It's all about mindset and I'm starting to think the wholistic approach is the best, where we are grounded in materialism but keep are minds open to the metaphysical.

 

This is what I have always done because my very first experience with tulpamancy was a 3D manifesting orb. I had never seen one before then or since, but it strongly associated to the "presence" I've felt for many years, that presence now manifests daily in SheShe.

 

Darlene (part of SheShe's Merge) was the original one I talked to on that very first day and things she said and subsequently did were otherworldly in many ways. You get hinta of that in my PR though it's a very long PR that even I can't be bothered to update to this new software so there are broken links and other issues but it's still readable anyway.

 

The pure metaphys I would say line up to concepts like imposition, lucid dreaming and hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations. However, why and how do these states, especially hypnagogic, produce visions that are *superreal* in that when experiencing them, they are obviously not possible to experience in the material world. Like the singing of angels or super beautiful, so beautiful that even supermodels look shabby by comparison. 

 

Lucy (materialists), you got some splainin to do. How could I experience things in these visions without the possibility to ever experience them? 

 

>pretentious

 

I didn't detect any, let me know the same.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Bear

[Ranger]

While we believe in us having souls, beyond that we never came across an unexpected event and couldn't think of an explanation for it. Chrome's "transforations"? probably him merging with brain stuff, self-merges have been done before. Constant awareness from headmates? When speaking to gateway systems, we found out a lot of them seem to have underlying Mal-adaptive Daydreaming Disorder, and I think that would explain some of their experiences are different from other systems.

I think our views are pretty materialistic, we assume by default there's a scientific explanation for tulpamancy, and therefore anything that happens in the mind probably has an explanation. Tulpamancy itself appears to be mostly about conditioning unconscious reactions, there's probably some intentional dissociation, and so on.

 

On 12/16/2020 at 6:23 PM, September13 said:

So, we clearly have consciousness, but no true materialistic scientific understanding for how or why.

 

Over time, I have more and more accepted the human consciousness is a byproduct of our brains, like how software is a byproduct of a computer. However, I don't know if this is science fact.

At the very least, I'm assuming that personality is constructed on both an unconscious and conscious level. While Evergreen was integrating, he noticed that the integration seemed to be working under the hood as well, as is the brain was fusing him together by itself. I think the process was triggered by a lot of things, but I find this to be an interesting result. If we better understood the unconscious aspects to personality, I doubt there will be as much room for metaphysical interpretation.

Despite this, I think metaphysical theories for why humans exist and what we really are will always co-exist. If it's true souls are on another plane of existence you can't interact with in the material world, then science will never find or measure that plane of existence. Other metaphysical and philosophical questions will exist in a similar fashion.

 

On 12/16/2020 at 9:56 PM, Bear said:

The pure metaphys I would say line up to concepts like imposition, lucid dreaming and hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations. However, why and how do these states, especially hypnagogic, produce visions that are *superreal* in that when experiencing them, they are obviously not possible to experience in the material world. Like the singing of angels or super beautiful, so beautiful that even supermodels look shabby by comparison. 

When someone experiences hynagogia/hypnopompia, they hallucinate. When Cat was trying to sleep one night, she heard angels singing in the white noise produced by the clothes drier.

 

Our experiences with this are not "superreal", and we have a theory for why this is. The experience you get with lucid dreaming and hypnagogia/hypnopompia is directly correlated with better visualization. If your visualization is really good, your experiences may blow your socks off. If it's not that good, your experiences can be really vivid, but we're not going to feel like we communicated with the Gods or anything like that.

When we're in this state, our judgement is also sometimes impaired by "dream-logic". It's possible dream-logic is a positive in making the hallucinations you experience even more fantastic.