J.Iscariot

What IS a tulpa?

What is a tulpa, folks?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. What is a tulpa, folks?

    • A tulpa is an imaginary friend. It inhabits the mind's imagination and is limited to the imagination. A tulpa possesses apparent sentience and no autonomy outside of their host's perspective.
    • A tulpa is very much like a simulation of a person; the human brain could not possibly take two or three constant thought processes going on at once, and tulpamancy originates from the subconscious and active imagination.
    • A tulpa is an entity that can be compared to other thoughtforms like headmates and soulbonds. Truth is, there might not even be any difference, and the tulpamancy concept is a highly subjective one.
    • A tulpa is literally what the definition on the homepage of this site says. It's a sentient and intelligent entity that probably originates from the subconscious and acts on its own with emotions and the likes.
    • A tulpa originates from escapism and detachment of sense of reality. Tulpamancy and plurality originate from the exact same roots, and we may never know if anything is true or not.
    • A tulpa is whatever the host wants it to be; an imaginary friend, a sentient entity, it all depends on the host and their will.


Recommended Posts

I mean.. How can we even talk about tulpas being "actually sentient" without knowing about what sentience actually is? Is anyone here able to come up to anyone with solid evidence of "sentience"? Do we have any solidified document? Where do our sources reach out to?

 

How can anyone come here and say that we have a "fleshed-out" definition for tulpas (or for headpeople) while we do not have fleshed out sources or research in the first place?

 

I'm really curious as to what people have to say about this.

 

EDIT: As to not derail anything, I'm going to make a thread about this.


I'm SomethingDire, and Céleste is my partner in crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that, in order to define a tulpa's 'sentience' (your tulpa not just any tulpa as people on the internet cannot tell you what you have except if you share very explicit details), you would need to go along a few conditions.

 

Let us define 'sentient'.

able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste (source: merriam-webster)

 

With that in mind, let us define 'autonomous'. The type of 'autonomous' that is often implied in tulpamancy, that is, and not the autonomic nervous system.

 

1. existing or acting separately from other things or people

 

2. having the power or right to govern itself (source: merriam-webster)

 

And what is a tulpa, according to this site?

 

A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you.

 

The first sentence serves as a good definition of autonomy. The last sentence says that a tulpa is 'LIKE' a sentient person, which may hold two implications: a tulpa is not actually sentient and merely a projection of sentience, OR, a tulpa is actually sentient but with no body.

 

The problem I have with 'apparent sentience' is that in reality, the tulpa themselves won't get to experience anything at all. I will paste what I wrote on this topic a while back:

 

You see, if you have what seems to be a tulpa but is not an actual tulpa, it's not that it's anything bad for you; after all, as you said, you would get the many benefits of tulpamancy, without ever really knowing if you ARE deluded or not. But let's just say that a person is deluded, shall we? Not with any pretense of elitism, or with a pretense of me defining what people are and are not. Let's say someone is deluded. They get to experience the many things tulpamancy has to present... but would the tulpa itself get to feel anything? Think anything? Have any emotions of their own aside from what the host is shown by the mind?

 

The thing that fuels my bias against apparent sentience is that the tulpa itself would not be experiencing anything. Let us hypothesize that a tulpa is like a shell; the shell can be empty as it can be filled. Filled with microorganisms that form the 'sentient' being. All you can see, as a host, is typically the shell, you cannot see the insides. But if the shell was empty, to me, and I suppose that many other people would feel that way, I would feel devastated. Why, you may ask. Why would someone under the influence of an apparent tulpa feel bad if it were merely a delusion? Because I really do treat my tulpa as if she had emotions and feelings of her own. If she did not, and if I was allowed to do anything to her without feeling anything such as remorse or regret, would she be a person full of imperfections that judges me and does things that show her emotions and feelings of sadness, frustration, etc?

 

I speak the way I do because I believe I was able to crack the shell, and see the insides, to a point I was fully exposed to the insides. I'm not saying everyone else cannot do that, if I out of all people can, others can under the right circumstances. I speak this way because I cannot open the shell of other people, and see the 'insides' (although I developed many points in the upcoming thing I am writing - something I won't be putting in submissions for the sake of accepting it and community endorsement), so I cannot be sure. I can be sure about myself, but not about others. And I believe that, yes, it is arrogant to say that, but I feel like I am knowledgeable on what concerns my tulpa. Not all tulpas, but my tulpa exclusively.

 

I often use a very linear and strict reasoning: If you tell me that 60% of a population is rich, I will not reflect upon how rich it is but on the 40% that are poor, I will admit it as a reality and focus on that. If you say that a tulpa has apparent sentience, is it not the same as claiming that it is a vivid delusion to you? Take the shell example. The shell is not what is actually inside; it represents it. And can you know what there is inside? Ultimately, under the right circumstances, yes. I believe it is possible to know whether a tulpa IS sentient or not under the right circumstances. Of course, that may be a generalized statement, but from my experience, that's that. And those circumstances are very personal ones, might write a bit about that later on.

 

In shorter terms, the main difference between actual sentience and apparent sentience is that the latter is one-sided interaction with one's self, in which the other party may not experience anything at all, no thoughts, no emotions, no psychological drive, no will to power... absolutely nothing. Extreme much, yes.


A wise man once said: 'Before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? He's a mile away, and you've got new shoes.'

 

Graced are those who could avoid this phenomenon. This is perhaps the worst expression of evil in humanity's history, but who am I to judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by my rectangles and squares analogy. This devolved into sentience which is a generally pointless conversation since no one can verify it, and the concept itself isn't even agreed upon (some say animals are sentient, others disagree).

 

I have been mentoring young therians for years, I know the difference between making someone feel unwelcome, and actually teaching and presenting them with correct information. The latter is an act of caring, for the individual and the community as a whole. And you can teach proper terms and information without being a jerk about it.

The terms exist, and we should be using the ones that most accurately describe what our thought forms are. Its that simple.


"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Arthur Conan Doyle

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by my rectangles and squares analogy. This devolved into sentience which is a generally pointless conversation since no one can verify it, and the concept itself isn't even agreed upon (some say animals are sentient, others disagree).

 

I have been mentoring young therians for years, I know the difference between making someone feel unwelcome, and actually teaching and presenting them with correct information. The latter is an act of caring, for the individual and the community as a whole. And you can teach proper terms and information without being a jerk about it.

The terms exist, and we should be using the ones that most accurately describe what our thought forms are. Its that simple.

 

We are not going to come to a consensus on how the proper terms are applied, or implied. Any more debate at this point will be just as unproductive as it has been. You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. Have a nice day.


Host: Ayre

Tulpas: Coda and Segno

 

Shameless Progress Report Plug:

Ayre's Opus 1: Informal informative index of inhabitants in an invisible inner-world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes me chuckle that you forgot the last "a" in my name in all of those quotes' date=' LinkZelda.[/quote']

 

I apologize. That wasn’t intended, and I was typing that post late at night. I had the site in a half-sized browser on my left, and a quick word document to edit my thoughts on the right.

 

While a small part may rely on perception, the only bit that does is perceiving the traits about the thought form that put it in one category or another.

If you make a thought form based on a character, regardless of deviation from the source or not if it has a history this makes it a soulbond.

 

Maybe this is part of the rigid analogy you were using, but I think if you’re willing to think that deviation itself from the source isn’t going to affect how a person labels the thought-form, that’s just a mental constraint set upon the person, I guess. Still doesn’t mean others can’t think differently, though.

 

My understanding of daemons is if they are true daemons any "deviation" is indicative in a change in you the host, not the being itself. Since it is a reflection if you.

It's always possible to have mislabeled something, in which case just admit the mistake, correct it, and learn from it for the future.

 

This emphasizes my point that you’re just putting it into a different context that allows one to sustain the idea that in spite of those nuances that may occur, they would still be daemons. The detached justification is that it’s a change in the host, and not the entity in and of itself. Though, I’m not sure if self-referential metaphors is potent enough for a distinction, as I’m sure for whatever thought-form, one can’t help but feel there’s that analogy with reflection of self, figment of one’s imagination, and what have you.

 

"A sentient thought form...." so on, describes a tulpa.

All if the above... "and they have a history/backstory/memories" describes a soulbond.

First description... "except instead of being independent/autonomous, they are a reflection of you" a daemon.

 

First one allows for more interpretation on the user involved. Second point you made with the backstory—there’s countless threads of people who feel their tulpas had a backstory; fabricated, or something real in context of how they want their own psychology to make it so. Third point, this can bleed over to other forms of thoughtforms.

 

Would it not make sense them to call the being by the more accurate term?

 

Rather than going by textbook logic, what if the tulpa wanted to fabricate a backstory, or assert that they have one without believing it was fabricated simply due to the probability that we as hosts have an experiential fallback to refer to, and they (tulpa) felt the need to do so as a stepping stone towards developing sentience?

 

Now, if I stepped outside of the context of tulpas, and tried to look at it from another community’s point of view, they could see the detached justification as the host willing to allow deviation to occur to cling to the ulterior objective that they’re going to treat the tulpa as sentient. In other words, they attribute their own meanings, and do whatever it takes to preserve the ulterior motive, even if the justification may not be sound in different contexts.

 

All squares are rectangles' date=' but not all rectangles are squares. If you go calling squares rectangles, you'll end up confusing a lot of people and cause a lot of misunderstandings. One should always be using the most specific and accurate term they can when labelling things. This is true from as simple as shapes to complex, like thought forms.[/quote']

 

If the terms seem to be subjective and contingent upon the person’s framework, finding accuracy in any of the terms at this point becomes moot, and the analogy is just a straw man to try and stitch things up. If what you were doing with the daemon/tulpa/soulbond was supposed to be sufficient enough, I’m not sure how it’s going to erase the “why” in individuals that question certain circumstances (e.g. what I mentioned with the back story). Until you can prevent the “why” from occurring, it’s just stating things, and wanting to believe there won’t be equivocations when there’s still ambiguity.

 

What if I turned the squares and rectangle analogy into something like?

 

All tulpas are thoughtforms, but not all thoughtforms are tulpas. It’s the prime example of begging the question. The analogy falls short, and becomes infantile when trying to put it into context of sentience, especially when trying to put it as cause and effect with experiences, causality, etc. Especially if you felt expanding on sentience seems pointless in the conversation, how can you even still stand by the squares and rectangle analogy when you feel sentience in general is pointless because no one can verify it (or at least even contemplate further on it?)

 

Not all thoughtforms are tulpas—understandable, but that doesn’t throw away the probability that the square (tulpa) can’t operate/exist/develop within the same rules as other rectangles. In fact, the tulpa (square) still operates within a similar gesture as all other thoughtforms(rectangle), which is why all tulpas are thoughtforms. This can go on and on as usual with begging-the-question analogies seem to be. Do it vice versa, and it becomes just as, or even more problematic; and textbook logic just makes it go haywire at this point. Subjectivity becomes apparent—it may not solve the issue concretely with simple terms, but someone has to step outside the box and try.

 

 

The thing that fuels my bias against apparent sentience is that the tulpa itself would not be experiencing anything.

 

Then you might be a supporter that those that treat tulpas as sentient are probably cultivating p-zombies, and that might serve as a useful argument in your skepticism. But in a thread I made about p-zombies a while back, you could probably see that while it’s easy to categorize the p-zombie as a probability, one can’t help but wonder if they (host) are a p-zombie themselves. In other words, if the host can be confident in their sentience, and have competency in validating this to themselves—if they treat a tulpa as sentient to where they can put into context of the reality they’re in to where they may have their own model similar to the host, and yet can’t experience anything, is this merely the mentality the host sets to appease any further apprehension? Or is it just similar in any form of justification used for sustaining biases?

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.