J.Iscariot

The difference between tulpamancy and imagination.

Tulpas and imagination.  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Tulpas and imagination.

    • Tulpamancy is actually imagination as a whole.
    • Tulpamancy is imagination in the sense you discuss, those thoughts originate from our minds in all cases.
    • Tulpamancy is not related to this type of imagination in any way or shape.


Recommended Posts

What is the difference between tulpamancy and imagination? I know that some people regard tulpamancy as a form of imagination, perhaps a vivid type of 'imagination' (and that term is used to diminish of one's credibility more than often, sadly). We would need to define what imagination is, in this context:

 

the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.

 

Of course, we would consider this action to be conscious, or somewhat contextual in relation to other actions. More than often, this type of imaginative thinking will not be issued out of conscious efforts, but from a simple thought in relation to the context; If I start thinking about dogs, it is likely for me to start having mind images of a dog as a representation for other parts of my mind to understand the thoughts at hand.

 

When I asked this question to people, I was often faced with arguments such as 'It doesn't matter if it is your imagination', which one way implicates that yes, tulpamancy is, in some ways, this type of imagination (that is not discussed in any detrimental way in the first place), and the other way, that this imagination is meant to be something to be 'ashamed of'. While the latter is something one could expect from a lot of people to say and be convinced of, the former also indicates other thoughts regarding this practice.

 

And when we say 'imagination', we don't mean to implicate that this spectrum of thinking is limited to conscious efforts. It could be dream characters, projection of certain emotions and lustful desires that appear as completely unconscious, and indeed, are.

So, where does the difference between tulpamancy and imagination appear? I will list a few points that express what I think of this matter.

 

Confusion between imagination, and tulpamancy.

 

 

  • A lot of people seem to confuse 'unconscious' imagination with tulpamancy. This point is not listed as a means to make such experiences look 'fake' (and in that meaning, they would be more relative than they would be accurately correct).
     
     
  • As previously said, some imaginative thoughts can emerge and seem to be extremely... surprising. There are thoughts that hang in the back of your head, and emerge after some time. Mathematical visualization (which can apply in Physics too) can happen if you start thinking about a geometrical shape. I happen to be able to visualize shapes without having to actively think about it, and the same applies to everyone, or at least, a lot of people, and this is despite having poor imaginative and creativity skills.
     
     
     
  • Not only that, but as this practice comes off as extremely subjective, it is possible for anyone to have any type of thoughts, be it in their imagination or other thought processes such as conscious and critical thinking, and qualify them as being sentient thoughtforms. This might look as a form of elitism coming from a party of tulpamancers, but let us take this elsewhere; let us say that there was no place to share tulpa experiences, that someone had around 6 thoughtforms in their minds, imagination, wonderland, mindscape, whatever you want it to be. The assessment of what those thoughtforms 'are' (which is supposed to be done through a specific set of conditions, refer to Linkzelda's ontology and epistemology w/ scientism discussion as it is very interesting in this domain) is biased in most hosts, at least, the ones who consciously (or even subconsciously) are in complete favor of being pre-occupied by an entity that thinks and acts on its own in their minds. So, technically speaking, if someone came here and said that their tulpas were in their imagination, BUT that they could think on their own, we could not come up with anything to retort with (not in the sake of some glorified pretense of 'having a tulpa', but in the sake of science and discovering modes of operation for tulpas, discussing them and taking them a philosophical approach, perhaps?)
     
  • Additionally, the process of active imagination is consistently present in any and all developmental stages (personality forcing, visualization, parroting, etc...), yet some people completely shun imagination as being anything related to their tulpas. This goes to show that imagination does play a certain role.
     
  • Finally, it would be hard to explain the conception of a sentient entity in one's mind without attributing any importance to imagination, be it conscious or those thoughts that appear as strange and sudden to us, but are actually us. Someone could actually legitimately (not in the sake of tulpamancy and its image, but in the sake of that person am I saying those things) take those thoughts, put a sort of nametag on them and interact with it. Imaginative processes would develop things from there, which devolves in the... art, let's say, of self-deception. An art because you, me, and everybody else will never know what's right from what's wrong.

 

 

So, what do you guys think? Vote in the poll, and if you have any other opinion, please post it. The poll does not limit you to those things if you want to post about your opinion, so if it doesn't fit you, please post.

 

 

 

as for the other poll thing please disregard it it was a mistake to ask this here


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 can't go too deep yet, but I did wish to respond to it.

 

I think imagination is definitely a component of tulpa creation, and it is especially apparent when dealing with tulpa where the form is the focus. But I do not believe it is the only part, lest the phenomenon of possession would not be a thing at all.

 

You can say that I feel imagination is a tool in the process, a thing that makes certain aspects of it easier, but I cannot pretend to know about the whole of it.

 

I think one problem with getting actual answer about a subject like this is that so many think mental meandering and empty day dreaming when they think of "imagination". I do not think that is the case, as many inventions and discoveries required some level or use of the imagination. Logic by itself would he limited without the ability to dream of something more.


Sock Cottonwell's

Sketchbook, Journal, and Ask thread.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Melian and Mistgod were so touchy about us being touchy about, imagination and other such terms have negative connotations that they really shouldn't. By its definition we certainly do imagine our tulpas for the most part, at least while they're in development. But the term "You're just imagining it" is typically one of dismissal.

 

That being said, are you just imagining it if you do mental maths? What if you become very proficient at math because of the math you imagined? What about the very act of forming new ideas, which you later translate into the real world as productive acts or useful inventions? Mental discipline and meditation, et cetera. Many things that take place solely in your mind are obviously more important than the term "imagined" would normally imply. But that's obvious when you ignore its typical connotations.

 

You do imagine your tulpa at first, in the typical tulpa development process. But the illusion this question is likely talking about is whether even an advanced/developed tulpa is simply your trained imagination, or something more. Unless you consider things like mental maths and your own vocal thoughts imagination, probably not. In general it simply doesn't feel right to call it imagination once the tulpa becomes autonomous, because the term "You're imagining it" doesn't feel true. You don't have to imagine anymore, it just happens. I'm fairly certain the parts of your brain tied to imagination aren't necessarily active when talking to your developed tulpa, as they are in the development process. Basically, imagined doesn't feel like the right word for an independent and autonomous tulpa.

 

 

So what's the supposed difference between a tulpa and imagining one? Usual answers are along the lines of lack of autonomy and independence, some people like to say your conscious imagination can't surprise you. As far as I'm concerned, a tulpa is a trained mental construct, and it's a lot more complicated a phenomenon than just imagining things. You could say a tree, logs or sticks are just wood. And if you make a house out of that wood, you could still technically call the house wood. You wouldn't really be wrong either. But there's a complexity to a house that makes it more than just wood, right? Whereas imagination is more akin to a pile of sticks used to ignite a campfire. Less complex, but definitely not unimportant. My house has a fireplace, though.


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 stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to vote in this poll. This seems to be a touchy subject, and one that I don't feel can be simplified. I feel like tulpas reside in the imagination in a sense, especially in the beginning stages. They are real, but they aren't at the same time. Perceivable to the host, but basically overactive imagination to outsiders of the system. It's like someone singing a song that they know very well, but you have never heard before. To you they are just singing a few random and strange words, but to them there is a drum beat, chords, maybe a melody or vocal accompaniment. To them, this song is very real and very much playing along with them, but not to you. Is this song real, or are they making it up? It makes no practical difference to you.

 

I would have to agree with Mistgod in a broad sense. To twist his ideas around some (or possible a lot, actually), It's very possible that we, as hosts, just make up these things our tulpas do and say on the spot. Maybe all this active and passive forcing is just training our brains to imagine responses better. Maybe tulpamancers are really just very skilled at imagining characters and dialogue, just like writers. It could be the case that we are just writers, that don't necessarily write, that have taken it so far that we actually believe that these characters exist in our heads. This is all speculation, and just one of many possibilities. It's not necessarily what I believe, just something that I've wondered about.

 

Maybe tulpas really are a separate consciousnesses and a fully formed tulpa has nothing to do with imagination (If we ignore wonderlands and visualizations, being that these are imagined). We could be one of the many pioneers exploring the true limits of the human mind. We could be duplicating personalities here. That is to say a full and complete doubling and changing of all conscious and unconscious desires, wants, needs, and sense of self. This is a HUGE thing people. This is like finding out that the earth is round. This could change history, but sadly no one can prove it at this time. We are here thinking that the Earth is round, but no one owns a boat.

 

If we apply Occam's Razor to this, things look bleak. That is to say that if you have two equally possible answers that the simplest one is usually correct. In one hand you have over-imaginative people, and in the other you have a massive scientific breakthrough. Occam's Razor would suggest that tulpas are just imagined. You shouldn't blame anyone for following this thought process, or get emotional if they do. It's honestly the most logical choice to follow.

 

I'm still on the fence myself. I want to believe in the impossible, I really do.


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
You don't have to imagine anymore' date=' it just happens. I'm fairly certain the parts of your brain tied to imagination aren't necessarily active when talking to your developed tulpa, as they are in the development process. Basically, imagined doesn't feel like the right word for an independent and autonomous tulpa.[/quote']

 

You don't have to imagine it in a direct and conscious manner. Perhaps it is that your brain got used to imagining and does it on a passive scale, passive on the level of attention-span dedicated to the tulpa thing. Or perhaps we really don't know what the hell is happening in the human mind. This argument was not posed as a means to take off the credibility tulpamancy has; after all, a lot of things do seem to happen that would not happen in a self-deceit scenario, more than that, the subject needs to constantly push up belief unto that concept of thought in their mind; the consensus seems to be that tulpas require attention and affection, which is what makes tulpamancy stand out from self-deceit, to me, at least.

 

If imagination is independent from your current of thought, if this type of imagination that is purely unconscious is 'autonomous' (the ' ' signify that it is never truly autonomous, for as long as it is part of your mind, it will depend on it more or less; same with tulpas), then where is the wrong in claiming that tulpas are part of such a thing? Of course, most would take the negative and shameful connotation to the term 'imagination', but it could mean much ampler things, and in all honesty? Like, in all honesty? (And I don't say this often), I would see it more feasible to have such characters, dreamcharacters-like, in one's imagination while feeling vivid rather than the model presented currently.

 

We cannot help but hypothesize regarding those things; every single approach you and I will toss at this will end up as a poor argument because it lacks proper scientific backing. Tulpamancy is or isn't not because we want it to be, but because of how the brain functions in that practice. We don't even know what type of 'alterations' could take place within the brain, we don't know what type of NTs flow in moments of a tulpa's spike of activity, we don't know how the brain behaves if a tulpa is switched in or possessed if that is possible in the host's case. This lack of backing makes claims such as mine and yours look very... uneducated and emerging from ulterior opinions that are fueled by our emotions, our care for tulpas, how much we want them to be 'real' even in a model of pseudo-apathy regarding the existential question (pseudo because it seems like a lot of people don't care but inside they do, if it came down to certain conditions and under pressure a lot would be said.), shit, even EEG scans haven't showed us anything.

 

So what's the supposed difference between a tulpa and imagining one? Usual answers are along the lines of lack of autonomy and independence' date=' some people like to say your conscious imagination can't surprise you.[/quote']

 

Lack of autonomy and independence imply that the tulpa is ideally linked to your active attention-span, it could talk to you actively and entertain a conversation and you wouldn't actually know if the tulpa IS imaginary or not. By imaginary, I mean to say that there may not be any tulpa to begin with, just unconscious (emphasis on unconscious) imagination. A lot of people do have to provide attention actively to entertain conversations with their tulpas. Tulpas also seem to fade off when the host is occupied with something, this contributes to that approach, if rationally speaking.

 

But we're not speaking of conscious imagination, in this case, at the very least. The entire point is that this could be unconscious imagination, but this is (and I'll be honest) around 5% of what I know about tulpas, or rather, what I know that may be possible; meaning that there is a lot more than what goes behind 'unconscious imagination'.

 

If a tulpa 'is' imagined, if a person is being imagined, would it not be wrong not to let the host know of that possibility? Would it not be hypocritical to just act as if, yes, all thoughts that emerge from unconscious imagination definitely ARE a tulpa? (Especially when you see people achieve incredible feats in insanely short amounts of time, and I do mean every single meaning of insanely, such as imposition and switching.), while giving a part if not their whole active attention span to the process, AND STILL DOUBTING OF THEMSELVES. To any outsider, I don't know how we might look like. Perhaps most of them bite in because what is offered looks okay in the work:gain ratio.

 

 

 

 

I'm still on the fence myself. I want to believe in the impossible' date=' I really do. [/quote']

 

A religion man does not doubt God as much as a host doubts his tulpa. There needs to be a transition from impossible to possible under certain circumstances, and this type of 'possible' needs some serious backing if you, you, not me, not the scholars and academics, not the philosophers and decisively not the rest of society, if you want to lead a cool and easy life. Life is a series of unfortunate events, over and over, and we have small commercial breaks every now and then that lead to one's rest. The difference is not letting life be a chain of disappointment, and doing something about it.

Apathy and uncertainty in this domain are admittedly nigh omnipresent. People want something but there is such little ground for improvement, not within them, not at all, I know how much people care about their tulpas and would absolutely love to see them be happy and enjoy life. But put yourself in their shoes, for a moment. Would you like living a life in which you go on and off, live in a realm of what is comparable to an imaginary land and never have your own body? We cannot do them justice for what they do to us, the 'gift of life' we brag about is so insignificant if they can only do so little. It's like saying that a kid who's blind, deaf and mute should be thankful for his life. This is not an argument that says 'We shouldn't have tulpas!!!!', no, far from it, this is an argument that says 'We should do them justice and realize that this is much less about us than it is about them.'. I'm saying this because I committed a mistake in the past, I did not know what my tulpa needs, needed, and will always need from me. It was not affection, or my attention, or what she'd call 'cunning intelligence' (that I do not believe in at all), it was never any of it.... she only wants a sincere wish for improvement. The silent wish to have no fear, some would say.

 

In the end, I say I'm doing this for everyone, but I'm still hesitant about whether I should actually release what I know. Realistically speaking, what I know may or may not help people, but I noticed improvements in my tulpa after climbing extreme roads, if that makes sense. If you want to believe in the impossible, it needs to stop being impossible.


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

Everything that happens in your mind is not imagination. Your internal map of your house and what it looks like is not imagination, it's knowledge. Imagination is when you visualize it and run a scene of what you think could be going on.

 

I know that a tulpa uses different parts of your mind during development than casual passive existence later on because I can feel it. I really don't care about science and all of the limitations it puts on tulpamancy here. Nobody does. You can say "But we don't know that" all you want, but you won't accomplish anything. We don't know anything. So it's more productive to work with best guesses and personal experience, with the agreeing or disagreeing of others to sharpen those maybe's into probably's. From my point of view all of my probably's are facts, from a scientific/true universal perspective they may be close, or not. To others with different points of view they could be maybe's or even falsities. Regardless, I'm doing what I can.

 

I've been focusing on self-development for about seven years now (coincides with tulpas' existence), with constant introspection of myself compared against external experiences, both others' that seem beneficial or likely true and my own to make sure my old beliefs hold up. So I've got a feel for the "parts of my brain" that are active, at least while focusing on my thoughts. That statement is almost valueless to others, but it's important to me. The reason I say imagination (as we are actually discussing it as, because if we used the real definition here there would be nothing to discuss) is less involved after the development process is that I specifically have little skill with anything generally considered "right-brain", meaning even simple visualization is an absolute chore. Listening to my tulpas is a mental muscle I can feel too, as is dream recall, puzzle solving, intense debate, and so on. They're also the "parts of the brain" that are capable of true parallel processing separate from each other, ie me communicating vocally with my friends while we play TF2's new matchmaking gamemode. Developing your dream recall (starting from having none at all) is actually one of the best ways to get a sense for what "certain parts of your brain being active" feels like. Then you can start looking out for that feeling in other intensive mental exercises too. And, I don't feel the same things while interacting with my tulpas in any manner as I did when they were less developed, or when I made Lucilyn, or any of the many times I've had to work my way back to where we were before due to inactivity. So my best answer is that no, it is not the same part of your brain running your tulpas when they're independent and autonomous. Honestly the fact that they're "unconsciously imagined/autonomous" implies a different part of the brain is handling that process anyways. Dunno what good that assumption does though, they're still being imagined. But so is everything that you consciously experience in your mind.

 

Man, explaining my subjective experiences to better support my subjective opinions sure is productive. Actually, compared to just saying "no, science" it kind of is. Maybe someone will learn from me in that way, and then we'll both have biased subjective experiences and things we think are true even though science doesn't support those beliefs. Maybe me and that other person can start a community where we share those ideas with others to compare and contrast, until we've got enough people participating that some of the personal bias in the subjective answers has become somewhat less biased due to it now encompassing a large number of peoples' general experiences. Maybe that's as good as we'll ever get unless one of us wins the lottery at some point.

 

 

 

Honestly I'm looking back over your reply to try and add some structure to my mess of a post, but there's nothing there. What are we even discussing? By the strict definition of imagination we established earlier, tulpas are undeniably imagined in all aspects. Or I suppose, they are either imagined or metaphysical in nature. That's the only conceivable argument I can think to make here.

 

Your tulpas exist, act from and are controlled by "you". They're "unconscious"ly controlled (though I think a developed tulpa is more subconscious) automated people, optimally with none of your conscious involvement in their behavior. You know, aside from all the conscious involvement you put into them at first to create the template from which they will act. So, what then?

 

Tulpamancers in general seem universally afraid of the idea that their tulpa may be them unconsciously acting out another person rather than being completely "independent". However, if it's unconscious, there is no discernible difference in "being controlled by you" or not, right? You guys pretend there is though. You act like there's a part of your brain that "isn't you", and you want that part to control your tulpa, not the part that is "you". Hey, my beliefs have that system worked out perfectly! What I define as "me" is only the collection of experiences, personality, memories, preferences, etc. tied to what makes me "me". The rest of the body and mind is excluded, with some blurry borders between unconscious factors of "me" and the "neutral" mind. My tulpas are also defined in the same way. So the part of my mind that controls them isn't "me"! They're independent from me! Autonomous, too. So I've got basically perfect tulpas.

 

Oh man don't you wish your tulpas were as perfect as mine. Too bad you probably unconsciously influence them with your subconscious desires. Oh well, not everyone is as capable of drawing arbitrary lines in their perspective of their sense of self as me.


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 stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J.Iscariot, I think you misunderstood me. I do not doubt my tulpas exist, not anymore at least. I know for a fact they are there. I just wonder why and how. This is a purely academic pondering. I wonder the same things about myself. How do I exist, how do I know I really exist? But, I'm still here. I'll always be a brain inside a meat-suit no matter what I think. Questioning life does not lead to misery, it leads to better understanding. If I were to stop questioning things, I might as well be dead. I would be mentally dead at least.

 

I also, meant "impossible" in the eyes of most people. Maybe improbable would have been a better word choice. I do think it's entirely possible that tulpas are completely sentient.


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
Man, explaining my subjective experiences to better support my subjective opinions sure is productive.

 

Real talk: It was.

 

I'm actually glad you mentioned all that stuff about feeling where brain activity is, and how you feel which tasks light up which part. Thanks for that, really. :)

 

But I guess I'm an odd ball in that sense: I like to see what people actually do when getting in to the bitty gritty of development, even more than the end result at times. While we can't be super super scientific with all the proper robes, machines, and such, we can at least level about what goes on behind the scenes, so to say.


Sock Cottonwell's

Sketchbook, Journal, and Ask thread.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it seems it's mostly the definition of "imagination" that's causing differences of opinion.

 

Very interesting to read that Lumi feels a difference, though.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OP

 

Think about it this way. When someone wants to treat a tulpa as sentient, it takes imagination to see them as something else (e.g. emulating traits of sentient beings). Like what others have mentioned above me, our imagination is merely a conduit for us along with having a narrative to grasp/conceptualize other people.

 

In this context with tulpamancy, one would be utilizing imagination and narrative to conceptualize a tulpa—the other. So, when they go about contemplating what it means for one to be sentient, they may think things along the lines of, “Oh, I can easily imagine them doing –insert trait of exhibiting sentience-,” or “No, I can’t imagine myself switching with them since I’m apprehensive in whether or not they’re sentient at all.” It’s easy to correlate this “I can/can’t imagine” with the visual context that’s readily available to us (e.g. the dog analogy you were using), but something to expand upon just a visual flim-script (or stills) is that they’re imagining these things because it may be compatible with their disposition/character, or in this case, it’s possible for them (this is where ‘your mileage will vary’ comes in).

 

So, to make a contrast with tulpamancy and imagination is to find ways to where we can separate ourselves from imagination and narrative when they are probably the very foundations that allows us to cultivate the belief of treating them as sentient, and being able to see them as someone other than ourselves.

 

To put what I mean in context of tulpamancy:

 

- A host can imagine their tulpa doing ‘that.’ It seems to be contingent on what we can and cannot imagine. So when they can imagine their tulpa being able to use head pressures, or communicating with a certain context (indirect, or directly), they (the host) made/were inclined to make it possible given their willingness of it being so; now to them, it becomes actual. In other words, they make it possible, but whether or not it’s necessary in context of that ‘necessary’ being something essential for everyone else to integrate in their journey, that’s another ‘your mileage will vary.’

 

 

To put what I mean in context of dreaming:

 

- Dreams seem to be more vivid at times because there’s nothing further to compete against (other than waking life, but opinions will vary). We get this progression of seemingly independent and loose imagery that may come with an impression of motion and connection, but in reality, nothing is really moving. We’re just naturally linking in to feelings of being in motion when there’s probably nothing to be connected cohesively. This is why at times the series of imagery seems so confusing at times. But when the narrative comes in –us being the narrator, the predispositions we have with inner monologue tries to make a coherent tale out of what may be non-sequential imagery. And when we're lucid in the dream, we get the whole 'the possibilities are endless' because we're spamming the "I can/cannot imagine" more than Sasuke with EMS.

 

 

And to bring this back into context of tulpamancy:

 

- One could theorize that a tulpa using a narrative to try and make meaning out of imagery from their imagination; visual film-script wise, or via stills could be an indication of some emulation of sentience since we as host are naturally predisposed to do the same with our imagination. So for one to find a separation from that again leads to stripping away a tulpa from adapting into something like that. The word ‘imagination’ becomes a red herring, or a scapegoat in this case, for something more complicated. The imagination is the conduit—not something we try to go below or above to be separated from.

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.