/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5083336]

>tfw panda tulpa
>tfw tulpanda gf

[Anonymous No.5083355]

>tulpa
/x/ is that way.

[Anonymous No.5083369]

I'm curious why you guys hate logical explanation of the supernatural? Tulpa theory is exactly what science says it is. A creation of the mind, nothing more. All those alien abductions/ghosts/boogeymens are explained as a mental construct. I would've thought /sci/ would embrace the theory.

[Anonymous No.5083377]

Still doesn't excuse global rule #6 because it's already covered by #3 (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?").

[Anonymous No.5083381]

>>5083369
A tulpa is an actual entity and not a spontaneous delusion.

[Anonymous No.5083383]

>>5083369
Largely because it can't be disproved. /sci/ loves Popper and therefore hates things that can't be disproved. (I don't particularly hate supernatural speculation, and I can certainly see why you'd post it here rather than somewhere as shitty as /x/, but still).

[Anonymous No.5083386]

>tfw no panda gf

[Anonymous No.5083391]

>>5083381
No, tulpa says the entity is nothing but a creation of the mind that affects only the person interacting with it. Sorta like a imaginary friend. Or air guitar, it actually explains the supernatural elements as a mental delusion. Its basically hallucination, there is no actual entity created.

[Anonymous No.5083406]

>>5083391
It's still a mentally separate entity even if it only affects one person.

[Anonymous No.5083407]

>>5083383
I still dont get it. Whats science's alternative explanation to what boogeyman/alienabduction/ghosts? The mental creation is a very sound and falsifiable one. God Helmet is one such test conducted to show that human minds are bendable to show the unreal. You can surely see how other experiments might try to prove or disprove whether such things like ghosts/gods/etc are purely mental constructs

[Anonymous No.5083414]

>>5083406
So you're saying if I believe theres a invisible pink leprachaun that only I can see, it exist as an entity? Thats just stupid. Tulpas are not entity like humans or animals or cars. They're like ideas/dreams/thoughts, they have no real world basis.

[Anonymous No.5083416]

>>5083414
they are as real as your own consciousness

[Anonymous No.5083423]

>>5083391
That's sure as hell not the Tibetan concept of a tulpa.

[Anonymous No.5083426]

>>5083407
Well, if I'm understanding correctly you're using "tulpa" to mean a delusion that follows a particular cultural theme, rather than a physical entity created by someone's thoughts. Which isn't what anyone else uses "tulpa" to mean.

[Anonymous No.5083428]

>>5083423
I looked up the word right now, it seems that way to me. Tulpa = thoughtform/mental construct. Looks like its a mental construct, not an actual entity. I dont know where you're getting the "tulpa" = real entity. From the wiki article, it seems like its more of a mental exercise to show tulpas arent real entity.

[Anonymous No.5083434]

>>5083426
But you're wrong. Most people that use the word tulpa say its nothing but a mental construct. It has no real entity behind it. They consider it a 3d delusion nothing more. And as such, tulpa theory states all boogeyman/ghosts/god are nothing but mental creations of some people. With no real existence behind them. This is very in line with the scientific explanation or rather a natural explanation of the world.

[Anonymous No.5083437]

>>5083381
[citation needed]
Let's see the research, and the experimental method that can be recreated.

[Anonymous No.5083445]

>>5083434
Then does "tulpa" mean anything except a synonym for "delusion"? And if not, why should we care about this "tulpa theory"?

[Anonymous No.5083454]

>>5083445
Delusion is just delusion, tulpa theory is the explanation of people creating delusions to create so called ghosts/gods/deities/etc. Its a more formulated theory. Its comparable to the explanation of river streams and dam utilizing the river stream to generate electricity. Both of them try to explain/develop a theory that can be utilized to make use of "normal" things like water/delusion to get something out of it.

[notfaggot No.5083600]

Tulpas are not people and should not be treated as such. I've seen people claiming that tulpas should have the same rights as people. Frankly I think this should all go to /x/, just because of this screwed up reasoning

[Anonymous No.5083604]

>>5083600
Christians believe science supports their God. Should science be thrown in /x/ too?

You're right with your first statement. Tulpas are not people, they are mental constructs just like thoughts/imagination/etc. Tulpa theory explains that supernatural events are purely mental construction, thus has no bearing on reality. Some retards might say tulpa = real, but those are nutcases just like christians that believe science prove GOd

[Anonymous No.5083608]

>>5083445
>And if not, why should we care about this "tulpa theory"?
You shouldn't, because it's nonsense.

[Anonymous No.5083615]

>>5083608
Why? This is exactly in the realms of science. Science explains the "nonsense" into sensible terms. Tulpa theory is trying to make the nonsensical into something that makes sense.

[notfaggot No.5083626]

Ask about tulpas in IRC, #[e-mail]