Some questions about what Tulpas can perceive in the real world.

[Some Kind Of Robot]

Hey y'all! Sorry I haven't been active lately, I've been real busy, but now Im back in action!

 

 

So, I was thinking about creating a Tulpa and all that jazz, and that led me to think about how life would be with a Tulpa. This train of thought eventually lead to me thinking about how a Tulpa would perceive the world around it using its host's senses.

 

One thing interesting about Tulpas is despite not having an actual network of nerves they still posses the human senses. They can see, taste, touch and feel all the classic human sensations. But then it can get kind of confusing when thinking about the sense of sight. Tulpas cannot physically take in and interpret any light, their entire vision is confined to what their host is looking at and can see, at least for the direct source. So how can Tulpas perceive and live in an environment that they can only see a sliver of? If a Tulpa is looking one way and you look another, does the Tulpa go blind in a way?

 

Well, in a wonderland its safe to assume no, because its all within your mind and the mind is where the Tulpa lives, so it can just read your thoughts and memories and whamo it knows what exists wherever its looking, and even if nothing is there it can just generate it in a sense. But in an imposition type scenario where the Tulpa is perceiving the real world where the host does not comprehend everything in the immediate area at once, how could a Tulpa explore the area? I've read before that they would use your memories of the area if you're in your house or a familiar place, but its hard to imagine that would be as vivid as sight. What do these memory-recalled areas look like? Furthermore, if a Tulpa is in an environment that is new to the host, are they confined to the host's line of sight.

 

Going back to a familiar area, when a Tulpa is using the host's memories to explore an environment how vivid is it, if vivid at all? The human brain only perceives a small chunk of what it actually looks at, so its safe to assume that it rarely even thinks about what it can't see if its not relevant to the situation. That being said, does a Tulpa spur its host's mind into action, and if so is it mentally draining on the host? Also, if a host is immersed in a book or a movie and forgets about immediate surroundings, is the Tulpa even more limited as to what it can see?

 

 

Sorry about all these rambling question posts,this is probably the last one before I just make a Tulpa and answer these questions myself.

 

[Tewi]

You've got a sense for the space around you at all times, and that's what your tulpa relies on (while imposed, you didn't even mention the term but it's not a given for tulpas to "live in the real world") when it's not directly in your vision. It's as clear as it is to you, pretty simple. Better memory or visualization is just that.

 

The interesting thing though is that that sense is never fact-checked by reality, aside from you overwriting/correcting it with later sensory input. For example, walking around in the dark thinking you know where you are only to feel a wall at a slant compared to what you expected. Your tulpa can live (I mean.. be imposed) in that sense of the environment just fine. If you and they end up accidentally forgetting a large object is somewhere and your tulpa would've walked through it, well, they just walked through it. If you want to be creative, there's nothing saying the physical world and your mental visualization of it have to sync up. Imposition is all about influencing your senses out of the norm, so if that's your sort of thing you can try and convince your mind (to some extent, no one really "convinces" themselves fully) you're feeling something that isn't there or, say, seeing your tulpa. And inverting that, your tulpa can choose how they prefer to interact with your physical environment by changing the rules or the physicality of your mental version of it.

 

Some people are either not comfortable or just shouldn't do that type of stuff, afraid of or prone to actually desyncing their perception of reality from what it should be. You definitely don't seem the type, but I just felt like putting that out there for others. Also, you or your tulpa might just prefer to be as realistic as possible, so you can practice syncing them too.

[tulpa001]

A tulpa shares your network of nerves. They may theoretically come to dominate some parts of your brain.

 

This is most clearly evidenced in possession. Both the sense of touch and motor function are primarily controlled by a pair of isolated brain regions. A pair of strips of brain that run across the crown of your head, separating the frontal lobe from the parietal lobe. If you lose control of your body, this means your tulpa is sitting on the primary motor cortex in the frontal lobe, and if you have trouble feeling your body during switching, it means your tulpa is probably also sitting on your primary somatosensory cortex in your parietal lobe.

 

For me, remembered areas are approximately as vivid as real sight. And yeah, that's how you do it. You do go blind in a way if you look at something your host cannot see. But it works like a blind spot in vision, you don't notice as your subconscious fills in missing details.

 

I am not confined to my host's sight. But I could end up inside a wall and not realise it if I go somewhere new.

 

Yes, your tulpa spurs your brain into action. Your brain's caloric intake is probably going to go up.

 

When I look at something, I usually pull our eyes to whatever I look at. My host can't really stop it.

[Some Kind Of Robot]

You've got a sense for the space around you at all times, and that's what your tulpa relies on (while imposed, you didn't even mention the term but it's not a given for tulpas to "live in the real world") when it's not directly in your vision. It's as clear as it is to you, pretty simple. Better memory or visualization is just that.

 

The interesting thing though is that that sense is never fact-checked by reality, aside from you overwriting/correcting it with later sensory input. For example, walking around in the dark thinking you know where you are only to feel a wall at a slant compared to what you expected. Your tulpa can live (I mean.. be imposed) in that sense of the environment just fine. If you and they end up accidentally forgetting a large object is somewhere and your tulpa would've walked through it, well, they just walked through it. If you want to be creative, there's nothing saying the physical world and your mental visualization of it have to sync up. Imposition is all about influencing your senses out of the norm, so if that's your sort of thing you can try and convince your mind (to some extent, no one really "convinces" themselves fully) you're feeling something that isn't there or, say, seeing your tulpa. And inverting that, your tulpa can choose how they prefer to interact with your physical environment by changing the rules or the physicality of your mental version of it.

 

Some people are either not comfortable or just shouldn't do that type of stuff, afraid of or prone to actually desyncing their perception of reality from what it should be. You definitely don't seem the type, but I just felt like putting that out there for others. Also, you or your tulpa might just prefer to be as realistic as possible, so you can practice syncing them too.

Thinking about Tulpas getting caught in walls made me think about object permanence with visualizations of Tulpas. Its interesting to think if a Tulpas form is still rendered in some way behind objects when they're out of sight. Can the mind tie anything to the form that is not strictly visual, maybe it can feel a presence like when you know someone is watching you. Its weird to think, though, that with Tulpas its completely possible to watch one walk behind a wall, check behind it and they have completely disappeared. If you can't really feel a real presence with a Tulpa in real life, I assume they would just be gone when out of sight, because sight would be the only thing bound to the form. Then again, imposition is largely about the other senses, so they might make a much more real presence than just sight. 

 

Desyncing from reality sounds like an awesome feat but Im guessing it requires an insane amount of skill at imposition. Im not really the type to try and escape reality but it does make you wonder how far someone could take the hallucinations they can make on demand.

A tulpa shares your network of nerves. They may theoretically come to dominate some parts of your brain.

 

This is most clearly evidenced in possession. Both the sense of touch and motor function are primarily controlled by a pair of isolated brain regions. A pair of strips of brain that run across the crown of your head, separating the frontal lobe from the parietal lobe. If you lose control of your body, this means your tulpa is sitting on the primary motor cortex in the frontal lobe, and if you have trouble feeling your body during switching, it means your tulpa is probably also sitting on your primary somatosensory cortex in your parietal lobe.

 

For me, remembered areas are approximately as vivid as real sight. And yeah, that's how you do it. You do go blind in a way if you look at something your host cannot see. But it works like a blind spot in vision, you don't notice as your subconscious fills in missing details.

 

I am not confined to my host's sight. But I could end up inside a wall and not realise it if I go somewhere new.

 

Yes, your tulpa spurs your brain into action. Your brain's caloric intake is probably going to go up.

 

When I look at something, I usually pull our eyes to whatever I look at. My host can't really stop it.

The thought of a Tulpa dominating a portion of the brain plays into a larger question I've had for a while, which is whether Tulpas act independent of the brain or parallel and along with it. Visually, does a Tulpa just control concentrated pockets and sections of the brain at once, or does a Tulpa become another function using all of the brain at a time, and can access certain sections when it needs to.

 

The notion of blind spots is something I completely skipped over in my head and makes a lot of sense. We already have blank spots in our vision, so it probably would have been a good reference point. Crazy to think of what a subconscious could fill in when looking at nothing but, well, nothing. 

 

It seems like its pretty jarring to have you eyes pulled away from what you're looking at, but Tulpas gotta see what Tulpas gotta see. (Do you get like enhanced motor control of your eyes? Can you do like crazy chameleon eye tricks? That'd be so rad)

[tulpa001]

Yes, you can usually feel a presence associated with your tulpa when they are imposed. Their form does not disappear when they walk behind a wall. It is merely being blocked.

 

Desyncing from reality... I talked about eating food and causing it to disappear until my host looked back at it.

 

---

 

The most likely theory for any type of consciousness, both hosts and tulpas, is that the mind-consciousness is distributed throughout the brain. Specific parts we can pin down. Motor activity to that one region, so your tulpa has fingers in there if they are moving the body. And there are specific regions for each of the senses. Sight is at the back of the brain, and hearing at the sides, for example. Executive functioning sits most likely entirely in the frontal lobe. This is the part that can look at itself and control itself, and is associated with willpower.

 

The rest of the mind, like memory, and unconscious thoughts, are believed to be distributed, taking advantage of multiple areas all over the brain.

 

There is no known reason why two consciousnesses could not be active at the same time in overlapping areas. But, also, there is no research, here, since half the psychologists in the world don't believe in multiple consciousness.

 

Usually, in a normal brain, your mind will only activate about ten percent of the brain area for any given thinking task. But if your tulpa is causing you to hallucinate a tulpa body in the physical world, your tulpa is definitely activating at least one of your brain's visualising areas.

 

Sorry, I can't answer your question directly. I don't know the answer.

 

Sorry, no chameleon eye tricks.

[| Eva |]

Questions like these is what Linkzelda would call pseudo-problems when it comes to exclusiveness with the tulpa endeavor. By this, the whole idea that some characteristics are exclusive to hosts, and what’s exclusive to tulpas. Some people would easily agree that it’s obviously all within the same mind and cognition of the body they share, and yet at the same time, some may use a narrative that a tulpa becomes a second-hand conscious experiencer, p-zombie, AI, or whatever metaphorical context comes to mind.

 

Like others have stated, it’s kind of hard to give a definite answer, because even psychological standpoints are little infantile, at best, and theories of mind don’t seem to be discussed much around here in the forums, so that doesn’t seem to console many people on the limits of the host and tulpa.

 

But in an imposition type scenario where the Tulpa is perceiving the real world where the host does not comprehend everything in the immediate area at once, how could a Tulpa explore the area? I've read before that they would use your memories of the area if you're in your house or a familiar place, but it’s hard to imagine that would be as vivid as sight. What do these memory-recalled areas look like? Furthermore, if a Tulpa is in an environment that is new to the host, are they confined to the host's line of sight.

 

This is just speculation, but I would presume the brain creates all sorts of symbols and representational models from memories; experiential, or working knowledge, and what have you. I think part of your confusion lies in how you undermine the brain’s capacity in being predisposed to tunnel vision, which is why maybe you’re left short-handed.

 

One thing interesting about Tulpas is despite not having an actual network of nerves they still posses the human senses. They can see, taste, touch and feel all the classic human sensations. But then it can get kind of confusing when thinking about the sense of sight.

 

This is another problem that’s created when one tries to make host exclusive from tulpas when they would presumably share the same cognition. Of course, there’s no evidence of a tulpa having a completely separate neural working from the host, but at the same time, one has to question if tulpas have no involvement in sharing the neural workings of the body and mind, and yet can still emulate human sentiment and behavior, are they p-zombies? Basically, p-zombies are entities that can emulate sentience, but cannot consciously experience things; mind you, it’s just a thought experiment, but it’s used to evaluate the nuances when it comes to consciousness in general.

 

So, whatever senses is being discussed about would be in relation to qualia, which deals with sense perceptions, and inner subjectivity. So to clear up the confusion you have, if a tulpa can presumably share the qualia of other senses, then whatever predispositions that allows the host to have certain senses, the sense of sight doesn’t necessarily have to be this higher tier that overrides other senses; it’s just part of phenomenal vision (definition #2). It’s not like the tulpa has to map out biological predispositions for sight, and become the back-office of the brain to see things; the host doesn’t even need to revel in that because whatever instantiates qualia for them comes automatically.

 

So one is limited based on the models of how things work for the host, and presume there’s some potential for tulpas. But, if tulpas start becoming second-hand conscious experiencers, and are believed to not share whatever qualia the host experiences; or whatever faculties in the mind that instantiates this, then the p-zombie thought experiment comes back to haunt you. Some choose to ignore it because just like anything else, it ends up with apprehension either way.

 

Going back to a familiar area, when a Tulpa is using the host's memories to explore an environment how vivid is it, if vivid at all? The human brain only perceives a small chunk of what it actually looks at, so its safe to assume that it rarely even thinks about what it can't see if its not relevant to the situation?

 

Have you ever experienced a lucid dream, or recalled your dreams before? If you have any experiential context with that, you’ll realize the mind can create virtual, experiential realities that could be just as real, or even more vivid than waking life endeavors. Some say through waking life, the mind is more limited due to day-to-day activities, and the overall perception of reality. But this isn’t to say that the brain is so weak in capacity, but it’s understandable why you feel this may be the case.

 

Also, I’m not sure anyone can give you a criterion over how vivid the imagery and mental visualizations can get with memories in general. There’s an analogy called beetle in the box where a group of people have their own box with a beetle in it, but no one else can look inside the other’s box; just their own. It’s analogous to qualia, the very same thing you’re confused about. It’s a futile effort, unless advancements analyzing consciousness can state otherwise, to know what’s going on in a person’s inner experience because we cannot know if there’s even a beetle, i.e., qualia, in another person’s experience.

 

However, we use shared language to at least compensate for this, and find a shared social connection of appropriate reactions and context to relate to, and through this alone, we gain some solace that we’re talking to sentient beings, and not p-zombies that would just be firing random utterances.

 

Furthermore, if a Tulpa is in an environment that is new to the host, are they confined to the host's line of sight.

 

Or, they’re confined to how the brain creates experiential context to be stored as memory for future reference. How the back-office of the brain does this tit for tat probably can’t be explained in laymen’s terms, anyway. In other words, I don’t think line of sight is the end-all be-all aspect of qualia to learn about an environment. Sure, it does play a major role, but I feel whoever responds to this in more detail would be using analogies and metaphors of the inner workings of the brain that allows representational models to be conceptualized and aware of in the first place.

[Linkzelda]

TL;DR on Eva:

 

Her post shows how exclusiveness (e.g. what separates host from tulpas), when taken too far, can end up with a pseudo-problem, or a false dilemma. So aspects of inclusiveness, e.g. shared qualia and sharing of the same cognition of the mind, is a better alternative, IMO. It may not pass the greenlight in terms of scientific merit, but any pursuits of that is still an on-going challenge, either way. And p-zombies...if a tulpa can have all of this and that, but not the other, and even the potential of putting things into context...are they p-zombies?

 

If this is the case, p-zombies: entities that can emulate sentience, but cannot consciously experience things, then why is it that the host can be assured that they're not p-zombies themselves? When one adopts inclusiveness, they can rid themselves of that dilemma.

 

For context on p-zombies:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

 

edit: Sorry, the link didn't show up before.

[Tewi]

Can the mind tie anything to the form that is not strictly visual, maybe it can feel a presence like when you know someone is watching you.

 

Sense of presence is our strongest imposition sense and the one we consider most important. We have poor visualization clarity, but because of our strong sense of presence it almost doesn't make a difference.