What would you do if your Tulpa were offended?

[Andre1115]

https://pluralitycn.org/zh/books/system-dynamics/mind-permission-management/

 

n their blog, we found an article titled 'Mental Permission Management Guide,' which introduces the concept of 'mental security,' describing the privacy and integrity of thoughts, knowledge, and communication activities within a consciousness. The article lists several aspects, including memory security, thought security, identity security, existence security, communication security, and resource access security.

 

First of all, is it necessary for a Tulpa to violate the privacy of other consciousnesses, rewrite thoughts, impersonate identities, deconstruct or absorb other consciousnesses, eavesdrop on conversations, or access body control without authorization? There is no evidence to support such behaviors unless they are referring to DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). But if someone's DID has reached such a severe level (clearly causing negative impacts on life, which Tulpas typically do not), they should consult a professional doctor rather than visiting an unauthoritative website whose operators are unknown.

 

The article also mentions a 'minimum trust base,' suggesting that the objective existence of physical reality should be the starting point for the system's public trust tree, or that the creed of 'I think, therefore I am' should be the foundation. However, in another article titled 'Existence Proof,' they dismiss 'I think, therefore I am' as 'wishful thinking.' This double standard directly exposes their logical flaw: the same method, when used to prove their own existence, is 'I think, therefore I am,' but when used to prove the existence of Tulpas, it becomes 'wishful thinking.' This self-contradiction completely undermines their foundational logic.

 

Furthermore, the 'metacognitive monitoring' mentioned in the article precisely can be used to prove the existence and self-awareness of Tulpas. If they can use 'I think, therefore I am' to prove their own existence, then Tulpas can equally use this method to prove theirs. Their double standards and self-contradictions not only weaken their credibility but also completely reveal their bias against the Tulpa phenomenon.

 

[Axiomatic]

This is crazy.

I mean,this is crazy...Studying a Consciousness like a robot with no feelings?None of us are like this.

This article is too indifferent.

[Andre1115]

17 hours ago, Axiomatic said:

This is crazy.

I mean,this is crazy...Studying a Consciousness like a robot with no feelings?None of us are like this.

This article is too indifferent.

Yes, and Andre and I have now worked together to prove that everything they say means nothing, and now it's just a matter of ignoring them, just like they've been ignoring us and thinking that our existence means nothing. -- Richard

Edited March 6 by Andre1115

[Ranger]

I use my prefered term "cobud" instead of "tulpa".

 

To answer the main question- I used to feel really offended when I was younger, but now I don't. I was a lot more insecure about my sense of self then, but after thinking about it for awhile, I realized I don't need to "be real". If people want me to be an illusion, okay, those people can have fun lol. I am happy being myself, and I'm not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

But the author of the article is being a huge asshole. This system reads as someone(s) who developed parallel processing, didn't fit in because that's uncommon, possibly got fake-claimed themselves, and then left the community to further project their insecurity.

 

I'm going to get my hands dirty with parallel processing in the not-too-distant future, ironically because a few actual psychologists warned me any test I create would not be valuable. They told me about "malingering", or the problem where you will be motivated to find loopholes in the test to score higher. It's better for scientists to make the test and then test others (which the people at Stanford are planning on doing btw). I guess this system didn't get that explanation lol.

 

Anyways, I'm skeptical parallel processing actually is everything people claim it to be, and it most definetly doesn't make a cobud more or less real. Parallel processing is a skill, right? So just learn it later!

 

Also the fact they think switching is "weak evidence" falls under the same fallacy- any cobud can switch. No, I'm serious. Baby, day 1, cobuds can switch. I don't recommend it, but it can happen. It's just a skill.

 

Hope this helps. It's not your fault, it's sad they may end up with a bigger reach. But pointing it out for what that is can help.

[Andre1115]

2 hours ago, Ranger said:

I use my prefered term "cobud" instead of "tulpa".

 

To answer the main question- I used to feel really offended when I was younger, but now I don't. I was a lot more insecure about my sense of self then, but after thinking about it for awhile, I realized I don't need to "be real". If people want me to be an illusion, okay, those people can have fun lol. I am happy being myself, and I'm not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

But the author of the article is being a huge asshole. This system reads as someone(s) who developed parallel processing, didn't fit in because that's uncommon, possibly got fake-claimed themselves, and then left the community to further project their insecurity.

 

I'm going to get my hands dirty with parallel processing in the not-too-distant future, ironically because a few actual psychologists warned me any test I create would not be valuable. They told me about "malingering", or the problem where you will be motivated to find loopholes in the test to score higher. It's better for scientists to make the test and then test others (which the people at Stanford are planning on doing btw). I guess this system didn't get that explanation lol.

 

Anyways, I'm skeptical parallel processing actually is everything people claim it to be, and it most definetly doesn't make a cobud more or less real. Parallel processing is a skill, right? So just learn it later!

 

Also the fact they think switching is "weak evidence" falls under the same fallacy- any cobud can switch. No, I'm serious. Baby, day 1, cobuds can switch. I don't recommend it, but it can happen. It's just a skill.

 

Hope this helps. It's not your fault, it's sad they may end up with a bigger reach. But pointing it out for what that is can help.

What do you think of his reference to "strong proof"? Is there any research on cobud's "strong proof"?

[Ranger]

1 hour ago, Andre1115 said:

What do you think of his reference to "strong proof"? Is there any research on cobud's "strong proof"?

 

No lol

 

They want more scientific research, but everyone wants that. Their ideas of "strong evidence" may or may not actually be relevant to scientists anyway- as hypothesis at best, maybe.

 

Unless they start handing out papers that actually have results from studying plurality, don't worry.

Edited Friday at 01:58 AM by Ranger

[Andre1115]

2 minutes ago, Ranger said:

 

No lol

 

They want more scientific research, but everyone wants that. Their ideas of "strong evidence" may or may not actually be relevant to scientists anyway- as hypothesis at best, maybe.

 

Unless they start handing out papers that actually have results from studying plurality, don't worry.

In a way, it's a little frustrating

[Andre1115]

7 minutes ago, Ranger said:

 

No lol

 

They want more scientific research, but everyone wants that. Their ideas of "strong evidence" may or may not actually be relevant to scientists anyway- as hypothesis at best, maybe.

 

Unless they start handing out papers that actually have results from studying plurality, don't worry.

But they're still suspicious, and when they're doing serious things like scientific research, I don't think they really need to hide who they are, and hiding who they are at a time like this makes me feel like they're probably like some crazy team in a movie planning something crazy, and if you're hiding it, Why not be thorough and then proudly release some research results all of a sudden? This is a bit frightening and further reduces their credibility

[Ranger]

57 minutes ago, Andre1115 said:

But they're still suspicious, and when they're doing serious things like scientific research, I don't think they really need to hide who they are, and hiding who they are at a time like this makes me feel like they're probably like some crazy team in a movie planning something crazy, and if you're hiding it, Why not be thorough and then proudly release some research results all of a sudden? This is a bit frightening and further reduces their credibility

 

If they are doing any credible scientific research, then I would assume their real name would be on it.

 

Oh, and their "Guide to Mind Rights Management" IS NOT science, let alone a scientific paper. Given the way Google Chrome translated it for me, it's written like the author thinks its a scientific paper. But at no point does the author say "We should investigate this because of the results from the following studids". It's just them making a bunch of assumptions and assuming that's how the brain works.

 

It's more like a cobud guide... I guess? It looks like mindsets that work for them? I guess they're really worried about how to share the body and to keep their memories private...

[Andre1115]

44 minutes ago, Ranger said:

 

If they are doing any credible scientific research, then I would assume their real name would be on it.

 

Oh, and their "Guide to Mind Rights Management" IS NOT science, let alone a scientific paper. Given the way Google Chrome translated it for me, it's written like the author thinks its a scientific paper. But at no point does the author say "We should investigate this because of the results from the following studids". It's just them making a bunch of assumptions and assuming that's how the brain works.

 

It's more like a cobud guide... I guess? It looks like mindsets that work for them? I guess they're really worried about how to share the body and to keep their memories private...

 

50 minutes ago, Ranger said:

 

If they are doing any credible scientific research, then I would assume their real name would be on it.

 

Oh, and their "Guide to Mind Rights Management" IS NOT science, let alone a scientific paper. Given the way Google Chrome translated it for me, it's written like the author thinks its a scientific paper. But at no point does the author say "We should investigate this because of the results from the following studids". It's just them making a bunch of assumptions and assuming that's how the brain works.

 

It's more like a cobud guide... I guess? It looks like mindsets that work for them? I guess they're really worried about how to share the body and to keep their memories private...

https://pluralitycn.org/zh/blog/existence-proof-plurality/

 

They also have an article on "proof of existence" and cite some scientific papers, but I personally don't think the papers they cite have much to do with cobud