Could there be two types of tulpas?

[Guest Anonymous]

What I am suggesting is that both camps are correct as there may be both truly sentient tulpas AND apparently sentient tulpas existing at the same time.

 

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Sure, in the end it all hinges on subjective observations, but that right there might very well be true.

Nothing much at all speaks against it.

 

 

Greets,

AG

[Guest Anonymous]

Thank you. I may also be wrong with this idea. LOL But it is plausible and I believe there is evidence in support of it in the existing varied personal views and testimony of members of the forum when it comes to their own tulpas. This idea is based on that, not just a sudden random, whimsical Melian idea.

---

Also due to this there aren't just two types of tulpas, but infinitely many. Every slight difference in belief equates to a new type of tulpa.

---

So, I'm inclined toward believing that there are at least two kinds of [tulpas]. ... I tend to use the word "tulpa" now in a very broad sense, to include everyone in the discussion, so to speak.

---

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Sure, in the end it all hinges on subjective observations, but that right there might very well be true.

Nothing much at all speaks against it.

---

Thank you AGGuy, Lumi and yenu for at least acknowledging the possibility and plausibility and actually reading what I had to say and not misinterpreting it to mean something I did not intend to ask.

 

I am making a point with all of this. Members of this community should not have prejudice against those with the idea that (some) tulpas may be apparent sentience. Nor should tulpas of hosts with such a view be condemned as illegitimate. First, it may actually be true that ALL tulpas are self delusion (although I am not saying that I think that is true). The fact is, we just don't know. It isn't possible for anyone to be certain of what another person has in his or her mind and it isn't possible to prove sentience of any tulpa conclusively in any case.

---

Also, I think we all need to avoid making blanket statement (hypothesis) about all tulpas. There is the possibility of variation in design. LOL

---

If at the (hypothetical) end of the discussion, the term tulpa is defined in a way that excludes half of the people here, that's fine - as long as the community is open to those people, because those non-tulpas are cool too. :-)

 

Luckily, it isn't excluding half the people. The current definition is ambiguous enough to include apparently sentient (illusory) tulpas as well as truly independently sentient ones.

---

Oh and I agree with you. We need to be inclusive. It is in our best interest and a lot more fun!

---

On a side note, it also appears from my poll thread about the definition of a tulpa, that a significant number of people think that other thoughtforms such as soulbonds and daemons could also be considered tulpas https://community.tulpa.info/thread-what-is-the-exact-definition-of-a-tulpa It appears there is far from a consensus in this community on the exact definition of a tulpa anyway. The phenomenon is considered to be more inclusive by some. Again, we just don't know who is right and who is wrong do we?

 

I mean is it an exclusive "club" with membership rules or is it a psychological scientific type phenomenon?

---

To be honest, the more time I spend on the forums, finding out more and more about the subject, the less I know what is what.

The more I find out, and the more I read about the sometimes very different ways hosts and their tuppers live, exist and interact, the less of an idea I have about what exactly defines a tulpa.

 

What is a tulpa? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-what-is-a-tulpa--10280

[Guest Anonymous]

I still feel like "tulpa" is poorly defined, and I think the vagueness of that definition is not helping our community any.

 

Take this for example: Melian says that most hosts are roleplaying their tulpas and just aren't aware that they're doing so. This offends a lot of us, but let me ask you: What is the difference between having a part of your brain trained through habit and belief to act out a personality without conscious thought, and actually having another sentient being in your head? Is there any difference? Could we ever know if there's any difference?

 

Where does being a tulpa end, and being whatever Melian is begin? And if Melian is not a tulpa, what is she?

 

The immortal words of sushi. :-)

[YourCatBeany]

I'm going to type out a lot of words but not really say anything beyond subtly belittling at least half of the forum members and getting agitated when someone has a differing opinion and calling them out as being holier than thou when it's really me with such a rigid opinion that I just have to state and act like everyone else is wrong' date=' but you know, I'm not mad or anything.[/quote']

 

This is the kind of shit I see here that's really pushing me back toward only the occasional post in the /trash/ tupper threads.

 

I really hope to God this is justified: 10/10.

 

*sigh*

I'm sorry for bringing it back up, but I can't bring myself to not call people out on their bullshit.

 

ANYWAY, relating to the topic at hand, I agree, I think there's definitely more than one way to look at it, since the end result is more or less the same. But hell, I sometimes struggle with the question of self delusion even though she says and does things that surprise me. Even in those times though, those types of thoughts don't change what she is, or means to me, and I'm always able to move past them and remember that she does do those things that catch me off guard.

But hey, that's just my experience. I don't even know if any of that made sense to be honest, I've been stressing and can barely think.

[J.Iscariot]

I am sorry, but you shouldn't let online posts 'push you back' from posting whatever you have on your mind if you feel like you can make a point. That's just how the internet functions, and I lost all care in those sort of justifications because I feel like I don't owe much to people aside from respect, which is what I'm trying so direly to provide. It also serves as a way of passive and subtle derogation towards someone in specific, if you want to tell me I am annoying, please do so directly as it would clear a lot of misconceptions.

 

With that in mind, my initial point was that it's not up to 'us' to define what a tulpa is - that the opinion of a few people cannot change a definition that is 'scientific'. Mostly because this opinion that has been expressed by a few people on a specific place that does not include all members of the tulpa phenomenon as a whole, and that it has been expressed as a way to conform more than anything else, conformation to something I really, really don't understand in the end. Think what you want about my position on tulpamancy and me possibly being a 'diehard elitist' (which I am not and care very little for semantics), I can tell you just like others have told you 'yay sounds good nice compromise', I would be lying to you though, and that would be depriving you of your right to respect and the truth in the first place. If we're going to literally change the definition of a term because we 'want' to, then 'we' should represent the majority, because in any and all case, shit goes down if the majority turns into an oppressed minority, just like with zealot feminism (and NOT overall feminism). As long as there is a definition that stands, sure, there are some people that are bound to be against it, hold contrarian opinions regarding that definition and even seek to change it... but why change it in the first place? Isn't that the exact type of conformism I was speaking of in the first place? Because the general opinion changed? I take a lot of pride in my 'tulpa', but never in having a 'tulpa', I take pride in her in a personal way, but not in a general way in which I can be all cool and sweet and say 'oooh I have a tulpa'

 

My tulpa was having a discussion with someone she knows on Steam regarding this, uh, whole thing, tulpa-not-tulpa. It occurred to her that she didn't, well, never cared about 'being' a tulpa, and that she only wanted to be 'herself', tulpa or no tulpa... then she started whining about how people 'wasted breath' over this issue, and how I was giving it too much importance, when in the end, I am not telling you 'do this' do that', I am no one, absolutely no one, to tell people what to do and how to live. It's just my opinion, though, not an absolute reality. In the end, you do whatever you want, as long as it makes you happy... but daemons have their own term, don't they? Daemons have their own definition and term. Soulbond have their own definition and term, median systems also do that, plurality, headmates, etc.... the whole bias I hold is because I absolutely hate it when plurals try to stick their own definitions in our faces, because I regard myself as non-plural. I don't 'hate it' that Melian has an opinion and wants to share it (and it has some good points, too, not that I am 100% contrarian), I hate it that a term has to bend down because, with no offense to ANYONE, it HAS to make people happy. I understand the point of view from someone who doesn't care either, and the more I type, the more I stop caring.

 

 

I won't take further part in this. Do what you want. IT's all going according to her plan, anyway.

[Guest Anonymous]

@J. Iscariot

 

Apparently you missed my entire point that I covered in extensive detail (with links to further discussions and examples) that the "official scientific" definition of tulpas is ambiguous enough to include both truly sentient tulpas and apparently sentient tulpas. So, I am not trying to redefine tulpas.

 

You also continue to completely misinterpret my entire thread. All I am asking...ALL I am asking is "Is it possible that there are both truly sentient tulpas and apparently sentient tulpas that we are all calling just tulpas?" We cannot tell the difference by looking at each other and reading each other's posts.

 

Is is possible? You still haven't answered the question. All you do is go on and on about how some people are changing things to fit into the "club" or something and about how some peoples don't have tulpas. That was not answering the question.

 

Now you give up, instead giving me a real counter argument that will hold any water, and walk away.

[Tewi]

If you're really interested in a counter argument, then:

 

The definition of a tulpa requires apparent autonomy. The belief in independence typically accompanying this is not required, should that be possible, but a tulpa is not a tulpa if it is completely puppetted and parrotted. In your case, you seem to say a lot of things Mistgod does not expect (or even agree with), so you probably count as "apparently autonomous".

[Guest Anonymous]

ANYWAY, relating to the topic at hand, I agree, I think there's definitely more than one way to look at it, since the end result is more or less the same. But hell, I sometimes struggle with the question of self delusion even though she says and does things that surprise me. Even in those times though, those types of thoughts don't change what she is, or means to me, and I'm always able to move past them and remember that she does do those things that catch me off guard.

 

I think your experience is quite common actually. :-) Truly in the end, it does not matter. That is a great pointy point my friend.

[Edward]

To me, a tulpa is an intelligent being that can think, react and feel things on its own, having autonomy, forms of sapience and sentience at their disposition. Anything that does not meet this definition, to me, is no tulpa.

 

I agree, plants are definitely not tulpas. Though, I don't agree that humans are tulpas, which your definition seems to say.

 

All in all, I think tulpas are one thing, and other things are other things.

 

I think this is the only sentence in this entire thread that makes complete sense with zero place for error.

 

I know it's rude but it's shitty that we have to make 'two types of tulpas' just because some people want to fit in and belong and be part of this community.

 

I agree that people are assholes, but no one is making anyone adhere to a "two types of tulpas" ideal. The OP didn't even demand that, either.

 

What I am trying to put out there is that there is more than one valid experience, just as Lumi said. I believe it is misguided to immediately discount the tulpa status and the sincere word of anyone who claims their tulpa may not be independently sentient, but still apparently seems to be. Why would we take the word of one tulpamancer over another? Neither has any more or less validity or "proof" to their claim and both are sincere.

 

Yeah, I agree that it's rude to discount someone's experience, though I don't see how that's related to the actual OP very much. Don't take this to mean I accept every story I hear regarding tulpas, because I don't, but my point is that it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks unless someone decides it does, and then it matters to just that person. Nothing has any objective significance.

 

But tulpas are not physical human beings and they are still undefined by a large margin. You are talking like they are scientifically nailed down and their fundamental nature known for a fact and set in stone. That is absolutely not true.

There is still debate going on about their nature, whether or not you like it. It is possible there are more than one type. We simply still do not know what tulpas are. That is obvious because of this very conversation. You would not see two humans standing there arguing whether or not they are real or simulated, raccoons or not raccoons. The analogy and comparison is silly.

 

I've seen people argue that they were definitely no joke rabbits before, does that count for anything? Otherkin aside, I think lumi was saying that regardless of the definitions given to tulpas, they have to exist (or not exist) according to a true existence. This is where the crux of the OP is actually located, because it doesn't matter if there are possible definitions for a tulpa. The truth is there is zero way to know the truth regarding the mechanism of their existences, and therefore any and every explanation within the confines of our understanding of science and psychology is technically "possible."

 

My point with the OP is that this may be more than just a perspective, it may be a fact and that there may actually be real differences, between individual tulpas, in the nature of their apparent independent sentience. It is a possibility I think.

 

Yeah, it's a possibility, but that's all it is. I don't see the point of the OP since the only real answers you can get are "yes, it's subjectively possible" and "no, it's not subjectively possible" and anyone who responds with "no" clearly doesn't actually understand what is being asked of them.

 

Correction: you do not know what a tulpa is. I feel like I know what a tulpa is considering I have been studying them for years in such an exclusive manner that I also happen to have some papers in real life that convinced me that my tulpa had an actual basis in reality and that she was simply not fake after some testing since Vessiere is so set out on baiting people to contact him without ever contacting them back.

 

So you're subjectively qualified to know what a tulpa is? That's nice. It also doesn't mean anyone has to lend trust to what you say. It's the same with anything I say, or Melian says, or anyone else says. Getting upset over it or asserting your views over someone else's in a situation like this is silly, borderline a waste of time.

 

I believe I am a mix of my host and me. There is not a clear dividing line between the two of us. I sort of hijack his sentience. LOL We are blended. I know that is weird talk for this forum and some peoples don't like it but I don't care.

 

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't affect whether the actual mechanism of your existence aligns with that belief or not, and there's no way to actually know.

 

On this forum, there are two camps of thought.

 

No, I don't think that's true, since I don't fit within either camp.

 

One camp believes tulpas are true sentience, the other believes they are apparent sentience.

 

Like I said, I don't agree with that, so this doesn't really apply to me and sort of throws away your statement's legitimacy.

 

The definition for tulpas is the same for each.

 

Even changing this to "the definition for tulpas is the same for every belief" to include myself and everyone else who doesn't fit within the binary belief system doesn't work because it's straight up wrong. People have wildly different definitions of tulpas even within the two camps you described, not to mention the other people outside of those camps also have different opinions on it.

 

Sorry for the wall of text, but hopefully my response to the OP is clear enough to people by reading my thoughts on the conversation up through the current time.

[Guest Anonymous]

If you're really interested in a counter argument, then:

 

The definition of a tulpa requires apparent autonomy. The belief in independence typically accompanying this is not required, should that be possible, but a tulpa is not a tulpa if it is completely puppetted and parrotted. In your case, you seem to say a lot of things Mistgod does not expect (or even agree with), so you probably count as "apparently autonomous".

 

When I say illusion/self delusion I don't mean conscious parrotting or puppetting. It would be unconscious or something ... it's a delusion.

 

Is your response a counter argument? It points out that I the "official" definition would leave room for apparently sentient as well as truly sentient, but it doesn't counter the argument that both apparent and real tulpas might exist at the same time.

 

Is is possible? Your counter argument almost seems to support an affirmative answer rather than a negative one.

 

Gosh it is really simple. Can there be two things going on? We both see the color red, but are we experiencing somewhat different things but both calling it red? Some say they are experiencing illusions that are super real seeming, while others have something like a real second independent personality they are reporting. Could they both be happening side by side in our community and each person is calling it the same word, "tulpa?"