Hello There, Guest! Register


evidence for plurality, plus
solarchariot Offline
It's bigger on the inside
Forum Moderators

Posts: 424
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2016
1 Attached Account
#1
 
evidence for plurality, plus

Alright, I am leading with this completely hypothetical, speculative discourse with no attempt to find a definitive answer. This is just me wanting a discussion point because I am of off topic readings that brought me to this subject has me thinking, and I connected back to tulpas. I have completed two books in the last week, Anthony Peake's "Is There Life After Death," and Pearsall's book "the Heart's Code." The latter discusses memory transference with heart transplant, and Pearsall helped develop "heart math." Peake's book linked to Pearsall only in that Peake was discussing the planarian worm to make a particular argument; this worm can be trained to go into the light against its nature if you put good food in the light. when you cut the worm in half, both halves regenerate. The one with the head, the brain, goes to the light as you would expect to get the good stuff. surprisingly, so does the lower half that a grows a new brain. So, maybe it's not so crazy that donor's receive transplanted memory. It can't just be the brain if you cut the brain off and the body keeps doing the same 'learned response' that goes against primary nature.

First super question: hypothetically, if it's true that memories could be transferred, could a tulpa be given to a new host, if a tulpamancer donated a heart? Smile  (Oh, wouldn't that make a good X-file story. Heart transplant wakes up to find "my little pony' in his hospital room. Recipient transferred to psych hospital for further eval.) 

if Peake is right in his book that there is a 'passenger' that lives life with us, he refers to it as a Daemon, this is evidence for one level of plurality. Experiencing two consciousness is not unheard of; people who have had corpus callosum separated too reduce/prevent seizures don't have half a brain, but each half is operating as a whole, and each half appears to manifest two very different personalities. Again, evidence for plurality. Almost everyone is on board with their being a division of consciousness, primary personality and subconscious, with evidence that the subconscious could be considered as a separate individual in its own right. the conscious personality, the one that thinks it is control actually isn't, and it, too, is a passenger. (I think Milton, hypnotist supports this, Jung would, Freud might.) Jung would say the collective consciousness is a real thing, which means, what, an endless potentiality of archetypes or personalities available to any one person to experience? (Joseph Campbell would agree, and he wasn't speaking completely in terms of metaphor when he wrote his book 'hero of a thousand faces' and suggested these archetypes manifest in our lives and influence our life scripts.) If Pearsall's premise in the Heart's Code is accurate, the heart is capable of its own particular personality, which describes the consistent idea of duality in terms of some people think with their hearts, other with their brains. So brain heart, plurality. Left and Right hemispheres of the brain, plurality. (Pearsall also suggest that the heart is a transmitter receiver shares emotional information with other hearts, which could be the mechanism that allows consciousness to plug into Jung's 'wireless' collective unconscious.) Anyone who has had trauma and experienced DID would subjectively report there is plurality. There seems to be evidence to support it isn't just subjective. Any successful Tulpamancer would argue for plurality. In the book "Lucid Dreaming: Gateways to inner self," Robert Wagoner suggests dream characters are not just characters, so, here another source for evidence of more; even if one argues that dream characters are simply models the brain has created to predict other personalities, those models are fairly precise and, there isn't a reason why the brain should care which program is the assigned 'user,' except for perhaps preference over time. Except, even preferential doesn't completely explain it because personalities evolve over time, and people, counselor types, suggest that all of our past ages of ourselves are still in us... More evidence for Plurality?

OMG, are you as exhausted reading that as I am trying to link them altogether in something resembling a coherent thought? No other purpose here than to share a thought, and hear from others. maybe you can add some and help me refine my thought. Not trying to prove anything here because that would be like preaching to the choir. I mean, I assume we're all on board with the idea that there is more here than just static, boring, old mundane, solitary personality interfaces. I wish I had like the closing thought that completes this because my head is on fire and I feel like I am close to epiphany, but it could just be head pressure as Loxy dials in. Smile 

Alright, speculate away. Smile
J&L
03-29-2018, 09:32 PM
Find Reply

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

Luminesce Offline
loves the moon
Registered

Posts: 1,649
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2014
4 Attached Accounts
#2
 
RE: evidence for plurality, plus

Well off the bat, I have more than one tulpa who don't feel at all like they occupy a certain part of my brain, and the heart really isn't involved in emotion or thinking. I mean.. The heart is involved in everything, but not like that. There's no room for coding. Everything we associate with "the heart" colloquially is contained in the brain somewhere. Not sure if you even meant to imply that literally though.

Interesting that you/he referred to it as a 'passenger that lives life with us' when I tend to feel the other way around, I feel more like the driver (so, a passenger) and the rest of my brain is the car, and well, the brains. I make upfront decisions about where to go and how to handle some things, and even make changes to the car sometimes, but in the end I only have so much say compared to the vehicle itself, which handles all the complexities I can ask of it in the first place. Being naturally introspective, I've always had a sort of observe-and-comment relationship with my mind, but after having tulpas for a few years (and especially after learning to switch) I've started to see myself and my tulpas as totally separate from the rest of the mind. I practically talk to my brain itself sometimes, when concepts and ideas are proposed that require my input. Which happens pretty often. Tewi never liked it though, she prefers to function purely on conscious thought and is bothered by the things the brain "suggests", as it does so constantly. Guess I'm just used to pondering and putting up with those thoughts. Anyways, my point is, I feel like the driver of a vehicle: Nothing would get done without me (or another driver in my system..) and I entirely control where we go and such. Buuut, aside from telling the car what to do, I have basically no power of my own, all of the complexities beyond my understanding that actually get things done are contained within the rest of the car. We're separate, but we're also a unit. You may treat your car as a separate object, but when on the road you'll sure as heck react as if the car were part of you, if it's threatened for example.

Dream characters, and anyone else you can imagine/simulate in your mind, differ from tulpas mainly in the depth of that simulation. Tulpas are extensive; dream characters are not. What you see of them is a facade created on the spot. It may seem complex, and it is, but if you think a dream character could fill the "driver's seat" of the body as they are, you're seriously underestimating what goes into one of us "drivers". Sure, social interaction within the dream and thoughts on any one subject can be made up upon request. But the host or a tulpa is made up of so many countless numbers of thoughts, mannerisms, habits and so on in comparison, they really don't compare. But just like a tulpa starts out as no more than a dream character (if even that), there's no reason a simulated personality couldn't be expanded upon until it was tulpa-level. And tulpa-level is complex enough to switch places with the host, so.

Honestly, I don't know what exactly "evidence for plurality" means. In matters of the brain, only experience means anything, and plenty of people experience multiple people in their brain. As for the ability to "be" multiple different people, that's an innate ability in literally all brains capable of basic human functions. There's no difference in a method actor's in-depth persona, a tulpa, and you at work versus you at home. They're all just different ways your brain has learned to be someone. The seeming difference is that "You" is a conglomerate of all the "You"s from daily life. You put on a different "mask" in plenty of different scenarios, speaking and even maybe thinking differently than you do elsewhere. In the case of acting, you're simply working with a false set of pretenses, but otherwise it's just yet another "You" your brain can be. For a tulpa, it's less that the pretenses are false and more that they're outright separated from your original identity. Instead of your brain categorizing how they are as "You at work" or "You at home" or "You on Call of Duty", it's "Flandre _____" or "Loxy _____". Obviously it's still the same brain, and in my opinion it's doing exactly the same thing as it does in everyday life, when you enter different scenarios requiring you to change who you are ever so slightly.

Tulpamancy/plurality is unique simply in that it makes an effort to separate the identity those ways of being are associated with, and usually (always in tulpamancy) also trains you to have more than one active at a time. If you somehow remembered your perfect state of mind and ways of thinking from when you were younger, they could be made to exist at the same time as you just as a tulpa could, sure. Though personally I don't really remember exactly how I was back then anymore. I still have dreams of any year of school I was in, but in all of them I think more or less how I would right now. I'm sure that's not the case for everyone, and some people dream of themselves as children with their childish mindset more or less intact, but it's not a given.

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.
03-29-2018, 11:17 PM
Find Reply
solarchariot Offline
It's bigger on the inside
Forum Moderators

Posts: 424
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2016
1 Attached Account
#3
 
RE: evidence for plurality, plus

(03-29-2018, 11:17 PM)Luminesce Wrote: Well off the bat, I have more than one tulpa who don't feel at all like they occupy a certain part of my brain, and the heart really isn't involved in emotion or thinking. I mean.. The heart is involved in everything, but not like that. There's no room for coding. Everything we associate with "the heart" colloquially is contained in the brain somewhere. Not sure if you even meant to imply that literally though.

Nice, well thought out response, and I will be taking a moment to process it and respond in more depth, as opposed to a just trying to address the fullness of it in an instant, with the exception of the first paragraph, where I want respond with clarity to the last statement, 'not sure if you even meant to imply that literally though.' I meant it literally, but not based on my own supposition, but in context of the book "The Heart's Code" by Doctor Paul Pearsall; it is the author's assertion that this is literally true, and my echo of that sentiment is because what he wrote resonates with my metaphysical paradigm. Clearly, the general scientific and medical paradigm disagree and directly refute his position, if they even give it enough reflection to respond. He discusses in the book how much difficulty he has had as a medical professional discussing his theory, much less simply advocating that memories can be transplanted with donor organs that suggest thee is more to us than what we suggest. He references the critiques, and people that concur. He helped create an organization called 'heart math' that created the most used bio-feedback tech available.

Anyway, to iterate, I am bias, and that is why I mentioned the authors above. It's validating when you see people of superior writing skills, clearly more educated, espousing points that I am personally contemplating.
04-02-2018, 01:42 PM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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


Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication