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

[Misc] Confabulation
#1
Moved from [General] Beginner Questions General. The context of this thread can be found here: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-gene...#pid255008 
Solar Chariot's response also relates to this thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-gene...#pid255020 -Ranger

We only say things are confabulation during in-depth discussions of how things work, people don't tend to go around arguing what you say is impossible outside of those discussions.
Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.
All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.
Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
Reply

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

#2
This is not what I feel.
So to stay polite and share healthily, I prefer to respect other people's beliefs and not offend them with mine. That's easy to do, it's good practice when learning how to socialize (and also good for my ego), and the exchange is more peaceful and constructive that way.
Hi, I'm Vādin, Zia's tulpa/permanent guest.
Reply
#3
Well they shouldn't be going around arguing those things. Someone's internal subjective experiences are their own and no one else has say over them (although it's fine to if it seems they are hurting/endangering themselves), right up until those experiences are claimed to be the case for someone else - you can believe whatever you want, but once you tell a newbie that tulpas come from another dimension etc., everyone is allowed to and definitely going to argue with you. There's a difference.

Share what you like, but be mindful of what's "sharing about yourself" (Progress Reports, introductions, and when explaining that it's simply how you feel and not necessarily others) and what's "sharing with others" perhaps - giving those experiences in other people's Q&A or GD threads is putting them up for debate, even if you say it's just your experience, because at that point you're submitting those experiences/claims as relevant to others' experiences. Naturally at that point everyone is going to weigh in with how they feel personally.
Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.
All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.
Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
Reply
#4
It's really bitterly sad that anyone feels a need to censor their personal experiences in a place like this, which was founded on the personal subjective experiences of a phenomenon not readily acceptable to the world at large.

Confabulation is a natural mental process by which memories are distorted or generated separately from actual events. Everyone is subject to it to some degree. It doesn't mean a person made up the memories. The process is normally unconscious and uncontrolled. My ex-wife has generated thousands of years of memories in the past year and I am completely convinced of her sincerity.

In the absence of contrary physical evidence or contrary witness testimony, the vast majority of confabulation is never challenged.

If I've done anything to make you feel you need to hide or misrepresent your experiences, Vādin, I apologize.

-Ember
Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]
Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017
Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit
Reply
#5
Using the term confabulation in correct context is perfectly fine, no issues with me.

However, the term is offensive to me because it has the connotation to me that says, "I don't believe it's possible, so you should change that experience to fit my model." It got this connotation since I've been here, I had never heard that word before coming here. After searching what that word was, the first hit is some medical site saying it's a 'disease'. "...a memory error defined as the production of fabricated, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world..."

You can image my reaction and why I hate that word. It's not used that way here, it's just a word with other possible meanings, here, it's just a means to explain why someone else's experience may not fit vanilla tulpamancy. Literally people here have told me they didn't know it had those negative connotations, but hey, it's the first hit on google, so perhaps that word shouldn't be used anymore. Yes, is is being used outside the context of 'during in-depth discussions of how things work'.

Even then should it be used? The other part of that same definition is this: "Without the conscious intention to deceive".

Let's disect:  The first definition google spits out: a memory error that's made up distorted or misinterpreted.

Let's just pick the least offensive of that list "misinterpreted."

Can you interpret my experiences better than I can? How? That's magic if you can. So how could 'you' say I misinterpreted it when you are more likely to misinterpret or misunderstand my interpretation. My interpretation is all you hear.

The next part: Without conscious intent.

That's not a consolation gift.

The least possibly offensive interpretation of that definition: You're unintentionally misinterpreting your experience.

Okay, so what good does it do to tell someone that when what they say is something as innocuous as "my tulpa does stuff and has memories of things that I wasn't there to witness." First of all, DID systems replace 'tulpa' with 'alter' and have this all the time. It involves switching in that context but does it have to? They could just as easily imagine can't they? Anyone with control of any portion of the mind big enough to imagine can and will potentially do so.

So what it means to me when I say "Dashie did something and then reported to me" and I get the C word as a response, this is what it means to me: You don't believe it and you think I'm wrong in saying that.

Here the definition has morphed to mean, "made up, on the spot memories". That's not in the definition on wiki. I don't see it. That's a separate and fabricated definition of the word.

The word means you're unintentionally misinterpreting your experience, not that you're making it up on the spot anyway. If those are two separate concepts entirely, that's not how it was presented to me here.

Please tell me I'm entirely off base, otherwise I maintain future uses of that word is rude and offensive to some and with good reason.
Reply
#6
(05-04-2019, 04:15 PM)Angry Bear Wrote: Yes, is is being used outside the context of 'during in-depth discussions of how things work'.

And it should be called out when it happens - but a blanket ban on the term is silly. It's a rule of the internet that strong arguments will always be taken out of context and used by people who don't fully understand them.

(05-04-2019, 04:15 PM)Angry Bear Wrote: Can you interpret my experiences better than I can? How? That's magic if you can. So how could 'you' say I misinterpreted it when you are more likely to misinterpret or misunderstand my interpretation. My interpretation is all you hear.

There's a difference between "I had these experiences" and "My experiences lined up with what happened in meatspace." My system has had vivid hypnagogic hallucinations of getting splashed in the face with water, or of hearing an alarm that sounded different than the one we normally use. In the former scenario, we confirmed that there was no water on our face, and in the latter scenario, we confirmed that out phone hadn't been set to go off at that time. It would be utterly ridiculous to say "I experienced these things, so they definitely happened!" But it would be equally ridiculous to say "Those things didn't happen, so I didn't experience them!" It is an objective fact that we experienced things that didn't happen.

And that's exactly why it's important to distinguish between what people experience and what actually happened. Some things we can grant by definition - you cannot hallucinate an emotion, you either experience it or you didn't. But if someone says they remember where they were when 9/11 happened, the research shows that's not reliable. People are surprisingly bad at remembering where they were doing historical events.

Some people seem to think this goes out the window with tulpamancy - it's all in your head, not in meatspace! That's *defensible* if you're a dualist - but if you're a materialist, your head is literally in meatspace. What if you are a dualist? No sensible articulation of that position says our meatspace brain does nothing. There are still going to be limits to what can and can't happen.

Perhaps I misunderstand and this is about burden of proof. The argument would be "If I have experienced something, it's on you to prove it didn't happen in meatspace." But if someone says they saw a dinosaur, I have no doubt they experienced the sight of a dinosaur - but I'm not going to go to where they saw the dinosaur and observe the lack of dinosaur footprints. I'm just going to tell them they didn't actually see a dinosaur. If it doesn't fit with any of the things we know about how the world behaves, it's perfectly fine to dismiss it without evidence for its absence.
I live in a castle and have two tulpas, Kanade-chan and Uncannyfellow
Reply
#7
Very good Cornelia, i agree with your sentiment. Should we use it all? That's a rediculous question, I'll admit. I don't think i fully articulated the context. The example I used is that I was called out on the notion that my tulpas do things when I'm not there. The subject is controversial. There's nothing that can prove they did or didn't other thantbeir testimony. It's possible in the construct of meatspace/mindspace because of redundant structures or memory paths etc. I'm not about to argue that again, ever, the useage of the term that offended me was in direct conversation to explain why I think they would believe that, or why I am falsely believing that, why they have explained that to me, why they have experiences of that. That's what I called gatekeeping.

I don't know about others who say they might have or they changed their mind about it but don't anymore, but the use of confabulation in this scenario will only lead to me stop sharing those experiences anymore, which I mostly don't now, and that particular line of thinking and talking and training etc becomes taboo.

The worry is that this word continues to eat away at the moral or culture or tools that others have used successfully. What's left shrinks over time and eventually everything is labled confabulation that's not direct vocality. Co-fronting was a subject just like this until we had enough people claiming that they do it for it to he accepted (that was my recollection).

Half a dozen systems agree that this is something that definitely happens in their experiences.

I have heard others disparage (not here, but recently) the phrase 'in my experience' in general. You can probably guess I had to go eat a lemon to erase my sour puss (as in it wss so sour, even a lemon would help). Throe in confabulation and i lose the will to participate in sharing my experiences.

We don't want people to feel like they can't share, but I know for a fact that this is happening. I do little by little and expect a fight over it. The next time the word is used on this forum, you can bet I'll use all the ferver of a 2000 year old touhou to straighten it out so it fits within proper useage.

It's entirely possible that I misinterpreted it's use, but this sentiment is not only my own.
Reply
#8
https://community.tulpa.info/thread-bear...#pid266330

This discussion has finally put to rest a highly contentious word and deweaponized and detriggered it for me.

Thank you again for this moment of clarity, Vesper.

The word is aparently as innocuous as inposition or switching, and we have new approved context for its continued useage in this community. Though others still might get the wrong impression, I certainly am not going to use it, I will at least have an explanation ready to make sure anyone receiving this has the proper context.
Reply
#9
(05-04-2019, 04:15 PM)Bear Wrote: First of all, DID systems replace 'tulpa' with 'alter' and have this all the time. It involves switching in that context but does it have to? They could just as easily imagine can't they? Anyone with control of any portion of the mind big enough to imagine can and will potentially do so.

DID systems tend to have issues with amnesia, therefore it makes sense to me that an alter would have separate memories from their host. Given that Alters were created through trauma and Tulpas are generally not, I don't want to compare both types of headmates side by side and assume that just because it happens for one means it can also happen for the other.

(07-24-2019, 10:53 AM)Bear Wrote: The word is aparently as innocuous as inposition or switching, and we have new approved context for its continued useage in this community. Though others still might get the wrong impression, I certainly am not going to use it, I will at least have an explanation ready to make sure anyone receiving this has the proper context.

I suppose that's a blessing and a curse Bear. If people can't use "confabulation" to describe what they think, they will have to use words like "false memories", "fake", "made up", or more rudely and less understanding, "liar" and "bullshit". "False memories" doesn't seem to describe the idea as clearly as "confabulation", thus "false memories" isn't the best replacement. Confabulation has a negative context, but in terms of greater degree of meaning, the other words I listed above have a much harsher context. "Confabulation" assumes a benefit of doubt, the other terms except for "false memories" assume there's an act of intentional disinformation being displayed. For my following thoughts, I am not using "confabulation" to mean the medical definition.



On the original topic, "Confabulated experiences" assume that an experience is occurring as the describer describes their experience, contradicting the idea it happened in the past. The problem is you can experience ideas and memories that occur on the spot (e.g. the idea of riding a unicorn causes the thinker to experience the pleasure they would feel as if they actually rode a unicorn), and this is getting confused for why the experience is being considered "fake" in the first place.

In wonderland, a headmate can experience an alternate life in an "alternate realm" since there are few limits on what one can do in their own head. Most people have no problem with "Today I had a wonderland trip with my Tulpa imagining the Shrek universe and we acted out the entire first movie". One can visualize the characters from the show, imagine what it feels like to get close to a dragon's fire, what it's like to be cheered by a group of fairy tale characters, etc.

If the host wakes up their Tulpa and their Tulpa talks about how fantastic it was to live in the Shrek universe by themself, that experience is very different from a Host and Tulpa spending a couple hours acting out a Shrek movie. The Tulpa may assume that action was from the past, but their story is being experienced in real time. In the mind's eye, there is no difference between real time and recalling memories from the past. Hence "confabulation", because while it feels like a memory, it's actually happening in real time. The experience is still real, but the reporting of when the experience occurred isn't accurate.

In addition, Creating a story on "what happened" can sometimes be much easier and faster than going on a wonderland trip, so the Host ends up spending less time with their Tulpa and only interacting with them to get the 5 minute story. However, sometimes the "confabulated story" is just as detailed and authentic as other system's wonderland trips, but why assume it happened in the past when you can just do a wonderland trip? That's why "confabulation" assumes that the system struggles to tell the difference between the two experiences.

Even though both experiences are undoubtedly real, the ladder can lead to some problems. For example, a Host that thinks their Tulpas live in wonderland while they are away may come to the conclusion that they no longer need to force their Tulpas. Having a "confabulated life" in this sense isn't really the main problem since a Tulpa will always have something to talk about and the experience isn't a lie. When the host thinks the Tulpa no longer needs them to visit, that's when the cycle of forcing breaks. The Tulpa can't experience the fantastic stories they come up with without their Host being their audience, and while the Host spends less time thinking about their Tulpa, the Tulpa becomes more and more at risk of being forgotten and dissipated.

The last but most important piece of the puzzle is Parallel Processing. It's unknown if PP is real or not despite all of the arguments for and against it, and I believe the controversy over "confabulation" is more about the controversy over Parallel Processing. In this context, "confabulation" means a Tulpa did things in wonderland while the host wasn't paying any attention to them, and that can't possibly happen because PP isn't real. This can take form in a Tulpa recalling their experiences on the spot, and the host uses PP as a reason for how the experience happened in the past.

When I see newer Hosts practice Tulpamancy, I usually tell them that PP isn't possible. The reason why is because if a Host thinks their Tulpas can do things by themselves in the wonderland, then it can lead to a Host thinking they can skip out on forcing, give the Host an excuse to make way too many Tulpas they can't take care of, and create obscure fears like Tulpas being able to plot against their Hosts without them realizing it. Those issues are complicated and frustrating to resolve, and all because the Tulpa is experiencing their "past stories" in real time. Since not all systems claim to be able to PP, I usually err on the side of caution and tell people that PP isn't a thing to prevent these problems. I am more comfortable having a system tell me I'm wrong because they have spent a lot of time thinking about this than a new system who can't PP assume that they can and end up with underdeveloped Tulpas, guilt over dissipation, or system overpopulation because they assumed that they didn't need to put any work into making and maintaining their Tulpas.

This is why "Confabulation" is an issue I want to take seriously, especially in systems where it turns out, they can't parallel process. If a system through and through believe they can PP after spending a long time thinking about it, then that's fine. However, the frustration around "Confabulation" is always going to exist as long as there is tension revolving around the PP debate.



On a different note, When it comes to meta experiences such as being a soulbond from another world or having memories of a past life, I'm not going to assume the experiences are fake just because I don't understand them, but I can see how other people will. Tulpa.info encourages a scientific mindset, so backlash against metaphysical ideas is inevitable. Calling these experiences "confabulation" is insulting, just as it would be to say "God is fake" to a Christian. There are better ways of expressing disagreement than calling someone's experiences "fake". Stating that you don't understand or you don't believe in metaphysics is fine enough, and if it bothers you too much, simply ask to change the subject and avoid metaphysical discussion.
I'm Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's Tulpa and I love Hippos (but see, I'm not a hippo)! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.
My other head-mates have their own account now.
Temporary Log | Chat | Yay!
Reply
#10
(07-25-2019, 06:49 PM)Ranger Wrote: DID systems tend to have issues with amnesia, therefore it makes sense to me that an alter would have separate memories from their host. Given that Alters were created through trauma and Tulpas are generally not, I don't want to compare both types of headmates side by side and assume that just because it happens for one means it can also happen for the other.

Well, except those in that community who are friendly with tulpas sustems told me that connection and agree, even our own dearest Reilyn. So the connection is there whether you ignore it or not.

Quote:I suppose that's a blessing and a curse Bear. If people can't use "confabulation" to describe what they think, they will have to use words like "false memories", "fake", "made up", or more rudely and less understanding, "liar" and "bullshit". "False memories" doesn't seem to describe the idea as clearly as "confabulation", thus "false memories" isn't the best replacement.

Uh, Ranger, that was my original point, they seem synonymous don't they? Well aparently, what everyone is saying, they're not. I think the horse is dead enough on that subject.

Quote:Confabulation has a negative context, but in terms of greater degree of meaning, the other words I listed above have a much harsher context.

Especially to someone like me who didn't understand that the context doesn't have to be negative. So I won't use any of those words.


Quote:On the original topic, "Confabulated experiences" assume that an experience is occurring as the describer describes their experience, contradicting the idea it happened in the past. The problem is you can experience ideas and memories that occur on the spot (e.g. the idea of riding a unicorn causes the thinker to experience the pleasure they would feel as if they actually rode a unicorn), and this is getting confused for why the experience is being considered "fake" in the first place.

If the host wakes up their Tulpa and their Tulpa talks about how fantastic it was to live in the Shrek universe by themself, that experience is very different from a Host and Tulpa spending a couple hours acting out a Shrek movie. The Tulpa may assume that action was from the past, but their story is being experienced in real time. In the mind's eye, there is no difference between real time and recalling memories from the past. Hence "confabulation", because while it feels like a memory, it's actually happening in real time. The experience is still real, but the reporting of when the experience occurred isn't accurate.

Well, it's not that cut and dry for us, as I check in on everyone frequently, i do catch them in story progress as if they're actually doing it real time, we've tested this and I've been personally through it, so it's not made up on the spot at all, following that logic, it's not made up on the spot, it's imagined in real time and retold in total by pur own testing and experience. So the 'experience' is really hard to fake.

Quote:In addition, Creating a story on "what happened" can sometimes be much easier and faster than going on a wonderland trip, so the Host ends up spending less time with their Tulpa and only interacting with them to get the 5 minute story. However, sometimes the "confabulated story" is just as detailed and authentic as other system's wonderland trips, but why assume it happened in the past when you can just do a wonderland trip? That's why "confabulation" assumes that the system struggles to tell the difference between the two experiences.

Even though both experiences are undoubtedly real, the ladder can lead to some problems. For example, a Host that thinks their Tulpas live in wonderland while they are away may come to the conclusion that they no longer need to force their Tulpas. Having a "confabulated life" in this sense isn't really the main problem since a Tulpa will always have something to talk about and the experience isn't a lie. When the host thinks the Tulpa no longer needs them to visit, that's when the cycle of forcing breaks. The Tulpa can't experience the fantastic stories they come up with without their Host being their audience, and while the Host spends less time thinking about their Tulpa, the Tulpa becomes more and more at risk of being forgotten and dissipated.

I wish I had more time to disagree with each point fully here, but there's next to nothing here I can support based on my experience and others I've talked to. And we've already discussed this to literal exhaustion. Either it's part of your belief system amd you recognize it or it's not and you deny it, that's all I can say.

Quote:The last but most important piece of the puzzle is Parallel Processing. It's unknown if PP is real or not despite all of the arguments for and against it, and I believe the controversy over "confabulation" is more about the controversy over Parallel Processing. In this context, "confabulation" means a Tulpa did things in wonderland while the host wasn't paying any attention to them, and that can't possibly happen because PP isn't real. This can take form in a Tulpa recalling their experiences on the spot, and the host uses PP as a reason for how the experience happened in the past.

When I see newer Hosts practice Tulpamancy, I usually tell them that PP isn't possible. The reason why is because if a Host thinks their Tulpas can do things by themselves in the wonderland, then it can lead to a Host thinking they can skip out on forcing, give the Host an excuse to make way too many Tulpas they can't take care of, and create obscure fears like Tulpas being able to plot against their Hosts without them realizing it. Those issues are complicated and frustrating to resolve, and all because the Tulpa is experiencing their "past stories" in real time. Since not all systems claim to be able to PP, I usually err on the side of caution and tell people that PP isn't a thing to prevent these problems. I am more comfortable having a system tell me I'm wrong because they have spent a lot of time thinking about this than a new system who can't PP assume that they can and end up with underdeveloped Tulpas, guilt over dissipation, or system overpopulation because they assumed that they didn't need to put any work into making and maintaining their Tulpas.

This is why "Confabulation" is an issue I want to take seriously, especially in systems where it turns out, they can't parallel process. If a system through and through believe they can PP after spending a long time thinking about it, then that's fine. However, the frustration around "Confabulation" is always going to exist as long as there is tension revolving around the PP debate.

I also don't believe we do parallel processing and I don't believe these are linked either. Rather it's fast switching, just like everything else that appears to be parallel processing (at least for us). Still completely indistinguishable until you really push the limits.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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