Tulpas > General Discussion

Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?

<< < (2/4) > >>

Sands:

--- Quote from: penultimate.forme on October 29, 2013, 10:05:52 PM ---
--- Quote ---Also "programming" servitors sounds like people trying to make the mind be a computer when it's not, really.
--- End quote ---
I beg to differ. This is a matter of opinion, but computers were made by humans. Programming is a set of logic that is based from the human psyche.

--- End quote ---

Well, sure. You could do that. But the mind isn't a computer and trying to "program" it is just overcomplicating things. Like seriously, there are people who "program" their servitors with an actual programming language. The programming part would be symbolism, which of course can be really powerful when used by the right person with the right beliefs. But really, what else does the mind need except your determination for things like these? Say it happens and if you know it will, then it will. Placebo, possitive affirmations, those work and are rarely heavy on symbolism or "programming", just your words and/or beliefs are enough. So, programming is symbolism and it can be used, sure, but it's unnecessary in the end if you can achieve things without. Which would be a better way to train your mind to work, really. Less of a hassle.

I'd say that sometimes symbolism is even outright distracting for me. A lot of hypnotists for example are very heavy on symbolism and it becomes really hard to follow their symbolism when I'm already ready to slip into trance. I'd do much better with a hypnotists who just gets me in a relaxed mood and tells me to go in trance than someone telling me to float down a river of whateveritis and feeling the water and the sun and blah blah. I'm not trying to visualize, I'm trying to trance, right? So tell me to go in trance instead of visualizing crap that has nothing to do with it and only distracts me from the main goal.

Roflmao and waffles have tons of talk about things like these, yeah. You might enjoy joining their conversations one day, when they both are around and in the mood for some words. They usually have really different views on the things so it's even pretty interesting to watch.

penultimate.forme:
Like you said, for some people, the brute force method works by using sheer processing power. However, constructing a more formulaic algorithm is almost always more efficient. To come to these algorithms we need to understand how the system works. By getting shit done faster, more gets done, so why not? You're still speaking the language of how a computer functions.
Following your example, I'm sure the relaxation technique the hypnotist is trying to employ is trying to run simultaneously to a subconscious relaxation technique that you have already established, creating an error. (This is a subjective assumption, so obviously my point is arguable.)
Personally, I'm not that powerful, and would try to construct a method to follow to make it easier as opposed to a brute force method like you described. For me, this is much less of a hassle.

But that's a personal preference, again. I find raw thoughts distressingly agitating, and have a feeling most people have an organized (subconscious) method of filtering them... again, similar to the way a computer filters 1s and 0s into a GUI.

I'd be interested in dropping in on that, if only to lurk and to have some logs to comb through.

penultimate.forme:
You're a sassy one.

The problem with what you're suggesting is that metaphysics is a self-fufilling theory. The entire structure that makes up metaphysics was created not based on a physical documented entity, but to justify phenomena that are already occurring. There's no evidence for the existence of metaphysics, only a lot of things that can align and suggest its existence.

Computers and programming are widely documented as, well, ... being real. So, comparing something tangible (something we can physically interact with; computers, and by proxy, programming) to something intangible (that only exists in the brain; tulpas, subconscious) is a more concrete analysis than comparing something intangible (metaphysics) to something intangible (subconscious).

Additionally, the theories I'm referencing are widely documented and widely accepted field of academia. As opposed to metaphysics, which as you obviously pointed out, is a joke.

All I'm suggesting is that by examining the structure of code, it reveals something about the structure of the subconscious, something that has been discussed ad infinitum by critical theorists at this point.

I find it intriguing to contrast this idea with the phenomena of tulpas (lifting this citation from a web page since I can't be arsed to dig through this paper right now):
"In "Traumas of Code" Hayles asserts that "trauma has structural affinities with code" because "code, performing as the interface between humans and programmable media, functions in the contemporary cultural Imaginary as the shadowy double of the human-only language inflected and infected by its hidden presence" (Hayles 157)"

I can't help but find an uncanny metaphorical semblance between that assertion and how tulpas function between the body and subconscious.

Sands:
Yeah, I must agree that if you just want to call the mind a computer because it helps you to understand how it basically works is just fine, but obviously the mind is not a computer but well, the mind. Computer is just a metaphor, not what the mind is. I find that calling the mind a computer is just people not understanding how powerful the human mind really is, because it's a lot more than that. A lot more.

Why I say symbolism is a hassle is that if you can actually condition yourself to work with by just saying you want something to happen to get it happen just is much faster than trying to think of pretty little birds and flowers doing whatever it is that makes something in your mind happen. Sure, it's a skill you need to learn, but it's a very useful one and when you got it, you can use it more or less everywhere. It's like knowing the secret of how something works and going right to the point instead of taking an unnecessary route through something else. So I disagree a lot with you saying a more formulaic algorithm is going to be more efficient more often than it isn't. Let's go back to the hypnosis stuff I talked about, when I skip the, what, 10 or 20 minutes of the hypnotist talking about flower fields and instead relax and force myself into trance under that time, it's just much faster no matter how you look at it. And anyone learning their trick would be able to do it much faster than the symbolism route. If you like metaphors and analogies, I guess "just doing it" is a cheat code to get to the last level instead of playing through the entire game.

Also subconscious as a word is something people in scientific communities try to avoid because of the term being turned into something that means whatever the person writing the word wants it to be. A meaningless word with way too many definitions. There also is no proof of some "subconscious" that is there, like a single entity or place in your mind like saying the word subconscious sorta tends to imply. Unconscious thoughts/desires/whatever is what I think you should be using. Just a little writing tip considering that you did want to write that thing, so maybe you'll find it useful.

penultimate.forme:
I'm not sure if my point is coming across the right way.

I'm in NO way making a literal comparison between the human mind and computers.
Obviously, no, the human mind isn't a computer.

"All I'm suggesting is that by examining the structure of code, it reveals something about the structure of the subconscious..."

Rephrased, the same logic that governs code logic is embedded in human thought.

By finding key similarities between the two and extrapolating the differences, I think there's a better understanding that could be reached. When you throw the phenomena of tulpas into the mix, it gets saucy.

Specifically, in example, consider a thought experiment. Compare the process of programming a code to the process of creating a tulpa. What are the differences between the two? The most immediate difference I can think of is that programming takes much less time for the code "to take", if you want to state it that way. The code can evolve and gain a sense of sentience, but only if you program it to, similar to a tulpa. It opens up the question of what is "true" sentience and loads of other philosophical nonsense which I'm sure you all would love.

Are there not specific methods of tulpamancy that are widely documented here as guides? How is following a guide for tulpa forcing, parroting, possession, etc. different than using pretty little birds and flowers? I'm sure most of the community would agree that the guides are faster than just figuring it out, otherwise the guides wouldn't exist.

Also, yep, I love those nebulous terms, that's why I'm not writing any of the content in my zine. Technically, I don't know anything about tulpas, as I don't have one. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

What theory of consciousness does anyone follow, doesn't seem like Freud is too popular here? From how people talk on the forums, it seems like the majority of people conclude that there is a pretty clear split between consciousness and subconsciousness (maybe just unconscious?), and tulpas are used as a way to bridge the two together. Would love it if someone could correct me on this one, as I've stated previously, science and hard psychology are not my expertise.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page