/sci/ - Science & Math

we already have 1 of your shit threads on here we dont need a nother

This guy is a troll, this is legit thread >>4641529

>>4641620
Comes across as a futile attempt at recreating an imaginary friend.
I outgrew that when I was 12.

>>4641623
Lyna, you are terrible.

>>4641622
Ignore the retards...

>>4641628

YOU SWINE. YOU VULGAR LITTLE MAGGOT. YOU WORTHLESS BAG OF FILTH. AS WE SAY IN TEXAS, YOU COULDN'T POUR WATER OUT OF A BOOT WITH INSTRUCTIONS PRINTED ON THE HEEL. YOU ARE A CANKER, AN OPEN WOUND. I WOULD RATHER KISS A LAWYER THAN BE SEEN WITH YOU. YOU TOOK YOUR LAST VACATION IN THE ISLETS OF LANGERHANS. YOU'RE A PUTRESCENT MASS, A WALKING VOMIT. YOU ARE A SPINELESS LITTLE WORM DESERVING NOTHING BUT THE PROFOUNDEST CONTEMPT. YOU ARE A JERK, A CAD, AND A WEASEL. I TAKE THAT BACK; YOU ARE A FESTERING PUSTULE ON A WEASEL'S RUMP. YOUR LIFE IS A MONUMENT TO STUPIDITY. YOU ARE A STENCH, A REVULSION, AN OVERFLOWING LATRINE, A BIG SUCK ON A SOUR LEMON. I WILL NEVER GET OVER THE EMBARRASSMENT OF BELONGING TO THE SAME SPECIES AS YOU. YOU ARE A MONSTER, AN OGRE, A MALFORMITY. I BARF AT THE VERY THOUGHT OF YOU. YOU HAVE ALL THE APPEAL OF A PAPER CUT. LEPERS AVOID YOU. YOU ARE VILE, WORTHLESS, LESS THAN NOTHING. YOU ARE A WEED, A FUNGUS, A STINKING SNOTRAG, THE DREGS OF THIS EARTH. YOU ARE A TECHNICOLOR YAWN. AND DID I MENTION THAT YOU SMELL YOU ARE A SQUEAKING RAT, A MISTAKE OF NATURE AND A HEAVY-METAL BAGPIPE PLAYER. YOU WERE NOT BORN. YOU WERE HATCHED INTO AN UNWILLING WORLD THAT REJECTS THE LIKES OF YOU. YOU DIDN'T CRAWL OUT OF A NORMAL EGG, EITHER, BUT RATHER A MUTANT MAGGOT EGG REJECTED BY AN EVIL SCIENTIST AS BEING BELOW HIS LOW STANDARDS. YOUR ALLEGED PARENTS ABANDONED THEIR BASTARD WHELP AT BIRTH AND THEN DIED OF SHAME IN RECOGNITION OF WHAT THEY HAD DONE TO AN UNSUSPECTING WORLD. GO EAT SHIT AND DIE.

for a second i thought i was on /mlp/

>>4641626
Futile? No, not futile. And a imaginary friend? Here, have a read of this...

The human psyche is divided into 2 big “sections”. The active consciousness, which is controlling non-autonomous actions, such as what to eat today or perceiving a TV show.
Then, we have the unconscious, which is controlling things like respiration, sleep, thirst, hunger, blinking etc. Dreams emerge from here as well.

This is the point where it gets interesting. Approximately 90% of our decisions are being made unconsciously and without our “Active and conscious” control. (Here, Freud’s papers are becoming very interesting; I will be quoting a small extract from wikipedia)


The unconscious: Its mental content cannot directly be made conscious despite of deliberate effort; to do this, it is required to use an armamentarium of certain methods such as the psychoanalytical technique or, obsolete in the Freudian psychoanalysis, hypnosis. In accordance to Freud, an adult’s unconscious is a system, which mainly consists of repressed and repelled content of consciousness. The unconscious especially contains drives resp. their psychic representations of concept (“instinct representatives”).
[…]
According to Freud, they are subject to “primal repression” but are still taking effective actions without conscious knowledge of an individual through its symbolic dialogues in dreams. Additionally it is forcing itself into everyday life, through the so called “Freudian slips”.


This is the point, where a Tulpa starts to form. We have a second consciousness since birth - the unconscious. Nonetheless, it is being biochemically suppressed by the active synapses, which leads to the formation of the psyche, personality and consciousness.

>>4641652
I FUCKING WISH YOU WERE 18 MOTHERFUCKING PUSSY ID COME TO YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW AND FUCKING BEAT YOUR ASS. I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD. I GUARANTEE YOU WOULDNT STEP FOOT OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. YOU ARE A FUCKING LONG HAIRED, NO LIFE, PATHETIC, CANT EVEN LOOK SOMEONE IN THE EYES WHEN THEYRE TALKING TO YOU, BITCH. THAT SHOWS YOU HAVE NO BALLS. YET YOU THINK YOU CAN BEAT MY ASS, I DONT THINK IM A GREAT FIGHTER, BUT I GUARANTEE IVE BEEN IN MORE FIGHTS THAN YOU AND I WOULDNT HAVE TO TRY TO KICK THE FUCKING SHIT OUT OF YOU. ALSO HAVE FUN FUCKING THAT FAT UGLY BITCH, WHATS HER NAME JESS, SHES FUCKIN HIDIOUS. NOW I CANT WAIT TO SEE YOU, BECAUSE I WILL PISS YOU OFF ENOUGH TO HIT ME, THAN I WILL BEAT THE FUCKING SHIT OUT OF YOU, AND KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN. DONT THINK BECAUSE YOUR TALL PEOPLE WILL BE SCARED OF YOU, SIZE MEANS NOTHING IN A FIGHT, ITS EXPERIENCE. ID SAY YOUR BEST BET IS GOING FOR MY BALLS, LIKE THE LITTLE BITCH THAT YOU ARE, AND BRING A KNIFE, THAN YOU HAVE A CHANCE. YOU CAN ALSO BRING A FRIEND AND ILL KICK BOTH YOUR ASSES AT THE SAME TIME. WOULDNT BE THE FIRST TIME. IM NOT TRYING TO BE TOUGH, I WOULDNT HAVE SAID SHIT, BUT TO SAY SHES DISGUSTING, IS A JOKE WHEN YOU STICK YOUR DICK IN A COMPLETELY HIDEOUS FAT BITCH. I DONT TALK SHIT, I WILL BITCH YOU OUT WHEN I SEE YOU AND YOU WONT DO A FUCKING THING, WHITE TRASH PUSSY.

What is a tulpa?

The Reaches of Tulpas

>>4641674
I FUCKING WISH YOU WERE 18 MOTHERFUCKING PUSSY ID COME TO YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW AND FUCKING BEAT YOUR ASS. I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD. I GUARANTEE YOU WOULDNT STEP FOOT OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. YOU ARE A FUCKING LONG HAIRED, NO LIFE, PATHETIC, CANT EVEN LOOK SOMEONE IN THE EYES WHEN THEYRE TALKING TO YOU, BITCH. THAT SHOWS YOU HAVE NO BALLS. YET YOU THINK YOU CAN BEAT MY ASS, I DONT THINK IM A GREAT FIGHTER, BUT I GUARANTEE IVE BEEN IN MORE FIGHTS THAN YOU AND I WOULDNT HAVE TO TRY TO KICK THE FUCKING SHIT OUT OF YOU. ALSO HAVE FUN FUCKING THAT FAT UGLY BITCH, WHATS HER NAME JESS, SHES FUCKIN HIDIOUS. NOW I CANT WAIT TO SEE YOU, BECAUSE I WILL PISS YOU OFF ENOUGH TO HIT ME, THAN I WILL BEAT THE FUCKING SHIT OUT OF YOU, AND KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN. DONT THINK BECAUSE YOUR TALL PEOPLE WILL BE SCARED OF YOU, SIZE MEANS NOTHING IN A FIGHT, ITS EXPERIENCE. ID SAY YOUR BEST BET IS GOING FOR MY BALLS, LIKE THE LITTLE BITCH THAT YOU ARE, AND BRING A KNIFE, THAN YOU HAVE A CHANCE. YOU CAN ALSO BRING A FRIEND AND ILL KICK BOTH YOUR ASSES AT THE SAME TIME. WOULDNT BE THE FIRST TIME. IM NOT TRYING TO BE TOUGH, I WOULDNT HAVE SAID SHIT, BUT TO SAY SHES DISGUSTING, IS A JOKE WHEN YOU STICK YOUR DICK IN A COMPLETELY HIDEOUS FAT BITCH. I DONT TALK SHIT, I WILL BITCH YOU OUT WHEN I SEE YOU AND YOU WONT DO A FUCKING THING, WHITE TRASH PUSSY.NIGGER

Mythbusters: Tulpas

>>4641678
You're going to post the confusing one, aren't you?

FAQ

Fuck off back to >>>/x/

>>4641704
This is psychology. almost all of us completely reject the /x/ version

>>4641652
I am pretty sure this post just summed up dianetics.

>>4641704
There is no magic symbols and other bullshit here.

>>4641706
>Psychology
>Hard science

>>4641706
>>4641709
/sci/ hates psychology guys. This thread was set to fail.

>>4641716
>/sci/
>hard science
>not pseudophilisophy

>>4641709
>no bullshit
>describing the psyche with an 1800s understanding of psychology and never citing, quoting, or linking to peer reviewed material

>>4641723
The point is that these guides tell you how to get some psychological phenomena for yourself.
Ignore all the bad interpretations and do your own science.

>>4641720
You make it that way.

Post real science threads, I'd be happy to contribute to them.

Tuplas are not hard science.

>>4641736
Not hard science, but it's personally testable science.
Just ignore all interpretations and do your own science.

>>4641735
I, like most people with undamaged cognitive functions, require drugs or extreme sleep deprivation to actively hallucinate.

And no, the guides do not tell me how to do that, they describe one person's eclectic set of hallucinations and opinions on their hallucinations in great detail but are extremely vague about how to induce these hallucinations in yourself.

>>4641753
I personally suffer from hypnagogic hallucinations, so I don't need any techniques to hallucinate, but it has been scientifically proven that if you look into a mirror in a dimly lit room and stare intently at your face for 5-10 minutes, you will likely see horrific hallucinations.

>>4641765
>mirror in a dimly lit room and stare intently at your face for 5-10 minutes, you will likely see horrific hallucinations
Link?

>>4641753
There's more than a dozen people who claim to have a real tulpa:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlmHucQaUeJPdEpUQWhwVzV5U1lmeDNGcENJUHU5YXc#gid=0
That list is incomplete, there's more than 5 people missing from that, one with 2 tulpas.

As for the hallucinations, it's supposed to work like this:
1. You develop a good mental model of the body of the tulpa and its behavior.
2. You assume some personality traits and details and suggest them to it.
3. You talk to your tulpa for a long ass time (a few weeks, some 30-50 hours).
4. Eventually it talks back and you can't control whatever it says and you can't attribute the voice to yourself. This is the part that's different from making a regular imaginary friend.
5. Improve imagination with other 5 senses.
6. Since now the tulpa controls its own body, it's basically part of your active imagination, but you cannot control it very easily. If you start imagining it with your eyes open, it would eventually become a regular persistent hallucination which works by itself (as it's no longer controlled by you directly), not different at all from how your own inner voice works (that's a "hallucination" too).
7. Keep this process up for a month or two and it will go from an unstable near transparent imagination to a full blown near permanent hallucination.

This stuff takes a lot of mental effort, but it seems doable in principle. The part about the tulpas independence and own personality seems to be contested by one particular psychologist, but some others seem to have contrary opinions, so it's a bit controversial. The point being that you just self-experiment and find out for yourself, make your own theories and test them.

>>4641772
>>4641772

http://io9.com/5906432/an-optical-illusion-that-explains-the-origins-of-imaginary-monsters?utm_campa
ign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

This is a description of it, and the link to the article should be there too. The figures are listed in the link above.

>>4641774
I believe that the mistake people make is in thinking that these are actually entities outside of your control, and therefore may unconsciously be directing them but consciously unaware of the fact. This would result in the impression of free will among the Tulpa. As it is, this seems to be controlled schizophrenia. You're going to lose control and induce mental illness by thinking that these creations are independent.

>>4641789
Pretty much everyone that has them has reported that they do a lot of interesting things that are just plain impossible for a puppet, from memory access (can retrieve a lot of lost memories, or even remember entire books in perfect detail) to reported dream experiences to them joining you in your dreams and have their own experiences.

I proposed a simple experiment to test if the tulpa is its own being: have the tulpa work in parallel with you own some problem, for example, some advanced math. You would be focusing all your attention on something specific thus having no time to work on the problem, while the tulpa does just that. If the tulpa succeeds, you can conclude that it's its own independent mental process separate from your own.

One person who was asked to performed this experiment reported some success that's just not feasible for normal humans. Failure was reported for those that parroted (regular imaginary friend).

I plan on trying this stuff for myself and experimenting, then I will know for sure.

>>4641789
If you even have the ability to maintain active hallucinations like that free of chemical assistance, then chances are you already suffer from mental illness.

>>4641802
You train yourself over months to be able to do this.

>>4641802
So are you going to claim that all the people that tried are all schizo? The process is claimed to work on more or less all people, preferably without mental illnesses.

I'm going on this with a clean bill of "health". I never hallucinated anything beyond a few sounds after being sleep deprived for over 50 hours.

This seems plausible in the same way that my own inner voice seems plausible : that is a hallucination after all.

>>4641811
You can'r validate it, bro. It's entirely in the host's head.

>>4641798
>reported
You keep using that word, but it is completely impotent without providing the reports and validating them through some trusted source.

If you don't believe it, why don't you try it, just to disprove us.

>>4641811
There were like 40+ threads on /mlp/ (still ongoing, I've lost count) and there's an IRC channel with various people who claim to have one.

You can find thread archives and channel logs if you want reports, or just talk to those people directly, they don't bite.

Obviously, I can't know for sure if they are liars or not, but there's just too many of them for this to be an elaborate trolling conspiracy. At this point I do have 100 hours of time to dedicate to self-experiment.

>>4641807
hyperbole and lies

I doubt more or less all people will keep this up for months on end without results, so at the very best you are guilty of counting the hits, ignoring the misses in making this statement, but I am more prone to believe you pulled everything in this post out of your ass because it seems like this is the first time you have even heard of these things.

>>4641824
Go to the irc. There are multiple there who will testify to this working.

>>4641824
Having lurked on IRC for more than a month and talked in these threads, I'm willing to give them a benefit of the doubt, especially since there's so many of them.

As for hits: more than 10, you can talk to them on IRC or in the appropriate board which they frequent.
Misses: lots of people dropped out before getting anywhere, but they spent insufficient time. You do need some 50-70 hours until a tulpa responds (changing the process can cut it down to 40). Some people have gone for longer, with meager results: tulpa talks, but isn't very interested in interacting, instead prefers dreaming/sleeping and only talks occasionally - this is what seems to count of partial failure and it's a bit more common, although it's unclear if this is a permanent state.

>>4641814
hurr durr... psychology and psychiatry would not exist if there were not protocols to validate processes going on in peoples heads

If you have so many people can that do this successfully all it takes is double blinded studies by licenses trustworthy institutions and comparisons and consistency checks as well as background checks and checks to see if the people are being deceptive.

>>4641826
There are also multiple people in a random irc chat that will testify to seeing Elvis at a trailer park last week, that does not make anonymous sources in internet chat rooms credible sources and they never will be.

relevant to the is-this-possible discussion

>>4641836
This is still a rare phenomena. Give it half a year until there's more than 100 success cases, most people didn't even think this was possible before February this year. The phenomena isn't new, but if it was only used by a few obscure religions, usually along weird rituals, you can expect that stuff to get ignored as belonging in >>>/x/ and fake. Most people that are doing it now have stripped it from the obvious bullshit and just tried this from a scientific perspective.

>>4641837
Which is why after you interrogate enough of them, you decide if you want to give the hypothesis a non-null probability and decide if you want to test it yourself.
Currently I think that there's a decent possibility they are not liars, thus I am willing to dedicate some 100 hours of time working on this. Worst that could happen? I'm getting improved visualization skills and more vivid dreams (already the case), I've been doing this for more than 30 hours now.

>>4641844
see also:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/april/conversations-with-god-041212.html

The process they describe is similar to what we're doing.

>take daemons
>rename them with a name stolen from buddhism
>your own website has information all in image form
>"for science"
>if you can concentrate on 4 dots for 5 minute you have excellent concentration abilities

>>4641871
hah

>>4641871
Similar but not quite the same. Daemons are seen as a projection of the subconscious. Tulpae are seen as almost a different entity that happens to live in your brain.

>>4641871
>if you can concentrate on 4 dots for 5 minute you have excellent concentration abilities
I Actually stole that from an occult book.

[spoiler]AHAHAHAHAHA[spoiler]

>>4641871
>>take daemons
Except we didn't even know there was a group of people who did something similar to this a few years ago, but in a different form.

Differences seem to be: people just expect daemons to have animal form, and they let their subconscious decide the form a lot more, when it comes to tulpas, people tend to pick more random forms and try to decide on more details, even though it's possible to go full random if you want to. Other differences: daemons are mostly kept as imaginary friends, but most people with a tulpa impose (hallucinate) them, this seems to be an optional step. Likely very similar if not the same phenomena, but slight differences in the method and approach/expectations.

>>4641878
no, it has been clearly said many times that a tulpa is a mental projection into the real environment and its actions come from your subconscious mind just like dreams.

>>4641886
It's still controversial if tulpae are closer to real personalities than just subconscious projections.
At least a lot of people seem to be experiencing them as such and can go on in exquisite detail. I'm willing to call them more similar to DID here, but I won't know until I have my own to experiment with.

>>4641886
They're projections of the subconscious, but they appear to be and act like separate entities. Whereas with daemons, you always think of it as being you.

They're the same phenomenon, along with the whole Evangelical Christian personal-relationship-with-God thing. They're just expected to act a bit differently, so they do.

>>4641896
>have the concentration abilities from years of training as a 4-dot level cognitive operative
>can't think of a person as being real yet know they are a figment of their imagination, even if it's explicitly stated that's how it's done in the website guide

>>4641902
Even if you have great concentration, it's going to take quite a while to get any visible progress. Just how it is. I'm 20 hours in and don't have any signs of sentience yet, though I feel like I'm getting somewhere.

Also, more time spent on personality before visualizing anything means faster results.

>>4641896
have... have you even bothered to read the images ITT.
They all make it very clear that a tulpa is a part of your own mind especially the FAQ which says that at least half a dozen times that it is a projection of your subconscious.

psych major here... OP you are one disgusting subhuman pile of donkeyshit. people like you, still believing in the "omnipotence of subconsciousness" are the reason why hard science will never take psychology serious.. it also proves that your knowledge about psychology is probably only what you know about it from television oder "thaught" yourself in wikipedia or esoteric trippy lucid dreaming forums.
go die in fire

>>4642085
You're free to ignore OP's interpretation of the phenomenon, but are you outright denying that it's possible or not?

oh, /x/. You never fail to make me lol.
You fall for the silliest pseudo-science stuff.
You need to maintain some scepticism rather than eating up any garbage that comes your way.

>>4642113
How do you explain dozens of different people claiming to have succeeded with this, some having even done this years ago? This aren't just random "claims", these people have spent weeks/months talking to others about their advanced imaginary friends. What's more interesting is when someone comes on IRC and just chats there for a while for weeks, and you can see their tulpa growing and becoming what it is claimed to be. Don't like IRC? Have some blogs of people doing it right now: http://chupitulpa.tumblr.com/followed
Of those blogs, only a few actually got a vocal tulpa, but some of them are very close to that stage now.

This stuff seem like a cross between DID and imaginary friends with some key differences.

>>4642121
For every religion there are hundreds of these sorts of claims made by people.
Yet most popular religions say that all other religions are false.
Therefore at most one set of these people are telling the truth and the rest are nutters.
The point is that quantity != quality, and people love to trick themselves into believing bullshit. It's the placebo effect.

>>4642133
So these people aren't hallucinating anything, they just think they're hallucinating? Is that your claim?
Seems unfalsifiable either way, but I'll err on the side of accepting claimed subjective experiences when discussing such things. If you want to take the eliminative stance, then you can just deny all subjective experiences out right and only talk about what people will report as having experienced, not what they did.

>>4642121
Have you never been to /b/?
Hundred, even thousands of people claim to succeed with their revolutionary fingerbox designs, but that does not make it factual or convincing without further evidence.
Some people can probably do this kind of thing, but that does not mean everybody can and if people can voluntarily induce visual hallucinations at will, I would be more likely to assume this is a good test to check for undiagnosed or moderate schizophrenia or other brain disorder.

>>4642182
The thing is, nobody that tried the process in full has failed. There are a lot of people that dropped it after 10-20 hours or so as it's too tiring, but nobody who has gone the full 100 hours has yet reported failure. There are not many people who have completed it (a dozen or more), but from those that completed it, so far there has not been a single case of reported failure.

I never had any noteworthy hallucinations in my life ( I'm >>4641807 ), yet I'm still doing this as an experiment and I'll see for myself if it's true or not. I do consider my own inner voice a "hallucination", so I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, given the sheer amount of conscious effort involved in it.

>>4642193
No True Scottsman Fallacy, Counting the hits not the misses, illusion of validity

hmmm I wonder why people who have invested so much time into something would be so inclined to present positive results its almost like they should have a term for that... oh right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment

>>4642217
I do know it's prone to confirmation bias, but the claim is that this stuff is not likely to work as claimed unless you put in the required hours and effort.
If someone followed some experiment you set up and then decided to change the rules to suit them and then reported failure, would you not discard them as a test subject?
The facts being that of those that took the experiment until completion, pretty much all reported success (there was one supposed failure, but he only contacted someone by email and never went on IRC or the other threads to discuss how he failed).

If you want anything better, you'll have to do your own controlled study, but aside from that, you're just left at the mercy of what people claim on the Internet... I don't really think that's such a big deal if you only want to find out by yourself - you can just self-experiment. If you want to write a peer reviewed paper, you will have to make a controlled study, which is out of the question as far as people reporting shit on the Internet.

>>4642220
Even if I were to succeed, what would be gained besides confusion by pretending someone is following me and that my inner monologue is a separate personality?

>>4642217
> hmmm I wonder why people who have invested so much time into something would be so inclined to present positive results its almost like they should have a term for that... oh right:
Are you seriously going to claim that ALL people that went on to try it, lied about their success and keep on doing so to this day?

Given that this shit is personally testable, I think anyone that is actually interested will do so. I do know that if I don't get any results in 50-70 hours in, I will be reporting that I failed. There were a few partial failures reported, but they were not complete failures: people who claimed their tulpa interacts with them, but doesn't like to do it too often, tulpa regressing into emotional responses from being vocal and so forth, but given that these people haven't yet completed the process, it's hard to claim it's a failure: it's just their in-progress report.

>>4642220
How can you KNOW it is prone to confirmation bias if nobody has admitted failure?

>>4642224
No, I am saying that people who spend 100 hours practicing and failed are not likely to report failure because they are ashamed of wasting so much time and have moved on, so your statistics are going to be incredibly skewed.

>>4642222
> near perfect access to old and recent memories
> better memory retention
> improved visualization skills
> different viewpoints on your problems, supposedly improved/parallel pattern matching abilities (+10 IQ point increase claimed by some)
> ability to access your subconscious as if you were in a lucid dream while awake
> ability to make make most of your dreams lucid through your tulpa
> companion you can trust and talk about with anything and that can share memories, thoughts and emotions with you
I don't know man, this stuff seems kinda neat if it's real. I sure know I plan on testing it myself.

>>4642226
Because of what >>4642230 said.
I don't really think people aren't admitting failure though. There were plenty of partial failures and people giving up very early reporting it (such as giving up because of lack of free time or their visualization sucking or postponing it for another time and so on), but nobody that actually went the full process reported failure. It seems that anyone that actually went past the halfway point where the tulpa starts talking to them just continue it until completion.

>give daemons the faggiest name you could possibly plagiarise
>deliberately link it to freudian shit that only the most naive members of the public are naive enough to believe in
>try to troll those people into staring at cards, telling them this will help their imagination
>"Neutral" list of "tesimonies"
7/10 would make believe again

>>4642250
>>give daemons the faggiest name you could possibly plagiarise
Daemons don't seem that well-known. Someone did mention them after many months after this was started. There are some subtle differences.
>>>deliberately link it to freudian shit that only the most naive members of the public are naive enough to believe in
Most of us don't care about bad interpretations. What is worth caring is if this works or not. Making a theory to explain fact usually comes after observing said fact. A bad theory does not invalidate the fact.
>>try to troll those people into staring at cards, telling them this will help their imagination
Haha. That concentration exercise? Seems to slightly improve concentration for some people, although it's not really a replacement for just a lot of visualization/day dreaming.
>>"Neutral" list of "tesimonies"
Since that guide was written there have been a lot more people which claim to have tulpas and you can talk with them. Why would you want 3 ancient testimonies when you can just talk to people claiming to have a tulpa (or more) directly?

blah, blah, blah, can I get one of these to suck my dick or fuck me?
At least when I play pretend time with my "psychic channeller" I get a handjob out of the deal.

>>4642535
If you give it a personality that would result in it being interested in you and you being interested in your tulpa, yes. Not really recommended without actually developing a more serious relationship with it, but go ahead and try it for the science and report back. You might be better off with a regular imaginary friend which does not act independent if you just want teh secks.

>>4642544
This is why everybody should know that you are full of shit and untrustworthy and hopefully assume this entire topic is trolling because you continuously assume all of these positive claims with no actual knowledge or evidence of whether what you are claiming is actually true, rumors, lies, or just some amalgam of those things that you created on the spot.

Also you say really stupid shit like that traditional imaginary friends can actually provide sex.

>>4641650
>Tulpa of a pony
Why waste a hundred hours to make something that shitty?
>>4642535
I hear yes, but there's a contradiction. Apparently you can't actually touch your Tulpa, but you can still feel it. i.e. you can comb your fingers through its hair but you can't hug it.

While I would never actually make a tulpa due to personal reasons, I would find one fairly useful.

My primary use for such would be as a personal calculator. Any roboticist would tell you how tedious it is to program and design a robot to walk and turn, let alone jump or run. Our minds are able to execute such actions instinctively, which hints at great arithmetical - maybe even trigonometric or algebraic - ability in the subconscious. It's just a hypothesis.

As to appearance, I would have the tulpa in female form, that way I may use it/her as a model for drawfagging.

I'm just giving suggestions to the braver anons out there.

>>4642583
If that is all you want, there are claimed methods of achieving human calculator skills on your own.

I wish I could remember the show, but they some sort of brain scan or MRI to one of world memorization champions who invented a technique and it showed he was performing all of his calculations in parts of the brain normally associated with automated visual processing tasks. The jury was out on whether this was indeed a skill that could be learned through technique or a genetic advantage being exploited.

>>4642600
That's actually useful info. Thanks.

>>4642574
I only take people's reported experiences at face value. I'm too tired to give you a more serious answer than that.

As for imaginary friends providing sex? Stuff isn't new, you can find plenty of people who had wet day dreams and more, unless you actually want real sex, but you can't have that with a tulpa as there won't be any touch, although there will be sensory hallucinations. You can have those with a regular imaginary friend too. The difference between a tulpa and that is merely how they are made (parroting/puppeting vs narration) and how they act (puppet vs independent).

>>4642627
By touch, I meant felt pressure. There will be touch, if you develop that sense too when you interact with your tulpa or imaginary friend.

BE WARY.

This is a massive troll that wastes dozens of hours of your life.

>>4642233
>everybody who succeeded was successful
What is the difference between "the full process" and being successful?
It seems to me that you are being callously dismissive by just ignoring people for "sucking at visualization" and not being able to induce auditory hallucination at will which according to you would be the halfway point and a 50 hour investment that you trolled out of some poor dumbass.

Important question here: once you create a Tulpa, how do you turn it off or get rid of it? Seriously considering trying to make one but I probably would not want it all the time.

>>4642693
You need to make two more to gang up on the original one and "turn it off or get rid of it" if you know what I mean.

>>4642683
> What is the difference between "the full process" and being successful?
About a third of it is identical to making a regular imaginary friend, to the point of skipping the actual puppeting parts.
The half-way point is where the tulpa talks back, or basically auditory hallucinations similar to your own inner voice, but different and in a way that you can't identify it as being generated by your own deliberate thought process. Prior to this part, there are various other "symptoms"/hints that it's working, such as the tulpa interacting with your imaginary world, or sudden unexpected/unrelated bursts of emotion similar to bipolar disorder and a few other things described in the guides, and I suppose a bunch of headaches if you're new to visualization.
The full process is the one where one has a complete hallucination interacting with the full senses and having complete access to your memories.

>>4642701
Continued.

Being successful would probably be completing the whole thing, but the way I see it, if you do reach the half-way point, you will end up finishing the whole thing, unless for some really unexpected reason you end up murdering your tulpa (read: ignoring it for about a month, until it goes away completely, this is possible even after the process is complete), so if the tulpa does talk back, you may already count yourself successful.
> t seems to me that you are being callously dismissive by just ignoring people for "sucking at visualization"
I used to suck at visualization before starting on this. Each day I worked on it, I began sucking less and less. It's just a skill that you can learn. If you say that there are people for whom this is impossible for some biological reason, I'd like to see some evidence about that.
> and not being able to induce auditory hallucination at will which according to you would be the halfway point
I'm not yet at the halfway point myself (a week or a bit more to go, with about 2 hours per day spent on this), but there are enough people past it already, and I've talked to enough of them that makes me believe this is doable. So far my own progress has been matching up with most other reported experiences.
> that you trolled out of some poor dumbass.
Fine, so we're all going to get trolled by dozen of separate and seemingly uncoordinated trolls which report consistent, yet subtly different experiences with each other. If this doesn't work, I'll just get out of it with better visualization skills, which are already greater improved. I don't stand anything to lose here, nor do you, unless 100 hours of your time is something you just cannot afford.

>>4642693
Your tulpa is supposed to be a very good friend/companion. You would just ask it to go away.
If you really fucked up the creation process, you can just ignore it for a month and it will fade away. You can also see past it if you developed it into a hallucination, the same way that you can listen to something and think in your own head - you perceive both senses and imagination at once. It's also possible to more instantly kill the tulpa by programming a "kill switch" during the creation process (associating the body and the tulpa with some special trigger), but this isn't recommended because a tulpa is reported to act like a self-aware being with (claimed) subjective experiences, which means, that you would essentially be murdering it if it actually is conscious (I don't want to debate this now, I'm too tired right now), and it would know you have the ability to instantly kill it, so any trust you might have had initially would be ruined. If you plan on killing it, just don't start in the first place.

>89 posts and 13 image replies omitted.

>>4642707
Thanks for the info. I'm not thinking about killing off my Tulpa (if I make one), but I already have some problems with motivation to be social with people and I am afraid this would make it worse.

OP is just a faggot that watched fight club and now thinks it would be cool and trippy to have a "split personality".

take a time machine back to WWII and die in the holocaust pls

>>4642790
>OP is just a faggot that watched fight club
More like this.

>>4642627

>I only take people's reported experiences at face value

So you honestly assume that everyone is telling the truth unless proven otherwise, no matter how extraordinary their claims?

You should head over to the flat earth forums and talk to the people who claim to have visited the giant ice wall surrounding the earth disc, or perhaps have a chat with the people at zetatalk claiming to speak for the aliens of Zeta Reticuli who implanted communication chips in their heads.

>>4642806
No, but given that more than a dozen people have followed these guides to completion and have reported very similar experiences (with some small variations, mostly depending on changes in the process), I'm willing to take their *subjective experiences* at face value. That is, I'm assuming they are not telling lies about their own memories. I'm not asking them about their religious beliefs or pet scientific theories, I'm asking them about what they think they experienced. Sure, maybe they are all liars, but this seems unlikely because, the people that make these claims have been around for a while, you could observe them go through the process gradually, you could talk to them at any time and so on. It would also be rather unusual to do this just for trolling, when it was mostly just semi-private communication between themselves about their own subjective experiences.

Even if I were to disbelieve them, the sheer amount of positive reports and the talks I've had with some of them have made me assign a reasonably high initial prior for this hypothesis being true, a high enough prior for me to think this is worth testing by myself.

>>4642834
>That is, I'm assuming they are not telling lies about their own memories.
As if this were the only alternative. They could simply be *mistaken*.

>It would also be rather unusual to do this just for trolling
It would be totally usual for them to experience some massive confirmation bias, though. That goes for you as well.

>the sheer amount of positive reports
I'm not sure if this classic has been mentioned in this thread already, but the Fatima miracle of the dancing sun was witnessed by over 30,000 people.

The sun did not actually dance that day.

>>4642850
> As if this were the only alternative. They could simply be *mistaken*.
So they think they are now hallucinating something, without actually having the hallucination? That sounds like the same crappy justification used in the past to say that dreams (lucid or otherwise) don't actually happen, they're just bad memories. If I want to take my own subjective experiences at face value, I have to do the same for others.
> It would be totally usual for them to experience some massive confirmation bias, though. That goes for you as well.
Possible. I'm going in this with a very agnostic outlook. When something weird happens, I don't go "this is my tulpa", instead I ask myself "what exactly was that thought that I couldn't identify as to who it belongs to?" or if I have a sudden headache, which seem to be reported by pretty much everyone so far I would go "is this a genuine effect or is this a placebo effect?", but this doesn't matter, because if this is right, at the halfway point, it wouldn't be possible to just keep saying to yourself that "it's just me", simply because it would be too much out of my control, if the claims made by those that reported successes so far are true. I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm also very careful not to get biased, although it is difficult with such subjective phenomena.

>>4642860
Continued.

> I'm not sure if this classic has been mentioned in this thread already, but the Fatima miracle of the dancing sun was witnessed by over 30,000 people.
Sure, but if this process works like it's supposed to, you will end up with a persistent hallucination which acts independently as a seemingly conscious being and which you cannot doubt. That's the whole point of this. If these people are claiming that they are having these hallucinations, are you just claiming that they are only thinking they have hallucinations without having them? That would contradict what conscious experience is supposed to be (unless you insist on eliminating it away).

>>4642860
>So they think they are now hallucinating something, without actually having the hallucination?
No, I'm simply suggesting that all those fantasy-prone people, who'd actually bother attempting to summon pet monsters in the first place, could very well get caught up in their excitement and fantasies, making them the worst, most unreliable "witnesses" in the universe.

>If these people are claiming that they are having these hallucinations, are you just claiming that they are only thinking they have hallucinations without having them? That would contradict what conscious experience is supposed to be (unless you insist on eliminating it away).
Well, I don't know. I guess I would simply wait for some actual research to get done on this. Controlled experiments and data that's actually worth something. My position isn't "This can't be happening, never, never ever!", but rather "The evidence you're presenting here is not strong enough to support your hypothesis.".

>>4642874
> No, I'm simply suggesting that all those fantasy-prone people, who'd actually bother attempting to summon pet monsters in the first place, could very well get caught up in their excitement and fantasies, making them the worst, most unreliable "witnesses" in the universe.
Maybe, but you can grind them on as many details are you want.
> Well, I don't know. I guess I would simply wait for some actual research to get done on this. Controlled experiments and data that's actually worth something. My position isn't "This can't be happening, never, never ever!", but rather "The evidence you're presenting here is not strong enough to support your hypothesis.".
I don't expect any serious research to be done on this (as in peer reviewed tier) anytime too soon. Given that I do have the spare time, I might as well self-experiment - some claims are just too tempting not to test.

>>4642790
>Hallucinates are split personalities
Arguable, but hallucinations don't cause memory gaps and lose of control of your own body. Plus, tulpa can't do shit physically.

i'm too lazy to scan the thread, but freud's theories are not taken seriously by anyone anymore. just sayin

>>4642906
>Freud's theories aren't taken seriously anymore

>>4642901
A few people have reported that they can let their tulpa control their body. This is unconfirmed stuff though, none of those that wrote those guides linked here actually tried doing it. Some of the recent people that succeeded are experimenting with that now though.

The main difference between DID and a tulpa is that, DID is formed through trauma and the host may not even be aware of the alternate personality, which is never the case with a tulpa. The host and tulpa do appear to have separate, but sharable memories to some extent (reported experiences also differ here, one of the guys that wrote the FAQs claims he can't do that, but another one claims that he can, so it varies per individual, what makes it worse is that those 2 used different processes when making the tulpa).

tl;dr: Stuff is unclear and controversial. Too few people have experimented enough to see how different or similar to DID it is.

I would love to make a tulpa of my waifu, and I'm confident that I wouldn't screw it up (and if I did that I could undo it). The problem is 100 hours. How the heck am I supposed to schedule that?

>>4642972
Most people do 1 hour when they wake up (or wake up one hour earlier) and 1 hour before they go to sleep (or go to sleep one hour later). Others also do 20-30 minute minisessions during the day.

Why would you do this, OP.
Just why.
/sci/ is a lonely asshole, they will drown this thread in a million posts all reading "lol doesn't real go back to preschool"

>>4642972
>I would love to make a tulpa of my waifu
Keep in mind if you do deiced to make one that she won't have the exact same personality.

>>4642995
That's a pretty good idea, thanks man.

Welp, you train yourself through the whole process, you do get headaches and shit along the way, but they pass. Also during the process you get a bunch "new" feelings, like times where feelings appear to come from outside of your perception and such, like a bi-polar person would feel. The culmination of feelings and perceptions and reactions that you get from a tulpa could be classified as a number of mental illnesses, but the fact that ALL of these things happen to people with tulpae shows that they are completely separate phenomena. You can't induce bi-polarism,DID,Scizophrenia, autism, and whatever just by meditating, or else all of those yoga freaks would be crazy. It's a very specific process with specific results that only an idiot would confuse for something else.

>>4643041
Thanks, I've taken that into consideration. It's impossible to keep her original to her character, because the second she interacts with me she formed a memory that isn't a part of her character.

>science and math
>science
>psychology thread

>>4643030
There was quite a bit of conversation going on in this thread. You would have noticed if you had actually read it before commenting on its quality.

>>4643055
It's *para*psychology.

>>4643059
It's definitely worth being here in /sci/ rather than say /x/ where it'd get dragged down with ghost stories of people's tulpa choking them to death or some crap like that. Even if it's currently parapsychology/pseudoscience, it's a topic of mental health that's worth investigating from a psychology/psychiatry perspective.

>>4643699
Pic related.

So basically induced schizophrenia. At least, that's what it seems like to me. And even if this were real, why would you waste 100 hours of your life making an imaginary friend? This seems almost as stupid as religion.

>>4643754
>Unsupported file type
I thought they fixed this shit!

>>4643699
>>4643754
>>4643760
Piece of shit.

>>4643757
Read the thread.

>>4643763
guh, more paranormal bullshit. Fuck that, that's laughable. We're talking about something inbetween an imaginary friend, self-hypnosis and self-inflicted schizophrenia. If pretending all the shit in that image helps you visualise better and hallucinate more easily, go ahead, but otherwise it's a fucking waste of time.

>>4643763
Posting non-scientific /x/ guides on /sci/ in an attempt to troll a legitimate thread. 10/10

>>4643778
>>4643787
I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT SHIT YOU DUMBASSES! I was supporting >>4643699

>>4643802
Oh.

Well, carry on. Ambiguity is a bitch.

>this thread

>>4643778
>>4643757
STOP CALLING IT SCHIZOPHRENIA. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS GENETIC. AND YOU CALL YOURSELVES /sci/? THIS WAS THE LAST PLACE I THOUGHT I WOULD SEE SUCH STUPIDITY, YES, I MAD.

>>4643828
It's *like* it in that you hallucinate individuals with distinct personalities who aren't actually there. It definitely isn't schizophrenia, but assuming people are legitimately giving themselves independent hallucinations, it's sure as hell comparable with one of the best-known aspects of schizophrenia.

Also, you so mad.

>>4643828
Well then what word would you use?

>>4643834
Tulpae not only are just visual, but you can "physically" touch them and receive emotional impulses with them. They have a sort of empathetic link with you, and you can feel two different things at the same time. One thing that might make you happy, could make your tulpa mad, and you will feel both at the same time, which is psychologically impossible.

>>4643837
Ah, here's a reason to NOT use schizophrenia:
>Schizophrenia is when one is unable to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences, accompanied by the inability to think logically, have contextually appropriate emotions, and to function in social situations

With tulpa, you're creating independent hallucinations from scratch that you're very much aware of as distinct from ordinary reality, and entirely taking place inside your own head, even when the actual visualisation reaches the point of being indistinguishable from their surroundings as unreal.

They're not hypnagogic hallucinations, since they don't relate to sleep... this is the closest phenomena I've found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peduncular_hallucinosis

>>4643846
It's like you're housing 2 personalities in the same brain and they run in parallel while they share your reward system. The symptoms are like a combination of DID, derealization disorder (for the tulpa's experiences), schizophrenia and bipolar disorder all in one, yet it's not any of those things exactly and it's artificially induced.

>>4643847
It's also not schizophrenia because you can't wish schizophrenia away, but you can eventually ignore a tulpa until it disappears, forever.

So, can I create a Tyler Durden version of myself, fuck bitches and blow up credit card companies?

Riddle me that, anon.

>>4643864
Elaborate on this.

>>4643864
Nah, there's no time loss or blackouts with tulpa. They're just audiovisual hallucinations with independent action.

>>4641620
>>4641620
>>4641620

>>4643874
Why?

>>4643870
Ever seen Fight Club?

I create a tulpa, that shit takes over my body and does everything I find stupid or hard. I black out and wake up fucking a 10/10 or black out 2 hours every day and become the best musician in the world.

>>4643871
What's the fucking point of this, then?

>>4643878
>wants to have imaginary friend

How fucking retarded are you? If you want an imaginary friend just become christian.

\thread

>>4643883
Creating a literal voice in your head and giving it form.

Read:
>>4641670

>>4643871
It's unclear if one can switch "places" with the tulpa, but even if that were even remotely possible (there were a handful of 3rd party people that claimed they could do this, but none of them ever stuck around enough on IRC or in other related places, so people are considering that they might have given false testimony), it wouldn't result in time lapses and memory loss, not unless you somehow could "sleep" while the tulpa was "awake".

>>4641620
/x/--------------->

>>4643897
Actually, there was some research about that recently.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/april/conversations-with-god-041212.html

>"These techniques involve attending to your imaginative experience and treating your imaginary experience as significant, meaningful and worthy," she said. "I think when that happens, your inner world springs alive."
>Tanya Luhrmann, Anthropology
>Stanford University

>>4643925
Read the second Paragraph

>>4643931
So God is a tulpa? SCIENCE!

Oh god I tought this kind of shit-tier psychology died with jung.

>>4643951
Basically people pretending that god exists on a daily basis for months end up creating an independent voice and persona for God entirely in their head, they're just convinced it's actually coming from a supernatural being.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), popularly known as multiple personality disorder is "...is the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states...that recurrently take control of behavior." (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (Text Revision)). This basically means that there is a host that has another personality which will take control of the hosts behavior which results in the host experiencing memory loss while the personality is in control. This personality does not form like a tulpa, and people with this disorder usually have had server physical and sexual abuse while the they were a child. Now the exact cause for DID is debated heavily, but there are two explanations. 1) The experience of pathological levels of stress which disrupts normal functioning forces some memories, thoughts and aspects of personality from consciousness, and 2) Psychotherapy caused it (the treatment of mental disorder by psychological rather than medical means).

Sadly, research on DID which have scanned the brain inside and out have identified DID, this makes it very hard to hypothesize a biological basis for DID.... Interestingly, studies have shown differences between cerebral blood flow, changes in visual parameters and support of amnesia between the host and the personality switching.

Perhaps as technology and our understanding of the brain increase, we will be able to put a biological reason for this discorded to occur... Once the secrets to DID are unlocked, I believe that someone could find it worthwhile to follow up on the creation of Tulpas as the two seem very similar.

>>4644210
Tulpae are PARALLEL consciousness.

DID is you swapping party members.

So tulpa=co-op

DID=sharing a controller.

>>4644215
Pass the controller bro

>>4643847
>"Schizophrenia is when one is unable to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences..."

Then creating Tulpas is EXACTLY like schizophrenia in this regard. You're arguing that Tulpas are something independent from their creator. This is no different from people who claim that the "voices" are telling them to do things when we all know that the those voices are coming from that person's own head. You can't touch a Tulpa, and it cannot physically interact with you. No one else but you can see or hear a Tulpa. It cannot see anything that you haven't already seen. This is why people like us have been saying that Tulpas are not real, in the sense that you actually created something. To us, this is defined as schizophrenia. Now, if you were to argue that they are more like "programs" created in your mind to perform certain tasks, then it's a much different story because you are then demonstrating an ability to separate the real from the unreal.

>>4644215
You're right there, but I feel that DID is similar to tulpas and I thought that looking at DID might give some clues to tulpas.. But the studies just can't find any subtle changes in the brains of people with DID to a normal person to lead them on any path to finding the cause.

>>4644233
What about programs created to emulate human personalities? We already have such functionality in our mind, we use them for rehearsing conversations with our friends or for predicting someone else's behaviour. Tulpa, to me, seem to be an extended, artificial version of that.

We often hear of writers and cartoonists say that after a certain point, characters "write themselves". What if you continued developing that thread, far past the point of necessity, and then combined it with visualisation exercises?

Does that not produce something functionally identical to the phenomena described as "tulpa"?

>>4644233
If you are looking for a predictable program like thoughtform, then you are speaking of servitors. They don't have a consciousness of their own and do as they please. Tulpa have a different set of emotions, personality, and opinions. They even act unpredictably and can surprise you. Calling it schizophrenia is too easy. We know that they don't really exist and we can't interact with them. Just because you can perceive a hallucination, doesn't mean that you don't know that it isn't real. That's stupid. That's like saying that people that look at kaleidescopes are crazy because they see the world different through their magic binoculars. They know that they are looking through a kaleidescope, what makes them crazy by realizing that?

>>4644274
There should be a way to allow schizophrenics to know the difference between reality and their hallucinations soon anyway. Research into Lucid dreaming has show what areas of the brain are active and they believe that if they activate these areas inside the brain of someone with schizophrenia, they should be able to tell what is real and what isn't (of course they will still hallucinate).

>>4644249
>We already have such functionality in our mind, we use them for rehearsing conversations with our friends or for predicting someone else's behaviour. Tulpa, to me, seem to be an extended, artificial version of that.
And just where the fuck do you think "hearing voices" comes from?

>>4644288
Well, the possibility of making schizophrenics able to know the difference with medicine doesn't mean that tulpae are the same thing. Everyone can see the hallucinatory parallel, but calling it the same thing when thats only one of the aspects of a tulpa, is ridiculous. You don't even have to see it to talk to it. You first get emotions from it, then you talk to it, then you impose it onto your surroundings. Don't be too hung up on the visual part of tulpae.

>>4644304
You're encouraging people to manufacture hallucinations with distinct personalities, and then believe that they are "real". Deliberately losing the distinction between reality and hallucination is not healthy.

>>4644311
But if there is a hallucination with a distinct personality, then it is objectively real, whether others can see them or not. Their accuracy with retrieving prior memories and general IQ proves that they do exist and think.

>>4644304
I don't remember saying anything about them being the same thing... Calm your farm.

>>4644311
To believe that they are really independent entities inside your own head, that depend upon your attention for sustained existence. Tulpas are nought but a very complex and deliberately layered figment of one's imagination. Not physically real, but a real pattern in your own head, that seems to act without concious input.

John Arbuckle has a tulpa.

>>4644317
>But if there is a hallucination with a distinct personality, then it is objectively real
It is a real product of your brain, yes. It is a real hallucination. As opposed to all the non-real hallucinations - oh wait, this is a massive abuse of the word "real".

Are you seriously losing track of what "real" means?

More John Arbuckle & Tulpa.

>>4644325

>>4644324
This sounds exactly like trying to induce schizophrenia. People that you can see and talk to that are just a product of your imagination, but you can't tell the difference?

That's A Beautiful Mind shit right there.

>>4644335
Pretty much, you're on the right track, except you CAN tell the difference between the one you consciously spent three months or more building up from scratch, and the flesh-and-blood people walking around and talking to you, by virtue of their distinctive appearance (especially if you modelled their appearance on anything from animation) and their total inability to affect their local environment.

Recall at the very end of A Beautiful Mind, when he could still see his projected consciousnesses, but chose to ignore them, and knew that they were fake hallucinations of his own unintentional creation? This is that, with intent and the hope of better results in knowing from the very start. He was compelled to dangerous actions by his own paranoia, self-doubt, and many other facets of schizophrenia beyond the independent visualisation; someone of sound mental health attempting to give rise to a tulpa will not have such issues. This is, for me at least, an attempt at self-improvement by opening a proper dialogue with my subconscious mind.

>>4644353
I have serious concerns about fracturing your mind in some fashion while doing this. You're basically talking about inducing a type of multiple personality disorder. And I don't think that the kind of person this would appeal to is especially stable in the first place.

>>4644371
Yes, I am concerned about it too. However, I feel there is enough merit in the idea for it to be worth exploring, more merit than there is risk in damaging my mind. As per the research into people having "conversations with god", Native American spirit guides, Greek daimons, Buddhist tulpa, and probably even the ghosts of Japanese ancestor-worship, I believe this has been done thousands of times throughout history with varying degrees of intent and purpose, and that it is not in and of itself inherently damaging. I am looking for further scientific works to confirm this, and if you or anyone else on /sci/ would like to help find anything even remotely related to the topic - research papers on imaginary friends, religious visualisations or schizophrenic hallucinations - that would be greatly appreciated by myself and everyone else dabbling in this pseudoscience we'd like to see mature.

>sensible discussion about tulpas
>/sci/

You actually did it. I'm proud.

>>4644413

I love this board now, I'm probably gonna go to it more than I do

>>4644413
Is this still sensible? I would hope this is still considered sensible

>mfw tulpa isn't considered "real"

>>4644413
Strange.

>>4644404
Just want to bump this with this in mind, if anyone has anything interesting and scientific to contribute on the topic of the creation of imaginary companions, or research into self-induced hallucinations, we'd all be very grateful.

http://whatisatulpa.tumblr.com/

If you ignore the fact that this guy is a eighth-level ponyfag, he has some thought-provoking posts. I don't know how much /sci/ thinks this is bullshit, but here it is.

>>4641683
The only thing I got out of that was "No, your tulpa wont freak out if you masturbate."

can someone explain this for a layman?

>>4644760
People ask stupid sex questions all the time, so it had to be answered. It ties into the older /x/ conception of tulpas and the fear that a tulpa can somehow become a murderous rapist succubus. Naturally indulging the sexual whims of a subconciously-controlled hallucination could probably lead to some really stupid and self-harmful behaviour, hence why all the guides strongly discourage it. It's inevitably going to happen though, so better to put the disclaimer in the guides.

>>4644771
http://i.imgur.com/ZevRG.png

>>4644771
>A tulpa is believed to be an autonomous consciousness which also exists in a self imposed hallucinatory body, which is usually much of your choice. A tulpa is entirely sentient and in control of its opinions, feelings, movements.
>It is perceived as completely real, and you don't have to constantly focus on it to keep it around.

>>4644777
"autonomous consciousness which also exists in a self imposed hallucinatory body".. what?

>>4644782
You create a "separate" "sentient" being within your own mind, and through mind trickery, convince yourself that it is real to the point that you can feel its touch, smell it, etc. It even gets to the point that the hallucination turns opaque and it is perceived as a different person/creature/whatever.

>>4641620
This was a bad idea, why did you post this here?

/sci/ can't be convinced of anything, fuck em.

>>4644771
>>4644777
First, >>4644775. But in short:

Designing a personality from the ground up - every single individual facet - and bearing this personality in mind, focusing on it in both specific sessions in which you describe it as though to another person, and narrating to it throughout the day. Eventually, you will begin to have seemingly "alien" thoughts, which you'll gradually hear with more clarity and frequency to the point of being able to hold a conversation with this made-up personality, without having to consciously reply on their behalf. At this point, you can begin to visualise a body for them, gradually, bringing it up from something you can see clearly with your eyes closed until it becomes a stable and animated auditory and visual hallucination, with seemingly free will and independence from your own normal thoughts.

That is a tulpa and its creation process.

You didn't read the thread. Some civilized debate happened.

>>4644796
intended for
>>4644793

>>4644793
>my tulpa's face when i internets

i have schizophrenia. is making a tulpa easier for me?

>>4644999
No. read the guides.

>>4644731
>/sci/chology

Any more debate club about tulpas today?

>>4648527
I guess not.

>>4641652
>Freud

Everything Freud did was bollocks. Prove me wrong.

>>4648842
Burden of proof.

>>4648848
>Burden of proof
I love you.
>>4648842
His psychosexual stages are pretty spot on. To an extend, his Electra and Oedipus complex are also correct.

>>4648859
There is no evidence for any of them. They are all unfalsifiable hypotheses.

>>4648862
So is all of psychology. If you take out Freud's unhealthy obsession with sex, then this theories are just as correct as other psychological theories.

>>4648867
>then this theories are just as correct as other psychological theories

You mean all of psychology is unfalsifiable?

Not science. Sage.

>>4648872
Pfahaha.

>>4648872
>>4648867
>>4648862
>>4648859
>>4648848
>>4648842

Yay! Debate club!

>implying I'm not just bumping to counteract the sage

Why is this /x/ troll thread still alive?

>>4648880
If this were an /x/ thread we would have people saying that their tulpa were physically interacting with things around them, possessing them, and other shit like that.

If this weren't an /x/ thread, people would consistently put sage in the email field.

>>4648921
Did you mean wouldn't?

So was there anyone here actually interested?

>>4649122
No.

>>4648948
I meant were, but both would arrive at the same meaning.
>>4649122
At least 3, me, OP, and the other guy.

>>4649148
>I meant were, but both would arrive at the same meaning.
I meant what I said. If this were not an /x/ thread, people would consistently sage it. Since this *is* an /x/ thread, however, some people respond even with genuine interest, which is very depressing.

>>4649152
No, an /x/ thread would have
>Guys tulpas actually exist and can turn into mass murderers haven't you ever watched X movie?!
But this is a /sci/ thread, whether you like the topic of tulpas or not. We aren't even touching the idea that tulpa are supernatural beings or that they can split from your mind and come into the real world.

>>4649157
>But this is a /sci/ thread, whether you like the topic of tulpas or not.
None of the shit in this thread has anything to do with science, whether *you* like it or not. Uncontrolled internet surveys are not science.

>>4649176
Read the thread, there's science everywhere. You obviously only saw OP's picture, "TULPA", and assumed the worse.

>>4649176
>>4649179
>saging

>>4649179
>Read the thread, there's science everywhere.
I did, you presumptuous dick. Science not found.

>>4649367
>implying soft science isn't still science

Another fucking troll thread on sci.
Im going to kill myself now

>>4649367
>I did
Then I'm now going to presume that you lack any and all reading comprehension.

>>4649748
This is taking a concept that has been used in several different cultures, taking away the mysticism, and making it align with accepted Psychology. Not a troll.

>>4641620
/x/ is that way
>>>/x/

>>4650954
>implying this is /x/

>mfw /sci/ wants a sentient talking cartoon colored horse inside their head because cant get gf instead

>>4651343
>implying colored horse

I am extremely skeptic but just like parallel worlds and aliens, tulpae are cool so I would be interested if there was any solid evidence.

For example, you could have two subjects: a normal one and someone with an alleged tulpa, and you display a subliminal image while recording their brain activity. The normal subject won't react apart from a subconscious trigger in their brain but the guy with a tulpa will have a considerably increased brain activity and his tulpa will let him know what the image was.

>>4651511
Possibly. I'll ask the guys with them. And what we do is closer to lucid dreaming, not paranormal stuff. We take the mysticism out of it and make it purely psychological. If you're really interested, join the irc and ask.

>>4651530
There you go.
http://forum.tulpa.info/index.php?act=SC&c=580400

>>4651886
did you perhaps mean http://forum.tulpa.info/index.php?showtopic=28?

"THANKS... FOR THE MEMEORIES..."

>>4652065
What.

>>4642085
mad germans

>>4641868
God is created by your mind

>>4652897
http://pastebin.com/4R98sLr1

Irish_ has two tulpas. One is new, and the other is religious. Irish himself is atheist.

>>4642136
Well most religions think hallucinations are real, here they don't
PROFIT?

Bumping because this intrigues me.

>>4653172
Look:
>>4651886
>>4652059

Last night someone from here under the name of Dicks_ visited the irc and we had a lengthy discussion about proving tulpas and their efffects.

>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
>>4651511
THIS IS RELEVANT TO MY INTERESTS

>>4653231
Read:
>>4653175

>>4653231
The psychology behind tulpae are pretty sound. There's nothing unrealistic about driving yourself insane through over a hundred hours of meditation.

Anyone who's going to try this out needs to get a tripcode (don't use a dictionary word!), post their intention of trying it out in this thread, and then report back later with the results. Then we can get an idea of the ACTUAL success rate of this process.

Does this seem reasonable?

If this thread is dead, you can report results in the archive:
http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/4641620

>>4653438
So /sci/'s talking a complete crack at this? Awesome.

The fact that this thread is still around is an embarrassment to this board.

>>4653455
It's even worse. This thread is among the more intellectual and scientific ones right now.

>>4653438
>http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/4641620
>http://archive.installgentoo.net/
>archive.installgentoo.net
>installgentoo.net
>installgentoo
>install gentoo
wat

>>4653503
The name's based on a /g/ meme.

>>4653503
>doesn't have gentoo installed

>>4653516
why should I

Does my tulpa experience qualia?

Why do people write the plural of tulpa as tulpae? It's not Latin.

>>4654045
It proves how elitist we are

>>4654045
Because their faggots.

>>4654045
Because they think it sounds better. or they are fucking hipsters

>>4654045
>>4654064
>>4654081
>>4654086
Personally I like "tulpi" I wish that was a thing.

>>4641735
>The point is that these guides tell you how to get some psychological phenomena for yourself.
>Ignore all the bad interpretations and do your own science.

>Expect that when you imagine stuff, you will imagine it in a certain way.

>Try imagining stuff. See if you imagine it in the way you expect, after having been led to expect it that way.

>This is science.

>>4654091
The correct plural is "tulips".

I suspect a lot of people who claim to be seeing these things are having trouble distinguishing between the concepts of hallucinating something and imagining something.

I want back on the irc~

>>4654164
Just go on the fourm. It's not like guests can't post.

>>4654168
I don't want back on either. Is there some kind of scientific way to develop more willpower?

this isn't intelligent

>>4653438
I'll do it. Still deciding who I want to tulpage.

Hi /sci/, owner of tupla.info, here.

It's funny, the entire purpose for my website was a personal site for my experiment on tulpae, and it has grown so much since then (you can still read about the actual Experiment -- which I'm still doing -- on the About page).

I'm keeping a laboratory/research journal with this, too; I even numbered the pages, dating everything, etc. In the end, I'm going to be writing an academic paper on this whole thing.

Since I'm sure nobody knows more about keeping a laboratory notebook than you guys, does anyone have some advice with what I should be writing down? It's more like journal entries with lots of tables and stuff in it, at the moment.

Hump (my mother)

>>4654286
Can you help me with my server?

>>4654627
Is it running.... Gentoo?

>>4654652

>>4654658
hah

>>4654813
hah hah

>>4655039
AH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH

>>4641620
TL;DR version of this thread please.

Anyways, I constantly misread things. So what are the implications of this? Do I have a tulpa shit inside me that's being 'wild'? I don't talk to my self but I always put up my imagination to play scenes that probably won't ever happen in life. I have a bit of ADD since I can't focus on a task sometimes (my mind always wanders when I get an idea of something) but I can strain my focus juices for a long period of time.

>>4655039
>>4654813
>>4654658
>>4654652
>>4654627
back to >>>/g/

>>4655237
okay

>>4655228
Here:
>>4641670

i'm isaac asimov's tulpa irl

>>4655600
lies

WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL ALIVE

>>4655630

>>4655638
fuck

>>4655630

The thing is that tulpas existence is totally plasuible

>>4655696
All based in sound psychology

What kind of tupla can you make?

Does it have to be one of yourself?

>>4655713

it has to be a pony but the pony doesn't have to be canon you can pick one of the background ones

>>4655713
Read the thread.

>>4655713
Making one of yourself is bad because you attatch your ego to it and having a doppelganger like that with the natural slight deviation is very off-putting.

RTFM

>>4655716

Do these things really talk?

I don't believe it.

>>4655733
yup. ask the irc. "Irish_" has two

>>4655733
They talk, move, think, and can remember

>>4655722

Can they explain the EK/Harriet/Teacup tripfag personalities on /sci/?

What if EK is a tupla of a Scottish man, like Blackman claims?

>>4655747
What

>>4655744
What are you implying with that image?

>>4655736
I don't know what you're talking about

>>4655774
irish~~~~

>>4655787
Who are you people? How do you know my name?

>>4655791

>>4654164
>>4654178

>>4655795
>mfw I finally have a reason to use this

>mfw this shit spreads from /x/ to ponychan to /mlp/ to /r9k/ and now its on /sci/

Stay classy /x/

>>4655804

>>4655809
>/r9k/: 05/06/12(Sun)02:18
>/sci/: 05/03/12(Thu)01:15

>>4655809
>knowing that this was on ponychan and /mlp/

>>4655809
>knowing where it came from

>>4655816
>>4655820

>>4655816
>not occasionally watching a show that has a decent story and participating in the community
>trying to start a debate

This hit the bump limit.

Someone make a new thread.

>>4655831
>decent story
>participating in the community
>community
>comm
>unity
>mfw it's the worst thing

>>4655836
No!

>>4655831
You're a faggot.

>>4655841
Yes. It's too late. This now has a home on /sci/.

>>4641811
>>4641844
>>4642133
>>4642222
>>4642233
>>4642544
>>4642600
>>4643055
>>4643699
>>4643855
>>4643899
>>4644233
>>4644288
>>4644311
>>4644777
>>4644800
>>4644999
>>4648833
>>4648877
>>4649122
>>4651511
>>4653455
>>4655600
>>4655722
>>4655733
>>4655744
>>4655822

>>4655846
You are not a faggot.

Someone make a new thread.

>>4655846
nou

>>4655861
Alright

>>4655867
No, please, don't!

New Thread:

>>4655868

>>4655869
why not?

>>4655861
>>>/mlp/1763149

stop guys, /sci/ only consider math as science, nothing to do here, they only know about math

>>4655892
And religion. Don't forget religion.

>>4655894
lol wut

New thread

>>4655904