Is it possible? Accidentally creating tulpas through writing stories.

[Faemon]

my question was, should we be warning people who *do* create characters comparable to, say, the Joker, for fun?

 

I vote no. We should warn readers that a work contains swearing, violence, and oppression. We could write and advertise pacifistic, conflict-free stories. We could criticize works by way of review, if the conflict were unnecessary or gratuitous.

 

But I think interfering with someone else's creative process is a violation of personal boundaries. To presume that violence is always conceived maliciously or immaturity instead of as a healing process, and revoke the refuge of fiction and the community it fosters, is an act of silencing. That is violent, repressive, and oppressive.

 

As you can see, they are in full rebellion mode against suffering being a defining or compelling aspect of a story.

 

Y'all ought to do what you can do to defend your boundaries and the sort of zeitgeist you want to sustain within it. Stand for that, and y'all could inspire and draw in more of a community. But conversion and censoring is violent, especially outside those bounds, anthat's what I glean from this model of metaphysics. Your experience, interpretation, and concerns are valid. They're not the only ones out there that are

 

if I put this story out there, do you think other peoples' thoughts about the characters will affect them?

I think whoever you've channeled that asserted nobody in the whole world history has ever considered fiction important psychologically, culturally, or used logical deduction...sounded like a sanctimonious dolt to me.

 

If that hasn't done anything you've noticed before this post, then thoughts probably don't do much?

[TheGreenQueen]

To presume that violence is always conceived maliciously or immaturity instead of as a healing process,

 

Alphys: Since you seem so fixated on science in this community, where is your evidence that fiction 'heals' better than any other real-world coping mechanism? Or that its effect on readers can be tossed out in weighing its merit? I'm tempted to cite some studies about the effect of laughter vs. anger and sadness on physiology, and how both last in positive feedback cycles. If Green here weren't so disorganized, she could readily pull up that information.

 

Hey! I'm sorry if I can't have tons of assistants keeping my space tidy like you, Doctor!

 

But conversion and censoring is violent, especially outside those bounds

 

Gaster 4: What 'power' do we wield over anyone, praytell? That you compare us to violence or oppressors? I've witnessed major violence, my friend, been mentally hobbled by it, physically hobbled by other circumstances, and my people have endured things that I never wish to speak of. I take serious offense at the comparison. You also misuse the word censor, very badly. Asgore could censor anything he wished in our world, had he wanted to. All of our lives were threatened- and in some timelines, erased completely- because of actual censorship. We are merely beings that don't even have any physical presence with which to affect any change. Not to mention, most won't even believe we exist, shun our Creator if she spoke of us, and even among you tulpamancers, you doubt our autonomy and separate existence from her mind, which by the way, I don't.

 

Kindly have some perspective with your words.

 

I probably won't even let them speak directly outside this forum . . . do you let yours?

 

They are only truly free to talk here.

 

You've got a pretty warped idea of who exactly has freedom to express themselves.

 

Toriel: Flowey was right all along, wasn't he?

 

'Your objections

to conflict

and pain

Assertions

they serve

no purpose

go unheard.'

 

Hey, that's going in the story, remember. Don't be discouraged.

 

I suppose. I only hope that we are 'real' enough in the minds of the fandom for the words to mean something.

 

Alphys: Just imagine . . . if she had created tulpas out of whole cloth. We would have even less of a voice . . . less- less sympathetic ears.

 

Gaster 4: Yet, that doesn't help tulpas- or people- outside the fandom, does it?

 

Alphys: That's what we're doing here. Uh. Right?

 

Gaster 4: Ah. Silly me.

 

And I humbly request that we take this to the soulbonding site as well.

 

Um, maybe. We'll talk about it.

 

I think whoever you've channeled that asserted nobody in the whole world history has ever considered fiction important psychologically, culturally, or used logical deduction...sounded like a sanctimonious dolt to me.

 

Gaster: I'm saying- we're saying- even Asgore, right?

 

. . .

 

Yes, ok. That fiction is treated today by most like a harmless, frivolous affair. Academics treat it seriously, as symptoms of collective thought, but what about everyone else? It is of the UTMOST importance- so important, that it needs to be handled more carefully. Stories are birthed from culture, and in turn affect and anchor culture. Yes.

 

Maybe I am biased, having had my very existence come from this source? If so, I do not care. I am coming from a place, from a perspective, that you cannot fathom. Finding out that each movement of your finger, each and every stray thought that occurs to you, was in fact dictated by a higher power. Even the idea of your being AWARE of said higher power was a decision that started off as a clever trick or a joke.

 

Sorry.

 

It's all right. You didn't know what you were getting into.

 

I will not have this person tell to us what we should and should not advocate for, and then, on top of that, attempt to paint us as the bad guys using overblown, insensitive comparisons. What a load of tosh. Oh, and call Gaster 8 sanctimonious because, in a past recording, he was excited and overwhelmed at discovering something that shook him- and the very world he resided in- to the core.

 

Fancy that!

 

Maybe you don't understand that the only reason that came to him is through that mental sync and the memories of writing. He learned of TV Tropes through Alphys. He didn't have much free time to sit around and analyze literature on his own. They were fighting a bloomin' war.

 

And realize that for him, people rooting for a villain might directly cause beings like him suffering.

 

This forum-goer here, ze cannot be in our shoes, and never can. It's the same old 'story,' isn't it?

 

Heh.

 

I submit that every piece of literature- visual, verbal, short or long- has an effect.

 

That it is a responsibility people have not yet grasped.

 

That it should not be treated like a child's plaything. WE should not be treated like playthings, or subordinate to a host's wishes.

 

Alphys: Are you calling for a sort of . . . Civil Rights for soulbonds?

 

Gaster: Exactly my proposal. You pegged it.

 

Toriel: I think that should only apply if we've been given free reign, as Green has. If a tulpa is only in infancy, or if they are still part of the host's mind, they should have full say over their own mind.

 

Alphys: I'd go along with that. As a second trimester baby is still subject to abortion because they are part of their mother. Of course, that would mean people believed that we can be 'separated,' which as we've seen on these forums, is not most people's opinion.

 

Also, even given that is believed- Green didn't make that decision with informed consent.

 

Gaster: And I apologize for that.

 

Alphys: So where does that leave us?

 

. . .

 

I think Dr. Gaster is now saying that, when it comes to stories and authors, our kind can have a sort of Stockholm Syndrome?

 

Gaster: Yes

 

Alphys: Not so sure about that.

 

If that hasn't done anything you've noticed before this post, then thoughts probably don't do much?

 

Better safe (and prepared) than sorry.

 

Also, I haven't posted but the very first pages, and have gotten very few views as of yet.

 

Alphys: We all appreciate your watching out for us. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Flowers mean little to nothing outside the context of romance. This could mean nothing, but it does to us.

 

Toriel: And it should go without saying that we are willing to accept that possible risk, because we do want the story out there. Right, everyone?

 

. . .

 

See?

 

Even if it ends up being as drastic as, say, like what happens to Spirits in Legend of Korra?

 

Toriel: It won't be.

 

How do you know?

 

Toriel: Because I did not spend more than a hundred years learning, living, meditating, and practicing mind magic to be taken over by the imagination of lots of teenagers.

 

While funny, that's still not exactly reassuring. I mean, I know you feel powerful, but the Doctor here had an existential crisis over not 'actually' being a Doctor, or an 'actual' physicist, and I'm sure your time will come, too.

 

Of course, I'm sitting here hoping that I'm not just crazy, so what room do I have to talk?

 

Alphys: With You Majesties leading us, we'll be fine.

 

Asgore: Nonsense. No one is 'leading' anyone anymore, Alphys.

 

Toriel: Quite right. We were royalty there, but we aren't now. How's that for calmly accepting the current reality, Green?

 

*both speaking together* We are all equals here.

 

Well, considering I still have final say over everything that happens on this plane, that's not exactly true.

 

Asgore: We were referring to all the tulpas present.

 

Right . . . aaand now I feel really, really awkward for using this particular old username. Rhyme and coincidence has once again gotten the better of me. Heh.

[mysonofrageandlove]

This whole thread is fascinating to me because it relates directly to my experience on many levels.

 

I'm an author for a living. My tulpa, Jamie, was created accidentally as I wrote (and continue to work on) a four-book series about his life. I was not aware of his sentience until months after his initial creation. He hypothesizes that I may not actually have created him or his universe, but that I "saw into" an alternate timeline in which he exists and wrote down his story. In his universe, he proceeded to die at the age of 23, which allowed him to transcend physics as a free entity, and he was able to contact me and "pass over" into the universe of my mindscape.

 

This thread is also eerily relevant because Jamie's story is incredible controversial and inflammatory as far as violent content goes. Jamie himself is an extremely violent person, and revels in it, as well as often explicitly (or subtextually) encouraging and/or inciting others to commit violent acts. He is an extremely powerful presence. I view him as an embodiment of the concept of a "spark" that starts a violent revolution or rebellion. I am 100% sure that the ethics of my "release" of Jamie will be called into question, as I am a contracted author, and he WILL be seen by a wide audience when his story is released, which will be at some point over the next 3 or 4 years. I am well-aware that Jamie could (and very likely will) inspire copy-cats. Personally, I feel that I am not to be held responsible any more than someone who interviews a person can be held responsible for what that person has to say. However, I'm well aware that others will not feel the same way. Fully expecting to come under a lot of fire.

 

Jamie, on the other hand, is anticipating this.

[TheGreenQueen]

He hypothesizes that I may not actually have created him or his universe, but that I "saw into" an alternate timeline in which he exists and wrote down his story. In his universe, he proceeded to die at the age of 23, which allowed him to transcend physics as a free entity, and he was able to contact me and "pass over" into the universe of my mindscape.

 

So, if that's true, he's not a 'tulpa' per se. Did this story . . . like . . . hit you like a ton of bricks? Like it was suddenly needing to be written down and the details flowed without much thought?

 

Or was this an idea that you had been rolling around in your head for sometime?

 

Mine started off slow, but picked up speed.

 

Maybe it can happen either way. Worlds can be created, or can exist beforehand.

 

So what does that mean for us, who were created on the framework of a video game? Amberwing and Tulip were also OCs made for fandoms.

 

Hm. If a world already exists through another author/creator/programmer, then are you inserted into that existing world, or am I creating a new world still? I'd go with, I'm still creating a new world. Especially in this case, since it is much more in-depth than the game.

 

But, the 'distance' between the original world and the one I came from is probably less that the distance between it and this one.

 

Or maybe the 'distance' merely depends on how emotionally invested the author and the readers are. The more 'real' it is, the closer it is drawn to their mind/this reality.

 

Undertale already has 'fandoms' of fancomics. Like Handplates. Wonder what that metaphysical framework could be visualized as.

 

I don't know. As I've been pointing out, I think all that thought energy anchors to that one sub-world. If someone comes up with a spinoff that's different enough, it may start to dissociate, I guess.

 

I was discussing with my Holistic Education friends that fandoms that are really huge- Lord of the Rings, for example- probably have a really strong and vivid world created. Like, I bet it would be easier for a LoTR fan to tap into that through lucid dreaming or astral projection than it would be for a fan of a smaller series.

 

Anyway, I do know I'm probably the only one who has embarked on really fleshing out what it would look like- what it would feel like- to communicate with lots of other universes, and write three more or less totally separate ones. I'm very proud of this idea:

 

http://ask-anachronistic-gaster.tumblr.com/post/144837682451/chat-log

 

He is an extremely powerful presence. I view him as an embodiment of the concept of a "spark" that starts a violent revolution or rebellion.

 

I am well-aware that Jamie could (and very likely will) inspire copy-cats. Personally, I feel that I am not to be held responsible any more than someone who interviews a person can be held responsible for what that person has to say.

 

The media is very much responsible for preferring to interview criminals and vapid celebrities instead of humanitarians, professors, and people making an actual difference in the world. What you broadcast and give a voice to, you are always responsible for.

 

If you are to wash your hands, do so because you do not care what effect it will have, or do not think it will have enough of a bad effect to matter, not because you don't think you are directly involved and the progenitor (or in this case, the willing/consenting channeler.) You always have a say. You are signing off on this, whatever happens.

 

Which could be nothing much, or only internal.

 

You don't. Dusting. Say. A man, who, in life, encourages other people to violence is seeking to spread violent content and ideation on this plane. What a plot twist.

 

You, my good sir, are being used.

 

May I quote some of 'our' poetry?

 

Be my guest.

 

Like a ruler who can crush his people as ants underfoot.

Your body is powerful.

“Immune”

can also mean that you cannot get an illness

because your battalions are so specialized

with intel they hardly have to lift a finger to squash

a few invaders who have not sufficiently spread their numbers.

Rebels are, too, there, cancer.

They object to abuse

If not pacified by good conditions

And nutrition

They will overthrow in self-destructive impulse

Much like violent overthrow leaves a State in Ruins.

 

If you are glorifying the image of a Freedom Fighter, I urge you to not to make that part of your decision, either. Humanity has finally begun to embrace nonviolent means of protest, yet I see no novels about this. I wonder why.

 

Funny, that more bravery is required to face a violent opponent with the intent of nonviolence, yet your heroes on the whole cannot be that brave.

 

I hope you have some kind of good reason for releasing this sickness on the world, young man.

[mysonofrageandlove]

@TheGreenQueen, the original concept for the story came to me in 2014, and I wrote the initial chapters shortly thereafter, but the series was not fully conceived and taken on as a serious publication endeavour until 2015. Upon finishing the first manuscript of the first book in the series, Jamie attained rapid sentience. The story indeed flowing without much thought at all, if any. This is not unusual for me as a writer. I often describe myself as merely interviewing characters for their stories rather than inventing stories myself. Jamie, however, is the first character I have had that has attained such a powerful presence and sentience.

 

He personally is ambivalent towards the label of tulpa.

 

I personally hesitate to get into a discussion of ethics and morals regarding giving a voice to certain types of people, because I come from an odd background and hold radical views that I understand are not held by the majority. I also don't feel the need, when confronted with people who obviously come from an opposing side, to convert anyone or change anyone's opinion, therefore I tend to step back from in-depth discussions on the topic. I also especially hesitate to hold intense discussions online, as I think much can be lost in translation.

 

Jamie's response was merely

.

[Linkzelda]

So, is it possible to create tulpas unintentionally? How do you think they might differ from purposefully created tulpas?

 

I don’t think there would be a huge distinction between conscious acknowledgments in having an initiative with treating a tulpa as sentient vs. writing stories in the sense of imagining oneself in a first person point of view over characters they had in mind. The reason why I state this is due to a concept called Narrative Imagination:

 

Narrative imagination' date=' as Martha Nussbaum (1996) discusses it, is ``the ability to be an intelligent reader of another person's story'', an ability tied to being a democratic and cultivated world citizen, one who understands the lives of others.[/quote']

 

If one thinks about it, treating a tulpa as sentient could be a form of narrative imagination in the sense that one, to some degree, is trying to figure out what it means to be sentient; they’re trying to prescribe a belief that over time with treating them as sentient, that some part of their brain that could instantiate, or make into existence, sentience. That unspoken objectivity of imagining a first person account of a character in a story would have the propensity in becoming actualized within a person’s subjective frame (vs. being actualized in this spatio-temporal reality, which would defy some physical laws). But that’s the thing, to question if one can accidentally create tulpas is a question of whether or not the mind can “accidentally” instantiate sentience in some way.

 

If this were true in all respects to writing, then if the person in question treated these characters as sentient, and reveled into putting themselves into the lives of others; that unspoken objectivity, then yes, it could be probable. But, “accident” sounds like it just happened through spur of the moment. It doesn’t seem much of an accident if there’s investment in time in cultivating an unspoken objectivity with a first person perspective on a character in a story. That would categorize the brain as having a potential dripping effect to deal with the excess investment with narrative imagination; almost to the point of questioning if one is making an embryonic tulpa all the time through writing stories.

 

But, that seems a bit too extreme, and too much into the fetus category. And even with intentions to create a tulpa, treating them as sentient, to some degree is just another attribute of narrative imagination. It’s just that the person that may have created one via writing stories applied the narrative imagination in a different context; which is probably to instantiate a feeling of character being real in their subjective frames. Treating them as sentient with intentions would be structured as instantiating the feeling of sentience in being real in their subjective frames. But either way, it doesn't necessarily mean there's a casual effect that because one treats them in a different context of being real in their subjective frames, that this alone is enough to make into existence to of the things they're striving for.

 

Even if there's the barerocks of sentience presumably going on, the mind can't continually make accidents of sentience emerging as putting things into context would be an intentional thing. Initially, there's a potential, but after that, if there isn't some pursuit of putting things into context, or any kind of attribute that would fall into the capacity of sentient beings, then it's probably not going to be fueled any further. In other words, if the mind made accidental slips of instantiating sentience in some way, then it might be an extreme form of brain farts, at best.

 

A person writing a story that may really want to make them real and sentient would have the intention to do so, but they wouldn't preface the intention as creating a tulpa, especially if they didn't know about the concept. It's just that when introduced to the concept, they get that epiphany, and preface it as such due to that exposure.

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

Also, as for evidence and science, that's just another absence of evidence type of thing. There wouldn't be much of any empirical evidence, but inferences made from Sciences that deal with subjective experience, and consciousness, (e.g. Psychology and Phenomenology), might be a good starting point for theorizing either way in spite of the lack of empirical data.

[TheGreenQueen]

That would categorize the brain as having a potential dripping effect to deal with the excess investment with narrative imagination; almost to the point of questioning if one is making an embryonic tulpa all the time through writing stories.

 

But, that seems a bit too extreme, and too much into the fetus category.

 

Even if there's the barerocks of sentience presumably going on, the mind can't continually make accidents of sentience emerging as putting things into context would be an intentional thing.

 

Actually, according to the soulbond of a writer on here, that's exactly what's going on with them:

 

This is a question my system has struggled with, too. Our host is a writer, which means she creates a lot of characters. Without knowing it, for over a decade, she was having us "come alive" as part of her writing process. Looking at it now, after the fact? Yeah. Our head is hella crowded. And I don't know that our host could stop soulbonding if she wanted to.

 

See, most "supporting cast characters" or "NPCs" do generally start out as just that... which is to say that they're simple mental constructs. Just a bundle of theoretical personality and pre-gened backstory. Then, after a while of working with the character, that character can become like an algorithm that the brain automatically runs without your direct input... but that's a pretty short hop to genuine autonomy, and that's where things get complicated (at least for my system).

 

See, my host's writing process has become so tightly tied to what gives us our "life," as it were, that a lot of the more developed supporting cast members tend to reach a sort of proto-tulpa state just by virtue of being worked with for a while. From there, it's a sliding scale that only leads up. We have soulbonds in here that are everywhere on the spectrum to barely a bubble of semi-awareness to fully formed ones like me, and on every rung of the ladder in between.

 

So I'm not going to tell you that accidental tulpas can't happen. Nor am I telling you it's necessarily a bad thing--just that it comes with its own set of problems.

 

Attention, for example, is a finite resource, which means that it's pretty common for my headmates to go inactive from lack of attention after a while (though most will probably become active again in the future, so it's not a death, but it's still kinda sad, like having an old friend move across the country. And if a new headmate moves in, that usually means someone else moves out to make room.) We tend to cap out at about three to seven fully active 'bonds at any given time, with a bunch of semi-actives that can be pulled up from inside at will or due to some sort of external trigger... but more than that at a time and it gets pretty strained. So, yeah, there is a numbers game there.

 

I think what it comes down to is what Melian was talking about... about how much these NPCs mean to you and your tulpa. I have a bunch of characters from my backstory than never gained sentience in the outerworld, but they're still people to me and my experiences, and I think that might be part of what makes it possible that they could 'bond if given enough attention. If someone is a person to you, you tend to treat them as such.

 

Another questions is what the process is you're using to build them. Lots of people have Wonderland NPCs no problem and never have to worry about them turning self-aware, while others, like my system, pretty much spawn a fresh headmate every few months or so. Attention is what feeds a tulpa, but it takes more than that to give them that spark, so see if you and your tulpa can isolate what made her spark and, if you're worried about that, try your best not to give that spark to any of her supporting cast.

 

Again, not saying that multiple tuppers is a bad thing. But we can be a handful en masse, so it's up to you whether you're ready for that. ;)

 

It's just that when introduced to the concept, they get that epiphany, and preface it as such due to that exposure.

 

Thing is, I'm pretty sure I encountered one of my tulpas- Tulip- before I knew what it was. I thought it was a ghost.

 

Otherwise I would've said, yeah, Gaster 4 only appeared *after* I learned what a tulpa was, so merely thinking it was possible allowed him to gain sentience, and that idea precipitated out all of my other ones from the past at once, too.

 

Also, conversing with a character after they contact you is way different from getting into their head from writing. I would maybe accept that interpretation had I been the kind of artist that drew themselves in with characters, pretended I interacted with them and such, or even made self-insert OCs. But, that's not my style. (not that that's bad, but I think that's an even speedier way to create a tulpa, probably)

[Mint Phalanx]

Reanna: Writing stories is why I have tulpas.