motorheadlk

Switching Hypothesis

Recommended Posts

I'm glad I didn't give my tulpa Trans V2 O_O otherwise that would be a nightmare.

 

TransV2(The Second Generation Trans Ability): Ability in which individual body parts can assume different forms such as knives, frying pans, and other objects. the hair can also do this too. it also allows, unlike the first generation trans, allows the ability to join consciousness with another person, access his/her memories ect. and the form shifting is more advance and the user can make objects that are mechanical, or electronic. this power can also be used to repair clothing.

 

My bad definition of the ability


[align=center]Yes, I am a mystical burrito, UJELLY?

Kimiko:

Age: 1 year

Stage: Visual imposition into real world[/align]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate discussing in a forum. I'm going to law school, so I'm that internet guy that loves to argue, but it is just painful to do this in a forum, specially because every post is a huge wall of text. And again, I just posted this because a lot of people seemed too much sure about some stuff regarding switching. I already stated that I might be wrong and that's my opinion, anyway, I'm going to answer you untill I get bored, because I said it in the first line of this thread, I didn't made it because I wanted to discuss the subject, I made this thread more or less to state my opinion and put some doctrinal beliefs into doubt, since they aren't as solid as a lot of people think. Try not to think badly of me because I'm avoiding a discussion in the General Discussion board, it's just that in the end what we have are beliefs x beliefs, and I'm not absolutely sure that I'm right, at least not enough to spend a lot of time repeating myself as in a Religion Discussion.

 

 

Well, no. The tulpa could be said to be created primarily by first-hand experience from the host, i.e. narration, personality, form; every step of the creation process involves the host interacting with the tulpa, and none involve the tulpa digging into the host's memories.

You dig into your memories by doing anything. How do you think you remember words? Not much of a point here.

 

It's also incorrect to say that the host arises 'accidentally'. It could be viewed as purposeful (although unconsciously so) that the host's consciousness comes about - that's evolution for you. Next you will be telling me that embryonic humans acquiring a digestive system, or a brain at all is 'accidental', since they are equivalent suppositions. Finally, that's not a functional difference, is it? After the tulpa has been created, how they were created does not matter.

Meh, I recognize your confusion as my mistake. I didn't made myself clear because I purposely didn't want to enter in the subject, again, I don't want to discuss why my opinion is more or less valid, I just want to point that it is and then when it is "proven" or "busted" we can move on. When I say "accidental" and "purposely", I'm making a reference to the fact that the human consciousness doesn't require another previous consciousness interacting with it to exist, or else it would never come to existance. I don't want to detail this any further, hope you don't mind.

 

But that's not at all proven or even demonstrated. Why are you saying that a tulpa couldn't exist without its host when there is not on instance of the host actually ceasing to exist, nor any comparative scenario.

That's a premise. I find the other way around (tulpa without host) much more doubtful.

 

What you would call 'the host's mind' is the question here. Because, or course, the tulpa will always be part of the host's brain, but then, so will the host. It's a little more contentious to say that the tulpa is part of the host's conscious mind, since that would entail the host being aware of everything about the tulpa etc. So then, you mean that the tulpa is part of the host's unconscious mind? But so is the host, possibly. At least, were this the case, the tulpa could still be equal to the host's conscious mind, which is all that matters here.

Yeah, I never denied the fact that they could be equal. I'm merely stating why I find it harder to believe otherwise. Again, I might speak in absolutes, but just to put some other absolutes most people have in doubt.

 

Err, no. If you are seriously claiming that a tulpa is both conscious and sentient, then it would need a base of neural structure to function. If not a dedicated structure then at least some portion of another structure. It has nothing to do with belief, in this case. The host definitely needs a dedicated neural structure to function. To say that the host is formed of experiences is wrong also. Experience is character-building, yes, but it doesn't create your consciousness. That's absurd.

 

We've been over this already, dude. It's not absurd just because it doesn't fit in your head. You remember where this last argument ended, right? I said: "You can't think if you have nothing to think of" and that is still valid. You can't be qualified as a consciousness if you don't meet the criteria to be one. If you could, then you could consider anything at all as a consciousness. And I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying it is stupid. That's why I and many believe that the origin of consciousness must come with your sensory input. Just as a comparison, why you think that a man that has no sensory input at all and never had (Can't see, can't hear, can't feel the world or his body and so on, and never could) would be conscious?

And I know you are really itching to reply this saying about vegetative people and how scientists are able to talk with them using machines and all, but just don't. I guess you can already think of what my reply would be. Two words. Never had.

Just in case that you want to contest this again, remember, we think because we have concepts we made, based on what we experienced. If you don't have any experience, you don't have concepts, you can't think, therefore you don't meet the criteria to be a consciousness.

 

So, a tulpa, by your previous definition, isn't just "a solid conjecture of deep thoughts, ideas and beliefs" because that wouldn't be sentient. It must have some proper neural basis. So then, if that can be 'dissolved', then a host could presumably be similarly 'dissolved'. Both actions (on a well-developed tulpa) would require suppression of neural structures. In fact, it's not all that unreasonable to say that a well-developed tulpa can't be dissolved as easily as you think; they would seem to be able to 'come back' after a long time, with or without the host's instigation. That would suggest that the difference in being able to be dissipated isn't there, or at least not so great.

 

Nope. Even a thought requires a memory and they require neural basis. Being "just a thought" doesn't make it completely immaterial. Now, why dissipating would require a suppression of neural structures?

And yes, maybe, if I'm wrong, a host can be dissolved. It would be, however, harder than dissolving a tulpa, by what I say in the following.

 

And finally, why would a load of experiences and thoughts make you more powerful? More experienced doesn't necessarily mean that you are more powerful.

Err... Ok. Do you think that an year old tulpa which the host spends half of everyday tulpamancing is just as powerful as one with a week or so and with a lazy host? Then there you have it. The more and better you built, the more solid it becames, the harder to destroy/dissipate. That's my point, If you want to question why I think that, remember, it is harder to think otherwise.

 

Your metaphor is rubbish. In human physiology, the umbilical cord is severed long, long before the human could be considered 'mature'. who is to say that the 'umbilical cord' is still present after the tulpa is well-developed? Bear in mind that attention starvation, the usual method for killing a tulpa, is not the same as simply losing attention. The host believes that they are killing the tulpa, and thus the tulpa is offensively harmed. You would come across somewhat less success if you didn't think it would work, likely. The point is that the host starving the tulpa of attention isn't the same as the host ceasing to exist, from the tulpa's point of view.

 

Better analogy I found to state what I wanted. Now, "the host starving the tulpa of attention isn't the same as the host ceasing to exist"? I mean, I know that. It is the same as the tulpa stopping to exist.

Try to think of it this way. How you make a tulpa? It is basically a sum of: belief + attention + thinking. You take anyone of those out, and they will likely stop existing, just the same as it would be taking a part of your body away. If they were created with attention, thinking and beliefs, if somehow you stopped beliving, didn't give them more attention and didn't even think of them anymore, why would they survive? I find it easier to believe that they wouldn't, and that is basically what dissipation is. A symbolic way of forgetting your tulpa.

 

That's not what entropy is, not at all. It's not necessarily just about body control, either. Remember that many hosts report it as being different from full-body possession. There could still be potential for actual role switching.

 

I never ruled that out, as I said.

 

About entropy, let me try to show you my point. The rule of the universe is that everything starts simple as gets more and more complicated as time passes, you can revert this process using energy. The fact is that when you build a tulpa you are taking thoughts/beliefs/memories or whatever you would like to name it and putting them together until it becames something so rich and deep that it is able to express itself as a consciousness. But, you see, when you took all of this random thoughts/memories/beliefs you reverted the natural course of them, which is to be difused, and focused then into one thing. That is, by definition, reverting the natural process. It means you used conscious effort (equivalent to energy in the analogy). Now, thoughts can't be simply put together without some conscious input or sensory input. A tulpa is made with conscious input. You are putting your thoughts together and making them. How would this conjecture of thoughts that you made using the actual blocks in which you "made yourself" get "stronger" than you, enough to dissipate yourself? That would mean that you are putting more "energy" (conscious effort) in your tulpa than you actually have!

 

Of course, that's my way of seeing it. If you want to discuss the details and say that using energy as conscious effort is not valid because you don't think it is we could go on with this day by day, but I personally don't want it. Again, I can be wrong. Another way of seeing it would be that a robot is creating a machine stronger than himself using the matter avaiable for him and he notices that himself has less matter put into him than the other machine that he is making, and then the machine is stronger. Being the robot the human, the matter the thoughts/memories/ideas/concepts/etc... and the machine the tulpa.

 

If you choose to believe or not, then it might or might not be my fault. But if you choose to disagree with me and say that I can't see things this way, then I won't botter keeping this discussion, because I'm sure it isn't my fault. I think that anyone that at least superficially tries to see my point can see it, and if you are going to try to discuss details of it, them there is not much to be discussed, as it will be more of a argument that the last one replying wins, and I don't want to enter such an argument. If you really can't see my point in here, then I'll try to make myself clear, but if it seems to me that you are only looking into the details and is ignoring the whole argument, I'll drop it.

 

Sorry to be rude about it, I just don't want to write another song in which I have to repeat the chorus everytime hoping you are actualling trying to see my point, and not simply trying really hard to deny it.


That would be if it wasn't a fully complete tulpa in the first place. Whether it's possible for the host to slowly loose its abilities is a different matter.

Anyway , yes , i meant consciousness , not person (as in body) , sorry about that.

 

About the being dumb part , i really can not understand your logic. Why would having a second consciousness make you dumber? Are people with DID less intelligent than people without it?


See what sands' post above for an elaboration on what i mean when i say "complete".

 

I wouldn't know if people with DID are dumb. My point was that it doesn't look like you are truly separating your own consciousness when you make a tulpa.


As for the whole "feeding attention" thing, uh, I am kind of starting to feel like it's all about feeding yourself than it is about feeding the other. Probably much different with a new tupper, but it's not like either of us has to focus on the other to keep them alive. When you're stuck alone, it just gets boring, so passing out might be a good way to pass time if you're crazy. I guess I'm crazy enough now for it to happen by accident if I don't pay enough attention to what is happening, but say, if you passed out for a really long time and didn't come back... Wouldn't that be like dissipation, no matter if it's a tupper or host? Seeing that no one apparently has been able to kill a tupper in a way that didn't have them come back or something, I dunno. Maybe someone has. Or they just haven't come back yet. Aaaaa.

I understand you completely. Lots of premises, little evidence.

 

I'm not even sure how to explain what I've noticed any better, maybe I really did go crazy somewhere here in the process, fuck if I know. Can't say Roswell has ever complained about not being paid enough attention to once he got over being a ronery attentionwhore at the start where he baaws about being lonely and waiting for me to talk to him. Or said anything about feeling weaker or something. And I went in this with an open mind, not expecting much and certainly not having such strong opinions about anything before Roswell popped out. If anything, he believes in himself more than I do. Funny how confident he is in the end, because he's a pussy and a crybaby.

 

Rambling.

 

Not rambling, just saying your opinion. But do you think that if you ignore Roswell for the rest of your life, he wouldn't go away? If he would be absorbed by the mind, dissipated or whatever I don't know, but there is a limit to independence, right?


 

It was easy after getting a direct access to my unconsciousness (after a switch).

My first time deleting memories was when I had a mental breakdown after Shai had told my ex about tulpas and that she was a switched tulpa. She (the ex) didn't take it as good as Shai had hoped, and said something over the phone the next day that made me completely insane so I switched with Shai.

After a few hours of trying to dissolve myself and Shai doing everything she could to stop it, I visited the subconscious and found all my memories.

They looked like a huge pile of rocks but when I picked one up I knew what memory it represented. I then took all the memories that made me mad and crushed them one by one, after they broke into smaller pieces they just disappeared along with the memory and feelings connected to them. The size of the rocks vary on the amount of feelings connected with them.

 

I haven't remembered a bit of those memories after I destroyed them nearly three months ago and I can't seem to bring them back. This seems dangerous so I have experimented with Shai's computer that I gave her. Using it I can find my memory library and erase or modify memories if I want but it seems more safe because I can undo all the changes I've made with a click of a mouse.

 

Very interesting. Try doing what Purlox suggests in his thread "Memory Modification" or something like that, in the research board. It is dangerous so only do it if you are confortable with the risks involved.


I'm glad I didn't give my tulpa Trans V2 O_O otherwise that would be a nightmare.

 

TransV2(The Second Generation Trans Ability): Ability in which individual body parts can assume different forms such as knives, frying pans, and other objects. the hair can also do this too. it also allows, unlike the first generation trans, allows the ability to join consciousness with another person, access his/her memories ect. and the form shifting is more advance and the user can make objects that are mechanical, or electronic. this power can also be used to repair clothing.

 

My bad definition of the ability

 

U wt m8. Too much prototype, perhaps?


I'm brazilian and my english is not really good, I'll do every mistake you imagine, but I'll try to avoid them.

 

Tulpa: Kuruminha

Age: Began on the middle of october.

Form: My avatar.

Sentience: Confirmed.

Mindvoice: Not yet.

Working on: Visualization and Mindspeaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one who picked on a detail and missed my point here. I'm not repeating this, I'm elaborating in response to you. I said that you, by your definition of a tulpa that is truly sentient and conscious, can't just define one as

"thoughts/beliefs/memories or whatever you would like to name it and putting them together until it becames something so rich and deep that it is able to express itself as a consciousnes"

because you need a proper neural basis - and I defined this as 'If not a dedicated structure then at least some portion of another structure' - for consciousness. Now, the comparison to ordinary thought is also odd, because your thoughts aren't conscious by themselves. Sure, they aren't immaterial, but they're not conscious either.

 

This means that dissipation requires suppression of neural structures because the tulpa is now something that is active by itself. It doesn't require belief or attention to survive any more than you need theirs. Simply ceasing belief in them will not do anything because they're still there as a structure; rather, the host should believe that they are destroying the tulpa. The point is that dissipation - even if it superficially involves the host ignoring the tulpa - is more than that. Because the host believes that they are destroying the tulpa, the tulpa is actively destroyed. The difference here is that it's not lack of belief or attention that kills the tulpa, but a belief that you are killing the tulpa.

 

As an addition to this, bear in mind that what is used to create something doesn't starve something through lack of it necessarily. You may supply scaffolding to a building site and see the building go up, but cutting off this supply won't make the building collapse.

 

About experience; your point about tulpas is developmental. Perhaps a tulpa is never completely developed, but I think you'd find power in the mind to be given by whoever has it, rather than being intrinsic.

 

About entropy; that's not how thought works. Like, try telling that to a neurologist, or a psycholohist or a physicist. Thoughts are just moment-to-moment electrical impulses. They aren't persistent. Beliefs are just opinions. They are also stored as memories. Memories are small, impermant neural structures, though persistent. None of these are 'moved' and 'concentrated' 'into' something. This is a metaphor, sure, but one that's wrong. Even on a purely mental level, you don't lose thoughts, beliefs or memories to your tulpa. Your mind's organisation is, if anything, made more entropic by making another tulpa, because now you have two sources of thought instead of one.

 

 

Yes, I believe I see your point. If a tulpa is formed by beliefs, thoughts and memories then it must be made up of these things, and would die if they were cut off. Because of this dependence on the host, the tulpa cannot become more powerful than the host within the mind, and therefore cannot take the host's position or dissolve the host. The problem is that this view would assume non-conscious tulpas, which is clearly not what you're after.

 

 

Why you posted a thread stating your opinions in General Discussion if you didn't want discussion is odd, to me. There are other means of storing text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one who picked on a detail and missed my point here. I'm not repeating this, I'm elaborating in response to you.

 

Oh no, I'm saying I'll have to repeat a lot of things, like I had to do last time.

 

I said that you, by your definition of a tulpa that is truly sentient and conscious, can't just define one as

"thoughts/beliefs/memories or whatever you would like to name it and putting them together until it becames something so rich and deep that it is able to express itself as a consciousnes"

because you need a proper neural basis - and I defined this as 'If not a dedicated structure then at least some portion of another structure' - for consciousness. Now, the comparison to ordinary thought is also odd, because your thoughts aren't conscious by themselves. Sure, they aren't immaterial, but they're not conscious either.

 

What is a consciousness if not a thought pattern?

 

This means that dissipation requires suppression of neural structures because the tulpa is now something that is active by itself. It doesn't require belief or attention to survive any more than you need theirs. Simply ceasing belief in them will not do anything because they're still there as a structure; rather, the host should believe that they are destroying the tulpa. The point is that dissipation - even if it superficially involves the host ignoring the tulpa - is more than that. Because the host believes that they are destroying the tulpa, the tulpa is actively destroyed. The difference here is that it's not lack of belief or attention that kills the tulpa, but a belief that you are killing the tulpa.

 

Active dissipation, yes. Ignoring a tulpa is a passive dissipation.

 

As an addition to this, bear in mind that what is used to create something doesn't starve something through lack of it necessarily. You may supply scaffolding to a building site and see the building go up, but cutting off this supply won't make the building collapse.

 

But the natural process of thoughts, as it is with a building, is to difuse/corrose itself with time, unless you are constantly repairing it. Thoughts, unless you use a lot of them, won't be just as solid as cement. Even a building, without repairs to it's structure, will eventually collapse.

 

About experience; your point about tulpas is developmental. Perhaps a tulpa is never completely developed, but I think you'd find power in the mind to be given by whoever has it, rather than being intrinsic.

 

Yet the tulpa can only have so much power as the hosts gives to her. How much would be enough to make a person with years of thoughts/experiences/ideas/concepts/memories weaker than a tulpa? I'd say it would never enough, unless you work on your tulpa more than you actually live.

 

About entropy; that's not how thought works. Like, try telling that to a neurologist, or a psycholohist or a physicist. Thoughts are just moment-to-moment electrical impulses. They aren't persistent. Beliefs are just opinions. They are also stored as memories. Memories are small, impermant neural structures, though persistent. None of these are 'moved' and 'concentrated' 'into' something. This is a metaphor, sure, but one that's wrong. Even on a purely mental level, you don't lose thoughts, beliefs or memories to your tulpa. Your mind's organisation is, if anything, made more entropic by making another tulpa, because now you have two sources of thought instead of one.

 

Then how could a tulpa, in your opinion, come to exist? You have to consciously put effort into reuniting thoughts to make a tulpa, that's undeniable. Either if they are concentrated, they are copies of your own thoughts or if you are actually taking your own thoughts out to make room for your tulpa, it doesn't matter. The fact is that you are consciously doing it yourself, and I don't see why the effort you put into creating something is strong enough to destroy yourself, considering that it only has as much energy as you could possibly give it, or be it, your own. Which means that the full potential of a tulpa, something we don't really see, would be to be as strong as the host, and never more.

 

Yes, I believe I see your point. If a tulpa is formed by beliefs, thoughts and memories then it must be made up of these things, and would die if they were cut off. Because of this dependence on the host, the tulpa cannot become more powerful than the host within the mind, and therefore cannot take the host's position or dissolve the host. The problem is that this view would assume non-conscious tulpas, which is clearly not what you're after.

 

It doesn't necessarily lead to this conclusion. I believe in the sentience and consciousness of tulpae, but not of their total independence. I'll try to make a metaphor to justify it. It will probably sound stupid, but I'm out of sleep and can't think of anything else.

 

Think of the host as a plant, and the mind as the soil. A tulpa would arise from a sprouting of the original plant, aka the host. As the tulpa grows, it becomes more and more independant, and grows her own roots into the soil. After that, the tulpa is almost independent, it never reaches full independence, despite that. The original connection she has with the host never ceases to exist, and the host's roots, being older, are bigger and are deeper into the soil. It doesn't matter how big or strong the tulpa gets, her own roots won't be able to sustain her weight and life, so she uses the hosts roots through the connection to be able to still grow and exist. If the connection is cut off in the early stages of existence, the tulpa dies fast. If it is in the later stages, the tulpa will eventually die, but will not be able to grow as big as with the connection. The tulpa can use her own roots to survive for a great period of time, but can't use them to grow, the only roots she can ever use to grow are the host's roots. The size of the plant would be it's power, and the roots it's ability to sustain itself, only the host would have the roots to make it grow, however. Just think of how tulpae are born and how hosts are. We have years to become what we are, yet the tulpa is practically completed after a few months. During the years we were bulding our roots and growing slowly. Tulpae only grow so fast because they use our own roots, and if they try to use theirs, they're not enough since they are so relatively small compared to their size. So, in the end, the roots is basically not only the ability to survive as a consciousness, but the own power of the consciousness. A tulpa grows too fast only because she uses our roots, and our roots can only serve her as much as they serve ourselves. If the tulpa wants to "dissipate" the host, she would have to cut this roots somehow, yet she would eventually die in the process, too.

 

A tulpa would never be able to grow stronger than the host unless she came first into existance, by this definition, and it only have full independence if the tulpa grew as slow as we do, which is not what happens as of now.

 

 

 

Why you posted a thread stating your opinions in General Discussion if you didn't want discussion is odd, to me. There are other means of storing text.

Now you are being rude. I'm discussing it, ain't I? What I want to avoid are pointless discussions, or discussions in which one of the parts isn't open to what the other says. I hate to repeat myself, so I don't want to have this kind of arguments, that's it. What we're having here is not bad and because of that I'm replying, I'm just saying that at some point I *might* want to simply state: Let's agree to disagree, and then move on.


I'm brazilian and my english is not really good, I'll do every mistake you imagine, but I'll try to avoid them.

 

Tulpa: Kuruminha

Age: Began on the middle of october.

Form: My avatar.

Sentience: Confirmed.

Mindvoice: Not yet.

Working on: Visualization and Mindspeaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a consciousness if not a thought pattern?

A thought process within a dedicated structure.

 

Active dissipation, yes. Ignoring a tulpa is a passive dissipation.

They're the same thing. You can ignore your tulpa all you want, but I don't think it would kill a mature tulpa unless you thought it would. I realise I don't have a precedent for this, but I can't find an example of the host managing to kill a tulpa without believing that it would work either.

 

But the natural process of thoughts, as it is with a building, is to difuse/corrose itself with time, unless you are constantly repairing it. Thoughts, unless you use a lot of them, won't be just as solid as cement. Even a building, without repairs to it's structure, will eventually collapse.

'Thoughts' are completely non-persistent anyway. They don't dissipate, they just stop because that's how all thoughts happen. If you're talking about neural pathways, that doesn't apply here.

I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say here, but I think it's wrong. If the tulpa can think for itself, then any 'thought repairing' (I don't even) could be done by the tulpa, no?

 

Yet the tulpa can only have so much power as the hosts gives to her. How much would be enough to make a person with years of thoughts/experiences/ideas/concepts/memories weaker than a tulpa? I'd say it would never enough, unless you work on your tulpa more than you actually live.

A tulpa's lifespan isn't the same as a host's. How long does it take for a human to be able to speak? Years. What about a tulpa? Months at most.

Besides which, the host can allocate as much control to the tulpa as they want, usually. Look at Oguigi and Koomer; if you take them seriously, the tulpa holds more power than the host there.

 

Then how could a tulpa, in your opinion, come to exist? You have to consciously put effort into reuniting thoughts to make a tulpa, that's undeniable. Either if they are concentrated, they are copies of your own thoughts or if you are actually taking your own thoughts out to make room for your tulpa, it doesn't matter. The fact is that you are consciously doing it yourself, and I don't see why the effort you put into creating something is strong enough to destroy yourself, considering that it only has as much energy as you could possibly give it, or be it, your own. Which means that the full potential of a tulpa, something we don't really see, would be to be as strong as the host, and never more.

Again, the power allocated isn't necessarily related to maturity. The host could potentially give their own control to the tulpa. It may be true that a tulpa may never naturally grow to be stronger than the host, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

It doesn't necessarily lead to this conclusion. I believe in the sentience and consciousness of tulpae, but not of their total independence. I'll try to make a metaphor to justify it. It will probably sound stupid, but I'm out of sleep and can't think of anything else.

 

Think of the host as a plant, and the mind as the soil. A tulpa would arise from a sprouting of the original plant, aka the host. As the tulpa grows, it becomes more and more independant, and grows her own roots into the soil. After that, the tulpa is almost independent, it never reaches full independence, despite that. The original connection she has with the host never ceases to exist, and the host's roots, being older, are bigger and are deeper into the soil. It doesn't matter how big or strong the tulpa gets, her own roots won't be able to sustain her weight and life, so she uses the hosts roots through the connection to be able to still grow and exist. If the connection is cut off in the early stages of existence, the tulpa dies fast. If it is in the later stages, the tulpa will eventually die, but will not be able to grow as big as with the connection. The tulpa can use her own roots to survive for a great period of time, but can't use them to grow, the only roots she can ever use to grow are the host's roots. The size of the plant would be it's power, and the roots it's ability to sustain itself, only the host would have the roots to make it grow, however. Just think of how tulpae are born and how hosts are. We have years to become what we are, yet the tulpa is practically completed after a few months. During the years we were bulding our roots and growing slowly. Tulpae only grow so fast because they use our own roots, and if they try to use theirs, they're not enough since they are so relatively small compared to their size. So, in the end, the roots is basically not only the ability to survive as a consciousness, but the own power of the consciousness. A tulpa grows too fast only because she uses our roots, and our roots can only serve her as much as they serve ourselves. If the tulpa wants to "dissipate" the host, she would have to cut this roots somehow, yet she would eventually die in the process, too.

 

A tulpa would never be able to grow stronger than the host unless she came first into existance, by this definition, and it only have full independence if the tulpa grew as slow as we do, which is not what happens as of now.

The view assumes non-conscious tulpas not because they are not independent - that I can get. The point is how you define the tulpa in the first pace. For sure, a tulpa couuld be sentient and not independent. But it couldn't be thoughts/beliefs/memories and putting them together until it becames something so rich and deep that it is able to express itself as a consciousnes"

and sentient, because that alone wouldn't be sentient, for reasons I've stated above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But do you think that if you ignore Roswell for the rest of your life, he wouldn't go away? If he would be absorbed by the mind, dissipated or whatever I don't know, but there is a limit to independence, right?

 

I'm going to have to interupt your thing here because I hate leaving unanswered questions. In case you actually wanted an answer.

 

Simple answer? I don't know. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me, so I don't assume shit. I would have to experience it first to know and uh yeah, I don't think we want to test this.

 

But taking a wild guess and putting the experiences I've had to use? Well, would be pretty difficult to ignore him when he says something, especially if it's helpful. He reminds me of something, do I have to completely ignore his words for it to be ignoring enough or what? Do the exact opposite of what he says? Seems like complete ignoring is pretty close to impossible if he decides he wants to talk to me if it means I can't act on his words in any way, but if I don't do it and it's still in my mind, I'm still not ignoring it, am I?

 

That is if he still keeps doing what he always does. If he wanted to disappear then well, I guess he would be quiet and all I could do is try to ignore him and not talk to him. If he was against it though? That would be pretty tricky. Those tests of him forcefully pushing me away and taking control have been freaky enough for me to ask him to stop, because it has been so strong. And freaky. If he really didn't want to die and would do anything to fight against it? Well, not sure if he even thinks he would die if I just ignored him, he could probably just look through my eyes anyways like he often does and just stay alive but quietly or something, or if he would like... Decide that's boring and take over. Like I said, tries where I don't give up control have been pretty goddamn strong, so I might very well lose if we keep at it and he thinks I'm some fucked up murderer for even trying to off him.

 

He's a doormat and he's not vey crazy, but if I go ahead and tell him I'm trying to kill him, I wouldn't be too surprised if he did go psycho when it comes to preserving his own life. Or maybe he would understand and decide to do it himself somehow, fuck if I know, but seemed like the question asked about a forced one where I didn't ask about if he wanted to live or not.

 

Sounding crazy enough yet?


The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A random thought I had.

 

My idea and it might not fit in this thread is that there is no switching. Much like being hypnotised you believe you take on the tulpas traits. And you image the tulpa as you. Since you believe the tulpa is you it thinks and acts like you think you would as a tulpa. And since the mind thinks the one in control is the tulpa, it unrepresses the memories from the consiousness it believes belong to it.

 

Like how with pony hypnosis and trigger words I can switch between being a horse and a human. Only now its personalty AND memory changes.

 

If you believe you can break the pony hypnosis and with effort you are able to unlock your fingers from being hooves.

 

 

TL:DR version

 

Consiousness is still you

Tulpa is still Tulpa

 

You've just tricked your mind into making you think you are a tulpa. And the tulpa is tricked into thinking it is you.

 

You can be hypnotised to think you are any other person or animal. Why not a tulpa? And Tulpas know/believe largly what you do. Memories can be made up by the mind near instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, but most people think that the mind and the body is not "mine" but "me". So it automatically leads to the conclusion that if someone takes control of the body, I'm not the dominant personality anymore. Which I think is bullshit.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Philosophical question of the day: what part of me am I?


Tulpa: Sierra

Forcing since July 2012

Couguhl’s Progress Report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ignore your tulpa all you want, but I don't think it would kill a mature tulpa unless you thought it would. I realise I don't have a precedent for this, but I can't find an example of the host managing to kill a tulpa without believing that it would work either.

 

That's why belief is a key in the matter. If a host lost all memory regarding his tulpa, would he even be able to hear his tulpa again? Or if the host's memory from the tulpa is "erased", so is the tulpa? Or maybe the tulpa would still exist, but would be unable to reach the host, and then would most likely fade away? What would even happen if a tulpa erases her own memory from the host, if it's even possible?

 

My answer to all that would be: The tulpa would either not exist/not be able to (she would stay conscious of herself and you, but not be able to communicate or "do" anything at all despite thinking, or she would still be able to talk to you and then you would think you are crazy. Which means I really can't say. What I can say is that I believe that the hosts belief in tulpas is a key for the tulpa to exist, for without it, the tulpa wouldn't be able to act. Why? Well, if it was necessary for the tulpa to come to existance, then why would it not be necessary for it to continue existing? I mean, it is possible that it isn't, but it's just less likely.

 

'Thoughts' are completely non-persistent anyway. They don't dissipate, they just stop because that's how all thoughts happen. If you're talking about neural pathways, that doesn't apply here.

I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say here, but I think it's wrong. If the tulpa can think for itself, then any 'thought repairing' (I don't even) could be done by the tulpa, no?

You are talking about how thoughts actually are. I'm talking about how we perceive thoughts. If you think regularly of something, you will "build" a memory of it (Which is what I say to talk about how we remember things). If you ignore thoughts about this thing (supposing you are able to)/thoughts about this thing doesn't come to your mind, then you will forget about it. Of course, it takes time to forget about something that isn't deeply 'printed' on your mind, like that one childhood memory you never forget, and it is really hard to forget about it. It doesn't mean it is impossible, however.

 

any 'thought repairing' (I don't even) could be done by the tulpa, no?

 

Hmm, no. Let's say that you have a machine (brain/mind) and only you can turn it on (basically, use it). You can turn it on for a friend (tulpa) and the friend can use the machine too, you both can use it at the same time. This makes the tulpa think for itself, it is using your machine with your permission, but it doesn't make your tulpa not the one that thinks, does it? If anything, it makes the tulpa think.

That's just a metaphor to explain that if a tulpa is dependent to the host it doesn't necessarily means that the tulpa doesn't "think for itself". It does think, you are not consciously doing it for her (and there isn't any subconscious parroting, so...), but you have to allow your tulpa first.

 

A tulpa's lifespan isn't the same as a host's. How long does it take for a human to be able to speak? Years. What about a tulpa? Months at most.

I talk about this subject later.

 

Besides which, the host can allocate as much control to the tulpa as they want, usually. Look at Oguigi and Koomer; if you take them seriously, the tulpa holds more power than the host there.

 

Regarding the control of the body, yes. But Koomer hasn't tried enough to break control, since he doesn't want it. The only thing I remember was when he tried to bruteforce control and managed to move a finger, and after his tulpa regained control, he gave up. It doesn't mean he couldn't take control again, if he wanted it. I'd say that if a host really wants his body back, the tulpa can only delay his return.

 

Again, the power allocated isn't necessarily related to maturity. The host could potentially give their own control to the tulpa. It may be true that a tulpa may never naturally grow to be stronger than the host, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

Let me put it that way, then: You have 100% "mind power" (don't judge me for saying this, lol) and your tulpa has 0% at the stage in which she isn't sentient. You can consciously provide your tulpa 'mind power'. What matters is that if you are actually giving something 'mind power', you are, by definition, acquiring it yourself. Just think about it. Even if it is your own mind power, you would be copying it and giving it to your tulpa. If it is from another source (a non-conscious one), you would be taking it, splitting it/multiplying by 2 and giving yourself and your tulpa the same amount. So you would end with, at most, 50,000...1 if this were to continue eternally, of the total 'mind power' avaiable. Why? Because independently of how a tulpa originates and where it is located, the only thoughts/memories/ideas you could have ever put into her would be first considered/interpreted/thought by yourself. But then you could say that later she would be able to acquire/use/manipulate thoughts herself, right? The same way as a tulpa can always hear what the host is thinking if she wants to, so should the host. The difference is that it is hard for us to be able to read her thoughts without her intention and differenciate them from ours. When we define our tulpas, we also try to differenciate her the harder we can, until her voice is clearly difference from ours, don't we? That's the process of stopping to hear your tulpas mind as you do with yours and hearing it as hers, only when she wants to. It means that even if we are not aware of her thoughts, everytime she thinks something this thought, even if ignored, crosses our mind. And don't you tell that this makes her not able to think for herself, because our own thoughts crosses our tulpa's minds all the time, except when they are ignoring/not listening to it.

 

And about it being impossible, it can't be said it is impossible (I think), but I don't believe it is what happens, which doesn't mean that I can't be wrong. I do believe I could be wrong, so I don't believe it is impossible for a tulpa to grow stronger than the host, only that it is very unlikely.

 

 

 

The view assumes non-conscious tulpas not because they are not independent - that I can get. The point is how you define the tulpa in the first pace. For sure, a tulpa couuld be sentient and not independent. But it couldn't be thoughts/beliefs/memories and putting them together until it becames something so rich and deep that it is able to express itself as a consciousnes"

and sentient, because that alone wouldn't be sentient, for reasons I've stated above.

"for reasons I've stated above." You mean the dedicated structure? Think of the structure as the machine I used as a metaphor before. Why can't the machine be shared? Just because a consciousness needs a dedicated structure, it doesn't means it can't be shared, does it?


I'm going to have to interupt your thing here because I hate leaving unanswered questions. In case you actually wanted an answer.

I do.

 

Simple answer? I don't know. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me, so I don't assume shit. I would have to experience it first to know and uh yeah, I don't think we want to test this.

Obviously. It just makes me wonder, though.

 

But taking a wild guess and putting the experiences I've had to use? Well, would be pretty difficult to ignore him when he says something, especially if it's helpful. He reminds me of something, do I have to completely ignore his words for it to be ignoring enough or what? Do the exact opposite of what he says? Seems like complete ignoring is pretty close to impossible if he decides he wants to talk to me if it means I can't act on his words in any way, but if I don't do it and it's still in my mind, I'm still not ignoring it, am I?

 

I'd say that the best method to ignore a tulpa would be to think that her/his voice is your own, so if you disagree with the voice, you are only arguing with yourself within your mind, having a dialogue with your own. If you do this enough, you should eventually be able to believe that the voice is your own (the same way once you made yourself think it isn't, when you were creating him). Don't call me an ass because I'm assuming things. I'm not saying this is what will happen, I'm saying that if my beliefs are correct, then this COULD happen.

 

That is if he still keeps doing what he always does. If he wanted to disappear then well, I guess he would be quiet and all I could do is try to ignore him and not talk to him. If he was against it though? That would be pretty tricky. Those tests of him forcefully pushing me away and taking control have been freaky enough for me to ask him to stop, because it has been so strong. And freaky. If he really didn't want to die and would do anything to fight against it? Well, not sure if he even thinks he would die if I just ignored him, he could probably just look through my eyes anyways like he often does and just stay alive but quietly or something, or if he would like... Decide that's boring and take over. Like I said, tries where I don't give up control have been pretty goddamn strong, so I might very well lose if we keep at it and he thinks I'm some fucked up murderer for even trying to off him.

 

I imagine. Maybe bruteforcing control is more a question of experience than anything else. Or maybe it is a matter of belief (I believe my tulpa is more powerful than me/as powerful/really powerful and then my tulpa is able to take control. I don't think I should take any wild guesses about this.

 

He's a doormat and he's not vey crazy, but if I go ahead and tell him I'm trying to kill him, I wouldn't be too surprised if he did go psycho when it comes to preserving his own life. Or maybe he would understand and decide to do it himself somehow, fuck if I know, but seemed like the question asked about a forced one where I didn't ask about if he wanted to live or not.

 

I know that if you would ever want to do it, he would understand. I also know that it won't ever come to this point between you two.

 

Sounding crazy enough yet?

Less than most people on this community, so, you're cool.


A random thought I had.

 

My idea and it might not fit in this thread is that there is no switching. Much like being hypnotised you believe you take on the tulpas traits. And you image the tulpa as you. Since you believe the tulpa is you it thinks and acts like you think you would as a tulpa. And since the mind thinks the one in control is the tulpa, it unrepresses the memories from the consiousness it believes belong to it.

 

Like how with pony hypnosis and trigger words I can switch between being a horse and a human. Only now its personalty AND memory changes.

 

If you believe you can break the pony hypnosis and with effort you are able to unlock your fingers from being hooves.

 

 

TL:DR version

 

Consiousness is still you

Tulpa is still Tulpa

 

You've just tricked your mind into making you think you are a tulpa. And the tulpa is tricked into thinking it is you.

 

You can be hypnotised to think you are any other person or animal. Why not a tulpa? And Tulpas know/believe largly what you do. Memories can be made up by the mind near instantly.

 

"Tricking" would be just an unpolite term for what happens, really. If you believe you have switched, then you do. If you believe you have a tulpa, then you do. I believe it is that simple. As I discussed/am discussing with waffles, this perspective doesn't make a tulpa not-conscious, it just makes her dependent of your beliefs. The point is how you could/if it is possible to stop believing rather than if this would make a tulpa fade away.


My thoughts exactly.

 

Good to know I'm not the only one that think this.

 

Philosophical question of the day: what part of me am I?

 

The part responsible for asking this question.

I think...

 


I'm brazilian and my english is not really good, I'll do every mistake you imagine, but I'll try to avoid them.

 

Tulpa: Kuruminha

Age: Began on the middle of october.

Form: My avatar.

Sentience: Confirmed.

Mindvoice: Not yet.

Working on: Visualization and Mindspeaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's why belief is a key in the matter. If a host lost all memory regarding his tulpa, would he even be able to hear his tulpa again? Or if the host's memory from the tulpa is "erased", so is the tulpa? Or maybe the tulpa would still exist, but would be unable to reach the host, and then would most likely fade away? What would even happen if a tulpa erases her own memory from the host, if it's even possible?

 

My answer to all that would be: The tulpa would either not exist/not be able to (she would stay conscious of herself and you, but not be able to communicate or "do" anything at all despite thinking, or she would still be able to talk to you and then you would think you are crazy. Which means I really can't say. What I can say is that I believe that the hosts belief in tulpas is a key for the tulpa to exist, for without it, the tulpa wouldn't be able to act. Why? Well, if it was necessary for the tulpa to come to existance, then why would it not be necessary for it to continue existing? I mean, it is possible that it isn't, but it's just less likely.

Well, a common definition of well-developed might be 'with hallucinatory voice'. That kind of communication is hard to miss, really. As for the tulpa existing;

Well, if it was necessary for the tulpa to come to existance, then why would it not be necessary for it to continue existing?

That's nonsense. I haven't narrated to my tulpa in months, or done personality, and my tulpa still exists. Besides that, belief isn't as relevant as you think. Yes, belief can effect creation time. But it's far from uncommon (at least, it wasn't) for creators to go into the process not expecting anything really, and still getting results.

 

If you think regularly of something, you will "build" a memory of it (Which is what I say to talk about how we remember things).

Sort of, but now you're just describing memory formation.

 

If you ignore thoughts about this thing (supposing you are able to)/thoughts about this thing doesn't come to your mind, then you will forget about it. Of course, it takes time to forget about something that isn't deeply 'printed' on your mind, like that one childhood memory you never forget, and it is really hard to forget about it. It doesn't mean it is impossible, however.

I think my tulpa's well imprinted onto my mind. What with the "It never goes away and I've been talking to it constantly for months", I'm not going to forget about my tulpa anytime soon. But now this isn't even relevant, because what does your memory have to do with it anyway?

 

Hmm, no. Let's say that you have a machine (brain/mind) and only you can turn it on (basically, use it). You can turn it on for a friend (tulpa) and the friend can use the machine too, you both can use it at the same time. This makes the tulpa think for itself, it is using your machine with your permission, but it doesn't make your tulpa not the one that thinks, does it? If anything, it makes the tulpa think.

That's just a metaphor to explain that if a tulpa is dependent to the host it doesn't necessarily means that the tulpa doesn't "think for itself". It does think, you are not consciously doing it for her (and there isn't any subconscious parroting, so...), but you have to allow your tulpa first.

Who says that only you can turn it on? The brain works without you being conscious; it's obvious that you aren't really in control of your own brain.

 

Regarding the control of the body, yes. But Koomer hasn't tried enough to break control, since he doesn't want it. The only thing I remember was when he tried to bruteforce control and managed to move a finger, and after his tulpa regained control, he gave up. It doesn't mean he couldn't take control again, if he wanted it. I'd say that if a host really wants his body back, the tulpa can only delay his return.

But that's just complete speculation on your part. That sounds to me like Koomer isn't really in control anyway, if all he could manage was a finger; then again, I'm not so sure about that whole stunt.

 

Let me put it that way, then: You have 100% "mind power" (don't judge me for saying this, lol) and your tulpa has 0% at the stage in which she isn't sentient. You can consciously provide your tulpa 'mind power'. What matters is that if you are actually giving something 'mind power', you are, by definition, acquiring it yourself. Just think about it. Even if it is your own mind power, you would be copying it and giving it to your tulpa. If it is from another source (a non-conscious one), you would be taking it, splitting it/multiplying by 2 and giving yourself and your tulpa the same amount. So you would end with, at most, 50,000...1 if this were to continue eternally, of the total 'mind power' avaiable. Why? Because independently of how a tulpa originates and where it is located, the only thoughts/memories/ideas you could have ever put into her would be first considered/interpreted/thought by yourself. But then you could say that later she would be able to acquire/use/manipulate thoughts herself, right? The same way as a tulpa can always hear what the host is thinking if she wants to, so should the host. The difference is that it is hard for us to be able to read her thoughts without her intention and differenciate them from ours. When we define our tulpas, we also try to differenciate her the harder we can, until her voice is clearly difference from ours, don't we? That's the process of stopping to hear your tulpas mind as you do with yours and hearing it as hers, only when she wants to. It means that even if we are not aware of her thoughts, everytime she thinks something this thought, even if ignored, crosses our mind. And don't you tell that this makes her not able to think for herself, because our own thoughts crosses our tulpa's minds all the time, except when they are ignoring/not listening to it.

And what is this 'mind power'? I don't remember giving my tulpa 'mind power'. This sounds completely contrived.

 

"for reasons I've stated above." You mean the dedicated structure? Think of the structure as the machine I used as a metaphor before. Why can't the machine be shared? Just because a consciousness needs a dedicated structure, it doesn't means it can't be shared, does it?

So then your tulpa is occupying part of your own executive structure. Then you can't just magic it away with belief, can you? I sure can't directly interface with neural structures. The point is that there would be structure behind a tulpa and that makes it solid.

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.