Guest Anonymous November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 I copied this post from another thread because I thought it to be an important enough idea for it's own OP and to be discusses separately. Do you sometimes worry your tulpa may not be real? Do you have doubts? There is an advantage in thinking about it from this perspective: There can be things and beings that exist in a "plane" or type of existence that is somewhere between real and imaginary make believe. Not a metaphysical plane but a psychological one (in the mind). It is an in between form of existence. Imaginary things can and do exist and can and effect us emotionally and psychologically. The universe is what we perceive and what we perceive makes us who we are. We perceive the imaginary as significant enough to be extremely important to us. Therefore, your tulpas definitely exist. They are not "fake" just because they are the product of your imagination. I have been talking and talking and talking about that idea for seven months, and yet I still see "it is either real or it doesn't exist" constantly on this forum. "Tulpas are either real or they are fake and worthless." That is missing the entire point of tulpas! I would put tulpa sentience in the same place. It is not real sentience, it is pseudo-real sentience that is the same category of in between make believe and real. Tulpa sentience is dependent sentience, not independent sentience. I say that because how much I have read from people concerning the need to think of their tulpa or believe in their tulpa in order for it to continue to "think" and communicate. That interaction and attention by the host is crucial, therefore, the sentience of the tulpa is dependent sentience (pseudo-real). I would like to see discussion on this idea? What are your reactions and thoughts on this? Does anyone share this view or an idea like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminesce November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 Agreed. It's never been something I could express very clearly to others, but the "realness" of tulpas is a non-question to me. What are you even asking when you ask if they're real? Of course, they're in your mind, so you're not talking about them being physical. I assume the question must be, are my tulpas really their own people or just me talking to myself? What an age-old question that is. Well, depends on how you want to look at it. If you're talking about just human beings, of course you're talking to yourself. But you're not really talking to yourself.. You're imagining another person to talk to you. I think that's different. As for whether or not that's a bad thing, if it's pointless or productive, or a good thing? Well, that's where I find it a non-question. If your tulpas keep you from being lonely, encourage you, and otherwise positively influence your life, doesn't that answer the question of pointlessness on its own? So the combination of "You're imagining someone talking to you" and "It has a positive effect" should, in theory, override all doubts aside from moral, ie how it would be seen by society. My only response to society's view of something that is purely in your mind and positively affects you is "lol, I should care why?" Should be yours too. And something to smooth out that logic - it's not as simple as just "imagining someone talking to you." Everyone who's had a tulpa for any real amount of time knows we've spent quite a while developing their personality, traits, mannerisms, sense of self... The difference in an imaginary friend, who you imagine talking to you, and a tulpa, is that a tulpa requires some discipline. A tulpa isn't some random person you imagined in your head. A tulpa is a thoughtform you've put extensive time and effort into developing to be its own person. A tulpa's words are its own, actions are its own, thoughts are its own, because that's how we made them. We trained our minds to maintain a whole other identity alongside our own. We trained it to, in every way we can, treat it as its own person. We've removed as much of our own personal control over it as we could and replaced it with unconscious/subconscious directions in the form of what that individual would want/do/think. Is that a person? I dunno, do you really need a word for it? It is what it is, a tulpa. Is it real or fake? What does that even mean? Is it good or bad? Well, that depends on the person, but most would say good. If it feels like you're talking to yourself, you need to force more. If it doesn't feel like it but you still think you are, you've got some things to think about. What I just said makes perfect sense to me, but if you're still unsure, figure it out for yourself. That really is the only way to be 100% sure for yourself, coming to your own conclusions, but I did the best I could to show you mine. Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn. Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature. My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us about tulpamancy stuff there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 I loved your entire response. Lumi, I think we are more alike in our thinking than different. I think something that is important is willingness to except the imaginary as important to you. Regarding your tulpa as a person and respecting your tulpa as a person is more important that whether or not the sentience is "real." Whether it is apparent illusory sentience (dependent sentience) versus actually independent sentience is irrelevant because it is only experienced by the host and subjective anyway. All that matters is how the host regards the tulpa and how the tulpa regards the host. It is a private matter really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linkzelda November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 I would put tulpa sentience in the same place. It is not real sentience' date=' it is pseudo-real sentience that is the same category of in between make believe and real.[/quote'] The moment you made an implicit gauge with make-believe and real is the moment I realized that if you were to presume that pseudo-real sentience is in the middle of that, that would imply: - There could be a propensity for them to develop towards the extreme end of the spectrum of being real in context of being capable of consciously experiencing things. Though, there seems to be skepticism in them going from what seems to be an infantile state of sentience (e.g. imaginary, dependent on action-to-id activities), to one where, based on the fallback of experiential cases of them having to put things into the right context, they would be deemed by the host as entities capable of conscious experience. Tulpa sentience is dependent sentience' date=' not independent sentience.[/quote'] I guess if we were to presume assuming sentience from the start was challenged with this notion, you may be right; they wouldn’t necessarily have independent sentience in context of not having conscious intervention from the host causing a potential impasse if done on a daily basis. They would presumably be dependent of the conscious intervention as a supplement in putting the right noises in the right contexts, and behaving in a way that’s complex enough to assure to the host that they have the potential in being a conscious accompaniment (e.g. taking control of the body via switching). In other words, one takes acknowledgement that treating them as sentient, to some extent, involves some conscious intervention with sustained thought, and subsequent action (e.g. action-to-id) towards the goal of where the tulpa is less reliant on said conscious intervention, and can be a conscious accompaniment (e.g. tapping into whatever cognitive heuristics there may be, and rationalizing and judging on their own while still of course being part of the totality of the mind with the host in general; there may be a dependency, but what would make them seem independent is that their presumed sentience, qualia, and such isn’t solely contingent on the conscious intervention of the host). I say that because how much I have read from people concerning the need to think of their tulpa or believe in their tulpa in order for it to continue to "think" and communicate. That interaction and attention by the host is crucial' date=' therefore, the sentience of the tulpa is dependent sentience (pseudo-real).[/quote'] Isn’t it ironic, that in order to foster the belief that they can be entities capable of attentional levels of experiencing and thinking, they have to be bound through the conscious intervention of the host, and the host also feeling the autonomous processes to do so is also a conscious thing rather than them just synching with those autonomous processes that supplement the experience? It seems the impasse created by the person in this context is simply them undermining their mind’s unrealized potential in doing all that work for them in the background, and not making peace with reframing their thought process of being less militant in structuring every implicit fiber of their being. The treating as sentient would still be integral in some way, but the experiential cases of putting the right noises in the right context would be the fallback that allows both of them to hopefully come to the inference that said tulpa is within the lines of having competency as a conscious accompaniment. Kind of like how Melly seems to be able to put things in the right context in conversations, voice her own opinions, and consciously experiencing her own schemata of the emotive responses of others (e.g. the drama created in the forums, IRC, and things of that nature). To negate this by saying it’s merely make-believe is probably hinged on the predisposition that your mind is ultimately emulating someone indistinguishable from a human being (e.g. behaving, putting things in the right context) while not consciously experiencing things (e.g. p-zombie) as you are. But at the same time, it sets up the impasse of having to self-reflect on you being a conscious accompaniment yourself, and what that entails, and connecting how the “emulation” becomes so complex that undermining it anything less than that is thus begging the question as to what is the end-all be-all doubt killers of the distinction between yourself, and her. Go around in circles, and yes, the thought will constantly be on your mind. [align=center]7 Hours of Active Forcing 8 Hours & 29 Minutes of Active Forcing 10 Hours of Active Forcing[/align] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 The fundamental and almost impossible question to answer is this: Is there a point, where the dependently sentient (pseudo-real) tulpa experiences an emergence moment where they become truly and independently self aware? It is my hypothesis that this emergence event never really takes place. EVER. It is all an illusion and self delusion. The self awareness of the tulpa is the host's own awareness reflected back at him or her like dancing in front of a mirror. As I have stated before, it is unconscious role playing and fantasizing. In other words, our tulpas are still US. Many others would vehemently disagree about this. I may be right, I may be wrong, there is no way to ever really know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminesce November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 I try not to make judgements on things I can't possibly know. Verifying someone else's consciousness is impossible without somehow merging the two, and at that point you're still really only experiencing your own, right? So I don't make assumptions on how my tulpas work. I take what I see and explain it as best I can. Whether my brain is simulating entirely other minds or is just skimming the surface of actual thought to create verbal/emotive responses, it doesn't really matter to me. I experience what I do and I work with that. As you could probably tell from my previous post, too, I don't worry about what I don't think I can know. I worry about what matters to me. I guess the one thing I can't help others with is changing what matters to them, when what matters to them is incredibly difficult to explore. So I just state what I think like it's a perfect answer, when really it's an incomplete one to someone who requires more knowing than I. Also this Melly Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn. Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature. My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us about tulpamancy stuff there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 @Lumi And the wondering never ends... Go around in circles, and yes, the thought will constantly be on your mind. It's best just to enjoy your tulpa's existence and stop worrying about whether they are real or not. That was sortof the point to this OP really. They are imaginary-real, but most importantly they exist for us and MATTER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneFromHell November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 I don't really feel like discussing this again, i feel like I answered this so many times already. But Mistgod, about your view on the sentience: How would you feel when your reflection in the mirror slaps you in the face while you wasn't looking? I don't think your idea fits as soon as a tulpa is capable of acting without the need of the host paying attention to it. And i can tell you that: This is quite possible. Tulpa: Alice Form: Realistic Humanoid/Demonic Creation She may or may not talk here, depends on her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 The main point of the OP was that I see people here are worrying about whether their tulpas are real or not, and I think that it is an unnecessary worry. All that matters is that they exist and that they matter to you. There should be no real worrying about it. I think the question of sentience should have never been a prime focus of this forum in the first place. It causes too much anxiety. As for my reflection slapping me, I would say I had a mirror hallucination. Has Alice slapped you recently? Did it leave a mark? I was left wondering... EDIT: And Melian acts without me actively thinking about it all the time. That doesn't make her not me. It could be unconscious. UNCONSCIOUS means you are not aware you are thinking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoneFromHell November 20, 2015 Share November 20, 2015 The main point of the OP was that I see people here are worrying about whether their tulpas are real or not, and I think that it is an unnecessary worry. All that matters is that they exist and that they matter to you. There should be no real worrying about it. I think the question of sentience should have never been a prime focus of this forum in the first place. It causes too much anxiety. As for my reflection slapping me, I would say I had a mirror hallucination. Has your tulpa slapped you recently? Did it leave a mark? I was left wondering... Well you brought the sentience thing up yourself again in the op, so people will start to discuss this again aswell. Nah, she doesn't slap me. But she touches me out of nowhere or moves my hand at occassions if she feels like it (or wants me to pay attention to her). I guess if she really wanted to slap me, she would use my own hand to do so. Tulpa: Alice Form: Realistic Humanoid/Demonic Creation She may or may not talk here, depends on her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.