What is Your Perspective on How Tulpamancy Works?

[Guest]

At the very core, I consider tulpamancy to be a transaction where you trade a bit of your sanity for companionship.  The specific implementation is of course different for each host.  And you're

hopefully

making the transaction with yourself.  But a transactional based model makes the most sense to me.

 

This is genius, I'm updating my model from:

 

Thoughts go in, Tulpa comes out.

 

To

 

Thoughts and sanity go in, Tulpa and companionship come out.

[Twice Sparked]

Sorry, but "they weren't really killing those villagers, they were bits in active memory" makes sense! That's how computers work! They process bits of memory to create something that people can understand and interact with. The "NPC" isn't a physical person, so they can't literally go running around killing literal people. The action isn't "real" in the sense that it actually happened in the physical plane of existence, but the action came across as entertaining by the person who experienced said action. We believe that their emotions are real, but not in the physical plane (excluding physical symptoms created by the human body)...

 

Sorry for the late reply. I just included your first paragraph above so I don't stretch the thread, but I'm replying to your entire post. And a hearty hello to your host!

 

You're closer to understanding my meaning in your emotions example. I'm pointing out two descriptions: The statement "the npc was killing villagers" is true within the game's context, just as the statement "they were bits in active memory" is true within the context of the computer running the game. Similarly, the statement "I'm happy" is an accurate description of a certain qualia or mental state, and "my brain released a bit of dopamine" is an accurate somatic description. I'm not concerned with which description is "more real", but with their truth value. Which is more real is a discussion in the field of metaphysics proper, which we can have, but not here.

 

Except in one respect: That Tulpas and hosts are coequal as real beings doesn't require we stretch neuroscience to incredulity, or that we wait for its blessing. It only requires a shift in perspective. As in the case of a game, you can keep psychological and neurological explanations as tulpamancy's hardware. My difference is this: they remain as explanations of the experience of tulpas, not of the tulpa's existence.

 

There's a tendency to mix metaphors when talking about tulpas and the brain. Either tulpas are represented as some "bundle of neurons" or as existing in "the subconscious"; in either case, they're understood as having some definite location. But I think this is a gross misunderstanding of both neurology and psychology. The brain functions as a network of chemical and electrical impulses, and the subconscious refers to a complex web of social symbolic relations that prefigure habit and disposition. Neither admit of "space" in the way assumed.

 

What I suggest, again, is that instead of these explanations, one think of tulpas as a kind of meditative manipulation of perception. The relevant descriptions of their existence and abilities, then, need no grounding in a causal relationship between the brain (or body as a whole, considering the number of neurons in the gut) and the actual tulpa, except to the extent that one is describing the state of concentration in which tulpamancy is practiced.

 

Further, this latter description is indifferent to the hardware description. There is no need to justify parallel processing, for example, because the relevant techniques (those which depend on parallel processing: possession, switching, etc.) are akin to "dreaming with your eyes open", as Linkzelda once described tulpamancy as a whole. All individuals are a set of narratives and perceptions that--and here I'll have to disagree with you--are always interpreting reality, whether a novel or a rock. What one notices and excludes, and the significance of what is noticed and what is excluded, are constituent, inescapable parts of identity.

 

And the rabbit hole goes deep here. I'll slip into anecdote for a moment. I like to think of my tulpas as masters of possession. They've proven themselves worthy of the title; they attend to both work and social life when I can't. And when one of them is in charge, it's the rule rather than the exception that they see and feel things I don't notice. Why? Because they relate to the world differently than I do. Sophia (Rainbow) Dash with more zeal, Clair (Twilight) Sparkle with greater curiosity. So what at first appears merely as a difference in personality affects the senses themselves.

 

So, again and to summarize, my motivation for shifting perspectives is to show how the most important concepts in tulpamancy, the things that I imagine drew in many of us, can be preserved--and, I would argue, strengthened. To do so, we leave psychology and neurology to do what they do best, explain behavior and the brain, and use a meditative and hallucinatory framework to explain phenomena in tulpamancy. And where these two explanations intersect, it's in explaining what's happening when one enters the quasi dream state in which tulpaing occurs, not justifying the existence of our tulpas themselves.

[Guest]

Twice Sparked,

 

I agree with the sentiment of your posts, especially wrt believeing your tulpas. I think it's like letting them be co-authors in the experience. However, the focus and drive of some users here have pushed the requirement of the physical brain dynamics to explain experiences that you've touched on. I see this as an unnecessary step.

 

I find this tiresome and irrelevant but yet here we are, still doing that. I applaud your attempt to set us straight, i believe we're [you and I] are in general agreement, but I get the sense that my wonderful friends on this server are trying to find that tie in to the physical, scientific realm.

 

It's akin to finding the scientific basis as to why some people like purple and others like orange to my understanding.

 

But you're maybe suggesting that they abandon their quest, so they're probably not going to do that.

 

Disclaimer: Hey, I'm just a bear and your posts are only maybe within my reading comprehension when I read them several times in context, so I could be totally wrong with my interpretation of your point.

 

Even so, I have to think there is merit in both schools, even if one is purely to ground logic and get past the gates of 'how' before we can share experiences. I think it's unnecessary but does serve a purpose in a convoluted and perhaps ineffective way at least.

 

I believe this, as a construct, is there if only to prevent fancy from being represented as fact. How else would they do that and maintain a physical science based approach as well?

 

If you can respond to any of that ^ please do.

[Twice Sparked]

Twice Sparked,

 

Yes, you're right.

 

And I think "it's like letting them be co-authors in the experience" is beautifully put. It emphasizes what's most important: That they have as much agency as hosts. That is, after all, what distinguishes what we're doing here from playing with imaginary friends.

 

But, you know, like you I believe in the coexistence of multiple models. My goal isn't really to convince those who already have success with tulpamancy to change their ways. They don't need my help. It's rather to inoculate newcomers against cynicism.

[Guest]

That sounds like a noble cause, I'm glad I understood your points, they were very well put.

I bet you got yerself one of those fancy European educations

[Cornelia]

You're closer to understanding my meaning in your emotions example. I'm pointing out two descriptions: The statement "the npc was killing villagers" is true within the game's context, just as the statement "they were bits in active memory" is true within the context of the computer running the game. Similarly, the statement "I'm happy" is an accurate description of a certain qualia or mental state, and "my brain released a bit of dopamine" is an accurate somatic description. I'm not concerned with which description is "more real", but with their truth value. Which is more real is a discussion in the field of metaphysics proper, which we can have, but not here.

 

I don't see how these are similar. Your example would make more sense if we were talking about a picture saved in memory - no sane person would say "there isn't a picture on the screen, there's just bits of data in your computer's memory." Well, the bits of data are being processed by an algorithm to generate that image. It is both true that the picture is bits of data in my computer's memory and that the picture exists on my screen. Similarly, it would be silly to say "You aren't happy, dopamine's just being released in your brain." Dopamine being released in your brain is what generates happiness. Conversely, bits of data in memory is not what generates personhood. My enjoyment of a game might be greater if I pretend NPCs have personhood, but no rational person actually thinks they are people.

 

Naturally, philosophers, psychologists, and neurologists alike don't agree on what does generate personhood. However, almost any conceivable answer that grants a host personhood would also grant a tulpa personhood - the only interesting question is whether tulpas are a separate person from the host. So I don't see how any of what you said has to do with how tulpas work.

[Twice Sparked]

 

I don't see how these are similar...

 

Hello, Cornelia.

 

I'd say I agree with you, yes. My example was only intended to point out the difference between the narrative description of the npc's actions and the machine-level description, and to the equality of truth value between these descriptions. You can insert as many mediating sentences as you like. I might even take it further than you: I have a fetish for physics, so my full description would involve the stimulation of electrons that produces the light appearing on screen. But we could go on endlessly about this and get no closer to the point, so I limited myself to talking about RAM.

 

I will have to say I disagree on what the interesting question is. For me, it goes without saying that the tulpa is separate from the host. Autonomy is in the definition of tulpa. Any less than autonomy is calling a tulpa an imaginary friend.

 

Sorry you didn't find what I've said useful. Nonetheless, you and your host (or maybe I should say tulpa?) seem to be doing well, so you can ignore my meandering.

[Guest]

Twice Sparked, I'm now your fanboy, but I have a question:

 

Depending on the definition of autonomy and independence. Given this crudely drawn map:

 

 

I contend that the illusion of autonomy at least can be achieved by even a lvl 1 kobold NPC. That doesn't make them a tulpa (oh I would hope not).

 

I put autonomy and independence on the left axis. Autonomy for characters in my system is a given for the vast majority of cases--I'm talking zero input made on the spot NPCs can have it and do surprising things. While independence is what every true tulpa strives for.

 

This is a thread relavant to defining tulpas as much as any, so what makes a tulpa, a tulpa, to you?

 

[For reference we have 3 tulpas not including myself, and half a dozen self-identified soulbonds with independence, as well as half a dozen other 'moons' and a couple dozen othet well defined characters, the majority of which came from writing a dozen novels.]

[Twice Sparked]

...

 

I don’t think I have anything to add above what you’ve said. Your answer is great. But I’ll give three of my own answers and hope one of them is potable.

 

My short answer to who is or isn’t a tulpa is it’s up to the host or system. If their actions come unbidden and the relevant parties treat them like a tulpa, then they’re a tulpa. Schlondark once told me on Rizon—and I’m paraphrasing—that after a while everyone in wonderland becomes a tulpa. My only addition to that would be “if you let them”.

 

My longer answer would be that my brain demons and I have shifted the question a bit. For us, it’s not which of these walk-ins is or isn’t a tulpa, but who knows they are a tulpa and who doesn’t. Those who know are part of the system proper, and those who don’t are left to their own devices.

 

That leads me to answer three: Personal story.

 

The ruler of our wonderland didn’t know she was a denizen of my headspace until we told her. She was, as you might guess, pretty shaken by the revelation. Her first reaction was existential crisis. Her second was to toss me in jail.

 

After that, her reaction was like yours. She’s litigious by nature, so she doled out rights and responsibilities. This culminated in the constitution (yes, an actual written document) governing those who are a part of our system. And one of the most important clauses, if not the most important, is that we vote on any new additions. If someone gets the council’s backing, they’re fully informed on what we and they are. Otherwise, they’re left alone.

 

So, we handle things a bit differently, but also, from what I’ve read in your PR, not too differently. My instinct is to skirt the question. That’s what I’ve done here.

[solarchariot]

Explaining tulpamancy first requires an explanation for myself. I have an idea on that, not my own. In some sense, it is simply a modified version of the model my family of origin's religion provided... I am not my brain. There is a holographic model of consciousness that suggests the brain is simply a receiver, not the origin of consciousness. Wilder Penfield is one of the advocates for this model. so was Richard Cytowic. I believe my consciousness existed prior to physical life and will endure after that.

 

The present host personality, and all the specific ages from cradle to grave, depending which unit of measure you want, from human years, to Planck unit of space time exists, in a holistic (holographic) whole with expressed limits being a function of either subconscious modalities, or the top consciousness (over soul, observer, daemon, whatever.) There are past lives and future lives, personalities that are not me, but all of us have access to the 'oversoul' and continue to exist as its tulpas. I am a subset of a larger being that exists outside of space-time.

 

I have engaged in tulpamancy. I have created a tulpa. She exist in me the same as I exist in the 'unanable' over soul thing. This is another level of 'same above same below.'

 

There are a good number of reputable scientist that suggest we live in a simulation. We are simulations within simulation, within a simulation... Consciousness is the simulation, not the hardware. I don't think the material universe as we know it is the hardware. Everything around us is consciousness. I don't think we've encountered hardware yet. It may be that the program, the consciousness, can't experience the hardware... We simply are.