Jump to content

What is a tulpa?

Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

This site needs more critical discussion.


What is a tulpa? How does visualizing and narrating to one's self create what you've come to think a tulpa as?


I'm not asking for responses such as "a tulpa is a thoughtform". I am requesting responses with a bit of thought behind them, in example: "I believe tulpas are just bits of our psyche that we learn to perceive. I believe this because..."


There's been a few discussions on the topic previously, however the threads have always been about one theory. Goldsmith's/Bluesleeve's ideas come to mind, and Pleeb has produced some rather interesting theories. This thread intends to discuss several; hopefully with discussion as to why one believes in his/her theory over others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In my experience and humble opinion, I would guess that a tulpa is a subconscious manifestation of a piece or part of your mind, which is created through conditioning your perceptive mind.

[align=center]Even though my username is that of my tulpa, Quilten, my name is Phaneron, the host, who does all of the actual posting.

Tulpas: Quilten, Jira


Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote your link, I think Tulpae are an "autonomous consciousness " just as humans are and that we ourselves are "mental constructs" of sorts. There is currently no means of quantifying the mind or saying even what it is or where it is in the brain, and currently there's nothing stating beyond doubt that the brain can house only one mind. There more I read about people who are multiples and the divide between personalities to the point of being unaware of each other, the more I'm convinced that this can indeed happen.


Of course a Tulpa starts out as a figment of the host's mind, but it branches off into its own being afterward. To me, the only difference between my tulpa and myself is that my body physical and his body is mental.


I guess in a way I'm just saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. My tulpa seems like a regular guy save for the obvious mental locale, so to me he's just a guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My belief is that tulpae are basically a mind trick. Back in high school drivers education, they showed an image of an intersection for roughly 10 seconds, then turned off the prompter for 10 seconds and asked where the stop sign was. Everyone (myself included) said the same thing, but when they showed the image again, the"stop sign" was a yield sign. We had mentally tricked ourselves to fit what we percieved through a trick question.


When one tulpaforces, they are doing similar, forcing the mind to accept a reality not actually present. Over time, the brain simply comes to accept it.


Does that mean tulpae are lessened because of this? No, if anything it makes them more real because the trick has taken residence within the mind and has become its own entity, and no longer a "trick" on the senses.

Me: Hey, say something for this thread!

Koharu: Yay, cupcakes!

mfw there are no cupcakes. Sentience? Yes. Brilliance? Ehh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the idea that a tulpa is totally a separate consciousness is a little too farfetched. I would say that rather than a tulpa being a totally different consciousness, they are instead illusions of a second consciousness actually being present (I think this is similar to what konrad is saying)


Let's start with forcing fundamentals. When we are tulpaforcing, we are convincing ourselves that certain thoughts or ways of thinking (our tulpa's personality) is a different consciousness thinking these thoughts, rather than us thinking them. Now, say my tulpa is very funny. That does not necessarily mean that every time I think of something funny, it will be my tulpa. Instead, we trigger the idea of us thinking that our tulpa may be talking when we imagine them talking or when we initiate conversation with them.





Not my tulpa - “Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.”


My tulpa - “Hey tulpa, can you tell me a joke?”

Tulpa: “Why did the chicken cross the road...”




(In tulpa's voice) “Why did the chicken cross the road?”



This also may very well contribute to why people have issues understanding if it is them talking or their tulpa before they develop their own voice. (Aside from the fact that they do not have their own voice to begin with)




I also say that imposition is another mind ruse.


For a very long time, I used to have this mirror hanging in my room. After putting my pants on, I would always look up to my wall and see my mirror there. I became accustomed to seeing the mirror there, and it felt natural and ordinary to see it.


When I was cleaning, I had taken the mirror down from my wall. That next morning, after I had put my pants on, I looked up subconsciously expecting the mirror to be there. Even though it physically was not on the wall, I saw the mirror on the wall for a split second. When I tried to focus on it, it vanished. To me, this was proof that imposition was possible with enough convincing.


So, tulpas are simply creations that come into existence when we convince ourselves enough that they actually exist. That doesn't mean they are entirely separate entities, but we believe them to be because if we didn't, they wouldn't be able to exist in the first place.

My guide on tulpa creation


Please consider making a private grant to tulpa.info to keep the community alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A theory I'd like to be true is that consciousness is created in response to requests. Human brain is trying to find reason and patterns in everything at all times. When you work on tulpa's form for example, you do not make the shape and colors appear, you pretend they're there, you expect them. When you honestly do not have the data but you still are trying to link to an information, the brain creates it based on what you expect, what it's supposed to be or what fits its conditions, all in a similiar way to how dreams obviously do not come from the eyes.


This could explain our very creation. Since birth, our brains build their "database" to understand the surroundings while our parents talk to us. Once we understand their words and realize we're one of them and can respond(=an ego, enough patterns gathered to form an identity), an answer becomes expected - they force us. The more consciousness we have accumulated, the less we need to produce, as the existing learned behavior can already do it all.


If it is this way, we can repeat this process once more by redirecting the flow of awareness to the unknown, that is, a symbol with a draft of what it's supposed to be like when it's complete - all to create another functional human-like consciousness. I don't think many of us have reached such level, there's always the possibility that tulpas are just a bunch of triggered responses. This applies to undeveloped tulpas who are not independent and imposed yet. But the final product... if the reports of full switching are true and you can really get to a stage where you only control your body 50% of the time or the tulpa has some heavy parallel processing going on, I think you cannot call it anything less than a separate entity. We consider ourselves different simply because we have always held on to our senses. With another sentient system in our heads, seeing or hearing could be just an option, something you can lose, like focus. Then we would not differ from tulpas in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds like fun!


Guess I’ll just make a cluster-bang of theories that will need [citation needed] more than Scientology.


Although I can’t articulate all I want to discuss on what may be a tulpa, I’ll start somewhere with lucid dreaming and other concepts


Dream characters/dream entities/dream beings/thoughts-forms can have the same mannerisms and “sentience” or whatever ontological explanations people want to plaster on the word “Tulpa.” There can be reoccurring dream characters that may have reasons for their existence, such as:


  • Symbolic meaning for conflict/strife/issue in waking life that the subconscious/unconscious/whatever term you want to use for conceptualization is trying to communicate through


  • Entrenched predispositions to have a connection that goes beyond relationships with others. The quest for self-love or any aspect towards the betterment of self


  • The fact that dream characters have the potential to be the threshold of useful information that the mind can formulate for knowledge and learning


In my honest opinion (solely from a psychological standpoint, or trying to), a tulpa is merely a thought-form that the individual goes through whatever development to constantly reinforce into their perception of reality (i.e. simulacra). Depending on how one goes about creating the tulpa, the typical tulpa creation process (e.g. solely developed in waking life or waking life + non-lucid/lucid dreaming application) is really a self-fulfilling prophecy.


1. Presume

2. Infer (i.e. treating as intelligent sentient beings)

3. Gain experiential learning (e.g. trial and error, applying concepts from guides/anecdotes)

4. Act

5. Repeat until they become real


It’s (not tulpa, just the concept) merely one’s predispositions, habits, and beliefs towards attaching to that thought that would presumably make the tulpa overly competent. But there are cases where tulpas originated beyond a self-fulfilling prophecy (e.g. “accidental tulpas,” “imaginary friends/companions” from childhood)


And concepts such as dream guides or figments of a person’s imagination which are thought-forms that have some sort of knowledge in guiding the dreamer can have the same functionality and processes people try to apply towards tulpas. Some may even have their dream guides to fit many roles akin to what a host can engage with a tulpa (e.g. companionship, anima/animus, mother/father, brother/sister, lover). Some may just throw away the label of "dream guides" and call the thought-form in their way (i.e "someone-where-I-dish-out--as-the-totality-of-all-my-expectations-and-desires-of-what-I-want-to-strive-for")


And because the host has the freedom to communicate with those thought-forms, the tulpa’s existence isn't constrained compared to what we have to deal with (e.g. physiological limits, sexuality, and gender). When creating thought-forms in non-lucid or even lucid dreams, it becomes an understatement that their existence only consists of triggered responses the mind is utilizing to make a connection and symbolic meaning based on entrenched predispositions and such of the dreamer.


The responses would be more of a precedent, but after that, consciousness and even being aware of one’s consciousness can lead into a very complicated matter that can’t be constrained on A -> B logic with triggered responses.

And for example, if one were to want to “find” their dream guide/sub-selves/dream entity/thought-form, they usually go about the same journey and development when creating a tulpa such as (but not limited to):


  • They use symbolic references (i.e. opening a door slowly to expect a thought-form to be manifested on the other side)


  • They ask other dream-beings/dream characters/thought-forms of where they could find their dream guide


  • Or they just use archetypes and such before attempting a lucid dream to potentially initiate the encounter of meeting a dream character that may be considered their “dream guides”


  • Or they can just become lucid and create one through conscious effort or just let their minds take all the control into creating one

Either way, whether one wants to label a reoccurring dream character a tulpa (which is a thought-form that’s obviously reoccurring to the host’s perception in waking life), their origins and existence are pretty much exactly the same: in your head.


People seem to try so hard to make a difference between tulpas, imaginary friends, reoccurring dream characters because it becomes an existential matter on the “value” or “uniqueness” of the thought-form/imaginary companion/sub-self/etc.


And usually people who create a tulpa that don’t bother to use dreaming as a supplement because of several fears such as:


  • Multiple tulpas


  • Distinguishing their tulpas to dream characters that could be easily fabricated in dreams to emulate the existence of their tulpas. Basically, the fear of not having continuity of the tulpa’s existence in altered states of consciousness


So what may be pragmatic would be for a person to directly go from waking to dreaming state (i.e. Wake-Initiated-Lucid Dream). Because if the person can access the imaginative potential of the mind that can go in an infinite turn of events in meaning, then surely they can have a better time creating a tulpa right?


But in this sense, when the person has access to the potential of their minds creating thought-forms like nobody’s business, they start to question whether the journey of making one (i.e. solely through waking life) is really worth all the effort. They can still practice accepting their tulpa’s existence in waking life like always, and then use lucid dreaming to garner metacognitive abilities towards the goal of making the tulpa real in waking life.


But then that makes the whole existence of tulpas less “valuable” or “unique” to the host. And with concepts such as imposition, where the tulpa is presumably a simulacra, or product of a simulation for the “original,” it raises many questions that are hard to contain in one post. So now the host may have some kind of existential impasse with themselves and their tulpas, and this is where you’ll find users on this forum that seem to grind their teeth on anyone saying tulpas are a projection of consciousness or a part of a person.


They mix around with idealistic thoughts of transcendent minds, panpsychism with the notion that tulpas are somehow beyond the confines of the host's mind, additional consciousness (with presumptions of absolute dichotomy from the host’s totality of self), and such. Their logic becomes twisted because of their existential strife with trying to make their tulpa unique to them.


To somehow make the evaluation that despite of dream characters being akin to tulpas, that there’s one or few irrefutable distinctions.

It’s kind of pathetic that people are allowing themselves to be at that existential impasse, especially when the host feels inferior to a tulpa that presumably can do things even better than they can (i.e. tapping into pre-existent memories)


Even though in all actuality, the host has the same ability as the tulpa if they can develop the habit of believing so. But even after the host can tolerate the existential strife, origins, and such of tulpas and themselves, it doesn’t mean things are just going to be okay.


It becomes a challenge on whether or not the host and tulpa becoming cognizant of their capacity to change how their living despite of their origins. Which means despite of the tulpa’s existence potentially being simulacra (i.e. products of simulation), self-fulfilling prophecies, and other factors, they merely learn how to continue existing and apply whatever ontological/epistemological logic for their lives (e.g. morals and ethics, creating life-affirming philosophies, finding distraction from existential depression/strife).


The host can choose to sustain the existence of their tulpas simply because they want someone they can connect with. Someone to give them the attention they need, even if it may be entrenched and hidden in their psyche or whatever pseudoscientific, secular, and euphemistic term for “soul.”


And they become aware of that the tulpa's existence isn't really contingent solely on conscious concentration and practice. And I can even state that things like:


  • Need for self-love
  • Companionship
  • Some experiential learning process to "feel" again after traumatic events
  • Or simply wanting to feel there's someone higher than themselves that can surpass their own competence to make them feel warm and fuzzy in a twisted and sadomasochistic manner


can all be made from the mind (which can can create thought-forms with ease in their natural sleep). The host can decide whether or not to use lucid dreaming and interact with their tulpas in waking life.


In short, you can have your cake and eat it too.



TL;DR: One does not simply have critical discussion in 1-2 sentences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me this question is hard for me to answer, despite what evidence (which are more like theories than evidence)and people saying otherwise, I am still kinda leaning towards Demon possesion. I want tto believe that it is whait numerous people here claim it to be but I can't. However, if I am wrong, then Tulpae are simply a forced split one's conscious that is simply growing seperately from the origonal. I am sorry if this somehow offends anyone, I am simply stating what I believe to be true, Tulpas cannot exist.

Please assume everything I say on the subject of Tulpae as theory based off of information I have found on Tulpamany, since I do not have a Tulpa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to write a few things about common approaches and what I think is reasonable. Yes, it is long, I am sorry. There is a summary at the end. The below is all my opinion and so on, but I can't prefix everything with "I think" without rendering it completely unreadable. And on readability, I've tried to break it up, and underline different theories for clarity.

All of these ideas assume a more or less conventional theory of mind, and none have been tested empirically.





Taking a black box approach, functionally, a tulpa is capable of conscious thought, or at least a very good imitation of it. In normal conversation they will generate responses to your communications in a way that is unconscious to you; not only are these responses convincingly sophisticated but also more or less consistent with a personality separate to your own. Moreover, this personality is not necessarily as expected by the host, as countless experiences of deviation and such will tell. You could argue that instinctive responses are not conscious and that this is all a tulpa can do, but I think experience does discount this too.



A lot of people, above here too, say that [conversations with] tulpas are either (1) self-generated responses that we label as not us, or (2) entities (and responses) created entirely by expectation. I don't think these ideas make a whole lot of sense when considered with the previous paragraph in mind.


For example - and this is for you, ThunderClap, because I think you were along the lines of #2 - if the second idea were true then a tulpa would not be able to differ from the host's expectations. More formally, for no conscious thought to occur on behalf of the tulpa their actions must be pre-calculated (somehow) and thus expected by the host, since otherwise these actions will have been generated unconsciously. However, tulpas can and do respond in ways that are not expected by the host, which disproves the idea. Given that, I think it's reasonable to say that tulpas do possess some sort of conscious capability.


For number one, you have the issue that if a tulpa is unconscious to you but generates conscious thought it is a stretch to say that it is still 'you' in the first place. If you hold onto the view then it becomes a semantic point of where 'you' end in your mind - and not, in my opinion, a sensible one - rather than a question of psychology.





This conscious capability does not have to be consciousness as in 'true', philosophical sentience, nor does it even have to resemble conscious thought inside the black box. Therefore, without opening the box I think there are two separate approaches to take:



The first is that tulpas do possess conscious thought. It goes rather like the commonly-stated idea that you "split off a part of your own consciousness", although not phrased that badly. The idea is that you make part of your neural machinery for conscious thought (this is hypothetical, sure) unconscious to you. This then becomes governed separately to you, i.e., while it still generates responses, it is no longer influenced by your personality and instead receives its own.


There are a few issues with this view, I think. Firstly, it supposes a distinct 'conscious thought' structure in the brain which is not only not wholly tied to your own awareness, but can be modified, non-trivially but without too much trouble, to form two separate structures that (at least one-way) do not interfere. Secondly, it supposes that this structure is also distinct from personality, such that it can be uncoupled from it or reassembled to exclude it in favour of another.


For these together I think there are two solutions. One is that you 'create' a new personality and thought structure, instead of modifying your own. It is simplistic and raises questions about the 'creation' given that it can be done without a whole lot of trouble. A similar criticism goes for the similar idea of “a tulpa is just a person”, further down in this post.



The other solution is that you merely personify existing aspects of your psyche. I said "psyche" so I think you know where this is going. Carl Jung's ideas about archetypes are quite useful here. Goldsmith mentioned them in his theory up there, and I'll again. Jung said that unconscious factors affecting our personality could be identified as essentially distinct sets. The main one of interest here is the anima; given that the majority of hosts are male I can be sexist like he was and neglect the others. Put simply, the anima is the feminine side of a man, but more precisely it is the influences that take effect when dealing with women. In personifying it and giving it voice, you appear to create a female personality which can react fundamentally as it did when wholly unconscious, but to you and in a more human-like manner.


Again, this idea is not without its problems; mainly, it does not account at all for hosts with tulpas of the same gender. An extension of the archetypes might account for this, but would not quite be in keeping with Jung's original theory: the masculine side of a masculine self was, of course, conscious. Nevertheless I prefer this model to the first, not least because it is grounded in accepted psychology but also because the actual creation - the personification - has a fairly strong precedent in said psychology.




The second is that tulpas do not possess conscious thought, but rather, an imitation or simulation of it. This approach in general is vaguer and therefore more justifiable. Plus, you can pick and choose unconscious processes to be a tulpa, so it's more fun to consider. My personal pet theory is that tulpas are products of empathetic machinery: you (need to) have a way to predict the actions of others and empathise with them, which requires some sort of estimation of their mental processes, done unconsciously. Expectation of a response from an as-yet unformed tulpa pushes your empathetic framework to estimate behaviour, as would happen in real-life interaction. Repeating this strengthens the structure, and so on, eventually being able to generate responses clearly and easily.


As always, there are problems, principally that people do not generally empathise with their tulpas as strongly as would be expected. Despite this the model fits with what works for creation as well as others do, and fits in the seemingly overwhelmingly powerful factor of expectation neatly. Moreover, the neurology of empathy is of much interest to the scientific community, and concepts such as 'mirror neurons' are of much help fitting the model in with the brain itself.





Another thing I want to mention is the oft-quoted "tulpas are like you but in your head". Sure, it makes sense intuitively, but in my opinion the whole business of fast creation times is a sticking point here. Put simply, creating a whole new consciousness along with the rest of a 'self' structure should be a significant shift in mental structure, and given this so should creating a tulpa. Creating a tulpa is difficult for the majority of people, but this is undermined in two ways:


Firstly, many people's first tulpas respond quite quickly and easily. There will always be outliers but their numbers are too significant to dismiss like that, I think. It could be argued that early responses come from a 'proto-tulpa' that then later becomes the fully-fledged system described – I suppose this would be a point for the creation process in any case – but that leaves me wondering what the ‘proto-tulpa’ is, how it transitions and so on (so, it needs a supplemental model anyway). And, of course, perhaps it is that these people are simply much closer to the end result in the first place, but then the question remains again of how exactly this is the case. And even given these, the time constraints under which some tulpas appear more or less fully-formed seems problematic to me. It might be tempting just to label such things as "not tulpas", but this is fallacious if you have no strong reason to believe this.


Secondly, (in general) subsequent tulpas become significantly easier to create. The explanation is that you've done it before, so you can do it again more easily. But this doesn't account for radical reductions in creation times for apparently well-formed tulpas; the time from start to end of creation for the complex structure theorised should have to be significant, in my view. There is a limit to how quickly your mind can change without trauma, surely. On this point a commonly-heard testimony is that the tulpa was present before acknowledgement, and while the idea could be dismissed as mere wishful thinking, it does also yield another refute: that creation goes on without the host's awareness in these cases. This would mean that the tulpa is pre-formed at the point of recognition, and thus from acknowledgement to being fully formed is not the entire length of the creation. On the other hand, I'd have to question why accidental creation does not happen even more easily and even more often (perhaps the 'easier by practice' factor combines, but I can't quantify the effects) as well as why acknowledgement is even necessary at all.


So given these chief complaints, I don't like the idea all that much. Perhaps someone else can fill in the gaps for me. From my point of view, though, these problems do not occur in other models stated above because those models do not necessarily strongly delineate separate tulpas, only host and tulpas.





Lastly, all of the above, as I said, supposes a fairly standard theory of mind. If we go beyond, we are given even more freedom at the cost of any substantiation. For example, we'll assume that rather than consciousness being active, it is merely a passive window onto 'conscious' thought. Now all that is required to create a tulpa is to shift this 'window' in such a way that we become aware of other, latent fields of conscious thought that we mark as existent and personify. It fits the facts, for sure, but that may be because it has essentially no grounding in anything approaching accepted theory and is therefore vague or malleable enough to fit anything. Nevertheless, such things are worth bearing in mind. It's not like accepted theory is all that strong in the first place.





To summarise, I prefer to keep options open and support a range of different theories, as none of them are without flaw and none of them have been tested empirically. I think highly of the idea of a 'personified unconscious', or 'thought simulation' models, and I dislike the conventional "another consciousness, end of story" idea because fast/multiple tulpas breaks it for me. I also don't think it's reasonable to say that "tulpas are just illusions", although the specifics of such propositions may render them more sensible in my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never really been able to put my thoughts about what a tulpa is into words very well, so forgive me if this is not well explained.


One thing I've heard again and again is how so much of our beliefs and actions are often dictated by our subconscious. We react to things in part because of how we've been conditioned to react(though, by being aware of this conditioning you can alter your reactions to it and create new behavior. This is also where you could talk about hypnosis, etc) You can often see examples of this, people who fully "Believe" something but are unable to describe why--Like trying to ask someone how gay marriage should remain illegal, you will find some who might have actually built up their opinion, but many will be unable to clarify why they feel that way, and when questioned it becomes clear it is almost an unconscious response rather than a conscious decision to maintain that belief.


Thinking of that, this made me think of the relationship of the unconscious to the conscious--constantly receiving and giving information--Consistent good responses make us develop good relations with people or activities, or unconscious similarities between a new activity and an old one that was negative to you may prevent you from developing a positive response to it. We judge very quickly and often times it takes some self searching to determine why we didn't like this person or (or why we did)


In that sort of way, the conscious part of the brain really becomes how the mind is able to gather information about the world, and how we are able to communicate socially. Like the tip of the iceberg above the water with the unconscious being the vast depth beneath it.


Then continuing on with how much one's personality changes at any given second based on the experiences we have, well, I mean who hasn't shuddered when thinking about that post you made four years ago or the way you behaved in middle school. Things aren't quite so solid in my eyes, again unless we become more aware of how our unconscious is working and learn how to work with it and to make active choices rather than simply react to the world.


Considering a tulpa, I might consider it a secondary point. Like a second iceberg in the depth of the water. Does this mean secondary consciousness? Maybe, but it also might mean secondary point of association between the unconscious and conscious activity. I've talked about association in the past, especially with tulpa creation. If you were in your wonderland and your normally sweet tulpa makes a horrifying face or suddenly becomes violent, we will generally associate that as being an intrusive thought. If one were to associate said violent moment as being the tulpa, you build up that negative reinforcement that the tulpa is violent, while at the same time the unconscious may associate said personality as being violent, possibly even causing that personality to react in more automatically violent ways. Similarly, I know of someone who, every time he feels sadness, assumes it comes from his tulpa. Continually reinforcing the "You are sad/I am sad" has, I believe, caused more sadness than there was initially, and now when the unconscious feels said sadness, it's become more automatic to transfer that sadness to the "sad" personality. Perhaps even the idea that "the tulpa may surprise you" may in fact lead to more 'surprises' during development.


So, in a way, I think a tulpa is a lot like the 'main' personality, but I believe it can develop quickly, much as we can go through a rather quick personality change when meeting new friends and entering a new situation. I think the relationship between the unconscious is very linked between the conscious of both the host and the tulpa. Who knows, perhaps the tulpa's perception of their host as being a kind person could be why some hosts report suddenly feeling more empathetic and generous after going through tulpa creation. I believe this happens less, though, because the person has more experiences and active beliefs and decisions backing them up, while the younger tulpa may be more easily affected since they have not really, well, been around as much. I think there's also limits to this as well, of course, we receive input quite often that doesn't match up with expectations or belief that is easily squashed by the unconscious's knowledge and experience. It's why we can realize when something is out of character without instantly changing our perception of the character.


Continuing on what I said earlier about developing the ability to make conscious decisions, I think at first a tulpa is often unable to do this. Reaction based on unconscious perception and abilities, just really going based off of the personality they were developed to have, or the personality the unconscious has essentially assigned them. In time I do think a tulpa becomes more aware of their choices and behavior and they are able to think about why they feel certain ways and why they behave as they do. Like the young 'tsundre' tulpa that later begins to mature and no longer act so, ah, stereotypical.


But then again, I don't know. It's really hard to say. Based on my thoughts, a tulpa may be experiencing just a secondary dissociated part of our active consciousness, or may have developed the ability to truly think for themselves. In that way it's less of a "split" consciousness, more of an addition to consciousness, an additional set of point of views that the unconscious is able to explore.


Uhhh sorry if this was all over the place. Again I've never been able to put these thoughts into words well. I really don't know and honestly at the point where I'm at now, I'm at the point where it makes little difference in my life. If Jaden and Giselle are sentient or not, it makes no difference in how we would interact.



Link to comment
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.

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.
  • Create New...