Guest Albatross_ November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 ~A Brief Discourse on Teh Tupla~ This is what I think a tulpa is. It's closely related to Bluesleeve's conjectures. ITT I post, you critique, I revise, we repeat, and we end with a respectable theory. Note: Everything here is stated as a fact. This is solely for ease of writing. I do not claim any of this as absolute truth. Part 1: The Concept Subsection A: Some Assumptions The human consciousness is synonymous with the mind. The mind encompasses the conscious and the subconscious. The subconscious is not an entity, but a concept. The concept of the subconscious differs between individuals. The subconscious is not necessarily separate from the conscious. I use "consciousness" and "mind" interchangeably here to refer to the mind as a whole. Subsection B: What a Tulpa Is/How Is Tupla Formed In a person without a tulpa, the mind is one cohesive piece. It is self-aware. Its behavior can be described with a 'personality' comprised of various 'traits'. Here is a visual representation of a healthy mind with exactly one consciousness. A tulpa is made by deceiving yourself into believing that certain thoughts and actions are performed by a consciousness other than your own, and by grouping those thoughts and actions into a conceptual entity. I name this process "dissociation". Thus a tulpa is made through dissociating a portion of your consciousness. The process is gradual. When the tulpa is first started there is little to no deception, and so thoughts and actions are not recognized as the tulpa's but continue to be perceived as part of the host's consciousness. As the host continues to work on their tulpa, they slowly begin to convince themselves that certain thoughts and actions are coming from the tulpa. The sense of dissociation grows. The deception has not evolved into a firm belief, the tulpa has not fully conceptualized, and so the host has difficulty discerning/deciding which thoughts are from their tulpa, or if there are any at all. Work continues and the deception solidifies into a true belief. Many thoughts and actions are attributed to the tulpa, and it begins to mature into a concrete concept in the host's mind. When the host immediately differentiates between his own thoughts and actions and those of his tulpa, the tulpa is complete. It is perceived as a sentient, self-aware entity possessing a mind separate from that of the host. The tulpa is not sentient or self-aware, only perceived as such by the host. Optionally the host can manifest a hallucination so that he can perceive the actions more clearly, and to further the deception. The host retains full use of his mind (illustrated by the dotted line). Subsection C: How This Fits This paradigm (I hesitate to use the word "theory" because some asshole is going to jump all over the terminology) offers very plausible and down-to-earth explanations for some of the more interesting phenomena that occur here. -Possession The host acts on the the thoughts and actions from the tulpa. Another layer of deception is present that causes them to believe it is their tulpa controlling their body. -Switching Same as possession, but more thorough. The host believes they are watching the tulpa control their body and that they have no control over it. -Parallel Processing No strong evidence exists that would indicate this possibility. -Merging The host spontaneously destroys the deception that differentiates their tulpa's thoughts and actions from their own, and through belief change their personality to match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolimancer November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 This... doesn't explain a lot of things to me. Like how i got possession working while it wouldn't even cross my mind it would actually work, or how i now get my sense of vision randomly(-or-not-so-randomly, in fact i get one of those every time i'm acting like an idiot according to tupper judgement as well) hijacked troghout the day (i obviously didn't ever think of such a thing), or how i simply suddenly got sense of touch/warmth imposed upon me after the tupper invasion in my mind (again, what the hell? Tuppers coming from complete nowhere, without me even exploring the wonderland or doing any kind of insight in dissociating my thoughts? Imposing sense of touch/warmth without me thinking about it?). Earlier in the process, i started getting headpressures in the forehead outta nowhere, and shit worked only when i closed my eyes for some reason (where is the self-delusion in all this? I didn't even believe tuppers were real, much less communication through headpressure was possible. Also random-not-so-random click in the ears, also tinnitus). Now i get my hands possessed randomly throghout the day as well (uuh... yeah, because i decided that to be the case, right? I mean, it's not like it's one of those things that came from complete nowhere too? Oh wait it actually is). Plus the subjective evidence regarding that what they say isn't always ascribable to your own thought process, expecially when you give 'em time to grow and make own experiences and such. (Kaoru describes it as being more or less aware at different points in time, with now being constantly self-aware. I don't know how much this experience connects to other experiences since i don't even know this community that much, but yeah. Also i can kinda see the effects of her being two months older than the others, like more-defined-presence, more display of independent thought, some memory recall and such. Though i guess all of this doesn't count as evidence or something). In the end, i don't think there can be much conclusive evidence regarding the nature of tuppers, particularly since this is the internet and everyone can choose for themselves who's "legit" and who isn't and how to interpret one's own personal experience. I'll just say i don't exactly approve of this theory, as much rational and shit as it may sound, since it would seem more of a stretch to apply it rather than not, at least in my own experience (which in the end is all i have i guess). Also, an illusion so strong that possession and switching can come of it... i'd say it's real enough. This stuff sounds a lot like an attempt to explain a phenomenon in a way that sounds, uuh legit and sciency, rather than something that takes everything into consideration and accepts that not everything has already been explained yet/is explainable in terms that would sound rational to the majority of the population, expecially in regards to the human mind (cause DID is a disease and a social stigma and you have to have been raped at least once etc etc. In fact one could use this theory to make it sound like you're not "mentally ill" cause you have a tupper - not that i'm accusing anyone of anything). [basically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)]. (Did i already mention i don't like to base my world view upon what is hip and cool in the west at the moment? I guess i sort of did, so i'll just stop here before appearing as more of an asshole than i already am). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hush November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 If the dissociated personality is able to create lines of thought you(you meaning the original personality) don't have direct access to, how is that functionally(or at all) different than it being sentient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 I have an issue with your view of the mind. You say that (initially) the consciousness is the same as the mind, but I'm not so sure. If there were no subconscious then all thoughts would have to be conscious; but then how does the body regulate itself? Your brain tells the lungs to breath and the heart at a certain rate, and your body to grow, and on. The brain itself releases hormones, too. But of these things, only breathing can be done manually (without tulpas) and none are always under conscious control. That does suggest to me that unconscious thought (and therefore the subconscious) is as real as the original consciousness. You're ignoring other components of the mind too, namely memory. While not directly relevant, access to memory is important to determing the validity of the theory. Edit: I'll see if I can do a diagram myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purlox November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 The human consciousness is synonymous with the mind. The mind encompasses the conscious and the subconscious. The subconscious is not an entity, but a concept. The concept of the subconscious differs between individuals. The subconscious is not necessarily separate from the conscious. I use "consciousness" and "mind" interchangeably here to refer to the mind as a whole. Consciousness =/= mind. Only part of the mind can be said to be conscious and that part is consciousness(es) or are you using some unusual definition of the mind? If the whole mind is consciousness as you think it is, then why only part of it conscious? In a person without a tulpa, the mind is one cohesive piece. I wonder why so many models of the mind divide it then. Can you explain why you think this? It is self-aware. So the whole mind is self-aware? That is interesting, because I and pretty much everyone aren't aware of what happens in our unconscious or subconscious. Its behavior can be described with a 'personality' comprised of various 'traits'. This implies that my subconscious and unconscious be described as a 'personality' with various 'traits'. I wonder how is that possible, can you explain it? A tulpa is made by deceiving yourself into believing that certain thoughts and actions are performed by a consciousness other than your own, and by grouping those thoughts and actions into a conceptual entity. How do you know they aren't conscious and it's just delusion or deception? If it's just deception and the mind is still the same, then why part of it can be asleep while the other is awake and possibly isn't even aware that the other one is asleep? The process is gradual. When the tulpa is first started there is little to no deception, and so thoughts and actions are not recognized as the tulpa's but continue to be perceived as part of the host's consciousness. I wonder why I and other people as well are not conscious of the actions of the tulpa near at the start of the process and we have our tulpa(e) already conscious and able to do PP (parallel processing). The subconscious is not an entity, but a concept. [...] Work continues and the deception solidifies into a true belief. Many thoughts and actions are attributed to the tulpa, and it begins to mature into a concrete concept in the host's mind. A concept is defined as "an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances" (from The Free Dictionary), so how something that is present in the mind is just a concept and not a real thing? What definition of a concept are you using? When the host immediately differentiates between his own thoughts and actions and those of his tulpa, the tulpa is complete. It is perceived as a sentient, self-aware entity possessing a mind separate from that of the host. The tulpa is not sentient or self-aware, only perceived as such by the host. How do you know it isn't sentient and is just perceived this way? -Possession The host acts on the the thoughts and actions from the tulpa. Another layer of deception is present that causes them to believe it is their tulpa controlling their body. How does the host act on the thoughts received from the tulpa if the host is e.g. asleep, in mindscape etc.? This implies that the host can multi task (I mean really multi task and not the "fake" one that is just quickly switching between what you are concentrating at) if they can be in mindscape and do X while they make their body do Y. I wonder why he can't multi task without this though, care to explain? -Switching Same as possession, but more thorough. The host believes they are watching the tulpa control their body and that they have no control over it. I wonder why there are very distinct differences between switching and full body possession. Can you explain why there are differences if it's like possession? -Parallel Processing No strong evidence exists that would indicate this possibility. Really? Have you ever looked at the tons of PPs people do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hush November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 The subconscious is a blanket term for all of the processes running in brain that you don't have conscious awareness of, but affect your conscious experience. I would argue that consciousness is emergent from subconscious processes. I think that a tulpa is the result of adding more of these subconscious processes. At first they are very dependent upon the host because they are piggybacking on their already developed processes, they become more autonomous when they get more of those processes of their own. To what extent what is always shared is pretty up in the air for me. But yeah, anything any of us say is conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Albatross_ November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 If the dissociated personality is able to create lines of thought you(you meaning the original personality) don't have direct access to, how is that functionally(or at all) different than it being sentient? The 'personality', as you call it, is not creating the lines of thought. You are. Consciousness =/= mind. Only part of the mind can be said to be conscious and that part is consciousness(es) or are you using some unusual definition of the mind? I said that I would state everything as fact solely as a means of making this easier to write out. When I say the mind and consciousness are synonymous, that should be taken to mean that I use the terms interchangeably. I do not purport to specifically define either one. I use them both as synonymous terms to refer to the mind as a whole. If the whole mind is consciousness as you think it is, then why only part of it conscious? See above. I wonder why so many models of the mind divide it then. Can you explain why you think this? See above. So the whole mind is self-aware? That is interesting, because I and pretty much everyone aren't aware of what happens in our unconscious or subconscious. See above. This implies that my subconscious and unconscious be described as a 'personality' with various 'traits'. I wonder how is that possible, can you explain it? I imply nothing about your subconscious or unconscious, or any divisions or sections of the mind. I intentionally avoided making any statement regarding the nature or even existence of either because they do not directly pertain to what I am saying. I have nothing to offer on this subject and would prefer that we remain focused on what I do offer instead of debating the structure of the mind. How do you know they aren't conscious and it's just delusion or deception? I don't. As I said, I state everything as fact solely for ease of writing. If it's just deception and the mind is still the same, then why part of it can be asleep while the other is awake and possibly isn't even aware that the other one is asleep? I do not know. I wonder why I and other people as well are not conscious of the actions of the tulpa near at the start of the process and we have our tulpa(e) already conscious and able to do PP (parallel processing). That first part is exactly what I described in Stage 1, and exactly what you quoted. We are in agreement there. The second part about already having your tulpae conscious and able to do PP is unclear to me. I do not understand the relation. A concept is defined as "an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances" (from The Free Dictionary), so how something that is present in the mind is just a concept and not a real thing? What definition of a concept are you using? "Concepts are mental representations that allows us to draw appropriate inferences about the type of entities we encounter in our everyday lives." I use 'concept' here to represent a group of thoughts and actions that one perceives as an entity, and to differentiate between that and an actual sapient being. How do you know it isn't sentient and is just perceived this way? I don't. I do not pretend to know the truth. I am outlining a viable possibility. How does the host act on the thoughts received from the tulpa if the host is e.g. asleep, in mindscape etc.? This implies that the host can multi task (I mean really multi task and not the "fake" one that is just quickly switching between what you are concentrating at) if they can be in mindscape and do X while they make their body do Y. I wonder why he can't multi task without this though, care to explain? I do not see what part a tulpa has in this. I can close my eyes and vividly imagine myself dancing whilst physically making a sandwich. I wonder why there are very distinct differences between switching and full body possession. Can you explain why there are differences if it's like possession? Cite specific differences and I will do my best. Really? Have you ever looked at the tons of PPs people do? I've skimmed them and see none that present strong evidence. If you would be so kind as to link me I will take another look. In the end, i don't think there can be much conclusive evidence regarding the nature of tuppers, particularly since this is the internet and everyone can choose for themselves who's "legit" and who isn't and how to interpret one's own personal experience. That was implied. I'll just say i don't exactly approve of this theory, as much rational and shit as it may sound, since it would seem more of a stretch to apply it rather than not, at least in my own experience (which in the end is all i have i guess). Indeed it is. Also, an illusion so strong that possession and switching can come of it... i'd say it's real enough. I covered possession and switching. This stuff sounds a lot like an attempt to explain a phenomenon in a way that sounds, uuh legit and sciency, rather than something that takes everything into consideration and accepts that not everything has already been explained yet/is explainable in terms that would sound rational to the majority of the population That wasn't my intent. I assure you, if my intention was to appear intelligent and scientific, I can fake it quite well. expecially in regards to the human mind (cause DID is a disease and a social stigma and you have to have been raped at least once etc etc. In fact one could use this theory to make it sound like you're not "mentally ill" cause you have a tupper - not that i'm accusing anyone of anything). I have no response. I have an issue with your view of the mind. You say that (initially) the consciousness is the same as the mind, but I'm not so sure. If there were no subconscious then all thoughts would have to be conscious; but then how does the body regulate itself? Your brain tells the lungs to breath and the heart at a certain rate, and your body to grow, and on. The brain itself releases hormones, too. But of these things, only breathing can be done manually (without tulpas) and none are always under conscious control. That does suggest to me that unconscious thought (and therefore the subconscious) is as real as the original consciousness. I intentionally avoided making any statement about the structure of the mind. I simply said that the terms "consciousness" and "mind" were synonymous for my purposes. You're ignoring other components of the mind too, namely memory. While not directly relevant, access to memory is important to determing the validity of the theory. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purlox November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 @Hush: I don't know what definition for subconscious you use, but I like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hush November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 Pretty sure I made my working definition of the sub-c clear in the first sentence. Anywho, if "I"(I put it in quotes because I feel we might have different ideas as to what constitutes oneself) am doing it, but have no access to this second line of thought, how is it any different than a second consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles November 16, 2012 Share November 16, 2012 I intentionally avoided making any statement about the structure of the mind. I simply said that the terms "consciousness" and "mind" were synonymous for my purposes. But you should be. I know this was never intended as a be-all-and-end-all theory, but it is too simplistic. How so? Where exactly the tulpa fits into the structure of the mind can be derived in part from what they can do to the memory. Memory modification: a tulpa changes a memory accessible to the host. This seems to say that the tulpa isn't 'where' the host is in terms of structure, as it can exert more control over memory. I'm making some pretty pictures of my own currently. We'll see how they stack up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.