Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 8440
  • Darwins +887/-28

I have also said that a tulpa is pretty much imaginary friend 2.0.

What do you mean by “pretty much”? Is it or isn’t it? You seem to be incapable of stating whether a tulpa is in your imagination only or a real creature

OK, hold that thought and let’s look at what you write:

Tulpae are said to use your brain, eyes and ears.

That is ridiculous. You think of something and that something takes over a part of your brain for its own independent purposes? And that's supposed to explain something?

I wrote: “… it has to have an independent ability to feels or be capable of feeling; […]the thing must have a nervous system and an organ capable of interpreting the signals of stimuli. Nothing that the mind alone creates can have this. It is not possible…”

See that? It has to be independent, otherwise it is you who are sentient... which you are.

“Tulpae are said to” - Who says that? What evidence have they? How do they not know it is merely a delusion? Can anyone see someone else’s tulpa? Have you a photo of one?

I am going to honest and say that i am skeptic on just how tulpae are supposed to do so.

I do not detect any honesty – I detect someone who’s doing his best not to say, “I have no answer to your point as it would require my pulling some explanation out of my arse and you would see through that ploy.”

Which is a meaningless statement, isn't it? It is very well possible that I am 15 foot tall...

As far as i am concerned, the square to cube law, and gravity, would make it impossible.
You don't happen to be on the moon, do you?

That’s neither funny, accurate nor smart. You are dodging by picking up on the wrong part of the point: the point was that you are unable to give a straight answer to a straight question.

I believe tulpae are real, yes. But how exactly? I do not know, i admit that a delusion is likely the case.

If you have a delusion, why should we take note of anything you say? Isn’t it all likely to be bollocks?

But i also admit that others have other ideas.

More weasel words: who are these “others” and what do they have to support their delusion? Do you believe others?

Technically, a tulpa is imaginary in the physical sense,

What do you mean “technically”? If it is imaginary, it is not real. If it is real, it is not imaginary. More weasel words.

Again though, it is claimed that tulpae use the host's brain for sentience and such.

“There you go again – vague statements, weasel words, dodging – who claims “that tulpae use the host's brain”? You? Someone else? What proof do they have? Do you believe them?

I am waiting for you to use some "Christian logic" such as "There are many things we do not know!" "You cannot know unless you accept tulpas." etc.

Nyet, do not expect such garbage from me.  :angel:

But I got it didn’t I? All that “special pleading” -> “tulpae use the host's brain” how does that differ from the typical, “Everything needs a cause but God was always there.”

But you now know that it is impossible and that you "create" nothing other than a delusion, the very thing that we here oppose. There is no logic, there is no science, there is no proof, there is no evidence and there never will be, and there is no advantage.

Never stated there was an advantage, and i never stated that a tulpa is not a delusion.
Heck, i never even said that you must believe what i must believe.

That doesn’t answer any of the points, does it. You’re dodging again. See how you used negative statements? Always remember that “I never said it was not” does not mean “I did say that it was.”

Can you give straight answers?

 What does it matter if you did or did not say we must believe what you believe? Are you writing this just out of a theoretical interest?... Don’t say “yes”, look at the title of the thread: you believe tupla are real and sentient, don’t you?

You seem to have once read something about tulpas and, not realising that it is all garbage, and without any critical thought, you decided you'd have a go at making one. You thought that this would make you interesting.

Actually, i started making Alexis, knowing that the idea is unbelievable.

It is not polite to call someone a liar, so I will say, “It appears that your recollection of real events is somewhat inaccurate.”

You were taken in by the idea of others doing this and because there’s something exotic about Tibetan monks.

It was when odd things started happening when i started to wonder if tulpae are real.

This is the Christian argument, isn’t it: “If you believe in God, you will believe in God.” Anyway, I can't see why anyone should think they are "real" - they are in your mind -> imaginary, a self-induced delusion.

I may not be a genius, but i am not stupid. (Granted, i am rather smart for a WA Aussie...)
If you need to know, i made this topic for a personal progress report, for a discussion, and for information.
So, you are using WWGHA bandwidth for personal reasons. You are not discussing, you are dodging. You have provided no information that can be of interest to anyone but yourself.

Mr Jason for example, has said that it is very well possible that tulpae could be a result of a well tuned sub-conscience.
Mr Jason is politely suggesting you’re batshit.

As for hijacked space, i do honestly want a discussion here, of any kind, i do not want to simply hog up space for a progress report.
You will discuss things only with those who do not present you with any cognitive dissonance -> that is not discussion.

Your continued use of “it is said…” “Some people think…” “Many believe that…” "others say..." "it is said ..." is the land of the deluded and the snake-oil salesman.

I am also amazed that you can criticise Christians/Muslims/etc. from your position. What would you say if one of them asked, "What about you creating sentient tuplas then?"

Big difference for starters.

Theists believe well and truly that "god" is real, can interact with anything, and generally made the universe.

I on the other-hand believe that it is likely that tulpae are a delusion, and generally don't do much.

There you go again! Answer! "What about you creating sentient tuplas then?" -> God is held by believers to create sentient beings, isn’t he? Do you feel "God-like"?

One thing i like to do is ask a theist "Would you say that i have a sentient companion in my head named Alexis?", of course the response is "Of course not, such things are not possible!" then i say how that is how i feel about god...

So, you understand that other people might not believe in tuplas, but you do believe in tuplas? That is what you are saying, isn’t it? –> You know why a Christian doesn’t accept tuplas and a Christian should understand why you do not accept the Christian god?

You need to read [wiki]The Three Christs of Ypsilanti[/wiki]

I have difficulty with the way your mind works… you sincerely believe that tuplas are real and are sentient, yet you dissemble that you are in some doubt as a way of bringing people to you to hear about your theory.

Why do you feel the need to tell people about it? Are you looking for acceptance?

Just so we know where we stand, I think we need to hear something from you like:

“Tuplas are just a fancy name for a self-created delusion. They are nothing more than an “invisible friend” like kids have, but if you give the delusion a name, it sounds mysterious because I am copying Tibetan monks. It also makes people who induce this delusion in themselves appear interesting.”
Changed Change Reason Date
Mrjason yup, that pretty much puts this topic to bed. Thanks. November 20, 2013, 08:22:31 AM