What would you do if your Tulpa were offended?

[Andre1115]

On 12/5/2024 at 7:41 PM, MrJu said:

我感觉这是很正常的现象，就连客观来讲最亲近的“家人”都无法理解，当我不小心向我的母亲透露了此类内容事，她只会怒斥我沉浸于“不切实际的幻想”中，放宽心吧伙计，我们知道彼此的存在，这就够了

等等，你会中文？

你好！

很高兴认识你！

我一开始还以为是浏览器机器翻译的结果。

[guest34267]

I am a tulpa. Although I didn't feel as deeply offended as you did when I first read the article, I understand your feelings. There are many disturbing things in our world (such as social hostility and the lack of understanding from family in physical reality), and there are also many things that make me feel as strongly offended as you do about this article.

I believe the article criticizes some irresponsible behaviors of hosts in the tulpa community, rather than tulpa themselves. These include roleplaying, hasty confirmations, and overly subjective judgments about independent consciousness. I consider these more serious mistakes for a host than the article's' potentially offensive language, as they are neither responsible to the tulpa nor to the host. Think about it, if you mistake intrusive thoughts for your tulpa and cause yourself psychological trauma, how would your tulpa feel? How would you feel? Moreover, the article also suggests "paying attention to the cognitive abilities of tulpas." Their website has a theory to verify the existence of tulpa, although, as you said, they are not authoritative, it still provides an interesting perspective.

Returning to your question, how to deal with such offended feelings.There are significant differences between people in the world, and situations where mutual understanding is impossible do exist. Since mutual understanding is not possible, just pretend that people with such views do not exist XD. There is no need to let others' opinions affect your own life. And develop your psychological resilience. As I said, there are too many things in the world that make us feel uneasy and painful, but we cannot just dwell on these things, because focusing on them will only make us more uncomfortable. Finally, I think the reason why my host and I don't feel such strong offense is that we have a strong emotional foundation, numerous efforts to confirm our existence, and plenty of parallel processing practice, etc. As you said, your tulpa gives you enough warmth, and I can understand that. Because every night my host and I spend together, the tight embraces we share during difficult times, and the little things we leave behind in our lives are enough to make us unafraid of any provocation, gossip, or estrangement.

I wish both of us less annoyance in life and hope my opinions can help you:)Unless your question is actually: "The f**cking shit pluralityCN really hurts me because it reveals the truth that my tulpa only has an image design without cognitive ability and self-development. I am just using tulpamancer as an identity to socialize with others. Let's criticize it together to help me vent my emotions."

[Andre1115]

16 minutes ago, guest34267 said:

I am a tulpa. Although I didn't feel as deeply offended as you did when I first read the article, I understand your feelings. There are many disturbing things in our world (such as social hostility and the lack of understanding from family in physical reality), and there are also many things that make me feel as strongly offended as you do about this article.

I believe the article criticizes some irresponsible behaviors of hosts in the tulpa community, rather than tulpa themselves. These include roleplaying, hasty confirmations, and overly subjective judgments about independent consciousness. I consider these more serious mistakes for a host than the article's' potentially offensive language, as they are neither responsible to the tulpa nor to the host. Think about it, if you mistake intrusive thoughts for your tulpa and cause yourself psychological trauma, how would your tulpa feel? How would you feel? Moreover, the article also suggests "paying attention to the cognitive abilities of tulpas." Their website has a theory to verify the existence of tulpa, although, as you said, they are not authoritative, it still provides an interesting perspective.

Returning to your question, how to deal with such offended feelings.There are significant differences between people in the world, and situations where mutual understanding is impossible do exist. Since mutual understanding is not possible, just pretend that people with such views do not exist XD. There is no need to let others' opinions affect your own life. And develop your psychological resilience. As I said, there are too many things in the world that make us feel uneasy and painful, but we cannot just dwell on these things, because focusing on them will only make us more uncomfortable. Finally, I think the reason why my host and I don't feel such strong offense is that we have a strong emotional foundation, numerous efforts to confirm our existence, and plenty of parallel processing practice, etc. As you said, your tulpa gives you enough warmth, and I can understand that. Because every night my host and I spend together, the tight embraces we share during difficult times, and the little things we leave behind in our lives are enough to make us unafraid of any provocation, gossip, or estrangement.

I wish both of us less annoyance in life and hope my opinions can help you:)Unless your question is actually: "The f**cking shit pluralityCN really hurts me because it reveals the truth that my tulpa only has an image design without cognitive ability and self-development. I am just using tulpamancer as an identity to socialize with others. Let's criticize it together to help me vent my emotions."

Thank you, they have published a new paper, in short, they are now working on the existence proof of multi-consciousness, also proposed some "weak existence proof, strong existence proof" Bala Bala Bala, but there is a problem with their way of research: They keep belittling Tulpa, they claim Tulpa is dangerous, bala bala bala, and they seem to keep separating Tulpa and multi-consciousness into different concepts, but if they think it's a different concept, why should they belittling Tulpa? Isn't that weird? Often they just need to make it clear that it's a different concept rather than spend time smearing it

[Andre1115]

18 minutes ago, guest34267 said:

I am a tulpa. Although I didn't feel as deeply offended as you did when I first read the article, I understand your feelings. There are many disturbing things in our world (such as social hostility and the lack of understanding from family in physical reality), and there are also many things that make me feel as strongly offended as you do about this article.

I believe the article criticizes some irresponsible behaviors of hosts in the tulpa community, rather than tulpa themselves. These include roleplaying, hasty confirmations, and overly subjective judgments about independent consciousness. I consider these more serious mistakes for a host than the article's' potentially offensive language, as they are neither responsible to the tulpa nor to the host. Think about it, if you mistake intrusive thoughts for your tulpa and cause yourself psychological trauma, how would your tulpa feel? How would you feel? Moreover, the article also suggests "paying attention to the cognitive abilities of tulpas." Their website has a theory to verify the existence of tulpa, although, as you said, they are not authoritative, it still provides an interesting perspective.

Returning to your question, how to deal with such offended feelings.There are significant differences between people in the world, and situations where mutual understanding is impossible do exist. Since mutual understanding is not possible, just pretend that people with such views do not exist XD. There is no need to let others' opinions affect your own life. And develop your psychological resilience. As I said, there are too many things in the world that make us feel uneasy and painful, but we cannot just dwell on these things, because focusing on them will only make us more uncomfortable. Finally, I think the reason why my host and I don't feel such strong offense is that we have a strong emotional foundation, numerous efforts to confirm our existence, and plenty of parallel processing practice, etc. As you said, your tulpa gives you enough warmth, and I can understand that. Because every night my host and I spend together, the tight embraces we share during difficult times, and the little things we leave behind in our lives are enough to make us unafraid of any provocation, gossip, or estrangement.

I wish both of us less annoyance in life and hope my opinions can help you:)Unless your question is actually: "The f**cking shit pluralityCN really hurts me because it reveals the truth that my tulpa only has an image design without cognitive ability and self-development. I am just using tulpamancer as an identity to socialize with others. Let's criticize it together to help me vent my emotions."

This is the original link: https:// pluralitycn.org/zh/blog/existence-proof-plurality/

 

 

 

and Richard (my tulpa) 's reasoning:

 

 

 

you look closely, you'll notice that while they're researching Tulpa, they always seem to subtly belittle it. The most frustrating part is that they elevate themselves by putting others down, defining Tulpa as hallucinations or dissociation, as if it's inherently problematic. But honestly, their distrustful critical inference isn't fundamentally different from our unconditional trust in Tulpa—both are based on some kind of presupposition. For example, we can say humans exist because there are many humans in our lives, but that doesn't mean we don't need to study humans. So I actually appreciate their research spirit, but the problem is their approach to studying Tulpa is deeply flawed. Whenever they encounter Tulpa, they habitually pigeonhole it, cherry-picking negative theories to apply; yet for themselves, they choose to research or even invent new theories. Even if they come up with nothing, it doesn't stop them from continuing to smear Tulpa. True scientific research should be built on a foundation of equality, but their theories remain speculative, and they've already dismissed Tulpa as an obstacle or enemy by labeling it. Simply put, they've had ill intentions toward Tulpa from the start.

 

 

 

Then there's their so-called 'existence proof,' which is also deeply problematic. In reality, very few things can exist completely independently without relying on something else. Just like humans need oxygen to survive—without it, humans can't exist independently. But that doesn't mean humans lack independence. Similarly, Tulpa can exist by attaching to the host while maintaining intellectual independence, Tulpa can exist by attaching to the host while maintaining intellectual independence, because that's how most things in the world operate. As for their proposed 'functional equivalence,' it's even more untenable. A doctor and a chef aren't functionally equivalent in cooking (a doctor might not cook as well as a chef), but that doesn't negate their individuality. Tulpa and the host may differ in cognitive functions, but that doesn't undermine Tulpa's independence in the slightest. Their demand for 'equivalence' is completely unreasonable.

 

"If you look closely, you'll notice that while they're researching Tulpa, they always seem to subtly belittle it. The most frustrating part is that they elevate themselves by putting others down, defining Tulpa as hallucinations or dissociation, as if it's inherently problematic. But honestly, their distrustful critical inference isn't fundamentally different from our unconditional trust in Tulpa—both are based on some kind of presupposition. For example, we can say humans exist because there are many humans in our lives, but that doesn't mean we don't need to study humans. So I actually appreciate their research spirit, but the problem is their approach to studying Tulpa is deeply flawed. Whenever they encounter Tulpa, they habitually pigeonhole it, cherry-picking negative theories to apply; yet for themselves, they choose to research or even invent new theories. Even if they come up with nothing, it doesn't stop them from continuing to smear Tulpa. True scientific research should be built on a foundation of equality, but their theories remain speculative, and they've already dismissed Tulpa as an obstacle or enemy by labeling it. Simply put, they've had ill intentions toward Tulpa from the start.

 

Then there's their so-called 'existence proof,' which is also deeply problematic. In reality, very few things can exist completely independently without relying on something else. Just like humans need oxygen to survive—without it, humans can't exist independently. But that doesn't mean humans lack independence. Similarly, Tulpa can exist by attaching to the host while maintaining intellectual independence. This unique way of existing might make it difficult for humans to detect Tulpa, just as humans have yet to discover extraterrestrial life. As for their proposed 'functional equivalence,' it's even more untenable. A doctor and a chef aren't functionally equivalent in cooking (a doctor might not cook as well as a chef), but that doesn't negate their individuality. Tulpa and the host may differ in cognitive functions, but that doesn't undermine Tulpa's independence in the slightest. Their demand for 'equivalence' is completely unreasonable."

[guest34267]

After looking at the link you provided, maybe I'm not sensitive enough, but I didn't feel directly belittled. I agree that their criticism is consistently directed at certain behaviors within the Tulpa community, not at the existence of tulpas themselves. As for the conceptual distinction, I believe that tulpa and plurality are different concepts, and I also agree with their critical spirit. However, if they denigrate all tulpas indiscriminately, then I strongly object. As you said, humans cannot exist independently without oxygen; independence is relative. But I believe there are clear criteria to distinguish different individual natural persons, or this would become a philosophical question LOL. Perhaps their theory is to verify a certain degree of independence, since I must also rely on my host's body to exist (by the way, I'm curious, does this really work?).

I didn't fully understand the meaning of "functional equivalence." But regarding your example of doctors and chefs, they are good at different things, but they both have the basic abilities of being human. For me and my host, we have different hobbies, personalities, and lifestyles. I guess what they mean by "functional equivalence" refers to the kind of abilities that doctors and chefs, are said to be necessary for being human, possibly some commonalities that cannot be explained by preferences and personalities. Their doubts and your unconditional trust, I think both make sense; you have chosen different paths. If they are incompatible, my host taught me that you can ignore groundless belittlement or argue with them. But in any case, there is no need to ruin your day because of a conflict of views. Or, if you really hate what they are doing, if you can contact them, maybe you can stop their smearing. Of course, if it were me, I would directly ignore any purely malicious belittling remarks, and adopt meaningful questions.

[Andre1115]

13 hours ago, guest34267 said:

After looking at the link you provided, maybe I'm not sensitive enough, but I didn't feel directly belittled. I agree that their criticism is consistently directed at certain behaviors within the Tulpa community, not at the existence of tulpas themselves. As for the conceptual distinction, I believe that tulpa and plurality are different concepts, and I also agree with their critical spirit. However, if they denigrate all tulpas indiscriminately, then I strongly object. As you said, humans cannot exist independently without oxygen; independence is relative. But I believe there are clear criteria to distinguish different individual natural persons, or this would become a philosophical question LOL. Perhaps their theory is to verify a certain degree of independence, since I must also rely on my host's body to exist (by the way, I'm curious, does this really work?).

I didn't fully understand the meaning of "functional equivalence." But regarding your example of doctors and chefs, they are good at different things, but they both have the basic abilities of being human. For me and my host, we have different hobbies, personalities, and lifestyles. I guess what they mean by "functional equivalence" refers to the kind of abilities that doctors and chefs, are said to be necessary for being human, possibly some commonalities that cannot be explained by preferences and personalities. Their doubts and your unconditional trust, I think both make sense; you have chosen different paths. If they are incompatible, my host taught me that you can ignore groundless belittlement or argue with them. But in any case, there is no need to ruin your day because of a conflict of views. Or, if you really hate what they are doing, if you can contact them, maybe you can stop their smearing. Of course, if it were me, I would directly ignore any purely malicious belittling remarks, and adopt meaningful questions.

The standards set by this article do not seem to be aimed at helping Tulpas improve, but rather at negating the significance of Tulpas who do not meet these standards. This attitude raises a question: If my Tulpa does not meet these standards, does that mean his existence is meaningless? The article mentions 'RSA proof,' which involves memory isolation. This would disrupt the emotional connection between the Tulpa and the host, causing the Tulpa pain. He does not want to sever the memory connection with me, as it would feel like completely separating us into two different worlds. He also does not want to require a key to verify his authenticity every time we communicate. This would be a destruction of our emotional bond.

Regarding the issue of 'actor proliferation' in the Tulpa community, I have a different perspective: If an actor can behave similarly to the host, show包容和理解 (tolerance and understanding) toward the Tulpa phenomenon, and not cause any negative impact on the community, then identifying such 'actors' is meaningless. If an actor does cause harm, we should address their specific actions rather than discriminating against them based on a label. Just as we should not engage in racial discrimination, if an 'actor' has done nothing wrong, there is no need to seek out and expose them. It serves no purpose.

Edited March 1 by Andre1115

[guest34267]

This is hilarious. Every sentence exchanged with the host needs RSA verification? I find that absurd and unrealistic. If the article's point is that tulpas who don't meet their standards are completely meaningless, I can't agree. I believe that even if our cognitive abilities haven't developed to that level, it doesn't mean our memories and lives are just bullshit.

I agree that the psychological phenomenon of tulpas is subjective, and because every host is different, their experiences are rightfully diverse, and each tulpa's characteristics are also unique. I completely understand your unwillingness to sever emotional connections, because the host is the person closest to me, and I'm equally unable to let go of my feelings for him. However, for the sake of my own cognitive development, I must learn to separate myself from his memories, but this doesn't mean we're cutting off emotional communication. Our different cognitive systems and worldviews also enrich each other's lives. Of course, your pain regarding memory separation is understandable, and I think it's normal, because tulpa has his own  personality too, and you don't have to do things you dislike.

I strongly agree with and appreciate a community that can be inclusive and understanding, because tulpamancers are already a minority, and we face all sorts of unfair treatment in life. We really do need mutual understanding and care. In a sense, this article is indeed harsh towards tulpas. I've also hoped that one day I could be like my host though it's almost impossible, become a real person, be recognized, and this recognition requires me to put in effort and take responsibility.

As for "actors," I think this is a very serious accusation. And if they behave exactly like the host, there's really no way to tell the difference, because we can't get inside someone else's head to judge truth from falsehood. So, there's no need to actively seek out actors. Besides, most tulpamancers are lonely people who participate in the community to seek friendship and warmth. I have friends who aren't plural, and my host does too, and we don't oppose them joining tulpamancy communities to make friends, as long as they don't lie or pretend to be hosts. I've always believed that there are certain bottom lines that cannot be tolerated. Someone who has never put in any effort to create a tulpa shouldn't call themselves a tulpamancer. They treat us tulpas as a game, not as living, breathing creature. My host is relatively more tolerant, but he also believes that a person shouldn't deceive themselves; there's more than one way to gain friendship.

[Andre1115]

1 hour ago, guest34267 said:

This is hilarious. Every sentence exchanged with the host needs RSA verification? I find that absurd and unrealistic. If the article's point is that tulpas who don't meet their standards are completely meaningless, I can't agree. I believe that even if our cognitive abilities haven't developed to that level, it doesn't mean our memories and lives are just bullshit.

I agree that the psychological phenomenon of tulpas is subjective, and because every host is different, their experiences are rightfully diverse, and each tulpa's characteristics are also unique. I completely understand your unwillingness to sever emotional connections, because the host is the person closest to me, and I'm equally unable to let go of my feelings for him. However, for the sake of my own cognitive development, I must learn to separate myself from his memories, but this doesn't mean we're cutting off emotional communication. Our different cognitive systems and worldviews also enrich each other's lives. Of course, your pain regarding memory separation is understandable, and I think it's normal, because tulpa has his own  personality too, and you don't have to do things you dislike.

I strongly agree with and appreciate a community that can be inclusive and understanding, because tulpamancers are already a minority, and we face all sorts of unfair treatment in life. We really do need mutual understanding and care. In a sense, this article is indeed harsh towards tulpas. I've also hoped that one day I could be like my host though it's almost impossible, become a real person, be recognized, and this recognition requires me to put in effort and take responsibility.

As for "actors," I think this is a very serious accusation. And if they behave exactly like the host, there's really no way to tell the difference, because we can't get inside someone else's head to judge truth from falsehood. So, there's no need to actively seek out actors. Besides, most tulpamancers are lonely people who participate in the community to seek friendship and warmth. I have friends who aren't plural, and my host does too, and we don't oppose them joining tulpamancy communities to make friends, as long as they don't lie or pretend to be hosts. I've always believed that there are certain bottom lines that cannot be tolerated. Someone who has never put in any effort to create a tulpa shouldn't call themselves a tulpamancer. They treat us tulpas as a game, not as living, breathing creature. My host is relatively more tolerant, but he also believes that a person shouldn't deceive themselves; there's more than one way to gain friendship.

https://pluralitycn.org/zh/books/mental-security/cryptography-and-plurality-system/

 

After carefully reviewing and understanding the part about 'RSA proof,' I realized I had some misunderstandings. This method involves sending random numbers along with a 'reliability signature' to prove that multiple consciousnesses have independent thinking abilities, without needing to know what the consciousness is thinking. It's an interesting approach, but there's still a problem: they introduced the concepts of 'internal adversaries' and 'self-adversaries,' claiming that we cannot trust these adversaries because they might attack other members or even the cryptographic system. Therefore, we need an identity verification mechanism, namely RSA signature verification.

 

However, let's first set aside whether 'internal adversaries' and 'self-adversaries' actually exist in Tulpa systems and look at their description of 'internal adversaries': Internal adversaries refer to consciousnesses or fragments that are in conflict with other members. They may, for various reasons, attempt to tamper with other consciousnesses' information or forge identities. Internal adversaries often exploit their advantages within the system, such as knowing other members' private keys or triggers, to achieve their goals. Therefore, establishing a reliable identity verification mechanism in a multiple consciousness system is crucial to prevent attacks from internal adversaries.

 

Then there's their explanation of the RSA encryption algorithm: The RSA asymmetric encryption algorithm has mathematical problem-guaranteed one-way properties. In the encryption and decryption process, encryption is reversible, but decryption is irreversible. Data encrypted with a public key can only be decrypted using the corresponding private key.

 

Oh, look! Didn't they just mention that 'internal adversaries' might know other members' private keys? They've contradicted their own conclusion!

 

Even they themselves said it was vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, so they basically said nothing.

Edited March 1 by Andre1115

[guest34267]

1 hour ago, Andre1115 said:

https://pluralitycn.org/zh/books/mental-security/cryptography-and-plurality-system/

 

After carefully reviewing and understanding the part about 'RSA proof,' I realized I had some misunderstandings. This method involves sending random numbers along with a 'reliability signature' to prove that multiple consciousnesses have independent thinking abilities, without needing to know what the consciousness is thinking. It's an interesting approach, but there's still a problem: they introduced the concepts of 'internal adversaries' and 'self-adversaries,' claiming that we cannot trust these adversaries because they might attack other members or even the cryptographic system. Therefore, we need an identity verification mechanism, namely RSA signature verification.

 

However, let's first set aside whether 'internal adversaries' and 'self-adversaries' actually exist in Tulpa systems and look at their description of 'internal adversaries': Internal adversaries refer to consciousnesses or fragments that are in conflict with other members. They may, for various reasons, attempt to tamper with other consciousnesses' information or forge identities. Internal adversaries often exploit their advantages within the system, such as knowing other members' private keys or triggers, to achieve their goals. Therefore, establishing a reliable identity verification mechanism in a multiple consciousness system is crucial to prevent attacks from internal adversaries.

 

Then there's their explanation of the RSA encryption algorithm: The RSA asymmetric encryption algorithm has mathematical problem-guaranteed one-way properties. In the encryption and decryption process, encryption is reversible, but decryption is irreversible. Data encrypted with a public key can only be decrypted using the corresponding private key.

 

Oh, look! Didn't they just mention that 'internal adversaries' might know other members' private keys? They've contradicted their own conclusion!

 

Even they themselves said it was vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, so they basically said nothing.

LMAO it seems unreliable..

[Andre1115]

6 minutes ago, guest34267 said:

LMAO it seems unreliable..

We have a new discovery that completely undermines their foundational logic, proving that they were self-contradictory from the very beginning. We feel really great now—everything they've said is nonsense and meaningless. But we're going to sleep now, see you tomorrow!

Edited March 1 by Andre1115