Kiahdaj January 23, 2014 January 23, 2014 I have considered many possibilities when it comes to the nature of tulpas, and I subscribe to none of them. I've not nearly enough information to draw any conclusions, so to side with any one belief for anything further than the sake of hope would be a bit hasty. Some people believe that even human beings are merely a system of neurons conditioned to fire in certain ways, under certain circumstances; consciousness being a mere illusion of our decisionless, machine-like nature. If this is the case, then a tulpa not having true sentience--simply being a partition of the brain "programmed" to act, and respond like another being would be no different than our own nature. On the other hand, if this nature is indeed possible, whether it is our own or not, then perhaps tulpas are an example of this concept in action. So yes, tulpas could just be a simulation of a consciousness, much like our work with AI is becoming. The trouble is, I don't suppose there will ever be a way to prove the nature of tulpas, one way or the other. A sufficiently realistic simulation of consciousness would act, and appear to feel and think like any other person does. Likewise, whether you could say they truly feel this way or not, they would most likely claim true consciousness and autonomy if asked. On the other hand, there is no way to disprove a tulpa being a fully functioning human consciousness like you and me. So really, like many of life's mysteries, it's up to you to decide what you believe. "If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."
waffles January 23, 2014 January 23, 2014 So, what do you guys think about this? Do you think tulpas can be conjured from a "field", giving them autonomy in the same way a particle conjured from the higgs-field gives matter mass? Similarly, are /all/ tulpas created first of the "concept" of tulpa being in the mind? You keep saying different things. First it's a simulation, then a 'concept' - whatever that's supposed to mean, I don't know - and here it's a 'field'. Maybe you can explain to me how these are all the same idea because I can't see it. About your confirmation, though: See if your tulpas seem to stem from some source idea (and if you have multiple tulpas, see if they can switch minds/traits with each other) and see if your tulpas all seem to end up being the same person. As far as I'm concerned my tulpa and I don't have the same personality, even in root. I guess if that's what you were going for then consider me a counterexample. The trouble is, I don't suppose there will ever be a way to prove the nature of tulpas, one way or the other. [...] On the other hand, there is no way to disprove a tulpa being a fully functioning human consciousness like you and me. So really, like many of life's mysteries, it's up to you to decide what you believe. That's a remarkably defeatist attitude, isn't it? I don't think there's good reason to consign it to being "one of life's mysteries". We may not be able to make the distinction now, but that's not because the distinction is impossible. A comparison between the functioning of a tulpa and a host is both possible and, I think, revealing as to the answer to your question.
Kiahdaj January 23, 2014 January 23, 2014 That's a remarkably defeatist attitude, isn't it? I don't think there's good reason to consign it to being "one of life's mysteries". We may not be able to make the distinction now, but that's not because the distinction is impossible. A comparison between the functioning of a tulpa and a host is both possible and, I think, revealing as to the answer to your question. All of life's mysteries are merely things we don't currently understand. When the means come along to make this kind of distinction, it will cease to be a mystery. However, in the present, if asked what they are, to say it is not a mystery is just not correct. You make it sound as though I don't believe that everything is explainable, with the right knowledge and tools. it's entirely possible that everyone has tulpas built with different foundations. This is also something I have considered, and would probably go so far as to say that I believe. People slap the title "tulpa" on these beings as though there is a certain point in development when one's imagination suddenly becomes one. I think that with different means, methods, and perspectives come many different possible foundations, or possibly even states of being. Collecting data on what many people's tulpas can and cannot do sounds like it could be a progressive idea for this phenomenon. But who knows. "If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."
waffles January 23, 2014 January 23, 2014 Tulpas as a "concept" as I had put it, is to mean that your tulpas are the projection of a single entity of the whole "concept" of tulpas, that acts as and is your tulpa(s) in this situation. Any tulpa created of a central being like this is akin to a simulation of certain aspects of that being. It's similar to how people on the internet can have multiple aliases, each alias can have an entirely different personality, but are all facets of the one person behind the keyboard. I had described it as a "field" earlier because it doesn't feel like a "main" tulpa would be an automation, or a specific being in and of itself, but rather a sort of essence, and tulpas are the manifestation of that being's essence into a form more understandable by the host. You keep using 'concept' and 'essence' in a way that is not readily understandable. The idea that all the tulpas in one brain are different manifestations of the same machinery, as it were, is fine and understandable. If you mean 'concept' as 'the thing that's behind the tulpas' as above then I understand what you're saying. In any case, I'm not sure why your method of inquiry is supposed to help. If you want my opinion, people are almost certainly not able to 'sense the nature of their tulpas on a basic level'. Okay, with the whole quote And I created this thread to see how everyone else sees their tulpas, and to see if people are able to sense the nature of their tulpas on a basic level so that we can see what different types of tulpamancing there are based on slightly different creation processes or whatever. I'm mainly interested in seeing the nuances between people that drastically could change the way their tulpa acts, and why certain people can do certain things with their tulpas that others struggle with or cannot do completely. it doesn't sound like there's a plan of attack here. You make it sound as though I don't believe that everything is explainable, with the right knowledge, and tools. This is the quote that gave me those ideas: I don't suppose there will ever be a way to prove the nature of tulpas It seems pretty clear to me.
Kiahdaj January 23, 2014 January 23, 2014 That was said to express my uncertainty--and sure, possibly skepticism. That certainly does not mean that I think that it can not, or will not happen. "If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."
waffles January 23, 2014 January 23, 2014 To suppose is to hypothesise, here, I guess. So you do not hypothesise that there will ever be a way to prove the nature of tulpas, or, equivalently, you hypothesise that there will never be a way to prove the nature of tulpas. One or both of us doesn't understand English here, if we can't agree on what that sentence means.
Kiahdaj January 23, 2014 January 23, 2014 The difference here is like the subtle difference between to not like, and to dislike. To not like simply means you do not have positive feelings for something--neutral. But to dislike means you have negative feelings towards it. Here, I do not hypothesize that there will be a way to prove, but I do not hypothesize that there will not be a way. Again--neutral (again, perhaps a bit on the skeptical side). I neither think, nor think not. "If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.