Formulas for measuring aspects of the Tulpa phenomenon

[Cinemaphobe]

Hi. I'm silently regarded as the rambler of this community. Nice to meet you.

I have a really nagging feeling that some, if all aspects of the tulpa phenomenon can be represented by formulas. Let me explain.

 

Numbers have aided mankind since time immemorial. In the beginning, we used numbers for counting. But counting evolved into the measurement of things that can be perceived, which evolved into assigning measurements and numbers to concepts that cannot be perceived. Take gravity for example. It is invisible, and can be measured physically and mathematically using all kinds of formulas, but it is still regarded as a theory. A lot of what we know about the universe was discovered by math and logic alone and since we have absolutely no technology or scientists willing to study the brain with hands-on equipment, we'll have to discover this aspect of our minds with math and logic alone.

 

 

Newton calculated the orbital paths of the planets within our solar system by observation and math alone. Hundreds of years later, all of his calculations were proven by technology that didn't exist in his time. If he could calculate the orbital paths with logic and math alone, why can't we use logic and math to illustrate certain aspects of the tulpa phenomenon? One could say that a psychological phenomenon can't be represented by math but I beg to differ. I already succeeded in converting degrees of imposition into numbers, so what if other things can be converted into numbers? Like the realism of a wonderland? Or the difficulty one has in creating a tulpa? Or the loudness of a tulpa's voice relative to the loudness of everyday sounds? If they can be converted into numbers, then formulas can be made. Even if the formulas can't be used practically, they can still represent things about the tulpa phenomenon that can be expressed logically.

 

 

I'm going to work with my tulpa to attempt to convert more qualities of the tulpa phenomenon into formulas and equations, so I'll update this thread when I make discoveries.

[Stevie]

I'm not sure how useful it would be to apply numbers to something that's subjective. Psychology is considered one of the softest sciences around, and when people start applying numbers to soft sciences, that's when the allegations of pseudoscience come out, because it's seen as trying to apply some kind of objectivity to something that's... not. It's one thing to use numbers to make statements about a group (statistics) and it's another to apply numbers to something that doesn't need them, just for the sole purpose of trying to give scientific weight to something.

 

Things start getting a little dicey when you apply measurements to something that's really not measurable, and then start using these numbers like they're concrete. Eventually you're going to apply numbers to everything, and as the leaps of logic and gaps in observable data vs subjective experience build up, everything's going to mean less and less.

 

Newton being able to calculate the orbital paths is one thing, because that's an external and observable occurrence. Things like loudness of a tulpa's voice s the loudness of everyday sounds could be affected by so many different things, like the loudness of someone's thoughts to begin with and physical hearing.

 

Applying numbers to things that really can't be qualified, for the sole purpose of something other than everyone being on the same page with description (which is what I had assumed your scale of imposition was) just seems like a far reaching attempt to try and create hard science where it just doesn't exist, dude.

[sushi]

You may be interested in the VVIQ.

[Luminesce]

The problem with this is that the numbers will always be skewed, as judgements differ and infinite confounding factors hurt the validity of any particular datum. For example, the loudness of a tulpa's voice is coming from your mind, not through your ears. So people will interpret that differently. I can hear my tulpas talking normally with construction going on next to me, and sometimes if I haven't talked to them in a while or just woke up seconds ago they seem loud but feel quiet.

 

The short rebuttal is: external things have physicality of some kind, but those of our mind have yet to be understood with strict science. And I think if we ever do understand the mind, things like your degrees of imposition scale will be too-simple and lack too many factors to be useful. Nothing short of reading minds and storing that information is going to work with hard science.

 

 

Not that there's anything wrong with doing this type of thing just to give a sense of general scale. The imposition scale is useful and others could be too. But when you get to "If they can be converted into numbers, then formulas can be made.", I feel they're being stretched too far. You can do math with them, but they'll mean next to nothing, and though you may understand that, it's dangerous to do so as many won't. If too much faith is put into those seemingly solid numbers, problems start arising when results don't align with them.

 

Or something. Nothing wrong with representing tulpastuff with numbers, but the further you extrapolate with them the less accurate they are.

[Cinemaphobe]

 

Things start getting a little dicey when you apply measurements to something that's really not measurable, and then start using these numbers like they're concrete. Eventually you're going to apply numbers to everything, and as the leaps of logic and gaps in observable data vs subjective experience build up, everything's going to mean less and less.

 

It's not going to mean less and less if you use only subjective qualities in the formula relative to that person. For example, the sound of a tulpa relative to the host's environment, which is all relative to the host, limits all of the formulas to subjectivism. Seeing that every variable in each formula would be relative to the host, you can prevent leaps of logic completely by avoiding the usage of uniform constants amongst people using the equations. In other words, one person might have a+b=c while another might have b=c-a. The equations are different, the variables are the same, and the values of those variables are also different. Everybody is happy--certain personal facts can be cautiously concluded with the results of the equations.

 

Newton being able to calculate the orbital paths is one thing, because that's an external and observable occurrence. Things like loudness of a tulpa's voice s the loudness of everyday sounds could be affected by so many different things, like the loudness of someone's thoughts to begin with and physical hearing.

 

And this all goes into the relativity I mentioned. Since this is a subjective matter affected by countless variables, the value of each variable is dependent on the person themselves.

 

 

Applying numbers to things that really can't be qualified, for the sole purpose of something other than everyone being on the same page with description (which is what I had assumed your scale of imposition was) just seems like a far reaching attempt to try and create hard science where it just doesn't exist, dude.

 

My scale of imposition was the first step towards my goal. I converted something tulpa-related into hard numbers. You can draw vast correlations from the numbers derived from the scales, and create graphs of progress when doing a particular thing.

 

 

The problem with this is that the numbers will always be skewed, as judgements differ and infinite confounding factors hurt the validity of any particular datum.

 

There doesn't have to be confounding factors if you keep the math relative to the person and the values subjective. The tulpa phenomenon is completely subjective, so the math will have to mirror it perfectly.

 

 

For example, the loudness of a tulpa's voice is coming from your mind, not through your ears. So people will interpret that differently. I can hear my tulpas talking normally with construction going on next to me, and sometimes if I haven't talked to them in a while or just woke up seconds ago they seem loud but feel quiet.

 

The decibels of the construction site can be measured. Then a rough estimate made by the host using a definitive mental scale (that has yet to be created) can be used to compare the decibels of the construction site, to the mental decibels experienced by the host. I'll just assign the term mental decibels to sound levels experienced in the brain relative to the listener.

 

And about the waking up part, the haze of unconsciousness can also be used as a variable in all of this.

 

The short rebuttal is: external things have physicality of some kind, but those of our mind have yet to be understood with strict science. And I think if we ever do understand the mind, things like your degrees of imposition scale will be too-simple and lack too many factors to be useful. Nothing short of reading minds and storing that information is going to work with hard science.

 

The whole 'yet to be understood' portion of this paragraph is the entire purpose for the creating the equations in the first place. External things do have physicality--great--we can use that in comparison to mental aspects we cannot technologically measure in isolation.

 

The degrees of imposition scale are meant to be simple. Complexity involves conclusions that assume objectivity which cannot be proven, and methods that are based on said objectivity. The scale is meant to be a rough estimate to assign numbers that weren't there to begin with. The irrational number pi serves almost the same purpose.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with doing this type of thing just to give a sense of general scale. The imposition scale is useful and others could be too. But when you get to "If they can be converted into numbers, then formulas can be made.", I feel they're being stretched too far. You can do math with them, but they'll mean next to nothing, and though you may understand that, it's dangerous to do so as many won't. If too much faith is put into those seemingly solid numbers, problems start arising when results don't align with them.

 

The only things that can possibly be solid are the formulas themselves.

Every value involved in the formula however, would be subject to the host. This keeps the formulas from becoming extraneous and keeps the information solid for the host, which is the entire purpose of this concept. I didn't think that I would have to revise the title of this thread to "Formulas for measuring aspects of the Tulpa phenomenon relative to the host" because I assumed that everyone would infer that from common sense. Perhaps if you extrapolated the data derived from the equations, you could find some significant trends, but keep in mind that the trends themselves are still on the border of truth and fallacy. The entire endeavor of using math to define aspects of the tulpa phenomenon is meant to be taken with a massive grain of salt in order to discover things about ourselves and tulpas in the absence of technology.

 

 

EDIT: Soft numbers for a soft subject lead to concrete information that differ from individual to individual as the Tulpa phenomenon itself does.

[Luminesce]

There doesn't have to be confounding factors if you keep the math relative to the person and the values subjective.

 

Well that pretty much invalidates all of my arguments. Go for it.

[Stevie]

EDIT: Soft numbers for a soft subject lead to concrete information that differ from individual to individual as the Tulpa phenomenon itself does.

 

Aight, I see what you're saying now. I'm still a little skeptical when it comes to applying numbers to quantify subjective things that are probably easier explained, but I can see the usefulness that can come with getting everyone on the same page. Seems like a hell of a lot of work for a system that people might still shy away from, though.

[Cinemaphobe]

 

Aight, I see what you're saying now. I'm still a little skeptical when it comes to applying numbers to quantify subjective things that are probably easier explained, but I can see the usefulness that can come with getting everyone on the same page. Seems like a hell of a lot of work for a system that people might still shy away from, though.

 

I understand your skepticism--as well as Reisen's. In fact, you and Reisen had such good arguments that I'm considering the possibility of being wrong about my entire argument. However, I still stand by my argument, and in time the truth will be revealed if I can accurately convert some aspect of the tulpa phenomenon into a formula. And if I succeed, I'll bring it to this thread to have you and Reisen analyze it to make sure that I actually succeeded.

[Luminesce]

Don't worry, I'd be the first to tell you if what you were doing was complete BS. But that's because I know you'd appreciate it, and care for the scientific method. Sometimes people seem like they'd rather keep their suspension of disbelief, so I only lightly prod or explain and give them a choice. You'll get no sympathy from me. I fight for my friends. (Wait, you don't play video games..)

[nlc11]

Nice to meet you.

I don't think that formulae or calculation is possible within the realm of psychology since, as pointed out by others in this thread, is a subjective subject. We can't measure a value with units, so any kind of formulae would be pointless since it would only, at best, return a number with no meaning in the real world.

Saying that, I would encourage the development of a scale for everything we possibly can. A scale for how 'complete' a tulpa is, a scale for how autonomous &c. These are very useful in psychology since they allow for categorisation of the phenomena and make studying it quite easy. The CSI scale looks great to me!