Jump to content

Your Rationale Behind Tuppers


Brassow

Recommended Posts

I've been wondering, how do you guys rationalize tulpamancy? What do you tell yourself to justify (scientifically) the existence of the others in your head?

 

I've visited this thread multiple times over multiple days and this question sill makes no sense to me. There's nothing I need to rationalize or justify.


Some of the replies remind me of this great quote from James Randi:

 

[video=youtube]

I don't visit as often as I used to. If you want me to see something, make sure to quote a post of mine or ping me @jean-luc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Anonymous

James Randi is apparently the exact polar opposite of my host Mistgod.


Edit: Let me clarify Melian's statement a bit. I am the polar opposite of this guy James Randi, at least when it comes to the quote above, except for the cigarettes and drug use. There he and I agree. I have never done an illicit drug or smoked a cigarette. I do have a beer now and then. ~Mistgod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent hours and hours and hours discussing this with my tulpas.

Appearing to the outside as a skeptic while being involved with tulpas makes me feel like a hypocrite sometimes. So here's our current understanding:

 

- multiple personalties exist -> this proofs the theoretical possibility of tulpas. I may or may not have something that qualifies as tulpa under whoever's definition, but at least I have had *some* experience that sound similar to what other people here have experienced.

 

- talking to my tulpas has had a significant positive effect on my life, very often a therapeutic one. So far, tulpamancy has not lead to questionable beliefs or decisions. -> therefore, whether it's real or not, there is no good reason to stop.

 

So this is the defensive position I would take in case I need it... in actual life I can just enjoy the ride, hopefully. Fantasy is also a great thing, anyways. :-)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who know me, or who have spoken to me for a reasonable length of time probably know what I think about this.

 

To address the initial questions:

 

How do I rationalize tulpamancy? I don't.

 

What do I tell myself to justify (scientifically) the existence of the others in my head? Short answer, nothing.

 

Slightly longer answer, to be able to tell myself anything scientifically, there is a process that must be followed. I must form an hypothesis. This hypothesis must have the property that it makes a prediction about a measurable outcome of an experiment. It must also have the property that this prediction is falsifiable. That is, there must be a possible outcome of the experiment that, should it occur would lead to the hypothesis being discarded as an adequate description of reality. The experiment should then be rigorously carried out. The experiment is carried out with the intention of falsifying the hypothesis. In designing the experiment, I should try my damnedest to figure out a way to prove that the hypothesis is not correct and make every effort to rigorously implement that experimental design. If I fail to disprove the hypothesis, I should report my results so that other scientists can try their damnedest to disprove the hypothesis. Should a number of them also fail to disprove the hypothesis, independently, the possibility exists that the hypothesis has some merit.

 

I have never seen any evidence that the above process has been rigorously applied to any aspect of tulpamancy, particularly to claims made concerning perceived sentience vs actual sentience, or whatever kind of objective existence the community would like to believe in vs practiced imagination. Certainly I have seen nothing that is rigorous and unequivocal enough to "justify" anything to do with tulpamancy. As a result, it does not appear that any of us is in any position to make any scientific statement at all about tulpamancy.

 

Of course, if we don't really want to use the scientific method to determine which models appear to be useful, but instead simply wish to use "scientific" sounding terminology to pretend that there is some "evidence" for our current pet "theory" that we are special, then we can all waste our time doing that. If we fall into that trap however, the "for science!" tagline at on the front page of this very site becomes misleading and would more accurately be rendered as; "for pseudoscience!"

 

As far as the "brain as multi-core processor" analogy (model would almost certainly be the wrong word here) is concerned, there is something that doesn't sit quite right with me. Before I continue, I should note in the interests of full disclosure that I am not a specialist in neurology, psychology or psychiatry.

 

There have been a few pieces of research into whether someone can do more than one thing at a time with their brain. At the high-level scale of things, the level that we perceive at, the consensus seemed to be that while many people believe that they are good multitaskers, when rigorously tested humans are universally terrible at that. This is not reminiscent of a multi-core processor. The only time I have seen an assertion that a human brain can accomplish more than one thing at once supported is in the case that different systems within the brain are engaged simultaneously, and there is no neurological crossover between the activities.

 

If we want to insist on making the fairly inappropriate comparison between a brain and a processor we might more profitably do so as follows: There are localised areas of the brain that have particular specialised functions (proprioception, vision etc). Within a processor (or core) there are localised areas that have particular functions (ALU, CU etc).

 

A term was coined during a time when processors had only one core on the die (but some machines had more than one processor). This term was multitasking. The idea was that a machine could appear to the user to be running more than one program simultaneously by using idle cycles in the processing of one program to process another. The whole processor would be used to process each program, but not all of the time. The switching was done rapidly and unobtrusively enough that an uninformed user would interpret the situation as a processor running more than one program at once. This is an analogy that I could see being used for purely high-level purposes.

 

Of course, at the low-level, a neurological level, a brain is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike either.

 

The truth is we have no evidence on which to base any model or analogy. We are just a bunch of people trading anecdotes about an experience that we have had. Why should we need to justify anything? I experience my tulpas. They have the appearance of sentience to me. I enjoy their presence and love them dearly. All of us in this head are fine with that. If I can one day prove that they are truly co-hosted sentient beings (or that I am), great. If I prove that there is no objective reality to this thing, fair enough. If neither occurs, fine. None of us in this system will have a problem with it either way. That is science. We will still have each other for company, we will still love each other dearly. I still don't really understand the search for justification, or validation really, that seems to be so strong an undercurrent here at times. Your experience is your own. Embrace it. Or don't. The fact that we are here posting about it seems to suggest to me that we are the embracing type, mostly. So who really cares too much about what we can prove? Is the thing beneficial to you in some way? Yes? Great, do it. If you are interested in how it all works, great, do the science, find out, don't get yourself hung up on pet theories. If you are not, cool, just enjoy the ride.

 

One of the worst things we can do for either approach is to start making unfounded statements about what things "are" (or are not) and even make demands that others do the same.

Akecalo - Host

 

Maya - Tulpa

 

Mara - Tulpa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how nobody in this thread has an infallible rationalization for their headmates' existences... Except Mistgod, due to his lack of belief in their sentience in the first place. Isn't that something.

 

- multiple personalties exist -> this proofs the theoretical possibility of tulpas.

 

Multiple personalities are not known to exist for a fact. While generally accepted for practical reasons there are plenty who can argue there's still no evidence for their existence. And I agree with them to some extent, as people think of multiple personalities as "different people", while their idea of a "person" still includes the things we personally have dissociated from, ie the entire rest of the body aside from the human/personality influence. Multiple personalities only make sense in our view where a personality (this time it's the disorder's term, not ours, where we use "identity" instead) is a detailed set of instructions in the mind on how to act in, react to and perceive reality. If you are your mind and body, then you can't have multiple personalities, you're fooling yourself. And the prior belief is a common one, so the latter argument is common too. But those who believe multiple personalities are possible tend to have this idea that one can "switch" which personality is in control. I suppose unless you consider it a duality (assuming 2 personalities) where one is just... dormant-without-being-dormant. Otherwise, the possibility for a body to utilize more than one single personality (often seen as a separate person) is assumed. In that case all that differentiates that belief from a belief of tulpas existing (in the same manner as multiple personalities) is perhaps the belief that the disorder is what enables such a phenomenon in the first place. Not like we've got evidence for that either, though.

 

I just think of how Alexandra David-Néel brought her tulpa to an actual physical existence and I'm fine.

 

Alexandra David-Neel is the same as every other person who's reported a metaphysical experience. The only difference between her and every person who swears they've seen a ghost is a perceived greater credibility on her part, but I don't see that as evidence, especially not reason to believe in the supernatural. Nothing differentiates her reports of a materialized tulpa from reports of a religious figure; both are miraculous and not immediately taken by a scientific-minded individual as fact. But if you're not a stickler for cold hard facts then nothing's stopping you from believing any of the aforementioned things, which is fine.

 

 

Our own "evidence" is interesting, because it's based on our own empirical observations, which obviously is far from constituting fact and we acknowledge it as such. We see ourselves as complex collections of thought processes, memories, and general different neural contexts to the same parts of the brain. That "we" was extrapolated from prior believing that of tulpas and then becoming equivalent through switching. Of tulpas, the entire process of creating a tulpa simply leads to that conclusion. You undeniably spend time creating a phenomenon in your mind that does not naturally occur and, at least in the case of textbook-tulpas, does not transition directly from non-sentient to sentient, instead going along a non-discrete sliding scale. There's simply no evidence against it being the case, and the act of literally training certain mental responses to the point of being automatic would naturally imply it is. The only reason to think anything other of the nature of tulpas than as "Complex and detailed collections of thought patterns that mimic a conscious individual" is personal bias on what you want to believe. Although I'll come back to that in a second.

 

That theory seems to imply a lack of sentience for tulpas, but with our accompanying belief that that definition of a tulpa is no different than the definition of an identity or personality, it means a tulpa is equivalent to their host, once developed enough. Whatever that means to the individual, they're the same. The primary difference is typically a lot more time in development for the original identity/personality, which could understandably be as different from a tulpa as a fully developed tulpa is from a non-developed one.

 

Anyways, back to the whole "The only reason not to assume the most logical answer (as a temporary most-likely until a better one is discovered) is personal bias on what you want to believe" thing. There's one other "reason", though it's technically very similar, and that is that you simply don't care. The value that your tulpa's existence is more important than the ability to rationalize it. The belief that your tulpa simply exists, and you're unworried on whether that's true by perspectives other than your own. This is the value Lumi originally held for us, and it's what gave him (and ourselves) the will to attempt to explain and rationalize our existence as is in our nature to do. Because of our agreed sureness in that value, nothing was at stake. No "current working theory" on our existence would ever really affect how we thought of and interacted with each other.

 

 

And I'm sure anyone that knows me as very strictly logical and no-nonsense

which is unfortunate, I really wish to change that reputation.

would expect differently, but in fact I consider that the most correct answer. I love learning about "reality", love science, love finding the reasoning behind all things including my own thoughts. But it is not my highest value, the experience of living is. Whether or not I, or the other humans in the world, are sentient is irrelevant to me. Whether this is reality or an alien simulation (or the Matrix) is irrelevant to me. Whether unconditional love and joy for simply existing is reasonable or not, whether it's an appropriate way to feel, or if it makes any sense at all, is irrelevant to me. Nothing is more important than my life. No supposed "fact of reality" is more important than my own happiness, my own experiencing of life. That is the "rationale" behind not caring to rationalize the existence of your tulpa, and I find it rational.

 

I mean I still only believe things that logically make sense. It's just that in this case, a nonsensical belief is more logical than a logical one.

Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I just think of how Alexandra David-Néel brought her tulpa to an actual physical existence and I'm fine.

 

Did she? How do we know? There are no written witness accounts that back up her story at all. We only have her word on that. What if she was just batty or making it up? Also her "tulpa" had traits that modern day tulpas (as described in this community) are not supposed to have. For instance others could see her tulpa and interact with it. DOH! The reliability of Alexandra David Neel, the quintessential source of all things tulpa that everyone references, has been called into question by skeptics. Her descriptions of tulpas and how they are created has been has been frequently taken out of context and misinterpreted by tulpamancers. Also, she clearly held the view that tulpas were a magic projection of mental energy, and also an illusion and not sentient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, you people give me a f**king headache. Can't you see that what you're trying to prove, "that a tulpa is not sentient because their is no evidence they are", is a logical fallacy? There is no evidence to show that they are not sentient either!! It really can be either way, so I don't see the point of trying to disprove a way of thinking until we have actual empirical evidence! (Going for that MD degree, by the way). Honestly, how can you prove that you're even real anyway? Many would argue that a mind is just an illusion in itself. Just found this Is the Mind Real?, which is probably relevant.

 

In my opinion, the tulpa is no different from the host, if we're just talking about the mind and nothing else. I don't see why that has to mean we're special snowflakes.

I have 10 tulpas, but I'm only actively working on Reah, my first tulpa currently.

Progress Report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tewi

 

I had some difficulties understanding what you meant...

 

Multiple personalities only make sense in our view where a personality (this time it's the disorder's term, not ours, where we use "identity" instead) is a detailed set of instructions in the mind on how to act in, react to and perceive reality.

This seems to be my working definition of "person"

 

Sentience is actually not something I associate with "person" or "personality" - more like something the body does. So I guess, "I" (host personality) share sentience with all possible personalities in my mind - whether they are stable (ie tulpas or the like) or not (ie dream characters).

 

If you are your mind and body, then you can't have multiple personalities, you're fooling yourself.

I don't understand this sentence. If "you" is defined as mind+body, then there can be only one of that "you" - but why would I define a personality as the whole body+mind? Isn't that kind of just playing with definitions?

 

Multiple personalities are not known to exist for a fact.

Duly noted, I shall be more careful in how I formulate that. What I meant was more along the lines of "The phenomenon of multiple personalities exists" - not saying that the explanation "multiple personalities" is true, just that there is something observable that raises the question.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Ugh, you people give me a f**king headache. Can't you see that what you're trying to prove, "that a tulpa is not sentient because their is no evidence they are", is a logical fallacy?

 

For the record, Mistgod and I are not trying to prove anything using a logical fallacy. It is factual that there is no evidence to make a final conclusion either way. We had to choose a side. So we lean towards the active imagination/figment/self delusion side of things. We chose our side of the fence, but that doesn't mean we are trying to prove anything really. Again we are not trying to rationalize, justify or prove. We talk about how we think things are for us in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...