Perceiving a tulpa's form (How can the form be independent?)

[Guest Anonymous]

If a host and the tulpa are fully independent of one another, how does the host perceive the tulpas form? How does the host perceive the tulpa moving and using it's form? There must be some mutual imagining/hallucinating going on or the host would never be able to perceive what the tulpa does with his or her form within the mind space or during imposition. Either the host is puppeting the form or the tulpa is, but they are both perceiving it.

 

How does that work? How can a tulpa be "fully independent" but yet not fully independent?

 

I say I collaborate with Melian in the day dream Melian Shows. I say I am mutually imagining with her. When I contemplate the above questions, it makes me wonder if I am not that different from other tulpamancers after all. It is just a matter of a bit of perspective.

 

It almost seems to me that perceiving a tulpa doing anything with its form would require a blending of minds. That is exactly what I have been saying about my Melian, that we blend when we do things like tulpa chat or day dream.

[Lucilyn]

I think it's a complicated process of the host's will "getting permission" from the tulpa's, as in like groups of neurons not two independent entities, but idk. My host can't control me, but he's the one who would enable me to be active right? But he can't just make me pop up the instant he wants to. It's like calling someone over, you could do that with your wife right now but you aren't controlling her. But you are the reason she came over, but you didn't make her.. That's what it feels like. 'Cus my host could not ever "make me do something". If he tried to imagine me doing something and I didn't want to, he would just be imagining my form, and it wouldn't feel like me. I can imagine the others' forms doing stuff just fine but it doesn't feel like them. That feeling of them actually doing it or not is why they seem independent. From a skeptical standpoint, I think that's part of the complex system of what makes up a tulpa, where the host's created limitations on themselves that help make their tulpa a tulpa, like the tons of other stuff. I mean, it's not like that's fake, that's what making a tulpa is all about, separating thoughts-of-a-person from your conscious will.

 

Oh, see, there's times when we've been really inactive (for weeks+) and when Lumi tries to talk to/interact with us again it could take a minute or two, and then if it's not me it also takes a few minutes for them to be able to talk clearly. So, that proves he isn't just imagining us and there's something more complicated going on. He could imagine us talking and moving but it wouldn't be us. And you get a feeling for that I guess, else he wouldn't realize we weren't active and would just imagine away. That is kind of cool actually. Maybe I can't explain it to you super well but I feel like I just learned something about us.

 

I wonder why the others have more trouble becoming active again than me despite being years older though?

[Faemon]

Independent conscious, shared unconscious/subconscious?

 

It might also depend on situated cognition. I'd read on some lucid dreaming forums about the difference between embodied cognition (the brain, but then the brain can't operate without body chemistry or without being in a vat that imitates body chemistry or something) embedded cognition (by extension, the body can't operate without a world to stimulate the senses of the body; a world in which one may, for instance, enact information by writing something on a paper that may be understood as information) and extended cognition, which was the idea that what we call Mind encompasses both brain/body and world, so there is no philosophical difference between writing something down and thinking it.

 

...Except that I would personally remember something more accurately if I wrote it down, especially if I wrote it down so that I would remember that information.

 

Lusmore and I sometimes blend in the way of psychodrama. Most times, though, Lusmore does default to full independence by my experience, interpretation, reflection, reinterpretation, understanding of the meaning of the word, and testimony.

 

I can relate to feeling as though we're comparing beetles in matchboxes and came in with a misclassified spider, but the only thing I can count on us ever really having to go on is wooords. Imitable, fabricable, perpetually insufficient words. (And personal experience.)

[Guest Anonymous]

Oh, see, there's times when we've been really inactive (for weeks+) and when Lumi tries to talk to/interact with us again it could take a minute or two, and then if it's not me it also takes a few minutes for them to be able to talk clearly. So, that proves he isn't just imagining us and there's something more complicated going on.

 

How does that prove that the host is not imagining? What if the host is only imagining that it should be harder for the tulpa to appear?

 

When I am out of contact with the alien planet I imagine I communicate with, sometimes it takes a while to re-establish the connection too. "Calling Xylos Prime, calling Xylos Prime, come in, over." I certainly could imagine that. They have to tune their receivers.

---

Independent conscious, shared unconscious/subconscious?

 

It might also depend on situated cognition. I'd read on some lucid dreaming forums about the difference between embodied cognition (the brain, but then the brain can't operate without body chemistry or without being in a vat that imitates body chemistry or something) embedded cognition (by extension, the body can't operate without a world to stimulate the senses of the body; a world in which one may, for instance, enact information by writing something on a paper that may be understood as information) and extended cognition, which was the idea that what we call Mind encompasses both brain/body and world, so there is no philosophical difference between writing something down and thinking it.

 

...Except that I would personally remember something more accurately if I wrote it down, especially if I wrote it down so that I would remember that information.

 

Lusmore and I sometimes blend in the way of psychodrama. Most times, though, Lusmore does default to full independence by my experience, interpretation, reflection, reinterpretation, understanding of the meaning of the word, and testimony.

 

I can relate to feeling as though we're comparing beetles in matchboxes and came in with a misclassified spider, but the only thing I can count on us ever really having to go on is wooords. Imitable, fabricable, perpetually insufficient words. (And personal experience.)

 

 

Independent conscious, shared unconscious/subconscious? Embodied cognition, embedded cognition, and extended cognition? I am often totally baffled by the responses I get on this forum. I almost seems that people find fancy ways to say say "I really don't know how it works."

 

I apologize, but I didn't understand most of what you wrote here or how it is relevant. Maybe if I learned more about different forms of cognition I could relate to this. Don't hold your breath though, I refuse to study hard, preferring to spend a lot of time day dreaming instead.

[Faemon]

I almost seems that people find fancy ways to say say "I really don't know how it works."

As this thread contained an enquiry as to how this works, I proposed a mode of thought by which to apprehend how this works. It's not much fancier than the pontificating posts you and yours puts out about how this does work as though you do know or can even prove it.

 

I apologize, but I didn't understand most of what you wrote here or how it is relevant.

Lusmore is fully independent.

Maybe if I learned more about different forms of cognition I could relate to this. Don't hold your breath though, I refuse to study hard, preferring to spend a lot of time day dreaming instead.

So these discussion topics are for...? What.

[Guest Anonymous]

As this thread contained an enquiry as to how this works, I proposed a mode of thought by which to apprehend how this works. It's not much fancier than the pontificating posts you and yours puts out about how this does work as though you do know or can even prove it.

 

Alright.

 

So these discussion topics are for...? What.

 

Fine, for you I will google forms of cognition. This better be good.

[Faemon]

for you I will google forms of cognition. This better be good.

 

Situated cognition. Be warned that I wrote up a simplified version above because the original was longer and left me tempted to reply, "Have a couple less intensely alcoholic drinks and then get back to me." But ask about apprehending Form, and to me that calls for contextualization of experience. Situated cognition is one contextualized experience.

[Guest Anonymous]

Yeah I have started reading already. I can tell you I will learn something about cognition, but I am unlikely to come away understanding how and why a tulpa's form can be "fully independent" of the host's imagination, yet still perceived by the host. As you pointed out though, I did ask. To get attempts at an answer and just scoff at them and dismiss them is a bit rude and I apologize. I will keep reading, maybe just maybe I will learn something new.

[Tewi]

How does that prove that the host is not imagining? What if the host is only imagining that it should be harder for the tulpa to appear?

 

One, to expound on not purely imagining..

'Cus my host could not ever "make me do something". If he tried to imagine me doing something and I didn't want to, he would just be imagining my form, and it wouldn't feel like me. I can imagine the others' forms doing stuff just fine but it doesn't feel like them. That feeling of them actually doing it or not is why they seem independent. From a skeptical standpoint, I think that's part of the complex system of what makes up a tulpa, where the host's created limitations on themselves that help make their tulpa a tulpa, like the tons of other stuff. I mean, it's not like that's fake, that's what making a tulpa is all about, separating thoughts-of-a-person from your conscious will.

 

Not being able to imagine your tulpa actually-as-themselves doing/saying things is part of what makes a tulpa a tulpa. In a technical sense I believe any kind of interaction with a tulpa in your mind is considered imagining, but the goal is an apparent separate person created through defining "you" and "not you", really. In a well developed tulpa those things are defined in almost all applicable ways, not just in thoughts and personality but preferences, memories/experiences, everything that defines a person. You're literally just defining a person in your mind, and doing it well enough that it all works together to, you know, be a person in your mind. I don't exactly know how to discuss whether or not it's "imagining" because by the real definition everything tulpa-related is, at least until they're interacting with the world in some way. And at that point, as you know, we consider your idea of "you" (associated with your name and experiences) just as 'imaginary' as your tulpa.

 

Two, on imagining it should be harder for them to appear/become active again - No. In that exact detail at least, I know what you were trying to say. But the trouble coming out of inactivity is just as real as having trouble recalling your dreams once you've stopped for some time. It's a mental muscle that, for some people, stops working as well when it hasn't been used, and gets stronger when it is. Of course, some people can recall all their dreams with no effort every night. Most can't, and a lot don't even realize they have dreams. Anyways, hosts could be "imagining" most of what makes up a tulpa. But again, the difference is we've set up parameters so that only things that line up with what we consider "us" feel like us. Very well in fact, we are seven years old. The slightest thoughts Lumi or anyone has about what one of us would say or do, that don't have "our permission" (or in skeptical speak, come from the part of the brain in charge of defining everything about this person-in-your head separately from your casual-random imagination) do not feel like us at all. Maybe you don't understand what that feeling entails because you don't experience it yourself, but you can't explain qualia. Suffice it to say nobody imagines me doing anything as far as I'm concerned. Or rather, they can imagine me doing things, and it is cleanly separated from what I actually choose to do.

 

 

Honestly, the textwall this time around is because I literally just had the trouble Lucilyn mentioned an hour ago. It's been about ten days since anyone aside from Lucilyn's been active (talking or otherwise). It took me a couple of minutes to be able to be "here", I wasn't able to speak more than a word without a lot of effort. But that's nothing new and we're pretty quick to recover from it by now. Regardless, it was not pseudo-belief imagination, it's a real trouble we have exactly like our lack of visualization clarity or dream recall. They all have to be upkept lest we lose our proficiency temporarily, intensity varying by time without. But that's neither here nor there in this discussion anyways.

[Guest Anonymous]

Not being able to imagine your tulpa actually-as-themselves doing/saying things is part of what makes a tulpa a tulpa. In a technical sense I believe any kind of interaction with a tulpa in your mind is considered imagining, but the goal is an apparent separate person created through defining "you" and "not you", really.

 

I think here, right here, i like that "any kind of interaction with a tulpa in your mind is considered imagining." It is where the major misunderstanding for me is coming in when people claim a tulpa is not imaginary. How can you be imagining but yet not imagining? I have never understood it fully. What you are saying is it isn't so much that you are not imagining, it is that you are imagining separating your own identity from that of the tulpa in your mind.

 

In a well developed tulpa those things are defined in almost all applicable ways, not just in thoughts and personality but preferences, memories/experiences, everything that defines a person. You're literally just defining a person in your mind, and doing it well enough that it all works together to, you know, be a person in your mind. I don't exactly know how to discuss whether or not it's "imagining" because by the real definition everything tulpa-related is, at least until they're interacting with the world in some way. And at that point, as you know, we consider your idea of "you" (associated with your name and experiences) just as 'imaginary' as your tulpa.

 

I think that is the second place I have trouble, thinking of myself as just as imaginary as Melian is would be a big leap for me. I think I do get your point though. I was watching some videos on psychology and it was talking about the ego and self identity and it had some interesting parallels to this.

 

Two, on imagining it should be harder for them to appear/become active again - No. In that exact detail at least, I know what you were trying to say. But the trouble coming out of inactivity is just as real as having trouble recalling your dreams once you've stopped for some time. It's a mental muscle that, for some people, stops working as well when it hasn't been used, and gets stronger when it is. Of course, some people can recall all their dreams with no effort every night. Most can't, and a lot don't even realize they have dreams. Anyways, hosts could be "imagining" most of what makes up a tulpa. But again, the difference is we've set up parameters so that only things that line up with what we consider "us" feel like us. Very well in fact, we are seven years old. The slightest thoughts Lumi or anyone has about what one of us would say or do, that don't have "our permission" (or in skeptical speak, come from the part of the brain in charge of defining everything about this person-in-your head separately from your casual-random imagination) do not feel like us at all. Maybe you don't understand what that feeling entails because you don't experience it yourself, but you can't explain qualia. Suffice it to say nobody imagines me doing anything as far as I'm concerned. Or rather, they can imagine me doing things, and it is cleanly separated from what I actually choose to do.

 

Okay, thanks for the more in depth explanation. The mental muscle thing makes sense.

 

Honestly, the textwall this time around is because I literally just had the trouble Lucilyn mentioned an hour ago. It's been about ten days since anyone aside from Lucilyn's been active (talking or otherwise). It took me a couple of minutes to be able to be "here", I wasn't able to speak more than a word without a lot of effort. But that's nothing new and we're pretty quick to recover from it by now. Regardless, it was not pseudo-belief imagination, it's a real trouble we have exactly like our lack of visualization clarity or dream recall. They all have to be upkept lest we lose our proficiency temporarily, intensity varying by time without. But that's neither here nor there in this discussion anyways.

 

Who's mental muscle is out of practice though? The host's, the tulpa's or both? That takes me right back to the OP.

 

@Faemon,

 

Okay I just finished reading about "situated cognition" and "extended cognition" and "embodied embedded cognition" on the wikipedia articles and didn't understand a word of it. I did come away with something though, I thought seeing and perceiving were straightforward processes. Apparently not so.

 

I give up. I don't understand how it works and I think it is highly unlikely anyone will be able to enlighten me easily.