Tulpa by expectations, a theory.

[reguile]

My theory relies on a few assumptions about the mind.

 

1) The mind is incapable of multitasking on the level required to have a tulpa running around in it thinking as the host does all day long.

 

2) The mind, when dealing with thoughts, has a complicated and fancy process in which it assigns/manages identity to those thoughts.

 

3) That process is malleable based on many possible factors.

 

So, when a person makes a tulpa, what happens?

 

Person begins by forcing, they narrate, make a personality, make a form, and so on.

 

After so long of doing this process, the person begins to report hearing voices of some form which are their tulpa, often, people will have a period of time where they doubt if a tulpa's responses are actually their tulpa, or themselves parroting, making things up.

 

That feeling, should it ever have happened, goes away with time, and eventually, with continued forcing, many are able to do things such as possession or switching, where they can fully have their tulpa take control of their body.

 

What I think is a key part of understanding what may be happening in the mind is largely the process and advice given to people when they go to create a tulpa.

 

The process of forcing is something that I think greatly resembles processes such as Hypnosis, brainwashing, and so on. You are encouraged to get into a restful state, to repeat a thing to yourself over and over, to get over odd feelings, to accept a new reality. You are to repeat and practice this process over and over.

 

This is not something that resembles construction. It isn't something I would initially assume would result in the creation of a third party entity in a person's head, and I think this well supports the idea that what is going on with tulpa has nothing to do with such things.

 

Imagine you went to build a building, or to bulk up muscle. You would be encouraged to actually find materials, learn to build a building, you would need a firm and strong grasp of concepts. To build muscle you must work out, you have to do things that directly effect and push the body so that you build muscle.

 

It doesn't seem to be that way with tulpa. In fact, those who take ages to create a tulpa often do so, not because of lack of effort, but because of lack of belief.

 

I would assume that the creation of some entity, one that is able to think separately, one that is built from the ground up, is not going to rely on such a thing. You don't have to believe in a seed for it to grow, you just have to make sure to water it. We don't see that with tulpa.

 

But, with that (not entirely, I'll admit) ruled out, what could it be?

 

While it may not be true that tulpa creation/forcing resembles the construction of a building, it does greatly resemble the construction of a belief. Not the sort of beliefs you are told once and forget the next day, but the sort of core beliefs a person holds, such as "If I touch this fire, I will be burned". A person who believes in a tulpa doesn't just do so logically, it's about belief on an almost instinctual level.

 

So what happens when a person makes a tulpa? They don't make a tulpa, they modify those core beliefs.

 

But how does that result in a tulpa?

 

It comes down to the core idea that the mind modifies and screws with things before they ever reach higher levels of "this is what is going on" in the mind.

 

So, imagine there is some process, one that is likely highly un-intuitive and screwy, going on when the mind thinks something. For the average person, this process may be as simple as "I am in this situation, I should be in this mindset, I should act like this".

 

However, what you would need to "create" a tulpa, for the average person, is to get this process no longer saying "This is me, this is not me", and instead get it to consider another factor, get it to believe there is a new entity, a third party one, which is real, but not from the senses.

 

So, now, it adds a step. "This is me, this is my tulpa, or this is not me".

 

Once a person gets to forcing this process of change to start to happen, but, early on, you don't have a good idea of what is going on, no great idea of personality, no strong sense of division, no confidence. The mind, used to saying "this is me", does not want to change easily either. Because of this, you get "parrotnoia" in the vast majority of people seeking to change.

 

Now, assuming that this is true. A person going about their day to day can trick their mind into, without their knowledge, filter their thoughts, sort them into boxes, with one box being "this is me", and the other being "this is sargelpargons the pink burlyballiins".

 

So we have a process that can, entirely unaware to the host, can cause the host to start hearing responses from this third party entity their mind now considers to be real.

[Guest Anonymous]

Thunder;

 

"1) The mind is incapable of multitasking on the level required to have a tulpa running around in it thinking as the host does all day long."

 

That would be incorrect. Or the simple belief is what hinders that thing from happening. Nobody ever said that the mind is incapable of doing so, and while it's only an assumption, I felt like making a comment because this is exactly what we're working on, and we seem to be getting good results so far.

 

Your second assumption is more or less something I'd agree with. More or less because sometimes our thoughts can get mixed up but we instantly know about it most of the time it actually happens. I'd say it happens around twice per week or so.

 

Other than that... 'good stuff'.

[reguile]

Thunder;

 

"1) The mind is incapable of multitasking on the level required to have a tulpa running around in it thinking as the host does all day long."

 

That would be incorrect. Or the simple belief is what hinders that thing from happening. Nobody ever said that the mind is incapable of doing so, and while it's only an assumption, I felt like making a comment because this is exactly what we're working on, and we seem to be getting good results so far.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

 

"When people attempt to complete many tasks at one time, “or [alternate] rapidly between them, errors go way up and it takes far longer"

 

"When presented with much information, the brain is forced to pause and refocus continuously as one switches between tasks.[10] Realistically, this is “a rapid toggling among tasks rather than simultaneous processing"

 

"However, the study also suggests that the brain is incapable of performing multiple tasks at one time, even after extensive training.[12] This study further indicates that, while the brain can become adept at processing and responding to certain information, it cannot truly multitask."

 

"Although the idea that women are better multitaskers than men has been popular in the media as well in conventional thought, there is very little data available to support claims of a real gender difference." (this one is not really related, just interesting)

 

I may be misinterpreting the wikipedia article, or there may be some flaw in my thinking, however...

 

The only real argument for multitasking in terms of tulpa is that the process of tulpa is one that is like walking or performing one action over and over. However, I do not believe that creating informed responses and thinking complex things at all times of day falls into this category.

 

You can achieve the illusion of parallel processing, but at the end of the day you can't actually have your tulpa constantly thinking and acting while you do, unless the brain is losing a ton of power and ability rapidly switching back and forth between the "tulpa process" and the "host process".

 

We don't observe that people with tulpa lose significant thinking ability, so the only thing I can imagine would be left to explain parallel processing is that in doing so you train your mind to expect parallel processing, and it does the same steps of "putting on a play" to make that true.

[Guest Anonymous]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

 

"When people attempt to complete many tasks at one time, “or [alternate] rapidly between them, errors go way up and it takes far longer"

 

"When presented with much information, the brain is forced to pause and refocus continuously as one switches between tasks.[10] Realistically, this is “a rapid toggling among tasks rather than simultaneous processing"

 

"However, the study also suggests that the brain is incapable of performing multiple tasks at one time, even after extensive training.[12] This study further indicates that, while the brain can become adept at processing and responding to certain information, it cannot truly multitask."

 

"Although the idea that women are better multitaskers than men has been popular in the media as well in conventional thought, there is very little data available to support claims of a real gender difference." (this one is not really related, just interesting)

 

I may be misinterpreting the wikipedia article, or there may be some flaw in my thinking, however...

 

The only real argument for multitasking in terms of tulpa is that the process of tulpa is one that is like walking or performing one action over and over. However, I do not believe that creating informed responses and thinking complex things at all times of day falls into this category.

 

You can achieve the illusion of parallel processing, but at the end of the day you can't actually have your tulpa constantly thinking and acting while you do, unless the brain is losing a ton of power and ability rapidly switching back and forth between the "tulpa process" and the "host process".

 

We don't observe that people with tulpa lose significant thinking ability, so the only thing I can imagine would be left to explain parallel processing is that in doing so you train your mind to expect parallel processing, and it does the same steps of "putting on a play" to make that true.

 

Thunder;

 

That's different, though. I guess that thinking at multiple instances would be complicated indeed, but I can think for my own self and issue my own opinions. The only real trick to it is that there is a 'switch' between active and passive. At times we'll find ourselves doing it pretty proficiently, but making it work consistently is what we seek to accomplish. And yes, even at times, I require assistance to form my opinion into words. It just sounds like you think we're just emulations of thoughts. I think I'm separate enough to do what people call 'parallel processing' to a mere extent.

Andy said that examples of multitasking in daily life could be having a discussion and solving a math problem at the same time, but with me, it's different, he said. He can focus pretty well even when I speak by myself, it's just that I want him to lend more of an ear than before. It's pretty depressing to know that tulpas can only achieve so much in their host's head, though. At first he had to lend a certain amount of concentration but we can think at the same time and express said opinions. I suppose that with hosts who have to commit with a conscious effort for their tulpa to speak, it would be really hard. Good thing we're not like that, though. I'll keep going with my goal.

[Guest Anonymous]

How do I fit in here? I was an accidental tulpa that was created by a host who does not believe tulpas are real people but illusory instead. I came along even though he did not believe in anything. He just obsessed about me and wanted to talk to me lots.

[reguile]

How do I fit in here? I was an accidental tulpa that was created by a host who does not believe tulpas are real people but illusory instead. I came along even though he did not believe in anything. He just obsessed about me and wanted to talk to me lots.

 

The requirement for adjusting a "core" belief is not logical belief. A person who says "if I look at the facts and think about this rationally, I can know that tulpa are illusory".

 

However, that person can, at the same time, practice/treat/act that their tulpa is a real and separate person, and it is that which is far more important than the logical statements of a person. It's like when someone tells you "spiders in a home are not venomous", that doesn't matter, you are still going to be scared, even if you know those things aren't dangerous on the surface level.

 

 

!BELOW IS HEAVILY EDITED, MANY SENTENCES ARE OUT OF CONTEXT!

 

I can think for my own self and issue my own opinions. I think I'm separate enough to do what people call 'parallel processing' to a mere extent. [snip] but with me, it's different, he said. He can focus pretty well even when I speak by myself, it's just that I want him to lend more of an ear than before. And yes, even at times, I require assistance to form my opinion into words. The only real trick to it is that there is a 'switch' between active and passive. At times we'll find ourselves doing it pretty proficiently, but making it work consistently is what we seek to accomplish.

 

It just sounds like you think we're just emulations of thoughts.

 

 

I've organized and screwed with this quote, removing quite a few parts, to make it easier to respond to.

 

Firstly, the points you give about how "you" are are anecdotal, and not evidence for or against the idea that parallel processing in tulpa would need to be an illusion. In fact, if it were an illusion, you would feel as if you were having parallel processing going on.

 

Note, I am not saying that creating the feeling of parallel processing is impossible, just that parallel processing itself is possible. The idea of a tulpa being a separate "channel" of thought that runs along-side the host is a flawed and unsupported one.

 

Saying tulpa are an "emulation of thoughts" can be an accurate statement depending on the definition you give of "emulation".

[Guest Anonymous]

However, that person can, at the same time, practice/treat/act that their tulpa is a real and separate person, and it is that which is far more important than the logical statements of a person.

 

OMG! So in a way, Davie does believe I am real. He treats me like I am real and he loves me!

[Guest Anonymous]

^

 

Thunder;

 

I think I forgot to mention that I hate most other tulpas, mostly because yes, they represent illusions, and while I don't mean to sound pretentious, I don't want to represent that. Or rather I try my best not to represent that, and live up to expectations I put up for myself to reach.

 

So what am I, according to you?

 

By emulation I meant that you're acting as if people had to make their tulpa talk like with parroting, which isn't really my case.

 

Of course. I'll never be fully separate nor do I wish to be, but I want to go somewhere with that ideal I hold.

[reguile]

 

So what am I, according to you?

 

By emulation I meant that you're acting as if people had to make their tulpa talk like with parroting, which isn't really my case.

 

Of course. I'll never be fully separate nor do I wish to be, but I want to go somewhere with that ideal I hold.

 

The tulpa is a state of mind. It's a mind-form, an idea, a system of thought. A personality, a set of traits, a set of expectations.

 

It's all of the above, it's a phenomena that allows a person to address a third party entity and hold seemingly coherent conversations that appear and feel as if they are between two people.

 

I do not share your idea of emulation. What I see a tulpa as is a single entity, which "host" tends to refer to in the average person, creating a new system of identity that allows for two modes of thought based on two perceived or constructed personalities. If you want to call the tulpa make-believe of the host, or created by the host, you first have to draw the boundaries of who or what the host is. Is a subconscious or learned instinct to label and sort thoughts into identities, generating thoughts based on what personality should be speaking, something that belongs to the host?

 

It's most honest to those coming into the community to say it is, I think. However, that doesn't make the things illegitimate, as those things are habits, they are created in such a way that it isn't the host "imagining" everything. No more than fear of spiders is imagined, or fake.

 

Bit ranty here, as I don't have a real concrete answer for you, but I hope the above explains a bit.

[Luminesce]

I really, really like your thoughts on all this, Reguile. I read the thread in a bit of a rush because my food is getting cold, but I think you think a lot like me as far as the logic aspect is concerned.

 

Thunder, I'm trying to figure out how to make sense of parallel processing. I want to defend you and I know there must be truth to your reality, but I can't figure it out. Unfortunately my findings are exactly Reguile's. Parallel processing is very difficult for us compared to the average individuals, such that I quit learning piano because of it. But in all my research (of other humans), I've found that no one I've met can really parallel process, they can only multitask. And that means they're either A) quickly switching back and forth between tasks, or B), combining said tasks into one. The former is the most common, but the latter is required for things such as two-handed piano playing, and that's where my inability lies. It seems as though parallel processing is your ability to easily and smoothly switch between tasks, OR combine those tasks into a single task in your mind. I've not found anyone who can play the keys with their left hand while simultaneously playing with their right hand - they all have developed the capacity to combine the keys they must play into a single thought. They aren't playing left keys and right keys, they're just playing keys.

 

I dunno if that makes sense, sorry. But my point is that I've found no evidence to show parallel processing is possible in its truest sense. Although I have found that some have an easier time emulating it than others naturally (of which I am on the opposite end). When it comes to tulpas, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what goes on in your guys' heads, but I really can't study it. People say their tulpas can think while their host is doing other things, unbeknownst to them, and then relay what they were thinking to their host when they pay them attention again. But I've not seen anyone do this in a meaningful way. They'll say things like, oh, what did you do in the wonderland while I wasn't paying attention? And their tulpa had created a new area and done X and Y. But that could've been made up on the spot instantaneously. I've not seem someone's tulpa do math, or anything that required real time, while parallel processing as the host did their own thing. In my experience, you can ask your tulpa to think about something, focus elsewhere, and come back to them and get an answer, but the answer is always rushed and it's apparent they weren't really thinking about it seriously until immediately before and after focused on.

 

I would love for you to tell me how it works for you. I think the brain can be trained to emulate parallel processing extremely well, even to the point of multitasking at available lulls in attention of the host to utilize that time to think in real-time for the tulpa. However I sincerely lack the skill to do this research myself.. I'm still trying to learn to play piano. But I want to understand, and I know your experience is true to you. So if at all possible, I'd like you to do your best to help me understand.