Guest ramalama77 November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 Oh, I have a feeling you won't have to wait long to find out. Ha, apparently not! Yowzah...
Riku Aotsuki November 30, 2012 Author November 30, 2012 I got suggestions to move this... How? Sorry, kinda new to this.
hakase November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 This thread doesn't need to be moved. You're just asking us a question, don't sweat it. The answer to this question depends on which school of thought you follow: Physical (Psychiological, Biological, etc) or Metaphysical. People who think that tulpae only exist in your mind as a separate personality or even just different neurons will say that it is impossible for anyone but you to see your own tulpa as you do. People who think that tulpae exist as metaphysical beings outside of the body will say that it is totally and completely possible for another person to see your tulpa exactly as you do. You might want to do some reading on both schools of thought to decide which one you think is right, because tulpae have many different pros and cons depending on whether you believe your tulpa is inside or outside of your head. Edit: Oh, it seems like you'd prefer metaphysical. Check out that section of the forum, I'm sure you'll find some relevant threads. "Give a man a Truth, and he will think for a day. Teach a man to Reason, and he will think for a lifetime." -Phil Plait
FalseTriangle November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 It really makes my tulpa mad when she can't get my dog's attention lol. If everybody is thinking alike, then someone isnt thinking.
MrNinetails79 November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 Hey y'all, another noob here but just want to make a couple points to the scientists - firstly, science is just another belief system, a way of seeing things and science itself is already figuring out that objectivity doesn't exist and that consciousness seems to be the driving force in collapsing the wave form. Secondly, the tibetans seem to be the earliest practitioners of tulpaforcing, and they fully understood that Tulpae that were given enough will energy/force/whatever could be seen and fully interacted with by other humans or animals - considering they were practicing this technique for centuries before we discovered it, don't you think it might be just a tad presumptuous to declare that there is no way this is possible? "be very careful what you choose to believe about the Universe around you - it is that way." Namaste y'all :-) Sam
Slushie November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 The tibetans were wrong. People have practiced voodoo for centuries too; they're also wrong. Really what we're doing here is pretty loosely based on the tulpa of the Tibetans. Well, most of us. And "science is just another belief system" is ridiculous. Science is a system of organizing knowledge based on testable observations and hypotheses. There's no belief inherent in it at all. Just knowledge. Astral project on my face, brother!
MrNinetails79 November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 My point exactly, Slushie. So tell me, my friend, have you tested the hypothesis that Tulpae - if given sufficient will-energy - can become visible? Have you done what any good scientist should do and tested the hypothesis yourself, so that you have direct personal experience? Yes, I know what many science-lovers might answer here - "I can't go around testing every single bit of theory for myself, just so that I have personal experience that it is true. I'd never get anything done!" But a true scientist really ought to do just that, if the claim that science is based on experiential evidence is to be trusted. And thus, hoist by their own petard, if they wish to not be hypocritical, then they should remain agnostic - on everything - unless and until their personal experience proves otherwise. This is the true scientific method - which, incidentally, I am all in favour of. Now, considering that the small amount of evidence, gleaned by those that have actually gone and studied in Tibet, seems to be in favour of the hypothesis in question - as someone who claims to be a scientist, can you in good faith say they are wrong? Have you gone and personally studied under a Tibetan monk for several years? Until you have done just that, as a scientist you can only really say "I don't know." Anything else is arrogant hypocrisy. As for science having "no belief inherent in it at all"..... Have you been keeping abreast of the latest quantum physics ideas? You might be pretty surprised at the "evidence" that is throwing up. Namaste Sam Addendum to last post: when the vast majority of people who follow science say "well, there is absolutely no evidence that X is true" what they usually mean is "well, someone else who isn't me has done all the work of testing this idea, X, and they tell me there is no evidence for it". Last time I checked, this is what is called anecdotal evidence, and no scientist worth the title would ever rely upon that. They would test it for themselves. Namaste Sam
QB2 November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 The above post does not contain facts. q2's the host, QB's the tulpa.
justanotherguest November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 Collective hallucination is a scientifically proven fact. On the other hand, what if you are using false interpretations of tibetian's teachings to make your statements? Tibetians actually teach very practical things, maybe in their own terms, but they teach practical things which can be described in terms of modern science. Don't make mistake using your own definitions of words when talking about tibetian teachings, without learning what they meant in reality. They didn't have modern words to describe their teachings, but it doesn't mean they describe something unreal. Just because you name hypnosis a "eyexraymagiccontrol" it doesn't change fact that its hypnosis and it exists(and used by scientists).
MrNinetails79 November 30, 2012 November 30, 2012 Lol QB2 are you referring to mine, or Slushie's? If to mine, please show me where? Here here justanotherguest - and if everyone collectively hallucinated ones Tulpa, who's to say it isnt real? According to collective experience, which is the only thing we really have to go on, it's as real as that we all collectively see the moon floating in the sky. And before anyone asks, no - I don't know that the moon is a small planet that orbits the Earth. All I experientially know for sure is that I see it up there in the sky - until I go up in a rocket and land on it, that is all I can honestly be sure of. And THAT is Science, folks. Lol I'm not angry but I have got a bit fed up with Science being given a poor name by people who don't seem to actually understand what being a scientist requires of them.
Recommended Posts