Tulpa.info - metaphysics

Well would you rather me not talk?

sh

for you, tulpamancy is trans

What does this mean for me

You're not me, despite their joking, Froggy :)

Hahaha cool.

12:50 AM

I gotta have my tulpa chat here sometime

1

Zen

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT

You are too young to remember

1

If you get isekaied and are able to come back at some point, would you take your whole harem back with you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUqRHU_ECk4 what sort of question is that?

DiiRatio

The Hero Yoshihiko and the Demon King's Castle~Boobs

I have finished watching Zero no Tsukaima yesterday and was really disappointed with the ending.

12:08 PM

Why would you ditch best girls in your harem and take only an irredeemable tsundere with you?

12:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUqRHU_ECk4 what sort of question is that?

@Zen - jump According to that, what about maou's boobs?

DiiRatio

The Hero Yoshihiko and the Demon King's Castle~Boobs

Why yuusha and maou can't always be friends from the start?

In my favorite fantasy ecchi harem a maou ends up as yuusha's little sister. It's the most cool solution.

Ecchi Harem? where have i been?

Ecchi harems are serious metaphysical things. When you get reincarnated in another world, it always ends like this.

very nice.

What do you think, guys?

lmao your spirit is just manifestation of whatever you feel like you wanna be, usually

9:38 AM

so uhh, yeah clothes aren't a problem or question?

Can confirm, that's how it works in shadowrun. The astral form is the perfect self.

9:42 AM

Jesus was totally a Revenant though, he was corporeal.

1

2

I think Jesus was not the best example indeed.

9:56 AM

And it depends on the spirit herself and other factors.

9:56 AM

We can take contract spirits for an example.

9:58 AM

Aishia from Seirei Gensouki was naked when she first awakened in her contractor's bed. Later she was wearing clothes to conform to social norms, could wear both astral and material ones afair.

10:01 AM

Est from Seirei Tsukai no Blade Dance didn't feel comfortable completely naked even with her contractor. She was always wearing socks, preferably thighhighs as she considered feet her most intimate parts.

Abvieon {Alex}

I've never held a T-shirt that produced a buzzing sensation. But crystals? Almost every one. shrugblob

Henlo plz gib experiment method detailz

Perhaps this goes in metaphysics because it's about metaphysics. I had an idea. With system hopping, do people notice anything that seems like telepathy between the two people who each have one of the same tulpa design? I was thinking about the idea that things can be affected by their likeness, and maybe despite being in different brains there could be enough likeness between tulpas for this to happen. Maybe if you intend to talk to the tulpa in the other person, that other person may telepathically feel that in its tulpa. Or you may be affected by emotional states, particularly a sense of danger.

From #forum-rss ... too good not to post

A long time ago there was this weird girl I had a crush on in high school who I swere was either a demonically posessed tulpa later on or a weird psychotic one. This tulpa manifested as a person with a high hair line, pale skin, hazel eyes, jewish hair style, a soft alluring voice at first, and other weirdness. It seemed she made everyone in school fall for her,..... Then suddenly she changed forms and another form of her appeared with the same name with weirder features such as puffy skin, petruding lips, a gigantic ugly nose, and similar. This person changed personality to be suddenly angry as hell by that point, and got a totally different voice speaking fighting with the voice that was there before. This person was a love interest for over 20 years. Not until recently did I assume she was a tulpa. She acted just like one, changed forms, changed personalities, changed appearences sometimes looking asian as well with a totally different hair. She had a name similar to a living girl living in Dedham, MA at the time but sounded different...

6:51 AM

I had a bad experience trying to speak to her spirit via channeling after it was revealed she died. I ran into psychic backlash that got worse every time I thought of the girl romantically, due to the love interest simply not dying. Eventually it got so bad, that my whole body was controlled for over 2 weeks by something evil. Praying to Jesus saved me. I am not religious anymore due to this experience, but always wondered if it's possible for a tulpa to be punished in the afterlife if created using satanic methods... Is it possible her name summons her into existance or summons demons.... I have had weird experiences thinking out her name, so much that I used black magic to block out every name in her name but the first name. I have been tormented by voices in my head, I have been scrached by unseen forces. I have been given mischievous sexual pleasure gifts that harm me, after I used them too much, I have been spiritually hurt by psychic entities with a real form, I have also had a spirit voice speak through my body that was mean at first but later on befriended me and claimed to protect me. Could this be demonic posession or a mental illness? What do you think of this?

An axiom for the fallowed mind: There is no such thing as chaos - just undetermined elements.

2

Unknown, even

hi

7:11 AM

what exactly is metaphysics?

1

When tulpamancers use the word, they generally mean supernatural

Metaphysics is poorly defined without knowing the context where the word is being used. One such is

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Another is: abstract theory with no basis in reality. These two pretty much cover the vast range of definitions -- without context it's anyone's guess. @Unfastened Belts offered context typical to the tulpa community: supernatural (generally)

8:22 PM

. Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -> Metaphysics which starts with It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. (even in philosophy) And then continues in Section 1: The Word... The word ‘metaphysics’ is notoriously hard to define. Really.. You can't easily make this stuff up. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/ Wikipedia is more definitive (but probably less accurate for the range of meanings):

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.[1] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

8:23 PM

But I mostly like that Wikipedia definition if more people could agree on it. The Wikipedia page for Supernatural is also worth reading since it relates this back to Metaphysics (at least partially):

The metaphysical considerations of the existence of the supernatural can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected. One complicating factor is that there is disagreement about the definition of "natural"...

(edited)

Reality is as complicated as you want it to be.

I do not understand that sentence. That reminds me of an idea I read which is that reality is as complicated as you are able to measure it to be and store those measurements.

As with metaphysics, much depends on how you define or delineate "complicated". The (largely effective) goal of much of physics is to reduce the Universe to a small set of consistent rules.

Oh

#5213 left after sending that one single message shortly after joining. By complicated I meant that for example, maybe in the stone age quarks did not exist as they do now, instead there was a superstate of possible (meta?) physics that could be responsible, until the (meta? idk :d ) physics was observed by a complex observer which could store those measurements and it (randomly?) happened to be quarks. I have studied physics much less than the people who have proposed ideas like that though. One them (emphasis on the word like in ideas like that) was some sort of wheelchair dude or something. (edited)

anon

Oh

#5213 left after sending that one single message shortly after joining. By complicated I meant that for example, maybe in the stone age quarks did not exist as they do now, instead there was a superstate of possible (meta?) physics that could be responsible, until the (meta? idk :d ) physics was observed by a complex observer which could store those measurements and it (randomly?) happened to be quarks. I have studied physics much less than the people who have proposed ideas like that though. One them (emphasis on the word like in ideas like that) was some sort of wheelchair dude or something. (edited)

Yes, I have had that thought too: What if the rules of physics weren't rules until scientists thought them up and enough people agreed strongly enough to manifest them. I don't BELIEVE this but it is a curious possibility. It's not totally unrelated to the Religion of "Last Thursdayism": "the world/universe might as well have been created last Thursday." complete with all the history and memories everyone has from the day before etc. (edited)

Rules of physics not being rules until scientists thought them up and enough people agreed, oh that's a different idea and more complicated than the one I mentioned. Sometimes the truth is complicated though. The one I mentioned I read in Simplest Case Scenario by Kark Coryat. It was going from superstates and saying that in quantum entanglement, maybe one particle does not communicate its state with the other faster than light, instead the observers which are already causually connected communicate their constraint faster than light. (edited)

If I watch a clock I can synchronise my heartbeat to it. Apparently this falls under "thoughts change the world", which is apparently under "the occult". I'm not an occultist so I can't really say whether or not affecting your heartbeat is in the occult.

As it happens it's actually one of the classic claims of numerous gurus that they can full on stop their heart. One that tends to be debunked. It is eminently possible to slow your heartbeat through meditative exercises, though.

1

anon

If I watch a clock I can synchronise my heartbeat to it. Apparently this falls under "thoughts change the world", which is apparently under "the occult". I'm not an occultist so I can't really say whether or not affecting your heartbeat is in the occult.

It's not, there is a simple and largely understood physical & neural mechanism to such synchronizing

4:27 PM

. Immersion in water, primarily getting the face or even nostrils wet can do this. It's physiological in that case, known as the mammalian diving reflex, present in humans but many times more powerful in deep diving whales who stay submerged for much longer periods Some humans have also learned to deep dive & remain submerged for many times longer than generally thought possible just 50 years ago. It's a teachable skill

It's not that I think a nerve(s) that connects the heart to the brain is in the occult. It's just that Reguille said that the mind influencing the body is, and Reguille is a moderator. Now that I think of it, I did not ask if Reguile was using Reguile's moderator authority or not with that decision. With my message above here I was meaning to disagree with the idea that if there's evidence the mind can affect the body, it's new age occultism, with that example which is easily repeatable and quite possibly done with nerves(s).

anon

It's not that I think a nerve(s) that connects the heart to the brain is in the occult. It's just that Reguille said that the mind influencing the body is, and Reguille is a moderator. Now that I think of it, I did not ask if Reguile was using Reguile's moderator authority or not with that decision. With my message above here I was meaning to disagree with the idea that if there's evidence the mind can affect the body, it's new age occultism, with that example which is easily repeatable and quite possibly done with nerves(s).

Makes sense, and I thought that rule was pretty arbitrary but my own visiting rule is: "Your house, your rules" so

‍♂️ ....apparently it's similar to your feelings. Also, not sure how scientific rigor can be demanded in a forum on tulpas.

An mostly I think the mechanism involves signaling neurotransmitters & hormones since a lot of changes take place system wide. One odd effect (again well know to science and medicine specifically) is that minor bleeding largely shuts down (on the hands) when the face is wet or submerged. In my 20's I worked as a commercial diver (mostly oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico). All divers carry at least 1 sharp knife (not one of those bowie knife looking things either. Usually a particular kind of cheap folder with an aluminum handle, tied to a lanyard that clips it to our diving harness. We all had 3-6 of these in our tool box. Sharpen them with a file. We just want a very sharp saw edge mostly for cutting rope or other lines we use to work OR if we get tangle or trapped by our own hose. Not uncommon to cut yourself slightly while working. No bleeding more than 9 times out of 10 -- just "Oh crap." [look: no blood] "Well, that's ok then." Often though when we surfaced the finger would start bleeding. When I first experienced this I didn't know consciously about the mammalian diving reflex and it was VERY puzzling. (And yes, we considered if blood in the water WOULD have attracted sharks and maybe we were too frightened to bleed

) (edited)

6:18 AM

To be candid: Sharks are often in the water around an oil platform if it's far enough out to be deep and clear water, and yet they are seldom an issue for working divers. There are about as many species of sharks as there are in the other major division of fishes (cartilaginous sharks vs. bony ordinary fish) They all have different behaviors, and it varies also by context. Most sharks aren't that big (not like GW Jaws), and couldn't eat you (quickly) but they can be like "junk yard dogs" if they are territorial of a particular location. Don't argue with those or with junkyard dogs up close. Barracuda are similar because they just don't have big mouths for the up to 6' length.

Oof it turns out that not just metaphysics, the occult, and pseudoscience are meant to be kept to here... But discussion of the definitions of, and what counts as, metaphysics, the occult, and pseudoscience should also be kept here, which Reguile told me with a 20 minute mute. Hey Zen did he hit you with it as well for your own discussion of these issues? I'm not sure how smoothly a conversation with a discord moderator would go in real life, if he has to slap you just to say something. Okay Reguile I'm posting this discussion in this channel as well, as you so rudely requested. So, what do you mean by occult? Tulpas are in the occult. I remember someone saying hypnotism used to be in the occult. Why do you think the mind affecting the body is the new age idea about the mind affecting reality? I think that's just speculation, it's not a tested hypothesis. It's okay, you can reply without being muted in this channel. You clarified what you meant by metaphysics, but for extra clarity, are metaphysical theories like platonic constants metaphysics as well for the purpose of this organisation of debate you have going on here? (edited)

You asked this not too long ago and I said I would keep this topic in metaphysics because one of the first description lines refers to it as a pseudoscience. You got a strike because after I asked you to move here you kept talking about it. Just under a different context. I feel like you should have had the common sense to know to move here even when you go from talking about the topic directly to debating if it's real science or not. Zen is speaking/responding to you, they didn't do anything worth a strike and aren't someone who talks much about metaphysics.

I have nothing to add. You have been shown a peer reviewed paper showing the inefficacy of that topic discussed, and all you seemed to do was go on to talk vaguely about the validity of scientific studies, as if to compare a peer reviewed medical study to an organization that advocates psychic powers. My disdain for that comparison could not be more immeasurable, by the way. It's up to you if you want to be that gullible though. What I'd probably suggest you actually do is look into the one million dollar paranormal challenge and maybe wrap your head around the sheer amount of scientists who have sincerely tried to prove any sort of psychic abilities. They all find exactly nothing actionable and nothing outside of what's to be expected from random chance.

Reguile

You asked this not too long ago and I said I would keep this topic in metaphysics because one of the first description lines refers to it as a pseudoscience. You got a strike because after I asked you to move here you kept talking about it. Just under a different context. I feel like you should have had the common sense to know to move here even when you go from talking about the topic directly to debating if it's real science or not. Zen is speaking/responding to you, they didn't do anything worth a strike and aren't someone who talks much about metaphysics.

Reguile did not answer any of my questions. This is what normally happens when I ask people questions in online debates. I'm not saying ignoring questions is a problem of Reguile's specifically. Maybe it's a problem with people in general. Maybe it's a problem with me in that I should ask questions differently, or not even ask, or something. The fact that I ask questions makes me really weird compared to the norm. The norm is to state beliefs, but avoid stating them if they would be answers to questions. But I don't know what to do that's better than asking questions. I'll just fall into my usual routine and ask questions again. Maybe this time too, the discussion will be unproductive. Oh actually I just remembered something https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/. Scott Alexander here seems to actually think that "operationalizing", as he calls it, is important for debate. Knowing what the nature of the disagreement actually is may be of value in debates. Question 1: "keep this topic in metaphysics", just a quick question, but what topic exactly do you mean? Knowing this will help me interpret the rest of what you mean which seems to hinge on this, thanks in advance. I could just assume what you mean but that's what most people seem to do, and they often assume wrong. Replying about Zen having replied: I'll spoiler this bit so you can avoid seeing it if you like. I will engage with Reguile on this, though it seems unimportant to me. Of course it may seem more important to others. It's not really that Zen was responding, because if it was that then the fact that I was responding would have been relevant, but it was not relevant enough. The details of that:

Scott Alexander

Varieties Of Argumentative Experience

In 2008, Paul Graham wrote How To Disagree Better, ranking arguments on a scale from name-calling to explicitly refuting the other person’s central point. And that’s why, ever since 200…

10:51 AM

Ranger in response to something mentioned the idea of mind over reality and telekinesis. I responded remembering a conversation I had two days earlier with someone who belived in telekinesis and kept telling people about a certain institute's certain website a lot. This was like casual conversation for me. Zen replied about it, having looked up the institute and found it was advertising teaching people channeling for $79, and stuff. We discussed that briefly. I did not know what the term metaphysics meant at the time and discussed that a bit in reply (I had recieved an incorrect meaning of the word long ago, and interpreted the word in a book in whatever way, and read that people didn't agree on what the word meant, and read whatever else I had read about the word). Reguile responded saying that changing allergies with your mind, and anything not widely agreed to be scientific, should go in metaphysics. I responded with - oh actually I don't want to type it all out. I did not agree that it was metaphysics. Zen and Ringer [Herb] did not seem to think it was metaphysics either, from how they offered speculative mechanistic explanations. Zen responded having misread or misremembered one of my messages or something, he thought I had made claims I had not made about "curing" allergies, myopia and the common cold. I responded using myopia as an example that could, like with allergies, have mechanistic explanations within current physics. Maybe the exercises make people use their eye muscles differently so their eyes change shape. Maybe temporarily during training their pupils shrink, or they get a tear film, or they squint. Maybe their brains interpret the data differently. You can always say the unknown is magic and the Bates Method is about magic, but you may be wrong. I still do not know why people were saying that such things were presented as magic.

10:52 AM

Question 2: Please just tell me. Not just about the Bates method, but about the allergy symptoms. Why magic? Why new age mind over matter? There was another discussion that branched off about whether or not the Bates method was quackery based on false belief. A few times in that conversation I thought Zen seemed to say some irrational things jumping to conclusions quickly, which was at odds with how I had previously imagined his mind. That time I decided to ask him why he meant that. I was responding to him calling it quackery in response to me giving mechanistic speculation on it in response to him giving it as an example of supposed magic in response to me asking him for sources or details on some people having claimed NLP could affect myopia. If you want me to go on about how it was responses then please say. If you don't, I don't blame you. Eventually I separately replied to the three topics Zen wrote on - Bates method, speculation, and metaphysics. Ideally that would look like it was about 100% responses. If it doesn't then that's not because it was not responses, it's just because you didn't notice it was. Maybe you could tell me how I should have made it look more like responses.

Zen

I have nothing to add. You have been shown a peer reviewed paper showing the inefficacy of that topic discussed, and all you seemed to do was go on to talk vaguely about the validity of scientific studies, as if to compare a peer reviewed medical study to an organization that advocates psychic powers. My disdain for that comparison could not be more immeasurable, by the way. It's up to you if you want to be that gullible though. What I'd probably suggest you actually do is look into the one million dollar paranormal challenge and maybe wrap your head around the sheer amount of scientists who have sincerely tried to prove any sort of psychic abilities. They all find exactly nothing actionable and nothing outside of what's to be expected from random chance.

Replying to Zen You didn't reply to any of my questions or points. Question 3: What comparison did I make between the discussion about the bates method, and the noetics group? They were on opposite ends of my reply. Neither one of them did refer to the other. One of them was me replying to you about a 2013 review on eye training, the other was mostly me replying to you and Reguile on the word metaphysics (etc). I said I would rush past the Bates method. After rushing through it, I said I had "that part out of the way". (I replied about speculation partly by saying I didn't know what you meant, and guessing you would not answer. My guess was correct) Did you get some disdain over something that was purely of your imagination? There is cause for concern that you specifically may have been mistaken about me having made a link between the 2013 review and the noetics gang. Just recently you mistakenly thought I had made claims about curing allergies, myopia and the common cold. I made no such claims, but you thought I did. You also alluded to me having meant "straight up magic in defiance of scientific knowledge and other claims to that effect" by it. I seem to have missed the part where I did that. Perhaps you could refresh my memory. That was sarcasm, you can't because I didn't. So these mistakes should give you cause to doubt how you interpret my words. So you could also be wrong about me having made a link between those two things, so your disdain could be misplaced. You are wrong about it, by the way.

10:58 AM

There is also another rationale for you possibly having just imagined me having made that comparison. That rationale is this: When I debate things with people online (Apart from with a few people), normally what happens is: I write something that people misunderstand. They tell me what they believe I said or did or am or think. I ask them why they believe that. There is no answer. The debate ends unconcluded. I want to know what they think and why, but they will not answer. They do not ask me what I think or why, they think they already know. I do not know how alike this is with how online debates normally go or if it's just how they go when they include me, but please bear in mind that when you are debating with me (at least), and I'm not saying it's a supernatural force doing this, but you may interpret my words wildly incorrectly and ignore questions and end the debate feeling certain you made a load of 100% correct guesses or something. I have not yet witnessed this force overcome. I do not expect this debate to be productive either, but I will still try. At least two of my questions were actually answered, so it's not an absolute rule that none of my questions may ever be answered in online debates. I want to know what you think and why you think it. Your methods of finding out what I think and why are not working. I can reply about the million dollar challenge, but a lot of this debate is messy right now and I will wait for it to be more wrapped up first before growing another branch (if that ever happens :/ ). I can also make a precise reply about the 2013 review later if my brief one was too vague. You did say you did not want to discuss it but I can if you want. Thanks for calling it vague though. I think sometimes when people don't know the truth they assume it with total certainty, but you recognised it as vague. I mean you did assume the truth with total certainty, but you also said something was vague. (edited)

Presuming only that third part was directed at myself: The overall structure of your argument doesn't exist in a vacuum, you do realize that don't you? You can't just construct an argument against a peer reviewed series of studies in one paragraph that extoll the virtues the noetics institute in their confirmation bias-based "studies", and then just say they're unrelated conceptually. They're not. That's how a text works. You basically posted a thesis argument, and you need to learn to grasp rhetoric a bit better if you don't get that.

You also alluded to me having meant "straight up magic in defiance of scientific knowledge and other claims to that effect" by it.

Once again, you invoked the noetics institute and implied hypnosis, without basis was capable of curing anything physical, including allergies by the way. I specifically mentioned the circumstances in which allergies might be curable by hypnotic suggestion already, by the way. This is fundamentally magic. Whether you want to call noetics "hidden truths of the universe" or psionics, or whatever else. It's baseless. The noetics institute studies naturopathy (unverified 'natural' cures) and psychic powers including for the purpose of healthcare. They're literally new age alchemists. You can claim it's science all you want. It isn't. Science doesn't start with a conclusion. I don't believe I claimed at any point that the bates method itself was presented as magic, by the way. I said it was quackery. It's fundamentally based on the same thing, which is to say, placebo effects. Bate's method and hypothesis have both been proven wrong. They are not in science anymore, and if you continue to pretend that they are, you are being willfully ignorant. To be honest I don't think I have misunderstood anything you've said at all. I just think you're very, very, wrong. Also that you fundamentally don't understand what science or empiricism means. (edited)

Presumably Zen agrees that speculation is not in every context bad science, here's an example of him speculating https://discord.com/channels/431579755037589505/821860262532481035/1001531374395727962. So understanding what "speculation is bad science" means may need context.

This wasn't speculation. You stated rather clearly that your mental state was effecting your health. This is what psychosomatic means.

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.

12:23 PM

It was only speculation in the sense that I took what you said at face value. You could also be wrong and be experiencing something physical.

12:25 PM

Even ignoring that, let's say I speculated on your health.

12:25 PM

In what way would that be science?

12:25 PM

Did you think I was providing you a formal diagnosis? Even a doctor cannot do that outside of the proper context, you know?

12:26 PM

Speculation and suggestion are a core part of how we as individuals learn. That's what makes us so dangerously flawed at reason

12:28 PM

Empiricism does not allow for speculation. It is based only on what you can observe. A hypothesis should not be taken as fact from the outset or you're not treating it as a hypothesis, you're treating it as a conclusion. There have been constant, consistent efforts to prove any amount of psychic phenomena, and no one has ever, ever succeeded.

(Replying to Zen's first message first) (I do not know what a thesis argument is) Yes just the part after it said it was a reply to you was directed at yourself. Replying to just part of Zen's reply for now: 1. Constructed an argument against a peer-reviewed series of studies. 2. Extolled the virtues of the noetics institute. 3. You compare how I wrote about 1 and 2 and say I made a comparison-like thing thereby. 4. "Invoked the noetics institute and implied hypnosis, without basis was capable of curing anything physical, including allergies by the way." 5. "Noetics Institute of Science" literally new age alchemists. 6. "I don't believe I claimed at any point that the bates method itself was presented as magic, by the way. I said it was quackery." 7. "Bate's method and hypothesis have both been proven wrong." 1 and 2: I commented on different sorts of thing in the contexts of different branches of discussion, on different aspects of them. I might think comparing my two things would be hard because they are so different. If you could tell me more about how you interpreted this then that may help me. I have been having these miscommunications for years where I ask people why they interpret my words the way they do, but they don't answer. Here's me commenting on both things in both contexts: The systematic reviews on the eye training: About how to classify them, they are part of natural science. There have testable hypotheses. I do not know if eye training is in the occult, but I also do not think it's very important whether or not it is. Whether or not they are pseudoscience will depend on how they are done (which I have not checked fully). The reviews probably do not discuss metaphysics. Maybe this classification is correct. From the perspective of what quality of evidence they are for the Bates method being based on false belief: They are from an organisation of eye professionals, nice. How they gathered their primary sources: (edited)

5:59 PM

the PubMed database was searched with combinations of the words: see clearly, vision therapy, eye exercises, vision exercises, visual training, and exercise therapy.

The quality of the evidence from my perspective would be higher if I reviewed the review and looked at their primary sources to see how representative they are of things. I have not done that though. The "Noetic Institute of Science": About how to classify them: There are multiple things to classify. They may discuss metaphysical ideas (those would be classed as metaphysics). I guess channelling might be in the occult (I don't know exactly what the thing they call channelling is, nor what occult channelling is, though). The telephone telepathy experiment seems to be part of natural science, with a testable hypothesis. Whether or not it is pseudoscience depends on how it is done, which I do not know. Maybe this classification is correct. From the perspective of quality of evidence: I don't have anything to comment on here. They say they have evidence for channelling behind a $79 paywall. They say they have publications but I have not read any of them. There's no specific question to answer here like there was with the Bates method question. 3. I filled in the gaps, maybe now you would compare 1 and 2 differently now? The extolling you imagined may not have been in what you inferred it from. 4. I do not know why you think this. What relevance did I give the noetics gang to the allergy topic? I only mentioned it because I remembered a conversation 2 days earlier (or the series including that one) when ranger mentioned telekinesis for some reason. When did I say hyopnosis could do anything? I did not mention hypnosis by name. I did not say that a thing could cure anything physical. Or if I did, please tell me how. (edited)

5:59 PM

5. Yeah it looks a bit like that to me too. They're offering to teach channeling for $79. Hang on, aren't they skipping a step? What about proving that channeling even exists before selling online courses on it? You mentioned James Randi's million dollar prize. I've seen some hit pieces on him, which make him seem to be a liar. Supposedly as part of the deal he would have the rights to all the footage from it. But still, at least one actual channeller could have tried anyway and then said that the channelling was a success and James Randi was lying. Or maybe one real channeller could approach some professional sceptics or parapsychology researchers or random scientists. But there is a suspicious lack of channelling in my awareness, which is not significantly different from there being no paranormal channelling in existance (That said, that's what my limited imagination thinks, and I don't know if there are some coincidental inconvenient caveats like channelling suddenly not working when you're trying to do it scientifically). 6. Oh okay so maybe the order of events was that first you thought I was making paranormal claims about the mind curing myopia, and later on the Bates method was a separate issue that you discussed separately. To ask a different question then, why did you think I was saying something about magic paranormal parapsychology myopia (and allergies)? I tried denying it but it seems not to have worked. 7. Oh maybe 1 & 2 replies to this. I can reply some more eventually. (edited)

Holy mother of text walls, man, and that's coming from me. If you're genuinely saying you did not intentionally argue the positions that you seemed to be making I do not have much to say either way. Perhaps, given that you seem to have experienced being misunderstood in this way before, you should consider that there is some form of structural flaw in the way you are communicating?

Yes. People's inserpretations of my words are from two things: my words, and how they interpret words. I could change my way with words so that when processed by people's brains they be interpreted correctly, but it is hard without knowing how people interpret my words. For example, I do not know why you said I implied hypnosis could cure anything physical. The meanings people mistakenly think me to have are not meanings my words literally say. It is just in online conversation that I have this problem. PS literally, "anything physical" would include missing limbs (edited)

5:22 PM

Fascinating, I did not know there are people trying to become Spider-Man. That reminds me... Gray was once told magic was all about belief. Even though I don't agree with it, I still think it's interesting to think about.

I think they were probably joking.

2:36 PM

Recently someone posted screenshots there of different sorts of kinesis like egg-kinesis and coronavirus-kinesis and blackhole-kinesis and it got silly where he said he made a black hole and people said if he made a black hole it would have destroyed the planet and he said they were breaking rule 7.

anon

Click to see attachment 🖼️

From the same place as this

2:40 PM

I am quite uncertain whether or not this one was a joke originally, but I am leaning towards serious.

2:40 PM

I don't know, I can see it going either way

Hey I'm one of the kool kids as well like these screenshots show wow so sceptical such a critical thinker.

3:06 PM

(off topic ow it feels like a tooth is coming through my gum, maybe one is)

Looking at wikipedia, the Institute of Noetic Sciences was founded by this guy, and this is an interview with him about an experiment on extra-sensory perception he did on his way back to Earth, though this web page does not have the data from the experiment :/ . https://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/5/backstrom_mitchell.php (edited)

Private Lunar ESP: An Interview with Edgar Mitchell | Fia Backström...

Extraterrestrial, extrasensory

3:15 PM

I think magically becoming spider man is probably not technically possible, but I found reading about the experimenter effect here interesting. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ Two people did an experiment into whether or not people's skin reacts to them being looked at. One of them was Richard Wiseman, a sceptic. He found it incredibly boring and was just glancing at them. The other person, Schiltz with the Institute of Noetic Sciences, was looking more intensely at them. There was a statistically significant effect from Schiltz looking at them, but not from Richard Wiseman looking at them. Each one of them speculated that the other could have hacked the computer that had the data. It then says such things as

In psychotherapy, for example, practically the only consistent finding is that whatever kind of psychotherapy the person running the study likes is most effective. Thirty different meta-analyses on the subject have confirmed this with strong effect size (d = 0.54) and good significance (p = .001).

and

He found that indeed, meta-researchers who believed in researcher allegiance effect were more likely to turn up positive results in their studies of researcher allegiance effect (p < .002).

and

Less famous is that the same guy did the same thing with rats. He sent one laboratory a box of rats saying they were specially bred to be ultra-intelligent, and another lab a box of (identical) rats saying they were specially bred to be slow and dumb. Then he had them do standard rat learning tasks, and sure enough the first lab found very impressive results, the second lab very disappointing ones.

If Reguile for some reason classes the experimenter effect as new age thoughts affecting reality then he can't mute me for mentioning it if it's in here ha take that. (edited)

Scott Alexander

The Control Group Is Out Of Control

I. Allan Crossman calls parapsychology the control group for science. That is, in let’s say a drug testing experiment, you give some people the drug and they recover. That doesn’t tell …

Actually this may be really dumb of me asking but say if a group of people like 10 people believe on an idea like if we say a particular set of words which doesn't even make sense(a spell or something)a particular thing happens or manifests in rel life would it actually work. Damn this isn't even tulpamancy or thought form anymore it's more like fiction. But still wanted to ask this out of curiosity if it could actually happen or if something like this where multiple people believe in it some power may be created, if possible can anyone please tell me, it's peaked my interest. Like say if multiple people believe in a set of instruction(usually called magic system in fiction) it could come into existence. If not something as far as reality warping just some lower tier things such as telepathy or something.

I think if it was possible, it would be pretty widespread

Does it really matter? what you think is part of reality, it affects your reality which is part of reality

5:03 PM

it's pretty clear such things are a matter of mindset

I swear I saw some discussion on a phenomenon similar to mass hysteria but minus the hysteria- a group of people all collectively participate in something and they all report something supernatural. However, I don't remember the original conversation Iirc, it was about a group of people swearing up and down someone was levitating and there was no obvious stunt explanation for how the dude pulled it off. That doesn't mean it wasn't an elaborate magic trick, but it could also be an interesting psychological phenomenon. At the very least, I know that the entire idea behind egregores is believing multiple people support its existence. Even if there isn't actually a spirit doing anything, people are feeding off of what they hear about it and add their own spin, creating something more complex (edited)

I am reminded of a pdf I read on what it called "occult swordplay". It had a bit about enchanted swords and sentient swords. Sentient swords I thought could be tulpas. It said the author had two enchanted training swords, one to make the wielder more defensive and one to make him more offensive, and that it worked when they did not know the swords were enchanted. I thought maybe it worked by the magician influencing the student, and it would work the same if someone secretly switched the enchanted swords for ones that looked like them and the magician did not notice they had been switched. And then I was reminded of this after reading about the experimenter effect (and maybe from reading "if there isn't actually a spirit doing anything" by Ranger). Maybe the sword that makes you more defensive is the one that the experimenter thinks is enchanted to make you more defensive. Maybe you could train yourself to make people unconsciously affected by you. Also, from the SSCd article linked above:

There's a famous story about an experiment where a scientist told teachers that his advanced psychometric methods had predicted a couple of kids in their class were about to become geniuses (the students were actually chosen at random). He followed the students for the year and found that their intelligence actually increased. This was supposed to be a Cautionary Tale About How Teachers’ Preconceptions Can Affect Children.

Niiice maybe I should do some chaos magick on myself casting a harry potter spell that I believe will make me more intelligent. edit: I'm not saying that I believe I can make myself more intelligent by trying something like the experimenter effect on myself. I am aware that it's a speculative idea at this point. My logic is not invalid! (edited)

anon

I am reminded of a pdf I read on what it called "occult swordplay". It had a bit about enchanted swords and sentient swords. Sentient swords I thought could be tulpas. It said the author had two enchanted training swords, one to make the wielder more defensive and one to make him more offensive, and that it worked when they did not know the swords were enchanted. I thought maybe it worked by the magician influencing the student, and it would work the same if someone secretly switched the enchanted swords for ones that looked like them and the magician did not notice they had been switched. And then I was reminded of this after reading about the experimenter effect (and maybe from reading "if there isn't actually a spirit doing anything" by Ranger). Maybe the sword that makes you more defensive is the one that the experimenter thinks is enchanted to make you more defensive. Maybe you could train yourself to make people unconsciously affected by you. Also, from the SSCd article linked above:

There's a famous story about an experiment where a scientist told teachers that his advanced psychometric methods had predicted a couple of kids in their class were about to become geniuses (the students were actually chosen at random). He followed the students for the year and found that their intelligence actually increased. This was supposed to be a Cautionary Tale About How Teachers’ Preconceptions Can Affect Children.

Niiice maybe I should do some chaos magick on myself casting a harry potter spell that I believe will make me more intelligent. edit: I'm not saying that I believe I can make myself more intelligent by trying something like the experimenter effect on myself. I am aware that it's a speculative idea at this point. My logic is not invalid! (edited)

make myself more intelligent by trying something like the experimenter effect on myself. I am aware that it's a speculative idea at this point

That has been my practice for 60 years -- and it worked the way I did it originally and through some of the other methods I've adopted. However, I also did the work of learning at the same time, just my results have been faster and more effective through using such methods. (edited)

2

Hi guys, I've made a lot of progress in making a Tulpa. But that arises a question, do any of you guys have any idea of what actually happens to us and our Tulpas after death? This is the metaphysics channel so might as well ask.

The absence of experience. Timeless deep sleep. (edited)

...? A strange question to ask, knowing that humanity has always wanted to know that about singlets.

6:01 PM

Do you have any particular religious beliefs already? That would colour the answer according to those dogmas, surely?

6:02 PM

Presuming you don't want me to just tell you that death is the end and there is no magic etc.

It's a good question. I know someone who was put under for a surgery, her and her tulpa both experienced the anesthesia "time skip". I've been put under before, via an IV, and it really makes me wonder. It wasn't even like sleep. One moment I was fully conscious, awake, and they put the IV in, the doctor was just chatting with the nurse. In an instant, I was finished, and didn't even realize any time had passed. It wasn't even sleep, it wasn't nothingness, or darkness, it simply was nothing. My thought process picked back up an hour later like it was before... A time skip. I wondered if that's what it felt like to not exist.

Fascinating. Thank you for sharing!