• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About motorheadlk

  • Rank
    insert something clever

Personal Information

  • Sex
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Heard somewhere around here about a guy that had a friend that before drawing something, always had it all completely visualized and the friend only had to draw the lines he was already seeing, I guess it's possible. It would be an interesting experiment to see how consistent imposition is, I mean, if it's a stable image or you just think it is, and then when you try to draw it, it is either out of proportions or there are different perspectives or anything like that.
  2. He is, but as weird as what he say is, it does make sense. But I do think that belief is relevant even for them, it's something hard to prove though.
  3. Why would the hallucination remain if your brain doesn't have any connection to it's origin anymore? While that is true, there is a thought I once read from Pinkamena, about how closely tulpaforcing resembles to building your belief and even believing you believe in tulpae, rather than creating or building someone. The fact is that no one that believed that tulpae were impossible to exist would ever even try to tulpaforce, because it would be pointless, unless he does think that it might be possible. I mean that there are levels of belief, from "impossible" to "possible" to "plausible to "proven". You could state that I'm reverting cause and effect, but I don't think so, because the only person I know that started really to question tulpae after he had one was Pinkamena, and at the same time his new tulpa started disappearing, and after he thougt: "Well, he must come back one time or another" his tulpa did. While this is anedoctal evidence, as you might add, it is the only evidence I acquired so far about the subject. I'd gladly look forward to any other you might possibly know. The question remains, what would happen if you stopped believing? Or even if you believe you have stopped believing? In a very rough sense, yes. Because you're not the same that you were yesterday, right? Neither am I. And while "you" or "I" is a very dangerous term to use, it's the only way for you to understand it. If you had other memories, for example, you were born at a different house by different parents, grew up in a different neighborhood, at a different period of time... What I'm saying is, what we have in our memory does affect and define us, and as we live another day, they are changing, and us with them. That's why memory has to everything to do with it. Not only as we are conscious our memory do define us, but they should also define our tulpae. Every interaction (which means visualization, narration, personality work) builds memory. If then a consciousness needs memory to truly be a consciousness, then when we give traits, visualize and narrate, we are building memory from our own to our tulpae, before they can make them themselves. That means that, to some extent, they are made out of our memories, and hell if I know what would happen if our memories were to be erased. You made someone have the power to turn it on, so how come you don't have the power to do it? You are a conscious being and to what we know, you are the only one UNTIL you create another. Yup. If you care enough to read his progress report, it gets from a love story from the loser guy meeting his princess to a horror movie, IMHO. Buuuut, he wanted it, so... For what matters here, is that their case isn't at all useful for any purpose to this discussion other than making it longer. It could be used by both opposites of this discussion to try and disprove the other. It just doesn't point to any side, like Pinkamena report does. Meh. How would you define your level of control of your own and your mind, other than this stupid expression? Mind control? Because it's worse. And about what it is, I thought I made it clear, but let me try to explain it further then. When you are able to puppet and parrot your tulpa as you wish, there is a clear possessive-submissive relationship. It changes when they are/become a tulpa, because you can't do everything that you wish with/to her. That means that to some extent the difference between your "mind powers", for the lack of a better term, is now smaller. And tulpae evolve, to the point where they can control our body with our permission, and eventually make it hard for us to take control back. That also means that the difference between the power of our consciousness, regarding uses of the mind are now almost equivalent. But the point is that, if I'm correct, they can never be completely equal. Almost, but not completely. The thing with the plant-soil metaphor is that a tulpa can't outgrow the owner of the body, even if the tulpa is in complete control of the body, because that would mean that our minds are completely separate, as if, by your own definitions, these material connections couldn't be destroyed, and if I'm right, if somehow they were, the tulpa wouldn't be able to survive as a consciousness anymore, for her access to the level of a consciousness that the host gave to her would be lost in the process. Well, I think that you also know that memories are basically connections your brain makes, right? That's basic, of course you know. But we have seen constantly people claiming that their tulpae were able erase/modify memories from them. (See the thread Memory modifying/erasing from purlox). If they were actually erased/modified or the access to them was lost, it doesn't matter, really. This is what Pleeb likes to call "Tulpa Magic", along with possession and I guess imposition, too. So yes, basically, we're talking about magic'n it away, as stupid as it might sound. And about "I sure can't directly interface with neural structures", well, yes. But what if you believed you could? That's why belief matters after all, Onicron for one already claimed that he could himself erase some memories. If you believed that a memory is gone, wouldn't it be the same as saying that your brain believes it can't access the memory anymore? So, basically, belief matters, a lot. In everything here. "Treat as sentient before sentience". Welcome aboard. It isn't, as I'm not trying to prove anything is right HERE, I'm only trying to explain how it is possible, or how it doesn't contradicts itself. If the metaphor works as an analogy for the fact that "not-independent" and "conscious" aren't mutually excludent, then so be it. It is easier to explain it that way, even if they do look too simple. It's a shame I couldn't explain/you guys couldn't understand it in another way. As you wish. If the consciousness is based up on another, and the connection to the base is severed, the tulpa wouldn't be able to use it anymore as it would normally, thus either it would not be able to exist (dissipation) or it would not be able to "do", which means the only thing the tulpa would possible be able to do would be to talk to herself, but not communicate or interfere with anything other than herself, maybe instantly, maybe after a long period. I believe there are traumas that made people lose their sanity/consciousness, so, yes, it is possible. For what can a tulpa be, well, a consciousness, or at least it's what I believe. And yet people are already shouting everywhere that the tulpa becomes the host and the host becomes the tulpa in every sense of the words. A consciousness only exists, doesn't have any atributes to it? What do you mean by it? Ain't subjectivity, self-consciousness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between itself and the environment attributes of a consciousness? And here I thought I would be the one assuming more in here. I do assume that everyone has a consciousness, but for reasons I have already discussed with waffles before, I can't believe on a consciousness without past interactions, or how I said at the last discussion: One can't think if he has nothing to think of. I think you're a smart guy, you act like one at least, so do me a favor and don't make me explain what I mean by that phrase, I think it is as clear as it can be. Just in case though, remember, almost everything we are able to think comes into words, either written, visualized, audible, and some comes into images. If one never had any external contact/experience/input in his life, then, without previous input, how he would be able to think? Since he has nothing to think of, even if there was some kind of miraculous pineal gland where the consciousness takes place, thinking of nothing wouldn't be the same as thinking as a consciousness, as thinking of nothing would be the same as not thinking at all. Or an identity would be created in the process of "existing", but go on. I'm all ears. I'm not neglecting any possibility her. I don't currently think of any severe implication for what calling a tulpa an identity would be, except that you are separating ourselves from the consciousness. When you say that "I am", you're talking about your own consciousness, but you seem to think that the "I am" is but an identity, which would mean that you think that "we" are not THE consciousness, but a separate thing, right? It does sound possible, yes. It almost looks like you are trying to insult me by saying I am right. Seriously, I do believe that the belief is what makes every tulpa-magic work. That's why there are so many guides and ways to tulpaforce and do everything, whatever feels the most confortable is the one that is going to work best, because you think that it is going to, and then you believe, and ta-da, it does. I got to remember to talk with LucidAcid about this, too, he probably knows some substance to make you believe in things you say to yourself easier. But when you say that a tulpa being a consciousness is very unlikely, I don't think you are actually meaning the same thing that we are, really. I mean, you are talking about a consciousness without attributes? It is almost like you are talking about the unconscious, actually. You know, the one that does everything for us except the thinking? I think Fede's tulpas believe they are consciousness though. Yeah, I'm figuring it out at my own pace. If I'm going to change my mind about it, I don't know, probably not, I'm going to discuss this thing with her until she's convinced that I might be right. I think that's kind of my fault. When the tulpa thing was starting to get popular at /mlp/, I mentioned their progress report thread and my sad/angry post about how Oguigi was trying to take his body forever (I mentioned it very early, before it was visible, really) and how he was blind by love enough that he couldn't see it. In the end, I gave up, but people kept replying to me in his thread and the last post I made was about not replying and if someone wanted to discuss it further, leave me a PM. In the end, he reported me, and someone deleted my post and that's how I am 20% cooler. But I didn't do it as a revenge though, as it occured way before he had even replied to my posts. I was just mentioning it at /mlp, and then a guy called spiderbro was sick about it and Fede was calling him a pussy, and everyone was disgusted, basically. Maybe, just maybe it has to do with this. Who knows.
  4. Maybe he's not a tulpa, just some other identity? I mean how deep is his personality anyway? If you ask him a question and he answers honestly, would that be an answer that you expected or an unexpected one? Because if everything he says is either a lie or an expected answer based only on his deceiving nature, then he most likely is an impersonation of your concept of lie. What he actually besides that, I don't know. How do you get rid of it? Maybe you could try seeking the opposing one? The guy that always tells the truth and never changes? You would end up like that riddle of two guys and two doors, I think you know that. Well, I hope you know the solution for this riddle, then.
  5. If none of what was said above works, try spinning yourself in an opposing direction to the object. Or try to make the whole mindscape spin in the same direction of the thing that you are trying to stop thinking it's spinning. If everything is spinning, then it's the same as if none of it is, right?
  6. If the emotional abscence is cause by a traumatic experience, your tulpa should be able to experience emotions you couldn't feel because of your trauma. If you were born without X emotions, you should only be able to simulate them. You would have to look for papers regarding "treatment" of psychopaths to know, though.
  7. That's why belief is a key in the matter. If a host lost all memory regarding his tulpa, would he even be able to hear his tulpa again? Or if the host's memory from the tulpa is "erased", so is the tulpa? Or maybe the tulpa would still exist, but would be unable to reach the host, and then would most likely fade away? What would even happen if a tulpa erases her own memory from the host, if it's even possible? My answer to all that would be: The tulpa would either not exist/not be able to (she would stay conscious of herself and you, but not be able to communicate or "do" anything at all despite thinking, or she would still be able to talk to you and then you would think you are crazy. Which means I really can't say. What I can say is that I believe that the hosts belief in tulpas is a key for the tulpa to exist, for without it, the tulpa wouldn't be able to act. Why? Well, if it was necessary for the tulpa to come to existance, then why would it not be necessary for it to continue existing? I mean, it is possible that it isn't, but it's just less likely. You are talking about how thoughts actually are. I'm talking about how we perceive thoughts. If you think regularly of something, you will "build" a memory of it (Which is what I say to talk about how we remember things). If you ignore thoughts about this thing (supposing you are able to)/thoughts about this thing doesn't come to your mind, then you will forget about it. Of course, it takes time to forget about something that isn't deeply 'printed' on your mind, like that one childhood memory you never forget, and it is really hard to forget about it. It doesn't mean it is impossible, however. Hmm, no. Let's say that you have a machine (brain/mind) and only you can turn it on (basically, use it). You can turn it on for a friend (tulpa) and the friend can use the machine too, you both can use it at the same time. This makes the tulpa think for itself, it is using your machine with your permission, but it doesn't make your tulpa not the one that thinks, does it? If anything, it makes the tulpa think. That's just a metaphor to explain that if a tulpa is dependent to the host it doesn't necessarily means that the tulpa doesn't "think for itself". It does think, you are not consciously doing it for her (and there isn't any subconscious parroting, so...), but you have to allow your tulpa first. I talk about this subject later. Regarding the control of the body, yes. But Koomer hasn't tried enough to break control, since he doesn't want it. The only thing I remember was when he tried to bruteforce control and managed to move a finger, and after his tulpa regained control, he gave up. It doesn't mean he couldn't take control again, if he wanted it. I'd say that if a host really wants his body back, the tulpa can only delay his return. Let me put it that way, then: You have 100% "mind power" (don't judge me for saying this, lol) and your tulpa has 0% at the stage in which she isn't sentient. You can consciously provide your tulpa 'mind power'. What matters is that if you are actually giving something 'mind power', you are, by definition, acquiring it yourself. Just think about it. Even if it is your own mind power, you would be copying it and giving it to your tulpa. If it is from another source (a non-conscious one), you would be taking it, splitting it/multiplying by 2 and giving yourself and your tulpa the same amount. So you would end with, at most, 50,000...1 if this were to continue eternally, of the total 'mind power' avaiable. Why? Because independently of how a tulpa originates and where it is located, the only thoughts/memories/ideas you could have ever put into her would be first considered/interpreted/thought by yourself. But then you could say that later she would be able to acquire/use/manipulate thoughts herself, right? The same way as a tulpa can always hear what the host is thinking if she wants to, so should the host. The difference is that it is hard for us to be able to read her thoughts without her intention and differenciate them from ours. When we define our tulpas, we also try to differenciate her the harder we can, until her voice is clearly difference from ours, don't we? That's the process of stopping to hear your tulpas mind as you do with yours and hearing it as hers, only when she wants to. It means that even if we are not aware of her thoughts, everytime she thinks something this thought, even if ignored, crosses our mind. And don't you tell that this makes her not able to think for herself, because our own thoughts crosses our tulpa's minds all the time, except when they are ignoring/not listening to it. And about it being impossible, it can't be said it is impossible (I think), but I don't believe it is what happens, which doesn't mean that I can't be wrong. I do believe I could be wrong, so I don't believe it is impossible for a tulpa to grow stronger than the host, only that it is very unlikely. "for reasons I've stated above." You mean the dedicated structure? Think of the structure as the machine I used as a metaphor before. Why can't the machine be shared? Just because a consciousness needs a dedicated structure, it doesn't means it can't be shared, does it? I do. Obviously. It just makes me wonder, though. I'd say that the best method to ignore a tulpa would be to think that her/his voice is your own, so if you disagree with the voice, you are only arguing with yourself within your mind, having a dialogue with your own. If you do this enough, you should eventually be able to believe that the voice is your own (the same way once you made yourself think it isn't, when you were creating him). Don't call me an ass because I'm assuming things. I'm not saying this is what will happen, I'm saying that if my beliefs are correct, then this COULD happen. I imagine. Maybe bruteforcing control is more a question of experience than anything else. Or maybe it is a matter of belief (I believe my tulpa is more powerful than me/as powerful/really powerful and then my tulpa is able to take control. I don't think I should take any wild guesses about this. I know that if you would ever want to do it, he would understand. I also know that it won't ever come to this point between you two. Less than most people on this community, so, you're cool. "Tricking" would be just an unpolite term for what happens, really. If you believe you have switched, then you do. If you believe you have a tulpa, then you do. I believe it is that simple. As I discussed/am discussing with waffles, this perspective doesn't make a tulpa not-conscious, it just makes her dependent of your beliefs. The point is how you could/if it is possible to stop believing rather than if this would make a tulpa fade away. Good to know I'm not the only one that think this. The part responsible for asking this question.
  8. Back. Going to see what nootropil (piracetam) does to me. Any recommendations, like, how much should I take? Forgot mentioning, it's 800mg per capsule.
  9. Oh no, I'm saying I'll have to repeat a lot of things, like I had to do last time. What is a consciousness if not a thought pattern? Active dissipation, yes. Ignoring a tulpa is a passive dissipation. But the natural process of thoughts, as it is with a building, is to difuse/corrose itself with time, unless you are constantly repairing it. Thoughts, unless you use a lot of them, won't be just as solid as cement. Even a building, without repairs to it's structure, will eventually collapse. Yet the tulpa can only have so much power as the hosts gives to her. How much would be enough to make a person with years of thoughts/experiences/ideas/concepts/memories weaker than a tulpa? I'd say it would never enough, unless you work on your tulpa more than you actually live. Then how could a tulpa, in your opinion, come to exist? You have to consciously put effort into reuniting thoughts to make a tulpa, that's undeniable. Either if they are concentrated, they are copies of your own thoughts or if you are actually taking your own thoughts out to make room for your tulpa, it doesn't matter. The fact is that you are consciously doing it yourself, and I don't see why the effort you put into creating something is strong enough to destroy yourself, considering that it only has as much energy as you could possibly give it, or be it, your own. Which means that the full potential of a tulpa, something we don't really see, would be to be as strong as the host, and never more. It doesn't necessarily lead to this conclusion. I believe in the sentience and consciousness of tulpae, but not of their total independence. I'll try to make a metaphor to justify it. It will probably sound stupid, but I'm out of sleep and can't think of anything else. Think of the host as a plant, and the mind as the soil. A tulpa would arise from a sprouting of the original plant, aka the host. As the tulpa grows, it becomes more and more independant, and grows her own roots into the soil. After that, the tulpa is almost independent, it never reaches full independence, despite that. The original connection she has with the host never ceases to exist, and the host's roots, being older, are bigger and are deeper into the soil. It doesn't matter how big or strong the tulpa gets, her own roots won't be able to sustain her weight and life, so she uses the hosts roots through the connection to be able to still grow and exist. If the connection is cut off in the early stages of existence, the tulpa dies fast. If it is in the later stages, the tulpa will eventually die, but will not be able to grow as big as with the connection. The tulpa can use her own roots to survive for a great period of time, but can't use them to grow, the only roots she can ever use to grow are the host's roots. The size of the plant would be it's power, and the roots it's ability to sustain itself, only the host would have the roots to make it grow, however. Just think of how tulpae are born and how hosts are. We have years to become what we are, yet the tulpa is practically completed after a few months. During the years we were bulding our roots and growing slowly. Tulpae only grow so fast because they use our own roots, and if they try to use theirs, they're not enough since they are so relatively small compared to their size. So, in the end, the roots is basically not only the ability to survive as a consciousness, but the own power of the consciousness. A tulpa grows too fast only because she uses our roots, and our roots can only serve her as much as they serve ourselves. If the tulpa wants to "dissipate" the host, she would have to cut this roots somehow, yet she would eventually die in the process, too. A tulpa would never be able to grow stronger than the host unless she came first into existance, by this definition, and it only have full independence if the tulpa grew as slow as we do, which is not what happens as of now. Now you are being rude. I'm discussing it, ain't I? What I want to avoid are pointless discussions, or discussions in which one of the parts isn't open to what the other says. I hate to repeat myself, so I don't want to have this kind of arguments, that's it. What we're having here is not bad and because of that I'm replying, I'm just saying that at some point I *might* want to simply state: Let's agree to disagree, and then move on.
  10. You could, you know, try to replicate everything we think that happens while we interact with our tulpas. The better thing I imagine would be to try the Ping-Pong technique and see how it goes.
  11. I hate discussing in a forum. I'm going to law school, so I'm that internet guy that loves to argue, but it is just painful to do this in a forum, specially because every post is a huge wall of text. And again, I just posted this because a lot of people seemed too much sure about some stuff regarding switching. I already stated that I might be wrong and that's my opinion, anyway, I'm going to answer you untill I get bored, because I said it in the first line of this thread, I didn't made it because I wanted to discuss the subject, I made this thread more or less to state my opinion and put some doctrinal beliefs into doubt, since they aren't as solid as a lot of people think. Try not to think badly of me because I'm avoiding a discussion in the General Discussion board, it's just that in the end what we have are beliefs x beliefs, and I'm not absolutely sure that I'm right, at least not enough to spend a lot of time repeating myself as in a Religion Discussion. You dig into your memories by doing anything. How do you think you remember words? Not much of a point here. Meh, I recognize your confusion as my mistake. I didn't made myself clear because I purposely didn't want to enter in the subject, again, I don't want to discuss why my opinion is more or less valid, I just want to point that it is and then when it is "proven" or "busted" we can move on. When I say "accidental" and "purposely", I'm making a reference to the fact that the human consciousness doesn't require another previous consciousness interacting with it to exist, or else it would never come to existance. I don't want to detail this any further, hope you don't mind. That's a premise. I find the other way around (tulpa without host) much more doubtful. Yeah, I never denied the fact that they could be equal. I'm merely stating why I find it harder to believe otherwise. Again, I might speak in absolutes, but just to put some other absolutes most people have in doubt. We've been over this already, dude. It's not absurd just because it doesn't fit in your head. You remember where this last argument ended, right? I said: "You can't think if you have nothing to think of" and that is still valid. You can't be qualified as a consciousness if you don't meet the criteria to be one. If you could, then you could consider anything at all as a consciousness. And I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying it is stupid. That's why I and many believe that the origin of consciousness must come with your sensory input. Just as a comparison, why you think that a man that has no sensory input at all and never had (Can't see, can't hear, can't feel the world or his body and so on, and never could) would be conscious? Just in case that you want to contest this again, remember, we think because we have concepts we made, based on what we experienced. If you don't have any experience, you don't have concepts, you can't think, therefore you don't meet the criteria to be a consciousness. Nope. Even a thought requires a memory and they require neural basis. Being "just a thought" doesn't make it completely immaterial. Now, why dissipating would require a suppression of neural structures? And yes, maybe, if I'm wrong, a host can be dissolved. It would be, however, harder than dissolving a tulpa, by what I say in the following. Err... Ok. Do you think that an year old tulpa which the host spends half of everyday tulpamancing is just as powerful as one with a week or so and with a lazy host? Then there you have it. The more and better you built, the more solid it becames, the harder to destroy/dissipate. That's my point, If you want to question why I think that, remember, it is harder to think otherwise. Better analogy I found to state what I wanted. Now, "the host starving the tulpa of attention isn't the same as the host ceasing to exist"? I mean, I know that. It is the same as the tulpa stopping to exist. Try to think of it this way. How you make a tulpa? It is basically a sum of: belief + attention + thinking. You take anyone of those out, and they will likely stop existing, just the same as it would be taking a part of your body away. If they were created with attention, thinking and beliefs, if somehow you stopped beliving, didn't give them more attention and didn't even think of them anymore, why would they survive? I find it easier to believe that they wouldn't, and that is basically what dissipation is. A symbolic way of forgetting your tulpa. I never ruled that out, as I said. About entropy, let me try to show you my point. The rule of the universe is that everything starts simple as gets more and more complicated as time passes, you can revert this process using energy. The fact is that when you build a tulpa you are taking thoughts/beliefs/memories or whatever you would like to name it and putting them together until it becames something so rich and deep that it is able to express itself as a consciousness. But, you see, when you took all of this random thoughts/memories/beliefs you reverted the natural course of them, which is to be difused, and focused then into one thing. That is, by definition, reverting the natural process. It means you used conscious effort (equivalent to energy in the analogy). Now, thoughts can't be simply put together without some conscious input or sensory input. A tulpa is made with conscious input. You are putting your thoughts together and making them. How would this conjecture of thoughts that you made using the actual blocks in which you "made yourself" get "stronger" than you, enough to dissipate yourself? That would mean that you are putting more "energy" (conscious effort) in your tulpa than you actually have! Of course, that's my way of seeing it. If you want to discuss the details and say that using energy as conscious effort is not valid because you don't think it is we could go on with this day by day, but I personally don't want it. Again, I can be wrong. Another way of seeing it would be that a robot is creating a machine stronger than himself using the matter avaiable for him and he notices that himself has less matter put into him than the other machine that he is making, and then the machine is stronger. Being the robot the human, the matter the thoughts/memories/ideas/concepts/etc... and the machine the tulpa. If you choose to believe or not, then it might or might not be my fault. But if you choose to disagree with me and say that I can't see things this way, then I won't botter keeping this discussion, because I'm sure it isn't my fault. I think that anyone that at least superficially tries to see my point can see it, and if you are going to try to discuss details of it, them there is not much to be discussed, as it will be more of a argument that the last one replying wins, and I don't want to enter such an argument. If you really can't see my point in here, then I'll try to make myself clear, but if it seems to me that you are only looking into the details and is ignoring the whole argument, I'll drop it. Sorry to be rude about it, I just don't want to write another song in which I have to repeat the chorus everytime hoping you are actualling trying to see my point, and not simply trying really hard to deny it. I wouldn't know if people with DID are dumb. My point was that it doesn't look like you are truly separating your own consciousness when you make a tulpa. I understand you completely. Lots of premises, little evidence. Not rambling, just saying your opinion. But do you think that if you ignore Roswell for the rest of your life, he wouldn't go away? If he would be absorbed by the mind, dissipated or whatever I don't know, but there is a limit to independence, right? Very interesting. Try doing what Purlox suggests in his thread "Memory Modification" or something like that, in the research board. It is dangerous so only do it if you are confortable with the risks involved. U wt m8. Too much prototype, perhaps?
  12. If you care enough to reply, why don't you also read the thread? I said already that I'm trying to prove one or another, and that I'd like people to help me prove it. What I don't want is people jumping to conclusions. Again, already said it. 2 differences that I notice. One that seems obvious: Origin. The host is born and grow independantly of any other consciousness. He's born with the body and the creation of his consciousness is attached to the body's reactions to the outside world. A tulpa, in the other hand, is created by second-hand experiences, memories and beliefs originated by the first consciousness to arise in the body, and purposely, not "accidentally" as it happens to us, hosts. This obviously mean that there should be differences, as the second consciousness seems to be, at some level, attached to the host not only physically since she can't leave the body, but mentally, as if the host didn't exist, so wouldn't the tulpa. That only leads to the second difference, derivated from the first. Powerwise, the tulpa can't be more powerful than the host regarding the mind, since it is an extent of the hosts mind. It is separated, it is sentient, it is all you think it is, but it isn't fully independant of the existance of the host. Which means that a tulpa can't dissipate the host, maybe a tulpa could, but that would most likely mean suicide. If a tulpa is basically a solid conjecture of deep thoughts, ideas and beliefs formed into a person, and dissipating is basically returning this beliefs to wherever they came from, then how it would be possible to dissipate a host, that isn't formed with a bunch of thoughts, but with experiences? Even if it was, to dissipate years, decades of thoughts and experiences would mean that even then a host would be more powerful than a tulpa regarding dissipation. A tulpa is never a "fully" separate person, as that would mean having a body for herself and everything. Now, being a fully separate consciousness, that's up for debate, but just think, people get dumb after they have tulpas? So it shouldn't mean that they are a completely separate consciousness, they are their own consciousness, that is true, but they were created by us using our own thoughts and ideas, that can't simply leave this connection we have. They are always at some point attached to us. It's an umbilical cord that, if cut, starves the baby. The "attention starvation" is most likely what happens if suddenly a new tulpa stop being "fed" with our attention. But after they grow stronger, so does this analogical umbilical cord, and so they can have more independence, but it doesn't matter how strong and big a tulpa gets, the fact they were born from the food that this umbilical cord provided them and the fact that the host is the one that transfers this food has never changed, and something so simple and so true shouldn't even be possible to change. A tulpa, at this stage, even with food deprivation, would survive for years being ignored after they grew so much, but it would eventually grow weaker and fade into the oblivion of our subconscious, as any other thought and idea. This is just what I see as more accurate right now. It might turn out that switching would mean that the tulpa provides the food for the host, but that would seem illogical, since it would revert entropy and make the creator the dependant and the dependant the provider, but it is only a body switching, not a "now I play host and you play tulpa" thing. In all truth, I just can say what I believe and tell you that I don't know it YET.
  13. Blah blah. People don't know tulpae and most people don't think that the voices in their heads can be created intentionally, but rather that they were created accidentally. It could help, but it would be really hard.
  14. As far as possession goes, Oguigi said: "The connection of a host new to tulpamancing with the body is ridiculously strong", which means that the one that stays the longest in the body will most likely have more power over the other regarding possession, so if someone doesn't want to be possessed he will not. But of course, even believing in this makes the host resistance stronger, so of course belief is a strong factor here. But I'm not into censoring knowledge, what I am saying is: "Hold your horses". We don't know yet. I want to prove it. So try too if you want it to be proved or don't if you don't want it. I personally wouldn't care if a host and a tulpa are, in potential, equally powerful. It just doesn't align with my current belief system and it seems less likely to be true, but that's almost subjective. What I'm completely against is what people often do, claiming around the forum that a tulpa is as powerful if not more powerful than the host and "everything we can do they can do better". That's why I'm saying hold your horses, we don't know yet. Wait until we do.
  15. Never said there are big differences, I'm just saying we shouldn't fully consider that there aren't (which seems to be the most frequent approach) since they might exist. And the purpose of the thread is nonetheless reinforce the belief that we might be different after all, since we can't determine it yet (I'm hoping to be able to in the future). About the pain, that's nice to hear. If anything interesting comes up, remember me! Which once again demonstrates why tibetans had tulpas. But I have some questions for you, about memory modification/deletion. How (and why) you are able to do it? You are able to do it in yourself, I believe? If so, how do you delete or modify a memory without thinking of what happens in it? How do you know that you are able to do it? I mean, I know we should be able to modify memories from our tulpas since Pinkamena did this several times and that our tulpas should be able to do it in ourselves since it has been reported by some users in a research thread, but I can't see how it would be possible for me to delete a memory of mine.