Goldsmith

Theory: One, Yet Many. A World of Thought.

Recommended Posts

Wow, this discussion is amazing. I don't have anything to contribute, but this really helps me see a lot farther into this subject.


I have 10 tulpas, but I'm only actively working on Reah, my first tulpa currently.

Progress Report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what proof or evidence you have for any of this? We don't even have proof or evidence that an 'ego' in the sense that the psychological models are built after are even a thing, let alone whether or not a Tulpa has one. Further more, what proof or evidence do you have, assuming the assistance of an ego, that it is incapable of making decisions of its own, and has to take 'suggestions' from these traits?

 

Furthermore, what is the nature of these traits? How were they formed? How do they send the suggestions? Why? How do you explain more complex behaviors with this model you propose?

 

In addition, if we are the 'ego' and we receive suggestions from these traits, doesnt that make these traits more alive than we are?

 

You pose me questions, which i can't currently answer. An ego makes models easier to work with, simple as that. Of course you can assume it doesn't exist, because you can't see it - but i do because it makes sense to me. Perhaps you haven't heard of it, but I had a library of Tulpas, which I and my Tulpas were able to talk to.

Apart from that, this model is still in work. It's all good your model seems to be finished, but as you can see mine isn't.

 

Also:

There is one problem here. I don't know myself how dynamic these "structures" of identity are and what they are made of. I tend to see it as an analogy to a "person", which makes it easier to work with.

 

If my Tulpa is just me, then why am I not my Tulpa?

Disassociation doesn't account for the myriad differences between host or Tulpa, or the new understandings and opportunities it opens to both..

 

Well, in my opinion it clearly does. Which new understandings and opportunities are you talking of? Possession? Switching? Memory access?

And you are your Tulpa, that is also elaborated in one of my blog posts.

 

Regardless of how you try to splice things, without redefining psychology itself as it exists today, you cannot claim that Tulpa being conscious beings is not possible, or that it isn't indeed the case, when all evidence and knowledge in the field claims it is. You would actually have to willingly contradict everything we have learned and know about the human brain to this point in order to make claims on the level that you are making.

Are you going to go forward and do this without evidence to back this up?

 

Yes, I will.

 

However, I would like to see your sources, which contradict my statements either in this topic or in a PM.

 

autonomous means something can act on its own. Depending on how far you take this definition, nothing can be autonomous- a body cannot move without food to give it energy for example. But lets not talk ridiculous extremes here: a Tulpa has been shown to be fully capable of acting and deciding things on its own. Therefore it is autonomous.

 

No. We can't see the decision-making process of the Tulpa, so we can't tell if it is autonomous. (rather degree of autonomy)

Unfortunately, there is only one analogy with a very negative connotation. A robot, which is controlled by a remote seems to act autnomous - but it isn't.

A Tulpa behaves differently from the host. That's all we can really say up to this point.

 

I have spent the past month researching deeply into this. I have saved over a dozen articles in psychological and neuroscience journals on my computer in a nice little folder called 'Tulpa'. I am taking Psychology courses and have triple checked everything through my textbooks to make sure it all works out. I have an older cousin who went through Med School and works in a Psych Ward who has advised me and explained things for me, and has helped me the entire way through this Tulpa process- Learning, Creating, Experimenting, Researching.

 

That's good for you, and it show that you have put effort into your work. I did talk to people from psychology forums and a few people who actually studied psychology.

Those who studied it, even discouraged me from making one (I already had Pronto and Dash up to this point), because it would "certainly lead to disassociation and psychotic conditions. Only a fool would do that."

One of them supervised a person, whose demon creation had gone wrong, and also had experience with MPD.

Due to research about DID, these particular conversations and my experiences, it is highly unlikely I will suddenly start believing in fantasy worlds, which is a theory being brought up by you.

 

Why did those I talked to come to a single conclusion, and your older cousin did not? Probably because he isn't a psychologist. He might be a good medical practitioner, but he certainly doesn't have the psychological knowledge you hope for.

 

Starts building up an emotional bias and rants about my cold-heartiness.

 

I am not trying to build a theory around Tulpas - like you do - but look for a model where they can be integrated successfully. If you really feel so offended by my statements, I don't mind.

 

Nevertheless there is one difference between us and our beliefs. Yours are already ultimate, which will sooner or later lead you into a dead-end street.

 

I'm sorry, I had to laugh. That last passage shows me how scared you are.

 

All I take from the last third of your post is just that you frantically cling to the belief, that your Tulpa is another consciousness. Because I don't believe it works this way, you demonize my person - and even try to make me feel guilty.

 

So, this is what you call an objective debate. Your "truth" is a very distorted, biased and romanticized one - and I'm very certain I'm not the ignorant person.

 

Quick question, bluesleeve: what do you think about those with MPD/DID? Do you believe that one personality is sentient, while the other is just a puppet?

 

The point with DID is, that there is only one person, who has many identities. It's more like a role the person assumes for this personality. He perceives these persons as something separate from him, even though they are parts of his personality. These identities can contain memories and feelings of the original personality.

It is all one person.

 

When these personalities are integrated, the original personality doesn't experience them as 'other personalities' but as his memories and his feelings, like a person without DID.

 

It could very well be, that we also lock away feelings and memories in our Tulpas, but that is a different story.

 

Question to you, Goldsmith:

 

How do you explain emotional responses?


What is a Tulpa? Blog

Rainbow 'Alyx' Dash

Pronto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: DID: A person assuming a role is not the same as multiple personalities interacting with each other. The latter seems to be the case, from what DID patients I have knowledge of.

 

As for being separate consciousnesses, nobody can prove that objectively. And I am not prepared to debate it. But from everything I have been through, everything with myself and Morgan and Kat and Shardea, I know this with certainty: I exist. All of us do, and we are our own people, with our own thoughts and minds. This has been repeatedly proven to us, beyond possible doubt.

 

And Bluesleeve, it doesn't really matter to me if you disagree. In the context of my head, I can say this: your theory is wholly groundless, and disproven. We are separate people. And I don't think we're terribly different from the other tulpae and hosts here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not like someone could ever reach any kind of conclusion by basing solely on deductive reasoning; one has to have an idea of what he wants to specifically prove or disprove. It's not exactly wrong to build a theory around the point you want to be proven, because it's not possible to do otherwise afaik. And it's not like you can say you have reached the truth either, Bluesleeve; unless you present undeniable, non-circumstantial evidence basing on a reasoning whose premises everyone can agree with. Where the burden of proof does lie, that's not for me to decide.

 

Actually, don't mind me, i didn't want to interrupt or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point with DID is, that there is only one person, who has many identities. It's more like a role the person assumes for this personality. He perceives these persons as something separate from him, even though they are parts of his personality. These identities can contain memories and feelings of the original personality.

It is all one person.

 

When these personalities are integrated, the original personality doesn't experience them as 'other personalities' but as his memories and his feelings, like a person without DID.

 

It could very well be, that we also lock away feelings and memories in our Tulpas, but that is a different story.

 

This doesn't necessarily disprove the autonomy and subjective experience of each separate personality, though. The big problem with this is the fact that the 'host' doesn't even remember what happened while an alter was in control (at least before integration). A couple of problems I can see we're going to run into:

 

1) Do you believe in the authenticity of the experience of a person with DID?

 

2) The definition of identity and consciousness: Your identity is composed of all of the memories associated with you, which subconsciously influences your habits and mannerisms. The identity is only aware of a small set of stimuli at any given time, less than 50 bits per second of information (According to: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287907/information-theory/214958/Physiology), in contrast to what is actually received by your brain: 11 million bits per second of sensory input alone. This information (the 50 bits) is what you are conscious of, and is the only thing that registers as 'your experience'. If you've ever driven home from work and not remembered doing it (i have), you were not conscious of that experience. You were conscious of what you were daydreaming. Basically, I need you to know, that about five seconds ago, 'you' weren't consciously breathing, 'you' didn't feel the chair on your ass. Those stimuli and actions were being processed 'elsewhere' by regions of the brain that aren't associated with 'you'.

 

Do you agree with the above?

 

If you answered yes to both 1 and 2, you can be certain that, while a person with legit DID was 'asleep' and an alter was in control, the 'host' was not the one with their hands on the wheel. Proof from the above link:

 

It is often assumed that consciousness is the dominant feature of the brain. The brief observations above suggest a rather different picture. It now appears that the vast majority of processing is accomplished outside conscious notice and that most of the body’s activities take place outside direct conscious control. This suggests that practice and habit are important because they train circuits in the brain to carry out some actions “automatically,” without conscious interference.

 

Since the person with DID did not remember when the alter was in control, at the very least, the action was carried out "automatically" by a different part of the brain. Not trying to prove that tulpa or alters are conscious yet, but I need you to agree that, in the case of DID victims, the original conscious, which we are certain exists, is not involved in the activities of the alter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't necessarily disprove the autonomy and subjective experience of each separate personality, though. The big problem with this is the fact that the 'host' doesn't even remember what happened while an alter was in control (at least before integration).

 

It wasn't my intention to disprove autonomy. Besides, there are also cases of DID, who can communicate with their alters without having to switch. There isn't always a lapse in memory.

 

2) The definition of identity and consciousness: Your identity is composed of all of the memories associated with you, which subconsciously influences your habits and mannerisms. The identity is only aware of a small set of stimuli at any given time, less than 50 bits per second of information (According to: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...ysiology), in contrast to what is actually received by your brain: 11 million bits per second of sensory input alone.

 

[...]

 

Basically, I need you to know, that about five seconds ago, 'you' weren't consciously breathing, 'you' didn't feel the chair on your ass. Those stimuli and actions were being processed 'elsewhere' by regions of the brain that aren't associated with 'you'.

 

The identity isn't aware of anything, the ego is. These actions (breathing etc.) are unconscious automatisms, but they are still 'me'. Of course they are associated with my identity. Even though only a small part of these 11kk bits is being consciously perceived, we can actually recall more information, because it has been unconsciously processed. These memories are now part of my identity, because I can recall sitting on the chair - therefore they are associated with 'me'.

 

If you answered yes to both 1 and 2, you can be certain that, while a person with legit DID was 'asleep' and an alter was in control, the 'host' was not the one with their hands on the wheel.

 

The consciousness is one thing. The identity is another.

 

The consciousness can have another identity. If an identity becomes conscious, its actions are associated with said identity, but cannot be recalled by another. (different brain areas)

 

Not trying to prove that tulpa or alters are conscious yet, but I need you to agree that, in the case of DID victims, the original conscious, which we are certain exists, is not involved in the activities of the alter

 

We both know, that DID is a very controversial topic, and that's why we might not come to the same conclusion here. However, when we talk about alters, we don't talk about consciousnesses, but about identities. Just because there are different behavior patterns it doesn't mean a different ego or consciousness performs it, but another identity is now prevalent.


What is a Tulpa? Blog

Rainbow 'Alyx' Dash

Pronto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluesleeve, I think what you mean by "consciousness" is very different from what most of us understand by it. In my understanding of it, it's just the totality of subjective experiences one is aware of through time. Some particular identity, or if we're to use MPD/DID language - personality state - will only be aware of some particular things. This awareness can itself be greatly controlled by any such identity in a "tulpa state", it could be awareness of the senses, it could be awareness of some imaginary world, it could be awareness of a particular set of memories and so on. A host capable of switching would also have similar control. Given that definition of consciousness, a tulpa is a separate consciousness, and the same would be true for a DID alter. The fact that merging/integration allows changing some identities in such a way that they would identify with a particular memory does not mean that they are one person - they are only one person after the merge.

 

As for autonomy, you can find tulpae (and even more so in the case of disordered DID alters) which have very different, sometimes conflicting goals than the 'host'. Their actions may even be at odds at times.

 

Some people who have had tulpas for a long time have even learned how to share or hide thoughts (and thought processes!) between themselves and the tulpa, thus if they wanted, they could even examine what goes on in the tulpa's consciousness (if they permitted) - your claim that the tulpa's thought process is opaque is false, no more than your own thought process is opaque to a tulpa (it's not).

 

But all these details are irrelevant, there's one particular bit that you should know by now: developed tulpae are co-conscious with the host - there is parallel processing - this is a testable empirical fact, one which you could have tested if you spent some time with your tulpas. This means that your tulpa and you are aware of different things at the same time and performing different actions and having different thoughts at the same time. Directing multiple verbal thoughts at the same time doesn't even work for the ego you're envisioning (the thinking process is rather sequential), but it does work in a multiple system. Maybe those actions are driven by some self-organizing unconscious processes, but I really doubt they are puppeted by some magical ego structure that exists in your model (which was mostly developed to model a singleton's psychology - not a person who is a multiple or has tulpas).

 

I think you're trying very hard to stick to a very minimalist textbook view of DID and multiplicity in general, one where it's just a simple delusion/role-playing. If you actually spent some time reading some papers on MPD/DID, you'd find that co-consciousness (or mixed personality states) does exist and is clinically documented, it's even one of the basic tools a therapists will need to develop in a patient when treating disordered multiplicity - getting the personalities aware of each other and functioning at the same time.

 

Why don't you spend some time with your tulpae to investigate these things, or have you already sent them to live in your unconscious in fear that those little balls of love would hurt you because some particular psych told you it's a disorder? Do you even realize that DID (and DDNOS-1) is one of the most controversial disorders out there and that there are many possible interpretations and models in which it can be fit? You're even in a suitable situation to investigate and draw your own conclusions based on personal experience, and yet, you'd rather believe someone else's word that your experiences aren't real simply because they have more authority than you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It wasn't my intention to disprove autonomy. Besides, there are also cases of DID, who can communicate with their alters without having to switch. There isn't always a lapse in memory.

 

Not always a lapse in memory, but for this discussion I'm going to consider those who do, since they are the most extreme case and the most useful for this discussion. And I'll tell you now that if I can prove that tulpae/alters are autonomous from us, I can prove that they have their own subjective experience and 'ego' to the same degree that we do. Just a heads up so you know where this is headed.

 

The identity isn't aware of anything, the ego is. These actions (breathing etc.) are unconscious automatisms, but they are still 'me'. Of course they are associated with my identity. Even though only a small part of these 11kk bits is being consciously perceived, we can actually recall more information, because it has been unconsciously processed. These memories are now part of my identity, because I can recall sitting on the chair - therefore they are associated with 'me'.

 

***

At issue here is whether the unconscious automatisms are you. I'd say they aren't. Even within Freud's theory, the ego doesn't exist in early childhood. However, the unconscious automatisms such as breathing do exist. And, as I've shown a million times here, the ego doesn't even necessarily develop as a consequence of age. The point here is that the unconscious exists first, and you arise from it as a consequence of language -- by the same process that we use to develop a tulpa, I might add.

 

And about whether the unconscious automatisms are associated with you: I want you to ask yourself, truly, if you remember breathing 20 minutes ago. Don't go "oh I must have been", but truly try to remember inhaling and exhaling. The answer to this question shouldn't be hard -- especially if you're familiar with the whole driving-home-without-realizing thing.

 

The consciousness is one thing. The identity is another.

 

The consciousness can have another identity. If an identity becomes conscious, its actions are associated with said identity, but cannot be recalled by another. (different brain areas)

 

Sure.

 

We both know, that DID is a very controversial topic, and that's why we might not come to the same conclusion here. However, when we talk about alters, we don't talk about consciousnesses, but about identities. Just because there are different behavior patterns it doesn't mean a different ego or consciousness performs it, but another identity is now prevalent.

Perhaps. But if the original consciousness isn't aware of the actions of an identity, I can prove that it is conscious. We just need to resolve the difference (***) in either direction above.

 

EDIT:

Quick disclaimer: I don't want you to think I'm trying to convince you that everyone who says they have a tulpa has one. Unless there is true disassociation, it is as you say: nothing but puppets. Which is why I don't like the direction this community has taken. It takes years for the first identity to develop -- why should it only take days to create the second? Not only that, but to prevent lack of communication between you two you need to induce psychosis. This is all speculation, I don't really stand by any of this particular edit, just a slight rant... and to say I'm mostly on your side, bluesleeve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It takes years for the first identity to develop -- why should it only take days to create the second?

 

It's not "creating", though, but pulling out. I'm guessing the mental world is a better environment than the outside world to gain knowledge and self-awareness?

 

Not only that, but to prevent lack of communication between you two you need to induce psychosis.

 

Aw man, psychosis is awesome, why are you guys so afraid of it~

But yeah, i guess it's not the best thing to do if you're concerned about your sanity and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that, but to prevent lack of communication between you two you need to induce psychosis.

 

What exactly do you mean by this? The tulpa controlling some part of your imagination by themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.