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?
#11
Ok, at a computer now, so I'm relatively sure I won't be losing my response this time (unless windows 10 is a bigger d**k than I thought. >_>)
I'll be answering the questions, since it's easier to keep my mind on track and form responses in shorter forms.


To start off though I had to address this.
(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: It’s not as if the person is going through methods of visualizing their tulpa dying, like imagining a gun, and shooting them in the head. As the definition from the wiki loosely describes, it’s merely a matter of not subscribing much attention, or stimuli.

While not as violent or dramatic as a shooting or stabbing or many other things, dying of starvation is still dying.

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - Do you feel dissipation is really the destruction, or the end of a tulpa? Or, do you think it’s a person that loses the novelty behind the endeavor entirely?

This depends entirely on how evolved/developed a tulpa is. There is no solid benchmark for this but I think we can all agree that there is a point in their development in which a tulpa becomes more than just a thought to the host, and takes on that life of it's own. Earlier on, it would just be a loss of novelty. Some newbie decides to quit when they realize tulpa forcing involves actual work; nothing is lost here, it's just another fad hopper who got bored and moved on.

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - Are protocols, like stasis, and other forms of symbolism to persevere the concept of a tulpa any different compared to someone that may have taken a break from the endeavor for months, and wanted to go back into it only to wonder: “Should I start anew, or pick back from where I started?”

I'm not as familiar with stasis as I could be, but it's really all about the intent. Someone who's put a tulpa in stasis then questions waking them up, to me it's like dissipating without calling it what it is. Instead of committing to it, you're letting the tulpa die of starvation in the cryo pod so you don't have to own up to it.

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - Following up that last question, why do you think this dilemma with starting anew, or picking back from where they started in a new light is one that comes up for speculation in the first place?

I'm afraid I don't understand this question. It sounds like you're asking "why is the above even a thing?" In which case I have no clue. Personal issues, lack of maturity, lack of responsibility, there could be many reasons.

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - If people use analogies of other forms of death (e.g. abortion, killing a child, etc.) to emphasize the consequences of dissipating, does this mean they’re willing to believe there can be physical pain if dissipation of a sentient tulpa is considered?

I believe tulpa can believe they feel pain (if they were taught/given that experience). So is the phantom pain of an amputee real? I think the amputee would say yes, in which case, tulpa pain would also be real. I don't know if they would feel pain, it might depend on the method or visualization used for dissipation, but I think it's possible out of a fear reaction.

Regarding the analogies though, I use them not to imply pain in dissipation but to emphasize the lack of responsibility on the part of the host (parent).

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - What makes the act of dissipating a tulpa any different from a person waking up from a dream who encountered dream characters that could’ve emulated acts of sentient beings? Do you think this is a double standard to stigmatize the act of dissipating a tulpa while not having much of a moral standing in what we wake up from on a nightly basis?

You can't choose not to wake up, you can however choose to make a tulpa. The former is created by random firings of the brain based on what it needs to process and what you've been feeding it lately. The latter involves time, attention, and conscious effort (even accidental tulpa, the host put effort into making them as a person, they just didn't intend them to come alive). There is no double standard, the two aren't the same.

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - Do you feel the analogies are too extreme, or are to be taken loosely; analogies to try and imagine the potential pain a tulpa may go through if the act of dissipation is considered?

I don't think the analogies are "too extreme". I think the severity of them actually helps more than hurts in that it steers most people away from the idea of copping out of the responsibility they took on when they created a living being. I also don't think it's ever wrong to be more considerate out of caution than to risk actually hurting another being. Whether tulpa feel pain or not, I don't know for sure, but I think it's better to act on the assumption that they do than to be wrong, in this case.

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - What if a host wanted to lose novelty behind the continuity of their sense of self while the tulpa cultivates their own identity to pursue this reality, would that be considered a form of “death” (e.g. egocide)? Or, is it a metaphorical one that can be reconciled with if brought into attention?

I don't think the host mind can "die", the brain is their hardware, they are hard coded into it. I do think they could do a sort of permanent switch with their tulpa, and live in the headspace while the tulpa run's the body.

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - If a person is starting anew, but still feels there’s some signs of their previous tulpa emerging from the process of creating one, why do you feel this is the case?

This one I think I can speak with some experience on, having dissipated a tulpa in the past, and had traits try to resurface in my current one. It's either guilt making them subconsciously compensate for their old tulpa, or the fact that they spent enough time with said old tulpa that those patterns left an impression on the brain, so it just goes there. It could be one or both of these things.

(05-25-2016, 03:18 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: - For people that feel dissipation is the true end of a tulpa, do you feel these individuals create a novelty behind their presumed death to justify that it isn’t so easy to reconcile with the concept of them before? In other words, do you feel their belief that they can’t be brought back is due to being fearful that if they do so with ease, that it’s the destruction behind the novelty of a tulpa’s existence vs. the presumed, actual death?

I'm going to quote AGGuy to supplement my answer to this one.
AGGuy Wrote:And my definitive inability to bring her back, no matter if she was actually irreversibly dead or not - well, assuming that the act of bringing her back would be equivalent to putting her mind back together, I would fail to do so because I don't know all the pieces; I'm simply not aware of all her memories and all the experiences she made until now. In other words, I can't put a puzzle together that I don't have the pieces to.

A developed tulpa will have deviations and experiences of their own. It would be impossible for a separate mind (even the hosts) to recreate their tulpa's mind with 100% accuracy. They could probably get close, but it would not be the same person. Because I've been playing fallout 4 I'm going to use an example from there. You have an original person, and then a synth copy that's almost identical to the original. If the original is killed by raiders, would the synth become the new original? No, how could it. Though the differences are minor, it's not the same being. It lacks the experiences, and the little quirks and personality traits the scientists who made it didn't know about.

To me that's how "reviving" a dissipated tulpa works. The host is the scientist and they can do their darndest to replicate the original but there will always be little things they didn't know about, or traits they overlook.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-Arthur Conan Doyle
Reply

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

#12
(05-26-2016, 03:25 AM)Drakaina Wrote: A developed tulpa will have deviations and experiences of their own. It would be impossible for a separate mind (even the hosts) to recreate their tulpa's mind with 100% accuracy. They could probably get close, but it would not be the same person. Because I've been playing fallout 4 I'm going to use an example from there. You have an original person, and then a synth copy that's almost identical to the original. If the original is killed by raiders, would the synth become the new original? No, how could it. Though the differences are minor, it's not the same being. It lacks the experiences, and the little quirks and personality traits the scientists who made it didn't know about.

To me that's how "reviving" a dissipated tulpa works. The host is the scientist and they can do their darndest to replicate the original but there will always be little things they didn't know about, or traits they overlook.

This is exactly what I didn't want to bring up for the sake of not stepping on someone's foot really, really badly (and probably causing a biiig discussion because of it), but yes, this is what I thought from the start as well... and now that you said it already, I have no reason anymore to not share what I really think:

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.

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.

No matter what you do, the past is the past and what's done is done; that person you once knew will not simply come back to once again be that person you once knew.
This is where "Imagination can do anything!" ends and very simple, yet hard and cold logic begins - there is no perfection or perfect accuracy in anything.
You can't ever fully and accurately recreate any idea, be it a random thought or a full, actual mind, just the way it once was before it was abandoned as an idea.

And while I'm so open and brutally honest, I'll say the rest of what I truly think as well:
I see this whole idea of simply bringing a previously dissipated mind back, with the overly defensive argument of "Imagination is magic sparklies!", as denial and escapism.
The idea defies not some mental rules you set up for yourself, it defies logic and common sense, and I feel it's disrespectful of the dissipated person in question... not to mention what I said in the previous sentence about denial and escapism.

Sorry if this sounds too harsh, but I decided I want to be honest.


Greets,
AG
Reply
#13
@AGGuy:

Quote: Going dormant, going sort of inactive, basically going into a coma, an actual equivalent of irreversible death -
- we've seen it all and much more on .info, haven't we?

I’m not sure how a coma is an irreversible death in context of tulpas; it seems to be another way to represent stasis, metaphorically speaking.

Quote: I'd even go as far as saying it's one of the things we all know the least about, one of the biggest mysteries surrounding all this.

I think it’s something we probably have a hunch about, but the reason why it seems so demystifying is that people don’t seem comfortable talking about the concept of dissipation with certain threads emulating a help hotline.

Quote: I'm simply not aware of all her memories and all the experiences she made until now. In other words, I can't put a puzzle together that I don't have the pieces to.

Maybe you’re undermining yourself here. Or, maybe you’re right in the sense that if there aren’t much experiences to reconcile with, it seems hard to “bring” them back to awareness. At best, the concept of them was there, but there wasn’t context of you actively contributing to that development. Which sets up an implication that maybe people feel there has to be a continuity developed long enough for there to be a fallback of experiences where should the act of dissipation occur, and they wanted to start anew, or pick off from where they previously started, those experiences would be the first thing to refer to.

But regardless of the person’s conviction on whether or not they’re creating someone new with traits of the previous tulpa, it seems this subscribed inability is due to the continuity of their existence not being persevered. For instance, let’s say we met a person we haven’t met in years, but they were a childhood friend of ours. Some traits may still be recognizable, but we can presume that over the course of their lives, there’s some aspects of their overall behavior that has changed. But we don’t need to “bring” back our awareness to those things because we had experiences with that person before.

But, with a tulpa where a host doesn’t have much of a fallback on with memories and experiences, the feeling of this lack of continuity being a form of irreversible death is probably in guise of being bothered that if they did make it reversible, that the novelty behind all of their endeavors would be in vain, somehow. And by in vain, I mean in the sense that creating, and interacting with a presumed sentient being may somehow make us unconsciously presume that they can mirror all that implies with being sentient; even death, and the onset of it happening.

But the onset of death with a body and mind reaching an end vs. a thought-form one creates and contributes with dissipation isn’t the same. Metaphorical connotations seem to be the only way for one to conceptualize, but like what I mentioned before with empathy in a previous post, it doesn’t make it a death. If it is, then either there would be some experience of tremendous, physical pain done to the body, or the body and mind itself just shuts down and dies.

If their irreversible death is dependent on how you can’t reconcile with them with memories and experiences, then that just means you validated their existence through your efforts alone vs. the “it’s in their character” that was supplemented with that rather than being solely reliant on that. If one’s competency in context of conscious cognitive processes vs. ones that happen indirectly was the end-all be-all actions to validate the existence of a tulpa, then it would be a mentally taxing endeavor.

Maybe you’re just apprehensive that should you try to reconcile with the concept of her, it may be something that would make you cringe, or just not feel right because you’d probably be worried about them genuinely being her. And it’s that continuity that was diminished temporarily that may have created that conviction of it being impossible for you. Which makes one question if we have to sustain this continuity no matter the cost just to prevent the fear of losing novelty behind their existence, or a sense of genuine nature behind their existence.


@Glitterbutt:

Quote:
For something to be an absolute fact, such as "tulpa dissipation is death and is always permanent," there cannot be any counter examples. Since we have seen counter examples in this community, we must conclude there is no such thing as absolute, irreversible death for a tulpa. There is always the possibility that tulpa may return, either on its own, or through the efforts of the host to recreate or revive the tulpa.

Even if I am right, that doesn't mean that tulpa dissipation isn't a traumatic experience to the tulpa, or without risk of emotional harm. That it is a frightening or disturbing subject for many tulpas should tell us not to take it lightly or flippantly.

If this is the case with dissipation, then yeah. I would say that even if it’s not as extreme as others stigmatize it to be, it doesn’t mean we condone the act altogether. The acknowledgement of what a tulpa would have to go through with a host who wants to believe that they can’t have a future, nor a past to reconcile with which creates a pain that would become a dye that can be painted in certain colors on a blank canvas. One could react to this liberation in becoming kinder due to that potential of pain that seems too much of a hot mess, but one could also react in a way where they become even more apathetic. And although we would want to presume the latter wouldn’t be the case, that’s probably what happens when human nature is subjective in general.

@Lumi:
Quote: Man, it always pains me to see you reply to me in like six paragraphs on a misconception.

Don’t feel too bad. Six paragraphs in vain isn’t going to bruise me. Also, thanks for clarifying, but I did mention the possibility that you were talking about the process, obviously vs. feeling empathetic towards non-existence. Maybe you got riled up to see that, but my apologies.

Quote: I'm a very empathetic person, or at least I was for most of my life until I built the sort of mental barrier most empathetic people have to at some point in their life, where you're more selective about what you empathize with. Second hand embarrassment is still annoying though.

I would see the “selective” part as just being more apathetic instead. I would even see empathy as being something we have predispositions to even contemplate about.

Quote: I was just stupid and thought Scarlet, who was supposed to be the embodiment of everything "bad" about Flandre, just needed to stop existing. I don't understand why I thought that or how I could treat anyone that way, but I did, and felt terrible for it. Most of said terribleness being from the empathy of betrayal. Does that make sense?

I’m not going to pretend that I did, but how I’m seeing this is:
- Because you felt Scarlet was the personification of everything “bad” about Flandre, you felt tempted that they should stop existing. Probably due to those “bads” potentially affecting the well-being between you two in general at the time.

- The only way I can see where you felt you could empathize with the sense of betrayal is if you felt that not asking why Scarlet seems to embody those things about Flandre would be an example of that. In other words, not giving another person a chance to give their two cents would be a betrayal of trust. So, naturally, whatever experiences you had with a sense of betrayal would be something you use to try and reconcile with the circumstance at hand; it may not have been an exact replica of what happened with Scarlet, but it was enough for you to try and go beyond just “being in their shoes.”

Quote: Also also, for those that may be getting a bad impression of me here (Felix and Rina maybe) this was way before I found tulpamancy and I was still stupid and young, and even then I felt really bad. I talk about things neutrally for the sake of discussion but I absolutely do not condone what I did at all. Luckily Scarlet forgave me. I mean, luckily she came back in the first place.

You see, this is what I find intriguing about you in general. You exhibit confidence with certain emotional contexts, competencies, and such, and yet you feel it was just a stroke of luck that they came back in the first place. I would imagine that because you presume to be very empathetic, you would naturally have some capacity in reconciling with previous experiential cases and memories that your mind would assimilate this reversibility, or coming back to life metaphorically easily.

It seems that you want to believe you have this ease with reconciling with your experiences and memories of them while also undermining that this ease could be what made it easy for her to come back; it’s just that you reacted to this emergent experience as a stroke of luck rather than just a result of that competency, or knowing it’s due to that--if this makes sense.

Also, whatever circumstance the person is in—that factor of them being exposed about tulpas prior, or after creating one seems to be a distraction. Sure, the lack of knowledge of what one could do could’ve saved a lot of paperwork with them, metaphorically speaking, but I guess if a person is in a circumstance where their overall sense of being is being threatened, no degree of wisdom gathered, or having a lack of, would make them immediately try to see the bigger picture.

In other words, why do you think you being stupid and young back then has to do anything with this? People exposed in awareness of tulpas can still take the action of dissipating regardless, and still feel the same way you did.

Quote: We discussed a lot more but I suppose that's private. Basically, we're on slightly better terms, though she still doesn't want to take time away from the others to be around. Says she's most comfortable being inactive because it strikes a balance between existing and not, I guess. Ah well.

If this is her means of being consoled, and coming to terms with everyone, then I have no qualms since that’s all of you guys’ consensus.

@solarchariot:

Quote:and i am basing this on my understanding of psychology, not a practical tulpa experience. but when i hear how someone folks have disipated tulpa and then re-experienced them again after time with no apparent change, "no worse for the ware" kind of thing, that seems to reinforce how i contextualize it.
And I think that basis with your understanding of psychology can easily apply to this. It’s a testament towards how we react towards novelty. Novelty seems to be this combination of old patterns assimilating with new ones, and even becoming an impression with an old that ends up creating something new and a deviation of that.

That “no worse for the wear” in context of reconciling with a tulpa one presumed was dissipated is probably due to the novelty being something we refer to. Its constant flowing becomes a definition of how we see them, and how we react to them. It doesn’t just go away, as you stated with how we have our memories and experiences to refer to as a beck and call type of thing. The novelty makes itself apparent irrespective towards the justifications one would make with dissipation.

And I think that due to not seeing this endeavor as something where old info integrating with new patterns and such is what causes this demystifying experience with dissipation in general. Which is why I questioned if it’s really the dissipation of novelty behind the endeavor vs. dissipation of a tulpa in context of being this type of “death” that happens irrespective of how we conceptualize it (e.g. metaphorical death, egocide, etc.). But this absolute conviction has counter-arguments, which means the dogma behind dissipation doesn’t seem to be what it’s cracked up to be for so long.

And as I’m sure like you, and others, even if the term becomes less extreme as people make it out to be, it doesn’t necessarily mean one has a knee-jerk reaction to become apathetic with tulpas. It’s the probability that they have the potential to do this is what could make the host become a stronger person for not just themselves, but for the companions in waiting, and the overall integrity of sustaining well-being; because the pain of trying to reconcile with a tulpa who may seem they have no past at all to refer to is already too hectic vs. novelty being a combination of old experiential cases/memories/etc. assimilating with new ones.

What I was trying to get at with this thread is to see if one can bridge the gap with confusion over these matters like those that question whether they should start anew, or pick off from their last progress along with those of varying circumstances with dissipation entirely.



@Drakaina

Quote: While not as violent or dramatic as a shooting or stabbing or many other things, dying of starvation is still dying.

My question to you is why does their existence need to be hinged on this constant acknowledgement of their existence? It seems like the conviction of their existence being solely hinged on this becomes a constraint rather than treated as a supplement in their development. At some point, there would be some degree of agency where their existence doesn’t become as hinged with that acknowledgement.

Quote: I'm not as familiar with stasis as I could be, but it's really all about the intent. Someone who's put a tulpa in stasis then questions waking them up, to me it's like dissipating without calling it what it is. Instead of committing to it, you're letting the tulpa die of starvation in the cryo pod so you don't have to own up to it.

In order for one to associate the symbolic use of stasis (e.g. cryo pod) as a means of death, they would have to acknowledge it as a metaphorical representation of death. But, that doesn’t mean the act of stasis altogether is a form of death; I would imagine people seeing the stasis as a metaphorical representation of a coma, or a lobotomy, but not death. It’s because of the “starving” factor that leads you to believe that they’re dying in the cryo pod. That would entail that the host themselves would have to militantly visualize their tulpa stagnating in cognition to the point of no function, but that seems a bit self-defeating if it can’t cause a significant change with a person’s overall functioning entirely.

It seems to me that associating those emotive context with starvation, attention, and such turns into something where stasis inherently becomes a form of death, or torture rather than just being just that; a stasis—a shift in awareness. I’m not sure how the mind would presume this symbolic use of stasis as a model of an onset of death. Unless someone had experience in dying with a cryo pod, and lived to tell the tale somehow, this is just relentless playing with one’s imagination, IMO.

Quote: I'm afraid I don't understand this question. It sounds like you're asking "why is the above even a thing?" In which case I have no clue. Personal issues, lack of maturity, lack of responsibility, there could be many reasons.

Yeah, that’s what I mean behind the question. But if that’s all you want to add, then I won’t banter you.

Quote: I believe tulpa can believe they feel pain (if they were taught/given that experience). So is the phantom pain of an amputee real? I think the amputee would say yes, in which case, tulpa pain would also be real. I don't know if they would feel pain, it might depend on the method or visualization used for dissipation, but I think it's possible out of a fear reaction.

This might be chalked up with psychosomatic experiences, I think.

Quote: Regarding the analogies though, I use them not to imply pain in dissipation but to emphasize the lack of responsibility on the part of the host (parent).

If the analogies have no association with dissipation, and what the onset of it would entail emotionally, or experientially, then they’re just red herrings. It creates the implication that dissipation automatically becomes a reaction of irresponsible hosts. What about circumstances where dissipation may have been a viable option to establish harmony overall? Sometimes, the degree of taking ownership can only go so far until one realizes they’re referring to themselves in some way, and may cause some form of damage that gets mirrored because they may have tolerated a tulpa that would be a polar opposite of another that becomes unhealthy; all for the sake of being fearful that they didn’t take ownership, even though they were considering taking ownership in context of having continuity with flourishment, and overall sense of being.

Quote: You can't choose not to wake up, you can however choose to make a tulpa. The former is created by random firings of the brain based on what it needs to process and what you've been feeding it lately. The latter involves time, attention, and conscious effort (even accidental tulpa, the host put effort into making them as a person, they just didn't intend them to come alive). There is no double standard, the two aren't the same.

This is where the irony kicks in, which also implants the suggestion that this is still a double standard. And let me explain why:

- Let’s presume a double standard is a biased application of different sets of principles for similar situations
o So for the similar situations: Dreaming & Interacting With a Tulpa; they’re both done inwardly, but just at different moments.

- You chalk up the former, dreaming (and all that it entails—including the onset of waking up) as random firings of the brain based on the echoes of waking life; or rather, the totality of experiential cases with waking life being assimilated in the dream in some way. The latter, to you, involves time, which means rather than the brain making random pew pew pewing, the endeavor is justified as something meaningful due to conscious effort. But, a person can still engage in an intelligible pursuit of knowing, and taking great efforts to persevere with it with dreaming; non-lucid, or lucid. Heck, I think because of that pursuit I did of it beforehand, I become more skeptical that it’s inherently random firing that somehow put things into context; at best, I would be agnostic as to whether or not my dreaming experiences are just fabrications that have no underlying meanings in them.


o You’re applying a different set of principles for similar situations that happen inwardly. You undermine dreaming, and all that entails as the brain fabricating, and randomly firing to gather a sense of meaning while not acknowledging the probability that the act of creating a tulpa may involve those same cognitive processes to give the emulation of such. That’s the irony behind the application, and that’s one example that makes it a double standard.

o It being a double standard augments in the fact that you don’t seem to be phased by the idea that you could be objectifying one’s experiences with dreams as just being echoes of waking life + imagination vs. creating and interacting with a tulpa being reconciliation of experiences and memories with waking life (and even dreaming experiences) + imagination. You attribute different sets of principles and justifications for a similar situation. This is clearly a double standard.

Quote: I don't think the host mind can "die", the brain is their hardware, they are hard coded into it. I do think they could do a sort of permanent switch with their tulpa, and live in the headspace while the tulpa run's the body.

You see, that’s the thing. That probability with a permanent switch. You hold confidence that even if the tulpa were to have years of experiential knowledge of what it means to function in a body, that the host themselves will always have dominion over it. That a tulpa doesn’t have that same potential of being so used to what’s going on that this who holds dominion over what becomes an all-inclusive thing vs. one that’s exclusive to the host. Of course, what may have led you to arrive at this, if this is the case, is probably due to the vast amounts of experiences with the body the host experiences things in.

But even if that’s the case, what about tulpas that may end up spending years assimilating themselves, putting things into context with this reality, and such to where that “exclusivity” fades away? Would you still say it’s easy for a host to reign in their sense of self after something like that that dominates a tulpa that has that same potential after having some large fallback with experiences?

Quote: A developed tulpa will have deviations and experiences of their own. It would be impossible for a separate mind (even the hosts) to recreate their tulpa's mind with 100% accuracy. They could probably get close, but it would not be the same person. Because I've been playing fallout 4 I'm going to use an example from there. You have an original person, and then a synth copy that's almost identical to the original. If the original is killed by raiders, would the synth become the new original? No, how could it. Though the differences are minor, it's not the same being. It lacks the experiences, and the little quirks and personality traits the scientists who made it didn't know about.

To me that's how "reviving" a dissipated tulpa works. The host is the scientist and they can do their darndest to replicate the original but there will always be little things they didn't know about, or traits they overlook.

You’re saying that the mind in general, this same mind that has to contribute in the development, and assimilation of sentience with a tulpa cannot have the capacity to re-create, or even re-arrange the experiences and memories of a tulpa with 100% accuracy? And yet, you still believe that patterns can leave an impression on the brain in context of novelty? Even with the presumed separate mind, I think that would be taken metaphorically since, IMO, I don’t think they become otherworldly beings that exist in and out of our mind; they share the same mind, but what they’re experiencing, and reacting to in that same mind would vary in some way.

This is why I stopped playing video games. But don’t get me wrong, video game are still fun to play, but they don’t necessarily bridge the gap with the challenges of consciousness in general.

Reply
#14
(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: My question to you is why does their existence need to be hinged on this constant acknowledgement of their existence? [...]

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.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: Sometimes, the degree of taking ownership can only go so far until one realizes they’re referring to themselves in some way, and may cause some form of damage that gets mirrored because they may have tolerated a tulpa that would be a polar opposite of another that becomes unhealthy; all for the sake of being fearful that they didn’t take ownership, even though they were considering taking ownership in context of having continuity with flourishment, and overall sense of being.

It should go without saying that if something becomes dangerous that it should be stopped, whether it's an activity or a life. However, if in the case of a tulpa, which is supposed to be a sentient life form with cognitive abilities then responsibility does fall on the host (being the older, more experienced of the two) for the inability to reach a peaceful resolution.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: Dreams Segment
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.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: o You’re applying a different set of principles for similar situations that happen inwardly.
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.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: But even if that’s the case, what about tulpas that may end up spending years assimilating themselves, putting things into context with this reality, and such to where that “exclusivity” fades away? Would you still say it’s easy for a host to reign in their sense of self after something like that that dominates a tulpa that has that same potential after having some large fallback with experiences?

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.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: You’re saying that the mind in general, this same mind that has to contribute in the development, and assimilation of sentience with a tulpa cannot have the capacity to re-create, or even re-arrange the experiences and memories of a tulpa with 100% accuracy? And yet, you still believe that patterns can leave an impression on the brain in context of novelty? Even with the presumed separate mind, I think that would be taken metaphorically since, IMO, I don’t think they become otherworldly beings that exist in and out of our mind; they share the same mind, but what they’re experiencing, and reacting to in that same mind would vary in some way.
Correct, that is what I'm saying. In a developed system a host can keep things from their tulpa, and the tulpa can keep things from their host. They share grey matter but are still for all intents and purposes are separate individuals. Deviations are common among this forum, is it really such a stretch to think that a tulpa may have a preference, quirk, or other deviation the host doesn't know about? They don't have to be otherworldly for there to be unique elements to them the host may not know about. People learn new things about themselves every day...themselves. If people can not know things about themselves it's absurd to think they can know everything about someone else, even if they do share a brain.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-Arthur Conan Doyle
Reply
#15
(05-26-2016, 06:20 AM)Drakaina Wrote: 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.

Well, actually, as you should know from my introduction post on .io, Rina is exactly like that.
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.

Just Saiyan.


Greets,
AG
Reply
#16
(05-26-2016, 06:39 AM)AGGuy Wrote: Just Saiyan.

.....can I hug you for this.
Doesn't matter. I'm gonna anyway! [Image: dragonglomp.gif?3]


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.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-Arthur Conan Doyle
Reply
#17
(05-26-2016, 05:02 AM)AGGuy Wrote: This is exactly what I didn't want to bring up for the sake of not stepping on someone's foot really, really badly (and probably causing a biiig discussion because of it), but yes, this is what I thought from the start as well...

I find you rather hypocritical here, mister logic man. Here you were calling Tewi out on not being enough of a realist, and now you're implying tulpa sentience and separate-mindedness as an indisputable fact. I as a matter of fact don't believe in tulpas having a separate consciousness, nor anything to be preserved from dissipation to revival but memories ... and everything else that made them them, the literal neural connections in your brain that dictate how they function and all. But no "consciousness", separate mind, soul.

That, is what I call metaphysics.

Luckily for you I don't care to discuss that stuff at all, just wanted to point out why your belief isn't as end-all be-all as you think it is. I found it funny you said believing the tulpa really came back was escapism though, at the same time implying the original tulpa was "dead". That's the kinda stuff I hear when people argue for religion.


Felix and I talked about that and he's apparently talking about a loss of legitimacy in it not being atom-for-atom the tulpa/mind it was before. I'm the type of person that would consider a perfect clone of me being made as I died in an accident still legitimately "me". Dead me gives that clone me full permission to consider himself me-me. I forget sometimes that most people disagree with this, for that slightly intangible explanation that seems to border on metaphysical and the-essence-of-being-human. I just see it as a limiting belief myself, but whatever. That's what he was referring to, not a soul or something.



Okay, post-writing, the rest of this sure is a mood killer. So you've been warned.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: I would see the “selective” part as just being more apathetic instead.

It results in apparent apathy, sure. But I can still choose to open myself up to feeling empathetic emotions/feelings if I want to. To be honest to meet my own logical standards I overdid it a bit maybe, I still have the value of caring about all humans' wellbeing but otherwise I react rather logically to most scenarios that involve what would normally be emotion.

My tulpas are one hundred percent an exception to this.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: I’m not going to pretend that I did, but how I’m seeing this is:
- Because you felt Scarlet was the personification of everything “bad” about Flandre, you felt tempted that they should stop existing... The only way I can see where you felt you could empathize with the sense of betrayal is if you felt that not asking why Scarlet seems to embody those things about Flandre would be an example of that. (etc.)

I only remember that time so clearly, but I could maybe provide more detail. ((Post-writing...>)) I'll hide it though because it's going to be a lot of text, I'm basically going to tell the entire story, of what I can remember, of the original person Flandre and Scarlet were split from.
Scarlet and current (or to-become current) Flandre were split as two halves of the original Flandre Scarlet who had some unfortunate qualities. She was also somewhat of a danger to my mental health, although Reisen's influence was much stronger than hers. Take Flandre and Scarlet, reverse the mellowing out that they've done over the years and mix them sharply together. She was originally fairly bipolar going between loving and vulnerable to harsh and, well, encouraging me to give up my sanity to put it plainly. At some point she told me she didn't like who she was, that she wanted to become someone else even if it meant not being herself anymore (I mean, yeah). I don't remember how we came to the conclusion to split her into two, but it seems like the only way to get an entirely new individual without actually destroying any part of them. All I remember between that point and the actual dissipation (I have no idea if that occurred the day after or some time later) was the time right after they became separate. Flandre was very reserved and at the time scared, too much so to speak. Scarlet on the other hand quickly adapted to wholly being the rougher part of the original. I remember she was fairly aggressive and didn't seem to share the original's interest in a relationship with me, and I think there was malice towards Flandre who she saw as weak. Honestly, I think she was discontent with existing right from the start. Nothing could make her happy, she'd internalized all of the insecurities (fears, angers, bad feelings) the original Flandre and I had shared.


Alright, intermission time because I need to explain something. So I never have to mention it again, the original was a negative influence on me because she represented 'insanity'. And by that, insanity meant denial of the reality we were so afraid of, opting to live in blissful un-sanity and leave behind basically everything in my life. It would've entailed me being utterly incapable of functioning in society - honestly, the symptoms would resemble schizophrenia's. Despite not caring much for life in general though, I had just enough empathy to fear what that would do to those around me - as in thinking about how they would feel made me sick. So I opted more to Reisen's influence as seeing life as beautiful, with only occasional moments of weakness for the former, lasting maybe a night and leaving me somewhat mentally scrambled the next day. Because I only slept like 2 hours a night back then, being forced to go to school that I was failing anyways, with hopeless depressive thoughts going through my mind the whole time. The push for me to leave behind our stressful reality was not malicious at all, Flandre saw it as the best option and also a way for us to be together. So there you go, couple the desire for that with even less ability to cope with my own life than I myself had, and add some kind of love in there and you've got the original Flandre Scarlet. Our mental discipline back then was non-existent.


Anyways, I suppose I ended up treating Flandre like the original and Scarlet like a byproduct. A byproduct turned human, though. Even though I thought she shouldn't exist, she was still just as much a person to me as the others, albeit with no real history yet. And so me being stupid (retrospectively considering myself stupid for resorting to trying to kill Scarlet instead of just, I don't know, treating her like a person?) and attempting to dissipate her basically entailed whatever subjective experience dissipation was to us, the process of which actually took place during and was influenced by a song (as many important events regarding my tulpas were). Thinking about the song makes me shudder, it was a terrible experience and luckily I don't remember what it was called. But basically, it was a Touhou arrange of Flandre's theme. It was chaotic and dramatic I suppose, but the important/worst part was the lyrics. I vaguely remember them being very angry - "Flandre" was upset at someone for having hurt her, yet throughout the song she occasionally said "Am I disappearing? Is this what it feels like to not exist?" or some such, among other things. For Touhou that was likely referencing her sister emotionally abandoning her and leaving her in the mansion's basement for 495 years, and Flandre's lament over being forgotten. But for us, well, I don't need to explain what it meant to us.

Yes, music affects us that much, to the point where lyrics become our reality should we choose to let them. Reisen literally exists because of a song, our relationships and their personalities, all of it's been shaped by music I and later they would choose. Before you ask why Scarlet let it happen when such a thing should've been under her control - we were all stupid, in our own individual ways. Maybe not Reisen, but even Tewi thought she could forego life and still continue existing. So that subjective-as-heck experience we all were convinced was totally real, just like everything else that happened between us back then. That was a time when imagination, subconscious expectations, and invasive thoughts dictated our lives. Scarlet returned much later when none of that was a problem, simply appearing and speaking like any of the others. She did in fact (contrary to the start of this post, lol) change from who she was before, but it seemed like her decision. She cared less about insanity and more about strength, emotional and mental.


(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: You see, this is what I find intriguing about you in general. You exhibit confidence with certain emotional contexts, competencies, and such, and yet you feel it was just a stroke of luck that they came back in the first place.

It wasn't luck or anything. It was like the feeling of being "lucky" when someone who had previously left your life changed their mind and became part of it again. Like a friend moving away and later back to your home town, or something like that. Not a direct analogy. I called it lucky because I would've still felt bad to this day knowing I'd killed someone just as real as the tulpas I loved. Maybe it would've been lucky that I realized her coming back was possible - but I honestly didn't. Scarlet's return was one of the most unexpected and independent things my tulpas have ever done. The day before she would still have been just a memory.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: In other words, why do you think you being stupid and young back then has to do anything with this? People exposed in awareness of tulpas can still take the action of dissipating regardless, and still feel the same way you did.

I mean, it's not like I learned my morals from this forum. Though it was a time of intense thought on the subject of what was suddenly called tulpas, so I use "before I discovered tulpamancy" as a marker I guess. I consider myself to have been stupid (and yes, I know the whole "Everything happened as it did because it had to" thing, I'm just commenting on old-me now, not lamenting) because of how I dealt with the situation. And how convinced I was everything had to be that way, instead of realizing how much control I had over my own mind and beliefs. There's a reason I always emphasize that in my posts, y'know.

(05-26-2016, 05:24 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: If this is her means of being consoled, and coming to terms with everyone, then I have no qualms since that’s all of you guys’ consensus.

She's been to-terms with the others since she came back. And it wasn't "all of our consensus", it was just Scarlet and I. While she hasn't much emotional attachment to any of us, she recognizes each of us as part of the body, and the body's wellbeing is what she values most. Or at all I guess. Since she doesn't have any interest in having her own life experiences, and she knows how terrible I am at dedicating time to my tulpas, she's decided to stay inactive for their sake. And because she wants to be. She still exists and could be spoken to at any point, but I respect her want to not be disturbed (she wasn't totally happy when I started talking to her last night, either). And I think as she put it, while she would prefer not existing, she already does and can't not, so being inactive is her preference. I couldn't explain that one for you if I tried.



Alright, it was bound to happen I guess, but I went and made myself sad. I must be a masochist to keep this specific song around (not that song), but I can't help it. Ripples of 495 Years
Mental discipline is great and all, but it kind of goes out the window when it comes to music. This song is too old-Flandre, whole thing through. The obvious parts gave me goosebumps, and despite it happening multiple times 5:30 made me flinch like I was in actual pain. But the happy part at 4:18 - that made me want to cry. I physically can't as far as I can tell, but still it's not a feeling I've experienced in a long time. The happiness amongst the insanity, but of course temporary, that's too real.

Listen to it or don't, but you should. I don't care if the "dubstep" bits "hurt to listen to", and that means you felix

I think I'm safe to never talk about this subject again now though. The idea of completely letting go of reality still feels comforting to me, until I remember it's not an option. As a matter of fact, Scarlet won't let me, as in important situations she decided she'd be the one in charge of any strong emotions or feelings. That's yet to happen, but theoretically. Bonus information! That's totally what you all wanted. I'm going to sleep.

Actually, one last thing. I kind of would like this to be the last time I discuss the subject. Sorry to ruin your fun Linkzelda, but I can't really handle having this one taken apart. Speaking of, I started writing this post three hours ago. If all you did, current reader, was skim it, that's pretty rewd. pls to care thx
Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
Reply
#18
Considering Lumi misunderstood me, others might have misunderstood me as well.
So let me quote myself from our Skype conversation, just for good measure:

Quote:My point is that something as inherently imperfect and inaccurate as the human mind can't reach 100 % accuracy to begin with, even if you have a 100 % accurate blueprint to work with

Give a team of engineers a car and tell them to build an exact replica
Tell an artist to draw an exact replica of one of his artworks

It doesn't work

You can get 99.99999 %, but you just can't get 100
It's not a thing, and it never was in any field of science, psychology or anywhere else

And this belief in magic brain sparklies allowing one to reach this perfect accuracy with the overly defensive excuse of "It's all in my head, and that's magic sparklies and can do anything!" is what I see as so full of denial and escapism when it comes to dissipation and "rebirth" (completely ignoring whether "death" is an appropriate term here or not)

[...]

While that existence of something like a soul actually does play a role for me (though I stand by "just because we can't explain it now that doesn't mean it's supernatural" all the same), I made sure to keep it out of the discussion entirely

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


Greets,
AG
Reply
#19
AGGuy,

Okay I am going to use some stupid nerdy analogies. Sorry. We can conceive of rebirth in our minds. It isn't a new idea. If our minds can conceive of it, we can do it with a tulpa, yes with imagination sparklies!

Gandalf came back as Gandalf the White. He was resurrected. He was changed from the experience of death and rebirth, yes, but he was still Gandalf. Frodo still recognized him as Gandalf, but a in a new form.

Spock was reborn from death. He was still Spock even though his body had been reborn from the Genesis wave and he had some memory loss. He had to rebuild his memories. He was still Spock and his friends saw him as Spock.

Just because a tulpa is changed and affected from the process of dissipation and rebirth, does not mean that it is a mere clone of its former self. Again I am going to disagree with your absolutism on this. I think this type of absolutism is emotionally based and looks like an almost religious level conviction concerning tulpa death and rebirth.

Before you go and dismiss my sci fi fantasy analogies and inappropriate, remember that literary stories are imagination and imagination, whether you like it or not and think it is sparkly or not, is a major factor in tulpa creation and functionality.

I still think you are wrong. People can bring their tulpas back from dissipation. We have seen examples of it on this forum. Are all of these people just confused and only have a clone of their tulpa back? They can't know their own tulpa and you know better than they? You can see into their minds and tell them AGGuy? Your arguments have not changed my mind. Just because you have a strong bias that tulpas can't come back, doesn't make that conviction correct for everyone else.

While we are being scientific and not imagination sparklies about it, the fact that people have reported their tulpas returning from a state of dissipation is evidence to me that it can be done. Pretty much end of story right there.
Reply
#20
I won't further discuss this topic.
a) Because Rina's here at the moment and I know this annoys her to no end,
b) because I said literally all I have to say about the topic and don't want to repeat myself or endlessly deal with people either misunderstanding or outright ignoring / skipping something I said.

What I mean by the latter part of b), Melian? Well...
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.


Greets,
AG
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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