Jump to content

Tulpamancy Research


PancakeArsonist

Recommended Posts

Hello there. I'm somewhat new to tuplamancy, and I was doing some personal research on it. Primarily how to create one, and the ethics, morals, and possible implications of it. As I was reading, I started thinking about how all this works. A lot of the sources i read from often had mention of the fact that, due to a tulpa being another conscious being in ones mind, it also takes up a certain amount of room inside ones brain. This started to make me wonder more about what we currently understand of tulpamancy.

 

A lot of what I have read in terms of forcing varies from article to article, along with person to person. Some say to focus at first on general demeanor, attitude, and personality, and then to visualize/vocalize them. Some say to create a wonderland for them first, then to focus on their personality, and to let them choose how they sound or appear.

 

I was taking a short break from this research a couple days ago, and I was reading an article about how the brain works, about how certain habits and functions in are brain are automatic, and how habits can be created. It compared it to programming a computer, one with an already stored "OS" (our instinct and base behavior from birth) with new software. After reading this, the first thought that came to mind was this:

 

1. When we create a habit, we are essentially programming or reprogramming the neurons in parts of our brain to do something/something else, like a sort of biological supercomputer. When you create a tulpa, it has to be stored somewhere in your head.

 

2. Certain areas in our brain are dedicated to certain functions (motor skills, speech, etc).

 

3. These various sections of our brain can be activated and manipulated using mental, visual, or auditory triggers. This could be PTSD, or created through training yourself to react to certain triggers automatically.

 

 

I came to the conclusion that when you force a tulpa, you are essentially programming parts of your brain to function differently, and after enough time is spent "fine tuning" all of this "programming", it all congeals into one larger function, which becomes a tulpa. When you do this, is where they form suspect to what parts of your brain you stimulate most when creating them? And if so, are they more affected by whatever part of the brain they are in controls? For example, if I created a tulpa, and I constantly listened to music and focused on auditory senses whilst creating them, would their consciousness be located where our auditory control is? Would the type of music I listen to for this period affect their personality/how they function/etc? Would they be affected in any way shape or form when that certain type of music comes on? If I were to focus more on physical appearance, and stimulate my visual senses more, would they be formed in the part of our brain that processes visual information?

 

These questions are boggling my mind, but I thought I might share them with all of you. Feel free to criticize, correct (if i'm wrong on anything), and add to what I have here. Any and all information regarding this topic is also appreciated.


Also, I thought this would be important, I have had some MRI scans on the function and structure of my brain just six days prior to this post (I haven't created a tulpa yet, but I will soon). I also may possibly be having some again soon, and will soon receive the results on the function of my brain. Once I get this, and once I can do the next scan, I will post the results of the differences in the brain before and after creating a tulpa (functionally, not structurally, since creating a tulpa as far as I can understand would not change the structure of the brain).[/size]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Pancake Arsonist, I’ll just get down to my opinion on some things:

 

A lot of the sources i read from often had mention of the fact that, due to a tulpa being another conscious being in ones mind, it also takes up a certain amount of room inside ones brain. This started to make me wonder more about what we currently understand of tulpamancy.

 

Just know that whatever sources you read, we can’t make any empirical promises of tulpas really taking a certain (or in this case, a substantial) amount of space in one’s brain. I guess it could be more of what processes the brain utilizes to project this phenomenon in our internal experiences, but with that said, certain worldviews towards consciousness (e.g. materialism, physicalism, etc.) might be good for explaining the processes (e.g. epistemological rooting) of the brain, but at the end of the day, they wouldn’t have any bearing in how we should assess ourselves, i.e., morally and ethically. If they did, that might introduce a kind of dogma known as Scientism.

 

In my opinion, some of those moral and ethical standpoints will get mixed in with theories of consciousness, but most of the time, it’s preferred to view it in a psychological standpoint which tends to bleed into using other theories to try and fill in the gaps that said standpoint is limited in—this is what probably gives the impression that the information here could still be considered infantile depending on the audience.

 

A lot of what I have read in terms of forcing varies from article to article, along with person to person. Some say to focus at first on general demeanor, attitude, and personality, and then to visualize/vocalize them. Some say to create a wonderland for them first, then to focus on their personality, and to let them choose how they sound or appear.

 

Right. That’s because people will have to cultivate their own normative ethics, i.e., how they feel they ought to assess themselves in this endeavor. And because it’s hard to have any objective bearing on an end-all be-all process of creating and interacting with a tulpa, subjectivity seems to be our fallback to rely on. Yes, it can get confusing, and the ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings, and even heated debates (e.g. frontloading), but it’s also a testament that there’s a sense of liberation in what a person can do while not feeling there are moral judges coordinating and telling you how you should do this like you’re trying to do a program on calorie deficit and resistance training.

 

These questions are boggling my mind, but I thought I might share them with all of you.

 

It’s common to see people use that standpoint to structure and theorize what makes a tulpa, a tulpa because by trying to analyze processes the brain uses for other things, and integrating it with this phenomenon, it would give a nice starting point. But, like most standpoints, they’re merely heuristics, or tools of trying to conceptualize it all. The point I’m trying to get at here, in my opinion, is that you might get accustomed to seeing various viewpoints while still trying to cultivate your own blueprint which may be just as subjective as anyone’s view. When those views are applied in certain circumstances (e.g. thought experiments), we may start to see where the view falls short on, and may have to use other viewpoints to fill in the gaps. In other words, we may be inclined to find a standpoint that can be the jack of all trades when it comes to theorizing, but obviously, said standpoints would be a master of none; they need something else to supplement this.

 

Welcome to the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Can't wait to see what you come up with. How do you have free access to an MRI?

Woodwindwhistler on www.asexuality.org

 

The hardest arithmetic to master is that which enables us to count our blessings. -Eric Hoffer

 

"We can never achieve perfection, but maybe we can approach it asymptotically. Never give up on plugging in those numbers!" ~Me

 

You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note. –Doug Floyd

 

My poetry: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5qMnL2tDkJYOGNhLW4tRHFHa0E&usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

An MRI or EEG or any sort of brain scan, I imagine, will only show the brain is thinking when the tulpa is supposed to be active. That would tell us that parts of the brain are associated with the tulpa, something we probably already know. It won't prove tulpa sentience or that tulpas are somehow "real," whatever real means anyways. Now the question is, would a presence of a tulpa be "detectable." In other words, could you test people with tulpas, and then test people without tulpas and be able to tell the brain scans apart?

 

What if it turns out there is no discernible difference between the brains of tulpamancers and non-tulpamancers? What then? Would that prove or disprove anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had this topic before. The truth is we have no idea. There is no point in speculating, it has to be done and it has to be done properly, Then we can talk about the results. But don't get your hopes up, I doubt we'll see a decent research project on this topic anytime soon.

 

Generally we're sceptical.

Just doing some random scans and looking at the outcome is a poor approach and, as you stated, likely won't yield any meaningful info. Obviously you won't see a part of the brain labeled 'tulpa' because that's not how the brain works.

 

Of utmost importance is asking the right questions and come up with testable hypotheses.

like:

'is there a significant difference in neuronal activity...

.) between the host, the tulpa and both performing a certain task?'

.) between a host letting a tulpa perform a certain task and a tulpa-less person imagining a spontaneously made-up being perform the same task?'

.) during possession / switching?'

.) during parallel processing?'

 

The point would be to compare the results of different combinations of either host, tulpa or both doing certain tasks over and over again, then do statistics and look for significant differences. Then look at different individuals with tulpas and compare again to look for general patterns against a control group of tulpa-less people performing the same tasks.

This means lots and lots and lots of scans under controlled conditions plus data analysis by a professional. Good luck getting funding for such a project.

 

And of course, none of this can prove sentience. But you could compare the neuronal activity of the host interacting with a tulpa and a tulpaless person interacting with an imaginary being. It should be possible to determne whether there are some tulpa-specific neuronal patterns that are beyond that of simple imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the question is, would a presence of a tulpa be "detectable." In other words, could you test people with tulpas, and then test people without tulpas and be able to tell the brain scans apart?

 

Well, this isn't brain scan related, but I have had three different people "feel" or "sense" my tulpas in different ways.

 

So, to me, that says mental telepathy is probably 'real', in that it actually conveys information, and this is a subset of that. Doesn't prove sentience, but it does prove a sort of "existence" that can be "detected."

Woodwindwhistler on www.asexuality.org

 

The hardest arithmetic to master is that which enables us to count our blessings. -Eric Hoffer

 

"We can never achieve perfection, but maybe we can approach it asymptotically. Never give up on plugging in those numbers!" ~Me

 

You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note. –Doug Floyd

 

My poetry: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5qMnL2tDkJYOGNhLW4tRHFHa0E&usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...