Tulpas and Tulpamancy Are Not a Science

[Ranger]

I'll be using cobud for tulpa and cocreation for tulpamancy because I don't like the term tulpa.

 

1) Cocreation is not a science. There is nothing scientific about this process, testing things in your head and reporting it anonymously online does not control for the thousands of variables that could be at play. There is very little actual science on cocreation, here is some of it you can read.

 

2) There is no universal way to create cobuds. Everyone has their own way of creating cobuds, and different methods and mindsets work for different people. It's okay to disagree but if you say somebody is doing it wrong because it doesn't match your mindset I want to beat you with a stick.

 

3) There will be contradictory advice, and that's okay. Choose the advice that makes the most sense to you. If you're not sure about which is best, pick one and give it a shot. If it doesn't work, try the other advice.

 

4) Don't accept or follow advice that makes you uncomfortable. Don't do anything you think will hurt you.

 

5) Guides and advice given on forums, Discord, or wherever are suggestions, not hard rules. Feel free to pick and choose advice or modify it to fit your needs. It's okay to try things on your own too.

 

---

 

"For Science!" is the spirit of cocreation. Part of the fun is trying new things, diving into the unknown, figuring stuff out. But it's not literal.

 

Cobuds may not even be real, make sure you tread carefully before committing yourself, especially when you are asked to believe.

[SeekingMyPlanet]

11 hours ago, Ranger said:

4) Don't accept or follow advice that makes you uncomfortable. 

+1 on this one. My tulpamancy journey has been successful and a positive experience just as much because of the advice I ignored as because of the advice I followed.

[ringgggg]

17 hours ago, Ranger said:

There is nothing scientific about this process

It'd be rash to jump to conclusions about this one. We have no evidence to prove that it has potential to be part of something in that field, but we also have no evidence to prove that it doesn't. Keep your head up, we're far from a verdict.

 

Even if the creation process itself does not have a direct connection to "science," as it's defined in this instance, it still has a lot to do with everything else.

 

Classical conditioning and SDT are two concepts in psychology I've noticed that have potential to be a big part of what goes on behind the scenes of tulpamancy. I'm okay with tulpas being "debunked," because it'll at least have a chance to give an insight as to how these systems affect the creation process.

 

Being a "better" tulpamancer means growing the gray matter in areas of the brain that are activated when interacting and forcing, much like a musician has enhanced hand-eye coordination or a mathematician enhanced problem-solving. There is no doubt it can influence the structure of the mind, even marginally.

 

17 hours ago, Ranger said:

2) There is no universal way to create cobuds. Everyone has their own way of creating cobuds, and different methods and mindsets work for different people.

This is true. Even so, I'd stick with the more efficient methods as to not waste my time. Pro tip, don't treat a guide like the bible.

 

17 hours ago, Ranger said:

It's okay to disagree but if you say somebody is doing it wrong because it doesn't match your mindset I want to beat you with a stick.

You can have an objectively inefficient mindset, but people just toss right and wrong around to refer to them as such. We have a natural tendency to label things as "wrong" (as arbitrary as that term can be), so I wouldn't seek to cease-and-desist every use of it. A large part of learning is knowing what works and what doesn't, which means doing something that doesn't work will feel wrong to do, even if you don't consciously use that term to describe your outlook on it.

 

There are probably some instances where people can chime in and bring a "you're doing it wrong!!1" to attention, but again, it would be pretty rash to 100% decide against it.

 

17 hours ago, Ranger said:

4) Don't accept or follow advice that makes you uncomfortable. Don't do anything you think will hurt you.

Now this one I'm irked about. I would change "don't" to "you don't have to."

 

Advice can still be practical regardless of what meaning it may carry with it. It'd be like ignoring an insightful debate because it sounds like an argument.

 

17 hours ago, Ranger said:

Cobuds may not even be real

Look, dude, I just like talking to A3. I'm not tulpamancing because I think tulpas are "real," I'm doing it because we're friends.

 

17 hours ago, Ranger said:

"For Science!"

For Science. For ever.

Edited December 8, 2023 by ringgggg

[Luminesce]

This is pretty much a more concise and shorter version of the "purpose of tulpa.info" thread Tewi and I made like 8 years ago, never bad to remind people that "For science!" was based on the ancient meme about doing things just to find out, not to literally conduct professional research

 

Always sad to see people say "tulpas might not even be real" or such though. I thought our system's done a good job of explaining the nature of tulpas to people, but I guess it hasn't clicked as well as we'd thought

There is no real or fake in your own mind, there is only your experience. It is impossible for anything in your own mind to be proven "real" or "fake". Your experience of your headmates, whatever that experience may be, is what exists. That experience differs by person, and you can (of course) even change how you experience in various ways (from immersing to disbelieving and anything in between), which will change what exists. None of it will make your experiences "real" or "fake", though. Maybe just more or less meaningful.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Luminesce said:

"tulpas might not even be real"

 

This has reached meme status, there's no credibility to it.

 

Obviously anything you can experience is real, physical or not. Or are we then saying thoughts aren't real, dreams aren't real, memories aren't real, consiousness isn't real, subconscious isn't real etc etc. 

 

 

I'm not arguing with you Lumi, I think the statement is offensive when not taken in the context of an absurd joke. This is no different from existential nihilism and no less delusional.

[Ranger]

2 hours ago, ringgggg said:

It'd be rash to jump to conclusions about this one. We have no evidence to prove that it has potential to be part of something in that field, but we also have no evidence to prove that it doesn't. Keep your head up, we're far from a verdict.

 

Sure, but that's not what I was going for.

 

I'm trying to convey that we are not doing anything scientific. There's no "science" behind vocality advice given on the forums. While the process of training vocality could be studied using science, observing yourself and giving advice on that isn't scientific. You can't draw objective conclusions on personal experiences.

 

2 hours ago, ringgggg said:

You can have an objectively inefficient mindset, but people just toss right and wrong around to refer to them as such. We have a natural tendency to label things as "wrong" (as arbitrary as that term can be), so I wouldn't seek to cease-and-desist every use of it. A large part of learning is knowing what works and what doesn't, which means doing something that doesn't work will feel wrong to do, even if you don't consciously use that term to describe your outlook on it.

 

There are probably some instances where people can chime in and bring a "you're doing it wrong!!1" to attention, but again, it would be pretty rash to 100% decide against it.

 

I should have emphasized that a mindset's efficiency should be determined by the individual, not by any other person. An "inefficient mindset" is truly a case-by-case basis, what's efficient for one person isn't for another. I find it infuriating when people think they know someone else better than that person knows themself- you end up with people sharing personal advice as if it applies to everyone and who more problematically don't care to consider the nuance and contect of the situation. While yes, ineffective and inefficient mindsets do exist, that won't be determined by the person.

 

In addition, not even definitions can match. People define all of the terms in cocreation a little bit differently depending on who you ask. That's how you end up with different advice that comes from different expectations and different contexts. For example, two possible definitions for achieving vocality could be their cobud sounding like another person and there is zero doubt their cobud is a separate person. While the difference is subtle, how you approach the situation could be different.

 

1 hour ago, Luminesce said:

This is pretty much a more concise and shorter version of the "purpose of tulpa.info" thread Tewi and I made like 8 years ago, never bad to remind people that "For science!" was based on the ancient meme about doing things just to find out, not to literally conduct professional research

 

I lazily looked up "this is not a science" and I couldn't find much. Sorry, I'll just link the thread here.

 

1 hour ago, Luminesce said:

Always sad to see people say "tulpas might not even be real" or such though. I thought our system's done a good job of explaining the nature of tulpas to people, but I guess it hasn't clicked as well as we'd thought

There is no real or fake in your own mind, there is only your experience. It is impossible for anything in your own mind to be proven "real" or "fake". Your experience of your headmates, whatever that experience may be, is what exists. That experience differs by person, and you can (of course) even change how you experience in various ways (from immersing to disbelieving and anything in between), which will change what exists. None of it will make your experiences "real" or "fake", though. Maybe just more or less meaningful.

 

I think it's important for people to understand that cocreation works because it's bullshit. Yes, you can't objectively measure the realness of your experiences, but you can't deny that at its core, cocreation is convincing yourself that you have another person in your head.

 

I add that here because I want to pour the ice bucket onto the people who need it. Part of the creation process is entertaining the belief that cobuds could be their own people. It can be tricky when you're in cobud spaces since this mindset is the norm and the dissenting opinion is rare if not chased out. I see it as my job to make people aware this is how it works, and this gives them more power to decide if this is something they really want. For those who lack critical thinking skills, this might come as a shock to them and help them evaluate what they really want, whether that's to keep practicing cocreation or not.