Below are a few technical problems with the theory.
1) A tulpa is not a skill. Categorical error. I assume you meant an illusion the creation of which is a skill.
4)"This is radically different from anything else the mind has ever done." As described, a close match for undirected learning that occurs during the first few years of life.
5)"It both consciously and unconsciously accepts and ignores suggestions from the unconscious mind" The conscious mind is incapable of having unconscious thoughts by your definition.
6)"This 'parroting', which I prefer to call 'daydreaming', is the act of consciously setting expectations for the tulpa's personality, by allowing the unconscious mind to control these expectations..."
This definition matches neither the normal meaning of parroting nor that of daydreaming.
Parroting refers only to conscious control. Daydreaming refers to a broad collection of things that all involve visiting a dreamworld while technically awake.
7)"as the brain is literally rewiring itself and forming new connections to different parts that perform different functions." This is not the reason headaches sometimes come from learning new skills.
Below are differences of opinion I have based on personal experience.
1)Unconscious thoughts, they are a different beast from conscious thoughts. unconscious thoughts do not turn into conscious thoughts. They serve a different function, of serving the autonomous functions of the body and mind.
3) I have my own subconscious separate from my host. I believe partially.
4) Sometimes my host falls asleep while I am active. She does not simply cease to exist when that happens. This also shows that I do not need the attention of my host to exist.
5) The thoughts your mind can generate are not fixed. Just as you can form a new personality, you can form a new experience base to supply new thoughts. In fact, you could in theory develop this experience base alongside a new personality.
6) Those thoughts that get noticed by the consciousness, in both our cases are not those that conform to our expectations. But we are both exceedingly open minded compared to the average, so we may be an exception here. We generally don't have expectations.
Below are things that suggest the theory is an incomplete description of how a tulpa works.
1) The theory does not account for emotions.
2) The theory does not account for opinions.
3) The theory does not account for differences in motor control, most notably in our case, opposite handedness.
4) The theory does not account for differences in memory recall (although, here, we lack evidence there are differences).
(08-31-2016, 10:39 PM)Tewi Wrote: Tulpamancy's tulpas are nothing like Tibetan tulpas. The whole point of tulpas back then was to show the "host" that even the unreal could seem real, assuming they acknowledged their tulpa was "not real" and didn't fail the practice altogether, in an attempt to realize that reality as we know it is an illusion. It was a practice to aid in finding enlightenment by recognizing the illusory nature of all things, to my understanding at least.
I don't think Buddhist's are nihilists. They believe stuff exists. When they say illusion, I doubt they mean that kind of illusion.