Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

merely anecdotal evidence

That's a theory.

8:39 PM

I do not believe tulpas are subjective.

at least as of now

8:39 PM

well do you have a one-for-all technique on developing a tulpa?

8:39 PM

is there a tulpa cookie cutter?

Tulpa creation is personal.

8:40 PM

We're confusing terms to go beyond this.

8:40 PM

Subjective in lay terms and Subjective in philosophical terms.

The exact experience of creating a tulpa is quite personal and inherently subjective - the idea of "what a tulpa is" is less personal, and studies about altering the brain's functioning do certainly discount instantaneous tulpas.

8:42 PM

While tulpas themselves and their precise definition is far more up for debate and does not yet have solid experimental or impartially observed data, there is also a fairly demonstrable difference between a 'tulpa' that somebody thought up an hour ago and is suddenly 'speaking' in accordance with what the person wanted, and a tulpa that has been stated to exist for a long time, exhibiting different cadence from the host and being able to switch, speaking with others.

I give up on this conversation

Here's a lovely quote:

The limitations of anecdotal evidence is that anecdotes are not factual. While they may be interesting or entertaining or memorable, that doesn’t make them factual evidence. Because they lack tested empirical evidence or facts, you need to be careful when making conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.

8:43 PM

Anecdotes can be presented in support, but the problem is that anecdotes, even a larger quantity of them, is not empirically recorded data.

That’s a good quote

So, where those anecdotes contradict empirically recorded data, the data wins out.

8:43 PM

That's it.

8:43 PM

That's all.

anecdotes are not factual: true Empirically recorded date for tulpas currently does not exist due to a lack of interest and funding: also true

8:44 PM

therefore, anecdotal evidence is all that can be used right now

I have yet to see someone answer Winter without some sort of logical fallacy.

... @9 Mil + Ika The point is that claims about tulpas which directly contradict empirically recorded data can be discarded.

8:45 PM

Ones that don't directly contradict it should be analyzed for further consistency, and those should be grouped together for the anecdotal data to see what that shows.

8:45 PM

Ones that are on the fringe of contradicting data are generally worth more careful scruitiny and skepticism.

ok obviously stuff that contradicts impirical data is wrong

8:46 PM

no shit

These aren't really ambiguous statements I'm making, either.

BUT

8:46 PM

where is there ANY impirical data?

...what do you think this entire discussion has been about?

if it exists, please cite it

Tch.

Winter is basing themself out of the data from other sides of neuroscience, specifically, which are thought to apply here since, same brain and all

The evidence I've heard exist so far is about habit forming. Which I believe to be a separate phenomenon.

ok understandable

8:48 PM

can we prove all that other data applies here

8:48 PM

tests done to measure reaction speeds or lucid dreams aren't looking for signs of tulpamancy

...that altering the brain's automatic patterns takes time to reinforce and establish a new pattern?

therefore, the data may be skewed or irrelevant

Yes, studies about how the brain works on a basic level does apply.

oh I didn't even know about genetic fallacy, nice

what does any of that mean, and how is it relevant

It means people don't make logical arguments

Even basically learning a skill, a procedure, takes several days to learn it at a minimal level.

I didnt know about the texas sharpshooter one

@Felight brilliant observation

8:51 PM

what are those fallacies supposed to mean even?

And that is far, far simpler a proposition than creating an independently thinking 'entity' in the same brain.

It's true. Forming an argument without a logical fallacy seems impossible.

...look them up.

For example, taking scientific evidence of the behaviour of a mind to be scientific evidence of the behaviour of a brain.

@SkyeNet I'm in agreement regarding taking several days

...to learn a single skill.

but the thing is, it entirely depends how much you do it

8:52 PM

if I sat here all day and focused exclusively on forcing Ikari, she could likely be easily responding in 2-3 days

ok how about this: how long does it take you to commit to memory the mental model of someone you meet and talk with

Let's see, when I last looked it up, 20 hours of consistent solid effort. To learn a skill.

on the other hand, if i give her 5 minutes a day, it'll take much longer

8:53 PM

it's less about time and more about mental FOCUS

That is a good comparison, @Mystes, that is a lot simpler.

8:53 PM

...obviously the time taken depends on the amount of effort... and the efficacy of that effort.

A shorter period of time with very sharp focus will stick with you faster than a long period of time with no focus

you can do it in like, hours if you span enough stuff, right? at least as far as the surface is concerned (edited)

People spend a lot of time putting in a great degree of effort to do something, but their methodology can also be wrong.

8:54 PM

"Thinking very hard for a long time" isn't helpful if you are missing key information - it won't help you solve for the exact values of X and Y in a problem of X=2Y^2.

I shot a desert eagle once, with the goal of remembering the experience, and I put my full focus on it. As a result, I can still feel that gun in my hand upon demand. On the other hand, when I was a kid my mother drove me to the store almost every other day, and even though that trip was made literally hundreds of times, I don't consciously know how to get there

8:55 PM

my point is, when tulpaforcing, there is a great deal of data that is never collected, some of which cannot even be quantified

@Clo you seem to have a very skewed opinion on if someomes using an "incorrect arguement" with an extreme bias to whoevers side youre on. And im not taking sides in this debate. Im kinda stopped paying attention to do other things, this is just something i wanted to point out

ok, I can say 30 minutes a day, but are those 30 minutes of kinda-sorta forcing, or sitting down and really focusing like a laser?

8:56 PM

big difference

@9 Mil + Ika That isn't being disputed.

Ok so then what is? Cause if we're on the same page why are we still arguing?

We aren't on the same page. I don't think that consistent patterns of thought can be altered to the point of autonomy quite so quickly.

It's fine, I sort of didn't want to be that one pointing that stuff out. Debates/arguments are verbal jousts; there will always be openings and regardless of who's on who's side. In this instance I'm curious in seeing some good points on both sides, but I'm not seeing much on some ends, I suppose. Both sides are having their own issues, so it's certainly interesting to watch. (edited)

To use your gun comparison - if you fire a gun for three hours, focusing intensely on how it works, but then take time off and don't use it, you might remember the experience of it quite clearly, but not be capable of firing it as easily the next time, or it may feel quite different than you remember as memories are rewritten every time you access them (part of the reason anecdotes are flawed).

fwiw, while a tulpa is definitely a bigger change to introduce into one's mind than a habit is, it's also a more self-reinforcing one

@SkyeNet we're still on this quickly thing....who said anything about quickly? how are you defining quickly? is it an absolute or relative to some other factor? Gimme numbers or equations here

@Srn347 I agree with that... eventually. Once autonomy is established, a tulpa self-reinforces quite a bit.

8:59 PM

I don't think an autonomous tulpa can be formed in the manner people often present over the course of less than a month, to be very generous.

And as for the gun thing, YES I AGREE. It again depends on your focus and how you direct it. Are you focusing on the accuracy? The recoil? The ergonomics? etc. The same applies to a tulpa, and everyone does it a little differently...

9:00 PM

therefore, all data collected from them is still in one form or another, SUBJECTIVE AND BIASED

...naturally everybody does it slightly differently, but that doesn't change the fact that it takes time, some breaks, and repeated constant exposure to get to the right place.

In addition, if you are holding the gun by its barrel and pulling the trigger, you might learn "how to fire a gun", but is it actually firing the gun in the correct way - or a way that is healthy?

9:01 PM

No.

nope

9:01 PM

so you've now reinforced my point

9:01 PM

what's yours (edited)

Clearly that isn't a perfect comparison, but I certainly hope that gets the point across.

you're trying to create a 2D or 3D chart of a thing that has like 15 different aspects to it

9:02 PM

cause imagine a chart of hair color and eye color

I'm making simplified comparisons.

9:02 PM

I thought that was obvious.

you can tell from this chart that, ok, people with dark hair are more likely to have dark eyes

9:02 PM

but let's say now you included shoe size

9:03 PM

a totally seperate factor

9:03 PM

now you have no corellation

9:03 PM

and that'll be part of the problem you have

9:04 PM

people will force their tulpa based on their beliefs and experiences, and expectations and understanding...and nobody's is the same