Jump to content

Gateway Systems and Soulbonds


BearBaeBeau

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

If that's not the correct comparison, can you tell me what it was?

 

The opposite to a scientific model is an unscientific one; metaphysics, religion, new age spiritualism, intentional defiance of what science shows reality is.

 

5 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

So, tulpas and say soulbonds side by side, one is serious science and one is utter ignorance? Am I getting this right?

More specifically, a scientific model of tulpas vs any "metaphysical" one. But in essence yes. Useful ignorance perhaps, but ignorance. On the point of soulbonds, I do actually think that that particular metaphysical belief is much less harmful fundamentally than gateways. There's a big negative there obviously about bringing into being tulpas who start out messed up, but it doesn't strike me as being negative to the host, only to the tulpa, and hopefully only initially. It may in fact be useful in generating a baseline personality with more natural complexity that the tulpa can then adapt as they come into contact with the real world and their actual situation.

 

5 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

it would be rediculous in certain contexts, but in itself it's harmless in my opinion

I should definitely confirm, I do agree with this to a certain extent. The thing that gives me pause is that while, yes, the sceptics can be standoffish - what is enabled by magical thinking is potentially more insidious across the board than a sense of disgruntlement from a group of people who think you're dumb. For instance I brought up the "why can't you draw knowledge from your scientist headmate". Well what if you did ask for knowledge, and the tulpa gives you a spurious answer and you actually take deeply negative advice from them, under the impression they're correct? Delusions don't need to be negative if the person is reasonably grounded, but if they aren't I'd definitely worry about such a person. I wouldn't think the same about someone in a more sceptical mindset - the only reason this danger exists in the first place is the essentially limitless possibilities of belief.

 

5 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

Human psyche and subconscious mechanics are substantially unknown and unmodeled in physics.

This I take huge issue with this one for several reasons.

 

Physics actually has modelled the brain - that's what a neural network is in computing. We can replicate these things easily, but we lack the appropriate scale and structural understanding as of yet to fully mimic a full human consciousness. (the biggest current neural net I can find at a glance is 160 Billion connections, the human brain has 100 Trillion, and is arranged into importantly structured areas of function which are only understood in a general sense, but studies go on) We know there is not a part of the brain that handles metadimensional cognition, because we know what parts of the brain deal with visualization, with sight, with hearing, with thought, with memory, and so on. What these people are doing is visualization, observably.

 

Ignoring that, this answer strikes me as "here is a thing we don't fully understand, therefore magic could possibly exist here". There is no reason to believe this, and it is unscientific to posit a hypothesis and accept it without evidence. And don't think you're the first to say something like that either. Newton himself said something to that effect about the motion of the planets, and it's such an incredible shame because he was being an idiot and had a brain that could've wrapped itself around a lot more. And then predictably he was proven wrong as science marched forward without him. I get that it makes people feel better, but this concept is so logically spurious it actually brings me pain to think of people giving into it. It has literally been the endpoint of several scientists of such incredible potential.

 

Perhaps most importantly though you seem to then go on to use this an excuse to discount Physics. I'm surprised you don't see what that's spurious. What you are essentially doing is saying that "Here is a thing in neuroscience we have a small amount of data on." - then walking over to Physics, which is a far more established and rigid discipline with clearly defined boundaries and saying "Therefore all of this can be discounted, wherever I feel like it, with no evidence, because there might be more."

 

To pick apart some of the other concepts at play here though

  • A fourth dimension is accepted, and is observable. It's called time. There's even ways to breach time to create holes in reality exactly like what you describe. It would be impossible to transmit anything through these however, and it would be equally impossible to create these without a massive energy source. The reason being that we call these holes... black holes. Other spatial dimensions are pending any sort of actual proof but are not impossible under M-theory.
  • Gateways rely on the concept of parallel universes. People often presume these are a part of science because science does indeed sometimes talk in M-theory about additional dimensions beyond this one, and they don't realize these have nothing to do with other universes. They actually aren't a part of science at all. Complete science fiction hypothesis with no real basis.
  • It would be a mistake to think we simply can't perceive the other dimensions under M-theory. The theory actually implies that the entirety of local space is essentially squashed into three-spatial and one-time dimension. So you cannot pretend we can arbitrarily sense other dimensions beyond this one. They aren't actually there or observable in the space we operate in. They only exist on a macrocosmic scale under the theory which accepts them.
  • Then there's evolution. Evolution makes 'decisions' based on your environment. It creates delusions for instance, often as a coping mechanism with various forms of powerful cognitive dissonance. Having established that the fifth-through-eleventh dimensions, if they do exist, do not actually impact local space, there is no reason for us to believe that their existence would influence evolution in some way - and even if they did, what would be the purpose? Consider the rationale in evolutions shoes: You could give someone the ability to make a delusion to have the same effect; or... you could give them the energy-generation and telepathic capacity to breach spacetime with enough effort. Can you see why one would be much more difficult for evolution to reach than the other even if it were possible?
5 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

What is your kind? The majority here are athiest, doctrinal, materialist, tulpamancers.

 

I meant this in the context of the greater world, wherein I would say this statement was not true. I am honestly not that plugged into this community much at all. In fact I intentionally avoided it for a long time to prevent forming too rigid a set of ideas regarding tulpamancy when I realized a lot of it was obviously subjective. So forgive my ignorance on that point.

 

5 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

I think this is the root of this animosity. The roleplaying Chuunibyous are tainting our server with their "owo"s and magic nonsense. But instead of singling out specific individuals, we attach our intolerance to the group as a whole. That's the basis of prejudice and bigotry. I just want to step away from group prejudice and negative group ideology.

I agree with this sentiment. Whilst I am happy to throw out a vigorous deconstruction of why I think they are wrong if someone wishes to engage me, it is ultimately counterproductive for any other reason than a cerebral, academic one for mostly my own benefit.

 

You also make an important distinction that I should mention: Whilst I am pensive about the implications and reject the concept of gateways and to a lesser degree soulbonds and other metaphysical tulpa on an intellectual level, because it is unscientific...

 

At the same time I do not wish to specifically call out individuals - and I probably wouldn't have answered you if you were not discussing from a non-gateway system perspective, unless you specifically asked for criticism. Just to reiterate, my actual worldview as it stands is live-and-let-live by nature, especially in a field such as this where obviously magical thinking has a distinct positive effect on the process. Any individual gateway-model user isn't going to attract my actual ire just because of that - and even then, realistically, what can I do about their worldview if they will not engage with me in some manner? The response that is most likely if you are not sensitive the social reality of these situations is that they will get defensive and completely discount you from the start because you've attacked the core of their beliefs. It's completely fruitless, except to earn imaginary internet points for 'winning' a debate, and stressful for at least one of you. In my experience shifting a belief system requires that they come to you, openly, and ask for input, and that you interact kindly and don't immediately jump straight up their ass with judgement.

Edited by ZenAndMika

Zen - Host.

Mika - Tulpa. The eldest, and a homegrown tupper made with tulpamancy.

Rhys - Tulpa. Initially a Literary Thoughtform of my own creation.

Asterion - Tulpa. Literary, I suppose? Mythological egregore, maybe? He's The Minotaur.

If text is uncoloured, presume Zen is talking. We go by he/him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

The opposite to a scientific model is an unscientific one; metaphysics, religion, new age spiritualism, intentional defiance of what science shows reality is.

 

Let me make one adjustment:

 

"The opposite to a scientific model is an unscientific one; however, science itself will never be fully known."

 

I'll have to dig into the rest of this later, but I will.


15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

There's a big negative there obviously about bringing into being tulpas who start out messed up, but it doesn't strike me as being negative to the host, only to the tulpa, and hopefully only initially.

 

It turned out okay for us. Joy and Gwen are both non-metaphysical soulbonds. They know their lives started as fiction, and they both had to adjust in their own way.

 

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

Well what if you did ask for knowledge, and the tulpa gives you a spurious answer and you actually take deeply negative advice from them, under the impression they're correct?

 

I don't fully believe that gateway systems are any worse than mystics, spiritualists, or UFOlogists. Of course there are some probably pretty vocal gateway systems that you all have experiences that I haven't. Still I believe we should take it on a case by case basis.

 

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

Physics actually has modelled the brain

 

That doesn't mean it's even a good approximation, all we can say is it's a professional approximation.

 

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

but we lack the appropriate scale and structural understanding as of yet to fully mimic a full human consciousness.

 

That's a huge jump. Even when we do have the computing power to match, we still won't know. That is unless the AI apocalypses is real and coming. 

 

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

"here is a thing we don't fully understand, therefore magic could possibly exist here".

 

I don't think we're arguing on different sides. I'm arguing the concepts of magic. If something can be experienced, there's a reason for it. It may be naïve to call it "magic", but if you handed someone a smart phone in 1820, what other conclusion could they possibly come up with? Either, "wow, that's a fancy talking mirror you got there," or "oh my lord, magic is real." Both conclusions are on equal standing in my mind. It's an argument of ideology, not grounding. A smart phone in 1820 is completely ungrounded.

 

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

Perhaps most importantly though you seem to then go on to use this an excuse to discount Physics.

 

I don't think I'm trying to discount physics at all, I'm trying to discount the notion of "completeness" of science. Maybe I'm horrible at stating that.

 

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

"Therefore all of this can be discounted, wherever I feel like it, with no evidence, because there might be more."

 

Yes, but just like we discounted a geocentric solar system and flat earth theory. It's analogous. I'm not accepting the modern explanations, having poured over many well written technical papers in my profession with glaring errors in logic and ridiculous assumptions, and clearly wrong science historically that has since been replaced, I have to be skeptical of current scientific doctrine. That's my choice and I have the leeway to do that even if I'm wrong in my own models. I want a better fit for testimonials and my own experience than current models afford.

 

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

A fourth dimension is accepted, and is observable. It's called time.

 

A fourth dimension is arguably time, but additional physical dimensions have been theorized in attempt to explain the micro and the macro. String theory, vs dark matter and dark energy.  String theory has up to 11 physical dimensions plus time. What is dark energy and dark matter? They use them to fill in the huge holes in other theories. Nothing more. There's no scientific direct evidence of either, it's completely contrived.

 

I think you're putting too much power in the hands of the scientific community. It's not a fault, it's my opinion. I would say the same to the religiously devout and the over the top spiritualists with oils, crystals and yoga positions.

 

Unfortunately for everyone involved, they're all wrong, history has proven this over and over.

 

15 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

In my experience shifting a belief system requires that they come to you, openly, and ask for input, and that you interact kindly and don't immediately jump straight up their ass with judgement.

 

Yep, and shots are fired from both sides.

 

I don't think our methodologies are very far off I just want a broader perspective than relying on modern science. You can't know, but I have been on the leading edge of science for a pretty long time and I see beyond the smoke and mirrors of science articles. They twist the data and the results and spin them to get more funding, they conveniently leave out key information but honestly fill you in if you press, unfortunately, when you do press, it quickly falls apart from what is obviously implied.

 

Do this a hundred times and see if you still trust current science for all your answers.

 

I trust science, but I can't limit myself from the sensational mess it's filtered through to get to me in most cases.

 

Short answer is: Soulbonders and Gateway systems are always welcome by me, regardless of their supposed delusions and proposed metaphysics because the alternative funneling to a doctrinal one size fits all tulpamancy has never been interesting to me and I see it as a difference of opinion only.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, here it is!
The first 'science vs. magic' discussion of the year.

 

>it was real in my mind
>but science can't explain detail X (to me) therefore my magical thinking is equally valid
>prejudice
>don't judge
>bigot

 

It's all so tiresome...

 

Needless to say I'm strongly with Jamie and ZenAndMika here. Unfortunately, as much I respect Bear. We've had this topic over and over again and in the end nothing changed. No one will convince anyone here on the internet.

 

But this is not the point.
The point is - we need to discern between interesting abstract hypotheses on one hand and the impact of simplified populist statements on society on the other.

 

Enabling Chuuni-tier behavior instead of calling out bullshit when you see it has a negative impact on both young easily influenced individuals and society as a whole. Your personal beliefs are one thing but once you popularize them it all quickly turns from quirk to fashion to cult.
Think about it. If you are either the only person in the world or part of a small secret circle of enlighened individuals able to communicate with beings from another dimension let alone know of their existence this leaves but 2 options:

 

1) The entire scientific community is fucking stupid and has been so for centuries.
Only I / we know the truth!!!

 

2) 'The elites' know and are hiding it from ordinary people.
It's a conspiracy!!!

 

In either case the path you are walking here is not a healthy one.

 

Even worse, a 'tolerant' 'anything goes' attitude where all ideas, from the daydreams of an angsty teen to the collective efforts of generations of the worlds greatest thinkers are 'equal' leads to nihilism and ultimately subverts and degrades society. This is not a joke. With great power, and such is knowledge, comes great responsibility. Our modern hyper-compartmentalized world is built upon trust and consensus. As the individual can only overview a tiny fraction of today’s knowledge we need to trust experts in their field delivering and translating what is outside of our scope. Now if someone steps in and says: 'Hey bro, don't listen to this elitist expert guy, look at my personal theory, it's totally logical and so easy even you can understand it, just trust me bro' and you feel obliged to treat everyone’s opinion equally because you are so woke and tolerant then you will rather sooner than later be in for some nasty surprises.

People are not equal. Ideas are not equal. Theorems are not equal and as such should not and cannot be treated equally. Just like you're not gonna let some hobo you met on the street manage your finances because you give him the benefit of doubt. Yes this is prejudice and prejudice is a heuristic approach based on experience and as such essential for survival. Therefore YES, you WILL be judged by your appearance and reputation and not given an hour to speak about your ideas on ghosts on a scientific conference you were just strolling by. Deal with it.

 

Likewise, magical ideas aka 'it's magic I ain't gotta explain shit' which go against the most fundamental building blocks of our empirical knowledge like entropy shall not be taken seriously without overwhelming evidence. We've been there a trillion times and have wasted more than enough time on this nonsense. Such layman's pseudo-hypotheses are furthermore inherently worthless from a scientific perspective because they make no predictions. They cannot be tested and falsified. For good reason. They are a dead end. And bringing them up once more utilizing science-whataboutism won't change anything. I understand they may serve a purpose on a psychological / religious level but that's an entirely different story.

 

3 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

I have been on the leading edge of science for a pretty long time and I see beyond the smoke and mirrors of science articles. They twist the data and the results and spin them to get more funding, they conveniently leave out key information but honestly fill you in if you press, unfortunately, when you do press, it quickly falls apart from what is obviously implied.

Same here and unfortunately I absolutely have to agree with you. I have seen horrifying things, from unbelievable incompetence to outright forgery. Yes, there is a lot of dirt behind the glossy paper of scientific publications but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

I like to emphasize the analogy between science and democracy. Both are deeply flawed and corrupted concepts because well, humans. But - what is the alternative? Do you really want to turn to fascism or communism because of mishaps in the democratic process? Seriously? That worked out really REALLY well in the 20th century.

 

Likewise, science bashing leads down a very dangerous path letting occultists and conspiracy nutjobs gain foothold in society. This is not the answer. It never was and it never will be. So while we definitely need more transparency and a reform of the peer-review process in the scientific community we similarly need a bit of humility and respect from the general populace. Feeling oppressed because the fringe ideas you came up with under the shower are not given the same weight as the current scientific consensus is outright insane. I know we live in such times but come on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

It turned out okay for us. Joy and Gwen are both non-metaphysical soulbonds.

On this note, I was under the impression the definition of Soulbond was inherently metaphysical? That it required you to have a character-tulpa and believe that it's actually the character in some real way (which is the metaphysical aspect as it requires scientifically wishy-washy parallel universe and soul emanation stuff)? My own tulpa initially started as a character-based tulpa for ease of comprehension of a form, but I certainly never believed the latter concept, and actively encouraged my tulpa to reject that notion as well from day one. I would be curious if you think that qualifies me as one, and the exact nature of that model to you.

 

4 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

I don't think I'm trying to discount physics at all, I'm trying to discount the notion of "completeness" of science. Maybe I'm horrible at stating that.

4 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

I don't think our methodologies are very far off I just want a broader perspective than relying on modern science. You can't know, but I have been on the leading edge of science for a pretty long time and I see beyond the smoke and mirrors of science articles. They twist the data and the results and spin them to get more funding, they conveniently leave out key information but honestly fill you in if you press, unfortunately, when you do press, it quickly falls apart from what is obviously implied.

I agree with literally everything other than this specific sentiment.

 

What you are describing is actually not yet a scientific paper. An article positing a hypothesis and evidence, including both plausible and biased ones, are not scientific or empirical in any way until they have been peer reviewed. Ironically you seem to actually acknowledge this to a degree, because you peer review them and find them lacking. You're absolutely right that you shouldn't immediately trust the positions of articles anywhere - you should in a scientific mindset poke holes in it to see if it falls apart, as well as seek out other forms of review of the document.

 

But you're also creating a false equivalence here. You're saying because many articles are spurious and subsequently should be rejected, that the articles which have been peer reviewed and verified, including mathematical proofs which have existed for hundreds of years at this point and have been repeatedly recalculated and shown to be true, are false. Again, these are observations which arise from mathematical truths. What you're claiming there isn't small, and it's the sort of thing that in an actual academic setting would make people turn to you and say "No, you need to prove it, you're the one positing that the model is wrong in light of the proofs. Give us real math to the contrary or your opinion isn't valid. The math is on our side here." And I do have to agree with them.

 

You're actively claiming models of the universe are false here without evidence. And I'm not even referring to fairly advanced abstract concepts here like dark matter and dimensional space being more than it seems - I've cited basic things like "It takes a lot of energy to move something from an enormous distance away, especially by bending spacetime, and yet gateways/soulbonds do not generate any additional energy or effort over normal brain function." This is not a mathematical abstraction that can be ignored. It's a fact that work requires effort. It is an abject truth that nothing moves without an expenditure of energy unless it is already in motion, which gateway systems do not generate any additional measure of or have any way of interacting with. A metaphysical gateway system on some level has to reject extremely basic facts in order to rationalize itself, unlike a non-metaphysical model.

 

This is not the only basic fact being ignored either: What about the simple fact that all tulpamancy relies to a degree on visualization. These individuals must pretend their visualizations are in some way reflective of reality as a "sense" or paranormal ability, and that's just observably delusional. The reason I bring this up in particular is because we actually can observe what visualization is in the brain, unlike consciousness, so we know this to be true - Did you know we could make very crude printouts of simple mentally visualized images now by observing the lighting up of neurons in a brain?

 

The list of evidence against these things goes on, and on, and on. Because they're just not real and they don't just defy one part of physics or science, they defy all of it. And the only way to accept them as real is to ignore the evidence - to practice Faith. If you must do this, do this. It seems to be a requirement for certain people's mental health. But it's wrong. It's not based in empirical evidence and it doesn't fit into the established models we have of reality.

 

4 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

Either, "wow, that's a fancy talking mirror you got there," or "oh my lord, magic is real."

The actual correct response scientifically speaking is "Okay, how can this be done within the bounds of physics? Can I then prove that is what is happening?" - If you respond to unusual phenomena with that concept you will quickly discover that physics holds up. And if it doesn't, well done, you've proven something about reality that physics doesn't know, please publish that immediately so it can be more rigorously dissected.

Edited by ZenAndMika

Zen - Host.

Mika - Tulpa. The eldest, and a homegrown tupper made with tulpamancy.

Rhys - Tulpa. Initially a Literary Thoughtform of my own creation.

Asterion - Tulpa. Literary, I suppose? Mythological egregore, maybe? He's The Minotaur.

If text is uncoloured, presume Zen is talking. We go by he/him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

I was under the impression the definition of Soulbond was inherently metaphysical? That it required you to have a character-tulpa and believe that it's actually the character in some real way (which is the metaphysical aspect as it requires scientifically wishy-washy parallel universe and soul emanation stuff)?

 

I'm, not doubting that some definitions sway this way, but having talked to many soulbonders, the consensus is whether the backstory is thought of as fictional or not, if they own their backstory and identify with it, they're a soulbond. If they reject their backstory, they're a fictive tulpa.

 

9 hours ago, Yakumo said:

The first 'science vs. magic' discussion of the year.

 

Well you can take it any way you want and the thread certainly is divisive and turning out to be science vs magic, but my intent in leaving this thread here was to address the community once again to say we should welcome all sorts of plurality. Whether you do or not is your option. I don't have any feel for magic or not, I said my piece on it, I believe that any experience I have must have material origin. It can look like magic and smell like magic and taste like magic, but it's not magic. Magic to me is a catchall label used like UFO and confabulation. I don't like any of them honestly, but I do not discount or discredit someone's beliefs and I respect anyone willing to share their experiences regardless of how Chuuni-tier it is.

 

This community hates cringe in general and I think it stems from insecurity. I don't have that issue.

 

9 hours ago, Yakumo said:

Likewise, science bashing leads down a very dangerous path

 

Like, ironically, the forging of newer better models that upset the dogs tightly grasping their bone theories.

 

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

An article positing a hypothesis and evidence, including both plausible and biased ones, are not scientific or empirical in any way until they have been peer reviewed.

 

It's true for some peer reviewed papers. It makes you doubt the peer review process in general.  Honestly, each publication has their own panel that ultimately make the decision and they have to sell periodicals too. There's a conflict of interest on all ends. This leads to conspiracy theory heaven, but I'm staying down here, trying to use the data and models to make better models. In my day job, I model and review models mostly, but it's not cog sci, humanities, or phych, so in this field I am just doin my best.

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

But you're also creating a false equivalence here.

 

Oh dear...

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

including mathematical proofs which have existed for hundreds of years at this point and have been repeatedly recalculated and shown to be true, are false.

 

I'm not saying that, but Newton would be very disappointed by now.

 

Local linearizations and approximations make math work in the real world.

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

And I do have to agree with them.

 

Were you in a PhD/masters program, the professors would be pleased with you.
 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

You're actively claiming models of the universe are false here without evidence.

 

Technically I'm actively doubting that the universe models apply to me in a dogmatic or doctrinal way.

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

"It takes a lot of energy to move something from an enormous distance away, especially by bending spacetime, and yet gateways/soulbonds do not generate any additional energy or effort over normal brain function."

 

In the mind, anything is possible, even impossible is possible so there is no impossible in the mind. What we are talking about here is in the mind, tulpas are not tangible beings. The body is tangible if you claim you are tangible you are identifying with the body and there's only one body, therefore you say you share the body with others but that's baseless. You can claim anything in the mind, there's no basis for any of it, it's all subjective and even irrational. I claim to possess the body in this community, I have others with be who can also possess the body. I personally believe I am intangible, as in separable from the body. Granted, it's safe to say the body is governed very strictly by well known physics, the mind is not.

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

and yet gateways/soulbonds do not generate any additional energy or effort over normal brain function

 

That's right, because they're not comparable, it's your conceptualization that's wrong in my opinion. You're beating yourself over the head with your own logic. If they're claiming something ridiculous out of ignorance, I can understand how annoying that is, but they're only describing it the best they can at their root.

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

A metaphysical gateway system on some level has to reject extremely basic facts in order to rationalize itself, unlike a non-metaphysical model.

 

I think I'm on a different page, you gave examples about time wizards and holes in space-time and I just don't associate these to gateway systems and soulbonds, so I may be woefully undereducated in the bullshittery of the gateway systems you've dealt with.

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

What about the simple fact that all tulpamancy relies to a degree on visualization.

 

Well, it's not a fact. In fact some successful plural systems have aphantasia.

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

Did you know we could make very crude printouts of simple mentally visualized images now by observing the lighting up of neurons in a brain?

 

Sensational!

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

"Okay, how can this be done within the bounds of physics? Can I then prove that is what is happening?"

 

Yesssssss this is my point actually. This is what I'm doing, but I'm not doing it by throwing out data that doesn't fit my model, I'm doing it by making my model all inclusive and only throwing out data if it's proven wrong. This makes my model hard to describe, surely.

 

9 hours ago, ZenAndMika said:

If you respond to unusual phenomena with that concept you will quickly discover that physics holds up.

 

I don't see this as true in all cases. Especially given well established and respected models that each describe local space and when combined conflict with each other.

 

Theories are just that.

 

 

 

Edited by Ranger
Took out unnecessary formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have generally reached the impasse wherein both of our points are fully made and it is essentially up to anyone reading to make their own conclusions. Just one thing I would like to add on the last post.

47 minutes ago, BearBeaBeau said:

Well, it's not a fact. In fact some successful plural systems have aphantasia.

Aphantasia is the inability to voluntarily create mental images, to varying degrees, there being a distinct scale of ability. Visualization is more than just mental imagery though, it includes the mindvoice, it includes actual sound, all other senses, and so on. A sense of presence is also a visualization. There are definitely a very small number of people with "total" aphantasia who cannot do any of that, but I doubt they would be able to make a tulpa at all. At the bare minimum you need to be able to talk at a visualized presence. At least such is my understanding.

 

Anywho though...

 

Thank you for indulging this discussion, and apologies again if any of my wording came across as flippant.

Zen - Host.

Mika - Tulpa. The eldest, and a homegrown tupper made with tulpamancy.

Rhys - Tulpa. Initially a Literary Thoughtform of my own creation.

Asterion - Tulpa. Literary, I suppose? Mythological egregore, maybe? He's The Minotaur.

If text is uncoloured, presume Zen is talking. We go by he/him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a believer in metaphysics, but I end up seeing it as this untouchable thing I shouldn't mess with. I don't believe a soulbond actually had a past life from an alternate dimension, but if that's what the soulbond claims then I figured they chose that and it makes them happy. I don't really want to argue if it's bullshit or not, and even a soulbond or gateway system did need help due to being unstable, telling them they're full of it is going to make them uncomfortable and not listen to you. I think there's a better way to go about it.

 

I don't like the concept of a gateway system having a bunch of walk-ins run in and out of the system. I don't think it's very healthy, and I think it's doing the headmates a disservice. However, there's a loophole here that bothers me-

 

Memories of your past experiences in wonderland and what you did in a "past life" or a fictional backstory can be indistinguishable from each other. A tulpa with a backstory will think they are that person and not feel a need for developing a sense of self. While it may seem like it's a replacement for forcing, there's a catch-

 

I suspect if their backstory is inconsistent with who they are, they will notice this problem and will be forced to make a choice. They have to establish a sense of removal by saying something like "that was past me" or "I'm an actor of my fiction", have the freedom to change/influence their backstory, or realize they're not actually a soulbond or a gateway walk-in. If a gateway walk-in never has enough time to assess who they are, they will never be able to make this decision. Once a headmate has made this decision they are choosing one or the other, but never having the choice to begin with... They are similar to underdeveloped tulpas, wouldn't it be a good thing those "walk-out"?

 

From an ethical standpoint based on my system ethics, I don't really have a leg to stand on. I can't really argue with a headmate who chose to believe in something, and I can't really argue with letting out walk-ins that pop up. Is it a coping method for being creative and keeping walk-ins at bay? Is the system actually growing or is the reality it stays a certain size but otherwise doesn't grow? I think system growth is a bad thing, but if the system is large and isn't growing overall, that's a different story.

 

At least one system I met may have had the host walk out and in too, and if that was the case I suspect living life could be an extra layer of complicated. It's hard to live a life without a single identity, or at least a fake identity you keep up with. If a later host decides to change things up, that could get them into trouble.

 


 

Another thing I found interesting is several of the gateway systems I spoke with claimed to have Mal-adaptive Daydreaming Disorder, or MaDD. I want to point this out because their condition may be influencing them to think I don't have control, my headmates are developing parallel to what I think. I don't believe the answer is "aliens!", but I think it's interesting there's a possibility they have a fundamentally different view of plurality.

 

The other possible explanation is some form of mental illness that puts the system in a weird place. Schizophrenia, psychosis, or delusional disorder can make it more difficult to use conventional tulpamancy wisdom because those disorders take away a lot of assumptions conventional tulpamancy assumes. The host may not be able to just "ignore" intrusive thoughts because they have hallucinations all the time. I wonder if keeping the door open to "headmates" is a coping strategy or if having a metaphysical belief is more or less unavoidable. I wish I knew more about the context of a gateway or soulbond system with a mental health conditions to say more on this.

 


 

Essentially, I don't want to judge a system harshly when there could be more going on to the story. I agree that their practices shouldn't be applied to tulpa systems in general, but I wonder if they have something interesting going on we could potentially learn from.

 

If a system does need help, I think the solution would be to analyze their situation and encourage a solution to fix their problem without attacking their beliefs. Maybe they need an alien shield or something like that. I don't see much point in challenging them because that won't get me anywhere and when communication is lost, any potential learning is also lost.

Edited by Ranger

I'm Ranger, GrayTheCat's cobud (tulpa), and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I go by Rosalin or Ronan sometimes. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.

 

If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Blog | Not So Temporary Log | Switching Log | Yay! | Bre Translator | Art Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ranger said:

Is it a coping method for being creative and keeping walk-ins at bay?

 

I do wonder if I've had gateway system experiences but just interpreted them differently and reacted differently. When a character talks to me in my head, I usually either ignore it or have fun with it to whatever extent. Maybe others kind of freak out and feel they have to deal with it like dealing with another person and then get overwhelmed, and have to see it as actual people coming and going. Or they see it that way because they just like it better that way. I didn't realize early on that experiences like that were similar to talking to a tulpa, and expected plurality to be different. A small perception/belief change may have made me a gateway system instead, I am not sure. Anyway I'm saying it feels like it could be that (coping, like if I accepted everyone I talked to in my head as people, but feared a massive system), though I haven't talked to any myself.

 

41 minutes ago, Ranger said:

Another thing I found interesting is several of the gateway systems I spoke with claimed to have Mal-adaptive Daydreaming Disorder, or MaDD.

 

It isn't something I've been formally diagnosed with, but if I am not it, I am something very similar, or at least had been, and I feel doing that probably contributes to my mind already being naturally capable of doing basic tulpamancy skills without knowing it before I ever heard of them, thus my warped expectations. My therapist didn't know what Mal-adaptive Daydreaming Disorder was when I asked about it, so I don't know anyone who could tell me.

 

Anyhow, just feeling I might have relevant experiences but process them differently.

Edited by TB

Creation for creation's sake.

 

More of my drawings

 

Resident Dojikko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

A lot of people in this thread don't understand the phrase "respect other people's religious ideas". Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it a delusion or roleplay, delusion shouldn't be thrown around like that. 

 

There are people who are serious gateway systems and not every gateway system is in their early teens as some seem to think. I know many over the age of 30. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not obligated to respect other people's religious ideas; I'm obligated to allow them to practice them in peace, and only if they are not doing harm to themselves and others with their beliefs. This is a discussion space and the topic is distinctly about the validity of these things. I hope I have treated the subject with enough care, but that will not stop me from dissecting negative and delusional parts of other people's religious ideas, just because they're religious. By the extremes of that reasoning I am not allowed to disrespect human sacrifice and cult behaviour.

Edited by ZenAndTheSloth

Zen - Host.

Mika - Tulpa. The eldest, and a homegrown tupper made with tulpamancy.

Rhys - Tulpa. Initially a Literary Thoughtform of my own creation.

Asterion - Tulpa. Literary, I suppose? Mythological egregore, maybe? He's The Minotaur.

If text is uncoloured, presume Zen is talking. We go by he/him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...