OP, if you look into the homunculus argument and relate it to the question at hand, IMO:
- The question is similar to something like ‘unconscious parroting’ that was talked about through a certain member in the forum where somehow, a term that (parroting) is contingent on conscious
manipulation of the inner workings of a tulpa can somehow become a predisposed habit.
- In other words, to think a tulpa can become the subconscious, or unconscious totality of thoughts and inner subjectivity is to state they can actually become the back office of the brain that does all of the things on auto-pilot. Even if there were some shred of possibility on this, it begs the question of who’s the back office of the brain. The brain, tulpa, or host?
- This isn’t to say that a person cannot access those unconscious thoughts as it’s just a matter of being aware of the information at hand. But it’s a different story when one assumes that, with a blink of an eye, they can alter the inner workings of their mind, i.e., that back office of the brain.
Even with that said, subconscious/unconscious is bit of an enigma at times even when people try to apply metaphors of it for certain context. It just goes to show you that we can express representational models of the brain, but we can’t actually become the inner workings of it; that just sets up some existential issues, IMO. Not that it can’t be addressed and dealt with, but we (me, him, and her) just don’t have enough intellect to get into something like that.