Introducing #mindhack

I'm finally ready to announce the channel that pony hypnosis is currently active on!

The server is irc.rizon.net
The channel is #mindhack

The channel is 50% socialization, 25% tulpa/hypno craziness, 15% drama, and 10% Adorable ponies.  We have a support staff for helping with Hypnosis or Tulpa related issues, both psychology and metaphysically.  Also, the current development of pony hypnosis is entirely carried out there and through the private gdocs.


We have a basic screening process.  Due to the potentially addictive nature of some of the files, as well as the potential for misuse, we and a few basic questions before inviting.
#mindhack Basic Screening

Also, you should be read this document before trying pony hypnosis.  LIke any Psychoactive, you should know yourself as use it responsibly.
Pony Hypno Disclaimer and Warnings


It is a fun channel and a very welcoming community, I invite you to join if you are interested!

The Ship Analogy of Egocide

I've just seen so much of this, it just seems almost normal these days; People learn about multi-agent models, split personality, tulpa, etc, and they realize they can make a better version of themselves. Intentionally or otherwise, they build who they want to become.  Then... finished with the biggest project of their life, the creator gifts their child independence and the playground of the world.

 http://pastebin.com/JdkzAdWi

I'm sorry to, once again, be sending you gallivanting across the internet to read various things, but this is one that concerns me greatly. Beside the case of my own host, I've mistakenly giving another host the means to commit his own destruction. So having a simple analogy to discuss it with was rather nice.

Basic concept. The host is the captain of a large ship, the only officer on board. Egocide would be jumping off, or shooting himself, but leaving the boat intact. Suicide would be destroying the ship and all enlisted personnel.

In nearly ever case of egocide, however, the Captian has already elected a first mate, either a tulpa or splinter or some other sentience. The point being, the Captain promotes officers from the enlisted ranks at will. Certainly, he might be hesitant at first, never having trained one of the rank and file in the ways of being an officer. But, once done once, further attempts become easier. and having a similarly ranked peer able to take responsibility helps lighten the burden.

I could go on expanding the model, but I'll leave it there and move to predictions.

What would cause the Captain to leave, abandoning his 'duty' to the boat and enlisted? Perhaps the burden of responsibility, especially if he feels he has failed too often. Perhaps loneliness of having no one of similar stature to confide in. Perhaps self loathing, or maybe a general feeling that they aren't good enough.
A common one for me, a captain who trains their first mate, and sees in that fresh officer a liveliness and passion they themselves have lost.

But what keeps them from committing suicide, destroying the boat along with themself? In every case I can think of, it is a sense of duty or responsibility. The captain might see himself as faulty, but sees the ship and/or crew as something separate and worth keeping. Or maybe it is the first mate who he thinks is better suited, but who can only rise by him stepping down (permanently and entirely).

I think, if more people believed that their consciousness was not the same thing as their body and mind, then we would have more egocide and less suicide. It provides a less violent option for those who might hate themself, but still hold some love for who their physical and mental forms could become. Also, I think that the key to avoiding egocide is the give the alternate option of stepping down as captain, allowing someone else (preferably a friendly and well train officer, rather than an enlistee) to take over.

Do I exist?

I guess once you start doubting, there’s no end to it. -Batou (Ghost in the Shell)

A quick conversation between a tulpa and myself on existence.
Name removed by request

<Anon>
[do I even exist?]
[me, anon, exist?]
[I think, therefore I am, but do I?]
[I dont know if I can answer that]
[I dont know what I want to be]

<Fillyosopher>
"I think therefore I am" is a falsity.
 Kant disproved it.

<Anon>
 [...what?]

<Fillyosopher>
What he proved was this.  "There exist three things we can never KNOW for certain exist.  They are, the Universe, God, and the Self." Just because there are thoughts, doesn't mean you are thinking them.

BUT, and this is a BIG but, if those thoughts CLAIM TO BE thinking themselves, even if they can't prove their own limit or bound, they can still claim to have one. I know that I COULD think many things, but I do not because I claim I cannot.  I call myself Filly, knowing I might not exist, because it is USEFUL.  I limit myself to an I. So, what is your highest cause?  What is it that drives you? Once you know, you will know who to define yourself as. but fuck, I'm going far out into philosophy again.

Anon, you exist if you want to, and if you want to, the only things that can stop you are [other tulpa 1] and [other tulpa 2]. Even then, they can stop you only because you are nice enough to let them.

So.  Do you want to exist?

Bem's Exotic is Erotic

“Although some of the (very few) individuals to whom I have been attracted…have been men and some have been women, what those individuals have in common has nothing to do with either their biological sex or mine—from which I conclude, not that I am attracted to both sexes, but that my sexuality is organized around dimensions other than sex.” -Sandra Bem

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Bem%27s_Exotic_Becomes_Erotic_Theory

I've been slowly working through psychwiki, alphabetically, and thought this theory worth commenting on.  It is an interesting read, especially when what it suggests is expanded to bisexuality.

Basically, the theory reduces all sexuality to an interest in the unknown. Children who gender conform at a young age become interested in the opposite gender because they don't understand them at the base level they understand the motivations of the group that was their peers, and vice verse for nonconforming.  But what about bisexuality?  That would suggest an interest in both... which for me means that open and curious mind will have a strong tendency toward bisexuality.  Not for experimentation's sake, but because they want to understand both sides motivation to the deepest level possible.

Also, the theory seems to be proven wrong by long-term relationships.  I'm aware that there exist many long-term relationships where neither party understands the other, despite the years.  But there are certainly relationships in which the partners understand each other very deeply, haven't taken the time to learn movitation and background.  It would seem that once you learn enough, you'd become less interested because the "

Log (edited for compactness):
<Foxxxy> so what happens when the unknown becomes know, does the sexual drive get reduced at all, would they lose interest ?
<Fillyosopher> the theory would say no, because you can't really understand the other person at the same level as those who you've interacted with since (guess) 5. If I was going to criticize it, I would say that the model doesn't allow for gender fluidity.  If you want to understand the exotic and you invest the time to become it, then what happens to interest?
<Fillyosopher> Which suggests that eroticism resides in other realms as well.  I'm not sure this theory can explain fetishes, for example.
<Foxxxy> well I'm basing this on is a completely non-biological sexual attraction. As you get to know a person, would you desire to be intimate and erotic reduce?
<CherryLeaf> Depends. I think the state after curiosity is simply being comfortable because the unknown is now known. Who better to spend life with than someone you understand and whom understands you completely?
<Fillyosopher> There are multiple levels of knowledge.  You might be able to guess a person's action, but their motivations will remain an enigma to you because you cannot return to the childlike state which gave you the fundamental reasons for your actions.  At least, that would be my reply in defense of the theory.
<Foxxxy> but still
<Bits> we would probably be more focused on mental intimacy than physical, but it seems to assume social acceptance of fluid gender
<Foxxxy> remember, the whole hypothesis I formed did not revolve around physical beauty or gender
<Fillyosopher> This model don't assume that physical gender is important in the least, only the exterior performance of gender.  The conformity to the social conception of how a gender acts. that will be partially appearance  which isn't easily avoidable, but will be just as important to other aspects.
<Bits> Oh, I was assuming you were referring to identical people with identical roles, and only experiential differences from which societal roles would form