/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5802692
>Tulpas

You can't do it. I'll bet you money on it.

Is that an attempt to make tulpas seem intelligent by using freudian psych?

>>5802700
I have been able to achieve as far as the 'hear another voice in your head that isn't you and appears to act on its own- without conscious input from me', I have yet to achieve anything such as actual hallucinations, more like uncontrolled yet internally consistent imaginations.

>>5802701

Sigmund Freud, Pink Floyd.... makes no difference. Thinking is electro-chemical process in the brain. Thoughts have no physical substance.

>>5802710

You are describing a psychotic episode. Have fun with that.

>>5802717
>assumptions

Even if that was what you would call it, you cannot diagnose or claim it to be as such. My case does not full fill any single one of the 4 D's of abnormal psychology.

>>5802713
I thought you just said they were chemical reactions,

>>5802713
>Thoughts have no physical substance.

Freud never claimed them to, as far as I understand- the models are simply that- models. Models to understand the structure, patterns and pathos of the mind.

>>5802725

I'm a gambling man. Take your story to a psychiatrist.

>>5802728

I said thinking was electrochemical.

>>5802717
>I bet you can't do it. I bet money. Its impossible!
>I did it bro
>lol no, you are just crazy

You couldn't be anymore of a faggot even if you tried.

>>5802738
>psychiatrist

Come on, at least do a fucking google search or something so you can fucking SOUND like you know what you are talking about. Psychiatrists have little to no psychological training, he would just refer you to a psychologist for a diagnoses, then after you have the diagnoses, THEN you visit the psychiatrist for your prescription and physical check ups.

step it up.

>>5802692
Stupid

>>>/mlp/

>>5802749

They can prescribe you the anti-psychotics you may need.

You ain't making tulpas.. You're hallucinating.

>>5802754
but it is illegal to prescribe anti-psychotics if you don't have a diagnoses, and only a licensed psychologist can make a diagnoses on such mental issues.

>You ain't making tulpas.. You're hallucinating.

And what proof or evidence do you have to support this claim? For a board about SCIENCE you sure are very unscientific in your thinking.

>>5802760

You made the claim.
Hallucinations and psychotic episodes are well documented.

Tulpas are fairy-stories.

>>5802760

In this country, a MD can prescribe you any damn thing the DEA allows.

>>5802764
And you made a claim as well. Several.
>Tulpas are fairy-stories.

This is a claim. A very unscientific claim.

Another claim
>you are experiencing a psychotic episode

Again, very unscientific, filled with assumptions. You should know very well that it is a severe logical fallacy that just because one thing exists, another thing doesn't, or just because something is true in another series of cases then it is definitely the truth for a separate series of cases, no matter how similar.

Take these absolute unscientific statements of yours that spit in the face of the scientific method itself, and compare them to my Hypothesis:
>this is experience is likely a Tulpa
Which is based off of the observation:
>I am experiencing what feels like a separate consciousness within my own mind that can think for itself.
The hypothesis itself is an educated guess, which is supported by much research into the matter, including many academic journals and articles.

Unfortunately, I have no idea of how you can form a quantifiable and falsifiable test around this. As such, there is no method that I am aware of that would allow me to scientifically test and prove my hypothesis. As such, I came and created this thread to gather more information. What I found was not related to my scientific inquiry, but something else entirely: despite you people claiming to be so, you are not scientific at all in your thinking. What a shameful display.

>>5802791
>As such, there is no method that I am aware of that would allow me to scientifically test and prove my hypothesis

that is because there is nothing to test, you are looking for frogs in holes when there are no frogs. The only reason you have to believe there are frogs is because people you've never met said there are frogs in their holes, when there aren't.

>>5802806
You realize using this logic, all of your emotions, thoughts and feelings, wants, desires, likes, and dislikes, and all such things are empty holes?

>>5802825
yes? and? If i said "i do so love cheese, SO PROVE ME WRONG SCIENCE" i would sound just as stupid as you saying "I have an imaginary friend in my head PROVE ME WRONG SCIENCE" because you're making an untestable claim. additionally, the burden of proof lies on you to back up your claim, not us to refute it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

>>5802692
"materialising things which only you can see or hear through the power of your own mind"

People are really good at this, every single person on the planet does it. They create illusions and desires and objects to fullfill their wishes.

Hallucinations, delusions, mental illness, call it whatever you want.

Sure there is science in the way that these hallucinations are created by the brain.
Saying that "will" can "create physical objects" is just unscientific bullshit.

>>5802835
That lies on you as well for all claims you may make. If you have no proof to back up your claim that
>fairy tale
or
>psychotic episode

It is just as bad as if I was claiming

>friend in my head

The correct answer to this is, "I don't know" as we do not have proof on the matter one way or the other. I have made it very very clear over my previous posts that I AM NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS. The most I did was state a hypothesis. If you want to claim that a Hypothesis is of equal value to a claim, then the burden of proof lies on you to explain why the fuck science hasn't broken down to shit for contradicting its own rules.

>>5802844
The current tulpa community does not believe that they are creating physical objects but mental constructs- something they experience in their heads as if it was real- but knowing that it isnt real.

>>5802835
doesnt that show you the faultiness of your own thinking? Your thinking says they are empty holes- meaning you dont love cheese. But if you don't love cheese, why do you feel you love cheese? How can you feel anything if feeling doesn't exist? How can you feel that you feel that you dont love cheese ECT.

It causes an infinite regression loop- the fact that the world is logically consistent and no fallacies can be truth, proves that your thinking will bring you to false answers.

tulips > tulpa

>>5802848
So what?

What does that have to do with science?

People are aware they can create mental constructs already, their minds do it while they sleep.

There is already science devoted to that.
I don't understand what the point of this thread is. "tulpa" is a spiritualist term used to describe a spiritualist interpretation of a neuro-scientific phenomenon.
The tulpa is just another mystical interpretation involving terms like "magic" and "materialisation" of something that we can do in our heads.

The same way people believe that sleep paralysis are falling angels, or that dreams actually mean something.

>>5802847

Right. I see what you mean. Its kind of like my friend Rusell. He says that he knows for a fact that there is a giant teapot somewhere in orbit in between Earth and Mars. He doesn't know exactly where, and he can't see it or show it to anyone else, yet he still knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it exists. So I guess I should just say to him "gee, rusell, I really don't know if your teapot exists and we have no proof that it doesn't and the burden of proof obviously lies on me to search every cosmic particle in orbit so I can prove you 100% wrong that there is no possibility that such an object exists, so lets just assume the probability of it existing is more or less the probability of you being full of shit, and say "whodafuckknows""

Is it kind of like that?