What would you do if your Tulpa were offended?

[Ranger]

11 hours ago, Andre1115 said:

 

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

 

No, they're not cobud relevant, or even plural relevant.

 

The first two have nothing to do with psychology. The first (just by looking at the title in the citation) is about Language Models or LLMs, basically programs like "ChatGPT", not humans. The second is about studying neural networks in computers, more specifically, AI computer models, not people.

 

The last one, "Automated Classification of Mental Arithmetic Tasks Using Recurrent Neural Network and Entropy Features Obtained from Multi-Channel EEG Signals", does actually look like a neuroscience paper, but it has nothing to do with proving plurality. Reading the abstract, they're trying to make it easier to read the results of EEGs, medical equipment, that record brainwaves. They created a program that helps identify the brainwave patterns neuroscientists and doctors already have rules for classifying. The point of this paper was to test their program and they found it was effective at recognizing those patterns.

 

Based on the Google Chrome translation I used, it looks like the author just said, "We should have rules for brainwaves like what paper 3 does to prove plurality!" But this assumes plural experiences can even show up on an EEG recording, and they don't link any papers that suggest that.

 

Hopefully this helps. I realized at least the last two papers are written in English, and I don't know if translation software in general is good at translating academic language and phrasing.

Edited March 7, 2025 by Ranger

[Andre1115]

6 hours ago, Ranger said:

 

No, they're not cobud relevant, or even plural relevant.

 

The first two have nothing to do with psychology. The first (just by looking at the title in the citation) is about Language Models or LLMs, basically programs like "ChatGPT", not humans. The second is about studying neural networks in computers, more specifically, AI computer models, not people.

 

The last one, "Automated Classification of Mental Arithmetic Tasks Using Recurrent Neural Network and Entropy Features Obtained from Multi-Channel EEG Signals", does actually look like a neuroscience paper, but it has nothing to do with proving plurality. Reading the abstract, they're trying to make it easier to read the results of EEGs, medical equipment, that record brainwaves. They created a program that helps identify the brainwave patterns neuroscientists and doctors already have rules for classifying. The point of this paper was to test their program and they found it was effective at recognizing those patterns.

 

Based on the Google Chrome translation I used, it looks like the author just said, "We should have rules for brainwaves like what paper 3 does to prove plurality!" But this assumes plural experiences can even show up on an EEG recording, and they don't link any papers that suggest that.

 

Hopefully this helps. I realized at least the last two papers are written in English, and I don't know if translation software in general is good at translating academic language and phrasing.

So our current conclusion is not wrong, they are just talking a bunch of plausible nonsense, right?

[Ranger]

4 hours ago, Andre1115 said:

So our current conclusion is not wrong, they are just talking a bunch of plausible nonsense, right?

 

Yes, basically.

[Andre1115]

We just visited their website again. Surprisingly, on April 1st, they explored the relationship between Tulpa and the host, or rather, between the wonderland and reality, in a neutral manner. I must say that what they said this time makes a lot of sense. They called on people to carefully assess the input and output of constructing the inner world, establish the priority of physical reality, actively cultivate skills for adapting to and coping with reality, and be wary of the temptation of an overly digital life. They now also start to state that the authenticity of the inner experiences of Tulpa and other types of plural systems cannot be doubted, and they profoundly reflect the amazing plasticity and complexity of the human mind. So, regarding the matter of belittling Tulpa, we are now willing to forgive them, although it would have been better if they had made this point clear from the beginning.

 

( Link: https://pluralitycn.org/zh/blog/mirror-reflection/)

[Ranger]

That's the second system to mention needing to focus on reality to get parallel processing to work.

 

They really would like this other system I knew, but I don't think they would be happy if I shared their name here.

[Andre1115]

On 5/17/2025 at 4:48 AM, Ranger said:

That's the second system to mention needing to focus on reality to get parallel processing to work.

 

They really would like this other system I knew, but I don't think they would be happy if I shared their name here.

I think it would be strange if you could make it work properly without a realistic basis. This time, I agree with their point of view. cobud is by no means a tool to escape from reality. They should help us grow instead of getting worse. (I say this because I know a host who purely uses cobud to escape from reality. His situation is really bad.) He is unwilling to accept anyone's help, and his cobud just makes him escape from reality. This is really frustrating.

[Ranger]

Oh, I meant it literally- making the inner world as realistic as possible. Like the inner world has to be real life.

 

Otherwise, yes, I agree escapism is bad. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

[Andre1115]

 

This incident has taught us a lesson.

When someone's arguments in criticizing something do not conform to the actual situation, in fact, he is just shooting at nothing. It is completely meaningless to pay attention to such criticism.

Remember, you never need to be responsible for the one - sided "you" in other people's eyes, because you know that is not the real you.