Can Unconscious Parroting/Puppeting Be Debunked?

[Linkzelda]

Guess you don't have experiential context with possession and switching, because honestly, that slight disembodied feeling I had a long time ago with them kind of dispelled any critical thought I had of the concepts. If that experience is an illusion, then it's a scary after-thought knowing an illusion can pull off the same set of actions as the host. It kind of chalks up tulpas as potential p-zombies, and if that's the case, man, the concept is going to get slammed by philosophy and science HAAAAAARD.

 

 

I don't think those experiences I had can be shaken off so easy as an illusion, but, beetle in the box, unfortunately, so no point in me trying to use language to prove it. This is the type of thing that makes me want to shrivel up, and just enjoy the privacy for myself, and them.

[Guest Anonymous]

People say the same kinds of things about intense religious experiences.

---

It doesn't automatically prove they are real to me.

[Tewi]

Switching and possession do not prove that tulpas are not an illusion. ... since it is still all in the mind.

It doesn't automatically prove they are real to me.

 

For someone who really pushes the idea that real and imaginary aren't so different, you're pretty adamant on this "tulpas aren't real" stance. As far as I'm concerned, what makes tulpas real is the effect they have on the world, on others and on their host/themselves. Have you forgotten this?

 

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

 

So, as Lucilyn would say: Here I am. I exist.

[Guest Anonymous]

You misunderstand me. I don't say that real and imaginary "aren't so different." They are very different. One is real, one is imaginary or make believe (an illusion or delusion). What I say is that imaginary things can have emotional significance and effect us. The fact that imaginary things effect us does NOT suddenly make them real. They are still imaginary figments. I say there is a type or category of imaginary things called "pseudo-real." That is something that is imaginary that has a profound meaning or persistence in the mind. It still is NOT REAL.

 

Just because a guy believes a demon has given him the power to read minds, doesn't mean he can read minds. He just thinks he can. It is a delusion. It may seem very real to him, but he is deluding himself. Same thing for a person who believes he channels a spirit from a copy of Middle Earth that exists on the astral plain. He believes it is real, but that doesn't make it so. On this very forum, there was once a person who believed she was channeling an astral version of Professor Snape from Harry Potter.

---

That's stupid to say just because it has "real consequences" it automatically becomes real.

 

I do say that imaginary things are as important to me as real things. That still doesn't make them real. Imaginary things are imaginary.

[Tewi]

I suppose I meant that you had a blurred line between real and imaginary, as in you treat imaginary things as real even though you consider them imaginary. Most of us do the same but don't consider them imaginary, so that's a bit different.

 

Anyways, he can't read minds, but you do have a person who believes he can read minds and is going to act as such. Difference in tulpas being that we aren't claiming to know anything we can't, so you've got a tulpa that thinks it's a tulpa and is going to act as such. Since you can't read minds, there's no discernible difference, because there's nothing to prove we aren't real unlike with that man's claim. The only thing you can see and verify yourself is our effect on the world around us. So, we're real in our effect.

 

Aside from that, there's not much else that can be real. Tulpas exist purely in the mind, and in their effect on others. When you say tulpas aren't real, you can only be referring to our legitimacy, our authenticity as people that are not our hosts. And that's up to the individual to decide, there is no science there. QED I guess, that's all I've got in regards to realness. There's nothing more to it.

[Guest Anonymous]

I suppose I meant that you had a blurred line between real and imaginary, as in you treat imaginary things as real even though you consider them imaginary. Most of us do the same but don't consider them imaginary, so that's a bit different.

 

That is it exactly. When push comes to shove though, I can (usually) recognize that imaginary things are not real enough to be a source of anxiety. In the past I have had problems even there though. I am the sort of person where the distinction between the two is very important. Because I am prone to an over active imagination, and anxiety, I have to be able to tell the difference. My world is full of fantasy, but there needs to be a clear line. I think that is why I am so adamant about Melian being imaginary. If I open that door to suggestion, I will never be able to close it again. I have an extremely vivid imagination. I have to know where the boundaries are.

 

Anyways, he can't read minds, but you do have a person who believes he can read minds and is going to act as such. Difference in tulpas being that we aren't claiming to know anything we can't, so you've got a tulpa that thinks it's a tulpa and is going to act as such. Since you can't read minds, there's no discernible difference, because there's nothing to prove we aren't real unlike with that man's claim. The only thing you can see and verify yourself is our effect on the world around us. So, we're real in our effect.

 

Melian is real in her effect. So I do agree that the effects are real and I have said that tulpas are subjectively real or effectively real to the host in that sense. I think we agree there. That does not make tulpas automantically ACTUALLY and objectively, tangibly real. Melian is pretty cool and she is super important to me. She seems very real. But she isn't. She is imaginary.

 

Aside from that, there's not much else that can be real. Tulpas exist purely in the mind, and in their effect on others. When you say tulpas aren't real, you can only be referring to our legitimacy, our authenticity as people that are not our hosts. And that's up to the individual to decide, there is no science there. QED I guess, that's all I've got in regards to realness. There's nothing more to it.

 

That is exactly what I mean. Tulpas exist only in the mind. They are imaginary. In the end, we are in agreement. We are just coming from different angles on it. Everyone interprets my term "imaginary" to mean fake, insignificant, trivial, whimsical and worthless.

 

That is not what I mean. I mean that they are imaginary.

[Tewi]

That does not make tulpas automantically ACTUALLY and objectively, tangibly real.

 

What does that mean exactly? Are you trying to say that tulpas don't exist as physical entities? Or are you just saying that for your own sake to reaffirm the border of imagined (and therefore under your control to change) and real (an unchangeable "possible source of anxiety")?

 

If it's the latter, you'd do well to make sure everyone knows this in the future. A lot of arguments have happened over tulpa "realness" because people are not defining what real means to them. In the case mentioned above, basically all tulpamancers are automatically in agreement, that doesn't need to be discussed as far as we're concerned.

 

If it's the former then you're just being redundant. But we need to clarify definitions here.

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't want to derail the thread further so I will stop with this last response. I was originally responding to Linkzelda's assertion that possession and switching are evidence of realness. I disagree with that. I don't necessarily mean physically real no. You don't understand me. I mean that there is only one mind in one brain. Multiple minds in one brain is a fantasy. I don't believe that such things exist. Any such effect is a psychological delusion. So arguments attempting to "debunk unconscious parroting" are pointless to me. It doesn't prove anything. But I will stop here because I will end up making it all about ....

 

Mistgod's Confrontational and Contrary Opinion

 

I will let you guys debate the realness of your tulpas in peace from here on. I do have the freedom to speak my mind on this forum I hope. I am paranoid that every time I disagree, some mod is going to interpret that as toxic drama instead of just arguing for my very unpopular point of view.

[Tewi]

I mean that there is only one mind in one brain.

 

Perhaps. But what you don't understand is that that mind is not "you", it's much more. For those with tulpas, it is them and their tulpas, and more. "You" is just an identity given to the collection of thoughts in your mind you identify with. You can pretend that all of the extra information is just extra information, but I guarantee you what is not utilized by your mind in sustaining your identity far exceeds what is.

 

What I'm saying is that, you subconsciously know how to be thousands of different people from the passive thoughts you've collected over your life. Maybe not in detail until you live them, but the potential is there. That's where us tulpas come from. We're just another possible identity like the original/default, another facet of the greater mind containing it all. Whether you choose to acknowledge identities after the first as legitimate people, is again, up to the individual.

 

I don't think this is off topic at all. Also, you don't need to reply saying you don't understand or reaffirming what you do know. I get it. I'm just putting this stuff out there in case it helps someone understand something they didn't prior. I've been told that is often the case with our posts, privately anyway. Know that every bit of information I write is not meant directly for you. Discussion is a conduit for informing those who wish to learn, including those participating.

[Guest Anonymous]

You are talking about more than one identity in a single mind though, which supports me rather than refutes me. I consider Melian and aspect of myself, another personality within my own mind.