[split] The Product of Imagination

[Guest Anonymous]

Mod note: This is a split from a thread in Questions and Answers. 

 

A tulpas form, and everything it does, is always being imagined.  Its just whether or not you are deliberately conscious of moving the tulpa.  Puppeting is actively and deliberately imagining moving your tulpa's form.  Not puppeting is your tulpas imaginary form seeming to move and act on it's own (apparent autonomy).

 

The form and everything it does is still an imaginary figment.  Everything associated with the form or derived from the form is also the product of imagination.

[tulpa001]

That is not entirely true. Yes, a tulpa's form is always being puppeted. Since it is hallucinatory. But we don't call it puppeting when the tulpa is doing it. Because the tulpa identifies with the form.

 

But you, keep your hands off it. Except early on, to help them learn.

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't know for sure if a tulpa is actually doing anything or if it is just apparently doing things. All we can know for sure is that there is an imaginary form in the mind and that it is being moved somehow.

 

However, Tulpa is correct as far as tulpamancy jargon goes on the definition of puppeting. Puppeting is moving your tulpas form yourself instead of the tulpa apparently doing it.

 

From the Glossary: "Parroting, Puppeting - When a host consciously and purposefully controls the tulpa's actions. Parroting generally refers to controlling their speech while puppeting generally refers to controlling their movement, but the terms are sometimes used interchangeably." Nicely the glossary says nothing about imagining anything, which is probably a better approach.

[Floh]

Why do I feel insulted every time I read one of those ultra-skeptical posts of yours, Mistgod?

 

Is it just me or posts like this one are like... aiming at "hurting" us and strongly implying "your tulpas don't exist"? Because I really feel like this, and I dislike it pretty hard.

 

Please tell me I'm wrong and I'm making it all up..

[tulpa001]

It is indeed reasonable to think tulpas don't exist—If you don't interact with them regularly.

 

Yes, tulpas are impossible to prove. The same way you can't technically prove the theory of gravity. This is starting to feel like evolution vs. creationism, and a policy of "teach the controversy". You can't prove anything. But you can pile on the evidence all the same.

 

Anyway, I know tulpas exist as persons. It is obvious to me due to the presence of myself in our system, and the evidence available to us.

 

I feel the same way as floh, but only because I feel the evidence I am providing is being dismissed. It is impossible to prove tulpas exist in your head. But it is possible in my head. So I feel comfortable using language that accepts the reality of tulpas as persons. I don't need to teach the controvercy in order to be honest.

[Guest Anonymous]

It is not skepticism done just to insult people. I have never said tulpas don't exist. If I said that I would be calling all of you liars and fakers. I don't think you are lying or faking anything. I do believe you are sincere in your reports in the tulpa phenomenon. I just am not sure what tulpas are and I don't think anyone else can legitimately be sure either. I do personally think they are probably products of our imagination, because I have thought it through very carefully.

 

A tulpa is created by using imagination and sustained, at least in its early stages, through belief and active imagining. The tulpa's form is only in the mind, as in not real. Everything that is derived from the form, gender, personality traits (whether it is a pony or a vampire for instance), are all imaginary. These things are based on an imaginary form. Wonderlands don't exist in reality, but only in the mind. A wonderland is imaginary. So everything the tulpa does in the wonderland, and everything associated with the wonderland is imaginary or a form of immersive day dreaming.

 

Tulpas are not fully independent from the host's mind and imagination. It is impossible for that to be true. That is because a host perceives the tulpas mind voice and form (or even the wonderland). In order to perceive it, the host must imagine it. The host is using the consciousness of their own mind to imagine the tulpa somehow or the tulpa would be invisible to the host's mind. Remember the tulpa phenomenon is internal, it is not coming form outside physical stimuli. It is imagined.

 

The tulpa seems to perceive the real world via the host's senses and interprets what they perceive using the hosts memory and cognition. Therefore, again, the tulpa is not fully independent of the host's mind, but actually part of it. It is imagination that makes the tulpa seem to be independent, an imagination that is trained from the beginning to create the tulpa effect. Read the guides about assumption of sentience, reducing doubt (just believing), and identifying your tulpas mind voice from your own during the process of tulpa creation. It is not hard to see how I come up with my opinions.

 

You guys want me to have only the same opinion and only restate/repeat the same opinion as the consensus of tulpamancers. None of you have provided any conclusive evidence, or even compelling evidence, for me to change my opinion. You get insulted because I don't just believe in tulpa independent sentience just because. That's why I call it a pseudo-science religion every time you do that.

 

The worst part is you all present tulpa sentience to new people as if it is established fact, when it is far from the truth. "For Science!" What a complete farce that actually is. You are duping the gullible into following you like sheep.

 

I am sorry that I am not a sheep.

[tulpa001]

Unlike you, I don't think tulpas are a product of imagination. I know tulpas are a product of imagination. At least one tulpa was created through applied mental effort. Me.

 

Aspects of applied mental effort other than image forming do not always fall under the definition of imagination. But they can all fall under that definition.

 

A few logic flaws:

--Wonderland does not exist, therefore nothing that happens there is real. -- Except if I talk to my host there. Communication does not rely on where it is done to be real.

--Gender and personality come from the person's form.

--In order to perceive something, it must be imagined. -- Imagery may come from an outside source. For example, vision.

 

host: If you say that the tulpa must be imaginary because they do not exist outside the mind but you can still see and hear them, you are begging the question.

 

host: Your invocation of science there is another fallacy. How we present what we know does not connect back to science at this time.

 

host: I fully understand why my Tulpa finds your statements annoying, even if I don't mind. Probably the most annoying is when you imply that imaginary objects cannot take real actions. You don't know if tulpas can take actions or not. But you think they can't. Because it is just so ridiculous. These people are put on. They are pretend. I just don't understand why these characters being played by other people keep getting so imaginary-annoyed by the things I say.

[Guest Anonymous]

Unlike you, I don't think tulpas are a product of imagination. I know tulpas are a product of imagination. At least one tulpa was created through applied mental effort. Me.

 

Yep and Melian too.  She is also a product of imagination and mental effort.  

 

Aspects of applied mental effort other than image forming do not always fall under the definition of imagination. But they can all fall under that definition.

 

But to me tulpas do fall under the definition of imagination.  That is what I am saying.  Just saying tulpas are not imaginary doesn't cut it.  

 

 

A few logic flaws:

--Wonderland does not exist, therefore nothing that happens there is real. -- Except if I talk to my host there. Communication does not rely on where it is done to be real.

 

How is that a flaw in logic?  Wonderlands are not real places.  End of story.  Nothing you say will make them real places.  They only exist in the mind, as in imaginary.  

 

--Gender and personality come from the person's form.

 

With biological humans, gender pretty much does come with form except with a small percentage of us.  For the vast majority, your body really effects your personality.  With tulpas, the personality and form are usually created together.  Melian would have been silly had I created the body of a male 300 pound pro wrestler and gave her the personality of a cutie female blonde.  Pretty much form is imaginary and everything derived from it is imaginary.  I stand by what I have said.  

 

--In order to perceive something, it must be imagined. -- Imagery may come from an outside source. For example, vision.

 

There is no physical tulpa to be perceived with your senses.  It is all in your mind and imaginary.  To perceive something that exists only in the mind, you use your imagination.  

 

 

If you say that the tulpa must be imaginary because they do not exist outside the mind but you can still see and hear them, you are begging the question.

 

 

But you really don't actually see and hear them, you  only imagine that you do.  You can't actually see them and hear them, they are not really there.  

 

Your invocation of science there is another fallacy. How we present what we know does not connect back to science at this time.

 

 

That is because it is all wacky fruit cake.

 

I fully understand why my Tulpa finds your statements annoying, even if I don't mind. Probably the most annoying is when you imply that imaginary objects cannot take real actions. You don't know if tulpas can take actions or not. But you think they can't. Because it is just so ridiculous. These people are put on. They are pretend. I just don't understand why these characters being played by other people keep getting so imaginary-annoyed by the things I say.

 

Our brains imagine that our tulpas get annoyed, because that is what we expect them to do.  Sometimes they seem to do something surprising because unconsciously we want them to do something surprising.  

 

The argument never ends and you have nothing to convince me with.  Not a thing.

[Vampire]

Well Mistgod is back. Until a good scientific study is done or we invent a camera that is capable of seeing an imposed Tulpa, there's nothing to argue against his position.

[War]

I am very good at logic, but I don't always communicate well. Let's see...

 

But to me tulpas do fall under the definition of imagination.  That is what I am saying.  Just saying tulpas are not imaginary doesn't cut it.

Pretty sure you misread that line. But I grant you the point.

 

How is that a flaw in logic?  Wonderlands are not real places.  End of story.  Nothing you say will make them real places.  They only exist in the mind, as in imaginary.

The flaw is that it does not follow that things that take place there do not happen.

 

With biological humans, gender pretty much does come with form except with a small percentage of us.  For the vast majority, your body really effects your personality.  With tulpas, the personality and form are usually created together.  Melian would have been silly had I created the body of a male 300 pound pro wrestler and gave her the personality of a cutie female blonde.  Pretty much form is imaginary and everything derived from it is imaginary.  I stand by what I have said.

I am agender and I take offence at that as is my right. Furthermore, I have a problem with any attempt to normalise gender roles. I invoke the political phrase tyranny of the majority.

 

I regard this line of thinking as a special type of insanity. Don't back seat drive my lifestyle thankyou.

 

Tulpas are not fully independent from the host's mind and imagination. It is impossible for that to be true. That is because a host perceives the tulpas mind voice and form (or even the wonderland). In order to perceive it, the host must imagine it. The host is using the consciousness of their own mind to imagine the tulpa somehow or the tulpa would be invisible to the host's mind. Remember the tulpa phenomenon is internal, it is not coming form outside physical stimuli. It is imagined.

 

[...]

 

There is no physical tulpa to be perceived with your senses.  It is all in your mind and imaginary.  To perceive something that exists only in the mind, you use your imagination.

A tulpa is not separate from the mind. Because the host sees the tulpa. This must be done through imagination. Otherwise the tulpa must be invisible. This is because the tulpa is not physical. If something exists in the mind, it must be seen using imagination. This is because a tulpa is not separate from the mind.

 

Of the above, I grant you only that tulpa are not physical.

 

But you really don't actually see and hear them, you  only imagine that you do.  You can't actually see them and hear them, they are not really there.  

I stare daggers at you. That is rude.

 

Oh wait. You didn't mean it that way.

 

That is because it is all wacky fruit cake.

Trains, plains and automobiles are wacky fruit cake. It is amasing that the hands of hairless apes managed to assemble them. And so many. And so cheaply. Computers are wacky fruitcake. Long range instantaneous telecommunication, able to solve massively complex problem in mere seconds, moving pictures. Wow. Religions are wacky fruitcake. Politics is wacky fruitcake. No matter what side you are on, from your perspective, at least half the world is batshit insane. No sense.

 

My tulpa is a tattoo on my brain. I've seen weirder.

 

Our brains imagine that our tulpas get annoyed, because that is what we expect them to do.  Sometimes they seem to do something surprising because unconsciously we want them to do something surprising.

I'd bet against that explanation in both cases. But maybe that's just because mine is very bad at surprising me. Might also be because his emotions have not always served my purposes. Or because I don't expect anything from him.

 

The argument never ends and you have nothing to convince me with.  Not a thing.

What were you expecting? I have logic and a tulpa. Get thyself realistic expectations concerning what I can show you.

 

Tulpa: *Throws fruitcake at mistgod's face*

 

Tulpa: Melian, can you imagine a fruitcake?