"Accidental" tulpa theories.

[tania]

I'll stick with A as the common source of accidental or unintentional tulpa while C is basically naming those less than a week old tulpa that the host absolutely believes in.... and that others don't really like.

 

A, probably been around for a while.

C, those overly eager hosts with baby tulpa.

D, people need to pay more attention to what they are doing and recognize stray thoughts as just stray thoughts.

 

My first was a A and was created extremely fast. I think intensity of thoughts can be just as important as length of time it takes to unintentionly create.

 

In my case Im a very strong and intense thinker. If Im thinking about something intensely or which Im very interested in, I dont even much of the time notice a phone right beside me ringing (I miss hearing my mobile most of the time due to this thou I always have it near). Its like every ounce of my intention can be on the thing Im thinking of.

 

Something can take my interest first thing in the morning and I then can be aware its become dark/night and that Ive missed all my meals as I was so focused on something all day

 

So my theory is going to be that intense focus (with focus not lessening) over say an 8 hr period may create something quicker then being focused on something for 1hr at a time for 8 days, not thou due to the fact of 1 day being shorter then 8 days but maybe it could thou take like 16-30 days to get the same amount of energy going into something if doing it for 1 hr each day compaired to 8 completely focused hours straight?.

[waffles]

First a little theory, as I see it

 

I agree with a lot of this. The idea is, as I see what you've described, basically habituating responses until it becomes unconscious and instinctual; then it can be considered separate from you.

However, somewhere between your theory and its application, you've gone from "thoughts come from you and your tulpa" to "thoughts are generated by the brain at large and then claimed by either you or your tulpa". I want to highlight a specific passage:

 

Get some random off-the-wall reply, that's an intrusive thought, visualization derp or other sort of brainfart on your part.

[...]

But now the tulpa becomes conscious enough to make choices. You perceive some thoughts or emotions that you decide aren't yours. Meanwhile your tulpa perceives the same thoughts and decides they aren't theirs either. This is what I mean by "caught in between" you and your tulpa. The thought is neither of you. Enough of these that are consistent and they may form a second tulpa, in the same way as pushing thoughts away from yourself formed the first.

 

What does the tulpa's choice have to do with random thoughts suddenly becoming so significant? Before they were dismissed as "brainfarts" and so on, and do not come often enough to panic about; but now they are taken seriously, and come with persistence and consistence. How do they suddenly do this? Perhaps you really are saying that all thoughts are 'claimed' by personalities, which makes no sense. So I can only assume that you're taking the concept of 'intrusive thoughts' and speculating until it becomes a workable model that isn't actually workable.

 

That fundamental aside, I don't see how "pushing" thoughts away is applicable here. It's an unfortunate renaming of your theory on the top because it implies the usual silliness: that thoughts are tangible objects and can be manipulated as if they were balls rolling around your mind. But ignoring the name, the concept of automating thought that is initially generated by you is only applicable where the thought is you initially. These random thoughts are already separate from you, so why the dissociation? The jump to 'forming a tulpa' is highly inappropriate, I think, for that reason.

 

For what you said about 'rejected traits'; traits are guidelines and concepts. They are not entities in their own right, nor are they response generating by themselves. They need something to 'think by' them - that is, to use them as a guideline for generating responses, i.e. basing a personality on them. If a tulpa does not want this trait then it is already separate for wanting anything, and the maker would not be needing to do any 'thinking by' traits - that is, thinking about responding to something according to that trait.

 

---

 

Moose, I have no idea why you would say "I think that there are 3 ways" and think that I'm not going to point out additional ways. That you have apparently read a load of PRs and psychology textbooks only really makes it worse that you didn't write with them in mind. If you are talking about specific cases then don't expect me to read your mind and ascertain that you are, in fact, not talking about specifics, or to write a reply that takes into account the theory behind the case which you haven't posted. For so many incitations of discussion in your OP, you are remarkably cagey about actual discussion.

 

Let me expand on what I said about B. You're just saying that "well it's something in the mind that can talk" and that's it.

... it came from some other part of your mind. Some form of mental distress or lack of well-being, some sort of very strong subconcious desire, whatever it may be.

That could be anything. I don't know of any examples, again, but what I was getting at with hypnagogic voices was that these 'somethings' that apparently talk don't have to be sentient at the start. You just treat them like they are and then they are, which was what I was getting at.

[Moose]

Moose, I have no idea why you would say "I think that there are 3 ways" and think that I'm not going to point out additional ways. That you have apparently read a load of PRs and psychology textbooks only really makes it worse that you didn't write with them in mind. If you are talking about specific cases then don't expect me to read your mind and ascertain that you are, in fact, not talking about specifics, or to write a reply that takes into account the theory behind the case which you haven't posted. For so many incitations of discussion in your OP, you are remarkably cagey about actual discussion.

 

I didn't say I read a load of psychology textbooks. In fact, I told you not to assume I was saying I was a master or anything.

Regardless, I AM looking for you (or anyone) to point out additional ways. That was kind of the point of this topic.

Oh, and cagey about actual discussion? Yeah, my bad, I was watching The Hobbit last night with tuppers, shortly after I posted the topic. Wanted to finish it before dawn, so I tried not to computer much. (still didn't finish it before dawn.)

 

Let me expand on what I said about B. You're just saying that "well it's something in the mind that can talk" and that's it.

That could be anything. I don't know of any examples, again, but what I was getting at with hypnagogic voices was that these 'somethings' that apparently talk don't have to be sentient at the start. You just treat them like they are and then they are, which was what I was getting at.

Then that wouldn't be a class B, that'd be class C.

(I think) I see your point though, there's not much of a way to distinguish for sure between the two.

---

First a little theory, as I see it:

 

In making a tulpa, you are essentially creating a dissociated personality. As you make a tulpa by whatever method, you take some of your thoughts (or make new thoughts) and "detach" them from yourself by convincing yourself they aren't yours. This is typically done by making a personality for them and talking to them endlessly. As you talk to them you automatically come up with potential replies based on the personality. These replies become more and more defined and you see them as less and less "just you". The more you not so much believe but assume and know that these replies and the thoughts behind them are not yours, the more you ignore the thoughts leading to the replies.

 

When the process is complete, you have a set of thoughts going on that run independently to your own, can observe and respond to things, follow their own personality, and generate vocal and other responses you can observe -- yet you are entirely unaware of what these thoughts are doing most of the time. The tulpa thought process can also be focused on doing some task and entirely ignore your thoughts. At this point, you have parallel processing. Learn to not pay attention to the body and let the tulpa thought process mind it for you, and you have switching. And so forth.

 

As some point along the way (I really don't know at what point), the tulpa becomes complex enough thought-wise to properly think. Now your tulpa is not just a few thoughts and automatic responses, but a thinking being who is quite arguably conscious in the same way you are.

 

By this theory, a tulpa is formed from thoughts that are pushed away from the host. Of course once pushed away and formed into a tulpa, they grow into so much more than what you directly made -- which is why a tulpa deviates more and more, becoming a more unique, different person from the host over time.

 

That's about how I've seen the process, along with something related to the mind's natural ability to simulate conversations in daydreaming. But nobody really talks about this way of thinking about tulpas... I suppose for the same reason I don't talk about it often, because new users can just see it and go "Oh, that's all? I'm out", without realizing the important part is what they become; or confusing some people in the beginning of the process and making them doubt and become frustrated until they ruin it for themselves. Of course, this wouldn't be ALL thoughtforms (or I wouldn't have suggested class B, obviously), considering various forms of natural "madness" exist, some other "tulpas" not directly created like this may just be some form of insanity that wouldn't have survived or been heard normally, but with someone open consciously and subconsciously to tulpas, they get through.

[Guest]

-----

[KenzieK]

Like me, a lot of people put a lot of focus on an imaginary friend when they were very young and it just kind of stuck around, the person not even knowing it's a tulpa or what a tulpa even is.

[KruegerMeister]

I'm a bit confused about the "malleable" thing. Is that only in regards to tulpas (ie, after imagining my blanket covering my sleeping tulpa, I start occasionally seeing small hallucinations, such as writing on a chalkboard that's actually blank*), or in regards to more general stuff (like increased susceptibility to hypnosis**, or occasionally seeing a hand after reading that part of Koomer and Oguigi's progress log)?

*It's doublethink. For the chalkboard example, I'll know that it's both blank and has something written on it.

**even unwanted suggestions.

 

Also, will hearing a few suggestions I'm okay with in a row prime me to accept suggestions I otherwise wouldn't be okay with?

[GuessWho]

WOW! The way this (OP) was written made it very entertaining to listen to with my TTS.

(since I'm too lazy to read a wall of text like that myself)

 

The combination of content, style and punctuation just happened to turn this into something that sounds hilarious over TTS.

[Mowgly]

In making a tulpa, you are essentially creating a dissociated personality. As you make a tulpa by whatever method, you take some of your thoughts (or make new thoughts) and "detach" them from yourself by convincing yourself they aren't yours.

 

I looked up dissociated personality, I think it resembles that you divide your personality to create a new one. It doesn't necesarily have to be that way. People are much more than their personality, so I wouldn't really call it dissociating, because you can be creating a new way of being, through creativity and that doesn't mean your personality will be cut. I do believe that something is divided but I think it doesn't have to be personality.

[Moose]

WOW! The way this (OP) was written made it very entertaining to listen to with my TTS.

(since I'm too lazy to read a wall of text like that myself)

 

The combination of content, style and punctuation just happened to turn this into something that sounds hilarious over TTS.

 

You're... welcome? Yeah. Let's go with that.

[Signet]

Type-A maker, here. From eight to maybe eleven or twelve years old, I simply would imagine this one character and her exploits at night instead of drifting off to sleep. But... eventually it was less my putting her through adventures and more my following what crazy things she did on her own.