Jump to content

Scientific evidence.


Dicks

Recommended Posts

 

You can also boil tulpas down to a few basic psychological concepts: the mind's great ability at filling in gaps, how it's pretty easy to trick your mind into believing something that's not real, the placebo effect, and so on

 

Which is why WE are here!

 

We are as much a hallucination of the brain, as our tulpae are. We are just the way the brain judges how to react to stimuli. When we are making a tulpa, we are having the brain react in a way that a separate figment is made.

 

Really, its a simple concept. But that may be because I have a high IQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

IQ is pretty bogus, actually. It's simply response speed and pattern making/solving abilities.

Orange juice helps with concentration headaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always judge intelligence by openness to data and willingness to learn.

I don't even know where this IQ bullshit came from but then again I can say the same for about 20 different programming languages. That are still in use.

This hot empty painting should be locked and towed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest

I always judge intelligence by openness to data and willingness to learn.

I don't even know where this IQ bullshit came from but then again I can say the same for about 20 different programming languages. That are still in use.

Time to quote that law of, err... oh yeah, Blaauw.

 

Established technology tends to persist in spite of new and superior technology.

 

But yeah, your logic of judging by IQ is bullshit, Spark. IQ tests mean nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I posted this in another thread in the general discussion section, but I figure it fits in here.

 

"The only way I imagine you would be able to test a tulpa would be to measure the rate of serotonin/dopamine transporters removing the respective chemical from the synapse in multiple areas of the brain when introduced to specific stimuli. In a normal brain without a tulpa, the amount of inhibitory neurotransmitters being removed and reintroduced to the synaptic cleft should remain at a near constant in response to stimuli in all areas being measured. But with a tulpa, the amount of chemicals binding to receptors should vary largely between the areas processing your tulpa, and the areas processing your thoughts and feelings.

 

The only exception to this rule would be if someone has bipolar or any form of manic-depressive disorder, since inhibitory neurotransmitter transporters are essentially broken since they don't respond to stimuli properly, and will send out mass amounts of inhibitory neurotransmitters, which is what causes the extreme mood swings.

 

Of course I may be wrong, since there hasn't been any published reports of experiments run on people with tulpas."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already have an idea for a test that helps affirm the concept of parallel processing with people and their tulpa that isn't as intense as the ones I've seen previously suggested.

 

First you need a person with a tulpa, both need to have a rudimentary basis in mathematics and you need to give the person a pencil and paper.

 

Give the person a semi-complicated multiplication problem. 4957*345 would be an example, tell him to start it immediately.

While watching him write this out on the paper, instruct the tulpa to do a simpler problem; "Multiply 54 and 7" or something that the patient won't immediately be able to solve. Make sure he's consistently working on his task while the tulpa works on the multiplication problem in his/her head.

 

If parallel processing is present, then the tulpa should come up with an answer during the host's calculation. He should be right in the thick of his own multiplying when he says "The answer is 378."

 

This experiment has a couple of flaws:

One: They both need to know math. I know that shouldn't be a terrible thing, but the people I've had to talk to with tulpae for some reason or another really dislike that quality of this test.

 

Two: To gather any meaningful statistics would require a large group of willing participants, both a control group and a group with tulpae. Again, I doubt anyone can have the resources to do the following. Alternatively, one could do a before/after tulpa study, but that requires a willing group of participants who want to conduct the test, make a tulpa, and then conduct the test again. Needless to say, the likelihood of this is slim.

 

The advantages of this test, though, are pretty neat. First of all it will satisfy any personal curiosity of the host as to his tulpa's legitimacy as a 'second processor,' if you will. This experiment can be conducted by a single person and their tulpa (with a random number generator,) and the result will be black and white for that individual. As a person who hopes to one day form a tulpa, that solid evidence is all I need to be convicted of the positive qualities of possessing a tulpa.

 

 

tl;dr: this is a test that gives both a person and a tulpa a math problem to do so you can prove that the person and the tulpa work their problems out at the same time

 

If anyone with a tulpa wants to try this out with me, you can find me on the IRC, or you can just try it by yourself and tell me the results! The key is to get the tulpa to answer the question while you slave away at your own problem, you shouldn't spare a thought for the tulpa's math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My idea.

1) Show a film to person, with instructions to the problem (Maths? Otherwise?) to the Tulpa, subliminally. Tulpa should up on it. Host should not.

2) Ask the person to cound out loud from 284 (or something stupid) downwards, in multiples of three. (284, 281, 278 etc...)

3) As soon as the Tulpa has figured the answer, the host should shout it out.

 

Do this with samples of people with and without tulpas. If noone is picking up the sublims at the start, increase length of exposure (500ms perhaps? Processable, but only just.)

 

Evidence of tulpae would mean a consistantly quicker speed at solving, while host is chanting.

 

Before trials, take a sample of a few hundred tupla-less people (with a similar mean IQ to the averege of Tulpa paricipants. I have a feeling that Tulpa people tend to be people with slightly higher than averege IQ than normal. I mean, we're sat here discussing psychology, rather than gossiping about how we got drunk last weekend. It's worth a Hypothesis test in itself that.) and find the mean time it takes tulpa-less people to do it. Repeat with a smaller sample (because there's not many of them) of people with Tulpas. See if the mean is isgnificantly better.

 

Opinions?

 


 

EDIT:

Also,

An imaginary friend is pretend-play, like that of a child; a tulpa is supposedly a self-induced complex fully sensual hallucination that is perceived to operate, at least partly, functionally separate from a person's own consciousness.

Which is the same thing, right? Someone's obviosuly never studied hypnosis.

"What did you do today?" "Oh, you know, got called a hater by a schizophrenic's marijuana-fueled wolf hallucination." "Righteous!"

 

I call her Philos. My BLOG is updated daily.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...