Rationalistic Guide to Vocality.

[reguile]

This is it, sorry for google docs screwing up the margins.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pcDErb0e3X2myO5HMtNuSZe10dxk8X0iUHXWlCtlcqA/pub

 

I reformatted the PDF back-up copy, see here for my explanation -Ranger

 

T_Guide Reguile.pdf

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ranger
Set to [Vocality] -Unknown Mod; Added PDF back-up and link to formatting explanation -Ranger

[reguile]

"as a means to discard evidence that contradicts your theory."

 

Actually the whole theory was built when evidence did not line up with the independent theory, which I did think was true for quite a while.

 

"I don't know why you would do this at all, or why you would then back yourself up with your own evidence, but if you are going to then please, please lay out your thinking to us. We cannot read your mind. All you have told us is "tulpas are delusions because current psychology views it as impossible"."

 

I figured I explained it fairly well in a previous post.

---

I look at a few main things, aside my own expierences with tulpa.

 

Hosts nearly always have parroting fears.

 

Hosts, even when they seem very expierenced, still have issues when they feel like their tulpa was themselves speaking.

 

Almost all tulpa are based on belief, tulpa don't do things if people don't believe it can't be done. For example, tulpa leaving.

 

None of this lines up at all with the idea that tulpa are actually independent thinking beings. If this really was true, than why does all this occur? A truly independent tulpa would not be effected by belief, I don't really think that it would make sense that a fully independent tulpa would often cause the host to have moments where they aren't sure if they are tulpa or not, and a independent tulpa shouldn't be causing fears of parroting like current ones do.

 

If the mind or subconcious was actually operating on it's own, tulpa would just be acting different and behaving differently. You could perhaps look at it in a way where tulpa's development in the mind lead to these sensations, but why is it that a tulpa that is capable of speaking still has these issues occasionally? It just doesn't fit.

 

So I could list a few possibilities

- As I said earlier, it could be that normal development causes the issue, and I said why this doesn't seem right.

- It could be that the placebo is actually in the parroting fears, and people are just imagining that their tulpa sounds like them (this is like the "science is the devils tool of taking us away from god" argument)

-It could be that the tulpa is a delusion, which, so far as I can tell, explains the issues much better than any alternative I can think of.

 

So, my thoughts on these.

The first one I explained a bit already. Wouldn't it make sense that if this issue is caused by the development (tulpa starts as delusion, becomes independent), than the issues would go away entirely once the tulpa is independent? I guess it's possible that they wouldn't, but I can't think of a good reason that would be. And i'll admit it could be confirmation bias, but it does seem that no matter who I ask the issue does remain that their tulpa occasionally feels like them speaking, etc.

 

The second argument is a bit more interesting, but I do have issues with it also. Primarily the fact that nobody is trying or thinking that their tulpa should, which tends to go against how placebos work. I'd say this does have a lot more merit than the first, but I still don't feel it is quite correct.

 

The third one is of course the one I agree with. If tulpa are a placebo sort of effect than parroting is something that is just going to happen, it makes sense that the disconnect between the thought "my tulpa will be acting on it's own" and the fact that that isn't what is happening would cause fear of parroting and other things, because a host kind of has to parrot in order to create a tulpa. It also explains later issues just because the tulpa does not stop being a placebo and it still is the host speaking to themselves. It does fade as the host gets better at "not asking questions" but one slip up and that feeling comes right back. Thirdly, if a tulpa is based on belief in this sort of placebo fashion, it makes sense that tulpa would act and do things as the community thinks they would, instead of following a real and defined set or "rules" as any other "real" thing does.

 

Hopefully that better explains it.

 

"All you have told us is "tulpas are delusions because current psychology views it as impossible""

 

I said that about switching, not tulpas, and I hardly said that in the way that you are quoting me saying it here.

 

"I really need an elucidation on this, fully, as well as why you are so sure of this reasoning as to deny empiricism in its entirety."

 

I am not denying empiricism. I am saying that none of the things you have said so far are enough to show that what I have said is wrong or breaks the logic behind what I have said.

---

"What's not obvious is why you've gone from "tulpas are delusions" to this meaning that you can't have a tulpa at all."

 

I am not saying you can't have a tulpa at all. I am saying that if a tulpa is not a being that is capable of acting on it's own, than the host will have to "act for the tulpa" at some point, and this causes parroting fears.

---

You aren't, but you are the first to say it in such a definite and by-the-definition manner.

---

Detailed above

---

You are stating "high level" sorts of effects. Posession and sensory dissociation requires that the host be entirely removed but entirely capable of thinking and acting from the body, and the tulpa being entirely in control without the host at all. That implies that the two beings are both capable of being separate "minds".

---

"Actually, DID being iatrogenic doesn't change anything. If it is, which I personally believe, then the patients still experience something similar to switching. What's more, that's induced quite quickly too. In addition, DID can be compared to 'possession' (as in demonic, etc.) as an old manifestation of the same thing. So switching is hardly unprecedented. "

 

I didn't mean to directly compare switching and DID here, I was just trying to find a source of sorts on the fact that DID is not universally accepted as a true thing.

---

If by "happen subjectively" you mean that the people experiencing it are imagining it, then yes.

[Sands]

Except both ideas behind switching are perfectly valid and would lead to the same result.

 

No, I wouldn't say it's completely valid to say that a person could not only ignore all their physical senses (consciously at least so your idea behind it could even be somewhat plausible) and only see/feel imaginary ones and despite all that keep their body moving and not dying. Making it respond to people or watching out for cars. People get in accidents all the time when they start daydreaming when doing something where they need to focus, so to me it makes much more sense to have someone else, so to speak, controlling the body while the host is daydreaming.

 

It IS possible with a human, and could be done today aside the fact that the person ends up paralyzed from the neck down from the procedure. It's just chopping out the whole brain and putting it in a new person.

 

We're talking about the whole thing and not what would be possible with our technology right now. The point is, if brain and even just the mind transplants become things, then that's something interesting that might help us understand how such things work and how they might be related to switching.

 

This might be a misscommunication. I'm saying it's easier to take out a persons brain and put it in another body than it would be to switch, in theory.

 

Switching a brain is just reconnecting tubes

 

switching in the tulpa context is a heck of a lot more complex than that.

 

In your theory. Which has no proof. We don't know what happens in our brain when we make a tulpa or how a tulpa would use the brain. But if a tulpa is a thing, then it would be our brain. Why couldn't another user of the very same brain be able to use the very same body the brain is connected to?

 

You cannot take a person's mind out of the body without removing the brain. The mind and the brain are the exact same thing and there is no such thing as a "conciousness" that can be transferred between a brain and another brain.

 

And you seem to be missing the "what if" part of my first post where I bring up such an idea. And we don't know if the brain and mind are the exact same thing, because...

 

The whole "Transfer to computer" theory rests on slowly scanning and destroying a brain while simulating those parts on a computer.

 

While it would still have a simulated brain of some kind which is safe to assume you kinda need in some way, it still wouldn't be the same brain. And it would only be your mind that was taken, if such a mind transfer was ever made. And because our technology is still so limited, I wouldn't outright say it will never be possible. And if it is possible then what does that mean?

 

I'll give you that one to an extent, but there is a huge difference between learning to read and learning to switch. All reading is is interpreting characters to have meaning, and the brain is designed to look at and make relations between things, and even with that fact reading takes years for a person to learn.

 

Well, you say there is but I couldn't say seeing that I don't know what actually happens in the head when learning to switch and when learning to read. And depending on how complex something is and when you start learning, it doesn't necessarily even take years. If you consider the first time you hand a baby a book with words to already count as learning then well yes, it will take a long time for someone to learn how to read their first writing system. But once someone actually starts teaching them, then it doesn't take awfully long. Personal experience omg.

 

Same with languages, really. But if you don't like reading, writing or learning languages as examples because they are too different, how about something else. Learning how to ignore pain? Learning how to sing on tune? Learning how to ride a bike? How about learning how to lucid dream? If I may remind you, lucid dreaming was thought to be bullshit until it was scientifically proven as well.

 

We give "instructions" along nerves and controls in the body. the "instructions" in that article are just pricking a finger or something of that sort. Not exactly controlling another body. The only interesting thing here is that a computer can interpret commands via brainwaves.

 

It's still something in its infancy and something they managed to do for the first time, so maybe with time as technology marches on, they'll be able to do so much more. They figured something out so I do hope they will continue their research. Not sure what you were expecting them to do if a finger isn't enough for you, but it was something that was sent from one cap to another, which then translated into the other person's finger twitching because the person "controlling" them thought so.

 

Does one or two people make a community? As said, i've been on reddit and the IRC and i've never seen someone who claims to have a tulpa and says it's RP at the same time, aside the theories such as my own.

 

It's not exactly one or two when the majority or said community had thoughts similar to those. And Reddit even was the first place where a roleplayer apologized for roleplaying and pretending to have a tulpa. Apparently though these days as more and more people from other communities have came to Reddit, the attitude has changed towards having actual tuppers and not just roleplaying characters, says someone who reads Reddit stuff.

 

See, when I made that comment I was basically saying that there is little to no difference in the system reddit uses and the system this guide approval team uses. It's a vote to decide what gets shown and what does not.

 

There is. Reddit censors opinions. We rate guides meant to help people and even then, we mostly focus on how a guide is written and not what it says. Perhaps you should check Fede's guide, which was approved and is something I don't quite agree with, but his ideas are a bit similar to yours. But his guide was written in a much better way, so his was approved while yours isn't. We just need someone to move it to approved guides once we actually vote for another manager.

 

And you know, for someone who claims "we can't know what's right" you do sure seem keen on telling people they are wrong.

 

About tulpas, yes. When you claim you know everything. What I can tell you is that you're not rational, because we all know what that word's definition is and you're not acting like it.

 

You can sit there and say "oh you can't prove it" all day long and it wont make any difference at all. "rationalistic" means that I use things that i've seen over time and my own experiences to make observations and come to a conclusion based on those. It does not mean that the conclusion is specifically correct, but instead that i'm not just trying to guess out of the blue as to what a tulpa is.

 

Rational doesn't mean ignore everything that doesn't back up your theory. That's something the crazy religious and/or magic people do.

 

And of course, you can go on your own little rant on how "the irc and forums are all just stupid role players that I like feeling superior to", you can say that everything i've seen and observed is absolutely wrong, and you can set here and just say "Well I experienced this so X must be incorrect because I think it's that way!", but at the end of the day that changes nothing at all.

 

And no one's said that the entire IRC and the forums (which ones?) are stupid roleplayers, so maybe you are being a little irrational here? Take a chill pill so you can think this through a bit better?

 

What I am saying is that you have observed only a small part of a community. There's a lot of people on IRC who have only been forcing for maybe one or two months, if even that. Basing your totally true theories on them will give you really bad data, because such new ones tend to be really unsure about everything and make up stupid drama for attention. Or they're just really young and think they have dramatic lives, so their tulpas die and leave all the time.

 

I cannot trust and have no reason to trust what you say in this argument because it's obvious you are going to attempt to skew facts and bend what you say.

 

Pretty ironic to hear you say that.

 

Why is it that when I talk to a person about how their tulpa is independent and I ask them "so, why do you say that" they end up just saying that because they are "interrupted" by their tulpa or their tulpa "changes things while they are gone", which is not proof in the least, especially in a field like tulpa where people are essentially learning to trick their brains to do things.

 

Well no one cares about changing things when someone is gone because that could be anything and isn't really anything. But guess what, you asked me if I have ever had my tulpa talk to me when I haven't thought about him and I said yes. And now you'e backpedaling like crazy because you refuse to accept that as anything because it might ruin your precious little theory. And I have also told you about switching, which to me is some pretty major proof that maybe something else is here with me. If things - actual physical things - can happen without me even watching the body do those things, I'm not going to ignore that all. That would be irrational.

 

You want to be a hypocrite? go on ahead, you want to call me irrational?

 

You're irrational.

 

go on ahead, you can talk all day and that doesn't change anything.

 

We already know that because you're irrational and irrational men don't consider anything that harms their theory.

 

However, if you are going to think that your own little personal experiences or what people say is true changes anything about what is real or what should be considered real than I am sorry but you are just plain wrong.

 

Not everything people say is right, of course. Not all my personal experiences matter, even. But you say you have based your theories on these very things. You say you have observed people making tulpas, what have you observed? Things they have said, their personal experiences. So you take those as the truth? Assuming they fit your theory, of course. When they don't then they're meaningless, but when they back your theory up, they're legit. Sounds rational.

 

Yet you accuse me of being irrational.

 

Sounds pretty irrational to me.

 

Actually I claimed that AP and OBE is absolute bullshit and just people dreaming or imagining things. I also am saying that it's impossible for a person to use a "Sleeping state" to switch, because the body paralyzes itself when it's in these sorts of states.

 

And I asked for scientific proof that AP and OBE are done in your "sleeping state", which you have refused to give me. I thought a rational man would actually have some facts to back up when he claims to know something and bases his theories on them. So, we don't know if AP and OBE are done when the body is asleep, if no one has tested them. We know that's what happens when a person lucid dreams. But I know it's possible to ignore the body's physical senses and feel the imaginary ones as if they were real when you're still very awake, though I guess to actually prove that someone would need to test me, too.

 

You yourself said that you nearly always wake up soon after or near the time your tulpa takes control of your body.

 

If he takes control of the sleeping body and wakes it up. Reading comprehension, please.

 

Why is it that people are so frequently unsure that their tulpa is talking or not?

 

When this community was new, tulpa was required to give proof that it was them talking. People rarely got it, so they said it wasn't the tulpa. Now people are told to blindly believe and they do it for a while, except then they start to question things and everything comes cashing down, actually vocal tulpa or not. I wrote a huge post about this and offered a better mindset when creating tulpas. I used it and it helped me a lot.

 

Why do tulpa tend to only act in ways that the host is knowledgeable that the tulpa can act? Why is it that when one person mentions tulpa leaving all of a sudden tons of people's tulpa are leaving, even thought it NEVER happened in the past?

 

Actually, it happened often in the past. Why? I don't know, mine has never disappeared anywhere, but at times has seemed like he wasn't there and when asked about it, has just wanted to be alone. After the first time I basically told him to tell me first, so he does. And I allow him to have his alone time if he thinks he needs it.

 

Not sure if it was stated by one person, but let's say it was. Your next post talks a lot about this, but I'll mention it now already. Okay, one tulpa realizes it can disappear and doesn't answer to the host so the host freaks out. Host tells about it to rest and what if, hang with me here, what if the rest now understand this is possible, so they try it? It's the mind. You talk about how beliefs shouldn't do anything to independent beings later on and I'll talk about that once I get there, but it's the mind. It's basically built on beliefs. Remember placebo? If you now tell these tuppers that something is possible, they will believe it is and thus can do it with sheer willpower alone. Perhaps they could have done it before, but never had tried or thought they couldn't, so they couldn't.

 

Or it's just a way to get attention and drama. I bet that one guy who had a tulpa disappear did it just to stop their roleplaying and get a way to leave the community without making up more lies. Pity, that, but hey.

 

You either have to deny that these things happen, and you can deny them if you are so willing to, or you can try to make a theory on why tulpa do this that actually explains it. That's what rationalism is.

 

Am I rational now?

 

My ideas are based on what I know about how human minds work and everything I know about how tulpa work. They are based on a decent amount of background information and actually do make sense.

 

I think you think the tulpa community is much smaller than it really is. Also it doesn't make much sense once you start to bring in things like switching to it, which proves you haven't really gathered any background information about that, so you don't have a decent amount of information about this. Also no one really knows how the human mind works anyways, so...

 

Well I think I'll doublepost the other post's things I want to touch up on, it'll get merged anyways.

---

Hosts nearly always have parroting fears.

 

I don't, use my mindset I linked and you will be free. Stop with the blindly believing. Insert more snake oil sailsman phrases.

 

Almost all tulpa are based on belief, tulpa don't do things if people don't believe it can't be done. For example, tulpa leaving.

 

Well, I know my tupper has been doing things I thought couldn't be done. Like I thought imposition would always have to be started by me, but apparently it isn't so and I don't think this has ever been talked about before (maybe me?) it was brought up later. While I can't hallucinate with all my senses yet, something like touch is very good. And when I haven't started imposition but the tulpa suddenly does touch your actual body like another actual body was touching you, trust me. Weird shit.

 

A truly independent tulpa would not be effected by belief, I don't really think that it would make sense that a fully independent tulpa would often cause the host to have moments where they aren't sure if they are tulpa or not, and a independent tulpa shouldn't be causing fears of parroting like current ones do.

 

A person is truly independent, right? A person is effected by belief. Placebo. Or other things that might cause fear such as getting told someone you love is dead even though they aren't. It's all in the mind, bro. It is affected by beliefs.

 

Have you heard of solipsism? Not even all the humans think other humans are conscious. So it's pretty normal to doubt things in my mind, honestly. But a lot of these tulpa parroting fears come from stupid methods and mindsets, like blindly believing.

 

If the mind or subconcious...

 

Subconscious means nothing and is pretty New Age. Unconscious whatever is what the scientific fellas like to use.

 

...was actually operating on it's own, tulpa would just be acting different and behaving differently. You could perhaps look at it in a way where tulpa's development in the mind lead to these sensations, but why is it that a tulpa that is capable of speaking still has these issues occasionally? It just doesn't fit.

 

Oh they do act and behave differently. A strong tupper is pretty comfortable with who and what they are and doesn't believe everything. And is able to tell their host when their belief system is being silly, if they disagree. I know me and Roswell don't see eye to eye about everything and he finds the fact that I can't say for sure that he's independent and everything without scientific tests and proof pretty silly, because he believes in himself 100%. And I've never seen him doubt himself, either, or say he can't do something. He's willing to try even some very stupid tupper "magic" tests and sometimes I've been pretty surprised myself, because I thought it wasn't going to work.

 

- As I said earlier, it could be that normal development causes the issue, and I said why this doesn't seem right.

 

Keep in mind you have seen a lot of very young tulpas and new hosts. The older they get, the more comfortable and certain they are, it seems. That to me would imply development, though if both the host and tulpa are dramallamas then problems are bound to happen.

 

-It could be that the tulpa is a delusion, which, so far as I can tell, explains the issues much better than any alternative I can think of.

 

Well it certainly starts as a delusion. But placebo is a delusion with real outcomes.

 

The first one I explained a bit already. Wouldn't it make sense that if this issue is caused by the development (tulpa starts as delusion, becomes independent), than the issues would go away entirely once the tulpa is independent? I guess it's possible that they wouldn't, but I can't think of a good reason that would be.

 

Perhaps. But for most people, they're not going to get a fully independent tupper in few months. It's a very pesonal journey and it takes a different time for everyone. The host and tulpa also can have different opinions and while I can say that Roswell seems like he's independent for me, I won't claim anything as a fact before I have something I can show for it. While he's happy claiming that he is independent, because he knows.

 

And i'll admit it could be confirmation bias, but it does seem that no matter who I ask the issue does remain that their tulpa occasionally feels like them speaking, etc.

 

Well you share a brain if we go with the independent separate tulpa theory. People keep concentrating too much on what sounds like them instead of what parts about it are different.

 

I am not denying empiricism. I am saying that none of the things you have said so far are enough to show that what I have said is wrong or breaks the logic behind what I have said.

 

Just like nothing you have said has broken our logic.

 

I am not saying you can't have a tulpa at all. I am saying that if a tulpa is not a being that is capable of acting on it's own, than the host will have to "act for the tulpa" at some point, and this causes parroting fears.

 

Never acted for him as far as I know.

 

Still, this is something you should be taking to General Discussion. How you see tuppers and debate viewpoints there. This has barely anything to do with your guide, which is still poorly written and barely has any guide in it, nor does it really show anything in a new light. Nor is it rational, so the title is misleading. I said why it was disapproved earlier and nothing has changed, so it still is. It's kind of irrational to try to keep continuing this with a fanatic and I think I have said everything I want now.

[waffles]

Sands said a lot of what I want to say but I'll say it again anyway.

 

 

Actually the whole theory was built when evidence did not line up with the independent theory, which I did think was true for quite a while.

We'll see about your evidence in a minute, but that doesn't make sense to me. You discard the independence theory because of the evidence, but ignore evidence against your own theory? And you claim to be a rationalist but also claim to use empirical methods?

 

 

Hosts nearly always have parroting fears.

 

Hosts, even when they seem very expierenced, still have issues when they feel like their tulpa was themselves speaking.

Well, there are a few things here. I'll take both of these together.

 

Firstly, most parroting fears will be coming from new people with tulpas that are not very well-developed. They may well not be independent, or the hosts aren't experienced enough to tell with perfect confidence what is and isn't your tulpa. I'd say that more experienced hosts with independent tulpas will have fewer of these fears, and many will have none.

 

Secondly, people don't post about how they aren't worried about parroting unless context permits. I don't know how you've come to "nearly always" but if all you're looking at is everyone who complains about parroting fears then you're not getting a representative sample.

 

Thirdly, doubt is human nature. I'm not sure how you think things would pan out if tulpas were independent but looking at it from your perspective I don't see how you can conclude that there wouldn't be parroting fears if this were the case. Maybe you can explain this to me.

 

Fourthly, it could be that almost all of the time the signs of a response point to 'tulpa', but once to 'host' and this causes some doubt. Even if this happens to everyone, that doesn't really mean 'no independence', it just means a slight lapse in whatever.

 

You still haven't explained your logic clearly.

A truly independent tulpa would not be effected by belief, I don't really think that it would make sense that a fully independent tulpa would often cause the host to have moments where they aren't sure if they are tulpa or not, and a independent tulpa shouldn't be causing fears of parroting like current ones do.

Why not? "You don't really think" isn't going to cut it when clearly we don't agree with your thinking. Explain this logic, please. Why should moments of doubt invalidate everything else? Why should being affected by belief mean 'not independent'? I'll quote something later on that seems to be relevant now.

 

If tulpa are a placebo sort of effect than parroting is something that is just going to happen, it makes sense that the disconnect between the thought "my tulpa will be acting on it's own" and the fact that that isn't what is happening would cause fear of parroting and other things, because a host kind of has to parrot in order to create a tulpa.

No, they don't need to parrot in order to create the tulpa. People can create tulpas without ever consciously speaking for their tulpa, which is what parroting is. If tulpas need to be parroted then why would a host ever get to the point where their tulpa feels like it's not them? I think you justified this with the idea that the host alienates the responses to themselves, but that seems to imply that at some point they felt self-generated. This is not the case.

 

It does fade as the host gets better at "not asking questions"

What do you mean? They stop questioning responses?

 

but one slip up and that feeling comes right back.

Responses are usually judged by how they 'feel' as well as content and context, I think. It's these that may occasionally point to 'host', because, you know, things can get confusing with telepathy sometimes. I said it above, that I don't see why small glitches should necessarily point to this. If anything, the fact that they're only small should be evidence against.

 

Thirdly, if a tulpa is based on belief in this sort of placebo fashion, it makes sense that tulpa would act and do things as the community thinks they would, instead of following a real and defined set or "rules" as any other "real" thing does.

Right, because humans never act like a community expects them to, and always follow their own hard-coded rules rather than having them impressed upon by parents, peers and society. And tulpas are in your head, so mentally defined limits seem to make sense to me.

 

 

Almost all tulpa are based on belief, tulpa don't do things if people don't believe it can't be done. For example, tulpa leaving.

Again, that's not "almost all", it's "almost all (who mention it)" or "almost all new". Now, I'll cut your point in two here because there are two different things. Even if you didn't intend it like this, I shouldn't be missing anything relevant out.

 

1. Tulpas doing things when learning about them.

It applies more to new tulpas, for a start, but sure it happens. Hosts are suggestible too, though. So I'm not sure why this invalidates a tulpa's independence.

 

2. Tulpas not doing things until learning about them.

This isn't always the case. Most people can dredge up at least a few examples of their tulpa doing something unexpected. That is actually a popular test for sentience/independence.

And again, you're assuming that this doesn't apply to people as well. There always has to be one person who does something first and tells everyone else. That's even assuming that the 'one person' you saw was really the first and last to come up with the idea independently. And hell, even then the tulpa still had to come up with the idea, right?

 

 

Look, even if both of your points were fine, that would still be some pretty tenuous evidence. Two things, alright, when you have countless counterexamples of people who don't doubt, whose tulpas do things unexpectedly, who can switch, and so on. Not really important though because I don't think they are fine.

 

 

 

- It could be that the placebo is actually in the parroting fears, and people are just imagining that their tulpa sounds like them (this is like the "science is the devils tool of taking us away from god" argument)

 

The second argument is a bit more interesting, but I do have issues with it also. Primarily the fact that nobody is trying or thinking that their tulpa should, which tends to go against how placebos work. I'd say this does have a lot more merit than the first, but I still don't feel it is quite correct.

Sorry I don't follow. Nobody is trying or thinking that their tulpa should do what exactly? If anything, this is yet another counterpoint to your first argument that I missed. I don't get your critique.

 

 

 

You are stating "high level" sorts of effects. Posession and sensory dissociation requires that the host be entirely removed but entirely capable of thinking and acting from the body, and the tulpa being entirely in control without the host at all. That implies that the two beings are both capable of being separate "minds".

Sorry, can you run that by me again? Possession requires the tulpa to be able to control the body, and switching requires this plus sensory dissociation. If you believe in possession, then you've got switching because judging by

If by "happen subjectively" you mean that the people experiencing it are imagining it, then yes.

you do believe in sensory dissociation. And I'll expand on that; they may be 'imagining' it but they're still dissociating. That's kind of the point, because dissociation is subjective as well.

 

 

I didn't mean to directly compare switching and DID here, I was just trying to find a source of sorts on the fact that DID is not universally accepted as a true thing.

Then consider me to be making the comparison. I am well aware of the status of DID, actually.

[reguile]

First post:

 

"No, I wouldn't say it's completely valid to say that a person could not only ignore all their physical senses (consciously at least so your idea behind it could even be somewhat plausible) and only see/feel imaginary ones and despite all that keep their body moving and not dying. Making it respond to people or watching out for cars. People get in accidents all the time when they start daydreaming when doing something where they need to focus, so to me it makes much more sense to have someone else, so to speak, controlling the body while the host is daydreaming."

 

A person doesn't have to be literally ignoring the sensations to create the feeling they are ignoring sensations. I am not saying a person is going blind, I am saying that a person is deluding themselves into thinking they are going blind while they actually are not.

---

"The point is, if brain and even just the mind transplants become things, then that's something interesting that might help us understand how such things work and how they might be related to switching."

 

Maybe it will, but according to what we know now, outside of physical brain transplants, nothing of the sort is actually possible.

---

"In your theory. Which has no proof. We don't know what happens in our brain when we make a tulpa or how a tulpa would use the brain. But if a tulpa is a thing, then it would be our brain. Why couldn't another user of the very same brain be able to use the very same body the brain is connected to?"

 

The issue is in the other person existing, not in the using the body. A normal person's brain does not go unused, and there is no "spare" processing or space that i'm aware of that can support a whole new person to "use" a brain. There are ways it is still possible, but it's still a very far fetched concept.

---

"And you seem to be missing the "what if" part of my first post where I bring up such an idea. And we don't know if the brain and mind are the exact same thing, because..."

 

What if we all have souls and tulpa are just new renditions of that soul? What if all of reality is just imagined and everything is fake so reality as a whole isn't real at all?

 

We know fairly well that the brain and the mind are at least very well connected to being each other because of how people with brain damage adopt new hobbies and that damage to the mind definitely changes how people think and act. There are parts that do cause loss of things like motor controls only though, but that doesn't change that the mind is a very definitely physical part of the mind.

---

"If you consider the first time you hand a baby a book with words to already count as learning then well yes, it will take a long time for someone to learn how to read their first writing system. But once someone actually starts teaching them, then it doesn't take awfully long. Personal experience omg."

 

There is no equivalent to this for switching. Learning to write in a new language is mostly just changing what you know about your previous base language. Going from "no concept of switching" to "fully able to switch" is what takes less than two years apparently, not "learning to switch in a different way."

 

"how about something else. Learning how to ignore pain? Learning how to sing on tune? Learning how to ride a bike? How about learning how to lucid dream? If I may remind you, lucid dreaming was thought to be bullshit until it was scientifically proven as well."

 

Learning to ignore pain takes a heck of a long time to do well, it's definitly not something people just learn to do in a year or two. Riding a bike is just keeping your balance and pedaling, and is very similar to walking.

 

The lucid dreaming comparison is more interesting but still flawed because lucid dreaming is something that is less something you learn to do and more something you learn to "set off".

 

The lessons in LD is to learn to get to the point of sleeping while still being "active" so that you both remember the dream and have control of it. The dreams already exist, it's just a few minor environmental modifications that let people LD.

---

"It's still something in its infancy and something they managed to do for the first time, so maybe with time as technology marches on, they'll be able to do so much more. They figured something out so I do hope they will continue their research. Not sure what you were expecting them to do if a finger isn't enough for you, but it was something that was sent from one cap to another, which then translated into the other person's finger twitching because the person "controlling" them thought so."

 

That's using vocabulary to make something seem much more extreme than it actually was. I already explained why it's really not too amazing that they did something like this.

 

Also, so far as i'm aware gizmido is a site known for making articles that use a lot of sensationalism in the titles.

---

"It's not exactly one or two when the majority or said community had thoughts similar to those. And Reddit even was the first place where a roleplayer apologized for roleplaying and pretending to have a tulpa. Apparently though these days as more and more people from other communities have came to Reddit, the attitude has changed towards having actual tuppers and not just roleplaying characters, says someone who reads Reddit stuff."

 

You and I are apparently seeing two very different sites. This is /r/tulpas you are talking about?

 

And I saw that post, "it begins", while I was browsing and reading on the forums (because apparently i'll find lots of new stuff and it'll dramatically change my views), that reddit post was (5) people and a few comments that said "yeah, there are RPers, but we can't tell the difference so honestly we shouldn't bother worrying about it."

---

"There is. Reddit censors opinions. We rate guides meant to help people and even then, we mostly focus on how a guide is written and not what it says."

 

You should look up reddiquite. Reddit's voting system is designed to downvote people who make stupid posts that nobody wants to read, or are advertisements, etc. It serves the exact same purpose as the GAT.

---

"About tulpas, yes. When you claim you know everything. What I can tell you is that you're not rational, because we all know what that word's definition is and you're not acting like it."

 

Rational: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic."

 

That's it. That's all rational means. In order for you to say i'm being irrational you have to say that i'm not trying to use reason or logic behind what i'm saying, and even if you disagree with my reasoning or logic, that doesn't mean it's not there.

---

"Rational doesn't mean ignore everything that doesn't back up your theory. That's something the crazy religious and/or magic people do."

 

I didn't once say that I am ignoring everything that doesn't back up my theory. This is just you putting words in my mouth.

---

"And no one's said that the entire IRC and the forums (which ones?) are stupid roleplayers, so maybe you are being a little irrational here? Take a chill pill so you can think this through a bit better?"

 

I C what u did thair.

 

"What I am saying is that you have observed only a small part of a community. There's a lot of people on IRC who have only been forcing for maybe one or two months, if even that."

 

There are also lots of people on these forums who are the same.

 

"Basing your totally true theories on them will give you really bad data, because such new ones tend to be really unsure about everything and make up stupid drama for attention. Or they're just really young and think they have dramatic lives, so their tulpas die and leave all the time."

 

I haven't based what i'm saying purely on those people, and the irc is not only made up of those people.

---

"Pretty ironic to hear you say that."

 

It looks like we can agree on some things.

---

" But guess what, you asked me if I have ever had my tulpa talk to me when I haven't thought about him and I said yes. And now you'e backpedaling like crazy because you refuse to accept that as anything because it might ruin your precious little theory."

 

Backpedaling would be to say you are just lying and be done with it, or just saying "you are all wrong and i'm done discussing. That's not what i'm doing.

 

I have said pretty specifically that a tulpa interrupting someone is not enough to be proof of independence. If I thought what you were saying has enough backing or reason behind it that I would change my views or mind by changing what I know about tulpa, than I would say so.

---

"And I have also told you about switching, which to me is some pretty major proof that maybe something else is here with me. If things - actual physical things - can happen without me even watching the body do those things, I'm not going to ignore that all. That would be irrational."

 

No, but just saying you did isn't enough to say anything either. I also mentioned pretty specifically that you would need to have some sort of time or activity occur during which you were not aware of occurring that you can return to after and find very concrete proof of having things happen. And if you do have something like that, then cool, but I have yet to see this sort of thing occurring frequently in the community or for myself.

---

"Not everything people say is right, of course. Not all my personal experiences matter, even. But you say you have based your theories on these very things. You say you have observed people making tulpas, what have you observed? Things they have said, their personal experiences. So you take those as the truth? Assuming they fit your theory, of course. When they don't then they're meaningless, but when they back your theory up, they're legit. Sounds rational."

 

Now THIS is a very good point.

 

The main differences between what you are saying here and now is that you are here trying to prove a point and say things to me. Everyone i've spoken to have been people I am just asking questions out of the blue, nothing beforehand, hopefully nothing skewing results or the words they use.

 

You are almost literally the first person to claim that you are able to switch to such an extreme fashion, and it just happens to be in all of these posts that you pop up.

---

"And I asked for scientific proof that AP and OBE are done in your "sleeping state", which you have refused to give me."

 

I have none and I don't think they are specifically done in a sleeping state.

 

AP and OBE are products of confirmation bias and placebo, the people who feel them are imagining the whole thing and they never do leave their body.

 

"But I know it's possible to ignore the body's physical senses and feel the imaginary ones as if they were real when you're still very awake"

 

Awake and paralyzed, if you are referring to lucid dreaming.

---

"If he takes control of the sleeping body and wakes it up. Reading comprehension, please."

 

Yeah,

 

>Tulpa takes control

>You wake up soon after

---

"When this community was new, tulpa was required to give proof that it was them talking."

 

Mind me asking how that actually happened? someone have a tulpa proving device somewhere?

 

It's funny, actually, how similar your guide is to mine, although there is a bit of a fundamental difference.

-

I say that you should consider your tulpa's responses real while simultaneously knowing that they are just you.

 

You say that you should consider your tulpa's responses real while simultaneously knowing that it could be you parroting.

 

I've used my method and it's helped me a lot too.

-

---

"Okay, one tulpa realizes it can disappear and doesn't answer to the host so the host freaks out. Host tells about it to rest and what if, hang with me here, what if the rest now understand this is possible, so they try it? It's the mind."

 

Okay, another really interesting point, and actually a good theory on why that could be true, I think.

 

However, how in the heck is the tulpa leaving? It's the brain, the tulpa cannot actually 'leave'. Perhaps leaving just means "staying quiet"? However, that's not what tulpa say is happening, or what hosts say is happening, when they do say their tulpa is leaving.

 

"ut it's the mind. It's basically built on beliefs. Remember placebo? If you now tell these tuppers that something is possible, they will believe it is and thus can do it with sheer willpower alone."

 

This is not so much.

 

My point is that if something is a real sort of thing, sheer willpower won't change how it works. The fact tulpa are greatly effected by belief and willpower is part of why I have come to the views I have.

 

"Perhaps they could have done it before, but never had tried or thought they couldn't, so they couldn't."

 

And another good point, but you've basically repeated yourself.

 

"Or it's just a way to get attention and drama. I bet that one guy who had a tulpa disappear did it just to stop their roleplaying and get a way to leave the community without making up more lies. Pity, that, but hey."

 

Maybe everyone is lying, and you are lying, and I am lying, and waffles is lying, maybe everything is a lie for attention?

---

"Am I rational now?"

 

Much more-so.

---

"Also it doesn't make much sense once you start to bring in things like switching to it, which proves you haven't really gathered any background information about that, so you don't have a decent amount of information about this. Also no one really knows how the human mind works anyways, so..."

 

You are correct in saying that things don't make as much sense when you start to bring things like switching into it, but NO definition of tulpa does continue to make sense, aside ones that just state "tulpa are independent" without considering anything else.

---

"I don't, use my mindset I linked and you will be free. Stop with the blindly believing. Insert more snake oil sailsman phrases."

 

I discussed this above, turns out we came to pretty similar mindsets with two different sets of background proofs.

 

"Just like the Schrödinger's cat, you won't know for sure if the cat is dead before you take a look in the box, 50/50 chance. When it comes to tulpas, you can't really easily check to see if it was them or not as no response doesn't mean they aren't sentient, so why not stay in the state where it is and is not your tulpa, at the same time?"

 

If your guide was posted here instead of mine would you be accepting it? (probably because grammar and not rehashing old guides and all that, but hey, it's a good rhetorical question)

---

"A person is truly independent, right? A person is effected by belief. Placebo. Or other things that might cause fear such as getting told someone you love is dead even though they aren't. It's all in the mind, bro. It is affected by beliefs."

 

A person is truly independent, and runs by a very basic set of rules that do not tend to change. One of those being that placebos work.

 

With tulpa the rules seem to change every once in a while.

 

"But a lot of these tulpa parroting fears come from stupid methods and mindsets, like blindly believing."

 

I agree, which is why I wrote this guide. (to be fair I didn't check up on guides that have been written recently, I just know the ones that get linked by people all the time)

---

"Subconscious means nothing and is pretty New Age. Unconscious whatever is what the scientific fellas like to use."

 

and I agree with that pretty well. I only used it because that's what i've heard with tulpa being independent "the subconscious makes them act" etc.

---

skipping some sections because they are things I mention in other posts

---

"Well it certainly starts as a delusion. But placebo is a delusion with real outcomes."

 

placebo works with things that you feel, it has no "Real outcomes" you can't fix a wound with a placebo, only make a person feel better. If tulpa are a placebo with real outcomes than my theory is held up even more-so.

---

"Well you share a brain if we go with the independent separate tulpa theory."

 

Why does sharing a brain imply that the responses will get confused? If your point is that the same brain is making both sets of responses than it supports my theory that the host is just creating the responses and re-labeling them as the tulpa's.

---

 

My guide is more about noticing the issues that I have with how tulpa are looked at, looking how a shift in views can fix that issue, and then creating a re-hashed guide based on trying to fix it. I have all the "Excess" in there because I want it to stand on it's own without requiring people to go read other things, even if that is directly encouraged in the guide itself.

---

Second post: i'm going to be short and sweet here.

 

"You discard the independence theory because of the evidence, but ignore evidence against your own theory?"

 

This is a really good point that was made in the above post, I am going to address it up there

---

"Firstly, most parroting fears will be coming from new people with tulpas that are not very well-developed. They may well not be independent, or the hosts aren't experienced enough to tell with perfect confidence what is and isn't your tulpa. I'd say that more experienced hosts with independent tulpas will have fewer of these fears, and many will have none."

 

I already kind of say this. The host starts often feeling as if they do, and that feeling slowly fades away as they get better.

-

"Secondly, people don't post about how they aren't worried about parroting unless context permits. I don't know how you've come to "nearly always" but if all you're looking at is everyone who complains about parroting fears then you're not getting a representative sample."

 

That is very true, but It is very rare to hear about a person who says they never had any parroting fears throughout the process of making a tulpa.

-

"Thirdly, doubt is human nature."

No.

Doubt is definitely not human nature. People are gullible, and people do not often ask questions or doubt the things they are told.

-

"Fourthly, it could be that almost all of the time the signs of a response point to 'tulpa', but once to 'host' and this causes some doubt. Even if this happens to everyone, that doesn't really mean 'no independence', it just means a slight lapse in whatever."

 

When a person is sick or has headaches they KNOW they have headaches. A person with a brain disease KNOWS they have a brain disease or a mental disorder. They all are consistent and their results are rarely if ever doubted by the person with the issue. This does not apply to tulpa for some reason. That's why I say that tulpa should not have all these parroting fears.

---

Explained above, literally, right above.

---

"No, they don't need to parrot in order to create the tulpa. People can create tulpas without ever consciously speaking for their tulpa"

 

In that case we need a word for "subconcious parroting".

---

"What do you mean? They stop questioning responses?"

 

The host learns to stop questioning if the tulpa is them or if the tulpa is the tulpa.

---

this is kind of addressed in that same area above that talks about dain bramage.

---

"It applies more to new tulpas, for a start, but sure it happens. Hosts are suggestible too, though. So I'm not sure why this invalidates a tulpa's independence. "

 

Suggestibility should not be causing an independent being to gain new abilities or ideas, although sand did say something about that same topic that I can't fully admit couldn't be true. (about tulpa learning they can do X and trying it)

---

"This isn't always the case. Most people can dredge up at least a few examples of their tulpa doing something unexpected. That is actually a popular test for sentience/independence"

 

yeah, the surprise me test, not front-loading at all.

 

"And again, you're assuming that this doesn't apply to people as well."

 

I also explain this further up in the reply to the other post

---

" Two things, alright, when you have countless counterexamples of people who don't doubt, whose tulpas do things unexpectedly, who can switch, and so on. Not really important though because I don't think they are fine."

 

"because I don't think they are fine."

 

What do you mean by that?

---

"Sorry I don't follow. Nobody is trying or thinking that their tulpa should do what exactly?"

 

People are thinking and told that their tulpa should be acting independently, yet still have doubts. Placebo's work when a person is told one thing and that thing happens, not the other way around.

 

Then again it is possible that fears of parroting are a placebo in general, which is an interesting thought.

---

" Possession requires the tulpa to be able to control the body, and switching requires this plus sensory dissociation."

 

These are "high level" tasks.

 

A car moves is a high level task, but there is an engine that has to move the car.

 

Yes, posession requires a tulpa be able to control the body, and switching is that plus sensory deprivation. but what makes the car move?

---

"you do believe in sensory dissociation."

 

When a person is dreaming, in which someone can misinterpret a dream as AP or OBE.

[waffles]

This is a really good point that was made in the above post, I am going to address it up there

The main differences between what you are saying here and now is that you are here trying to prove a point and say things to me. Everyone i've spoken to have been people I am just asking questions out of the blue, nothing beforehand, hopefully nothing skewing results or the words they use.

 

You are almost literally the first person to claim that you are able to switch to such an extreme fashion, and it just happens to be in all of these posts that you pop up.

We're not the first people to claim that. Do your research.

That's also shaky grounds for denying evidence. Yeah, on the surface it looks alright but it seems like you're claiming that we're lying just to try to provide evidence against you. Like, just how 'skewed' do you think we are?

 

 

That is very true, but It is very rare to hear about a person who says they never had any parroting fears throughout the process of making a tulpa.

Yeah that's kind of what I explained, isn't it? But actually, you're right. Most people do have a few. It's your link between 'few fears' and 'truth' that's the problem.

 

 

No.

Doubt is definitely not human nature. People are gullible, and people do not often ask questions or doubt the things they are told.

Okay, firstly, it is. But if that were the case then maybe the fear shouldn't be so prevalent? Like, "don't doubt your tulpa" is pretty prevalent. If the sheeple are as asleep as you think, then why do they question it?

 

Like, this is an issue of quantification here. Neither of us can really balance these hypothetical effects so this could just go in circles.

 

 

A person with a brain disease KNOWS they have a brain disease or a mental disorder.

Ok what.

 

 

They all are consistent and their results are rarely if ever doubted by the person with the issue. This does not apply to tulpa for some reason. That's why I say that tulpa should not have all these parroting fears.

No look, you're saying that a tulpa should be completely consistent? That's bullshit. Mental disorders, or diseases, and hell, even headaches are not consistent. What's more, a tulpa being independent shouldn't necessitate being completely consistent anyway. That's not to say that many tulpas are pretty consistent in the first place, as well. Like, I'm only talking about short slips here. Everything has those.

 

 

In that case we need a word for "subconcious parroting".

So what the hell is 'subconscious parroting' in your opinion and why is it different from a tulpa responding independently?

 

 

Suggestibility should not be causing an independent being to gain new abilities or ideas, although sand did say something about that same topic that I can't fully admit couldn't be true. (about tulpa learning they can do X and trying it)

Yeah, that's kind of what I want to say. It's not necessarily that they 'gain' new abilities, only that they realise that they can do the abilities.

 

And anyway, what's your reasoning behind saying that an independent being's abilities shouldn't be suggestible? Tulpas are still residents of your head, so again, I don't see why mental limits shouldn't apply.

 

 

yeah, the surprise me test, not front-loading at all.

So, people expect their tulpa to surprise them and they ... do? What does that change?

 

 

What do you mean by that?

I mean I don't think your argument stand in the first place, but that even if they did they wouldn't be very solid.

 

 

People are thinking and told that their tulpa should be acting independently, yet still have doubts. Placebo's work when a person is told one thing and that thing happens, not the other way around.

 

Then again it is possible that fears of parroting are a placebo in general, which is an interesting thought.

What is this about placebos in the first place? You mean that people are just imagining that their tulpa sounds like themselves? Yeah, sounds likely enough to me.

 

I get what you're saying though, but that would be ignoring the "tulpa is just parrot help" that floats around as an idea. Like, if anything that should be the stronger effect (yeah, quantification) I think because yes, doubt really is persistent. So people get worried about their tulpas and then start seeing the signs.

 

 

 

 

These are "high level" tasks.

 

A car moves is a high level task, but there is an engine that has to move the car.

 

Yes, posession requires a tulpa be able to control the body, and switching is that plus sensory deprivation. but what makes the car move?

The engine? Point definitely not taken on board. If you want to look at fundamentals then I'm sorry, we really can't. We know very little about possession.

 

 

When a person is dreaming, in which someone can misinterpret a dream as AP or OBE.

OBEs happen more than just in sleep. But that is a way of looking at OBEs, yes, and not too uncommon. I could ask you to justify your view on this - in fact, please do anyway - but I guess it's my fault for bringing them in in the first place, because such a view really isn't compatible with switching (yeah, well done).

 

Alright, let's go the other way. You may not believe in sensory dissociation, but I don't buy your view of switching either. Like, you're suggesting that the host is really acting for the body but are deluding themselves to think that they're really hallucinating something completely different and also controlling a completely different body, am I right? The question still remains of how the hell the host manages to multitask like that.

 

 

 

Also

dain bramage.

hah.

[reguile]

"We're not the first people to claim that. Do your research."

 

You are the first people who i've personally spoken to.

 

"do your research". I already know people claim to be able to switch, I also know that people claim to hear the voice of god. I'm not going to just take what i've heard as serious.

 

"That's also shaky grounds for denying evidence. Yeah, on the surface it looks alright but it seems like you're claiming that we're lying just to try to provide evidence against you. Like, just how 'skewed' do you think we are?"

 

Trust me, i'm not disregarding your posts entirely. It'll be a while on these forums before i'll be able to really go further on this, honestly it's a topic that doesn't seem to be discussed often.

 

Do you know any threads where there is a large amount of discussion and talk about switching?

 

---

" Like, "don't doubt your tulpa" is pretty prevalent. If the sheeple are as asleep as you think, then why do they question it?"

 

EXACTLY!

---

"No look, you're saying that a tulpa should be completely consistent? That's bullshit. Mental disorders, or diseases, and hell, even headaches are not consistent."

 

Most mental disorders have one of a range of symptoms. Headaches have specific causes most often. diseases also have specific ranges of symptoms.

 

They are consistent.

 

"What's more, a tulpa being independent shouldn't necessitate being completely consistent anyway."

 

A tulpa being a product of a mechanism triggered in the brain by forcing should be. And without such a mechanism how in the world are tulpa independent anyways?

---

"So what the hell is 'subconscious parroting' in your opinion and why is it different from a tulpa responding independently?"

 

I go over this in the guide a bit.

 

"subconcious parroting" is when the host replies for the tulpa without mentally putting forth the effort to do so, or recognizing that they do make a response for the tulpa.

---

"Yeah, that's kind of what I want to say. It's not necessarily that they 'gain' new abilities, only that they realise that they can do the abilities."

 

How does a tulpa learn that they can "leave"?

 

Shouldn't a tulpa leaving be impossible?

---

"And anyway, what's your reasoning behind saying that an independent being's abilities shouldn't be suggestible?"

 

If a tulpa is independent that means that it is a being that cannot be "controled" by the host or the mind. That implies that there is something very physical and very real going on in the brain. Something that is a real sort of activity is going to have very strict actions and limits, now, a tulpa can be suggestible in feelings, or other ideals, just as human beings are, but not in abilities.

 

A tulpa shouldn't gain the ability to do things such as leaving or (I can't think of many good examples :/).

---

So, people expect their tulpa to surprise them and they ... do? What does that change?

 

Host asks tulpa to surprise them, creating the expectation that the tulpa should do something "surprising" (mine only ever made bla sounds, which were never remotely suprising)

 

Hosts imagines tulpa suprising them

 

host acts surprised.

 

The real test is if the tulpa is actually capable of suprising the host at random times, although that still isn't quite enough to say that the tulpa being able to do that is proof of true independence, as it's still possible the host "briefly" thinks of the tulpa, and forgets about it and/or is in the habit of talking to their tulpa at certain intervals, and at one of those times the tulpa surprises them.

---

"What is this about placebos in the first place? You mean that people are just imagining that their tulpa sounds like themselves? Yeah, sounds likely enough to me."

 

Yeah, that is something I said was possible.

 

However I also said that placebos work in a fairly normal fashion (see EXACTLY!)

 

1. person expects thing.

2. thing doesn't actually happen physically.

3. thing is felt by person.

 

In tulpa's case the placebo should be working in the other direction, and the host should be feeling like the tulpa is independent despite it not being real. This lines up with parroting fears far more than it being the other way around where the tulpa is independent and the parroting is placebo.

 

Then again, I guess it could go the other way as most guides do mention parroting fears, but then again most guides also say you shouldn't pay attention to them.

---

Alright, let's go the other way. You may not believe in sensory dissociation, but I don't buy your view of switching either. Like, you're suggesting that the host is really acting for the body but are deluding themselves to think that they're really hallucinating something completely different and also controlling a completely different body, am I right? The question still remains of how the hell the host manages to multitask like that.

 

I actually think this might be a very good point. Get a host to do a number of tests while switched, see if the tests get worse. Actually that's a really good idea if I do say so myself.

 

Honestly, I don't buy my whole idea of switching too much either. I do think it's more likely than your definition, but switching is something I've honestly not put a large amount of thought into, as it's something I have yet to try to do (as mentioned in the guide). There will likely be much better ideas in the future, and that above test would actually be pretty easy to do in any case.

[Celest]

Just want to interrupt for a moment to say that all of the replies in this thread have definitely helped me out on my mindset for working with my tulpa, since I am still in the beginning stages and was looking for a bit of assurance. Kudos to Sands and waffles for their detailed posts and experiences.

[waffles]

Do you know any threads where there is a large amount of discussion and talk about switching?

I can't think of anything off the top of my head so you'll do just as well as I will by just using the search.

 

But hey, if you are going to look around for some more stuff then that's fine, no more discussion warranted.

 

 

EXACTLY!

Guess you didn't read what I said about quantification?

 

 

Most mental disorders have one of a range of symptoms. Headaches have specific causes most often. diseases also have specific ranges of symptoms.

A 'range' is not consistent. Like, you know schizophrenia right, and how it has lots of different symptoms which sometimes manifest and so on? They're so diverse, some people suggest that it's really more than one disorder. And the same goes for like every other disease ever. Within single patients, even, schizophrenia can come and go - just like so many other mental disorders.

 

Or else if a 'range' is good enough then why don't we just specify a 'range' for how a tulpa's responses feel and then say that they're consistent? Not meaningful, is it?

 

 

A tulpa being a product of a mechanism triggered in the brain by forcing should be. And without such a mechanism how in the world are tulpa independent anyways?

Why should they be? Still haven't explained your logic.

And, uuh, you'll find that whatever a tulpa is it's "a mechanism in the brain". You should probably specify what kind of mechanism you mean here.

 

 

"subconcious parroting" is when the host replies for the tulpa without mentally putting forth the effort to do so, or recognizing that they do make a response for the tulpa.

Okay, so the host does the doing except doesn't put any effort towards doing, and isn't aware of doing the doing either. So how is this meaningfully different from the tulpa responding separately from the host, if this already means that response generation is unconscious? I'm sure it's all to do with where you draw the line of 'the host' ending and 'the rest of the mind' beginning.

 

 

How does a tulpa learn that they can "leave"?

By a) thinking about it or b) reading about it on the internet

 

Shouldn't a tulpa leaving be impossible?

No. Why would it be impossible? We're not talking upping sticks and moving to another brain here, just disappearing from the host's perception and doing whatever.

 

 

[1] If a tulpa is independent that means that it is a being that cannot be "controled" by the host or the mind. [2] That implies that there is something very physical and very real going on in the brain. [3] Something that is a real sort of activity is going to have very strict actions and limits, [4] now, a tulpa can be suggestible in feelings, or other ideals, just as human beings are, but not in abilities.

I've numbered your steps to make it easier to reply.

 

1: No, it doesn't. Like, whatever your definition of 'independence' it's not going to be that. Look, even if your tulpa can make decisions completely separately from you and enact them without your attention and whatever else, that doesn't completely stop you from exerting control over them. Just like another person is independent from me but I can grab their limbs and make them do stuff, the same applies in my head.

 

2: Okay, what's "physical and real in the brain"? Like, just what does that mean?

 

If that's supposed to mean "something significant is happening", then I agree with you in a broad sense. And for that I totally get where 3 is coming from (at least I think I do), and I do agree with you, just in a different way. The meaningful mental faculties of a tulpa, e.g., whether or not they can possess, are not too easily changed. The limits can be moved but they take time and effort, which I think is to be expected. However, the examples you give (only the 'leaving' thing so far really) are essentially trivial to do. So you may as well say that those abilities - the suggestible ones - are already within 'limits', since strictly within imagination there aren't really any limits.

 

 

Host asks tulpa to surprise them, creating the expectation that the tulpa should do something "surprising" (mine only ever made bla sounds, which were never remotely suprising)

 

Hosts imagines tulpa suprising them

 

host acts surprised.

Yep, on board. But

Hosts imagines tulpa suprising them

is basically the same as saying "tulpa surprises host", because if it really is a surprise then, well, it's a surprise anyway. The host can expect to be surprised - they might not anyway, being a pessimist or something - but assuming the action is actually surprising this doesn't change anything. The difficulty is in the surprise itself, I think.

 

 

In tulpa's case the placebo should be working in the other direction, and the host should be feeling like the tulpa is independent despite it not being real. This lines up with parroting fears far more than it being the other way around where the tulpa is independent and the parroting is placebo.

 

Then again, I guess it could go the other way as most guides do mention parroting fears, but then again most guides also say you shouldn't pay attention to them.

You're right insofar as placebos are concerned. However, there's a reason I distanced myself from them. This doesn't necessarily apply to simply 'imagining' something, because your point applies long-term while a single odd response could be the exception to the trend.

 

 

I actually think this might be a very good point. Get a host to do a number of tests while switched, see if the tests get worse. Actually that's a really good idea if I do say so myself.

Well, some sort of testing might help clarify somewhere, yeah. But I think you'd find the tests get worse anyway, since doing tests by proxy is naturally gonna be hard.

[reguile]

"A 'range' is not consistent. Like, you know schizophrenia right, and how it has lots of different symptoms which sometimes manifest and so on? They're so diverse, some people suggest that it's really more than one disorder. And the same goes for like every other disease ever. Within single patients, even, schizophrenia can come and go - just like so many other mental disorders.

 

Or else if a 'range' is good enough then why don't we just specify a 'range' for how a tulpa's responses feel and then say that they're consistent? Not meaningful, is it?"

 

Range of symptoms. EG: Most schizophrenia patents hear voices, have hallucinations, and severe cases have times where the patient cannot tell their hallucination from reality. This is something that just happens and is pretty consistent, it also is very out of the person who get's the diseases control and has no dependence on what they believe, a person can realize the hallucinations are fake, but that won't stop them from occurring.

 

You could say tulpa have a range of symptoms, that is true, but they wouldn't be "symptoms". They aren't things that just happen, they are all caused to happen/believed to happen.

 

"Within single patients, even, schizophrenia can come and go - just like so many other mental disorders."

 

As can physical pains or ulcurs or broken bones.

 

---

"Why should they be? Still haven't explained your logic."

 

How can a tulpa be independent from the host if the brain itself is not simulating or "being" the tulpa? How can the brain be doing this without a physical mechanism?

 

"And, uuh, you'll find that whatever a tulpa is it's "a mechanism in the brain". You should probably specify what kind of mechanism you mean here."

 

That a part of the brain is thinking for the tulpa, and that part of the brain isn't considered a part of the "larger" mind while it is being used for the tulpa.

 

---

 

"Okay, so the host does the doing except doesn't put any effort towards doing, and isn't aware of doing the doing either. So how is this meaningfully different from the tulpa responding separately from the host, if this already means that response generation is unconscious?"

 

The point is that the host is still doing it, and the host is deciding or accustomed to not being aware. I actually do discuss this in the guide.

 

---

 

"By a) thinking about it or b) reading about it on the internet"

 

Yeah, that was a stupid question i'll admit.

 

---

"No. Why would it be impossible? We're not talking upping sticks and moving to another brain here, just disappearing from the host's perception and doing whatever."

 

This goes back to that it would be necessary for a part of the brain itself to be acting independently here.

 

A tulpa is a part of the mind, it should not be able to be active without having the host knowledgeable of it's existance, because the host should be aware at least of the brain spending the time and focus to "think" for the tulpa. Processing is a definite and limited recource, and a tulpa does not add processing to it (see JD's experiment with parallel processing).

 

---

 

"No, it doesn't. Like, whatever your definition of 'independence' it's not going to be that. Look, even if your tulpa can make decisions completely separately from you and enact them without your attention and whatever else, that doesn't completely stop you from exerting control over them. Just like another person is independent from me but I can grab their limbs and make them do stuff, the same applies in my head."

 

Physically moving a person is not comparable to mentally moving them. Mentally manipulating a person is also not comparable to mentally controlling them either.

 

"whatever your definition of 'independence'."

 

Look, i'm not saying that tulpa cannot "act" in an independent way. I am saying that the way tulpa act does not rely on them being independent, and is instead based on delusoin. I say it in the guide. Tulpa can still feel and seem independent and separately acting in every way with my theory. However, what I do say is that by recognizing the nature of the tulpa, a host can enter tulpaforcing with the correct "attitude" that fixes/helps to fix many issues, from fears of parroting to tulpa going depressed because they are based on a character.

 

I do say that tulpa aren't ACTUALLY independent, and I do say that tulpa's actions are not their own, but the illusion can be seamless enough that it feels like it is.

 

"Okay, what's "physical and real in the brain"? Like, just what does that mean? "

 

That means that the brain is actually decided and separate and that the tulpa is a separate physical process in the mind instead of one tied in with your own.

 

Ok, what about things like tulpa helping with a persons memory or being aware of things a person is not aware of? Those are not nearly as trivial.

 

---

 

"s basically the same as saying "tulpa surprises host", because if it really is a surprise then, well, it's a surprise anyway."

 

Again I do agree with you here, but that doesn't make it a proof of sentience, only that it doesn't really matter if there is sentience or not in matters such as this one.

 

" The difficulty is in the surprise itself, I think."

 

I absolutely agree.

---

 

" However, there's a reason I distanced myself from them. This doesn't necessarily apply to simply 'imagining' something, because your point applies long-term while a single odd response could be the exception to the trend."

 

I'm not sure 100% what you are saying here. My point is that it makes more sense for the placebo to be the tulpa rather than the parroting due to that all the "being told this does this" is working in the tulpa's direction, and the guides that mention parroting also say that they are imagined/should be ignored/etc. I don't understand what long term and single odd response is referring to here.

 

---

"But I think you'd find the tests get worse anyway, since doing tests by proxy is naturally gonna be hard."

 

Why would doing test while switched result in things being harder to do?

[waffles]

Range of symptoms. EG: Most schizophrenia patents hear voices, have hallucinations,

Not all, though, and not really 'most' either.

 

and severe cases have times where the patient cannot tell their hallucination from reality

Yes, for some kinds of schizophrenia. But that's not completely consistent either if there are only 'times', is it?

 

it also is very out of the person who get's the diseases control and has no dependence on what they believe, a person can realize the hallucinations are fake, but that won't stop them from occurring.

They may not stop but are you sure that beliefs don't make any difference at all? I genuinely don't know, I'm just wondering how you're so sure.

 

You could say tulpa have a range of symptoms, that is true, but they wouldn't be "symptoms". They aren't things that just happen, they are all caused to happen/believed to happen.

I'm not really following you here.

 

As can physical pains or ulcurs or broken bones.

Yeah, so everything is inconsistent. Kind of my point right.

 

 

 

How can a tulpa be independent from the host if the brain itself is not simulating or "being" the tulpa? How can the brain be doing this without a physical mechanism?

Sorry, I meant "Why should they be consistent if they are this mechanism?".

 

That a part of the brain is thinking for the tulpa, and that part of the brain isn't considered a part of the "larger" mind while it is being used for the tulpa.

What criteria do you use to consider that?

 

 

 

The point is that the host is still doing it, and the host is deciding or accustomed to not being aware. I actually do discuss this in the guide.

I'm not wholly sure if you discuss it in great detail because I can't find it.

 

But that still doesn't explain it to me. The host is doing it but unaware of doing it, so in what way is it still "the host"? To me, the clearest definition of a person within their own mind is the extent of their conscious awareness, plus their decisions/thought processes and what guides those.

 

Of course, by this view when you're riding a bike it's not really 'you' riding a bike. But internally that makes sense, because it isn't 'you', because you're not aware of it. It might even be an ability specific to you, but that ability is 'yours' and not 'you'. What this view does is make a strong distinction between what is internally relevant and externally relevant. So you'd never tell your friends, "My unconscious mind is riding my bike" because that's stupid. But as far as (and in the context in which) you do view your 'self' as being a subset of your 'mind' at large, then these distinctions are relevant.

 

Similarly to the bike, the tulpa is not 'you' because you're not aware of it. And it might even be an ability specific to you, the ability to generate responses, but then, again, it is 'yours' and not 'you'.

 

Then again, I suppose that's perspective anyway, isn't it? You may not view that kind of distinction as being meaningful because your views of the mind revolve around one fixed person. Even then, though, I think the unconscious/conscious distinction stands, but that really is just a matter of opinion.

 

I don't really think that it changes a whole lot, because you clearly do have different opinions on how tulpas are and work beyond this point. But I'd still like a clarification on your opinion on this if you wouldn't mind: tldr what "the host" is precisely, in your view.

 

 

 

This goes back to that it would be necessary for a part of the brain itself to be acting independently here.

 

A tulpa is a part of the mind, it should not be able to be active without having the host knowledgeable of it's existance, because the host should be aware at least of the brain spending the time and focus to "think" for the tulpa. Processing is a definite and limited recource, and a tulpa does not add processing to it (see JD's experiment with parallel processing).

That really explains nothing to me. Why should that mean that a tulpa can't stop responding?

 

 

 

Physically moving a person is not comparable to mentally moving them. Mentally manipulating a person is also not comparable to mentally controlling them either.

Okay, so I guess you mean influencing their decisions for them. Yep, I agree for the most part then.

 

Look, i'm not saying that tulpa cannot "act" in an independent way. I am saying that the way tulpa act does not rely on them being independent, and is instead based on delusoin. I say it in the guide. Tulpa can still feel and seem independent and separately acting in every way with my theory. However, what I do say is that by recognizing the nature of the tulpa, a host can enter tulpaforcing with the correct "attitude" that fixes/helps to fix many issues, from fears of parroting to tulpa going depressed because they are based on a character.

 

I do say that tulpa aren't ACTUALLY independent, and I do say that tulpa's actions are not their own, but the illusion can be seamless enough that it feels like it is.

I don't think you do say this in the guide. If you do, you say it quite cryptically. But alright, that clarifies a bit, thanks.

 

 

 

That means that the brain is actually decided and separate and that the tulpa is a separate physical process in the mind instead of one tied in with your own.

Do you have any grasp on what "your own physical processes" are, or is that completely intuitive?

 

Ok, what about things like tulpa helping with a persons memory or being aware of things a person is not aware of? Those are not nearly as trivial.

I'll state again that the point about awareness of an ability made long ago still stands. Like, I know you already accepted it but it to me really does invalidate this kind of point completely. There isn't much point continuing this line of discussion if that point is gone.

But, well, reports of help with memory aren't all that common. Awareness, same thing. They're firstly not that common, and secondly don't necessarily follow the same "hear about -> able to do" trend that you were talking about. Maybe you think that they do, but I have no reason to believe so as of yet. So even if these activities are non-trivial (which is still up for debate) that doesn't make the same point by itself, because the limits on these abilities aren't moved quickly.

 

 

 

Again I do agree with you here, but that doesn't make it a proof of sentience, only that it doesn't really matter if there is sentience or not in matters such as this one.

Okay, so if you agree with me on that then what's the rationale for saying that it isn't a proof of sentience? Although saying that I'd add that I'm not 100% on 'proof', only decent evidence.

 

 

 

I'm not sure 100% what you are saying here. My point is that it makes more sense for the placebo to be the tulpa rather than the parroting due to that all the "being told this does this" is working in the tulpa's direction, and the guides that mention parroting also say that they are imagined/should be ignored/etc. I don't understand what long term and single odd response is referring to here.

What I mean is that even if most of the time your placebo effect is in place, that doesn't mean that there can't be some times when the host does imagine an off response. I'd probably agree with you on that placebo you've got going there, or at least say that it's an issue of quantification that can't be overcome, but it isn't necessarily in full strength all the time.

 

The other point is that 'placebo' may not be the best descriptor. The term is usually psychosomatic in use, or at least requires some sort of consistent expectation. Meanwhile I'm only talking about some short, fleeting effect whereby the host 'imagines' (in a colloquial sense) the response being odd, or even simply makes a mistake.

 

 

 

Why would doing test while switched result in things being harder to do?

Doing tests by proxy, mainly. You can't just magic tests into your imagination and answers out, you need to communicate. Plus imagination can be fuzzy so written material won't always be consistent.