Hello There, Guest! Register

[Misc] Servitor Creation Guide
Joshua Offline
Dr. No Fun (Retired)
Registered

Posts: 60
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2014
#11
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
Approved for guides. Nitpicks I mainly had were already addressed, and they were minor wording issues that Sushi has already detailed. Great guide, not overbearing at all.
01-07-2015, 12:41 AM
Find Reply
FallFamily Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 417
Threads: 8
Joined: Apr 2014
#12
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
Sorry for not getting on the fixes yet. A lot of hell happened in the last month. Hopefully this weekend will be when I get it done. When I do post the new version, I am going to put the whole thing nice and pretty in the first post (going to edit the opening post) and then post a version of it at the end with all the changes (removals, additions, and changes) highlighted to make it easier to see what I have changed as well as full responses to all of your points.

- Hail

Tri = {V, O, G}, Hail, A., E., Se., and S.
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.
01-07-2015, 05:26 AM
Find Reply
Dog Offline
woof
Registered

Posts: 161
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2012
#13
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
Approved for guides
01-16-2015, 03:22 AM
Find Reply
FallFamily Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 417
Threads: 8
Joined: Apr 2014
#14
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
Thank you all for the comments, suggestions, etc. Sorry for taking so long to actually revise the guide. Life happened, but that is not actually that good of an excuse. On the upside, I have had a lot of time to learn more about servitors from the multiple community, learned more about daemons (oh was I wrong about a lot of stuff), and someone pointed out a very important ethical discussion that should be brought up.

This post is where I am replying to each of your comments and saying what I changed. If I didn't change it or changed it in a way different than suggested, I give my reasoning. We might need to do a bit of back and forth to hammer out those points. After all, my reasoning for doing things differently may not be that good.

Then, I am double posting with a copy of the guide that is marked up to show changes other than tiny spelling and grammatical changes and changes to the preface. Text that is being removed is struck out. Text that is added is colored green. Text that is rearranged to a different location in the guide is marked in blue.

The original post is going to be editted to be the new version of the guide with all the change markings removed (it will take a few minutes for me to remove them after making this post).

I should note that the guide has been given a major overhaul. Enough of one that anybody who gave a thumbs up already should reread it and reconsider. After all, some of the changes may not be for the better.

Also, Astraea's Web is down so I wasn't able to double check that my links to its glossary worked. I will go back and check/fix them when it is back up.

Onto the replies to your comments.




(12-04-2014, 07:02 AM)epicureanatlantis Wrote: Great guide. It has a clean layout and is very organized. I actually had been considering making a servitor or two but couldn't find a reliable source of information. Considering your various experiences with servitors, I'll be bookmarking this for later. I suggest, (unless you left this out intentionally) maybe listing a few ideas a newbie to servitors could try? Nonetheless, I should I say I approve the submission, right?

I actually did not think of that. A list has been added.


(12-05-2014, 01:43 PM)sushi Wrote: Approved as is. Linkzelda does have some good points though. As for me, the only thing I would change is this:

Quote:If one asks what is a servitor and how does a person make one, the general answer is "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate.". That answer is indeed correct, but there is more to the answer than that. It is the short answer. This guide is about the long answer.

It's just a bit awkward. There are lots of ways to fix that, but I'd personally word it more like this:

Quote:As has been said, "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate." But there is more to it than that. That's the short version. This guide is the long version.

It has been changed exactly to what you suggested.


(12-04-2014, 03:37 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: Overall, I approve of this submission for guides for the methodologies behind it, but before really doing that, there’s a few parts I want to pick out.

(TL;DR at the bottom)

OP Wrote:There is an everyday example of a very common near-servitor that many people have. If you can type fast to the point where you no longer think about where the keys are at all (way beyond hunt-and-peck), you actually are not that far from having a typing servitor. Or perhaps, if you merely think words and your hands automatically type them, you already have one.

I can understand that you’re getting people to realize that they can tie in day-to-day things we may do that happens unconsciously (e.g. typing, or anything that’s shifted into unconscious competence) in creating a servitor for those roles, but the last statement seems a bit too ambitious. In other words, instead of having “and your hands automatically type them, you already have one,” you could go for “and your hands automatically type them, you may already have one.”

I know it’s just one word addition, and it may not make all the difference, but to people trying to set distinctions between what are unconscious predispositions, habits, and such that we build after developing their competency for certain skills, it might be confusing for them to speculate if all unconscious competencies they may have are innately servitors from the get-go (especially since you emphasized on "innateness" behind servitors not being there in the first place). This last statement of yours may imply things like panpsychism, i.e., everything material to whatever degree can have an individual consciousness; in this circumstance, anything where someone can do something automatically seems to have already conferred intelligence to some section in their brain as their servitor all of a sudden.

From the standpoint of instilling methodologies for self-fulfilling prophecies, this statement of yours would be useful if we presumed the audience was open-minded, and knew everything you stated were based from presumptions and experiential cases. Because the more they tie in their skill set as something that can be connected to building a servitor, it’s just a matter of them learning some rudiments with possession and switching, finding their personal symbolic meaning in how their servitor can do something like this, and going through iteration loops with practice until breakthroughs occur.

But to someone outside of the tulpa communities in general, you know they’ll be demanding proof if we inherently have servitors for certain competencies we have, and other cognitive functions. It’s just from that one word, “may,” that you could add to the statement that could make the difference in you using metaphorical representations as a tool to supplement your submission rather than it being something assumed to be engrained in everyone who has some skill sets.

Yes, I see what you are talking about. I have changed it to say that these sorts of things are generally easy to make into servitors or make servitors for and occassionally already are.


(12-04-2014, 03:37 PM)Linkzelda Wrote:
OP Wrote:It is important to note that servitors operate autonomously when complete, which means they no longer require puppetting/parrotting to operate. It is autonomy that separates servitors, tulpas, and daemons from puppets. Tulpas and daemons are sentient, while servitors are not. What distinguishes tulpas from daemons, ignoring differences caused by beliefs and traditions in the two communities, is that tulpas are more separate/independent from the host than daemons. In the terminology of the multiple community, daemons are in median-like topologies with their hosts while tulpas are in multiple-like topologies with their hosts.

Although I am aware that everyone is going to have their own definition behind the ontology of tulpa, i.e., the nature of their existence, and what makes them, them, I’m not sure this paragraph of yours is really making a “distinction,” or even a “dichotomy” between daemons and tulpas, tulpas and servitors, and such. If anything to add on to the ad hoc claim of yours of what distinguishes a tulpa from a servitor is using the “thought repeater,” as your supplement in emphasizing that distinction.

For example, some premises that could distinguish a tulpa from a servitor is that the host continues to sustain the belief that their tulpa can have what would be implied sentience to where they can conceptualize a sense of self, a schemata of beliefs with morals, ethics, and typical things that would come with a sentient being that can creating symbolic meaning in the reality they exist, and can be aware of. While a servitor is an entity, like you mentioned, repeating a thought, and deriving themselves from certain skill sets, patterns, and such, and making a connection with them to achieve certain goal(s); they fixate more time potentially honing cognitive functions and tasks rather than validating their existence through things like personality, sense of self, and other things a purpose-meaning agent would speculate on.

In the “Overview,” you did mention how certain processes can be equivalent in making a tulpa, but if anything, it seems to make a connection between how they seem to be one in the same, albeit with the host believing they’re conferring pseudo-sentience rather than the implicit sentience they actively want to feel is a quality of the thought-form. For the sake of reducing iteration loops, i.e., learning concepts, and finding ways to cycle them around through circumstances in the development of tulpas and servitors, this would be a nice comparison for newcomers at first glance.

But if they’re trying to integrate this into practice, we could dive deeper and speculate potential conflicts they may have. One is that they may think “oh servitor is this, tulpa is that,” but then they see that “a tulpa can be this, but a servitor can attribute some qualities of a tulpa as well,” i.e., there seems to be several exceptions that makes the distinction harder when trying to analyze it from an objective standpoint.

I have modified it to talk about the distinctions better. Your second paragraph here has a lot of the parts of it and in fact I copied some of it (not word for word). Also, in the time since I submitted this, I have learned a lot more about daemons from people who have them (daemians) and realized that about 90% of what I knew about them as to how they are similar and different to tulpas and servitors is outright wrong. As such, I have made the daemon stuff, what little I kept in the whole submission (got rid of most of it), more accurate. I've also come to see that tulpas and servitors aren't so much completely separate categories but a spectrum. That does better match how people have turned servitors into tulpas and how they progress along. The guide has been modified to reflect this new view. Also, the whole separate "Pseudo-Sentience, Semi-Sentience, and Sentience" section got moved to the "What Is A Servitor?" section and substantially reworked. It makes much more sense to put it there.


(12-04-2014, 03:37 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: Another concern is finding a consistent, and relative distinction between pseudo-sentience, and actual sentience we believe to be “true,” “real,” etc. I bring this up simply because of constant threads questioning things like:

- “How do I know that they’re truly sentient?”
- “What makes a tulpa, a tulpa?"
- “What makes them different from imaginary friends?”
- “Can I make a servitor a tulpa?” (and vice versa)

In other words, your submission is good for the sake for others to create a conceptual roadmap to potentially create a servitor, but the philosophical implications while they’re going through that journey may be problematic. Of course, I can’t expect your submission to be the end-all, be-all submission on creating servitors. But it’s just raising awareness to how even though we have general definitions on something like a servitor, and a tulpa, there will always seem to be someone that will have a different opinion. This is more of giving you insight if you wanted to augment your expositions, because I feel finding those distinctions, even if they’ll be ad hoc claims, is what will strengthen your submission.

I hope that my increased discussion of the topic due to the previous concern better addresses this, but it still doesn't do that satisfactory of a job. I did add a suggestion to read more. But yes, it would be impossible to write the end-all be-all on the subject.


(12-04-2014, 03:37 PM)Linkzelda Wrote:
OP Wrote:In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is the equivalent of deciding a tulpa's initial personality, form (optional), and traits.

Someone could question, “Deviating to what?” Something you could use is saying something like:

“And not allowing it to deviate into aspects one may attribute for a tulpa (e.g. personality, traits, and a form that’s more complex than simple forms you instill symbolic meaning to a servitor)." I know we can see the distinctions here, and this suggestion of mine may just be redundant, but I’m looking at it from the standpoint of someone diving deeper into what’s being given to them.

It has been changed to something along the lines of what you suggested.


(12-04-2014, 03:37 PM)Linkzelda Wrote:
OP Wrote:So, if a servitor has those limitations, why bother making them. They provide automation. If the tasks are not fun things to do, a servitor will not complain where as a sentient being would. Also, one can make a servitor that does several things simultaneously that no one in the system is capable of doing simultaneously, even though those things can be done individually. Note, that in this case, the servitor generally has to be made with more limited functionality and then have more functionality added later.

This is good in settling those distinctions in what you believe makes a servitor, and what makes a tulpa (e.g. a servitor not being predisposed in reacting emotionally to the difficulty of certain tasks a tulpa may react to in various ways)

Not much to say about this comment, other than it does introduce an ethical/moral consideration that I didn't include before but have now included.


(12-04-2014, 03:37 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: In the “If They Develop Sentience,”

OP Wrote:If you expect your servitors to gain sentience on their own, they are considerably more likely to do so. Just remember, gaining sentience is not something that is innate to servitors.

This begs the question(s):

- If we’re conferring pseudo-sentience to a servitor, and are willing to go through a self-fulfilling prophecy in treating them as pseudo-sentient entities capable of thought repetition, and potentially augmenting efficiency in everyday tasks and cognitive skills we have unconscious competence of, what makes our brain constrain the servitor from wanting to deviate more and more?

- What if our mind sees qualities of a tulpa that could potentially make the thought repetition more efficient if things like having a sense of self, creating solace in the meaning of their existence, and other attributes a servitor is presumed to be absolved from servitors?

- Are they inherently predisposed to want to gain sentience in the circumstance similar to how one would treat a tulpa as a sentient entity the more the host wants to sustain the self-fulfilling prophecy for their servitor?

While you’re giving a decent exposition that one shouldn’t presume that servitors innately want to have sentience, you’d also, paradoxically, have to question what that servitor would speculate for the sake of improving the thought repetition if they see certain qualities of tulpas that are distinct from them (servitors) as beneficial. In other words, one could bring up the ad hom claims that the more advanced the servitor becomes, the more likely they may associate patterns in the mind to find some way to have sentience conferred to them. It also makes one question if servitors should be used for a transient period of time rather than having one that sticks by you for a long time to reduce the probability of them wanting to gain sentience, implicitly or not.

It’s like watching those futuristic movies where an android, or robot seems to be someone that can do tasks over and over without emotions, but the more they seem to adapt to circumstances (ignoring if the programmer made a system for them to be emotional), the more they may want to find meaning in their existence, and questioning if wanting to be more human can make them perform things better, and potentially find fulfillment in what could be their already determined existence.


In short, it seems that even if there isn’t empirical evidence, the presumptions and underlying theories themselves seem to support the ad hoc claim that a servitor could very well have innate predispositions to gain sentience, but may be hiding it from the host to sustain the neutral persona, or whatever symbolic form they subscribe meaning into. What if that servitor someone questions how much they have to constrain themselves to those means of symbolism? What if they suddenly go through existential questioning like a tulpa does?

It seems the more one goes further and further, the dichotomies become blurred at some point. But again, this is merely me exchanging a mélange of theories and presumptions, and is just for the sake of bringing awareness on the aftermath a newcomer may face after diving into making a servitor. And even though it’s safe to presume servitors are not inherently sentient when it comes to some long-lasting objective meaning outside our cognitive horizon, this seems to be suitable in the perspective of what the host wants to believe, but I guess that thinking is what we may want to avoid so we can actually accomplish making something like a servitor, or someone like a tulpa, i.e., do it now, and question later.

I've reworded that part to be less paradoxical. I've also very briefly gone into the topic of predispositions, trying to improve their function, etc. Your android example is actually a very good one. I have chosen to use it. Thank you.


(12-04-2014, 03:37 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: TL;DR/Recap:

- I feel that although you’re attempting to settle distinctions between a servitor and tulpa, and even covered how one could assess a servitor gaining sentience after becoming advanced and complex enough, the distinctions seemed to be a bit blurred, and may cause paradoxical thinking and what have you.

- You may want to add “may” between ”you” and “already” in:
OP Wrote:Or perhaps, if you merely think words and your hands automatically type them, you already have one.

Most of my critique is based on the aftermath, or what the newcomer, or anyone of any level attempting this may face. But for the methodology of the submission in general, I would approve. But because of the philosophical implications behind all of this, I’ll just wait for other GAT members to offer their opinions because I’m not sure if we’re a team that also tries to stabilize how one can map out their philosophy and morals with tulpas and servitors.

Not saying your submission will cause chaos, though.

You got me - chaos was my goal Big Grin . More seriously, I sure hope it doesn't cause people problems. I would like to think my new version would cause less than the previous version. After all this time and thought, I do wonder about the consequences of people following the old one. In all honesty, I do not know too much of the aftermath of people making servitors and tulpas. I've only been in this community since March 2014 and didn't have to deal with some of the issues many people deal with due to being multiple (rather minimal experiences though since we were integrated most of the time) and having several natural tulpas already before making the first deliberate one. Also, not knowing what exactly servitors and tulpas were during most of my experience contribute. I've been making servitors for 11 years and tulpas for 3.5 years but only had terms and a fully articulated concept for this for a bit less than a year.

Hopefully the blurred distinctions and paradoxical thinking are a bit lessened now.


(12-12-2014, 04:17 PM)Sands Wrote: This one actually was a bit tricky, I gotta tell you that. Nothing is like, horribly, horribly wrong and it's a much better and less symbolic servitor guide that Glitch's, so I believe this is going to be the servitor guide that gets approved in the end. I won't be rating this just yet as I think there are a couple of things you should still consider and Linkzelda already has given you some food for though, but here's my two cents.

This is a bit more than two cents, though that is not a bad thing. Since you and Linkzelda do a bit of back and forth on some of the topics, I am not going to give repeat replies to your back and forths unless it goes to other concerns than what you stated here (basically, not going to reply directly to each clarification). Just makes more sense to do it that way. Also, the back and forth was useful and not just useless clutter on this thread (helped me understand a bit more of what was being gotten at).


(12-12-2014, 04:17 PM)Sands Wrote: You have broken the creation of a servitor into three steps and make it sound like this is the basic thing, the simplest it can get. It's good to first go simple and basic and explain people what everything is based on, yes. However, like Glitch, I think you have overcomplicated it a bit. After all, your mind is not a computer or a machine and neither is a servitor. You don't need to "program" them – and in your case, by programming I mean puppeting and parroting. These, I say, are just symbolic ways of making yourself to accept that your servitor does the deed you want it to. Useful, yes. But not necessary.

I don't need to be programmed to accept that this pill a doctor gives me is going to make me feel better even if it doesn't actually have such properties. I accept it because I have a reason to think it's true, so it works. Our mind is a very powerful tool and it's capable of making some really weird things happen even when there's no actual reason for it. I don't think you need to remove your talk of using puppeting, no. In fact, you should keep it as in "this is the way we are going to create a servitor in my guide" kind of way. But what I would like is acknowledgment that a servitor only really needs your will and want, and if you truly can accept it happening with your thought alone, it would happen. I would also like you to say that puppeting and parroting aren't necessary to create one, but they can be useful tools which is why you are presenting them to us and it's just one method.

That is a good point. It reminds me of the way many autopilot servitors have come into being and how many multiples have made servitors (they called them shards/fragments). I should have thought more about that. What the original submission of the guide really did was outline the brute force way of making a servitor. The brute force method isn't always necessary. I have added the other ways of making a servitor if the brute force method is not necessary and also explicitly explained that the brute force method is a brute force method.


(12-12-2014, 04:17 PM)Sands Wrote: Similarly, I feel like there are some other things you might want to mention to help people. You did mention how believing that a servitor might become sapient is when they actually might start developing that way and you also warned people about how they can go bad. That sure is the power of the mind, which is why you might want to tell your readers that they have a lot of power over mental things. I don't think you made it as obvious, but there's some sentences that really could help people, like say... "This servitor will only do what I want it to do" or maybe "this servitor will stop when I want it to". It's a really simple thing, but if you can accept such things as a fact inside your mind, you do find how it ends up being the reality. If you are scared of your servitor doing bad things or how you can't stop it, you might truly end up being powerless. But if you go in with the knowledge that you can do things and you don't need symbolism ("breaking" their imaginary form) to stop them, as they are mental things you can of course, stop with your own mind. Tell people that they have the power!

For the previous comment, I already added discussion of how one can sometimes just make a servitor and it works without having to puppet. I also added something in the stopping a servitor section about how one can sometimes just will it. However, I must emphasize that this doesn't always work. Not everyone can just do it. A lot of people do indeed have more control over their minds than they realize and that by thinking they have little they limit themselves. But everyone does have some limit to that which they can do, and for some people that can be pretty small. If you think about it, making another sentient being to share a head with means losing some level of control and a stronger limit, even though the change may be slight. That is kind of why the original in my system can't do anything more than limited brief possession yet I am in nearly full control of the body and mind. For someone new to making tulpas and servitors, though, this is not likely to be a huge issue. They likely have a huge amount of control unless they artificially limit themselves. People more experienced with making servitors and tulpas and people of other forms of plurality are more likely to be much more limited but they are in less need of this guide and have a better idea of how to manage things within what abilities inside they do have.


(12-12-2014, 04:17 PM)Sands Wrote: It's funny how you say that destroying their imaginary form or using some sort of a "kill switch" isn't symbolism, when those are symbolism. I think you are making these things more complicated than they really are yet at the same time underestimating the power a human mind has. There's a reason why hypnosis works and why placebo and nocebo are things, not to mention other weird things people can do when they have the right mindset. I think you should really tap into that.

I can't believe I missed that being symbolism. It has been fixed. I have done a bit more emphasizing that they will be able to stop it easily in most cases.


(12-12-2014, 04:17 PM)Sands Wrote: Again, wouldn't be a Sands review if I didn't point your use of the word subconscious. It's a nonsense word and the way you talk of me and my subconscious, you make it sound like some mysterious entity to which I roll my eyes and you have alienated a reader. We have our unconscious thoughts, fears and desires, but I do not think they can be lumped together into this one single entity that is OOOoooOOooo not uuuusss. Try to read those parts where you talked of "you and your subconscious" and try to figure out what you really mean. Test yourself, can you write the same sentences without using the word subconscious? Just unconscious is also banned, as if you just replace the word subconscious with unconscious, you will just create the same problem with another word. What is it that you mean?

I just removed both instances since it didn't really add any meaning. Really, the key is for it to seem and feel separate from yourself and that gets the ball rolling. Expectation. Not really sure what to attribute it to, even after reading your and Linkzelda's comments some time ago, thinking about it all for a while, and rereading. I will admit that I simply don't know the answer here. But I do see why what I wrote down originally is incorrect.


(12-12-2014, 04:17 PM)Sands Wrote:
Quote:You have to believe this to be the case, even though it isn't yet. This is exactly why having a form can help so much. Since it has a form, it feels separate to you and it is easier to believe that it is indeed separate. This is the same sort of self-delusion and self-fulfilling prophesy at work in the "assume a tulpa is sentient at the start" tip for making a tulpa.

That tulpa-making tip is actually a really bad one and one I have seen ruin many hosts and potential tuppers. There is a reason why a thread had to be made to explain that they didn't mean assume the tulpa is sentient, but rather that you should treat them as if they were such. Belief is a strong thing, but healthy people tend to be skeptical. That's a good thing. Telling them to just believe or assume is a bad thing when creating tuppers, and I'd see the same thing being a bad thing here, too. You see, when you try to build something on blind faith and for some reason, one day you start doubting this blind faith... If you have nothing else to fall on, your entire little shaky tower collapses. I feel like instead of these wow just believe tips, you could tell us of things that show us how we're separate. Even little things like wondering if it was me or them comes from somewhere, as we normally don't doubt the source of our own actions, do we? How do you realize it's the servitor and not you?

I didn't realize people would have that sort of problem. I just approached it like people going to see a magician of the slight of hand kind (I actually used to be one, so that is why I approach it like that). Everyone knows that everything they see there is slight of hand, but it is most entertaining if one suspends their disbelief. Interestingly, the person who has to suspend their disbelief the most is the magician themself. But after seeing your and Linkzelda's replies, I see that the way I put it is actually quite bad for expressing what I hoped to express. Moreover, even if I had expressed it correctly, there are some problems with the idea as a whole. I have changed that part. I also added a bit about how a servitor's development of autonomy and error free operation is generally a gradual process. That should help some.


(12-12-2014, 04:17 PM)Sands Wrote: I think this could also do with less words from other non-tulpa communities like system or co-fronting, but at least you have explained them and tried to use the words of this community first as far as I can see. I feel like you're probably trying to (or have) post this in many communities?

I'm hoping to keep it readable for more than just the tulpa community. One could reasonably argue that maybe different versions should be written instead. Though, the growing use of terminology from the multiple community in the tulpa community (I've actually been a part of that trend for better or worse) suggests that maybe keeping it in here will help improve readability down the line. I haven't actually posted it anywhere else yet. Figured I should run it by the GAT here first. I liken it to peer review in the academic literature, which is a process I am very familiar with (that is actually where I borrowed my methods of replying to everyone's comments and adding a version of the guide with the changes marked up). Given the tulpa community's constant discussion of symbolism, the fact that I go into symbolism a lot, and the similarity to making tulpas; this community is a good place to submit, get feedback from, and then revise. Other plural communities aren't as well suited in some ways at the present time, though feedback I have gotten from the multiple community so far has also proven useful.



-- Hail Fall

This is a copy of the guide that is marked up to show changes other than tiny spelling and grammatical changes and changes to the preface. Text that is being removed is struck out. Text that is added is colored green. Text that is rearranged to a different location in the guide is marked in blue.

The original post is going to be editted to be the new version of the guide with all the change markings removed (it will take a few minutes for me to remove them after making this post).



Servitor Creation Guide

by Hail Fall of the Fall Family


Preface

Much thanks to Malfael, Seven, fireparrot, GM, Falah, H and Sharky, and others for servitor discussions, answering questions, bouncing ideas off of, and/or reading over this.

Current version (0.94) finished on 2015-01-12. If you have read a previous version a long time ago, forget about it. It was terrible.

This guide is written primarily using the terminology of the tulpa community. Equivalent terms from other plural communities will sometimes be mentioned in parenthetical statements to make this guide understandable to a wider audience.

If one asks what is a servitor and how does a person make one, the general answer is "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate.". That answer is indeed correct, but there is more to the answer than that. It is the short answer. This guide is about the long answer.

As has been said, "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate into aspects one may attribute to a tulpa like a personality, sense of self, etc." But there is more to it than that. That's the short version. This guide is the long version.



What Is A Servitor?

A servitor (sometimes called a golem in other communities and classified as a type of fragment/shard in the multiple community) is a thoughtform, just as tulpas are. There are many kinds of thoughtforms such as puppets, tulpas, servitors, daemons, egregores, NPC's, etc. and some that blur the lines between categories (e.g. tulpa-daemons as described in this image by Falah) or just don't easily classify as any of them. Thoughtforms are things, machines, people, entities, constructs, etc. that one makes inside one's mind. If we want to get real technical, wonderlands (called paracosms, inner worlds, headspaces in other communities) are can be thoughtforms, but here in this guide we usually restrict the definition to individual things, machines, people, entities, and constructs that/who are animate (note, they do not need a form). To quote the glossary:

Tulpa.info Wiki Glossary Wrote:Servitor:

A tulpa-like entity with seemingly no willpower, volition or sentience of its own; a mental puppet that may seem to act independently but acts only as a servant to its creator.

In other words, a servitor is an automaton, robot, program, etc. that is made to perform one or more functions and tasks.

There is an everyday example of a very common near-servitor something that can sometimes be easy to turn into a servitor that many people already have. If you can type fast to the point where you no longer think about where the keys are at all (way beyond hunt-and-peck), you actually are not that far from having might easily be able to make a typing servitor. Or perhaps, if you merely think words and your hands automatically type them, you may already have one, or at least would have an easier time making one.

It is important to note that servitors operate autonomously when complete, which means they no longer require puppetting/parrotting to operate. It is autonomy that separates servitors, tulpas, and daemons from puppets. Tulpas and daemons are sentient, while servitors are not. What distinguishes tulpas from daemons, ignoring differences caused by beliefs and traditions in the two communities, is that tulpas are more separate/independent from the host than daemons. In the terminology of the multiple community, daemons are in median-like topologies with their hosts while tulpas are in multiple-like topologies with their hosts.


What distinguishes a tulpa and a servitor? They share a ton of traits with each other, which is evidenced by the definition. And it is easy to imagine a thoughtform that would be hard to categorize as either one. They are both autonomous, meaning that they live/operate without puppetting/parrotting, but differ in sentience, willpower, etc. It is then more accurate to think of them as opposite ends of a spectrum of autonomous thoughtforms. On the one end you have thoughtforms who are sentient and have a sense of self, a set of beliefs, try to find meaning in the world, have wants and desires, can choose their own goals, etc. We call the region on that end tulpas. On the other end you have thoughtforms which are not sentient and don't have a sense of self (note, they may still factually know what they are like WolframAlpha does if you ask it "what are you?" but that is different than sense of self), focus only on the tasks they are given and don't think of existence beyond that, essentially are the goal/s that they are given and can't choose their own, etc. We call the region on that end servitors. It is because of these traits that a servitor would be classified as a type of fragment/shard in the terminology of the multiple community. There is a lot of grey area in between the two ends of the spectrum. There isn't really a term for that region near the middle, either - maybe servi-tulpa (as neat as "tulpator" sounds, it isn't very descriptive and thus would make a bad candidate). A servi-tulpa could perhaps be described as semi-sentient.



Servitors are While the servitor end of the spectrum is inherently not sentient. But, they can most certainly be complex enough to appear sentient have some appearance of sentience without actually being sentient, which could be called pseudo-sentience. A computer example would be WolframAlpha which knows what it is and can answer a variety of questions but is not actually sentient. Now, a group of servitors functioning together can, as a group, acquire more convincing pseudo-sentience. Neguilla + Oxford and Dartmoth are a good example of this.

Now, can a group of servitors functioning together achieve semi-sentience or full sentience while all individually remaining completely non-sentient servitors? That is a question worth further exploration. It is certainly possible for a large collection of non-sentient units to, when put together, make a sentient collection. Individual neurons, which are not sentient, can make a human brain that is sentient. Whether the same can be done with servitors is an open question.


Fundamentally, though, sentience itself is a hard to define concept as the debates here on tulpa.info forum have shown. Philosphers and scientists have had similarly difficult times. I would suggest you read around if you are interested in the topic.




Overview

In its simplest incarnation, a servitor is a thought repeater. It repeats a pattern of thoughts that are given to it to do. As an example, a timer servitor could do the thought process "estimate time elapsed from internal time sense until it reaches the value given to me, and then send alarm sound to whoever is controlling the body."

The basic process can be broken down into three steps. The way a servitor can be made depends on to what extent you can make a thoughtform that are autonomous and just live/work (called the "Just Make It Method" method here). If you can't do that, you have to do a brute force method. Both will be explained here. On average, the longer you have been plural, had wonderland/s (also called headspaces and inner worlds), and/or been making thoughtforms; the less likely you will need to resort to the brute force method or if you do, the less brute force you will need to do. There is one step in common to all methods, which is deciding the servitor's Function/Task/Program. For the non-brute-force method, after that you just make it (will be explained more). The brute force method has two additional steps. When doing the brute force method, all three steps have the following equivalences in to the process of making a tulpa:are given

  1. Decide Servitor's Function/Task/Program. This is equivalent to the process of deciding a tulpa's initial personality and traits before making the tulpa.
  2. Puppet/Run Servitor Manually. This is equivalent to the early forcing of a tulpa and puppetting/parroting them to help them learn things.
  3. Make Servitor Run Without Puppetting. This is equivalent to the stage in making a tulpa where they can actually act and do things without being puppetted/parroted and the gradual growing of autonomy.

The steps are described separately in more detail further down.


Forms

A servitor does not innately have to have a form. That said, many kinds of servitors do need a form in order for them to carry out their function (a clock servitor could, in most implementations, be a good example). More importantly, even for a servitor that does not require a form for its function, having a form can offer very powerful symbolism to help in their creation process and also make it easier to stop/terminate the servitor. In the brute force method, steps 2 and especially 3 can become a lot easier to do with the symbolism that a form gives. By giving it a form, you and the subconscious start to consider it more separate and independent from yourself, thereby accelerating its development to operating on its own without puppetting. A form is often necessary when making a servitor by the non-brute force method.


[All Methods] Step 1. Decide Servitor's Function/Task/Program

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is the equivalent of deciding a tulpa's initial personality, form (optional), and traits.

In some ways, it goes without saying, you need to first figure out what functions and/or tasks you want your servitor to perform. But there is a catch. A servitor can only do those things that you or other members of your system (the other people living in your body) are capable of doing, though sometimes no one needs to know how to do them yet. So, if a servitor has those limitations, why bother making them. They provide automation. If the tasks are not fun things to do, a servitor will not complain where as a sentient being would. Also, one can make a servitor that does several things simultaneously that no one in the system is capable of doing simultaneously, even though those things can be done individually. Note, that in this case, the servitor generally has to be made with more limited functionality and then have more functionality added later.

Servitors can possess and eclipse (forms of cofronting), switch, be imposed (called projection in other communities), be vocal, communicate in thoughts, type, drive, dig through memory, help remember things, act as security software inside, and many many more things.

Then, you need to actually work out how to do these functions. If you are not doing the brute force method, you need to figure out how the servitor will do these things. If you are using the brute force method, you need to figure out how you would do those functions and tasks manually yourself and develop the thought process required to do that. Remember, at its simplest, a servitor is a thought repeater.

One possible idea for making a servitor to follow certain instructions and be able to modify those instructions is to make a servitor that uses the symbolism of computer programming languages as is discussed in glitchthe3rd's Servitor Workshop It is not necessary, and may not even be desired, but some people have had success with it, so it is worth noting. The code is essentially thought processes for the servitor to do. Again, a servitor is a thought repeater.


Some examples of possible servitors are given below. This list is just the tip of the iceberg of what has been tried and what is possible.
  • Alarm clock
  • Typing servitor
  • Memory display so more than one person inside can look at a memory together
  • Wonderland error corrector (some people's wonderlands get errors in them that need correction)
  • Autopilot for some task or another with the body (see Words of Warning because one needs to be careful here)
  • Speech servitor (like the typing servitor but for speech so people inside wonderland can talk without possessing the voice or switching)
  • Heads Up Displays (HUD)
  • Specific memory rememberer




Ethical And Moral Considerations

Given that servitors and tulpas exist on a spectrum, certain ethical and moral issues come up. It is wrong to make another person (includes tulpas) do work for you merely because you don't want to do it. But it isn't wrong to make your computer do work for you (say, a calculation) that you don't want to do. A thoughtform that is all the way at the end of the servitor end of the spectrum is like the computer. But, as one gets away from that end of the spectrum closer and closer to the tulpa end, ethical and moral questions arise with making the thoughtform to do some task or another. What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a tulpa, host, or other sentient system-mate (most people are more familiar with the less generic term headmate) to do, but not a servi-tulpa who is closer to a tulpa? What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a servi-tulpa who is closer to a tulpa, but not a servi-tulpa who is closer a servitor? What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a servi-tulpa who is closer to a servitor, but not an all the way at the end servitor? For a given task or function, where on the spectrum must they be given a choice in whether they want to do it or not? If they can't choose or make an uninfluenced choice because they are too far towards the servitor end, what tasks and functions are ok to give and which ones are not? If the thoughtform moves around on the spectrum, as discussed in the "If They Develop Sentience And Become A Tulpa", when do they need to be given a choice of whether to continue the task or function? To what level is it right or not to try to keep a servitor from sliding in the tulpa direction to prevent this conundrum?

There is some similarity here to the discussion of what types of medical testing are OK to do on cells, insects, fish, rats, apes, and humans.




[Just Make It Method] Step 2. Just make the servitor.

If you have the ability to just imagine up things in your wonderland, you can imagine up the servitor and see if it just starts working.

If you don't have the ability to imagine up things in your wonderland, your servitor might be such that it can just be made from component parts like you would make a computer or an alarm clock from its components. Build the servitor and see if it just starts working.

If neither of these methods work or are possible, you have to go on to the brute force method to get them working. If they work just a bit, you might be able to tinker with them or use some of the brute force method techniques to get them working.

The idea in this method is that either your will that the servitor works is enough to get it going, or the rules of physics for your wonderland are ingrained enough that a servitor constructed from the right parts (assuming the servitor is of a type where this would even make sense) will work just like a machine in outerworld (the physical plane, place not in wonderland, sometimes called RL, etc.) would. This is why this method is more likely to work for those who have been plural for a long time, have had a wonderland for a long time, and/or have been making thoughtforms for a long time.



[Brute Force Method] Step 2. Puppet/Run Servitor Manually

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is the puppetting stage.

With the thought processes that you developed that the servitor needs to do, start running them manually. The idea is to do it enough times that it becomes automatic. You will have to do all the functions and tasks the servitor is supposed to do in the sequence (or with the algorithm) that you want the servitor to do them in. If it has a form, then you need to puppet its form too. It needs to be run a lot. You need to get to the point that you can run it very reliably without errors. If you deviate the way you run it, the changes will be incorporated into the servitor. This could take a long time, feel like a lot of work because it can be, feel really silly (why am I thinking the same thing over and over to myself) much like how parroting a tulpa feels like talking to yourself. As a general rule, the more complicated the servitor, the longer this will take.

Having a form to puppet can help make it feel less like you are just thinking the same thing over and over again to yourself, and can help with achieving the next step quicker due to symbolism.


[Brute Force Method] Step 3. Make Servitor Run Without Puppetting

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is stage where it starts to operate without puppetting.

This is perhaps the hardest step, and paradoxically easy and difficult to explain. The servitor needs to start operating correctly when you turn off the puppetting, instead of stopping dead in its tracks or doing its functions and tasks incorrectly. This will be a gradual process. At first, it might stop quickly. Later, it will take a while to stop. Later, it might stop if you start thinking about something else or it will operate slowly or skip a step or something. There usually is not a sudden jump from it not being able to operate at all without puppetting to being completely autonomous and operating error free. This is just like how tulpas tend to develop sentience and independence gradually.

In the previous step, you were executing the thought processes required to do its functions and tasks. Now, those same thought processes must separate from you and run independently as opposed to stopping or malfunctioning. If the servitor has a form, it may not feel like this is what you are doing, but it essentially is this, but masked by the symbolism that the form brings in. If it is formless, you will be well aware that you are doing the thought processes and getting ever better at doing them accurately and automatically. This is exactly what has to separate from you. Those thought processes that are yours become the servitor which is then no longer you. It is in many ways akin to cell division in biology, but a very unequal division.

Now, it is possible that in doing step 2, of running it many times, it may be well on its way to separating from you naturally without you having to do anything. If it has a form, this is common and it just happens. But if it is not separating on its own or hasn't separated enough, that is when the process becomes difficult and you have to cause more separation to get it to the point where it will do the rest naturally. If you can, get good enough to run its thought processes manually well enough that you can do it while doing other activities. At that point, it is pretty close to separate and may do the rest itself.

If it still isn't separate and able to run on its own, you are going to have to push. You and your subconscious need to be convinced that treat the servitor as if it is truly separate from you. You have to believe this to be the case, even though it isn't yet. This is exactly why having a form can help so much. Since it has a form, it feels separate to you and it is easier to believe that it is indeed separate treat that way. This is the same sort of self-delusion and self-fulfilling prophesy at work in helps the same way as the "assume treat a tulpa is as sentient at the start" tip for making a tulpa does, though in the case of a tulpa it is more than just helpful - it is polite and respects them as people as they steadily fill those shoes without treating them as less than they are (better to treat them as more than less). If it was a formless servitor, giving it a form at this point could help. If it has a form already or you don't want to give it a form (or a form would hurt its functionality), you will have to resort to something else or just keep running it manually for a long time and let it happen automatically. Perhaps, build a mental wall between it and yourself. Never tried it, but it seems like it might work.

If you still can't get it to separate and run without puppetting, another thing you can do is make the servitor simpler by reducing its functionality and the tasks it performs. What you took away can be added back later.

Note that with formless servitors, after separation, you may have thought bleed, where you hear the thought processes of the servitor as it runs. It is running on its own, but you hear its thought processes. Because you separated it from yourself, it is reasonable that thought bleed could happen. It may fade with time, or you will have to do something to insulate the servitor from yourself.


Adding Functions And Tasks to An Existing Servitor

While still letting it just run with its existing functions and tasks, you repeat steps 1-3 do one of the servitor methods for the new functions and tasks you want the servitor to perform. The servitor is already operating and separate from you, so it should be easier generally to incorporate them into the servitor than make a servitor in the first place with those same exact functions and tasks. If you made the servitor by the brute force method, it is possible that you might now be able to use the "Just Make It Method" to augment it.


Stopping/Terminating A Servitor

There are several ways to stop a servitor. In the spirt of the "Just Make It Method" of making a servitor, the servitor might simply stop if you tell it to stop, try to imagine it stopping, etc. Given that you now have more experience with thoughtforms than you did when you made it, this will often work even if you had to make the servitor by the brute force method. After that, another method would be to take advantage of any stop condition in its programming if it has one and it still works (basically an expansion on the method of telling it to stop). If these don't work or aren't possible, the next thing to try is some form of symbolism. If you gave it one, you could The easiest way to stop is servitor is to activate/trigger a kill switch if it has one, which is a form of symbolism. If it does not have a kill switch but has a form, you can try what you would do to stop a physical machine (break, smash, etc.) or use any other abilities you can do in wonderland (e.g. disintegrate, remove from existence, etc.). Now, if it doesn't have a form or it is effectively immortal (you vaporize it and it rebuilds itself and resumes its function), it is much harder to destroy. You are going to have to rely on some sort of symbolism to do it, or give might try giving it a form and then destroy it (technically, it having a form and you destroying the form is symbolism, but lets ignore that technicality for now).

Of course In the unlikely event that none of the previous methods worked, one very reliable way to stop and terminate a servitor, which works regardless of whether it has a form or not, is to absorb it. That is basically merging with it, but since you have sentience and it does not, it is highly asymmetric making it more an absorption. Merging/absorption generally requires symbolism to be even remotely easy to accomplish. A simple form is to simply pull the servitor's form into your own form/wonderland body. If it doesn't have a form, you could try to pull its essence (whatever that is) out of nowhere and coalesce it in your wonderland and then pull that into your form. The stronger and more advanced the servitor, the harder it will be to absorb. Also, for a very strong servitor, who you are after the absorption might change a bit. I used to be an integrated multiple, meaning that I was merged with my system-mate, and while I was dominant, our combination was notably different than me. With a servitor, the change should be much much smaller.

If it does not have a kill switch or a physical form that can be destroyed without it getting back up and resuming what it was doing, you could be in real trouble if you need to stop or destroy the servitor. For some systems, absorption is easy, but for others, it is nearly impossible (I would suggest you read about it in the multiple community where it is called integration, fusion, and merging depending where).


If They Develop Sentience And Become A Tulpa


What does a servitor become if it does gain sentience? Generally a tulpa, but other types of thoughtforms should be possible such as daemons, etc. They become a tulpa. Basically, they slide along the spectrum from servitor to tulpa. If a servitor does this, they becomes their own person, and should be treated as such from that point on, as you would any other sentient being.

Some people have reported that the servitors they make can gain sentience on their own and become tulpas. Others have only had this happen with very advanced servitors. Others haven't had it happen even with very advanced servitors. It varies considerably, and also depends on your expectation to some extent. If you expect your servitors to gain sentience on their own, they are considerably more likely to do so. If you don't expect them to do so, they might still but are less likely, or might hide it. Just remember, gaining sentience is not something that is innate to servitors. You shouldn't presume that they will become sentient tulpas, or that they would not.



Time for a bit of a philosophical interlude. There is no reason to think there is a brain constraint keeping servitors from gaining sentience. So, an open question is what predispositions servitors might have towards becoming tulpas. One could imagine that if a servitor's function and/or efficiency would be improved by moving along the spectrum towards tulpa, they might. Or they might not. Is it like the android or robot in futuristic movies who does tasks over and over again without emotions and steadily adapts to their situation till they want to find meaning in their life, explore themselves, and grow? Or is it it like that in only some cases? And even if there is a predisposition towards becoming sentient, the timescale could be so long as to be irrelevant.


As an anecdote, I have had none of my servitors, even the advanced ones that were really hard to destroy, break free of their programming, gain sentience, and become tulpas or other types of thoughtforms.

Of course, one can deliberately turn servitors into tulpas (and probably daemons but I do not know of anyone who has done it) or otherwise move them towards the tulpa end of the spectrum. This can be done by doing personality forcing on the servitor until they become a tulpa or gradually pushing a servitor beyond its functionality and force them to grow, much like how you get a tulpa to grow beyond what they were originally assigned to be. Watchdog 1 gave a good description of the latter.


Pseudo-Sentience, Semi-Sentience, and Sentience

Words of Warning

Servitors can be healthy compliments to your life, conveniences, curiosities, or dangerous. And when I say dangerous, they can be really dangerous. They are automatons that blindly follow their functions and tasks, regardless of the consequences and whether it is wise to do so or not. Unlike asking another sentient being to do something, a servitor will not question the instructions you gave it and will follow them to the very end.

Think very carefully about servitors that can write and/or modify memories, possess (type of co-fronting), switch, modify thoughts of other members of the system (group of beings living in the same body), are formless, don't have a kill switch, etc. Safe servitors can certainly be made with these abilities or attributes, but one does have to be more careful when making such servitors because there is the potential for damage.

I say this from experience, being that all of the most advanced servitors I ever worked on were unhealthy, harmful, or outright dangerous. I am giving this warning as a fool who could have used the warning myself. They had no kill switches and were all formless, making them very hard to stop. The one that did the most damage took two whole weeks to stop, and in its 1.5 months of operation, it had scrambled up my memory pretty badly (that was part of its functionality, actually, which was really foolish), caused considerable emotional confusion, etc. I only just recently figured out how to terminate my emotion dampeners I made 10 years ago. I lost 10 years of having my full emotional capacity due to my stupidity long ago. Thankfully, I never completed the most dangerous servitor idea I ever had. I can have dark thoughts, so I was afraid that I was a dangerous person and began working on a servitor that would, among other preventions, take control of the body and commit bodily suicide if my thoughts got too dark. Rather than actually working on my dark thoughts and realizing that thoughts do not imply action, I tried to make a servitor that could actually KILL me. I go into a little more detail about my dangerous servitors in this post.

Now, most servitors that people make are safe. I am the exception rather than the rule. So be careful, but remember there is no need to be paranoid.


Coming Full Circle

Now you have the long answer to the often given short answer "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate." of how to make a servitor. The world of servitors is very large, with many types of servitors not yet attempted

Tri = {V, O, G}, Hail, A., E., Se., and S.
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2015, 06:58 AM by FallFamily.)
02-13-2015, 06:41 AM
Find Reply
Sands Offline
And Roswell
Registered

Posts: 2,092
Threads: 10
Joined: Jun 2012
#15
 
Default  RE: Servitor Creation Guide
I probably shouldn't write stuff when I'm tired, but you just gotta do it when you want to do it, you know? Sorry for any derps. I already mentioned that I liked this one more and if it misses something that we requested you add, I think I missed that. Though that might be a good sign because if it feels like it isn't needed, your text probably says what you want it to say well enough without. But hey, I'll probably take another look at this later.

I'd like to tell to you personally that the good old "just do it" method might be a hard one if you let yourself to limit you, but it seems to be the basic principle of any mental thing we do. Might need training wheels to get to it and sometimes we need to stumble through the darkness to understand what it means, but once you do get it, you can do it! Assuming that you don't have some mental disorder that makes it impossible, but I think I'm probably sane and you're also probably sane. You have said that people in your head have limitations, but I think that their biggest limitation is themselves. Like fear, you can overcome it or let it control you. Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean it never will. None of you is somehow abnormally weak: you can do it if you just do it. Don't let THE MAN bring you down, mate. We're not unique special snowflakes, but it's just a good thing here. I'm pretty sure that if I can do it, so can you. I'm not special.


Now that we got the personal stuff out of the way, let's get to the guide.

Quote:As has been said, "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate into aspects one may attribute to a tulpa like a personality, sense of self, etc."

I would probably add to the part where you say that a servitor is made with more puppeting: not every servitor will be made with more puppeting and some tuppers are made with nothing but puppeting. It seems to imply that all servitors are made with puppeting and that tuppers made with a lot of puppeting are servitors.

Quote:wonderlands (called paracosms, inner worlds, headspaces in other communities)

Paracosm used to mean a wonderland is slightly off and only really seems to happen in the weirder parts of these communities/used by the poor saps who don't know what it means because they parrot what others say. A paracosm is a large, detailed conworld, or a constructed world, where the detail tends to mean it has to have stuff like history, culture, flora, fauna, countries and maybe even languages. Like the good old example Middle Earth. While a person might visit their conworld in their head (in which case it would be a wonderland/any other term to describe a mental landscape), it does not have to be such to be called a paracosm and not everyone creates conworlds by mentally visiting them – and if it isn't visited, then it's not a wonderland. It's not a synonym.

Of course, I guess if another big community really calls them that then maybe you have no chance to not add it as it's a list of stuff people call it. But I'm not one to enjoy too many redefinitions. But hell, if it was up to me, it would be the last item on the list started with "and sometimes even a...". Just to hopefully kill the word out. Because I like conworld communities and they should be allowed to have their own words, too...

Quote: On average, the longer you have been plural, had wonderland/s (also called headspaces and inner worlds), and/or been making thoughtforms

I had to stop for a moment when it told me the longer you have been a plural because that's really a term we don't use here? If there's one place I suggest where you have different versions for different communities, it's this line right here. The longer you have had tulpas is probably what you want to use here as the first thing rather than having thoughtforms at the end as a kind of an afterthought.

Quote:The brute force method

Are there other brute force methods? Is this the only one, because it's the method? I feel like maybe saying this is one way to brute force it/your way could be useful. After all, if a person comes up with their own method then hey, if it works for them then it works for them, right? I think you are saying that it's your method but I don't think it's as obvious as it could be? You'd be surprised how often people get stuck because they got the impression they can only do something one way. We wouldn't be so paranoid about it if we didn't see it happen. You have some great stuff about how to do things differently later on, though!

Quote:[Just Make It Method] Step 2. Just make the servitor.

The rest of the titles capitalize all the words, this one should too. And it probably shouldn't end in a period, unless this is some stylistic choice. Pick a style and stick to it!

Quote:Adding Functions And Tasks to An Existing Servitor

Looking at how you have capitalized the rest of the titles, to should be too.

Quote:For some systems, absorption is easy, but for others, it is nearly impossible

Usage of systems isn't smart here. First of all, people who don't make tuppers/don't have any other people in their heads might make a servitor. They wouldn't be considered a system in any way, now would they? Silly to exclude them. Secondly, it implies that all the people in the same body are identical in their abilities and if one finds something easy/hard, it will be the same for all. Which hardly is the case. I'd suggest people because that is what we all are ultimately, right?

Quote:If a servitor does this, they becomes their own person

Become rather than becomes? I mean this is supposed to be a singular but it is a plural word because English is bad with gender neutral pronouns, but I think people still tend to treat it as a plural? It reads better that way usually, but you never know what Tumblr is up to. Dunno if this was intentional or an accident.


The website you link to is still down. I'd like to check the definitions once we're able to, assuming the site will come back online. If it doesn't then you're probably going to have to do this a bit differently.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)
02-14-2015, 01:39 AM
Find Reply
waffles Offline
no capital
Registered

Posts: 1,165
Threads: 23
Joined: Sep 2012
#16
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
Yeah, I approve for Guides. Just a few things.


I did a Ctrl+F litmus test after I'd finished reading your guide:

- 'expect*' appeared in that 'If They Develop Sentience...' section, which is good, and you use wording like
Quote:You need to treat the servitor as if it is separate from you, even though it isn't yet.
elsewhere which is the right idea I think. It feels to me like you could make it a little more explicit, though.

- 'learn*' did not appear anywhere. You say
Quote:With the thought processes that you developed that the servitor needs to do, start running them manually. The idea is to do it enough times that it becomes automatic.
which tastes like the right time to point out the similarities between (or the sameness of) creating a servitor and learning to do something à la unconscious competence.

The above is the kind of treatment I'd like to give; you don't have to.


(12-04-2014, 05:17 AM)hail_fall Wrote: A computer example would be WolframAlpha
Neguilla + Oxford and Dartmoth are a good example of this.

You wrote the same thing about WolframAlpha twice there. And I think the reference to those last three is kinda circular since you're basically relying on their word for them being not sentient in the first place (something I doubt somewhat myself).


Astraea's Web is back up. I haven't seen it down before for checking a few times but if it is, you might want to embed the definition.


And Sands pointed out some stuff as well. Other than that, good stuff.
02-19-2015, 12:43 PM
Find Reply
FallFamily Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 417
Threads: 8
Joined: Apr 2014
#17
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
Thank you all for the comments, suggestions, etc. once again. And again, sorry for taking so long to actually revise the guide in response. I know it is already accepted into the guides, but I feel it still has some room for improvement and good things were pointed out. Also, I have been thinking about the ethical implications more thanks to interactions with the multiple community, realized another way to stop a servitor, another path to make a servitor, etc.

Although, I am not sure whether I should put in the other way of making a servitor since it is unpredictable and dangerous as well as untested. Basically, it is causing one's own person to split into one person who is mostly you and a servitor fragment/shard. It is very easy for one to break into far more pieces than those two and rather than getting a servitor fragment/shard, one could get a full on person instead and change themselves substantially as well. Also, from my own seperations from being an integrated multiple and the splits of friends, splitting can be a traumatic experience and can go poorly.

This post is where I am replying to each of your comments and saying what I changed. If I didn't change it or changed it in a way different than suggested, I give my reasoning. We might need to do a bit of back and forth to hammer out those points. After all, my reasoning for doing things differently may not be that good.

Then, I am double posting with a copy of the guide that is marked up to show changes other than tiny spelling and grammatical changes and changes to the preface. Text that is being removed is struck out. Text that is added is colored green. Text that is rearranged to a different location in the guide is marked in blue.

The original post is going to be editted to be the new version of the guide with all the change markings removed (it will take a few minutes for me to remove them after making this post).

I should note the changes are only a minor overhaul - mostly just an expansion on a few ideas and adding a few things.

Also, I got the one inccorect link to Astraea's Web fixed.

Onto the replies to your comments.



(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote: I probably shouldn't write stuff when I'm tired, but you just gotta do it when you want to do it, you know? Sorry for any derps. I already mentioned that I liked this one more and if it misses something that we requested you add, I think I missed that. Though that might be a good sign because if it feels like it isn't needed, your text probably says what you want it to say well enough without. But hey, I'll probably take another look at this later.

Thank you for going over it again. I would like to think that that is a good sign.

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote: I'd like to tell to you personally that the good old "just do it" method might be a hard one if you let yourself to limit you, but it seems to be the basic principle of any mental thing we do. Might need training wheels to get to it and sometimes we need to stumble through the darkness to understand what it means, but once you do get it, you can do it! Assuming that you don't have some mental disorder that makes it impossible, but I think I'm probably sane and you're also probably sane. You have said that people in your head have limitations, but I think that their biggest limitation is themselves. Like fear, you can overcome it or let it control you. Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean it never will. None of you is somehow abnormally weak: you can do it if you just do it. Don't let THE MAN bring you down, mate. We're not unique special snowflakes, but it's just a good thing here. I'm pretty sure that if I can do it, so can you. I'm not special.

Self limitation is always an issue, because that limits one beyond one's own hard limits (the brain does indeed have some hard limits, but reaching those is tricky). Then there is the limits of the current wiring of one's brain. That can to some degree be changed, but takes time. There are also limits from not knowing better techniques to things. So, it is all very complicated. I did add something to the guide on this idea.

As for my system, it is hard to know what is self limitation, what is knowledge of techniques limitation, what is current wiring limitation, and what are the hard limits. But yes, we do have some major limitations. Why the original of our system, S, can't take full control of the body is a good example of one that is probably a current wiring limitation, but could easily be a techniques limitation or this all in combination with a self limitation. But then, the fact I am controlling the body right now and have for most of the last 20 years is a good counter example to the idea in this community that non-originals/non-hosts can't become the sole fronter (unknown whether I am a split or a tulpa, by the way).

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote: Now that we got the personal stuff out of the way, let's get to the guide.

Quote:As has been said, "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate into aspects one may attribute to a tulpa like a personality, sense of self, etc."

I would probably add to the part where you say that a servitor is made with more puppeting: not every servitor will be made with more puppeting and some tuppers are made with nothing but puppeting. It seems to imply that all servitors are made with puppeting and that tuppers made with a lot of puppeting are servitors.

Good point. The line has been changed to be more accurate.

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote:
Quote:wonderlands (called paracosms, inner worlds, headspaces in other communities)

Paracosm used to mean a wonderland is slightly off and only really seems to happen in the weirder parts of these communities/used by the poor saps who don't know what it means because they parrot what others say. A paracosm is a large, detailed conworld, or a constructed world, where the detail tends to mean it has to have stuff like history, culture, flora, fauna, countries and maybe even languages. Like the good old example Middle Earth. While a person might visit their conworld in their head (in which case it would be a wonderland/any other term to describe a mental landscape), it does not have to be such to be called a paracosm and not everyone creates conworlds by mentally visiting them – and if it isn't visited, then it's not a wonderland. It's not a synonym.

Of course, I guess if another big community really calls them that then maybe you have no chance to not add it as it's a list of stuff people call it. But I'm not one to enjoy too many redefinitions. But hell, if it was up to me, it would be the last item on the list started with "and sometimes even a...". Just to hopefully kill the word out. Because I like conworld communities and they should be allowed to have their own words, too...

I did not know that, but now that I think about it, I think I can remember it used the the way you describe by a few people including people in the conworld community who I know. I have struck the word from the guide.

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote:
Quote:On average, the longer you have been plural, had wonderland/s (also called headspaces and inner worlds), and/or been making thoughtforms

I had to stop for a moment when it told me the longer you have been a plural because that's really a term we don't use here? If there's one place I suggest where you have different versions for different communities, it's this line right here. The longer you have had tulpas is probably what you want to use here as the first thing rather than having thoughtforms at the end as a kind of an afterthought.

I reworded it all and rearranged it. Made the thoughtform thing first, then did the plurality since plurals who don't have tulpas generally do find it very easy to make tulpas and servitors.

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote:
Quote:The brute force method

Are there other brute force methods? Is this the only one, because it's the method? I feel like maybe saying this is one way to brute force it/your way could be useful. After all, if a person comes up with their own method then hey, if it works for them then it works for them, right? I think you are saying that it's your method but I don't think it's as obvious as it could be? You'd be surprised how often people get stuck because they got the impression they can only do something one way. We wouldn't be so paranoid about it if we didn't see it happen. You have some great stuff about how to do things differently later on, though!

There definitely should be some other methods. I didn't think about this in the wording. I am changing the "the" to "a" or otherwise making it clear there could be other ones.

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote:
Quote:[Just Make It Method] Step 2. Just make the servitor.

The rest of the titles capitalize all the words, this one should too. And it probably shouldn't end in a period, unless this is some stylistic choice. Pick a style and stick to it!

Quote:Adding Functions And Tasks to An Existing Servitor

Looking at how you have capitalized the rest of the titles, to should be too.

Fixed.

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote:
Quote:For some systems, absorption is easy, but for others, it is nearly impossible

Usage of systems isn't smart here. First of all, people who don't make tuppers/don't have any other people in their heads might make a servitor. They wouldn't be considered a system in any way, now would they? Silly to exclude them. Secondly, it implies that all the people in the same body are identical in their abilities and if one finds something easy/hard, it will be the same for all. Which hardly is the case. I'd suggest people because that is what we all are ultimately, right?

Ah, yes, I did forget about singlets (one person in one body) making servitors. Can't forget them. I changed the wording to be more inclusive. Also, good point about differing abilities of the people in the body.

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote:
Quote:If a servitor does this, they becomes their own person

Become rather than becomes? I mean this is supposed to be a singular but it is a plural word because English is bad with gender neutral pronouns, but I think people still tend to treat it as a plural? It reads better that way usually, but you never know what Tumblr is up to. Dunno if this was intentional or an accident.

It was accidental. Singular they still uses plural verbs. Just, the only place singular they uses something singular is with "themself" and "theirself." It works just like singular "you".

(02-14-2015, 01:39 AM)Sands Wrote: The website you link to is still down. I'd like to check the definitions once we're able to, assuming the site will come back online. If it doesn't then you're probably going to have to do this a bit differently.

The site is back up and one of my links did not work, but it is fixed now.


(02-19-2015, 12:43 PM)waffles Wrote: Yeah, I approve for Guides. Just a few things.


I did a Ctrl+F litmus test after I'd finished reading your guide:

- 'expect*' appeared in that 'If They Develop Sentience...' section, which is good, and you use wording like
Quote:You need to treat the servitor as if it is separate from you, even though it isn't yet.
elsewhere which is the right idea I think. It feels to me like you could make it a little more explicit, though.

Hmm, I am not sure how to do that. I will try to come up with something and edit the guide. Right now, trying to get most of the editting out the door.

(02-19-2015, 12:43 PM)waffles Wrote: - 'learn*' did not appear anywhere. You say
Quote:With the thought processes that you developed that the servitor needs to do, start running them manually. The idea is to do it enough times that it becomes automatic.
which tastes like the right time to point out the similarities between (or the sameness of) creating a servitor and learning to do something à la unconscious competence.

The above is the kind of treatment I'd like to give; you don't have to.

That makes sense actually. I have added text pointing out the similarity but used muscle memory to give a specific example. Made it a bit more concrete.

(02-19-2015, 12:43 PM)waffles Wrote:
hail_fall Wrote:A computer example would be WolframAlpha
Neguilla + Oxford and Dartmoth are a good example of this.

You wrote the same thing about WolframAlpha twice there. And I think the reference to those last three is kinda circular since you're basically relying on their word for them being not sentient in the first place (something I doubt somewhat myself).

I redid a lot in that section to make it better. Now, it works regardless of what level (or lack there of) of sentience those three have - together they exhibit a higher level of pseudo-sentience or sentience than the three individually have. As for the repitition, I decided to keep it. I don't like it that much, but there didn't seem to be a better way since it is useful for two related points.

(02-19-2015, 12:43 PM)waffles Wrote: Astraea's Web is back up. I haven't seen it down before for checking a few times but if it is, you might want to embed the definition.


And Sands pointed out some stuff as well. Other than that, good stuff.

Astraea's Web was only down due to an issue with renewing the domain name, which is now fixed for several years. Thank you for reading through the guide and providing feedback.

This is a copy of the guide that is marked up to show changes other than tiny spelling and grammatical changes and changes to the preface. Text that is being removed is struck out. Text that is added is colored green. Text that is rearranged to a different location in the guide is marked in blue.

The original post is going to be editted to be the new version of the guide with all the change markings removed (it will take a few minutes for me to remove them after making this post).



Servitor Creation Guide

by Hail Fall of the Fall Family


Preface

Much thanks to Malfael, Seven, fireparrot, GM, Falah, H and Sharky, and others for servitor discussions, answering questions, bouncing ideas off of, and/or reading over this. Also, much thanks to a few people in the multiple community who pointed out major ethical considerations.

Current version (0.95) finished on 2015-05-03. If you have read a previous version a long time ago, forget about it. It was terrible.

This guide is written primarily using the terminology of the tulpa community. Equivalent terms from other plural communities will sometimes be mentioned in parenthetical statements to make this guide understandable to a wider audience.

As has been said, "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does made so that they do not deviate into having aspects one may attribute to a tulpa like a personality, sense of self, etc." But there is more to it than that. That's the short version. This guide is the long version.


What Is A Servitor?

A servitor (sometimes called a golem in other communities and classified as a type of fragment/shard in the multiple community) is a thoughtform, just as tulpas are. There are many kinds of thoughtforms such as puppets, tulpas, servitors, daemons, egregores, NPC's, etc. and some that blur the lines between categories (e.g. tulpa-daemons as described in this image by Falah) or just don't easily classify as any of them. Thoughtforms are things, machines, people, entities, constructs, etc. that one makes inside one's mind. If we want to get real technical, wonderlands (called paracosms, inner worlds, headspaces in other communities) can be thoughtforms, but here in this guide we usually restrict the definition to individual things, machines, people, entities, and constructs that/who are animate (note, they do not need a form). To quote the glossary:

Tulpa.info Wiki Glossary Wrote:Servitor:

A tulpa-like entity with seemingly no willpower, volition or sentience of its own; a mental puppet that may seem to act independently but acts only as a servant to its creator.

In other words, a servitor is an automaton, robot, program, etc. that is made to perform one or more functions and tasks.

There is an everyday example of something that can sometimes be easy to turn into a servitor that many people already have. If you can type fast to the point where you no longer think about where the keys are at all (way beyond hunt-and-peck), you might easily be able to make a typing servitor. Or perhaps, if you merely think words and your hands automatically type them, you may already have one, or at least would have an easier time making one.

What distinguishes a tulpa and a servitor? They share a ton of traits with each other, which is evidenced by the definition. And it is easy to imagine a thoughtform that would be hard to categorize as either one. They are both autonomous, meaning that they live/operate without puppetting/parrotting, but differ in sentience, willpower, etc. It is then more accurate to think of them as opposite ends of a spectrum of autonomous thoughtforms. On the one end you have thoughtforms who are sentient and have a sense of self, a set of beliefs, try to find meaning in the world, have wants and desires, can choose their own goals, etc. We call the region on that end tulpas. On the other end you have thoughtforms which are not sentient and don't have a sense of self (note, they may still factually know what they are like WolframAlpha does if you ask it "what are you?" but that is different than sense of self), focus only on the tasks they are given and don't think of existence beyond that, essentially are the goal/s that they are given and can't choose their own, etc. We call the region on that end servitors. It is because of these traits that a servitor would be classified as a type of fragment/shard in the terminology of the multiple community. There is a lot of grey area in between the two ends of the spectrum. There isn't really a term for that region near the middle, either - maybe servi-tulpa (as neat as "tulpator" sounds, it isn't very descriptive and thus would make a bad candidate). A servi-tulpa could perhaps be described as semi-sentient.

While the servitor end of the spectrum is inherently not sentient and middle region semi-sentient, they can most certainly be complex enough to have some appearance of more sentience than they actually have without actually being sentient, which could be called pseudo-sentience. A The previously mentioned computer example would be WolframAlpha which knows what it is and can answer a variety of questions but is not actually sentient. Now, a group of servitors and/or servi-tulpas functioning together can, as a group, acquire a higher level of sentience and/or more convincing pseudo-sentience. Neguilla + Oxford and Dartmoth are a good example of this. Their combination exhibits more sentience and/or pseudo-sentience than they do individually.

Now, can a group of servitors functioning together achieve semi-sentience or full sentience while all individually remaining completely non-sentient servitors? That is a question worth further exploration. It is certainly possible for a large collection of non-sentient units to, when put together, make a sentient collection. Individual neurons, which are not sentient, can make a human brain that is sentient. Whether the same can be done with servitors is an open question.

Fundamentally, though, sentience itself is a hard to define concept as the debates here on tulpa.info forum have shown. Philosphers and scientists have had similarly difficult times. I would suggest you read around if you are interested in the topic.


Overview

In its simplest incarnation, a servitor is a thought repeater. It repeats a pattern of thoughts that are given to it to do. As an example, a timer servitor could do the thought process "estimate time elapsed from internal time sense until it reaches the value given to me, and then send alarm sound to whoever is controlling the body."

The way a servitor can be made depends to what extent you can make a thoughtform that is autonomous and just lives/works (called the "Just Make It Method" method here). If you can't do that, you have to do a brute force method. Both will be explained here. On average, the longer you have been plural or other inhabitants of your brain have been making thoughtforms, you have not been the only inhabitant of your brain (means you are plural), and/or you have had wonderland/s (also called headspaces and inner worlds) and/or been making thoughtforms; the less likely you will need to resort to the a brute force method or if you do, the less brute force you will need to do. Most people are able to do the "Just Make It Method" or a combination of both methods eventually, so do try it first and try it again periodically rather than concluding that you cannot do it right off the bat. There is one step in common to all methods, which is deciding the servitor's Function/Task/Program. For the a non-brute-force method, after that you just make it (will be explained more). The brute force method described here (note, there are other methods) has two additional steps. When doing the this brute force method, all three steps have the following equivalences to the process of making a tulpa:

  1. Decide Servitor's Function/Task/Program. This is equivalent to the process of deciding a tulpa's initial personality and traits before making the tulpa.
  2. Puppet/Run Servitor Manually. This is equivalent to the early forcing of a tulpa and puppetting/parroting them to help them learn things.
  3. Make Servitor Run Without Puppetting. This is equivalent to the stage in making a tulpa where they can actually act and do things without being puppetted/parroted and the gradual growing of autonomy.


Forms

A servitor does not innately have to have a form. That said, many kinds of servitors do need a form in order for them to carry out their function (a clock servitor could, in most implementations, be a good example). More importantly, even for a servitor that does not require a form for its function, having a form can offer very powerful symbolism to help in their creation process and also make it easier to stop/terminate the servitor. In the brute force method of this guide, steps 2 and especially 3 can become a lot easier to do with the symbolism that a form gives. By giving it a form, you start to consider it more separate and independent from yourself, thereby accelerating its development to operating on its own without puppetting. A form is often necessary when making a servitor by the a non-brute force method.


[All Methods] Step 1. Decide Servitor's Function/Task/Program

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is the equivalent of deciding a tulpa's initial personality, form (optional), and traits.

In some ways, it goes without saying, you need to first figure out what functions and/or tasks you want your servitor to perform. But there is a catch. A servitor can only do those things that you or other members of your system (the other people living in your body) are capable of doing, though sometimes no one needs to know how to do them yet. So, if a servitor has those limitations, why bother making them. They provide automation. If the tasks are not fun things to do, a servitor will not complain where as a sentient being would. Also, one can make a servitor that does several things simultaneously that no one in the system is capable of doing simultaneously, even though those things can be done individually. Note, that in this case, the servitor generally has to be made with more limited functionality and then have more functionality added later.

Servitors can possess and eclipse (forms of cofronting/corunning), switch, be imposed (called projection in other communities), be vocal, communicate in thoughts, type, drive, dig through memory, help remember things, act as security software inside, and many many more things.

Then, you need to actually work out how to do these functions. If you are not doing the brute force method in this guide, you need to figure out how the servitor will do these things. If you are using the brute force method Then, you need to figure out how you would do those functions and tasks manually yourself and develop the thought process required to do that. Remember, at its simplest, a servitor is a thought repeater.

One possible idea for making a servitor to follow certain instructions and be able to modify those instructions is to make a servitor that uses the symbolism of computer programming languages as is discussed in glitchthe3rd's Servitor Workshop It is not necessary, and may not even be desired, but some people have had success with it, so it is worth noting. The code is essentially thought processes for the servitor to do. Again, a servitor is a thought repeater.

Some examples of possible servitors are given below. This list is just the tip of the iceberg of what has been tried and what is possible.
  • Alarm clock
  • Typing servitor
  • Memory display so more than one person inside can look at a memory together
  • Wonderland error corrector (some people's wonderlands get errors in them that need correction)
  • Autopilot for some task or another with the body (see Words of Warning because one needs to be careful here)
  • Speech servitor (like the typing servitor but for speech so people inside wonderland can talk without possessing the voice or switching)
  • Heads Up Displays (HUD)
  • Specific memory rememberer


Ethical And Moral Considerations

Given that servitors and tulpas exist on a spectrum, certain ethical and moral issues come up. It is wrong to make force another person (includes tulpas) do work for you merely because you don't want to do it. But it isn't wrong to make your computer do work for you (say, a calculation) that you don't want to do. A thoughtform that is all the way at the end of the servitor end of the spectrum is like the computer. But, as one gets away from that end of the spectrum closer and closer to the tulpa end, ethical and moral questions arise with making the thoughtform to do some task or another. What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a tulpa, host, or other sentient system-mate (most people are more familiar with the less generic term headmate) to do, but not a servi-tulpa who is closer to a tulpa? What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a servi-tulpa who is closer to a tulpa, but not a servi-tulpa who is closer a servitor? What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a servi-tulpa who is closer to a servitor, but not an all the way at the end servitor? For a given task or function, where on the spectrum must they be given a choice in whether they want to do it or not? If they can't choose or make an uninfluenced choice because they are too far towards the servitor end, what tasks and functions are ok to give and which ones are not? If the thoughtform moves around on the spectrum, as discussed in the "If They Develop Sentience And Become A Tulpa", when do they need to be given a choice of whether to continue the task or function? To what level is it right or not to try to keep a servitor from sliding in the tulpa direction to prevent this conundrum?

How does this apply to groups of servitors, servi-tulpas, and/or tulpas functioning together as a group and thus have more sentience than they do individually?

There is some similarity here to the discussion of what types of medical testing are OK to do on cells, insects, fish, rats, apes, and humans.

An often given tip with servitors is to build in a kill switch to make them easier to stop. There are ethical and moral considerations here as well. For a completely non-sentient servitor, is it right to give the servitor a kill switch? For a tulpa, most people (including myself) would say it is wrong to give one. What about a servi-tulpa (I personally think it is wrong here too)? Also, servitors and servi-tulpas can move towards the tulpa end of the spectrum and become more sentient as discussed later in this guide. Given that an initially non-sentient servitor could one day become a tulpa, possibly on their own accord, is it right to build a kill switch into a servitor? I suggest reading about the topic of "tulpa dissipation" in the tulpamancy community and "killing headmates" in the wider plurality community for further reading on this theme.


[Just Make It Method] Step 2. Just make the servitor.Make The Servitor

If you have the ability to just imagine up things in your wonderland, you can imagine up the servitor and see if it just starts working.

If you don't have the ability to imagine up things in your wonderland, your servitor might be such that it can just be made from component parts like you would make a computer or an alarm clock from its components. Build the servitor and see if it just starts working.

If neither of these methods work or are possible, you have to go on to the a brute force method to get them working. If they work just a bit, you might be able to tinker with them or use some of the brute force method techniques to get them working.

The idea in this method is that either your will that the servitor works is enough to get it going, or the rules of physics for your wonderland are ingrained enough that a servitor constructed from the right parts (assuming the servitor is of a type where this would even make sense) will work just like a machine in outerworld (the physical plane, place not in wonderland, sometimes called RL, etc.) would. This is why this method is more likely to work for those who have been plural for a long time, have had a wonderland for a long time, and/or have been making thoughtforms for a long time.


[Brute Force Method] Step 2. Puppet/Run Servitor Manually

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is the puppetting stage.

With the thought processes that you developed that the servitor needs to do, start running them manually. The idea is to do it enough times that it becomes automatic, much like can learn to do things by muscle memory. You will have to do all the functions and tasks the servitor is supposed to do in the sequence (or with the algorithm) that you want the servitor to do them in. If it has a form, then you need to puppet its form too. It needs to be run a lot. You need to get to the point that you can run it very reliably without errors. If you deviate the way you run it, the changes will be incorporated into the servitor. This could take a long time, feel like a lot of work because it can be, feel really silly (why am I thinking the same thing over and over to myself) much like how parroting a tulpa feels like talking to yourself. As a general rule, the more complicated the servitor, the longer this will take.

Having a form to puppet can help make it feel less like you are just thinking the same thing over and over again to yourself, and can help with achieving the next step quicker due to symbolism.


[Brute Force Method] Step 3. Make Servitor Run Without Puppetting

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is stage where it starts to operate without puppetting.

This is perhaps the hardest step, and paradoxically easy and difficult to explain. The servitor needs to start operating correctly when you turn off the puppetting, instead of stopping dead in its tracks or doing its functions and tasks incorrectly. This will be a gradual process. At first, it might stop quickly. Later, it will take a while to stop. Later, it might stop if you start thinking about something else or it will operate slowly or skip a step or something. There usually is not a sudden jump from it not being able to operate at all without puppetting to being completely autonomous and operating error free. This is just like how tulpas tend to develop sentience and independence gradually.

In the previous step, you were executing the thought processes required to do its functions and tasks. Now, those same thought processes must separate from you and run independently as opposed to stopping or malfunctioning. If the servitor has a form, it may not feel like this is what you are doing, but it essentially is this, but masked by the symbolism that the form brings in. If it is formless, you will be well aware that you are doing the thought processes and getting ever better at doing them accurately and automatically. This is exactly what has to separate from you. Those thought processes that are yours become the servitor which is then no longer you. It is in many ways akin to cell division in biology, but a very unequal division.

Now, it is possible that in doing step 2, of running it many times, it may be well on its way to separating from you naturally without you having to do anything. If it has a form, this is common and it just happens. But if it is not separating on its own or hasn't separated enough, that is when the process becomes difficult and you have to cause more separation to get it to the point where it will do the rest naturally. If you can, get good enough to run its thought processes manually well enough that you can do it while doing other activities. At that point, it is pretty close to separate and may do the rest itself.

If it still isn't separate and able to run on its own, you are going to have to push. You need to treat the servitor as if it is separate from you, even though it isn't yet. This is exactly why having a form can help so much. Since it has a form, it feels separate to you and it is easier to treat that way. This helps the same way as the " treat a tulpa as sentient at the start" tip for making a tulpa does, though in the case of a tulpa it is more than just helpful - it is polite and respects them as people as they steadily fill those shoes without treating them as less than they are (better to treat them as more than less). If it was a formless servitor, giving it a form at this point could help. If it has a form already or you don't want to give it a form (or a form would hurt its functionality), you will have to resort to something else or just keep running it manually for a long time and let it happen automatically. Perhaps, build a mental wall between it and yourself. Never tried it, but it seems like it might work.

If you still can't get it to separate and run without puppetting, another thing you can do is make the servitor simpler by reducing its functionality and the tasks it performs. What you took away can be added back later.

Note that with formless servitors, after separation, you may have thought bleed, where you hear the thought processes of the servitor as it runs. It is running on its own, but you hear its thought processes. Because you separated it from yourself, it is reasonable that thought bleed could happen. It may fade with time, or you will have to do something to insulate the servitor from yourself.


Adding Functions And Tasks to An Existing Servitor

While still letting it just run with its existing functions and tasks, you do one of the servitor methods for the new functions and tasks you want the servitor to perform. The servitor is already operating and separate from you, so it should be easier generally to incorporate them into the servitor than make a servitor in the first place with those same exact functions and tasks. If you made the servitor by the a brute force method, it is possible that you might now be able to use the "Just Make It Method" to augment it.


Stopping/Terminating A Servitor

There are several ways to stop a servitor. First, it/they may be sentient enough to be reasoned with and convinced to stop. The further the thoughtform is from the servitor end of the spectrum, the more likely this is doable. Just as the first approach to dealing with a tulpa or host one has problems with is to talk to them and try to reason with them, try to reason with the servitor or servi-tulpa first. You could also push it further down the spectrum towards being a tulpa as described in the next section to make this easier. If these methods don't work, more forcible methods are necessary. In the spirt of the "Just Make It Method" of making a servitor, the servitor might simply stop if you tell it to stop, try to imagine it stopping, etc. Given that you now have more experience with thoughtforms than you did when you made it, this will often work even if you had to make the servitor by the a brute force method. After that, another method would be to take advantage of any stop condition in its programming if it has one and it still works (basically an expansion on the method of telling it to stop). If these don't work or aren't possible, the next thing to try is some form of symbolism. If you gave it one, you could activate/trigger a kill switch, which is a form of symbolism. If it does not have a kill switch but has a form, you can try what you would do to stop a physical machine (break, smash, etc.) or use any other abilities you can do in wonderland (e.g. disintegrate, remove from existence, etc.). Now, if it doesn't have a form or it is effectively immortal (you vaporize it and it rebuilds itself and resumes its function), it is much harder to destroy. You might try giving it a form and then destroy it.

In the unlikely event that none of the previous methods worked, one very reliable way to stop and terminate a servitor, which works regardless of whether it has a form or not, is to absorb it. That is basically merging with it, but since you have sentience and it does not, it is highly asymmetric making it more an absorption. Merging/absorption generally requires symbolism to be even remotely easy to accomplish. A simple form is to simply pull the servitor's form into your own form/wonderland body. If it doesn't have a form, you could try to pull its essence (whatever that is) out of nowhere and coalesce it in your wonderland and then pull that into your form. The stronger and more advanced the servitor, the harder it will be to absorb. Also, for a very strong servitor, who you are after the absorption might change a bit. I used to be an integrated multiple, meaning that I was merged with my system-mate, and while I was dominant, our combination was notably different than me. With a servitor, the change should be much much smaller.

If it does not have a kill switch or a physical form that can be destroyed without it getting back up and resuming what it was doing, you could be in real trouble if you need to stop or destroy the servitor. For some systems people, absorption is easy, but for others, it is nearly impossible. Note that different people living in the same body may have differing abilities to absorb a servitor, so if you have system-mates but you can't absorb the servitor, they might be able to. If you want more information on this topic, (I would suggest you read about it in the multiple community where it is called integration, fusion, and merging depending where).


If They Develop Sentience And Become A Tulpa


What does a servitor become if it does gain sentience? They become a tulpa. Basically, they slide along the spectrum from servitor to tulpa. If a servitor does this, they become their own person, and should be treated as such from that point on, as you would any other sentient being.

Some people have reported that the servitors they make can gain sentience on their own and become tulpas. Others have only had this happen with very advanced servitors. Others haven't had it happen even with very advanced servitors. It varies considerably, and also depends on your expectation to some extent. If you expect your servitors to gain sentience on their own, they are considerably more likely to do so. If you don't expect them to do so, they might still but are less likely, or might hide it. You shouldn't presume that they will become sentient tulpas, or that they would not.

Time for a bit of a philosophical interlude. There is no reason to think there is a brain constraint keeping servitors from gaining sentience. So, an open question is what predispositions servitors might have towards becoming tulpas. One could imagine that if a servitor's function and/or efficiency would be improved by moving along the spectrum towards tulpa, they might. Or they might not. Is it like the android or robot in futuristic movies who does tasks over and over again without emotions and steadily adapts to their situation till they want to find meaning in their life, explore themselves, and grow? Or is it it like that in only some cases? And even if there is a predisposition towards becoming sentient, the timescale could be so long as to be irrelevant.

As an anecdote, I have had none of my servitors, even the advanced ones that were really hard to destroy, break free of their programming, gain sentience, and become tulpas.

Of course, one can deliberately turn servitors into tulpas or otherwise move them towards the tulpa end of the spectrum. This can be done by doing personality forcing on the servitor until they become a tulpa or gradually pushing a servitor beyond its functionality and force them to grow, much like how you get a tulpa to grow beyond what they were originally assigned to be. Watchdog 1 gave a good description of the latter.


Words of Warning

Servitors can be healthy compliments to your life, conveniences, curiosities, or dangerous. And when I say dangerous, they can be really dangerous. They are automatons that blindly follow their functions and tasks, regardless of the consequences and whether it is wise to do so or not. Unlike asking another sentient being to do something, a servitor will not question the instructions you gave it and will follow them to the very end.

Think very carefully about servitors that can write and/or modify memories, possess (type of co-fronting), switch, modify thoughts of other members of the system (group of beings living in the same body), are formless, don't have a kill switch, etc. Safe servitors can certainly be made with these abilities or attributes, but one does have to be more careful when making such servitors because there is the potential for damage.

I say this from experience, being that all of the most advanced servitors I ever worked on were unhealthy, harmful, or outright dangerous. I am giving this warning as a fool who could have used the warning myself. They had no kill switches and were all formless, making them very hard to stop. The one that did the most damage took two whole weeks to stop, and in its 1.5 months of operation, it had scrambled up my memory pretty badly (that was part of its functionality, actually, which was really foolish), caused considerable emotional confusion, etc. I only just recently figured out how to terminate my emotion dampeners I made 10 years ago. I lost 10 years of having my full emotional capacity due to my stupidity long ago. Thankfully, I never completed the most dangerous servitor idea I ever had. I can have dark thoughts, so I was afraid that I was a dangerous person and began working on a servitor that would, among other preventions, take control of the body and commit bodily suicide if my thoughts got too dark. Rather than actually working on my dark thoughts and realizing that thoughts do not imply action, I tried to make a servitor that could actually KILL me. I go into a little more detail about my dangerous servitors in this post.

There is also the possibility of excessive escapism in the case of servitors that can control the body. Is it healthy to have all of life's unpleasant tasks handled by servitors?

Now, most servitors that people make are safe. I am the exception rather than the rule. So be careful, but remember there is no need to be paranoid.


Coming Full Circle

Now you have the long answer to the often given short answer "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate." of how to make a servitor. The world of servitors is very large, with many types of servitors not yet attempted. Be creative, be safe, explore new ground, and have fun.


References

  1. Tulpa.info Wiki. Official Glossary. Tulpa.info.
  2. Astraea System. Glossary. Astraea's Web. Multiplicity >> Glossary.
  3. Okibi. The Daemon Page.
  4. Falah. States of the Unconscious.
  5. Kevin. Re: Possession: Different Methods?. Tulpa.info Forum. Tulpas >> Questions and Answers.
  6. Wolfram Alpha LLC. Wolfram|Alpha.
  7. Neguilla. Re: If you have a servitor, what do you use (pronoun) for?. Reddit. /r/Tulpas.
  8. glitchthe3rd. glitchthe3rd's Servitor Workshop. Tulpa.info Forum. Guides >> Submissions.
  9. Watchdog 1. Re: Tulpas Intentionally made from servitors. Tulpa.info Forum. Tulpas >> General Discussion.
  10. Hail Fall. Re: Goodbye Koomer and Oguigi. Tulpa.info Forum. Community >> Lounge.

Tri = {V, O, G}, Hail, A., E., Se., and S.
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2015, 02:02 AM by FallFamily.)
05-04-2015, 12:50 AM
Find Reply
mesurup Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2012
#18
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
I haven't visited this place in ages but I found this guide really hard to read due to the constant references to multiples.

Is this a thing now? To talk about what Tumblr roleplayers and new agers do, as if it is real?
12-24-2015, 08:12 AM
Find Reply
FallFamily Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 417
Threads: 8
Joined: Apr 2014
#19
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
(12-24-2015, 08:12 AM)mesurup Wrote: I haven't visited this place in ages but I found this guide really hard to read due to the constant references to multiples.

[Hail] When you say hard to read, do you mean it was distracting, the additional terms were confusing, or something else.


(12-24-2015, 08:12 AM)mesurup Wrote: Is this a thing now? To talk about what Tumblr roleplayers and new agers do, as if it is real?

The multiple community existed way before Tumblr did and was in fact founded in the 90's by a number of DID and non-DID systems who had not so great relationships with the medical systems of the 80's and 90's (do note that the medical system has advanced considerably since then). The community has evolved and grown, other plural communities have popped into existence, different communities run into each other and various things happen (confrontation due to real or accused problematic things, integration, acknowledged co-existence, etc.), and so on. I've meet a number of people from the multiple community, both people who are also part of the tulpamancy community and some who are not, in person and I can definitely say that it is real and not a new ager thing. That all said, are there some roleplayers on Tumblr, yes, there are quite a few. Are there some new agers, I know that some exist (can't think of any offhand though). But, plenty of real multiples exist. And if you go out into the multiple community, people will talk all day about the community on Tumblr about the good, the bad, etc. including the concerns you have right now.

A good read on the history and age of the multiple community is If you’re claiming that ‘HEADMATES ARE A TUMBLR THING’, you’re (still) wrong. by Kerry of the Plures System.

Now, why did I make a lot of references to the multiple community? I am myself multiple, but have also made servitors and tulpas later in life (in case you are wondering, I am not the original here but she and I have both made servitors and tulpas here). I have spent a decent amount of time in the multiple community and learned a lot. The people I meet there and the things I saw put a lot of my own personal experienced with servitors into context and allowed me to understand what I was doing and the why and how it worked. I refer to material from the multiple community where I think it could be useful to have and point people towards learning more things. Another big part of it is giving credit where credit is due. Also, this is not the only community that this guide was posted in and I wanted it to be accessible to people in other plural communities by offering the equivalents in terminology between different communities.

Also, if I ever add shard seeding and shard feeding methods to this guide at any point, then it could be very hard to understand without pointing to additional information from the multiple community. I don't know if I ever will put that in here, though, due to the difficulties and the risks.

Tri = {V, O, G}, Hail, A., E., Se., and S.
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.
(This post was last modified: 12-25-2015, 12:10 AM by FallFamily.)
12-25-2015, 12:08 AM
Find Reply
Proxincz Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 3
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
#20
 
RE: Servitor Creation Guide
Hello community. I'm trying to create a server. I wrote his purpose on an A4 paper, along with the tasks, the appearance of my server, mantra, name and symbol. I can not make a statue for him. So, can I keep it on paper? And, do I have to do everything the server should do before, for him to learn or something?

Thanks in advance.
12-07-2016, 04:01 PM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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