Any lucid dreamers out there?
#1
I got interested in lucid dreaming a little after I discovered tulpas, and I've had about four or five lucid dreams since. So I was wondering--does anybody else here lucid dream? Have you ever used them to help with tulpaforcing? And especially, what's your take on dream characters, how do you think they are related to tulpas?
Reply

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

#2
I used to lucid dream, though I've fallen way out of practice since discovering the tulpa community; I tend to focus on one "obsession" at a time, and I discovered tulpae during my lucid dreaming obsession. Of course, I found tulpae to be more interesting and fascinating, so my newfound tulpa obsession took a lot of attention away from lucid dreaming. At the peak of my ability, though, I was recalling 2-4 dreams a night and getting lucid about once a week, though I did once manage to have two lucid dreams in a single night. Now, unfortunately, since I'm way out of practice - I rarely do reality checks, no longer keep a dream journal, and don't hang around the LD community - I rarely get lucid and don't even recall dreams every night anymore. It's something I've been meaning to get back in the habit of but haven't gotten around to.

About dream characters, they are thoughtforms, like tulpae are, but that's it. They aren't tulpae; they're basically NPCs. They're nothing but puppets controlled by your imagination, and they only seem to be so real because your subconscious imagines up some pretty vivid stuff in dreams (and also because you don't tend to realize when they're doing or saying strange things until you wake up and remember the dream). There have been a few cases of lucid dreamers having persistent dream characters that they've kept around and developed into tulpae, but I'd say you'd probably have to have a whole lot of dreams with them before you could even consider the possibility of them gaining sentience.
Reply
#3
I heard about lucid dreams last year. I tried it for some time and even managed to have one lucid dream. But then I lost interest and stopped practicing.

I might try lucid dreaming again because I think it would be awesome in combination with tulpamancy.
Reply
#4
I'm a lucid dreamer since 2006. :-)

Always trying to meet my tulpas in dreams, but I'm not often successful at that. (Even though half of my tuppers were originally dream characters) Even when I do meet them, they tend to behave a little more randomly than I would like them.

Quote:About dream characters, they are thoughtforms, like tulpae are, but that's it. They aren't tulpae; they're basically NPCs. They're nothing but puppets controlled by your imagination, and they only seem to be so real because your subconscious imagines up some pretty vivid stuff in dreams
I think there are different types of dream characters. Some of them may be aware at the level of a tulpa, even when you first meet them. (But perhaps not as consistent?) Then, others just behave like puppets and say a lot of nonsense.

And then there are also cases of dream characters that stay with a dreamer for many dreams, sometimes for years - but not during the day, so they aren't tulpas by usual definition.

There is a lot still to be found out here, I think.

Reply
#5
(09-03-2014, 11:05 PM)yenu Wrote: I think there are different types of dream characters. Some of them may be aware at the level of a tulpa, even when you first meet them.

Honestly, I don't see how that's possible. A sentient thoughtform can't just appear out of nowhere. As I said before:

Quote:they only seem to be so real because your subconscious imagines up some pretty vivid stuff in dreams

A tulpa takes time and effort to create - even accidental ones have some sort of explanation as to how they were created - so I don't see how it's possible for a dream character to be on the same level as a tulpa or even have any awareness at all when they first show up.
Reply
#6
TL;DR at the bottom.

Quote:Honestly, I don't see how that's possible. A sentient thoughtform can't just appear out of nowhere. As I said before:
Quote:they only seem to be so real because your subconscious imagines up some pretty vivid stuff in dreams

A tulpa takes time and effort to create - even accidental ones have some sort of explanation as to how they were created - so I don't see how it's possible for a dream character to be on the same level as a tulpa or even have any awareness at all when they first show up.

This is because people are used to the correlation that self-fulfilling prophecies along with time and effort must create a cause-and-effect result to validate a tulpa, and distinguishing them from thought-forms our minds create literally with ease in our natural sleep.

To not be able to see how it’s possible raises questions on what really makes tulpas that much different from a reoccurring dream character an individual would put just as much time investing in waking life.

' Wrote:they only seem to be so real because your subconscious imagines up some pretty vivid stuff in dreams
This a clear understatement of what the mind is truly capable of, i.e., underestimating the mind in general. In my opinion, if my mind can create a virtual experiential reality where I can tap into my imaginative potential to interact with a dream character that can easily emulate sentience as I believe my tulpas can express in many ways, then I see no difference in this gap other than very militant moral standards people may create to sustain the uniqueness of a tulpa from any other thought-form (e.g. daemons, systems, etc.)

If I recall correctly in a casual IRC discussion with you recently, it seemed you didn’t see much difference in daemons, and other attributions to the word “thought-forms,” and even attested that it was merely personal upbringings, customs, mental constructs, and such from people that tried to make things seem different. But the concept was all the same, so why constrict dream characters as something potentially below that (I ask this mostly because of the understatement you made with the subconscious imagining vivid stuff).

I understand that dreams have their limits, and it’s all just an experiential virtual reality, and that emulating that in waking life takes investment in time, patience, and such. But seeing these dream characters in my natural sleep that gives me deep feelings and understanding of myself, and much more still holds just as much, if not, more value as I try to learn through the thought-forms I engage with in waking life. The only difference, in my opinion, is merely the shift in awareness to what one would conceptualize as a way to exist/reside in; imaginary or real. But that difference is a matter of nuance i.e., a matter of interpretation so subtle that if used as the only distinction of tulpas from dream characters would just lead to question begging on which label of “thought-form” is more unique to claim the concept of implicit sentience, and what have you.

Sometimes, I learn much more from the dream characters in my non-lucid and lucid dreams, and they act and exist in ways where I couldn’t even control their existence if I wanted to. Even though the experiences are temporary compared to waking life, I’d argue that they would have just as much awareness, if not more awareness simply because self-fulfilling prophecies seems to be a contingency, or probably a predisposition (e.g. believing said dream character can emulate sentience, and augment their awareness from the same mind I’m sure is contributing heavily in our experience with thought-forms in waking life).


Recap (About 37% of the longer version with quotes included):

I feel it’s pretty easy to see how it’s possible that a dream character can express attributes of implied sentience just as much, and maybe much more as the thought-forms with practice to develop and engage with in waking life. I make this argument mostly from the standpoint behind self-fulfilling prophecies:

- If we’re capable of believing a dream character can have attributes of implied sentience (just from “willing” it like Green Lantern would), and using supplements (e.g. dream stabilization, reality checks, dream incubation) to potentially augment this to be consistent with our beliefs in their ability of sentience, this isn’t really much different from methods we utilize to sustain that belief that tulpas in our waking life have those attributes of implied sentience

- Even though dream characters would obviously be confined in a virtual experiential reality, it’s a matter of disposition, mental constructs on morals, and other standards that try to create a dichotomy between the uniqueness of tulpas vs. dream character (and examples like daemons, systems, etc.)

- An individual can easily invest in much time believing a dream character to be sentient, and much more through various techniques and methods for engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy akin to methods used in waking life for “tulpas.” That dream character can turn into a reoccurring dream character, and although there’s a gap of uncertainty in being sure that’s the same entity we feel exists so much in our natural sleep, that would lead to question begging on whether or not the tulpas we intend to create and exist with are really the same entity we believe to exist consistently.


So for the last point, how do we resolve this struggle? I guess a simple answer is just how much we’re willing to cling onto our predispositions that were built and ingrained in our minds that they exist in a way where they can easily be consistent with the concept of selfhood they want to exist in; we embrace the probability that even if there can be discrepancies and distortions, it could just be a subtle, but symbolic way of defining how much they’re gradually evolving (in relation to their concept of self, and how much we feel that concept can still exist).
Reply
#7
@fennecgirl
Quote:A sentient thoughtform can't just appear out of nowhere.
And yet there are dreamers who claim to meet very much independent dream characters who stay with them for weeks or even years. It doesn't happen often, but it seems to happen.
(I am not speaking of my own experience here.)

The important point, maybe, is this: "out of nowhere" is not what I said.

It may be possible for a dream figure to emerge sentient out of a process, that took a long time, maybe longer than creating a tulpa - and yet the dreamer didn't notice anything.

Our mind has a great capacity for simulating persons. And I don't mean tulpas, specifically, the first and foremost function is to simulate other persons - anticipating, what someone else will say, how he/she will react if I say this or that. Our brain does this all the time.

A close relative, someone who I have lived with for years together (like my granny, for example), will therefore probably exist as a quite accurate model in my brain. Now, that doesn't mean that she would be sentient, of course. But it's a complicated and very much complete person.
The granny I meet in my dreams is built with all the experience from RL and uses the model, that is already in my brain - otherwise I wouldn't be able to dream of her at all.

This is just an example. All dream figures draw from mental models to a certain extent. But those models don't have to be created on the spot, they can exist for years before they even turn up in a dream.

I don't claim that this is always the case. In fact, most of my dream figures are pretty empty. But there are some who are a little bit more than just hollows - and in fact, meeting them made such an impression on me that I then proceeded to talk to them in waking life - ie tulpa narration.

@Linkzelda
I've tried to get your point, but somehow I get lost between the sentences. The predispositions you talk of, did you mean those of the tulpa community, or any specifics?

There are obviously a few beliefs that may cause problems:
- all dream characters are equally sentient/nonsentient (wrong, imho)
- tulpas are fundamentally something else than self-aware dream-characters (could be? I don't know)

The point about self-fulfilling prophecies - well, I don't like them much, I think. Yes, our concepts impact how we experience reality. But if the whole point is to say something is possible or impossible, it is so regardless of what a single person thinks.

We could of course hold the position that tulpas and dream characters and mental models and whatever work fundamentally different for each person. Maybe it's true; some people's dreams are quite different from mine, to the point that I'd say it would be impossible for me to experience something similar.

Reply
#8
TL;DR at the bottom:

Honestly, the points you addressed to fennecgirl in some way was the basis behind what I was trying to get with “predispositions.”

When I talk about predispositions, I merely mean the tendencies for us to create this mental image of a certain individual (e.g. the simulations you talked about), and some of us cling onto that imaginary model so long that when there’s a change in disposition from that individual, things become problematic sometimes. I tried to associate this with how hosts may cling onto those beliefs they’ve been practicing so much, and when they see a complete metamorphosis of their tulpa’s sense of selfhood/personality/etc., they become mystified on why this is the case.

Especially if they see a dream character of their tulpa that they may be unsure is really their tulpa. Sometimes I feel that the dream state is a clear testament of the totality of things we desire from them, and how they could be much better, or something they could strive for (we just experience those qualities based on each circumstances, but maybe not for all cases). It was a conflict I personally had with mine before when I tried shifting my beliefs of them in my dreams into waking life. It felt as if the dream state was merely an experiential type of thing on ideas I can help contribute and suggest to them in waking life.

But there were times where it was clearly them, or at least a good representation my mind emulated of them (I’m agnostic as well on whether or not dream characters are inherently sentient). This is why how I resolved this gap of uncertainty was from this:

Linkzelda Wrote:So for the last point, how do we resolve this struggle? I guess a simple answer is just how much we’re willing to cling onto our predispositions that were built and ingrained in our minds that they exist in a way where they can easily be consistent with the concept of selfhood they want to exist in; we embrace the probability that even if there can be discrepancies and distortions, it could just be a subtle, but symbolic way of defining how much they’re gradually evolving (in relation to their concept of self, and how much we feel that concept can still exist).

But I am looking for better ways, but it’s just my current preference for the time being.


So to clarify on one of the points you’ve made (thank you for doing that):
yenu Wrote:There are obviously a few beliefs that may cause problems:
- all dream characters are equally sentient/nonsentient (wrong, imho)

Looking back at the post I made, I do admit that I was advocating too much on how dream characters can have just as much, and maybe more qualities of sentience than our tulpas. The reasons for me reaching this probability is merely because that if there wasn’t some correlation of their sentience from our own, it would imply there’s a dichotomy going on (something more metaphysical, and I say that in a casual way). In other words, it seems that in order for us to sustain this belief that they are autonomous (at least from conscious thoughts), we engage in some implicit dichotomy (e.g. almost similar to solipsistic thinking within the spectrum of our dreams) for the sake their individuality, i.e., letting go of conscious awareness of our predispositions we have of them, and letting them exist without depending too much on our conscious thoughts.

But at the same time, there’s question begging on why wouldn’t a tulpa, or a dream character that comes from the same mind have similar levels of sentience, despite of the circumstances and how long the dream interaction was. This is solely based on the person’s perception of this, and not about something everyone shares. I will admit that there are dream characters that seem to be prone to how we “plan” too much in lucid dreams (and even non-lucid), i.e., existing based on our beliefs and expectations; these types of dream characters that say random things (e.g. tunafish12344 is the path to LIFE) is something we assume that probably isn’t a sentient entity. Though opinions will vary, so I apologize if I’m putting words in your mouth, and putting you in what I presume a general populace may agree to.

Though I feel we’re conflating sapience with sentience, and I know there have been debates on whether or not sapience is integral with sentience (I feel it is in some way if the experience is all within the same mind).

yenu Wrote:- tulpas are fundamentally something else than self-aware dream-characters (could be? I don't know)

I’m just as agnostic as you on this. Though I feel when people talk about self-aware dream characters, it seems to strip the potential of them emulating those other qualities of sentience (e.g. making judgment and rationalizing the reality/virtual experiential reality they exist in). I don’t personally believe, at least for the time being, that there are inherent qualities of tulpas that are so distinct from interaction with reoccurring dream characters that have certain labels on them (e.g. dream guide, spirit animal, and other spiritual and symbolic meanings). There may be subtle distinctions, or something major, but again, I’m agnostic about this as you are; this is where I reach an impasse before sounding as if I’m absolutely sure there’s something inherently different about them, even with the standpoint behind self-fulfilling prophecies.

yenu Wrote:The point about self-fulfilling prophecies - well, I don't like them much, I think. Yes, our concepts impact how we experience reality. But if the whole point is to say something is possible or impossible, it is so regardless of what a single person thinks.

We could of course hold the position that tulpas and dream characters and mental models and whatever work fundamentally different for each person. Maybe it's true; some people's dreams are quite different from mine, to the point that I'd say it would be impossible for me to experience something similar.

I want to clarify that when I use the term self-fulfilling prophecies, I don’t really see the term as serving some teleological position, i.e., an ultimate objective or aim that has long-lasting value despite of whatever mental models and such a person has (because I’m agnostic as to whether or not there is something like that, even from personal experiential cases). I wholeheartedly agree with you on how the path of cognition and mental models are different for each person with dream characters and such because that could be related to how sentience would involve an individual creating personal meaning (e.g. symbolic) in a reality that will probably exist with or without their existence.

This is why whenever I see someone feeling symbolism is bad for growth (not you, just throwing this concept in here), it’s most likely because people just think differently in how they create their personal and significant meaning. And by using the term “self-fulfilling prophecy,” it’s merely something I’ve noticed that can be used somewhat objectively because it’s describing a behavior clustered with beliefs that creates an end result.

But at the same time, I know that this correlation does not equal causality, i.e., self-fulfilling prophecies aren’t all there is to it in defining what makes a tulpa, a tulpa (or ontology of them for a lack of better words) in a cause-and-effect manner. It’s merely a heuristic supplement to try and find a connection that I’m sure people are trying to find to make sense of all the subjectivity here.

I agree that it may be improbable to have an exact understanding of someone’s dreams simply because our schemata would be different either way, or other reasons. Though nowhere in my post did I imply that probability of a person understanding the totality of those experiences from someone else, and I apologize if that seemed to be the case. But if you were adding that there for the sake of discussion, don’t mind the previous sentence.


TL;DR:


I’m just as agnostic as you are with whether or not there’s a telos, i.e., ultimate objective or aim with tulpas (e.g. them being long-lasting companions that’s inherent despite of people’s personal reasons). I use the term “self-fulfilling prophecy” as a heuristic tool to try and make a connection of all the subjectivity. In a way, it would imply that there could be something inherent, but not the type of “inherent” that’s objective, and has long-lasting value despite of whether or not a person still exists in this reality. In other words, defining what could be inherent with tulpas will have temporary value because it would be a mind-dependent type of thing in a mind-independent reality.

This is why self-fulfilling prophecies come to mind, because this cumulative knowledge and experiential cases from others seems to form some basis for them to presume there has to be some fundamentals behind this when it’s probably rudiments based on circumstances; nothing mind-independent unless there’s some methodology for proving that. For people to create a position of something about tulpas that’s mind-independent means they would have to conflate this reality, and that would end up in metaphysical aspects that have yet to have significant epistemological potential with Science.

Of course, this isn’t shunning metaphysical things at all, to those that may think I’m being anti-meta.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to