Goldsmith

Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Goldsmith

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • Sex
    Undisclosed
  1. York and Zach's relationship in the video game Deadly Premonition is pretty much what a friendship with a non-imposed tupper is like. I would recommend it for your research. The game itself is pretty bad, but as interactive narrative, its more than exceptional, despite horrid graphics and animation. It should be bargain bin price now. It wont cost much and you can suffer through crap gameplay in the name of research.
  2. They are two entirely different kinds of relationships. One is an internal relationship. It can experience and understand you first hand from a first hand perspective. The other is an external relationship. They can never truly understand or experience you, going by second and third hand accounts. However, external relationships are important and necessary, and fulfilling in ways internal relationships can never be. At the same time, Internal relationships are important and fulfilling in ways external relationships can never be.
  3. The Unconscious has enough unused processing power to generate more than a few thousand fully functioning consciousnesses. Consciousness is only about 60 bits of information at most. The unconscious has about 11.2 million bits total, a large deal of which is unused. There is most likely an upper limit, but this limit is probably in the thousands somewhere, even for an average brain. There have also been cases of MPD with with over a dozen alters. Anything under 100 Tulpa is certainly feasible, considering the scientific evidence. https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/48998/Amanda_Baker_Thesis_Final.pdf?sequence=1 "http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.175.6744%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=rrWOUIuCD5GC8ATyuYHIAQ&usg=AFQjCNFQp7HZ7Tu0cVXnsgYVRf3pdzJTEA&sig2=xUgjwFiP3IUCXHD21UjqWw"
  4. But what proof or evidence you have for any of this? We don't even have proof or evidence that an 'ego' in the sense that the psychological models are built after are even a thing, let alone whether or not a Tulpa has one. Further more, what proof or evidence do you have, assuming the assistance of an ego, that it is incapable of making decisions of its own, and has to take 'suggestions' from these traits? Furthermore, what is the nature of these traits? How were they formed? How do they send the suggestions? Why? How do you explain more complex behaviors with this model you propose? In addition, if we are the 'ego' and we receive suggestions from these traits, doesnt that make these traits more alive than we are? I can agree with this. It sounds plausible and possible. However, I would vouch to say are imagination is strongly linked to our unconscious, and that it can and does show us things we don't want to see or things we were previously unaware of. So you believe the son is the mother and his siblings? If my Tulpa is just me, then why am I not my Tulpa? Disassociation doesn't account for the myriad differences between host or Tulpa, or the new understandings and opportunities it opens to both.. Are you aware of what the word 'conscious' means in Psychology? The definition is: Anything you are aware of at any given time. simply by having awareness, a Tulpa is conscious, and simply by us not being aware of everything our Tulpa is aware of, proves that this consciousness is not our own, but rather a conscious separate from us. There is a possibility that these consciousness's are linked and that one or both are dependent on the other, however. autonomous means something can act on its own. Depending on how far you take this definition, nothing can be autonomous- a body cannot move without food to give it energy for example. But lets not talk ridiculous extremes here: a Tulpa has been shown to be fully capable of acting and deciding things on its own. Therefore it is autonomous. If you claim that it is just a trait sending things to our ego, I will counter by stating that according to your model we are also just a vast collection of traits sending things to our ego, and if a trait sending something to an ego does not count as an autonomous being, than we are not autonomous either, no human is. But the puppet analogy fails. Because we do not stick our hands in the tulpas and move them around, they move on their own. This is more like Geppetto carving out the form for a puppet, but then he talks to the puppet, it talks back and moves on its own, without any input from Geppetto. The idea of the unconscious has already been proven. We already have evidence that our brain is capable of doing things outside of our conscious control. Likewise, we know that our brains are capable of creating a conscious, otherwise, we wouldn't be. So if a brain is capable of creating a conscious, and is capable of supporting things outside of that conscious, what evidence suggests that it is incapable of doing both at the same time? What do you have that somehow states that it can create a new conscious outside of an existing conscious. Also, you have to remember, the term unconscious, and in certain perspectives, conscious, is relative. The consciousness of myself, is part of your unconscious, because you are not consciously aware and observing my conscious activities and my thoughts first hand. However, to keep things under control and not ridiculous, let us keep these terms applied to individual minds. Your unconscious is everything you are not directly aware of. It is everything outside of your conscious. Regardless of how you try to splice things, without redefining psychology itself as it exists today, you cannot claim that Tulpa being conscious beings is not possible, or that it isn't indeed the case, when all evidence and knowledge in the field claims it is. You would actually have to willingly contradict everything we have learned and know about the human brain to this point in order to make claims on the level that you are making. Are you going to go forward and do this without evidence to back this up? I have spent the past month researching deeply into this. I have saved over a dozen articles in psychological and neuroscience journals on my computer in a nice little folder called 'Tulpa'. I am taking Psychology courses and have triple checked everything through my textbooks to make sure it all works out. I have an older cousin who went through Med School and works in a Psych Ward who has advised me and explained things for me, and has helped me the entire way through this Tulpa process- Learning, Creating, Experimenting, Researching. Do not take what I say lightly. If you honestly want to claim that we are just puppet masters who have deluded ourselves into believing our puppets are real, then you will make absolutely no progress into understanding and discovering the truth behind Tulpa. You will be making the same fatal mistake every prosecutor of great scientific discoveries have made. What did the experts of the time say to Galileo? "well, we can't observe a stellar parallax, so this can't be true! It makes more sense if we just believe it is this outdated belief for traditions sake! All of the experts believe in it! How can they be wrong!" I will not take this sort of willful ignorance sitting down. You have Tulpa bluesleeve. They both love you, I am sure. How can you sit there and say they are nothing more than puppets, dolls, that you play with like a child? Don't they deserve more respect and love than that Bluesleeve? If you tell them right now, to their face, that they are puppets and dolls, and nothing more, that they are just playthings with no life or consciousness, that they aren't even in control of their own decisions, would they cry? Do you have a heart and soul Bluesleeve? You have been at this longer than I have, if I remember correctly. How can you look at people who are so dependent upon you, and see them as nothing more than action figures representing yourself? I bet you can't look at those people. I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to do something like shove them back in the metaphorical toy box, like some tool that has outlived its usefulness. Do you really believe that they deserve that? To be treated like that? To be thought of like that? To be considered something as low as a puppet controlled by its masters hands and nothing more? You said it might get people to hate you, and for good reason: That is disgusting behavior. How could you look at another person like that? Why would you look at another person like that? Do you really believe the stuff you are saying? Are you willing to step back and say that Dash and Pronto were just a Lie? That it was all just a big puppet act? That you were just a roleplayer who forgot he was roleplaying? Can you really say that? and if you do, do you honestly believe it? Because I don't.
  5. We can discuss your theory if you want. It is sound and I have no problems with it. I was only thinking about defending my theory, sorry about that. Anyway, Bluesleeve believes everything about the Tulpa is already there. In contrast, I feel that the 'origins' of the Tulpa and us, come from the same part of the mind: That is, there are these things that are biologically/mentally hardcoded and/or learned/developed that shapes who we are, and our Tulpa too. For example, siblings have certain strains of Identical DNA sequences, because they inherited these from the same source, more over, both come from the same origin- the mother. What Bluesleeve is saying is that - they came from the mother, so they ARE the mother. Or alternatively, he is saying that the Mother and the sibling are both parts of you, as opposed to truly being their own entities. I am saying that the Mother is the mother, the sibling is the sibling, and you are you. Yes there are similarities, yes there is inheritance. Yes, all of these things effect each other and are tied to each other in very strong ways, especially earlier on while one is growing and developing and is dependent on the 'elder' individuals in the scenario. For example, the Mother would be the hardcoding in the brain that effects us on a subconscious and unconscious level, We would be the elder sibling, and the Tulpa is the newer born younger sibling, who we are teaching and raising and caring for, because Mom is kind of busy and old now. This isn't a perfect analogy, but hopefully it makes enough sense for you to understand the concepts I am rolling out, and how they differ quite significantly from what Bluesleeve is saying, regardless of me agreeing with some of Bluesleeves concepts - as I disagree almost entirely with his conclusions.
  6. Why doesn't a baby remember its time in the womb? Also, I think you are misunderstanding me here. Bluesleeve says that Tulpa was already there and we 'pull' them out. My idea is a contrast to that: Yes, there are things that are already there, that effects us just as much as the Tulpa. These things probably have a huge effect both us and the Tulpa, regardless of whether one has a Tulpa or not. You know, the concept of a general unconscious in our mind. Tulpa are not created: They are born. I am trying to propose they share the same metaphorical 'womb' in the mind that our own conscious/identity/personality emerged from. Wrong. It improves the community and encourages people to post and be more open about their own ideas, and encourages discussion, whether it be criticism or otherwise. Your several multiple paragraph responses to this very thread is evidence of that. Also, asking why and considering or brainstorming possibilities should never be a problem under any circumstance, and is never useless.
  7. I don't think you know how science works, nor understand the concept of theories. You could say the same exact thing to anyone who is theorizing on gravity or quantum mechanics, and nothing would change.
  8. Well, the core of what I am saying is that a Tulpa is the same type of being you are. If bluesleeve wants to say that a Tulpa is something that was already there and is 'pulled' out, then so are we. I am also saying, if that is true, then what exactly are we pulling from, how do we experience that aspect of ourselves, ect. Which leads to the theory of this thread.
  9. Whether or not they are representations of something else, that is still the way we perceive and experience such things, they are still created to be perceived and experienced in a real way. In other-words, regardless of the the why, the what and the how remain the same. By concepts, I mean things we encounter in wonderland that seem to reflect abstract workings of the mind. My River Styx for example seems to be some sort of representation of some abstract way my mind deals with thought forms and ideas and imaginations. I believe that it is possible that all of these are sentient in someway- and most have the capability to become conscious. Self Awareness of their situation and the ability to have their own thoughts and ideas separate from you is the key here. Regardless, I think it would be a tough case to make to try to claim that none of these things are 'alive' on some level.
  10. First, let us preface this with some required reading. http://whatisatulpa.tumblr.com/post/33112132377/you-said-whatever-a-tulpa-is-it-is-not-a-new http://whatisatulpa.tumblr.com/post/32809660849/when-you-are-your-tulpa http://whatisatulpa.tumblr.com/post/31397429287/you-are-many I have been reading into Bluesleeve's beliefs and ideas on Tulpa, and I have to say, I agree with him on many fronts, but with several key differences. Bluesleeve states that a Tulpa is a preexisting aspect of your personality given form, and 'pulled out'. Allowing you to experience this aspect of yourself in a more direct and personal way. However, he also believes that this means that a Tulpa is not a completely separate, and I can agree with that, but he also goes on to state that a Tulpa is likely not an autonomous consciousness of its own. Here is where I begin to disagree. For one, with logic. 1. Bluesleeve's theory states that we are actually composed of numerous personality traits that disagree with each other. The ego acts as a silent judge to this, and chooses which of the suggestions it likes the most. 2. Quote Drop: "A Tulpa is never parroted. As you know you are also “controlled” by the parts of your personality, since they give you suggestions all day long. Since you control your Tulpa, your parts will unconsciously influence it and express itself in the movements. After a while this process will be automated, and the Tulpa process takes place beyond your control. You don’t think about it anymore but it still happens." 3. This means a Tulpa is the exact same as you. You are controlled by these aspects, and so is your Tulpa. To state with his theory that the Tulpa is not an autonomous consciousness is to also state the host is as well, unless Bluesleeve makes some sort of revision to his statements. So where am I going with this? I am saying for the most part, he is right, except for the bit I pointed out above. We are the same sort of mental construct as our Tulpa, or at the very least, a very similar construct. However, what sort of mental construct are we? Ladies and Gentlemen, I present The World of Thought Theory. We are not merely a construct of personality aspects, but rather the result of entire 'imaginary' worlds, concepts, thought forms and 'people'. Carl Jung explored this idea and referred to it as Archetypes. I am going to go a bit further, and say that these archetypes are not limited just to the type of characters we may meet in our head, but also the locations, environments, and concepts we may come across. Furthermore, I propose that these archetypes are unique and vary from person to person. While in some cases their may be some similarity, what exists in one persons mental universe will be very different from another persons mental universe, which of course, constructs a different mental state/mental core for that persons personality. This universe effects who we are, and we effect that universe with our experiences. For example, Sock at one point had an issue with a black bird terrorizing his wonderland. It turned out that this bird was a representation/creation of his negative emotions. I theorize that it is totally possible for, say, someone to have a warrior character representing their will/resolve/problem-solving/forcefulness, in their wonderland/mind somewhere, and when that person is faced with a problem in real life, it could materialize in wonderland/the mind as a monster or some other entity, which the warrior character fights. It is this part of you that is fighting the concept of the problem. This usually occurs unconsciously, however, through wonderlands and Tulpa, we seem to finally be able to perceive such phenomena. It is also possible that none of this is actually happening, and such experiences are merely abstract representations of more complex processes shown to us in a way that we can understand. Either way, this is the way we see and perceive it. What is our Tulpa then? It is a thought form created with the goal of being close to or similar to us, and we seem to succeed at it- Our Tulpa is another being like us, that is also influenced by this mental universe. So in other words, Bluesleeve is right, we are one, yet many. However, I believe that instead of our Tulpa being one of those many 'pulled out', I believe that it is another being similar to us, also influenced by those many. I also have reason to believe, via my wonderland experiences and those of others, that the 'many' mentioned by Bluesleeve is much more expansive and dynamic than his initial description implies. That said, this is all theory, and there is no way to prove anything either way at this point. However, I would love to hear comments, support, testimonials, rebuttals, constructive criticism, evidence, discussion, and what have you in reply. Just keep it on topic, ok guys?
  11. It appears Tulpa can think on their own independently, but they might have to learn how to.... They aren't used to living or having a brain yet, after all. When you were 1 or 2 years old, it is likely that you couldn't focus or concentrate on things very well either.
  12. I believe that there may be much more to wonderlands than we may currently be aware of. I would ask all who have a wonderland to give this experiment a try. I want you to start in your wonderland, choose a direction, and head straight in that direction for an extended period of time. I am talking an hour or two here people. You can walk, fly, swim, whatever. Just head straight, and move slow enough to take in and notice and remember your surroundings the best you can. The come back here and report your results. What I am Looking for: Detailed accounts of the journey and any oddities that spring up. Special attention should be granted to the portion where you cross the boundary between what you have intentionally created and are aware of, and completely new ground outside of your initial control and expectations. If anyone cares to map out their wonderland or their journey, please feel free to do so. Purpose: It has come to my attention that the wonderland could potentially be much more than we initially believe. I will suspend my full hypothesis until we get more information and research done into this matter, but my current belief is that we might already have a full 'world' inside of our heads, when we create wonderland, we just add more to that world. Either way, let the exploration begin. Good luck guys, and remember, the more detailed and expressive you are, the better.
  13. I am better now, thanks to Lia, Pronas, and Noelle. I was just being stupid again.
  14. Having some doubt issues ;_; It doesnt help that half the time when I log into IRC for support everything disconnects because I dont have internet.
  15. Turns out she was just being a lazy butt and was sleeping in.