Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

Quite frequently, as well.

Oh jeez

6:01 PM

Yeah... I got really bashed for what I said I had experienced back when I even told people about that stuff

6:01 PM

Okay

6:02 PM

Maybe not

...at the very least, when you have people talking about "their host left them to fly to pony island and never came back", skepticism is the least that should be presented in return.

The Metaphysics board on Tulpa.info works perfectly fine. Discussions are contained there and everyone on both sides is happy.

I agree with that.

indeed

Eh then that works then

Without it, allowing in general, non-metaphysical minded people get relatively upset when metaphysics are used in discussions. Without it, we lose a decent amount of members, and/or at least many of them feel less comfortable.

6:03 PM

I've seen both sides, so.

If there is a channel for people to discuss how the magic energies of the world spin and somehow affect them in a way that has no expression on anything but their own internal symbolics and visualization, I don't care.

and a lot of beginners would get confused by it

I won't touch magic ideas until some proof comes to the table.

Well you see... flying is science.

Make it a chat you have to opt to join?

I'm not against the discussion of metaphysics as long as it's contained. Maybe it could be an opt-in thing, yeah.

As soon as proof is around, it's not metaphysics/supernatural anymore

Indeed.

So people who don’t wanna see it don’t have to

This is why I find the whole thing silly.

Opt in sounds best imo.

If you don't want to see it, just right click and mute the channel. No need for anything complicated.

If there isn't some demonstration that what a person is talking about exists, then it is discussion of fantasy.

Yeah but if the channel isn’t even there then like who would even know about it

6:04 PM

Only the people who want to be there

It'll probably end up dead though anyways. Especially if its opt in.

It should be opt-in.

It probably would

Opt in is practically impossible, we really can't bother.

6:05 PM

That would require assigning a role to literally everyone

6:05 PM

It'd be some "secret club"

No, you just assign the role to people who want in.

perhaps we should talk in lounge, seeing as how we've gone from tulpas to the server

When true "opt-in" is simply clicking on the chat or not.

6:05 PM

You can "opt out" by not clicking.

"Should" doesn't mean "will", but it is there.

#server-discussion

Yeah, at this point.

that too

mmm containing the urge of posting Mckenna memes

@SkyeNet opt-out gives people a wider range of inputs by default. If metaphysics triggers them or something then there should definitely be the opt-out. However, nothing is forcing people to participate or agree with metaphysical views; and people that disagree are more than capable of ignoring it.

6:26 PM

er

6:27 PM

o'll copy there

I think it ought to be opt in, mostly because I just am not a fan of metaphysics.

You could always mute and hide the category though

and especially because such rooms are more often safe spaces than they are places to keep on a topic

11:25 PM

because, like anything else that is wrong, the concept needs an aritifical wall to keep standing.

I think the burden should be on the people that cant restrain themselves from trolling meta areas, not the people interested in the ideas though

"trolling"

Why make the meta channel hidden or opt in in some way? If you don't like it just don't go into it.

there is some level of it, without doubt, but under free debate and discussion, metaphysics would crumble and die in a year.

I mean, so would religion yeah? But it doesn't.

You underestimate people's willingness to stick to their beliefs. Honestly a 'debate meta' area to contain the discussions as well as the general meta areas could be nice

People want to believe things.

11:28 PM

Uh.. debate meta is a bad idea.

Why not go all out. Lets have a christian region of the server as well

11:28 PM

lets not forget islam

...please don't.

Because this server is a tupper server and not a religion one

All religious talk, if in-depth enough, goes in meta.

I don't think a place to debate whether meta is valid is a good idea. The server would burn to the ground in a week.

I agree, this is a tulpa server, not a religious one.

isn't that stuff covered under meta? all religions have metaphysical implications

Religion/magic/etc is for the #metaphysics channel. The end.

Mostly just confused on if Reg is trying to say meta should be exclusive because he dislikes meta, or because he's worried having meta publically will cause it to collapse. Either way probably #server-discussion territory

This is absolutely server-discussion territory.

earlier I said it was becuse I dislike it.

If it becomes a problem we can lock it. But it works fine on the forum and IRC being visible to all (registered) users.

works fine, but encourages new gullible people to join their little cult

Chess and I talk all the time with no problem, and I can hear her fine, but it feels different when trying to proxy her; I have a harder time hearing her, and the stuff convayed is more "basic" -- anyone else experience this? I guess it just comes down to having to practice.

We have more trouble with communicating with each other, beyond using tulpish, I suppose.

1:10 AM

So, I suppose we have the opposite issue of you.

it seems like it's the opposite with more hosts, from what I've seen.

I think it is harder to talk between tulpas, because you have to switch the thought patterns very quickly for a conversation to feel natural.

I suppose it just takes time.

idk maybe we've just proxied too much but comes pretty natural here

I frequently hold conversations simultaneously as Skye does - similarly while she does other work.

1:21 AM

If one of us needs to focus wholly on one due to it being highly engaging, the other adjusts. However, practice is what makes perfect in this case.

We do need more practice.

I guess I'm in the same boat as Harleen, it's generally easier for one of us to talk to someone outside than for us to have a conversation

1:24 AM

but hmm

1:24 AM

I guess you wouldn't say you yourself struggle like Chess does when talking to someone outside?

For us, it is actually easier to pause and think to ourselves, "What would Angel think about this?" over if I had to directly ask her. (edited)

interesting. why do you think that is?

I suppose because I will be accurate enough most of the time, but it does not take me out of the state of mind of being "Harleen" with the need to change the thought patterns just for her input on something.

1:36 AM

Having to do so, seems to disrupt the follow of separateness.

hmm

1:40 AM

right, that makes sense. so that's not a prompt for you to switch over to her thought patterns

1:41 AM

but you would have some lower-resolution model of her that you yourself could do without a lot of mode switching

1:41 AM

yeah that makes sense actually

Harleen, you sneak the phenomenology into his system.

1:43 AM

I'll secretly beam with pride.

no sneeki breeki phenomenologi

This is the serious channel.

1:44 AM

I am unsure if this is the case for other's, however.

Quick jokes are fine by me.

1:44 AM

As long as they are recognizable jokes, naturally.

1:45 AM

If other people in discussion want no jokes for a serious discussion, though - naturally that should be respected.