Tulpa Trouble Thread

So I made a tulpa of The Sussman a few months back. He was great at first, when we were getting to know each other and things hadn't gotten sexual yet. Now all he does is look over my shoulder while I code and makes annoying remarks saying I shouldn't do that, or that this can be rewritten, or ranting about magic, or telling me that his mere existence is unscientific and ultimately destructive. And the sex, oh god, the sex.... I know it's all in my head and that I'm not really being injured, but that makes it even worse, because I won't even really die from ... what he does to my body. I tried killing him off, but he just laughs at my efforts and tells me that I will never be free. He won't let me leave my house, and he beats me every time I try, then tells me to get back to work. I'm only able to type this now because he had to go out to buy some amphetamines to keep me awake while I work on his AI project (literally, his AI, because it has his personality), so he can have immortality.

Please, /prog/, help me!

>>78

The subconscious is defined as the part of the mind that one is not aware of - that which is not part of the conscious mind (surface thoughts).

Also, before you go off and make wild claims that tulpae aren't sentient, approach this as a real scientist and create one yourself, and then pass your judgement. As a host to a tulpa, and as a part of a greater community of hosts, I have yet to see a single case wherein a fully developed tulpa has neither thoughts of their own nor awareness of self - the textbook definition of sentience.

>>79

Then have fun travelling to me, mister-who-only-can-crush-tiny-and-delicate-flowers.

I would enjoy it as a game.

If you are ever in Amsterdam. Send some mail to catch.me@freemail.hu. I will come to you.

>>82
Your little boy pucker will be mine and mine only.

Soon enough.

>>80
Your analogies have no basis in reality and you have listed examples of energy, not the definition of energy, which is what I asked for. Come on man, if you're going to be talking about energy, you should at least know the definition off hand without having to use google. It takes five words.

>>84
I don't subscribe to the reductionist idea that energy must be exclusively physical.

>>85
Energy has a formal definition, anything outside of which, is not energy:

"The ability to do work on an object"

What is work? Mass * Acceleration * Distance.

>>86
If A has a formal definition by the Church of England, anything outside of that is heresy and not A.

>>87

We're talking about the scientific community, not the fucking church. We set definitions of words to mean a specific thing and only that thing so we don't end up confused as to what the hell we're talking about. When there is a standardized and agreed upon definition of something so fucking basic and elemental to all of physics, you don't go around and say "Hurr, I think it's something different!" It would be like saying acceleration and velocity are not vectors and direction has nothing to do with them. It would be like telling a mathematician "Well, I know you guys all agreed that an empty set should be defined as a set with no elements which is a part of every set, but I'm inclined to think differently". This is you.

>>87
Thats the problem with scientific orthodoxy, they think they have the authority to dispense the truth like the medieval church while in reality they just stifle progress and reduce the areas of research. We could have orders of magnitude more fields of science developing much faster if the paradigms were viewed as disposable ideas whose utility is temporary and limited.
We could have tulpo-logy, magic-ology, astral-ogy (these names look ridiculous now, because of prejudice and reliance on materialism as guiding paradigm) and we could investigate paranormal without recourse to materialist reductions(it doesn't exist/it can't exist/its impossible/its a hallucination/its a lie/it contradicts the material laws which work in our material universe/etc).

>>88
The only difference between a formal definition by "the scientific community" and the Church of England, is that "you don't go around and say" doesn't result in you being burned at the stake for heresy. Lets see some previous " "you don't go around and say"'s
 "you don't go around and say that earth orbits the sun"
 "you don't go around and say that earth isn't the center of the universe"
 "you don't go around and say that life can only come from life"
 "you don't go around and say that continents can move"
 "you don't go around and say that you can't inherit your ancestor traits"
 "you don't go around and say time is different for different observers" 
 "you don't go around and say that light has finite speed"

Science always relies on investigating the known and refusing to consider the unknown and undefined.
The progress in these areas will come from researchers unburdened by paradigms and desire to explore where no scientist has gone before.

>>89

Science is based on what can be observed, controlled, and repeated. In the case of most paranormal events, what can be observed with either tools or senses is limited, what can be controlled is fuck all, and as for repeating, well... how about you go try and set up an experiment to prove magic exists and then show the steps so your peers can repeat it? Sound good? Oh, it doesn't? You can't produce a repeatable experiment? Then by what credibility can we take your word for these things?

Also, don't group tulpae in with the paranormal. We can already explain why/how they are the way they are with modern psychology and neuroscience.

Programming is voluntary autism.
Tulpa is voluntary schizophrenia.

Hey /g/roskiland, at least fix your damn quotes if you want to stay here.

>It's really annoying when you present yourself too dumb to type a space.
>It also shows that you didn't lurk for a minute before posting, which is the sign of a complete moron.

[point ripped out of context]
Blah blah

[point ripped out of context]
Blah blah

[point ripped out of context]
Blah blah

This is also annoying and shows your origin like nothing else.
Learn to write proper prose.

>>92
>don't group tulpae in with the paranormal
AH, its only paranormal when you "can't explain away with science". Without a background in tulpas, you take the stance of "authorative knowledge"(The Church of England proclaims that:):
>We can already explain
"Its all illusions, tulpas are figment of imagination. Tulpas are form of multiple personality disorder. Tulpas are a mental illness. Tulpas are imaginary friends.etc"
That is not a valid explanation for sentient beings that have independent minds.
A tulpa can create an another tulpa without any input from the host. Let that sink in.

>>95
_{^{Fix your quotes.}}

>>94
>fix your damn quotes if you want to stay here.
What if i don't? Would you run to the mods, like a child?
>This is also annoying and shows your origin like nothing else.
If you have prejudices it is not my intention to eliminate them, you will have to rethink what you assume about "/g/roskiland"(the barbarians outside your cozy little realm) eventually.

>>97
ebig xd
fug da polis ikr xdddd
_{My assumptions about /g/roskis are completely correct; they don't know how to behave and think the site is theirs. Have fun being a dumb shit. Also, have you ever thought that people like you are the reason your beloved /g/ died?}

>>98
>my clever BaBByCode shows how smart i am, dumbshits can't even copypaste sub tags

>>99
Who are you misquoting?

>>100
>i am pretending the sub tags don't cause the text to shift down, look at my masterful ruse

>>95

You show a misunderstanding of tulpae, how the mind works, and of science as a whole. In any case, tulpae can be explained by information we already know:

1. The brain can act on what it believes to be true. If this were not true, placebos would do nothing every time.
2. Repeating an action can cause things to become instinctual. We perform certain actions without thinking about it because they have become a habit.
3. Hallucinations are possible.
4. Multiple personalities are possible.

1 and 2 create 3 and 4.

As for tulpae creating their own tulpae? Is it any surprise that the subconscious should have the same abilities as the conscious in this regard?

>>101
Who are you misquoting?

>>102
Okay, whatever reductionist ideas you have don't let it possess you.

>>103
>look at me, i cannot possibly..be the master of the ruse, i'm definitely not pretending to ignore that replies to a post quote it

>>105
I ask one last time: Who are you misquoting? I cannot find the text within your poorly formed quote anywhere in this thread.

>>106
>i cannot be possibly that retarded as to not to look at the HTML source

>>107
Eh, whatever. If you enjoy posting incoherent crap after being insulted, go ahead.

Note for people unfamiliar with "BBCODE":
Post >>98 contains two sections one of which visible as a normal post and the other has many sub tags embedded via BBCODE
which make the text to appear much lower than the first section.
the first section of >>98 is
>>97
ebig xd
fug da polis ikr xdddd
and the second is
My assumptions about /g/roskis are completely correct; they don't know how to behave and think the site is theirs. Have fun being a dumb shit. Also, have you ever thought that people like you are the reason your beloved /g/ died?

>>109
Great work, Sherlock. I'm sure nobody except you noticed the big black string of mini characters below >>98-san's post.

>>109
Note for people unfamiliar with "BBCODE":
You are on a board that claims ^B_BCode and Scheme are the ``ultimate languages''. The only one you are explaining this to is idiots from /g/, a group of people you (as your unusual action of pointing out the completely obvious insinuates) probably belong to yourself.

>>111
The only one you are explaining this to
Note for elitists: /g/ is much larger than /prog/. The only one who don't need an explanation are regulars who know BBCODE(which is a subset of /prog/regulars).

>>112
/g/ is also much shittier than /prog/.

The /g/ros are coming again.

Is this what being raped by a gay male feels like?

>>114
>it was rape, check your privilege shitlord

>>92
We can already explain why/how they are the way they are with modern psychology and neuroscience.

No you cant.

>>102
An education in pop-science reading does not make you an authority on mind or science.

>>117
le neil degrasse tyson fan

>>114
I think so. We should contact the spammer again.

>>119
I'm right here. I was gathering the articles, but if you need some Unicode, I'll do it now.

By the way, ~80% of the threads used for the previous necrobump were deleted. Like the last time, I'll try to use threads that don't mean anything for us.

See you on the Tabitha Catherine's shelter for more details.