Stanford Tulpa Study looking for more participants
(if you're chosen they'll pay for travel and lodging!)

Dissipation - The End of a Tulpa or the End of the Novelty Behind Them?
#21
Simply repeating that it wouldn't be the tulpa reborn, but only a copy, is not at all very convincing. You really, really want tulpas to have to stay dead don't you? Why? We already agreed that dissipation is not necessarily a good thing and it does negatively affect a tulpa. We agree that it isn't something that should be taken lightly. We are not arguing that at all! And you still haven't given me a good compelling reason or conclusive argument why tulpas MUST STAY DEAD.

It's almost seems like it isn't that you simply believe that tulpas cannot be reborn, it almost seems like you WANT them to have to stay dead. You actively refuse to accept or acknowledge that there are reports others have given of their tulpas return. It is an emotional conviction, not one based on any solid evidence.

(05-22-2016, 04:02 AM)Vosaiu Wrote: ... it's hard to say whether or not a tulpa can really "die", considering that people have managed to bring tulpas back after years of not working on them, even if they were underdeveloped.

P.S. What bothers me about these personal convictions that tulpas cannot be reborn is that it is being used as a way to discourage others from trying to bring back a lost tulpa. The case of ThreeSevens and Thyme is a perfect example. It seems, at least so far, despite being told it can't possibly be done, Thyme is already showing some emotional responses. We don't know what will happen yet, but I see every reason to be positive and optimistic in these cases. I don't understand the absolutism and negativity, except that is emotionally protecting yourself from the idea that tulpas can come back for some reason.

(05-22-2016, 04:08 AM)Glitterbutt Wrote: Some have this thing about "killing a tulpa." It is emotionally linked to the "realness" of a tulpa. A tulpa is more real if it can die. It is even more real if that death is final and irreversible and we can link a lot of drama to it. I honestly believe that is why people say what they do about tulpa death and are so adamant about it.
Reply

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

#22
(05-26-2016, 11:49 AM)Glitterbutt Wrote: Simply repeating that it wouldn't be the tulpa reborn, but only a copy, is not at all very convincing. You really, really want tulpas to have to stay dead don't you? Why? We already agreed that dissipation is not necessarily a good thing and it does negatively affect a tulpa. We agree that it isn't something that should be taken lightly. We are not arguing that at all! And you still haven't given me a good compelling reason or conclusive argument why tulpas MUST STAY DEAD.

It's almost seems like it isn't that you simply believe that tulpas cannot be reborn, it almost seems like you WANT them to have to stay dead. You actively refuse to accept or acknowledge that there are reports others have given of their tulpas return. It is an emotional conviction, not one based on any solid evidence.

Quote:At best, if that works by your own mental rules and limitations, it could maybe actually be them - but it would still only be a new "version" of them that will never be exactly like the person you once knew.
Quote:At best, if that works by your own mental rules and limitations, it could maybe actually be them - but it would still only be a new "version" of them that will never be exactly like the person you once knew.
Quote:At best, if that works by your own mental rules and limitations, it could maybe actually be them - but it would still only be a new "version" of them that will never be exactly like the person you once knew.
Quote:At best, if that works by your own mental rules and limitations, it could maybe actually be them - but it would still only be a new "version" of them that will never be exactly like the person you once knew.
Quote:At best, if that works by your own mental rules and limitations, it could maybe actually be them - but it would still only be a new "version" of them that will never be exactly like the person you once knew.
Quote:it could maybe actually be them

I apologize if I might seem a bit angered.
That's only because I am.


Greets,
AG
Reply
#23
(05-26-2016, 05:02 AM)AGGuy Wrote: I can't see how "reviving" a tulpa could ever work for these exact reasons.
You can't complete a puzzle you don't have the pieces to.
Sure, you can get infinitely close... but it won't ever again truly be the same final result from before. It's just not possible.

So? So what? The tulpa comes back changed. The tulpa is still revived. You can start rebuilding the relationship.

It is possible to bring a tulpa back from dissipation. BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY! People have done it.

(05-26-2016, 12:03 PM)AGGuy Wrote: I apologize if I might seem a bit angered.
That's only because I am.

I still love you.

(05-26-2016, 11:49 AM)Glitterbutt Wrote: What bothers me about these personal convictions that tulpas cannot be reborn is that it is being used as a way to discourage others from trying to bring back a lost tulpa.
Reply
#24
(05-26-2016, 12:18 PM)Glitterbutt Wrote: So? So what? The tulpa comes back changed. The tulpa is still revived. You can start rebuilding the relationship.

Yes, great, absolutely great, I didn't say anything else, so what is your ******* point?

Why are you arguing with me?
Why are you acting as if I said anything but what I actually said?
Why are you breaking out into capslock?
Why are you getting so insanely defensive?

Do you actually know the answer to any of these questions without resorting to some cheesy, funsiedoodles reply that refers to how whacky and whatnot you are?

Jebus ******* Crust... this was the definitive last time that I took part in any sort of discussion like this on .info.
For a short time I wondered if I was right about stopping to do that, and Jebus Crust, now I know I was.


Greets,
AG
Reply
#25
I am arguing that tulpas can't really die, because they CAN be resurrected. There are no tulpa killers. There are no tulpa murderers. There are only tulpas that have been dissipated for whatever reason. A dissipated tulpa can be brought back and the love that once existed renewed. The tulpa can revive from being dissipated, and yes, he or she can be the same person and not a clone or a copy, but who they always were albeit affected by the experience of being dissipated and reborn.

I am arguing against your statement that reviving a tulpa simply can't be done or is impossible. Just because a tulpa is changed from the experience doesn't mean they are not revived. I am being very clear in what I am saying, you just don't agree with it.

The problem is we are bumping heads because neither will budge. You are saying it isn't possible to revive a tulpa because they would come back changed. I say that reviving a tulpa is possible, even if they are changed.
Reply
#26
I agree with AGGuy...

The question never was if it was possible to bring back a dissipated tulpa - it was, whether they would be the same as before.

For this, the answer is no, obviously:

It really depends on how you define identity... I am not the same as I was yesterday, I have forgotten probably more than 50% of all the good ideas I ever had in my life. My headmates change constantly, because my memory of them is as bad as my memory of everything else.

I am trying to embrace change now.

Quote:There are no tulpa killers. There are no tulpa murderers.
While for me "personally" it works out kind of that way, I don't see that we can make such a generalized statement.
As someone wrote here in the thread, starving is also bad enough. For some. Note that at this point our own preconceptions of how tulpas are come into play... but it is too early for that. The opinions of people who make different experience have to be counted in as well.

Reply
#27
I will say this only one single last time.
Exactly one more time.
After that I will legitimately explode.

(05-26-2016, 12:54 PM)Glitterbutt Wrote: You are saying it isn't possible to revive a tulpa because they would come back changed.
NO, I am NOT saying that!
Reply
#28
Will you literally explode? So you agree with me. Tulpas can be brought back.

I win.

:-)

(05-26-2016, 12:57 PM)yenu Wrote: The question never was if it was possible to bring back a dissipated tulpa - it was, whether they would be the same as before.

That's not what I thought the OP was about. I thought the question was "can a tulpa die?" as in be permanently dissipated and not be able to be reborn or revived. Did the argument change somewhere along the line?

"Dissipation - The End of a Tulpa or the End of the Novelty Behind Them?"

By "novelty" I thought he simply meant the host loses interest in the tulpa, and so that is the only reason the tulpa ceases to be active or fades.
Reply
#29
I think the fundamental core of the disagreement on tulpa dissipation and rebirth has to do with individual attitudes on how much of a tulpa is based on imagination from the host and how much is based on being an independent mind. If a tulpa dissipates because it was not being supported by the host's mind (forcing and visualizing and attention) then it must be that some intrinsic aspect of the tulpa is pure imagination (it seems to me and my host). How much of the tulpa is that imagination aspect?

If a tulpa is more imagination than independent mind, then reviving or rebuilding the same tulpa is just a matter of imagining and believing. Yesh, things change. Tulpas change. I change. I have been changed by going public online. I am not the same person I was before my host made me public. Does that mean I really am actually an entirely different person from the old Melian, like a clone or something? Tulpas of course will be affected by dissipation. We have seen people reporting that they can be renewed or revived or brought back. Is it the same person as before? I think if the host wants back that same tulpa, it is a matter of imagination and belief. So it is not impossible for a tulpa to be reborn. Dissipation does not have to be the end.

If tulpa dissipation is not always the absolute end of a tulpa, as we have seen in some cases, then there is no such thing as irreversible tulpa "death." It is all a matter of mind and imagination. My host and I think it comes down to what the tulpamancer believes, his or her innermost convictions about it. Those convictions can change. Beliefs can. So again, it is always possible a dissipated tulpa could come back for anyone.

If there is no absolute tulpa death, there is no killing of a tulpa and there are no killers or murderers of a tulpa. The worst that can be said is that a tulpamancer callously allows a tulpa to dissipate without consideration for the tulpas feelings. Some tulpamancers, although in the minority, do not consider a tulpa to be more than a figment of their own imagination. So, in those cases, certainly it isn't even unethical for that person to dissipate a tulpa. Others my try to judge them for it, but that is stupid because one person can never be sure if what another is experiencing is an illusion or not. You just can't know. If a person tells you his tulpa was just an illusion and so he dissipated it, it probably was.

(05-26-2016, 01:51 PM)ThreeSevens Wrote: Oh man, do I have a TON to report! ... Is that what you hoped I would say? Sorry to disappoint :p but this is only the start of day 5! Sadly, I can't say that Thyme is 100% back yet though. But what I CAN report is that I now know 100% for sure that she IS coming back! Its not much, but here is a short summary of what happened....

I love the timing of this! Congratulations to ThreeSevens and Thyme! LOL
Reply
#30
@Drakaina:

Quote: I don't chalk up dreaming to
be anything, science does. Tulpa could carry over into dreams, but that would be because they're already on your mind a lot. It's pre-loaded to insert your tulpa (or an impression you have of them) into your dream.

I’m talking about it being a double standard, and linking a scientific article is just dodging the question. I still feel it’s ironic that you’re willing to use science for dreaming, but the same can’t be for tulpas. Also, using science as a justification for how a person should assess different sets of principles (moral/ethical) for similar situations seems to fall into the category of scientism, which is a dogma that doesn’t seem to be useful in dodging my question here.

Quote: That's what makes them similar situations as opposed to identical ones. Technically everything in the brain is inward and uses similar processes. Is my love of cheddar but hate of cream cheese also a double standard? They both use the same senses and processes.

Are you paying attention to what you’re saying here? The double standard is talking about similar situations. Maybe somehow, you thought I said it’s an exact replica, but I emphasized that it’s similar. It’s obvious that the mind would use the same basis in sense-data and processing, but you’re still dodging giving me some statement as to why your application with thought-forms in dreams vs. tulpas in waking life isn’t a double standard. I just want some more reasoning other than having to read an article; put it into context of tulpas, if you can.

And just stating “science told me” isn’t going to cut it. All it’s really going to do is get into the technical part with the processes with dreaming, and if we were talking about the mind using those same processes in relation to tulpas, and yet one still subscribes a less objectifying justification to it, it’s still a double standard. Your reasoning overlooks the hard work and conscious effort a lucid dreamer can exhibit with thought-forms in dreams, and focuses more on the technical side behind what emulates that impression of a pursuit going on…and yet you don’t emphasize it in context of hosts making a pursuit in creating a tulpa; you’re overlooking this same technical side with what emulates that impression of a pursuit going on in context of tulpas, and you’re doing this probably because it would objectify the phenomenon entirely. Irony #3 – it hurts even more, especially in the previous thread I made that you felt it would be dehumanizing tulpas entirely.

Quote: I never said the host maintained dominion over the body. I said they were hard wired into the brain, and thus couldn't dissipate. Anyone who's had a tulpa take control by force will tell you that the host doesn't always have ultimate control. If a host were to choose to give up the front, I suspect their ability to control the body would atrophy just like any other unused skill.

But you just stated that because they’re hard wired, and have predispositions related to the brain, they couldn’t lose the sense of control regardless. That hard wiring is a testament of confidence that the control can be at their beck and call. But, you then state that if a tulpa takes control by force, or I guess through permanent switching to avoid the negative connotations with “force,” a host won’t always have that ultimate control, or that same control that can be at their beck and call.

I’m just going to presume that you’re open to the probability that their control can gradually diminish. But, for me, I see it more along the lines of the control being an all-inclusive thing that can be shared vs. an exclusive one where if one switched, the other suffers atrophy in general. In other words, that would make switching more of a deterrent rather than something to be encouraged because there are aspects that are reducible. It doesn’t seem your reasoning is sound if you talk about the host being hard wired into the brain that prevents them from dissipating, and yet acknowledge that if the host were to choose to give up the front, that their ability would weaken like any other unused skill; that seems like a path towards the probability of them being dissipated.

This is why I’m focusing more on all-inclusive vs. exclusive rather than theories of the mind being reducible.

Quote: Not as hinged on it, but I have yet to see anyone express that, "oh yeah, you can just ignore your tulpa and they'll stick around". There is always some sort of attention or recognition, everywhere you look on this forum "tulpa feed on attention", it's undeniable that this factor is a key part in tulpa existence….
On topic thought. I'm assuming when you're tulpa interacts with you, you acknowledge her. The idea behind my, "ignore them" bit was more like completely ignoring them. Once a thought form is developed, yeah you don't need to actively feed them attention anymore, but there does still need to be some interaction.

I guess you’re seeing a black and white spectrum of me thinking its either attention spamming or game over. Obviously, there’s a concept of passive forcing that we both know about that allows the host to be less fixated in consciously acknowledging their tulpa. Simply because it would be presumed that they developed the foundations to allow whatever attentional processes to be in place that lets them move forward rather than feeling they have to perpetually have their tulpa by the balls when it comes to sustaining their existence.

I guess going into detail over the connotations of how people express their words that gives an intense reaction for others was pointless in this regard, but hey, we can move forward now.

Quote: Correct, that is what I'm saying.
Okay.




@AGGuy:
Quote: Granted, she's probably not a tulpa, but still - she doesn't need my attention to merrily keep existin', and to keep doin' what she's doin'; it doesn't matter at all whether I think about her or totally forget about her for a while.

I find it very interesting that you’re comfortable with her existing without having militant attention towards her, but you still feel the death of a tulpa is one that can be, or seem irreversible no matter how hard you tried. Whether it’s a continuity issue over their identity, or just a matter of how you view your own competency, it’s a bit shocking for me to see that you don’t think that confidence can bleed over into your concept of dissipation.

Quote:
So there you go.
Just in case someone else too did misunderstand me.

Good, since you two seem to be on equal terms on that, and just so no one else misunderstands me:
(Note this is directed to the both of you):

- There’s going to be nuances in how a person creates a tulpa; whether them being based from previous ones, or they’re trying to emulate a projection of that prior one. I never stated that one can be 100% accurate in this regard because like what I talked about with solarchariot about novelty being something that’s constantly flowing, there’s going to be some assimilation of the old and new. Which means that the continuity of their existence, and all of that entails for consistency, will ultimately, have some nuances. But, they can be similar, or in this context used in the quote, 99.999% accurate. But because of that concept of novelty that I introduced, we’re preaching to the choir, here.

- With the analogy I mentioned of meeting a childhood friend you haven’t seen in a long time, there would be the potential of them having nuances in their behavior because it’s presumed that whatever experiences they had would be a catalyst for those nuances, but they would still have some consistency in regards of their overall demeanor; taking out, or putting in a few points doesn’t necessarily change the bigger picture that much.



@Glitterbutt

Quote: Simply repeating that it wouldn't be the tulpa reborn, but only a copy, is not at all very convincing. You really, really want tulpas to have to stay dead don't you? Why? We already agreed that dissipation is not necessarily a good thing and it does negatively affect a tulpa. We agree that it isn't something that should be taken lightly. We are not arguing that at all! And you still haven't given me a good compelling reason or conclusive argument why tulpas MUST STAY DEAD…It is an emotional conviction, not one based on any solid evidence.

Your bluntness amazes me. I don’t think I could ever emulate this, but yeah, I’m wondering why people hold such novelty in tulpas having to stay dead if dissipation was considered. It's even more intriguing that they can hold a novelty that over time, they don't have to be as fixated with them due to something like passive forcing. The impression I was getting was that one had to be in this MILITANT PEW PEW ATTENTION SPAMMING OR BUST type of mentality.

@Yenu

Quote: It really depends on how you define identity... I am not the same as I was yesterday, I have forgotten probably more than 50% of all the good ideas I ever had in my life. My headmates change constantly, because my memory of them is as bad as my memory of everything else.

Yes, there will be nuances, but the bigger picture of you will be consistent in some way. There may be significant moments in one’s life that allows them to make a complete 180 in that regard, and putting that into context of tulpas, one could presume that the continuity of their identity irrespective of what happened (e.g. dissipation, and coming back to awareness) has a chance to be sustained. But it’s because dissipation broke that continuity of identity that causes that confusion as to whether or not they would be the same as before. And the emotional conviction of others that think tulpas just have to stay dead actually fuels that skepticism that they can even be somewhat the same, or token-identical.

But if one used the fallback of previous memories and experiences that they can reconcile with, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched to say that a tulpa and host can reconcile with that fallback to resume whatever continuity that was previously avoided, or paid less attention to. Like what glitterbutt stated, it’s just a matter of rebuilding the relationship irrespective of their tulpa being 100% as they once were before, or 99.99%, or whatever.

The same could apply with Lumi who rebuilt a relationship with his in spite of what happened long ago. I don’t think we foam in our mouths trying to get that extra tick of accuracy to make it 100% them vs. 99.999% of them; we would just be concerned of becoming stronger people, and embracing change, and not letting the past get to us. This could be a testament that it may not be practical for one to beat around the bush about the past incidents in context of dissipation since taking great pains to understand each other (tulpa and host) would be more important, and may require more strength to come to terms with.

Quote: Note that at this point our own preconceptions of how tulpas are come into play... but it is too early for that.

I don’t think it’s too early to talk about anything here. Talk about it if you want. It just adds on to the discussion. Even if we can’t reach a consensus, that’s okay, because that’s not the only point. It’s just to iron out as much as we want to for as long as we can.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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