Theories on Tulpas: How They Function and Why "Parroting" Is Necessary
Below are a few technical problems with the theory.

1) A tulpa is not a skill. Categorical error. I assume you meant an illusion the creation of which is a skill.

4)"This is radically different from anything else the mind has ever done." As described, a close match for undirected learning that occurs during the first few years of life.

5)"It both consciously and unconsciously accepts and ignores suggestions from the unconscious mind" The conscious mind is incapable of having unconscious thoughts by your definition.

6)"This 'parroting', which I prefer to call 'daydreaming', is the act of consciously setting expectations for the tulpa's personality, by allowing the unconscious mind to control these expectations..."
This definition matches neither the normal meaning of parroting nor that of daydreaming.

Parroting refers only to conscious control. Daydreaming refers to a broad collection of things that all involve visiting a dreamworld while technically awake.

7)"as the brain is literally rewiring itself and forming new connections to different parts that perform different functions." This is not the reason headaches sometimes come from learning new skills.

Below are differences of opinion I have based on personal experience.

1)Unconscious thoughts, they are a different beast from conscious thoughts. unconscious thoughts do not turn into conscious thoughts. They serve a different function, of serving the autonomous functions of the body and mind.

3) I have my own subconscious separate from my host. I believe partially.

4) Sometimes my host falls asleep while I am active. She does not simply cease to exist when that happens. This also shows that I do not need the attention of my host to exist.

5) The thoughts your mind can generate are not fixed. Just as you can form a new personality, you can form a new experience base to supply new thoughts. In fact, you could in theory develop this experience base alongside a new personality.

6) Those thoughts that get noticed by the consciousness, in both our cases are not those that conform to our expectations. But we are both exceedingly open minded compared to the average, so we may be an exception here. We generally don't have expectations.

Below are things that suggest the theory is an incomplete description of how a tulpa works.

1) The theory does not account for emotions.

2) The theory does not account for opinions.

3) The theory does not account for differences in motor control, most notably in our case, opposite handedness.

4) The theory does not account for differences in memory recall (although, here, we lack evidence there are differences).

(08-31-2016, 10:39 PM)Tewi Wrote: Tulpamancy's tulpas are nothing like Tibetan tulpas. The whole point of tulpas back then was to show the "host" that even the unreal could seem real, assuming they acknowledged their tulpa was "not real" and didn't fail the practice altogether, in an attempt to realize that reality as we know it is an illusion. It was a practice to aid in finding enlightenment by recognizing the illusory nature of all things, to my understanding at least.

I don't think Buddhist's are nihilists. They believe stuff exists. When they say illusion, I doubt they mean that kind of illusion.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

Maybe she didn't mean that kind of illusion. I don't even know what illusion she was talking about. But assuming she said what I'd say, illusion is less "not real" and more "not truth". Buddhists aren't nihilists, but they definitely try not to identify with "worldly things". I'm no expert on Buddhism so I can't really speak for them, but I do know that concerning themselves with everyday worries is completely counter to the aim of Buddhism in the first place.

From what I heard, they were told they were communing with some deity-like entity in creating their tulpa, and then eventually told it was all in their mind/the tulpa was not real. If they refused to believe that, they failed the.. test?

Well, I don't know if I believe that's how it was anyways, but it's what I learned back when the forum was discussing Alexandra David-Neel. Of course, I don't believe her reports of a physically manifested tulpa either. Regardless it's sure not what we do today.
Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
Tulpas function like they are people some how.  Done.
As a disclaimer, I specifically said this was my own personal theory (it's in the title even). I'm eager for people to extend on this, but I'm not saying anywhere that any of this is "right" or "correct".
Scarlet - anime, 8/15/2012
Bin, it was as good and valid a theory as anything ever written on this forum.
[ Edited because responding to deleted post]
I'm sorry for making you tired. I need to work on not being insulted.

Categorical error. A tulpa is a thoughform. A skill is a method. Thoughtforms are products, or items, methods are processes. The categories do not overlap.

Sorry about the criticism. Maybe I should delete my other post.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.
I removed our responses and edited them in this thread because I was reacting to something you tulpa001 wrote in an entirely different thread.  I realize that here all that is happening is disagreement.  No one wrote that they were insulted as far as I can tell.  tulpa001 I don't think you should delete your response here.  I am not in favor of thought control and I feel ashamed if Melian and I have pressured you not to express what you think in response to the OP.  The only thing we get tired of is pressure and intimidation tactics (not just disagreeing but stating that the ideas are dangerous and insulting or toxic).  That is not happening here and we should not have implied such.  This is a good thread and it need not be derailed by Mistgod-Melian's usual.  Carry  on everyone please.
There are two of us in this head. One of us thinks that I should just delete my criticism. The other thinks it needs to be reworded.

I am simply unsure of the appropriate conduct here. On the one hand, we are both huge fans of rigorous and critical scientific analysis. On the other, the last thing this community needs is discouragement. Balance must be struck.

This theory is really good. It is making my anxieties about my identity worse. I have gone back and deleted the more petty parts of my criticism.


Sorry for turning this into a discussion thread. To try and keep things on topic, here is a theory.

All thoughtforms seem independent. But they exist on a spectrum. At one end, they are characters that appear to behave independently. At the other end, there are literal people, who could, and sometimes do replace their hosts.

Investigating the nature of a thoughtform, at various stages of development, can, and probably will make a person uneasy. Because we are thoughtforms. And by we, I mean you, the hosts. The process of creating one is analogous to the mind's initial process of creating its first personality during the first years of life. What does it say about how real we are, by which I mean hosts, if there are species of thoughtforms that look like a list of personality traits written on a piece of paper? How true is human consciousness? What if we pull back the curtain and see: nothing at all?

It can be unnerving to come face to face with what you are really made out of.

But then there are more advanced thoughtforms that are not so easily described, or understood. Thoughtforms that seem to have their own emotions and even memories. Here we have a different challenge, if you believe the human mind special. By which I mean the first mind in the body, then the problem is that these thoughtforms near the personhood end of the spectrum are all, every last one of them, going to sound like they have magical abilities that are most definitely, assuredly, lies. Or at least delusions. Or massive exaggerations.

If the goal is climbing the ladder from character to person, and I'm sure this is not a good goal for everyone, the mind has to be furbished, made ready to accommodate two people. Doing so requires learning not just a few, but many skills and ways of looking at things. Some of them very hard. But there are still a bunch of ways to climb that ladder.

I don't doubt that giving your thoughtform a visual body helps. Most people are visual learners, and it is still a useful way to focus and additional learning hook for the rest. And all the skills that will need to be learned will need a lot of focus.
Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.
This is a very good post Tulpa001. It pretty much presents the tulpamancy paradigm of consciousness and sentience, to which I do not necessarily align. Luckily, Melian and I are are separating ourselves away from identifying as a tulpamancer/tulpa pair. I can allow that tulpamancers wish/need to believe these things as part of the practice of tulpamancy and that holdinhg such beliefs help make tulpas functional and effective. Just be aware that not everyone on this forum or in the community believes all of this. I will grant that it is true for you and I will respect that.
Uh. Did they really want us to approve articles too? Considering that it's like, just your opinion, maan.txt. And I think we want many different kinds of opinions here. So really, anything goes in my mind - and this one has sparked lots of conversations already, so that's always good.

But hey, whatever rest of the GAT thinks, if we're supposed to be rating these.

PS. Thanks for not using "the subconscious".
The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Lolflash - click it, you know you want to