• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Khagata-wm

  • Rank
  1. So what does your tulpa think about it's (his? her? how am I supposed to say?) own nature? Does it agree FAQ_man's definition, that it is a result of your cerebration? Or maybe it has it's own explanations? Please don't be afraid to post mystical sorts of answers even if you disagree with them, as long as they came from your tulpa.
  2. Right, but... Essentially my post was intended to solve some problems with the term "parroting". The idea was to make a point that rejecting any responses that feel like you is impractical, and according to the theory it actually is. This is what "clearing the process of making a belief" is. But we can assume how they don't work. For example, being a magical souls from another planet or personalities that "live" in our liver, not brain. Or, according to the common understanding of brain's structure, alternative conciousness processes. I agree. Analogies with computers should be made with caution. Yeah, but I have some empirical examples described in the text and here in thread. The easy one is calculation. I noticed that tulpas usually deny our requests to calculate something; the problem is that calculation is something that takes some time even for fast-thinking. So we can really easily notice it, feel in our brain. Thus we unconciusly try to make them declining calculation so we couldn't have chance to notice that thinking is one process for both of us. This is a part of protection mechanism.
  3. I asked in IRC whether your community have this phenomena or not, and my thoughts were confirmed. So I do not know cases in English communities, but I do perfectly know couple cases occured in ours. Essentially this is right way of understanding, yeah.
  4. Well, in my terms, "sentient" may mean many things. I do not argue against tulpas being self-aware or whatnot, I argue against "tulpa is different conciousness made up inside your brain". I have clear arguments against this point of view. I know that it is present, but I don't know how it is been advocated against my arguments. It should be, right? It is how you pick up best theory, isn't it? Now, my theory is not intended to make progress more difficult. On the contrary, it is intended to clear up the process of creating a belief about tulpa's sentience and make this process faster. Watching the process of creating belief might ruin it at first couple times, but the trick that servepragmatics teaches you is to be able to believe in pretty much everything you want to, knowing about that, but not feeling bad about that. It uses the same argument you just used: "while it is working, it is good". That's the idea about how you feel your constructed beliefs, and ability to do that makes your thinking processes really almighty inside your brain. Especially my theory tried to explain cases, in which people just can not make their tulpas whatever they do. As long as I know, your theory provides no explanation for that, except for "they try not hard enough", which after some point does not help at all, but only frustrates people.
  5. Yeah, this is problem with my posts. I have theory and arguments, people who oppose me say "I don't think so, but I wouldn't argue against your arguments". I am not trying to offend Xeare, but what I need is a discussion. We do not have neuroscientists around, but responses like this just do not lead me anywhere, do not help my problem. You might say that it isn't important at all, but why am I continue reading then "tulpa is separate conciousness" in every guide, while no one can advocate that, and I can advocate my point of view? From this statement people make further reasoning about everything that relates to tulpae. So I am sure this is important.
  6. First, thank you Xeare for your detailed response. Yeah, but how often do you say "I created a servitor of flower in my wonderland?" It's somehow redundant IMO. I think it's not hard to prove. Try to multiply three-digit numbers, execute individual multiplying simultaneously. Will it be as fast as just only one multyplying? If so, I would believe you proved possibility of simultaneous thinking. This is what I tried my best to not to say by that post. I knew someone might interprete it that way, but that is not what I'm saying. Well, the questions of moral I tried to explain in this post. But answering detailed question, the way I am following called "pragmacy". My mental, which consists of my personality and my servitors', is constructed to correspond to the principles of expediency. Technically my servitors are constructed in way that they do not want absolute freedom, that might lead to conflicts and won't please anybody. I consider my servitors not as slaves, but as a coworkers. If servitor for any reason wants to "resign", the correction I make may be considered as replacement of leaving servitor by one with more expedient personality (but nearly the same). For further explanations please follow the link. If it's not enough, I would soon translate another posts which explain my morality about servitors and servepragmacy. But I am not saying that. They are thinking using one's brain and processes that are available in it. So does host. Are you sure you have readed whole post, not just the beginning? It's closer to the end where I explain that. I disagree that conciousness is just a bunch of signals and if you have more signals you have more conciousnesses. Brain has it's own structure, and the conciousness flow is a big and important part of it's structure. You cannot add third pilot seat in Boeing without massive re-engineering of nearly all it's components. Brain is more like Boeing, not just a bunch of peer neurons who can do any task anywhere in brain just if they need it at short-term. It's a tool that evolution made to solve problems. I am result of processes in my brain, and I am okay with that. For me, there is something much more important than equality. I will be likely an unequal cogwheel in the mechanism that takes care of me and makes me happy and I agree with it's goals, than an equal individuality in the world which will end up with conflicts and disagreements between every single person. Especially I don't want to turn into that world stored in my brain. That wouldn't help anyone.
  7. Hello, everynyan. I am the guy from russian community, have blog in russian, where usually post my thoughts and analysis about various aspects of tulpaforcing. Today I completed translation of one of my key posts, "Autonomous personality and conciousness", and I would like to share it and hear your thoughts and opinions about it. The post is about nature of tulpa, and my thoughts on possibility to actually create an parallel conciousness. I didn't hear too much criticism in our community about my theories, so my next posts were based on these ideas I throwed up there. But I didn't saw my ideas been developed in this community, and that caused kind of separation the way I understand tulpas and the way you understand them. And this separation just goes furter as the time goes, so I decided that I need this discussion. I think that understanding of tulpa nature significally affects the ways we develope them, so I suppose trying to make a point here shouldn't be useless. Note that I mentioned servitors in my post, and that I have servitor instead of tulpa. Do not be confused, as mentioned there, my definition of servitor differs from one that is common here, and I have no clue where you guys took your from, so I decided to leaving my terminology as it is, just pointing on differences.
  8. "How is this not a bad idea" will be very important theme for audience from the very first seconds, I think you should place this as 2nd topic.
  9. It is old and well-known delusion - the idea that simple tulpa has fear of death like us. Fear of death, for us, is evolutionally reasonable instinct; however, for tulpae such an instinct would be dangerous and unproductive. Because their raison d'etre is our existence and survival, not their own. This is the only one option that allows both of you be happy with your lifes and relationships. for more info.
  10. I'm just wondering, what made you associate the word "servitor" with a "non-free-thinking template, doll, hologram"; funny thing is, I used this word for autonomous personality that I created before FAQ_man's guides got their popularity. I received this term from chaos magic as well, and spreaded it to russian tulpa community; but servitor I meant was never a "doll that's unable to think by itself", the only major difference is that you can force servitor to change itself at any time - unlike tulpa and real personality you have "root access" to it. And it has a task as well. So my definition was (it was posted at april 27th here ) "controllable personality that has its own determined task."
  11. Don't see reasons to be that excited. As I mentioned in my blog, many people reacted very sceptically about it, repeating old delusions such as "this goes from social unadaptivity, this is schizophrenia, go take some beer and find yourself a gurl". I don't think tulpa phenomenon will become massive, society has very stable negative reaction to the "imagination games" and "experiments on your conciousness".
  12. The question is what do you exactly mean when saying "servitor". For me, servitor is an autonomous personality with a specified task. Functional parts of mind such as walking-performing-mechanism, are not personalities, they are just trained mechanical actions. Everyone have trained walking mechanism, someone learned dancing, someone learned penspinning - all these mechanical muscular activities are performed without actually thinking about any muscular move. It's normal, this is how our brain interacts with our body.
  13. Hey, I am absolutely not active here (russian tulpa-related blogger) but my tulpa answered to the half of this survey a while ago, here - . I'm just wondering, maybe someone is interested in us to finish this?