/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4668632


They try to create it.

lol'd hard at your pic

i think its a synonym for 'waifu' or some shit, but i wasnt really paying attention, sounds like /x/ shit to me

It's basically an imaginary girlfriend.

You obsess over it day and night and eventually you get to the point where, to you, she really exists. You're basically inducing schizophrenia.

Needless to say, it's an awful idea.

>>4668645
wat? who the fuck would do that?

That's what happens when you don't drink at a party

Alright, thanks guys.
Why the fuck do we need another word for waifu?
And why is it discussed on /sci/?

>>4668650
You're on 4chan and you need to ask that question?

>>4668654
It also happens when I drink at parties. True story. ;_;

>>4668650
I would, because I can no longer stand that feel when no gf

>>4668659
er, yeh
even /b/tards dont do that shit

>>4668665
well just get one. an imaginary gf would be shit, you cant even fuck 'em.

>>4668682
This is the stupidest comment I had to read today. And let me tell you, I've seen a lot of stupidity. I was on /b/ and on /x/, but you easily outperform them.

>>4668668
>>>/adv/
>>>/r9k/
>>>/co/
>>>/v/
>>>/vg/
>>>/tg/
>>>/toy/

>>4668692
tulpa actually came from /mlp/
they're creating pony tulpas as we speak

gawd, I swear that OP's pic is a perfect illustration of my social life. Same type of language and everything... man..

All except the visible tears at the end...
But I'm crying on the inside.

>>4668693
>pony tulpas

>>4668682
Will you be my gf EK? I think that my science is long and hard enough to satisfy a zoology major

>>4668713
internet gf would be almost as pathetic as a tulpa

>>4668713
>letting women touch your science

I personally don't like the idea of making an imaginary friend, but the alleged benefits of having access to your memory and other subconscious things is intriguing. Technically it's not schizophrenia as you know the hallucination is not real and you can ignore it until it goes away.

>>4668734
erm, you cant really make yourself hallucinate though, not without drugs or something at least
i mean, you'd never actually see or hear your imaginary gf, you'd know shes just an idea in your head.
so its not even a hallucination, just an imagination.

>>4668745
Incorrect. Once it's in your head, you start actively imagining it near you until you see it, clear as day.

>>4668745
schizophrenic hallucinate without drugs.
counter example given, assertion disproved

>>4668745
Some of these people claim that they've pushed themselves to the level of hallucination, but you have to question how reliable any account from these people is.

I think creating objects in our mind is an intriguing idea. I hear a lot of hate on tulpa because people make it seem like it is only used for companionship however, companionship is often not the main motive. I created a place in my mind, a cave, that I like to go to before bed. I go into my cave and look at all the things I have accumulated in there. I stash all of my secrets, objects I desire, and I keep it safe from the outside. Tulpa is simply creating objects in your mind, it is a verb. If you have ever imagined yourself in a different world or setting, congratulations, you are tulpaing.

Schizoid hallucinogen user here: intensive meditation can cause major to minor CEVs, even predating my actual hallucinogen use. Matter of fact hallucinogens only cause a release of dimethyl tryptamine in the pineal gland which is what induces hallucinations. It's a naturally occurring substance in a variety of plants and virtually all mammals iirc. It is released while you sleep, it breaks down the barriers between the subconscious and the conscious causing what is essentially a waking dream.

>>4668793
Can you show some citations that hallucinations are caused specifically by dimethyl tryptamine (dmt)? I only thought that it is released when either consuming dmt (by smoke, food, whatever) and when you die.

im trying this just to see if its possible, i doubt it and maybe that doubt will prevent it from working, but meh. i have time to kill while waiting anyway. and im making a pony one, twilight to be specific. it just seems more interesting.

>>4668802

Your brain releases it every night when you sleep, it contributes heavily to dreaming

>>4668807
Can you please cite this and the other information you posted?

>>4668693

I'm pretty sure they were discussed to death on /x/ before this most recent resurrection on /mlp/. Even there it's kind of a joke outside of the tulpa general thread (yes, those are a thing). Looking through those, though, it appears most people on /mlp/ who are tyring to make a tulpa are not using a pony as their model. By the time they read up on it and decide to put in the few hundred hours it apparently takes to realize one of these things, they're doing it for the enhanced recall and access to their subconscious. I find it fascinating and was tempted to try just to see if it was possible to induce a hallucinatory representation of my subconscious; ultimately I decided I probably wouldn't have the discipline to finish it.

Bump

>>4668817
No, I can't, but I can definitely guarantee accuracy. Go get your a game on or eat some mushrooms, maybe have sex. It's definitely factual once you've experienced it, it's very apparent. Regarding the barrier breaking I believe there was a group of UK scientist using EEG to analyze the effects of the drug, it essentially shut down to some extent the connection barriers of the brain allowing for more apt communication between the different lobes of the brain. Sorry I can't cite anything directly but if I can find the articles I will. It's just that the drugs can't be actively researched due to the stringent laws imposed on them, despite their therapeutic capacities.

>>4668632
Same shitty troll everyday

Nothing to see here, move along

>>4669100
I've had mushrooms, dmt, acid, and some offshoot of a 2c-something before but that doesn't explain the correlation that all psychedelics activate the release of dmt nor does it prove dmt is released in the sleep. I definitely liked dmt the most out of all though. I want to make food with it so the trip lasts longer. I know there have been many books written about hallucinogenics but until I see that it has been scientifically proven, using the scientific method, I unfortunately can't make any decision.

Yay a thread.

Would it be bad to draw my tulpa or would that help me realize it?

>>4669645
It helps.

>>4668657

It's basically a very powerful form of self-hypnosis that literally makes you (in theory) section your mind off into a separate sentient conciousness which you can then hallucinate into daily life.

Think Jarvis from the Iron Man movies, but in your head. Or Cortana from Halo.

The concept makes sense, it's kind of like a personal assistant in your brain which helps you access subconcious memories, as well as a companion. The question is if it has any actual scientific value, relevance, or if it's even provably real.

Either way, we'll have AI ones in a few decades anyways with better functionality, so although I find the idea of self-modification interesting I think I'll shy away from the self-induced hallucination for now.

http://www.tulpa.info/index.xhtml

>>4669673
Pussy!

>>4669673
We could prove/disprove it if we organized a double blind study.

>>4669681

Not any more than we can prove consciousness. There is no physical evidence to gather, it's literally all testimony. If the thing is entirely in your own head, then there is no way to tell people are lying about it unless we can map a specific brain state to tulpa = true and another to tulpa=false.

And even that would require us to take as an axiom that the person who we were scanning was not lying or wrong about having a tulpa

>we'll have AI ones in a few decades anyways with better functionality

I like your style, bro.

>>4669688
MRI?

>>4669696

Thanks bro. Transhuman fistbump.

>>4669697

Again, you need to be 100% sure that the target actually has the symptom you're looking for. And even then, all the MRI says is that this area of the brain lights up. It could be caused by the focus or the meditation. It doesn't prove the tulpa any more than a pen on the ground can be used to determine what someone wrote without a known copy of the letter.

>>4669711
>It could be caused by the focus or the meditation.
You don't have to be meditating to see it

>>4669720

I was more talking about if there was a permanent change in the brain, and what its causes could be.

>>4669711

Are you an editor for H+ ?

>>4669724

Nope, people ask me about that every once in a while, but I actually got the name from the shorthand for Transhumanism, and then it stuck when I found it funny that people thought I was a hydrogen atom.

I didn't even know about the magazine until someone asked me about that.

>>4669722
Just nitpicking to bump.

Why bother with all this, and not just find a real girl? Someone who you can get to know and will actually love you? I mean I see people go on and on about how all women are fucking worthless bitches, but then people are being driven to create fake girlfriends because they want one so badly?
It seems contradictory.

Is it an idealism thing? creating an imaginary girlfriend with no flaws like, she doesn't have any body hair or something and doesn't like movies about hot guys or... Whatever flaws make you hate real women so much?

You people DO know that not all women are artificial twilight-reading bitches, right?

>>4669733
>Why bother with all this, and not just find a real girl?

>>4669733
Because bitches and whores.

>>4669733

>2012
>Still lusting after 3DPD

Step up

>>4669733
>You people DO know that not all women are artificial twilight-reading bitches, right?

>>4669733

It's not only about waifu-worship, it's basically just bio-hacking your brain which i can get behind, if it has a practical benefit.

A double-blind study on the memory recall of alleged tulpa owners vs normal people would be interesting. If there is a nominal increase in the testable prediction that a tulpa helps you access your subconscious and/or memories better, that would be really interesting.

The more I think about this the more I find it intriguing. Although it seems strange, its claimed benefits are testable.

For fucks sake tulpa isn't always about creating the perfect woman. Tulpa is a fucking verb goddamnit. It is the act of building something in your mind. It can be a box, imaginary world, or yes even a woman. Thee fags over at mlp thought it would be a nice idea to create their ponies in their mind, that way they can have sex and whatnot with the creations.

>>4669752
I wanna know had the bight idea of bring this shit to /mlp/. Now every time we try to talk about it anywhere else you either get "fuck off you horse fuckers" or "fuck off with that schizo shit".

>>4669770
Bright*

>>4669770
Well the concept isn't new or anything, some sect of Buddhism developed it. Every thread about tulpa involves some asshole automatically thinking its from a bunch of lonely tards trying to create the ideal woman, which derails the entire thread.

>>4669781
I know that, that's why we're on /sci/. Though, I think the guys on the irc stopped making threads. I'm banned for my own good so I can't be sure.

>>4669781

TO be fair, it hasn't derailed this thread. One or two posts do not a derail make.

>>concubitus imagine

... You aren't helping captcha...

bump

Are they useful for anything other than photographic memory?

>>4670120

That would be useful enough.

But most of the time the advantages I see advetised are that, companionship, and a better access to the 'subconcious mind'. whatever that means.

These are from the sites/people who don't claim them to be Horcruxes or Daimons.

Can they dream? If you took the right meds would you be unable to see them?

>What's a "tulpa"

The autist variant of an egregore.

>implying all tulpae are girls
>implying nobody has any bro tulpae
>not linking to http://www.tulpa.info/guides/

sagebump

>>4669752
That definition reminds me of an interview with the man with the best memory in US, he said one of the common memory strategies was to build a mansion and place things to remember into picture frames or the like, then when you need to remember it you do a sort of mental walk-through of the place.

>2012
>Not believing everything you see on the internet

>>4669752
omg that's genious!
I'm going to start building on flutttershy right away.

So tulpa is just another word for dwelling in fantasies?

>>4672555
>2012
>Not having a Derpy tupla
ISHIGGY DIGGY

>>4672561
More like another word for imagniary friend.

>>4672571
Where's the difference?

>>4672580
When did I say they were different?

>>4672585
You said "more like". That implies a difference.

I often playfully do things around my house with an imaginary girlfriend, like cooking and drawing and talking and cuddling with her. It's definitely not schizophrenia, because I know she's not real. But the relationship between me and this imaginary girlfriend is exciting enough for me to delve many hours each day into the fantasy.

Is my girlfriend a tulpa though?

>>4672599
And how is her? Does she responds to you and acts on her own?

>>4672638
She does have unique conversation in a way, but it's hard to remember how after the imaginary scenes take place. Only recently have I started imagining what she would be doing when I'm not next to her, but it's usually her playing the piano.
But that makes sense that a seperate conciousness would do a lot more besides what My own is doing, so I guess it's not a tulpa.

>>4672665
You need a psychiatrist

I want to try it.
>When Alexandra David-Neel journeyed through Tibet, one of the many mystical techniques she studied was that of tulpa creation... In time the vision grew in clarity and substance until it was indistinguishable from physical reality-a sort of self-induced hallucination. But the day came when the hallucination slipped from her conscious control. She discovered that the monk would appear from time to time when she had not willed it. Furthermore her friendly little figure was slimming down and taking on a distinctly sinister aspect.
But the idea of this happening to me is not really appealing.

Even worse:
>At this point, David-Neel decided things had gone too far and applied different lamaist techniques to reabsorb the creature into her own mind. The tulpa proved very unwillling to face destruction in this way so that the process took several weeks and left its creator exhausted.

>>4673304
No man, I just need a gf ;_;

Could all of you faggots please stop shitting your pants in excitement over this utter bullshit already?

FFS, even the "REAL" Dissociative Identity Disorder (Or "multiple personality disorder" for the less psychologically educated) which btw doesnt have ANYTHING to do with schizophrenia, is widely regarded as an iatrogenic phenomenon today. It's nothing but some heavy, trauma generated dissociation combined with a diagnosis made out of lust for sensation. IT IS NOT REAL. There is no documented, scientific case about it, that is to be taken seriously.

That's why you can't just go ahead and "create" a split personality. "Tulpa" is the most retarded thing I have heard EVER claiming to be taken seriously in the field of psychology.

Get over it, there is no such thing as artificial dissociation of the mind. There is no "mind magic" and omnipotence of subconsciousness.

ITT: People circle jerking about pseudo-psychology because they have seen Inception.

>>4674551
Those that claim to be tulpa hosts would have certain extra abilities normal humans don't (the near perfect memory recall for one), so it should be scientifically testable.

Just because it doesn't fit in your current psychological models does not mean it's a non-existent phenomenon, because most current models are very incomplete.

It seems similar to some dissociative disorders, but it's different from DID as there are no blackouts and both the tulpa and the host are aware of each other's actions and they can do things in parallel.

>>4674694

We have our current models for a good reason. Because the explain the world (in this case, let's call it "psyche") better than every other model so far.
Now those retarded tulpa fanatics turn up from out of fucking nowhere and claim something that goes against very much what we have learned about the brain / psyche / behaviour so far. And they base that claim on absolutely nothing.
"Thought experiment" is no valid form of gathering empirical data.

And regarding those additional assumptions about "extra abilites" (perfect memory recall)... It's stuff like this, that makes me doubt that you have any idea at all about what you are talking about. And by that I mean basics, like what is personality, how is it structured, what is self-concept, how is it structured, can it be influenced and if yes how and to what extend.
All of these questions are pretty much already answered bei EMPIRICAL DATA. ACTUAL SCIENCE.
Not your esoteric happy hippy bullshit.

But if you're happy with it, go on and believe in this utter batcrap, it will lead to nothing but you realizing you made a complete idiot of yourself in a few years.

>>4674753
I don't believe in it, because I don't have evidence one way or another. What am I doing is self-experimenting and then I will know if it's a real phenomenon or not once the 100 hours are up, even if I would not be able to communicate my personal truth to other people.

>>4674760
>>it's true because i want it to be true
die in a fire you furious cancerfag

>>4674847
your reading comprehension = 0

>>4674861
>>4674861
your cocksucking level = 9001

>>4674865
Hell, I wish I were that good.

>>4674872
you probably are. your daddy just needed an excuse for beating the shit out of you afterwards

>>4674847
Stop being an idiot. What I said was that I'm trying to induce a certain state of mind in myself. If I succeed inducing that state of mind, it'll be true for me. If I fail, I'll just conclude that the experiment failed for me and leave it alone (conclusion being that it's either impossible in general or that I did something wrong or that it's not possible for me). Currently I'm a third of the way and the evidence that it can work is not yet conclusive, thus failure is an option.

>>4674888
>>4674888
>> even if I would not be able to communicate my personal truth to other people

see that? that's were you went full retard.
"personal truth" --> you don't belong here, you cock-gargling buttsniffing waste of oxygen

>>4674902
Personal truth because it deals with the beliefs present in our brains. We can't yet just look at a piece of wetware and figure out what it's experiencing, so as far as I'm concerned, it is my personal truth because I wouldn't be able to communicate it in full, even if I would know it's true from my perspective. Next up you're debating qualia.

>>4674921

You sound just like a religiousfag... Once again proves that you do not belong here.
gtfo you esoteric piece of donkeycrap

>>4674926
You'll need to come up with an actual argument.
I'm no religious, but I do have provably unprovable philosophical positions/beliefs, but then, everyone has those: even to do basic science, you need a few of them. If you think you don't, you just haven't examined the axioms on which you base your reasoning and which you don't ever question.

>>4674928
>> "i'm a unique and beatufil snowflake"
science is prediction. if you can't predict it, it means you're a faggot

Oh come on, not you faggots too...

>>4674950
Huh?

>>4674934
I'll give you one of the simplest beliefs that you have to have to do science:
Science requires a belief in an induction principle at a minimum. It requires assuming that there are some universal laws that are there to be found and that those laws will continue working into the next observed moments. After you have these beliefs, you can build a model which predicts some behavior and you can test that model against the observed facts. Science won't tell you that your model is correct as you cannot test every possible case, nor do you have infinite amounts of time as that's the observer class' limitation. What science can do is tell you when your model is wrong, for example if the facts don't match your prediction - science can only falsify theories.
What about those inductive beliefs? They also go deeper and have to do with the belief that there is an observer, that you are "thinking" and "experiencing" something. Other flavors of science may even require assuming an objective reality of sorts, which is a more complex issue that I don't want to go into here as it would be greatly off-topic to this thread.

Either way, the tulpa thing is scientifically testable to some extent, but like most psychological phenomena, there is a point where you have to take someone's word for it, or have the same experiences yourself.

>>4674953
Tulpa threads have gone out of control on /x/, and then some pony fags decided they wanted to be into it so they could fuck imaginary horses. Then while I was on /fit/ fucking fat neckbeards wanted one to replace their "tfw no gf."

And now you fucking faggots. Why...why do you want one? What imaginary fucking animals do you all want to fuck? Einstein? A midget? EINSTEIN!?

>>4674961
Don't worry. The tulpa threads on /mlp/ have been dead for some time, and there's no hope they'll ever be resurrected. And once this thread dies, no one will make another tulpa related one.

>>4674966
>he thinks it's going to stop
Not until we're all fucking cartoons

>>4674969
Only few people are interested in this. Of course it's going to stop.

>>4674972
We'll see...

>>4674972
Actually, it's going to stop because your mod doesn't understand what is and isn't a science.

>>4674960

"the tulpa thing is scientifically testable to some extent"

wtf should be testable about it? Come on, blow my mind.

"but like most psychological phenomena, there is a point where you have to take someone's word for it, or have the same experiences yourself."

you sir, do not seem to have any knowledge about how psychology as a field of science works.
If you want to be taken seriously, stop your ideographic bullshit approach and try a nomothetic one...

>>4675204
> wtf should be testable about it? Come on, blow my mind.
There are various specific abilities tulpa hosts report having which they didn't before they got a tulpa.
Secondly, persistent hallucinations should have an effect on fMRIs among some other tests.
Thirdly, some day, we may even be able to decode those hallucinations partially, just like it's partially possible to decode someone sub-vocalizing, although the technology isn't yet there.
The most interesting part that warrants testing is the improved parallel processing abilities. This should be doable even without special equipment.
> you sir, do not seem to have any knowledge about how psychology as a field of science works.
We only agree on what the color "red" is because we all sense the color "red". We could explain what the color red by saying it's a frequency of light and explaining how the eye and to visual cortex works, but we only talk about it because we have that particular experience. Oh damn it, now I've done it ;_; ( If we're talking about mental experiences, there have to be some experiences to correlate with our own observations. )

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

>>4675271
Why?

>>4675251

Okay, so you are taking the report of people who are clearly not unbiased towards the subject as proof? That's not how science is done. This is how religion is done. Those alleged "tulpa hosts" seem to me like a bunch of attention whoring faggots that have watched fight club too often.

If they really have hallucinations, there should be some action going on in the visual cortex or broca area... However, until there is any data regarding this, it is pointless to believe in it.

Regarding "parallel processing"... I'm not quite sure what kind of mambo jambo you are hinting at, but I assume it goes along the line with both "personalities" having different trains of thought simultanously. I highly doubt that this is possible, based on everything I have learned so far about the human brain.

I also don't understand why you always make a reference to the problem of qualia. So what, we can't look into another person's mind. We do not have to. There are ways of showing the processes that are going on in someone's brain at a certain time. And it is through these methods that science will reveal that this tulpa bullshit is nothing but fairytale horsedung.

Ofc, only if science even takes it seriously enough to waste time and money on researching it...

Sup guys. You might be interested in this:

http://forum.tulpa.info/index.php?showtopic=28

>>4676463
> Okay, so you are taking the report of people who are clearly not unbiased towards the subject as proof? That's not how science is done. This is how religion is done.
Someone is claiming they're having some particular mental experience after performing some experiment. Let's ignore them because they are claiming to have that experience because we've assumed that experience is impossible from the start.
> Those alleged "tulpa hosts" seem to me like a bunch of attention whoring faggots that have watched fight club too often.
There's too many of them for all of them to be fakers. There were a few roleplayers, but most of them don't seem to be.
> I highly doubt that this is possible, based on everything I have learned so far about the human brain.
It's an extraordinary claim and it makes the hypothesis testable. What more could you want?
> And it is through these methods that science will reveal that this tulpa bullshit is nothing but fairytale horsedung.
Go ahead and test it. If it's real, it will lead to more accurate models, if it's false, people will stop wasting their time.
> Ofc, only if science even takes it seriously enough to waste time and money on researching it...
And that's why those that are curious to find out are just self-experimenting. 100 hours spread out over the course of a month or two is something I'm willing to spend to find out if this is a real psychological phenomenon or not. Not everyone is willing to do so and that's fine as well.

Regarding your claim of parallel trains of thought: I don't see why it would be impossible as the brain is massively parallel, nor do we even have an accurate model of how our own decision process is formed.

Up?

>>4677875
Please, don't revive this thread.