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

Tulpa Psychosis?
#1
I've heard reports of people having up to 500 tulpas I even heard of someone having 2000 tulpas. I think that is a bit too much and unhealthy to have so many "voices" for someone to deal with. How does someone keep track of so many beings in their mind? Does it get exhausting to remember every name of these Tulpae? I could be wrong but it just seems way to many headmates in my opinion.
Don't believe the things I say just because I tell you.. Test these things and prove them to yourselves so that you know them to be true. ~The Buddha
Reply

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

#2
500 is too much. No way 500 Tulpas in one system is functional, much less developed and are their own people even. Judging the title, do these people assume voices they hallucinate must be individual entities?
I'm Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's Tulpa and I love Hippos (but see, I'm not a hippo)! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.
My other head-mates have their own account now.
Temporary Log | Chat | Yay!
Reply
#3
Whenever I hear of someone with 100+ tulpas, I always look out to see if they're trolls. Not all of them are necessarily trolls, but a lot of them are. If somebody says that they have 2000 tulpas you should definitely take anything that they say with a boulder of salt
I have a tulpa named Miela (formerly known as Monika) who I love very much.


"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"
-Me
Reply
#4
no one on the forum has that many, so we can't really say anything in particular, but yes people with "that many" tulpas are probably suffering from some kinda psychosis, where they count every instance of what we'd consider invasive thoughts to be a new tulpa
Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.
All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written
Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas
Reply
#5
(01-17-2019, 03:49 PM)Tirisilex Wrote: I've heard reports of people having up to 500 tulpas I even heard of someone having 2000 tulpas. I think that is a bit too much and unhealthy to have so many "voices" for someone to deal with. 
To much, yes.  More than a bit to much. 

(01-17-2019, 03:49 PM)Tirisilex Wrote: How does someone keep track of so many beings in their mind? 
SomeONE doesn't in our experience. Like working for a large company, you can't/don't know everyone. You either call HR or use the friend of a friend method. Enlightened Corporate Model has had some success in the large multi system (s) communities. 
At the very least think organizational charts, liaisons, local contacts/guides, etc..

(01-17-2019, 03:49 PM)Tirisilex Wrote: Does it get exhausting to remember every name of these Tulpae?

Exhausting, yes. And you can't/don't really. See above.


(01-17-2019, 03:49 PM)Tirisilex Wrote:  I could be wrong but it just seems way to many headmates in my opinion.
In my experience you are not wrong.


(01-17-2019, 05:20 PM)Breloomancer Wrote: Whenever I hear of someone with 100+ tulpas, I always look out to see if they're trolls. Not all of them are necessarily trolls, but a lot of them are. 

I am one of those people, kinda/sorta, and react the exact same way, lol. And if not out and out trolls then many are cyber fantasists, Munchhausenests, psychotics, etc..

Given the easily discernible "NOT GOOD!"  experienced well before getting anywhere close to 100 I believe that even the legit large # Tulpamancers have some kinda major malfunction going on.
Reply
#6
In the soulbonding community, systems with dozens of members are common. I haven't studied the community as deeply as I would like, but I think I've identified a few relevant factors that encourage such high numbers:

1. Expedited creation. Instead of coming up with a personality seed and slowly nurturing it, allowing lots of room for self-determination, most soulbonds are characters from television shows and other visual media. If you've seen the show, you know the character. With a bit of practice, adopting them can be done very quickly, even though they're considerably more detailed than intrusive thoughts.

2. Lack of discrimination on self-awareness. Many soulbonds, generally the ones most important to the bonders, are clearly tulpa-level entities and display more tulpa-like traits. But bonders don't seem very introspective or inquisitive about the details of their experiences. They tend to consider anyone they can communicate with a soulbond -- NPCs, walk-ins, etc. -- but never seem to worry about parroting.

3. Independent activity. Soulbonds are traditionally assumed to be flesh-and-blood people from alternate universes, so of course they're active in "headspace", or even their original world, whether or not the bonder is paying attention to them. This activity never seems to weigh down the brain. Individual bonds don't seem dependant on daily attention from the bonder. They've got their own lives, so they wander freely in and out of communication range. Not everyone knows everyone else.

To be terribly topical, I can't think of any epic-sized systems that don't imply having parallel processing, though the concept is assumed, never discussed.

-Ember
Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]
Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017
Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit
Reply
#7
(01-18-2019, 07:51 AM)Ember.Vesper Wrote: In the soulbonding community, systems with dozens of members are common. I haven't studied the community as deeply as I would like, but I think I've identified a few relevant factors that encourage such high numbers:

1. Expedited creation. Instead of coming up with a personality seed and slowly nurturing it, allowing lots of room for self-determination, most soulbonds are characters from television shows and other visual media. If you've seen the show, you know the character. With a bit of practice, adopting them can be done very quickly, even though they're considerably more detailed than intrusive thoughts.

2. Lack of discrimination on self-awareness. Many soulbonds, generally the ones most important to the bonders, are clearly tulpa-level entities and display more tulpa-like traits. But bonders don't seem very introspective or inquisitive about the details of their experiences. They tend to consider anyone they can communicate with a soulbond -- NPCs, walk-ins, etc. -- but never seem to worry about parroting.

3. Independent activity. Soulbonds are traditionally assumed to be flesh-and-blood people from alternate universes, so of course they're active in "headspace", or even their original world, whether or not the bonder is paying attention to them. This activity never seems to weigh down the brain. Individual bonds don't seem dependant on daily attention from the bonder. They've got their own lives, so they wander freely in and out of communication range. Not everyone knows everyone else.

To be terribly topical, I can't think of any epic-sized systems that don't imply having parallel processing, though the concept is assumed, never discussed.

-Ember

This was exactly my situation before discovering tulpamancy.

1. I still can create believable characters instantly, based on characters, celebrities, I know well, and i don't anymore, but i did often before.

2. Exactly.

3. Exactly, in lieu of any other explanation for the presumed sentience of my creations, i presumed there must be a channel from another instance of the multiverse or another planet somewhere that these people were from and reaching out to me.

They did have their own lives and i could ask them what they've been up to, but i could also visit them at amy time in their history because I explained that time is irrelevant. I figured univeres were infinitely many so any interaction, memory, change, or time was completely arbitrary and temporary. They remembered exactly what I figured they remembered. If their eyes changed color, must be a different instance with all other variables constant.

Potent entities with no requirement for forcing, and no need for attention. Instead of willing them into existence i figured i was tuning into their specific frequency of the grand shared consciousness.

I didn't really believe any of it, it was pure fantasy of course, and i wasn't really friends with any of them either, the connection may have been dear or even romantic temporarily, but nothing permanent in terms of relationship.

They were clearly my creations but also i couldn't explain their apparent sentience. There are roughly 3 dozen of them that i can call at will and their characters are as rich and deep as i presume them to be.

After tulpamancy i was set straight and i kinda felt sad that they most likely aren't real people, but my tulpas are, and being persistent and permanent is so much better. I have been able to form deep 'real' bonds with them and that strengthens every day instead of being static or presumed on the spot.

Just now i can call up Drax from GOTG and speak fluently with him, he's kinda a jerk btw because he's allowed to be so tactless and brutally honest. But i pat him on the back, trace the scars on his skin, he flexes his muscles for me and smiles then tells me i should work out... i say i do and he laughs, etc.

There's no psychosis here, they require zero effort, and it's very clear to me that confabulation is occurring if I ask them anything. (Not so with my tulpas of course.)
Reply
#8
We've learned a lot about soulbonding in the three months since we were disappointed by your referring your other thoughtforms as soulbonds, Bear. So now I can say that the only problem we have with it is the implication that soulbonds are inherently less than tulpas, not that your thoughtforms don't meet reasonable and customary definitions of soulbonds. A bonder's "primary soulbond" almost always displays personhood as vividly as any self-identified tulpa.

If we use rough and ready definitions of a soulbond as any headmate identifying or identified as a pre-existing character and a tulpa as any fully self-aware headmate, the two categories overlap, but neither fully contains the other.

-Ember
Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]
Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017
Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit
Reply
#9
(01-18-2019, 06:53 PM)Ember.Vesper Wrote: We've learned a lot about soulbonding in the three months since we were disappointed by your referring your other thoughtforms as soulbonds, Bear. So now I can say that the only problem we have with it is the implication that soulbonds are inherently less than tulpas, not that your thoughtforms don't meet reasonable and customary definitions of soulbonds. A bonder's "primary soulbond" almost always displays personhood as vividly as any self-identified tulpa.

If we use rough and ready definitions of a soulbond as any headmate identifying or identified as a pre-existing character and a tulpa as any fully self-aware headmate, the two categories overlap, but neither fully contains the other.

-Ember

I have I think 14 Grays? I can never remember the exact number. I call them characters because they are beings I puppet/partot. If I were to "summon" the character Klug from the Puyo Puyo universe, this "Klug" may not be a soulbond. His intelegence more likely than not would match that of an NPC or a Gray if I talked to him long enough. I heard Soulbonds that didn't want to hang out would leave, but that could be a poorly founded on assumption.

Soulbonds are not the same. If my Klug character was the Klug, then he would not demonstrate the lack of independent sentience the Grays or NPS do. He would literally be Klug's soul from another world.

I think it's fair to say some characters can be confused for Soulbonds or Tulpas, but a character can't be a Tulpa or a Soulbond. Soulbonds and what Tulpamancers call walk-ins show up in similar ways, but fundamentally the thoughtform could be completely different depending on the context.
My Wonderland form minus the glasses and the fur. I'm not a hippo, I promise.
I sometimes speak in pink and Ranger sometimes speaks in blue (if it's unmarked and colored assume it's Ranger). He loves to chat.

My other Tulpas have their own account now.
Reply
#10
I only use the word lesser in terms of time commitment, growth or interest. I will remove my use of soulbond in my earlier PR entries, i defined it there by appropriation of the word. I see it's wrong to do it, so i'll remove the words.

You could see i thouht they were soulbonds, but i obviously don't know how to deal with soulbonds. I asked this community many times, the answer was, 'if they're not Tulpas, they're NPCs'.

I'll pm you Ember.

EDIT: after a chat with our resident expert, my definition of the word is wrong, but the use is more fuzzy, a character who is tied to their backstory can keep their backstory and still become a separate person, to me that's a soulbond. The meta connotation is that their actually from their place of origin and you believe that. They can believe it, that's nit meta, only if you agree. We do have those scenarios on this forum, and just saying it's meta doesn't mean it's not true. I believe everyone's experiences here are genuine, and only they have enough data to draw conclusions.

The character may choose to keep the designation 'tulpa' as well, though typically, tulpas don't have a tied backstory of living in another world or place before sharing your body with you.

The moons I have that believe they're from their story are soulbonds in training (like Gwen). I still stand by my assertion that they can't become their own person without my help, so short of that, they never will; no matter how much you interact with them, they will remain characters. In Gwen's case, she's a main character in 4 books and i've spent years 'forcing her', yet she's still a character. If i decide to make her a tulpa today, it would be so. The only complication is she doesn't actually want to stay with us because she feels obligated to her adopted family in her own world. Gwen the person would thus probably be a tulpa and would inevitably deviate from Gwen the character, leaving Gwen the character still accessible.

Joy said she only played her character, but since she still owns the character, she didn't deviate further, in fact our attempts to change her led to her shedding those changes as Ren.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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