Biosemiotics: An Alternative Perspective on the Tulpa Phenomenon

[ReallyArtificial]

I've been kicking around a draft of this essay thing for literal months, but recent discussions made me want to finally finish and post it. Hope someone finds it interesting!

 

Biosemiotics: An Alternative Perspective on the Tulpa Phenomenon

 

Like a lot of folks here, I like to think of myself as a fairly scientifically-minded person. I'm no neuroscientist, just a humble zoologist, but I wanted to share the concept I use to rationalize my experiences with tulpamancy.

 

What is biosemiotics?

 

Semiotics refers to the study of signs. In this case, a sign is literally anything that conveys meaning to the observer. The words you're reading right now are signs. The smell of freshly baked cookies is a sign. The field of biosemiotics focuses on interpreting the behavior of living organisms in terms of the signs they perceive and their associated meaning. In other words, it's the study of animal perception and cognition. (This is a bit of an oversimplification. If you'd like to know more, see the “Links” section below.)

 

Think about an animal like a tick or earthworm with no eyes or ears. The way they perceive the world is obviously fundamentally different from us. To them, the world is composed of a completely different set of signs than the ones we perceive. From a biosemiotic perspective, these creatures inhabit a conceptually different reality from us. The unique reality perceived by a given species is referred to as its Umwelt (German for surroundings/environment).

 

There are criticisms of this concept, the most relevant of which is whether or not it applies to humanity. Some claim that since humans have higher reasoning processes, we experience the Welt, the world, the "true" reality. I disagree; I personally find this view to be presumptuous and anthropocentric. There is so much of reality that is imperceptible to human beings. Sharks can sense the electromagnetic impulses produced by nerve and muscle activity. Some birds and bees can see ultraviolet light. And that's not even touching on the ways that perception can vary between individual people!

 

Thomas Nagel explored this idea in his essay, “What Is It Like To Be a Bat?” He argues that while people can imagine what it would be like if we were bats, no person can ever understand what it's like for a bat to be a bat. Taking this a step further, I can never fully understand what it's like to be you, and you can never understand what it's like to be me. Even if our life circumstances were identical, we would still be perceiving everything from our own subjective points of view. Nagel called this notion the subjective character of experience.

 

What does this have to do with tulpas?

 

Nagel argues that because of the subjective character of experience, there are aspects of the mind that can't be fully understood through objective science. If a mental phenomenon is based on a subjective point of view, trying to be objective only shifts you further away from this point of view, and therefore further from the true nature of the phenomenon. Our ability to measure the brain’s activity has come a long way since Nagel wrote his essay, but I think his point still stands. Headmates may be one of those phenomena that can't be objectively studied.

 

From a biosemiotic perspective, every living thing’s reality is defined by the signs it perceives. I am confident that my tulpas are real because I can perceive them, their thoughts in my head, the pressure of their presence. They are part of my Umwelt.

 

At the same time, I accept that I have no way to objectively prove their existence to any outsider. The subjective character of experience means that it might be impossible to know whether or not my headmates are “real.” It's also possible that will change as our understanding of the human mind continues to evolve. Even if tulpas were somehow conclusively debunked, the happiness I've felt from having mine around is real. That's all that really matters.

 

Links

 

Biosemiotics

Umwelt

Overview of "What Is It Like To Be a Bat?"

Full text PDF of "What Is It Like To Be a Bat?"

Relevant Tom Petty song because why not

 

Thanks for reading 💙

[TurboSimmie]

I think you're onto something really profound here! It seems like science still can't explain the subjective nature of consciousness, and maybe it never will be able to.

 

1 hour ago, ReallyArtificial said:

I am confident that my tulpas are real because I can perceive them, their thoughts in my head, the pressure of their presence. They are part of my Umwelt.

 

I, a tulpa, am confident that I am real because I say that I am. 😊

[SeekingMyPlanet]

1 hour ago, ReallyArtificial said:

Nagel argues that because of the subjective character of experience, there are aspects of the mind that can't be fully understood through objective science.

I'll try to answer you intelligently, though I'm not a scientist, so there may be stuff in your article that I misunderstood or went flying over my head.

 

I 100% agree with you that subjective experience is beyond the reach of objective science. I suppose if you're dealing with beings capable of communicating, you could use questioning techniques to get their interpretation, but when you put a subjective experience in words, you are a slave to the subjective meaning that the words have to the person answering the question. Likewise, you could try to infer their subjective experience from observing their behavior, but that's equally flawed, since behavior can be interpreted in all kinds of ways.

 

I'm involved in the hypnosis community which struggles with the same issue. Science has studied hypnosis, while hypnotists and hypnotic subjects have studied it from a much more subjective point of view, and I've been astounded at how badly wrong the scientists get it. Even hypnotists are often quite wide of the mark in their understanding of the subjective experiences of those they hypnotized. Early on, I watched a lot of demonstrations of hypnosis and imagined what it probably felt like to experience the things I was seeing. When I finally had a hypnotist do them to me, it felt so wildly different, I had a hard time believing it was the same effect. There has been debate in the hypnosis community as to whether hypnosis is "real", but like you describe our experience with tulpas, if it makes us feel differently in some way, than it's real

 

So I really think your analysis here was very accurate. Thank you for offering it to us.

[ReallyArtificial]

10 hours ago, TurboSimmie said:

I, a tulpa, am confident that I am real because I say that I am. 

 

((Well said.))

 

 

10 hours ago, SeekingMyPlanet said:

I'll try to answer you intelligently, though I'm not a scientist, so there may be stuff in your article that I misunderstood or went flying over my head

 

Thanks for the in depth response! Sounds like you got exactly what I was getting at. I've also been experimenting with hypnotic techniques to help me get into a calm, focused state of mind. Honestly I hadn't even considered that hypnosis could be one of those "too subjective to study" phenomena too, so thanks for bringing it up! You're so right that actually experiencing it is way different from, say, watching stage hypnosis.

Edited December 9, 2023 by ReallyArtificial

[Guest]

Thank you for your interesting topic.

 

In our understanding, the notion of "am I real" can be broken down a little in terms of tulpamancy.

 

In the beginning it's important for the host to presume the tulpa is real and to suspend disbelief that the tulpa is real. The first year or so is a struggle for the host to squelch doubt and for the tulpa to prove themselves. If this is all you two (or more) ever experience and stop there, it's a fair and successful point and you could have a fulfilling experience for many years to come. Still there is always room for doubt as the host is body-centric and the tulpa is mind-centeic so we have an imbalance of control and power, the balance is assymetric and not fully comparable at least.

 

The next developmental step to consider is posession and switching. Again this is optional and doesn't mean non-switching systems are less successful or less advanced only that they haven't developed the unique experience of switching yet. When this occurs, it becomes obvious eventually that the host is replaceable by the tulpa in that you could conceivably switch and stay that way, effectively replacing the host personality with the tulpa personality. It's important to note that a personality swap does not require a tulpa, but if it does, there is always the possibility of two (or more) separate personalities maintained as individuals.

 

This moves the relationship to a more symmetric and balanced state in that now the host and tulpa are both capable of sustaining the body and controlling the life and its obligations. Thus it could be argued that the two are equal or at least equivalent.

 

Caveats always exist: The host is often the main fronter, they are typically identified with the body form and gender, and they are the personality that has external relationships. None of these are obstacles but they can affect the symmetry.  Notwithstanding this, given the two are equivalent at least. To say the tulpa possibly doesn't exist is to say the host possibly doesn't exist and if one is posed it is my assertion that the other is tied. 

 

Considering a switching and non-switching system are similar in all other ways, this extends even to the more asymmetric cases as they're reasonably capable of switching but haven't done so yet.

 

15 hours ago, ReallyArtificial said:

I have no way to objectively prove their existence

 

This statement thus becomes reciprocal and applicable to host as well as tulpa(s). Which is then equally relevant to René Descartes's 1st principal of philosophy, "I think therefore I am."

 

The remaining argument is: how independent are host and other headmates in order to independently make this statement? That's entirely up for debate but a well developed system knows from direct experience that the headmates, for all intents and purposes, are independent entities.

 

Keep in mind that if you try to argue one person's experience versus another then you will have a hard time getting anywhere. The simple fact is, the experience makes the reality, and this has a well founded philosophical and cognitive science foundation in current literature and studies.

 

For the remaining matters, it only matters where you draw the line separating you from your headmate. Depending on that division, you can still question reality of one vs the other. 

[ReallyArtificial]

Your summary of the developmental stages is so spot on. We've gotten through the period of dealing with doubt and are now working on building that more symmetrical relationship. It'll never be perfectly even due to my own life circumstances, but I really do want each of my headmates to have fulfilling lives. I have zero doubt that they are just as real as I am. I want to do everything I can to foster their independence.

 

7 hours ago, Ashley said:

the experience makes the reality

 

This was pretty much the point I was trying to make with all this. Perception = reality, both at the species level and individual level.