She done R-U-N-N-O-F-T

[tulpa001]

This only happens this way to people who believe they are not creating tulpas in their own minds, but rather contacting tulpas as they already exist in other universes. A metaphysical belief.

 

This is because people from the psychological camp know if you don't force your tulpas they stop existing. A form of death. So tulpas and hosts with psychological beliefs instead satisfy such urges by allowing the tulpa to possess and make friends online or interact with real world objects and toys.

 

Of course, there is evidence that some tulpas can continue to exist in the wonderland without attention. Still, we wonder what happens if the host loses contact with the wonderland entirely. Is part of your brain now permanently cut off from reality, perpetually generating a fantasy? Or does the wonderland cease to exist, like a computer program shut off?

[SeamusTheDog]

This only happens this way to people who believe they are not creating tulpas in their own minds, but rather contacting tulpas as they already exist in other universes. A metaphysical belief.

I assure you, I am the sole creator of my tulpa. I never had any belief or inkling that she was anything but my own creation. But from the beginning, I programmed her to have a propensity towards developing full independence. Programming that appears to have borne fruit. You would certainly call that a metaphysical observation. I don't have sufficient certainty to call it a belief yet.

 

This is because people from the psychological camp know if you don't force your tulpas they stop existing.

Tell me, Bwana, how is it that you came to this absolute form of knowledge? For I would much enjoy a visit to the getting place.

A form of death. So tulpas and hosts with psychological beliefs instead satisfy such urges by allowing the tulpa to possess and make friends online or interact with real world objects and toys.

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds as if you are saying that a Tulpa can interact with a real-world object? And that this is not a metaphysical phenomenon? Please explain...

 

Of course, there is evidence that some tulpas can continue to exist in the wonderland without attention. Still, we wonder what happens if the host loses contact with the wonderland entirely. Is part of your brain now permanently cut off from reality, perpetually generating a fantasy?

This is a result of the fundamental mistake of the "scientific community" as regards the primary function of the brain in relation to consciousness. That is, the belief that mind is a function of the brain. If you take the body to be a function of mind, things fit together, especially as concerns the placebo effect.

Or does the wonderland cease to exist, like a computer program shut off?

You might as well ask if the mind ceases because brainwaves cease. Ken Wilber has proven that to be false by connecting himself to an EEG while going into the witness state of meditation. But hey, I'm just another little god, so what do I know?

[tulpa001]

You would certainly call that a metaphysical observation.

Not yet... that's an agnostic observation there.

 

Tell me, Bwana, how is it that you came to this absolute form of knowledge? For I would much enjoy a visit to the getting place.

Welcome to tulpa.info, the world's #1 Mecca for the psychological perspective on tulpas.

 

The perspective I put forward is only the most common psychological sub-theory for how tulpas work in the mind. There are a few others, often held by those who hybridize psychological and metaphysical perspectives.

 

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds as if you are saying that a Tulpa can interact with a real-world object? And that this is not a metaphysical phenomenon? Please explain...

I used the word possess. I assume you just read over that part without noticing.

 

This is a result of the fundamental mistake of the "scientific community" as regards the primary function of the brain in relation to consciousness. That is, the belief that mind is a function of the brain.

This is not a mistake. This is THE primary assumption made by the psychological perspective that distinguishes it from metaphysical ones.

[Tewi]

This again -

https://community.tulpa.info/thread-why-do-people-stop-believing?pid=174515#pid174515

[SeamusTheDog]

The perspective I put forward is only the most common psychological sub-theory for how tulpas work in the mind. There are a few others, often held by those who hybridize psychological and metaphysical perspectives.

Am I to take that as a disclaimer?

 

I used the word possess. I assume you just read over that part without noticing.

Not at all. I assumed that you meant possession of the host, which I can easily see fitting into the psychological model. If you meant possession of another human, I don't know how else to take that but in a metaphysical way.

 

This is not a mistake. This is THE primary assumption made by the psychological perspective that distinguishes it from metaphysical ones.

 

The fact that it is the primary assumption makes it no less a mistake. While I know this is a challenge to the prevailing sentiment here, it is also my genuinely held opinion, and we can't very well have a discussion without honesty.

 

I felt that the original question was sufficiently articulated to get the kind of response I was looking for, but I haven't got much besides snark and tongue clicking over my benighted metaphysical views.

[tulpa001]

Am I to take that as a disclaimer?

Um, you can. I think my original statement was ambiguous, as demonstrated by your alternate interpretation, and my response could be seen to disclaim unintended interpretations.

 

I assumed that you meant possession of the host, which I can easily see fitting into the psychological model.

There is nothing metaphysical about manipulating real world objects using possession of the host. Just to be clear.

 

The fact that it is the primary assumption makes it no less a mistake. While I know this is a challenge to the prevailing sentiment here, it is also my genuinely held opinion, and we can't very well have a discussion without honesty.

I accept that you honestly have a metaphysical perspective. I see no problem with this.

 

Would you like me to move your thread to the metaphysical section to increase visibility among our metaphysical members? Also, posts don't get removed if no one reports them.

[| Ada |]

It’s ironic that we end up being demystified as to how a tulpa-in-question has the capacity to even have the desire to yearn for something. It’s as if one forgets this mirror in front of them where if they believe it’s all within their own cognition, any yearnings for self-actualization and such is clearly derived from whatever the person may think is an inherent aspect of their mind.

 

I think the juggling around with the word ‘metaphysical’ is a distraction from the real issue; that is to say, the hard problems of consciousness in general (e.g. how aspects of the mind that seem to be non-experiential can somehow create something experiential (like a tulpa that yearns to apply context in this reality)). To think that this yearning is contingent solely on supernatural events via spirts, or whatever mystical rooting is to undermine the human condition for yearning to apply context in this reality.

 

If you want any knowledge, or anecdotes of this happening to others – it’s not really that uncommon to see tulpas-in-question to exhibit these feelings. The real challenge is how the host reacts to it. Some end up being paralyzed by it, and either get consumed by paranoia and skepticism, or they start noticing the probability that there can be other continuity of selves, and a sense of ‘otherness’ without being bothered by the chance they, the host, aren’t the only ones with unchallengeable authority of their body and mind.

 

And the word ‘psychological,’ IMO, is just a red herring towards the clue of what’s really the concern; in a person’s head, they would think ‘How is it that this concept of a tulpa can exhibit sentience?’ Well, it goes back to the challenges with the hard problems of consciousness. Whatever instantiates sentience for the host, chances are, the brain would use whatever those resources are to instantiate sentience for the tulpa-in-question. But because the hard problems of consciousness aren’t solved empirically, or can’t be at the moment, that skepticism will be progressive within one’s mind, and the agnosticism will continue to grow, i.e., we are left with being agnostic of the grander scheme of things with cognition until advancements in knowledge of it have been made.

 

But, it probably goes to show that Science, a concept of using epistemic rooting to conceive a knowable world can’t answer the bigger, existential questions of what it means for someone to have a yearning to go out into the world and do things. It’s a testament that we have to rely on philosophy instead. But to some, philosophy can be hard, and living a life based on how one sees is the ‘good’ life is just as hard. And having someone else within your own mind to build rapport with increases that difficulty.

 

But, like what OP stated for themselves, to them, she’s proven to be sentient by the existence of desire. Unlike some people in the past, they’ve chosen to accept this because if they undermined this existence of desire, they would have to undermine their existence of desire as a human being as well. In other words, if someone were to deny this existence of desire, and other aspects of the human condition, and didn’t take things with an open mind, they would slowly be eating themselves away.

[SeamusTheDog]

There is nothing metaphysical about manipulating real world objects using possession of the host. Just to be clear.

I'm sorry, I somehow failed to realize that you meant moving objects via the possessed host.

I accept that you honestly have a metaphysical perspective. I see no problem with this.

 

Would you like me to move your thread to the metaphysical section to increase visibility among our metaphysical members? Also, posts don't get removed if no one reports them.

Please do move the post to metaphysical. I think it will better serve everyone there. I had forgotten about the preponderance of people generally on this site who have no time to entertain metaphysical notions.

[Joss]

Yeah, what he said.

 

Just waiting for the answers from more soulbond-y minded people, or at least anyone that's a little more free with how tulpas work than we are. My answer would be a lot of no-fun.

 

I don't think "conjuring" her would be the end of the world, though. As long as she's getting to spend her time wherever it is she wants to.

 

As one of the resident soulbonds.... *Ahem*

 

Wut.

 

All right, fine, I will admit that soulbonding, in particular, does have a very strong notion of the idea of a tulpa going "inside." Like, basically, they disappear from the front to go faff around in the Wonderland so deep that they are no longer detectable to the host. This is something I disagree even with some of my systemmates on... personally, I think it's a load of feel-goodsy fluff without much substance, and that when a headmate goes inside, they're really just going dormant.... But the fact is that a lot of tulpamancy is subjective, so who's to say what some other person is experiencing anyway?

 

But as has been established, that's not what the OP meant anyway, so this isn't really the place to chew on that particular question.

 

But, her implication seemed to be that she was leaving my sphere altogether, for an extended period.

 

I'm sure she thought so. That doesn't mean that's what happened.

 

See, we headpeople know what you know. We (tend to) believe what you believe. Our experience of the world is heavily influenced by our host's interpretation. Yeah, we diverge, and we tend to form our own opinions and beliefs, but a lot of the basic stuff will stem from the host's pool of experiences. So, if you think it's possible for for her to leave your sphere, that's what she'll believe, and then your mutual belief that it was possible manifested in her "leaving." I'll bet she'll even come back with manufactured memories about what she did while she was "away."

 

But whatever. This is why I never go into the Metaphysics forum.

[Tewi]

For a "soulbond-y people", you sure gave an answer that looks a lot like mine would. Thinking we still need.. an nth opinion from someone with a metaphysical perspective.