Switching Hypothesis

Bluesleeve · January 15, 2013

Perhaps it is a bit late to enter this discussion, but I will anyway.

First off, some thoughts on the Analogy you mentioned, motorheadlk. Sure, it is nice to think of the mind and the host as soil and plants, but that isn't getting us anywhere because it is not the actual thing we are talking about. We could talk about plants and leaves as well, or of an animal and its offspring, or a cloud and its rain. The point is, it's not going to get us anywhere, and using it as an argument is ridiculous.

That Tulpas are a 'consciousness' or 'sentient' is a belief, even if it is mentioned on the first page of Tulpa.info. It is another belief, that a Tulpa is not conscious and 'unsentient', not a 'being'. If one likes to think so, he can, but he should also be aware that his opinion is not more belief than the other. Let's get away from the completely obvious.

There are some points which aren't stressed enough, and waffles already mentioned one of them:

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.

How can a belief affect a consciousness up to the point it disappears?

We know this isn't possible with 'our' consciousness, if we were to believe that a Tulpa is something close to a consciousness.

So, what can a Tulpa be?

We can agree, that a Tulpa displays the same qualities as a person when possessing the host's body, but still has to be maintained by the host. It's the same case as with switching, but so far I only know of one single person, who has performed this ominous switching everyone keeps talking about, but no one has achieved, not even Oguigi.

What is the host? Is the host the consciousness itself, or is it something referred to as an 'identity', a pattern of thought, which is going to affect the body's actions. The second is more appropriate, since a consciousness only exists, but does not have any other attributes to it.

So far we can assume, that every body has at least one consciousness, whether it does not have the ability to sense anything or not. Simply because a body is built the way it is, there is a consciousness brought into being.

Now, we know that we need at least one consciousness and one identity for the body to act like a person. One consciousness is always there, because that's how the brain works. One consciousness without an identity is not going to do anything but exist.

The thing with identities is, that there can be several in a person. Several behavioral patterns for a consciousness are completely possible, multiple consciousnesses are more complicated, since these might actually interfere with each other, assuming there are physical prerequisites to them.

What so wrong to assume a Tulpa is nothing more than an identity? It would be completely logical, and the most likely possibility, because a consciousness does not exist out of will, but because it has to.

Choosing to not assume an identity is the equivalent of ignoring a Tulpa.

Choosing to act like a Tulpa identity would be the equivalent of possession (or 'switching')

Choosing to 'delete' memories would be to choosing to ignore these memories-- not associating them with your identity. etc.

Those people who thin of Tulpas as consciousnesses are the ones to use the analogies. Of course they do, it is a very romanticized view on this topic, but from a logical standpoint it is the most unlikely.

It is highly unlikely such a thing as 'severing your connection' to your senses, or going into the unconscious happens. It is the pure belief and indoctrinating oneself because you choose to believe such things. They are perceived as true by you, but only because you chose to believe them.

When people choose to create an identity which you think is 'conscious' of course it will say it is, because that's how the identity is believed to be. If someone were to create a Tulpa identity, and believes it is an illusion, the Tulpa will answer it is one.

motorheadlk, to come back to your original hypothesis concerning switching. To put it nicely, it is something you chose to believe, but it is constructed around the reports of this forums, not by logical thought. I suggest you get your tulpa to speak first, and you might have a different outlook on all these things mentioned, including your hypothesis.

Sands · January 15, 2013

It's the same case as with switching, but so far I only know of one single person, who has performed this ominous switching everyone keeps talking about, but no one has achieved, not even Oguigi.

I wonder why Kooma and Weegee always get brought up when all they do is possession, which ain't that big of a deal these days and the tupper taking the main control of the body isn't that new either. They're the most infamous, huh?

As for people who have done switching and I have heard of and can believe in? Atasco and Tristan, Maria and Valdo (maybe the other tupper as well), Onicron and Shy(?) (and probably the other tupper(s)?), Fuliam and what's-his/her-face, and now me and the derp. There's more, but like hell I can think of any right now. I can tell you that it sure was a thing when I accidentally zoned out that first time and became totally unaware or anything, yet the body still kept going. Like I was unconscious. And that's when how the way to do it properly clicked.

motorheadlk · January 17, 2013

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;

Why would the hallucination remain if your brain doesn't have any connection to it's origin anymore?

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.

While that is true, there is a thought I once read from Pinkamena, about how closely tulpaforcing resembles to building your belief and even believing you believe in tulpae, rather than creating or building someone. The fact is that no one that believed that tulpae were impossible to exist would ever even try to tulpaforce, because it would be pointless, unless he does think that it might be possible. I mean that there are levels of belief, from "impossible" to "possible" to "plausible to "proven". You could state that I'm reverting cause and effect, but I don't think so, because the only person I know that started really to question tulpae after he had one was Pinkamena, and at the same time his new tulpa started disappearing, and after he thougt: "Well, he must come back one time or another" his tulpa did. While this is anedoctal evidence, as you might add, it is the only evidence I acquired so far about the subject. I'd gladly look forward to any other you might possibly know. The question remains, what would happen if you stopped believing? Or even if you believe you have stopped believing?

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

In a very rough sense, yes.

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?

Because you're not the same that you were yesterday, right? Neither am I. And while "you" or "I" is a very dangerous term to use, it's the only way for you to understand it. If you had other memories, for example, you were born at a different house by different parents, grew up in a different neighborhood, at a different period of time... What I'm saying is, what we have in our memory does affect and define us, and as we live another day, they are changing, and us with them. That's why memory has to everything to do with it. Not only as we are conscious our memory do define us, but they should also define our tulpae. Every interaction (which means visualization, narration, personality work) builds memory. If then a consciousness needs memory to truly be a consciousness, then when we give traits, visualize and narrate, we are building memory from our own to our tulpae, before they can make them themselves. That means that, to some extent, they are made out of our memories, and hell if I know what would happen if our memories were to be erased.

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.

You made someone have the power to turn it on, so how come you don't have the power to do it? You are a conscious being and to what we know, you are the only one UNTIL you create another.

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.

Yup. If you care enough to read his progress report, it gets from a love story from the loser guy meeting his princess to a horror movie, IMHO. Buuuut, he wanted it, so...

For what matters here, is that their case isn't at all useful for any purpose to this discussion other than making it longer. It could be used by both opposites of this discussion to try and disprove the other. It just doesn't point to any side, like Pinkamena report does.

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

Meh. How would you define your level of control of your own and your mind, other than this stupid expression? Mind control? Because it's worse. And about what it is, I thought I made it clear, but let me try to explain it further then. When you are able to puppet and parrot your tulpa as you wish, there is a clear possessive-submissive relationship. It changes when they are/become a tulpa, because you can't do everything that you wish with/to her. That means that to some extent the difference between your "mind powers", for the lack of a better term, is now smaller. And tulpae evolve, to the point where they can control our body with our permission, and eventually make it hard for us to take control back. That also means that the difference between the power of our consciousness, regarding uses of the mind are now almost equivalent. But the point is that, if I'm correct, they can never be completely equal. Almost, but not completely. The thing with the plant-soil metaphor is that a tulpa can't outgrow the owner of the body, even if the tulpa is in complete control of the body, because that would mean that our minds are completely separate, as if, by your own definitions, these material connections couldn't be destroyed, and if I'm right, if somehow they were, the tulpa wouldn't be able to survive as a consciousness anymore, for her access to the level of a consciousness that the host gave to her would be lost in the process.

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.

Well, I think that you also know that memories are basically connections your brain makes, right? That's basic, of course you know. But we have seen constantly people claiming that their tulpae were able erase/modify memories from them. (See the thread Memory modifying/erasing from purlox). If they were actually erased/modified or the access to them was lost, it doesn't matter, really. This is what Pleeb likes to call "Tulpa Magic", along with possession and I guess imposition, too. So yes, basically, we're talking about magic'n it away, as stupid as it might sound. And about "I sure can't directly interface with neural structures", well, yes. But what if you believed you could? That's why belief matters after all, Onicron for one already claimed that he could himself erase some memories. If you believed that a memory is gone, wouldn't it be the same as saying that your brain believes it can't access the memory anymore? So, basically, belief matters, a lot. In everything here.

"Treat as sentient before sentience".

Perhaps it is a bit late to enter this discussion, but I will anyway.

Welcome aboard.

First off, some thoughts on the Analogy you mentioned, motorheadlk. Sure, it is nice to think of the mind and the host as soil and plants, but that isn't getting us anywhere because it is not the actual thing we are talking about. We could talk about plants and leaves as well, or of an animal and its offspring, or a cloud and its rain. The point is, it's not going to get us anywhere, and using it as an argument is ridiculous.

It isn't, as I'm not trying to prove anything is right HERE, I'm only trying to explain how it is possible, or how it doesn't contradicts itself. If the metaphor works as an analogy for the fact that "not-independent" and "conscious" aren't mutually excludent, then so be it. It is easier to explain it that way, even if they do look too simple. It's a shame I couldn't explain/you guys couldn't understand it in another way.

That Tulpas are a 'consciousness' or 'sentient' is a belief, even if it is mentioned on the first page of Tulpa.info. It is another belief, that a Tulpa is not conscious and 'unsentient', not a 'being'. If one likes to think so, he can, but he should also be aware that his opinion is not more belief than the other. Let's get away from the completely obvious.

As you wish.

There are some points which aren't stressed enough, and waffles already mentioned one of them:
How can a belief affect a consciousness up to the point it disappears?

If the consciousness is based up on another, and the connection to the base is severed, the tulpa wouldn't be able to use it anymore as it would normally, thus either it would not be able to exist (dissipation) or it would not be able to "do", which means the only thing the tulpa would possible be able to do would be to talk to herself, but not communicate or interfere with anything other than herself, maybe instantly, maybe after a long period.

We know this isn't possible with 'our' consciousness, if we were to believe that a Tulpa is something close to a consciousness.
So, what can a Tulpa be?

I believe there are traumas that made people lose their sanity/consciousness, so, yes, it is possible.

For what can a tulpa be, well, a consciousness, or at least it's what I believe.

We can agree, that a Tulpa displays the same qualities as a person when possessing the host's body, but still has to be maintained by the host. It's the same case as with switching, but so far I only know of one single person, who has performed this ominous switching everyone keeps talking about, but no one has achieved, not even Oguigi.

And yet people are already shouting everywhere that the tulpa becomes the host and the host becomes the tulpa in every sense of the words.

What is the host? Is the host the consciousness itself, or is it something referred to as an 'identity', a pattern of thought, which is going to affect the body's actions. The second is more appropriate, since a consciousness only exists, but does not have any other attributes to it.

A consciousness only exists, doesn't have any atributes to it? What do you mean by it? Ain't subjectivity, self-consciousness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between itself and the environment attributes of a consciousness?

So far we can assume, that every body has at least one consciousness, whether it does not have the ability to sense anything or not. Simply because a body is built the way it is, there is a consciousness brought into being.

And here I thought I would be the one assuming more in here. I do assume that everyone has a consciousness, but for reasons I have already discussed with waffles before, I can't believe on a consciousness without past interactions, or how I said at the last discussion: One can't think if he has nothing to think of. I think you're a smart guy, you act like one at least, so do me a favor and don't make me explain what I mean by that phrase, I think it is as clear as it can be. Just in case though, remember, almost everything we are able to think comes into words, either written, visualized, audible, and some comes into images. If one never had any external contact/experience/input in his life, then, without previous input, how he would be able to think? Since he has nothing to think of, even if there was some kind of miraculous pineal gland where the consciousness takes place, thinking of nothing wouldn't be the same as thinking as a consciousness, as thinking of nothing would be the same as not thinking at all.

Now, we know that we need at least one consciousness and one identity for the body to act like a person. One consciousness is always there, because that's how the brain works. One consciousness without an identity is not going to do anything but exist.

Or an identity would be created in the process of "existing", but go on. I'm all ears.

The thing with identities is, that there can be several in a person. Several behavioral patterns for a consciousness are completely possible, multiple consciousnesses are more complicated, since these might actually interfere with each other, assuming there are physical prerequisites to them.
What so wrong to assume a Tulpa is nothing more than an identity? It would be completely logical, and the most likely possibility, because a consciousness does not exist out of will, but because it has to.

I'm not neglecting any possibility her. I don't currently think of any severe implication for what calling a tulpa an identity would be, except that you are separating ourselves from the consciousness. When you say that "I am", you're talking about your own consciousness, but you seem to think that the "I am" is but an identity, which would mean that you think that "we" are not THE consciousness, but a separate thing, right?

Choosing to not assume an identity is the equivalent of ignoring a Tulpa.
Choosing to act like a Tulpa identity would be the equivalent of possession (or 'switching')
Choosing to 'delete' memories would be to choosing to ignore these memories-- not associating them with your identity. etc.

It does sound possible, yes.

Those people who thin of Tulpas as consciousnesses are the ones to use the analogies. Of course they do, it is a very romanticized view on this topic, but from a logical standpoint it is the most unlikely.
It is highly unlikely such a thing as 'severing your connection' to your senses, or going into the unconscious happens. It is the pure belief and indoctrinating oneself because you choose to believe such things. They are perceived as true by you, but only because you chose to believe them.

It almost looks like you are trying to insult me by saying I am right. Seriously, I do believe that the belief is what makes every tulpa-magic work. That's why there are so many guides and ways to tulpaforce and do everything, whatever feels the most confortable is the one that is going to work best, because you think that it is going to, and then you believe, and ta-da, it does. I got to remember to talk with LucidAcid about this, too, he probably knows some substance to make you believe in things you say to yourself easier.

But when you say that a tulpa being a consciousness is very unlikely, I don't think you are actually meaning the same thing that we are, really. I mean, you are talking about a consciousness without attributes? It is almost like you are talking about the unconscious, actually. You know, the one that does everything for us except

part of

the thinking?

When people choose to create an identity which you think is 'conscious' of course it will say it is, because that's how the identity is believed to be. If someone were to create a Tulpa identity, and believes it is an illusion, the Tulpa will answer it is one.

I think Fede's tulpas believe they are consciousness though.

Just a joke. I agree with you on this one, at least on the matter of how to tell apart conscious from not-conscious. I just believe that they are for belief is important. And what do you know, it might be right.

motorheadlk, to come back to your original hypothesis concerning switching. To put it nicely, it is something you chose to believe, but it is constructed around the reports of this forums, not by logical thought. I suggest you get your tulpa to speak first, and you might have a different outlook on all these things mentioned, including your hypothesis.

Yeah, I'm figuring it out at my own pace.

A really slow one.

If I'm going to change my mind about it, I don't know, probably not, I'm going to discuss this thing with her until she's convinced that I might be right.

I wonder why Kooma and Weegee always get brought up when all they do is possession, which ain't that big of a deal these days and the tupper taking the main control of the body isn't that new either. They're the most infamous, huh?

I think that's kind of my fault. When the tulpa thing was starting to get popular at /mlp/, I mentioned their progress report thread and my sad/angry post about how Oguigi was trying to take his body forever (I mentioned it very early, before it was visible, really) and how he was blind by love enough that he couldn't see it. In the end, I gave up, but people kept replying to me in his thread and the last post I made was about not replying and if someone wanted to discuss it further, leave me a PM. In the end, he reported me, and someone deleted my post and that's how I am 20%

warned.

cooler. But I didn't do it as a revenge though, as it occured way before he had even replied to my posts. I was just mentioning it at /mlp, and then a guy called spiderbro was sick about it and Fede was calling him a pussy, and everyone was disgusted, basically.

Maybe, just maybe it has to do with this. Who knows.

Sands · January 17, 2013

...there is a thought I once read from Pinkamena...

Pinkamena's pretty crazy though, I'd take everything he says with a grain of salt. Well, you should take everything we say with a grain of salt, but make his bigger, okay?

As for Koomer, I'll just leave this here, my favorite image with him and I want to share my joy:

When it comes to them, belief doesn't seem to be everything. You'd think that with their "belief" and the stuff they say, a lot more would've happened but they just don't work on it enough. Makes me wonder. But that's a story for another day and it's a story I've already told somewhere and this site is pretty dead, so...

motorheadlk · January 17, 2013

Pinkamena's pretty crazy though, I'd take everything he says with a grain of salt. Well, you should take everything we say with a grain of salt, but make his bigger, okay?

As for Koomer, I'll just leave this here, my favorite image with him and I want to share my joy:

When it comes to them, belief doesn't seem to be everything. You'd think that with their "belief" and the stuff they say, a lot more would've happened but they just don't work on it enough. Makes me wonder. But that's a story for another day and it's a story I've already told somewhere and this site is pretty dead, so...

He is, but as weird as what he say is, it does make sense. But I do think that belief is relevant even for them, it's something hard to prove though.

waffles · January 17, 2013

Why would the hallucination remain if your brain doesn't have any connection to it's origin anymore?

That was more a point for "tulpa could exist but lose communication".

While that is true, there is a thought I once read from Pinkamena, about how closely tulpaforcing resembles to building your belief and even believing you believe in tulpae, rather than creating or building someone. The fact is that no one that believed that tulpae were impossible to exist would ever even try to tulpaforce, because it would be pointless, unless he does think that it might be possible. I mean that there are levels of belief, from "impossible" to "possible" to "plausible to "proven". You could state that I'm reverting cause and effect, but I don't think so, because the only person I know that started really to question tulpae after he had one was Pinkamena, and at the same time his new tulpa started disappearing, and after he thougt: "Well, he must come back one time or another" his tulpa did. While this is anedoctal evidence, as you might add, it is the only evidence I acquired so far about the subject. I'd gladly look forward to any other you might possibly know. The question remains, what would happen if you stopped believing? Or even if you believe you have stopped believing?

You shouldn't put so much faith in any one person's words, especially Pinkamena.

Look, I keep saying this, but belief isn't as big a deal as you think. Plenty of people went into the process sceptical and came out with a tulpa. That means their belief was "I'm not sure if it's possible" and they still made a tulpa. Oh, and another thing. You shouldn't be so vague about "believing in your tulpa". You have to believe in some aspect of the phenomenon; that something, be it your own delusion or whatever, is speaking to you.

Because you're not the same that you were yesterday, right? Neither am I. And while "you" or "I" is a very dangerous term to use, it's the only way for you to understand it. If you had other memories, for example, you were born at a different house by different parents, grew up in a different neighborhood, at a different period of time... What I'm saying is, what we have in our memory does affect and define us, and as we live another day, they are changing, and us with them. That's why memory has to everything to do with it. Not only as we are conscious our memory do define us, but they should also define our tulpae. Every interaction (which means visualization, narration, personality work) builds memory. If then a consciousness needs memory to truly be a consciousness, then when we give traits, visualize and narrate, we are building memory from our own to our tulpae, before they can make them themselves. That means that, to some extent, they are made out of our memories, and hell if I know what would happen if our memories were to be erased.

That's called amnesia. It happens a lot. SPOILER:

they live

. I can't say for sure, but I don't think there's a major shift in personality after onset of amnesia.