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

My thoughts on why not every stray thought is a tulpa.
#1
Not every strong character will become a tulpa. Not every rp character either. You have to make the distinction between entertaining an rp character as a separate entity in your mind or your avatar, a shell, that you inhabit to connect with these worlds on your own.

I used to do some free form RP with some people online. My character SARA was pretty thought out for sentient AI. But I made the distinction that she was just an avatar that let me interact with the other characters in that setting. I also write. When I was younger, to really understand some of my characters I would have conversations with them. Some of the stronger ones were really amplifications of aspects of my own personality.

I guess what I'm saying is that strong characters mostly are aspects of your own multifaceted personality, which is why they seem so strong. If you realize this, and don't entertain the idea that they are an entity separate from you, then they won't change. Not every stray thought will become a tulpa, not every strong character, not every imagined entity you think up errantly will become a tulpa.

I think with most, when they see these people with 'near-instant' tulpas they don't realize how much of the work is unconscious (and I do mean unconscious, not subconscious. Two different things). Like muscle memory. At first a person must go through all the steps of learning to operate a bike, the balance, the feel of the pedals, how to brake. These things become automatic over time. Just the same way that with the first tulpa, you have more conscious effort, learning how to make a distinct mindvoice and form, how to not parrot their actions. It beomes automatic, they don't have to think about how to achieve each step in the process, they remember.

Lets perform a thought experiment. In my mind right now I have the thought of a six foot two green-colored tenticle monster. He actually looks pretty friendly. Lets say, he doesn't like eggs (haha, he's shaking his head and making a disgusted face.) and he loves chocolate, like Dove chocolate. Is this near-entity a tulpa? No, he could be with the right ammount of independence and work. Is he a servitor (in the occulture view of Servitors)? Also no, he's just something I conjured up for the sake of a thought experiment. He has no thoughts, no emotions of his own, he is just a character. He has as much substance as smoke. Poof! He's gone.

What separates every stray thought and character that enters our minds from an actual tulpa is really the effort we put into making them as real as possible to every sense our mind can conjure. While we have role playing characters that we do that with, the dividing line comes when we allow them their own independence beyond our own realms of imagination.
“Life was a wheel, its only job was to turn, and it always came back to where it started.” - Stephen King

“No great thing is created suddenly.” -Stephen King
Reply

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

#2
People reading this might think that I am an idiot but you haven't exactly defined what you mean when you say the word "tulpa?" What exactly do you consider a tulpa?
Reply
#3
Yeah, it's interesting to see people provide their presumptions on the ontology of tulpas, i.e., what they feel validates the existence of a tulpa and distinguishes them from any other thought form with a different label (e.g. dream characters, dream guides). You're not an idiot dude, it's a struggle I'm sure everyone is trying to find an answer to.
Reply
#4
(06-05-2014, 12:38 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: Yeah, it's interesting to see people provide their presumptions on the ontology of tulpas, i.e., what they feel validates the existence of a tulpa and distinguishes them from any other thought form with a different label (e.g. dream characters, dream guides). You're not an idiot dude, it's a struggle I'm sure everyone is trying to find an answer to.

Oh linkzelda, I wasn't getting that deep. I just want chaoticpix to clarify what she thinks a tulpa is. Otherwise her thoughts on tulpas aren't exactly clear.
Reply
#5
I used to see tulpas as anyting imposed -- actually, if you go by the original Tibetan definition, a tulpa should be visible to everyone.

But yeah, there are a lot of different levels. Fictional characters can become sentient, but I still feel that there's a difference between a fictional character and what this community calls a tulpa. And then there's also a difference between both of them and your hypothetical monster there. Perhaps some form of classification system is in order.
Reply
#6
In my thought experiment that monster it's just a thought. Nothing more nothing less. Would you say that's a tulpa? I wouldn't. It's just a passing thought. If I were to entertain that passing thought for weeks it would be more than that.

What do I think they are? Obviously more than just stray thoughts that stick around. More than just role playing characters gone haywire. I don't quite know what they are (do you?) except only something I can understand from an experiential basis.

But this is really more in response to the multitude of people I see on here, and reddit and IRC that worry and claim that every stray passing thought they have is a tulpa or might be one.
“Life was a wheel, its only job was to turn, and it always came back to where it started.” - Stephen King

“No great thing is created suddenly.” -Stephen King
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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