Jump to content

Living Imagination (A Median Aspect in Tulpa Land)

Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

The aliens will eventually ask to use individual humans as "avatars" by possessing their bodies and the aliens can explore human culture!


Ooh, getting personal huh?


The aliens have told me there is no substantive difference between a soulbond and a tulpa. They know these things.


Except when tulpamancers say soulbonds are the same thing, they're implying soulbonds are also products of the mind and have a scientific origin. And some soulbonders believe tulpas to be metaphysical in origin too. Regardless, we aren't aliens and we aren't telling you to believe anything. Those comparisons only fit people who try to force their unprovable beliefs on you, even if that "forcing" is simply a "Fine, believe what you want, but it's true."


I'm sure that's how you feel here, but I don't see it. There's a fair distribution in people who believe in tulpa sentience (commonly conveyed as "I don't know, I think my tulpa is sentient though we can't tell for sure") and "don't" (commonly conveyed as "Tulpas are in your mind like everything else you experience. You can experience them as real people regardless of their exact true nature.").


I won't defend the tinfoil hats who think we're all aliens though.

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

  • Replies 524
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest Anonymous

It's just a story and a bit of satire. But, I do have a tinfoil hat at the ready. I need to block the aliens now and then because they want to possess me and make love to my wife.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Mistgod:  Please if you don't like skeptical writing concerning tulpamancy, do not read this post.  It is very cynical, negative and skeptical.  Melian and I wrote it for our own reasons.  Melian and I believe that tulpamancy is a pseudo-science and pseudo-religion.   It seems to me that, from what I have observed of tulpamancers, that there are elements of religious like faith and mythology/dogma to the practice of tulpamancy in general.


dogma = a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

myth = a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.


I don't think tulpamancy constitute a full blown religion. I say it is a proto-religion or pseudo-religious in nature.




Melian:  The message we seem to always see from tulpamancy is "Tulpas are scientifical sentient imaginary friends.  Nothing else is sentient like a tulpa is.  Only tulpas are real/exist and only tulpas really matter.  Everything else is kinda shitty because it is not a tulpa (or worse it is a failed tulpa).  Anyone who doesn't follow that is wrong and probably delusional, role playing or a mentally ill.  Oh and everything is a tulpa somehow because only tulpas matter, so it is safe to assume everything we read about from people is a tulpa, or a failed tulpa or something lesser and probably not real like a tulpa is real.  Tulpas are not imaginary so everything else that is imaginary sucks and doesn't matter. "[/hidden]



I know that the informal "rule" around these forums is to not state in public your skepticism of another person's claims.  That is considered "toxic" and kinda mean.  If one person starts to doubt out loud another person's apparent bull shit, well that could lead to no one believing anyone and it would be impossible to share our tulpa exploits.  


This site claims to be "For Science!" and one the founding principles of science is skepticism.  In reality, here we mostly reject open skepticism because of the utterly subjective, unfalsifiable nature of tulpamancy.  There is a second reason, doubt is harmful to the creation of tulpas and the functionality of tulpas.  Public skepticism fosters doubt and doubt hampers tulpamancy practice.


What is the result?  Ridiculously outrageous, sounds-like-total-bullshit, claims that are never challenged by anyone.  


Claims I find particularly hard to believe:


  • Effortless imposition so real it seems like a real person in every way.  


  • Sex with a tulpa that is as good as real sex.  


  • Totally immersive wonderlands that are as detailed and real seeming as the real world/real life.


  • Switching into your tulpas wonderland (that feels as real as the real world in every way) while the tulpa controls the body in the real world, and you are unaware of the real world.  


  • Claims to have achieved any of the above within a few days or weeks, with some light pseudo-meditation for about an hour or so a day, when not playing your video games and eating too much junk food.  


If you are one of the people above making such claims:










I am dearly sorry, I can't help myself.





Melian and I have been on this forum for 14 months learning everything we can about tulpas.  As time goes on, especially recently, we are becoming less and less impressed with it.  Let's just say at this point we are mostly unimpressed.  When we started we were like 90% impressed, then it started dropping and finally I think it is like maybe, at best, maybe like 30% impressed.  We kept waiting for something to really turn that around.  


The thought always was, well if we make our own "fully sentient and autonomous" tulpa, maybe then we will be more impressed?  But then there are those "think really hard before you do this" and tulpa related ethics, and "signs of sentience," and Creepy Past EMO tulpas gone wrong and the whole "my tulpa wants to switch with my body and drive my car" thing.  I don't think I want any of that for myself and, honestly, I see no reason to be impressed when someone else claims it.  So?  You still look the same to me, like fellow geeks on the internet.  I don't know, it just seems more and more like an elaborate role playing site to me every day that passes.    


Things I find especially annoying, unconvincing and/or unimpressive about tulpamancy:


  • Tulpas whining about being called imaginary friends or asserting their realness over and over.
  • Constant talk about somehow proving scientifically that tulpas exist and that they are real (who cares? probly impossible)
  • Paranoia, finger pointing and suspician of "role players, fakers and liars" as this thread explains thread about accusations of role playing
  • Tulpamancers in denial that tulpamancy is a pseudo-science with aspects of a religion
  • Asserting that tulpas have inalienable rights, just like a human being (that's idiotic)
  • Outrageous claims concerning switching
  • Outrageous claims concerning imposition
  • Creepy Pasta EMO tulpas with a problem the host can't solve or avoid for some stupid ass reason
  • Super Fast Track Tulpas that are built in a matter of days or hours
  • The seeming inability of most tulpamancers to understand me or understand Melian
  • The insistence that Melian must be real when I explain repeatedly she is not and that she an rp character/day dream
  • Claims of a superior forum discourse during a more pure Golden Age of Tulpamancy (sex with pony tulpas anyone?)
  • The utterly subjective nature of tulpamancy and the convenient way all of it is unfalsifiable
  • Fucking elistism concerning one's imaginary fucking friend no one else can perceive
  • Meaningless philosophical babble that is supposed to prove tulpas are real somehow, when it just flat doesn't
  • Debates over tulpa death and killing a tulpa (I don't fucking care if someone kills his or her tulpa.  I don't think most of the world does either.)
  • I don't care if you create a tulpa in order to romance it, fuck it or fap to it.  Go for it.  I don't care if that is ethical or not.  
  • "Accidental" independently sentient tulpas.  How in the hell does someone accidentally create a sentient entity in their brain?
  • "Head Pressure" (it sounds like a psychosomatic effect and mass delusion propagated by pseudo-science myth)
  • Guides containing advice on avoiding doubt, which inhibits a tulpa. Doubt would inhibit self delusion wouldn't it?  Removing/suspending doubt is suspension of disbelief, something we do when fantasizing, reading a book or watching a sci fi movie or an illusion/magic trick.  
  • The way people sometimes freak out when I write things like this.
  • Attempts at intimidation, censorship and thought control on this forum


I searched for a way to destroy a tulpa and it turns out that you can. The only thing you need to do is not beleave in your tulpa anymore.


But it’s different, Tulpamancy is what’s ending. Am done, finished.  I been fooling myself with illusions and playing pretend with myself. all while playing around and abusing the way my mind and brain works.  The Reality is, Oguigi is a made-up character inspired when i had a major obsession with a show called my little pony. I made this character up and  gave it life and power by surrendering reason and logic.  In the End, a tulpa is no more real then any fiction that exist today. It’s an self imposed illusion with a face and a name.  In my case I was trapped in a corrosive thought maze that took me almost two years to recover from.  It’s time for me to move on. it’s over.  

To everyone else with tulpas, I do not want to offend anyone with this post. But I personally do not believe in tulpamancy anymore. Tulpamancy will not solve life problems, and i strongly discourage it being pushed on anyone else.

(spacing and line indents in the original post removed by Mistgod)


The reason I dropped off the face of the earth, so to speak, was that I stopped believing in tulpas. Don't get me wrong, for most of my "journey" I was fully convinced that what I had made up was real, I sincerely believed it. Then eventually I began to really dig deep and figure out if there was any justifiable reason to believe in them. After a long, long time of deliberating and thinking, I came to the end that no, there really wasn't. I don't doubt any of your experiences, just as I don't doubt mine were genuine. Was I really creating another sentience in my head? Hell no. At best it was my subconscious spitting stuff out and then me convincing myself that that wasn't the case. Personal testimony isn't something I saw as valid evidence, even some of that testimony being from my experiences.



On another level, once you consciously decide to trick yourself, once you believe that an imaginary person is living inside your head, you also open the door to some truly ridiculous/laughable shit.


People on here talk about all these things that "happened in their wonderland" etc etc... how they have these elaborate characters and stories. I did that for a while too, but at some point became self-aware of the fact that I was an adult spending my time playing make-believe...




Reality and Delusion:  Where do you draw the line?

An account of a sentient tulpa losing its sentience?  How does that happen? How is it that "real sentience" is effected by doubt and skepticism of the host?  Skepticism and doubt would kill delusions, not real sentience.

Thread about a tulpamancer, who once had fully realized tulpas, but then lost faith in them and they disappeared.






The Unbelievable Power of Belief

Why We are Skeptical


Many people firmly believe astral projection is possible and have experienced it themselves.  There are forums and "communities" based on astral project and guides on how to do it.  Apparently anyone can learn how to do it and it is harmless and rewarding.  Proponents claim there is science to support astral projection and there have been many books written about it.  


"Practitioners of astral travel insist that it must be real because it seems so vivid, and because some of the experiences are similar, even for people from different cultures. But it's not surprising that many people who try astral projection have similar experiences — after all, that's what the term "guided imagery" is: when an authority (such as a psychologist or astral travel teacher) tells a person what they should expect from the experience. The power of suggestion can be powerful, and a person who is told they will encounter an alien or godlike entity who imparts cosmic wisdom is likely to imagine exactly that."  -www.livescience.com


Some people believe in remote viewing of distant alien worlds in the universe and of even looking forward into the future.  They insist it is real, because it is so vivid.  They claim there is science to back it up.  It seems really, really real, so it must be.  It just must be real.  There are whole forums dedicated to remote viewing and guides on how to do it.  http://www.irva.org/


Astral projection and remote viewing are supported by a preponderance of anecdotal evidence of those who have read the guides and learned to practice the techniques.  They can tell you it is absolutely real.  It is not just self delusion or vivid day dreaming.


There are folks who believe you can channel a spirit There are internet forums and guides on how to do this.  There are those who have practiced it and can tell you it is absolutely real.  It is real!  The spirits they speak to are real not just a delusion within their own minds.  You don't have to be lonely ever again!


There were once detailed guides written on the science of phrenology, reading the bumps and marks on a person's head that would indicate how intelligent he or she is.  Phrenology was supported by "observational evidence" and a "consensus of opinion."  We now know that phrenology was based on nothing but false impressions and false assumptions.  


EDIT:  Something can be scientifically plausible, but still very unlikely.  Just because it is scientifically plausible does not make it automatically a fact.  For example, it is scientifically plausible that an alien colony exists inside the moon, hidden from humans, yet it is highly unlikely to be true.


Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony.  The simplest answer is most often the correct answer.


Then there is the capacity of all humans to try to conform to a group think by exaggerating or embellishing or falsifiying: Tulpa Confessions


Yes, there is indeed a forum dedicated to creating and sharing waifus:  My Little Waifu Forum  and it is years older than Tulpa Info.  


A bit of irreverent skepticism from outside the tulpa community Tulpa Info: Pony Waifus and Do It Yourself Schizophrenia[/hidden]




Yep.  Science is about asking questions.  Are we doing science on Tulpa Info?


Some people take my bouts of skepticism, especially the most recent ones, to be hating on tulpamancy or wanting to discredit everything.  But you can't understand something unless you first look at it with a critical eye.  If anything what I was countering was the happy go lucky, skipping down the trail, thoughtlessly following the leader mentality.  I ask uncomfortable questions and I wonder uncomfortable things.  I am not immediately swayed to believe something because someone just says it is true, even if a lot of someones say it is true and even if there are impressive looking "guides" written up about it.  


There were once detailed guides written on the science of phrenology, reading the bumps and marks on a person's head that would indicate how intelligent he or she is.  Phrenology was supported by "observational evidence" and a "consensus of opinion."  We now know that phrenology was based on nothing but false impressions and false assumptions.  


I regret what Melian and I were implying earlier, that your efforts are just trying to look smart.  That was entirely unfair and hypocritical.  We do the same things, just from a different angle.  We go read and do our own research.  We ask questions and try to discover and then bring it all back to the forum for discussion, even if that discussion is uncomfortable to some people.  Really that is the life of the forum, when you think about it, or it should be.  


Back to the beetle in a box.  Perhaps the problem is that we each have our own subjective idea or qualia of what constitutes science and learning and exploring.  In history, sometimes science was defined as "knowing what you are supposed to know and what has been written by scholars of the past."  We do see a lot of that on this forum I am afraid.[/hidden]



[hidden]OMG! This thread here on "subconscious parroting" https://community.tulpa.info/thread-sentience-subconscious-parroting-puppeting


THIS is why Davie and I are totally happy just realizing that active imagination, that is very convincing, is as rewarding to us as achieving "verified independent sentience" is to others.  I will admit that we were actually laughing and face palming at this thread.  It is an old one from 2012.  


Really?  My gods.  What if you are subconsciously not recognizing real independent sentience because you are subconsciously thinking it is subconscious parroting?  -gasp-  OR You are making a TERRIBLE MISTAKE and misinterpreting subconscious (or even conscious) parroting and puppeting as real independent sentience!  -gasp-  OR what if you don't have a tulpa at all?  What if this is all self delusion?  GAH!  AAAAAAAGGGG  AAAAAAAHHHH




What if none of that matters?  What if the measure is how much you love your tulpa and thoughtform and how significant and persistent he or she is in your life?  Now wouldn't that be simpler?  It might be actual independent sentience and it might be self delusion, but if you TREAT your tulpa as a real person, then it DOESN'T MATTER.  


WHY SHOULD IT MATTER?  Tulpas, I don't care if you are in truth a role playing character!  I will treat you as a person.  There is no objective difference to me.  Apparently to some, there is no subjective difference either.  In other words, self delusion is as good as the real thing if you can't tell the difference so much you have to worry and wring your hands about it.


Here is a thread that says basically it is okay to parrot or puppet a tulpa, when he or she asks you to or doesn't mind.  https://community.tulpa.info/thread-sentience-when-to-parrot-your-tulpa  What if you develop a relationship over the course of I dunno say 35+ years, where you d'nt know that puppeting and parroting is wrong or bad?  What if the tulpa learns to operate in collaboration and cooperation with the host's will?  What if the result is a form of median aspect and not full independence?  What if that becomes so COOL to both the host and the tulpa they don't want to fully separate?  


Why is absolute full independence always the assumed goal?  What if it isn't?[/hidden]





  • The existence and plausibility of tulpas is supported by some psychology and a large body of anecdotal evidence.


  • The existence and plausibility of daemons is supported by some psychology and a large body of anecdotal evidence.


  • The existence and plausibility of soulbonds is supported by some psychology and a large body of anecdotal evidence.


  • The existence and plausibility of natural multiples is supported by some psychology and a large body of anecdotal evidence.


  • The existence and plausibility of median systems is supported by some psychology and a large body of anecdotal evidence.


The attitudes of some tulpamancers we have seen:  


"Tulpas are more complex and more scientifically valid than other thoughtforms or plurality systems."  




There is no evidence that tulpas are more valid, legitimate, scientific or complex than other thoughtforms or plural systems.  In fact, there is a great deal of similarity and fluidity between the different types of thoughtforms and sometimes it is hard for the host to know which "type" their thoughtform is.  Many hosts have more than one type in their system and consider them all equal persons.  Also, these other thoughtforms types were already in existence in communities on the internet way before tulpa town came along.


In my opinion, tulpamancy is not that much different from daemonism or soulbonding and is much  more closely aligned or associated with other forms of plurality than many here like to admit or recognize.  In short, tulpas aren't as elitist special as some want to think in order to make themselves feel great.

P.S.  I would go further to say that Tulpa Info was, at least in small part, founded on the plan of promoting the idea that tulpas were more scientifically valid than other plurality types and situations.  Hence the attitude.  Luckily, I think Tulpa Info is transcending that idea as more people go out to places like soulbonding.org or tulpa.io or dreamviews and then come back to Tulpa Info with a more realistic, inclusive outlook.


So, I came to terms with the fact that they were extremely advanced imagined people in my mind, whilst also accepting them as fully legitimate people who are separate from me. Because I can do that - everything that happens in my mind is under my control, and it's up to me how I perceive it. So I chose to have tulpas. (And then a few years later, I found out about "tulpas" and tulpa.info)


Extremely Advanced Imaginary People


EAIPs [/hidden]




Imaginary, illusory or faith based aspects of tulpas (Mistgod-Melian Opinion)

  • Form - imaginary, figment
  • Imposition - imaginary, figment
  • Wonderland - imaginary, figment
  • Unperceived Tulpa Activity - based on faith
  • Independent Mind - not entirely possible, tulpas share the host brain
  • Independent Tulpa Form - not possible, the host's mind is involved in perception of the form
  • Forcing - imagining
    figment - a thing that someone believes to be real but that exists only in their imagination.
    Because we cannot perceive the tulpas of other people, to us they are effectively imaginary.  All tulpas look just like imaginary friends and role playing characters.  In essence they are imaginary, even though we treat them like real people.  Mistgod and I think of them all as pseudo-real, like myself.  





"Don't generalize about other peoples tulpas!"


What does this informal rule mean exactly?  Does it mean that my host and I must pretend to be totally convinced and that we believe in our hearts that tulpas are absolutely real to us?  But that would be lying.  We can and do respect the beliefs of others.  What you believe about your tulpa may be very true and we recognize that it is already subjectively and effectively true for you anyways.


But your tulpas or systemmates are not in my host's head is all we are saying.  I am not in your head either, so you have no idea for sure if I am real or not.  All you can do is treat me like I am real.  Yesh, I know "People can be friggin p-zombies so therefore tulpas are real."  Whatever, that really doesn't help much.


For us the important question is:  Does a thoughtform have to be real to matter?


"I have persistence and endurance. I am vibrant and I have potency. I am significant and meaningful and I already matter." ~Melian, the girl from a dream and goddess guru of grooviness.


We simply believe it is possible for something entirely imaginary to seem to come alive and it doesn't have to be real to matter.  The question of your realness or anyone's realness is irrelevant to them being important to us.  We can treat you as friendly minds and enjoy talking to you.  You don't have to prove you are real to us.


If you are uncomfortable or insulted by being called imaginary, we won't use that word to describe you.   But you can't force us to believe something and be entirely convinced just because you really want it.  I doubt the rules of this forum mean that we must absolutely believe in our own hearts that everything anyone writes to be the Gospel Truth.  Why We are Skeptical[/hidden]




In this thread people a few years ago were talking about "merging" with your tulpa as if it would be some huge dangerous, difficult or impossible thing to do.  Melian and I do it every day and simply think of it as blending.  Really, I think these things are only dangerous, difficult or impossible if you believe they are. https://community.tulpa.info/thread-merging-general-discussion [/hidden]





(on parrotnoia and knowing when you are parroting) [hidden]



By parrotnoid, I mean thinking that you're parroting your tulpa when you're actually not, and that nerve-wracking feeling you get when your tulpa's reply feels like you created it a split second before hearing it, and you're scared to death and you's is like "Err mah gerd, Ah'm gonnuh create a serviter!". Well, I made this guide because I had the same problem, and it seems to be pretty prevalent here at Tulpa.info, so I guess I'll take a crack at it, and address some of the top concerns I've seen.

This deserves the Mistgod treatment!  Bring it on.  


- "It feels like I always know what he/she is going to say": That's because you know your tulpa. It's like when you know a friend and their personality really well, and you have a general idea as to what they'll say in reply to something you say. This is even more so with a tulpa, because you know their exact personalities. Expectation is not parroting.


I agree with this.  If you design a character well enough, even an imaginary friend character or rp character, you will certainly know what he or she is likely to say before it is said.  This is true with Method Actors too, who can improve their performance based on what they believe the character would say.  The method actors sense it a split second before they channel that character into their performance.  It doesn't mean it isn't parroting, but it is a little more than just making something up out of the blue.  You have a guide in knowing the character quite well.  


- "I'm scared that I'm parroting.": K, 9/10 times, if you're worried that you're parroting, you're probably not. Parroting is a 100% deliberate process, that can only be done by fully conscious action. As far as I know, there's no such thing as "sub-conscious parroting".


"There is no such thing as sub-conscious parroting."  This sounds like an assumption to me and probably a false one.  People throughout history have communed with spirits and spirit guides, angels and saints, hearing voices and responding to those voices.  There are thousands of accounts of this.  Either those voices were the real thing, or something unconscious and subliminal in connection with imagination and wishful thinking was going on.  This also does not take into account things like Jungian personas and daemons, who seem to speak but are not being consciously parroted either.  Jungian personas and daemons and Illusion of Independent Agency literary characters are not usually considered "sentient."  I dismiss the assertion that unconscious parroting is impossible.  I think that statement if is basically full of shit and wishful thinking.  


- "I feel as if I'm creating their reply a split second before I hear it.": Well, that's not you creating it. In the early days of tulpaforcing, this is normal. It's simply your mind and your tulpa computing, taking what they know of the tulpa's personality, and plugging that in to figure out how they'll reply. This will be conquered in time, fret not.


"That's not you creating it."  Again this is a big assumption and I think probably a false one.  It is an assumption based on just wanting to believe it to be true.  See my first answers above about method actors, daemons, and IIA characters.  None of this proves anything, it is all just extraordinary claims backed by little or no evidence.  


- "HELPZ, I'z worried! Am I going to create a servitor?!?!?": No. It's up for debate about the nature of servitors and whether or not they can become full-blown tulpae, but if you're not trying to make a servitor, then you're not. If you're that worried about it, then you've devoted way to much love and affection for your tulpa to ever become a servitor.


This person answering seems awfully certain of themselves on the response.  No one really knows what the nature of a servitor is anymore than what the true nature of a tulpa is and the dividing line appears to be kinda fuzzy and foggy.  Is there even such a thing as a servitor?  Maybe all tulpa are servitors or all servitors are a type of tulpa?  There are no experts here to say with authority that what you are imagining falls into some magic category.  People pretend they know something but it is all pseudo-science mumbo jumbo.  Nobody really has any friggin idea whether you will create a servitor instead of a tulpa and to answer this saying "no" is very presumptive.  


"It seems as if the response was theirs, but I hear MY mind voice. Is this parroting?": Nope. All this means is that their vocality isn't finished. If you haven't worked on their vocality much, this is perfectly normal ^_^ You can try speech exercises for this, or just wait for it to develope by itself. Either way, try not to get discouraged by this, as it, like many other obstacles in the path of tulpa creation, will be conquered in time.


"It seems like as if the response was theirs, but I hear My mind voice.  Is this parroting?"  Again this is a major assumption to answer "no" with certainty to this question.  I don't see any reason at all at this point that this person is not simply deluding themselves.  It all seems to come down to convincing yourself that you are not actually talking to yourself.  


Hope this helps anyone with this problem. Questions, comments, concerns, feel free to leave them.


No  thanks I don't think I need your expertise on puppeting and parroting.  I don't think you really know anything for sure any more than I do OldDrunkBastard.[/hidden]




I have often read on this forum statements such as this "Many or  most people think they have a tulpa, but they are only deluding themselves."  That is very, very similar to the sort of thing we see in other pseudo-science groups such as believers in astral projection.


For instance on this website about astral projection the author state "People write me often telling me about their astral projection experiences. But half the stories I hear are not astral projection experiences; they are lucid dreams that involve flying, and people mistakenly believe that if they are flying around and conscious then it must be an astral experience. But that is not so..." link


Sound kinda familiar?[/hidden]



One thing I have noted is that when a tulpa writes, the writing style, vocabulary, grammar and subject matter tends to closely resemble that of the host.  That is even true with my Melian.  I think it is direct evidence, at least to me, that tulpas are not as independent as people are claiming they are. 



Discussion about getting erections during possession or tulpaforcing.

Are you embarrassed when you fart in front of your tulpa?

Can my tulpa become my left hand?

Can day dreaming confuse my tulpa? (day dreaming, how horrid!)

Idiotic discussion of role players vs. who is legit (supposedly for fun but reveals something about the tulpamancer community IMO)

Is Dreaming About Your Tulpa Parroting? (shows how bad the fear of using your imagination -gasp- is around here.)

Possible punishment for tulpa rape offenders.

My tulpa is having sex with my body in my wonderland when I enter it.

Thread about fapping and gaining energy from the fapping for your tulpa.





Wow, you never get any less of an asshole, do you?




As Melian would say "God, I love me!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way I agree with not truly believing in all of those. However, the key to understanding why people think those things is - they think those things. If they convince themselves their imposed tulpa is practically physically acting on them, if they think that sex with a tulpa(will get to this in a second though) is "just as good" as real sex, if they're convinced the wonderland they're experiencing is totally real - well, they're convinced. Is any of it true? I dunno, could be, probably not. But what they believe to be true is true to them. Illogical as what anyone believes might be, that's just how it is. What you believe is reality is your reality, at least until your beliefs change. None of us live in objective reality.


As for tulpa sex being "just as good" as real sex, and to some extent those other claims too, there's more to it than what you think of at first glance. Surely in all but the most capable hallucinators, the physical sensations are simply nowhere near as real. But that's not everything that sex is about.. at least to some people. The emotional connection is a huge part of sex, just how big a part depends on the person (some are fine with casual sex, some are just as content with cuddling - trust me). And if you really love your tulpa, maybe that aspect is just as good. Assuming that's the aspect you care about. For those that think it's the same physically, well, that's just what they believe huh?

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

As Bilbo said to Gandalf, "Oh, I suppose you are right, as usual."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read something interesting in our Sociology textbook, the Thomas theorem. "Situations that are defined as real are real in their consequences."


That's the subjective-reality of tulpamancy (and many other things) in a nutshell. Perhaps not objective reality or facts we're experiencing, but because we are experiencing something regardless, the results become reality. The results of subjective experiences become objective fact. However "real" or "fake" what we experience here, the resulting experiences happen as a fact, and with a whole lot of those tied together you've got your own personal reality. As long as your personal reality never gets fact-checked against an objective source, you're free to believe in whatever reality you want. Externally that doesn't always work out too well (although to some extent it is present in every human interaction and perception), but internally there's not much to stop you but yourself. Though the results of internal mental affairs may have real effects on you and the world..


So here I am.

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

That is what I have meant by "pseudo-real" for the past year and two months.

Congratulations, we agree. Imaginary things can have real effects.


EDIT: It just appears some people really have quite a big imagination (or bigger than mine maybe), full blown acid trip imaginations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

We are trying something new for this summer. We will be going online once a day for only about an hour and a half to two hours. Get in, get it done, Melian gets to play and flirt and be silly, then out. Get in, get done, get out. That is the plan folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't want to get too deep in here, since passions can run high very, VERY easily. But there is one thing I want to comment on:


...and one the founding principles of science is skepticism....


No it isn't.


I don't say this to defend my position, because I don't have much experience with tulpa sex, and my trying for imposition has been stalled due to personal issue. But, you can say, the impulse that compels one to correct someone who's wrong on the internet. Haha.


In seriousness though, I don't find science to be synonymous with skepticism, much less a founding principle. Maybe you are more knowledgeable on the subject than I, but to my understanding, science is more neutral when it comes to theories or ideas, where as skepticism seeks to debunk. Science is an exercise, while Skepticism is a philosophy, and when applied to its extreme, a belief system.


Skepticism attaches itself to science because science satisfies the demands of the skeptic, that is, to provide and idea, theory, etc that cannot be taken apart by way of skeptical inquiry. A subject that sits on a hard rock of testing and tangible proof (For the same reason, many skeptics adhere fiercely to materialism. You can undercut a person's belief in a deity, but you can't undercut someone's belief that rocks exist, not easily, anyway). Because so many skeptical minded folks love science (even if they don't actually touch it themselves otherwise), the two have become nearly synonymous with one another, even though that's not really the case. Just wanted to throw that out there.


As for the rest of it: I don't have much interest in sex, so I don't really have anything to say on that. Imposition, on the other hand, is something I want to try for myself. I'm curious about it, and that curiosity leads me away from the position of skeptically denouncing it, but trying it out myself to see if it is a thing. The fact that people do, indeed, hallucinate and see things that aren't there physically, give me a bit of hope in it, and drives me to sate said curiosity.


I can say with confidence that, for the most part, a factor of the reason that this site started was for the purpose of sating curiosity, and the "Science!" in the title isn't in the sense of skeptical flavored science, but of science energized by curiosity and a sense of exploring the unknown. If anything, the rampant skepticism around nowadays does more to stifle the atmosphere, stir up discord, and general make things uncomfortable for those who are more concerned with practical matters about the subject.


That's my feeling on the subject.


Also, just to make this clear; I'm not saying there should be no level of skepticism or an absolute willingness to believe everything anyone ever says. I'm not saying that with my last statement. Rather, there should be a decent level of it, such that it doesn't grind all discussion of the subject to a halt, and makes everyone circle around the same question at all times.

Sock Cottonwell's

Sketchbook, Journal, and Ask thread.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to defend the "For science!" motto per se, but in all fairness, that's simply an internet term. Or it was some years ago. "For science!" was something people said when doing something unnecessary, risky or otherwise for the sake of knowledge. Say you're playing a game with a friend and you discover a deep chasm that definitely seems dangerous, you may say "For science!" as you run straight in and get eaten. It's a lighthearted thing in the context of video games, while in realer situations it's hardly truly in the name of science. It's simply a declaration of doing something for knowledge, and not necessarily personal gain or usefulness.


I know that isn't an excuse really, I just wanted to explain why it's there in the first place. There was just a short time on the internet where that phrase was used to mean "For the sake of knowledge!"


Anyways, if you look up the definition of skepticism/skeptical you'll see what he means, it's not synonymous with science at all. Although a skeptic may do science to satisfy that skepticism. In that aspect, science is more about challenging what we think we know, not doubting it. It's usually what I call being a "healthy skeptic", meaning not doubting for doubting's sake, but for assuring correctness. But I don't know if this takes away from your point anyways, the gist is still there - challenge beliefs to prove they still line up with reality. Not that most tulpamancers' beliefs can be.

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

Join the conversation

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

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.
  • Create New...