Unpopular opinions about tulpa

[Guest amber5885]

Opinions do change and I guess since its happened to so many people it's just accepted as a thing now.

 

My own tulpa was an accident.

[reguile]

As for my own unpopular opinion. I view tulpa as entirely non-sentient, non-independent, and non-being beings. I do not see them as deserving any rights, appreciation, or consideration as a person.

 

I do, however, see tulpa a a neat little mental trick you can use to craft an awesome personality and speak to it. Despite that you cannot truly make a separate being in your mind, you can get the next-best-thing in the form of something that acts, looks, and feels like it. I find that amazing and awesome.

 

• they will inevitably have to explain what would be deemed as a paradox (i.e. dualism) and hard/soft problems with consciousness in general. And individuals that try to see the process of neurons firing to emulate sentience of a tulpa, and yet feel so intolerant to the belief of a “second” or “partition” of consciousness seem to be shooting themselves in the foot. I have yet to see anyone (with those beliefs stated above) try to explain how neurons that would generally be deemed as non-experiential matter magically become experiential matter to emulate sentience. If they’re willing to accept that a tulpa would be a mélange of neurons to emulate sentience, they would be favoring, to some extent, on panypsychism:
   
  Because if they mostly subscribe to neurological standpoints on tulpas, they’ll have to tackle if neurons can somehow turn from non-experiential to experiential matter (and/or combine casual theories to explain the intermediates). And I say experiential because of sentience being the ability to experience subjectivity and all that.

 

This whole segment seems to rely on the idea that consciousness is something special at all.

 

There has been a very interesting "experiment" recently where researchers made a simulation of all the neurons of a worm. They wired up those neurons to the wheels and sensors, and the robot acted like a worm.

 

Now, that isn't a huge deal, really, but when I see that I see a robot running the same mind, the same feelings, of an animal I have felt sorry for putting on a hook. If it can be done with a worm, than what is stopping us from doing it to a more complex animal down the line? The answer, nothing is.

 

Consciousness is nothing but a special arrangement of neurons. There is no "duality" where a material can have a consciousness or can't at some points. Consciousness is a state that matter exist inside of, just like icicle describes frozen water in a sharp point.

 

None of the water in the object is an icicle, just like no neuron or part of matter is a consciousness. What we mean when we say "icicle" just like what we mean when we say consciousness, is a specific thing. Consciousness is an arrangement of matter that interacts in such a way that it can think as a person does.

 

Hence, you could have a second arrangement in the human brain that is separately conscious. In theory at least, even if I don't buy the fact that it is possible or likely at all.

[Linkzelda]

This whole segment seems to rely on the idea that consciousness is something special at all.

 

Instead of giving a tl;dr, here's this:

 

 

- Scientism + Materialism + Tulpas

 

>insert materialistic definition of “consciousness”

>imply as if it’s the inherent and absolute, genuine true meaning of consciousness

>relate it to tulpas

>just an amalgamation of neurons that magically convert non-experiential matter into experiential matter

>but but but but but how do deh non-experiential matter turn to deh experiential matter?

>what is panpsychism?

>what are hard/soft problems of consciousness?

>dude, seriously, just materials that magically do deh experiential matter

>can you explain this?

>I don’t need to

>why?

>because they’re just our mind’s way of creating a virtual experiential reality in our heads to sustain our propensity to create symbolic meaning; nothing special, man.

>so like, accepting a delusion when you really feel there could never be any dichotomy, dualistic implications, or other heuristic examples of conceptualizing consciousness?

>kinda

>what is lucid dreaming

>wut?

>it’s the scientifically proven phenomenon

>so?

>altered state of consciousness, anyone?

>nyup, just neurons can shift back and forth with non-experiential matter and experiential matter

>never-ending debate on consciousness

>mfw you see who gets the last laugh; I'll just circle jerk with my tupperwares

>mfw I ask my tulpas if they feel their existence holds no value

>mfw when they say yes because they can't hold up for too long like actual tupperwares

>oh, you.

[reguile]

 

>just an amalgamation of neurons that magically convert non-experiential matter into experiential matter

>but but but but but how do deh non-experiential matter turn to deh experiential matter?

>what is panpsychism?

>what are hard/soft problems of consciousness?

>dude, seriously, just materials that magically do deh experiential matter

>can you explain this?

>I don’t need to

>why?

>because they’re just our mind’s way of creating a virtual experiential reality in our heads to sustain our propensity to create symbolic meaning; nothing special, man.

>so like, accepting a delusion when you really feel there could never be any dichotomy, dualistic implications, or other heuristic examples of conceptualizing consciousness?

 

>what is lucid dreaming

>it’s the scientifically proven phenomenon

>altered state of consciousness, anyone?

 

 

>using greentext outside of 4-chan.

 

I'm removing a large amount of this just because it's pure bullshit not worth a response.

 

First off, you are going to need to describe what you mean by "experimental" vs "non-experimental" matter. I have personally never heard the term, and I am unable to find the terms in the way you use them anywhere on the internet.

 

I am guessing that experimental matter is "thinking" and non-experimental matter isn't, but that could very well be wrong. There isn't much I can say until I actually know what either of those means.

 

Secondly, the question of why we have experiences and such. The "hard" question of consciousness. I find that question kind of funny, because looking at this:

 

"Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

 

Kind of shows a misunderstanding of how evolution or our minds work in the first place. "should" isn't a term that happens in evolution, just "did it happen?" and "did it survive?". A truly efficient mind wouldn't bother with simulations of experience, a sense of self, etc, instead opting for efficient systems that skip the crap. However, the human body/mind is not a perfectly efficient system, just one that had the traits that lead to survival.

 

Unless the question is less "it doesn't make sense for the brain to do this" and more "how can matter that doesn't have expierences make something that does" or it's kin. In which case there honestly isn't much to say. The answer is the same as "how can unthinking matter form a brain". (by creating a system where physical reactions represent and produce thought).

 

The third possibility is the question of "my experiences don't feel like neurons shifting things". In that case you are speaking as an incredibly biased observer. Anything, or anyone looking at you from the outside will see all your thoughts, experiences, etc, represented by reactions in your head.

 

I like how you try to imply that lucid dreaming being scientifically proven means or proves anything about consciousness existing as it's own thing.

 

All a lucid dream has to be is the mind remembering and keeping the areas that manage "high level" thought awake while doing all the other things required for a dream. Nothing about it implies anything higher or different than physical going on.

 

 

">mfw I ask my tulpas if they feel their existence holds no value"

 

I thought you were smarter than this, to be honest.

[Linkzelda]

I'm removing a large amount of this just because it's pure bullshit not worth a response.

 

Kind of like how this whole discussion that will ensue will be like.

 

First off, you are going to need to describe what you mean by "experimental" vs "non-experimental" matter. I have personally never heard the term, and I am unable to find the terms in the way you use them anywhere on the internet.

 

I am guessing that experimental matter is "thinking" and non-experimental matter isn't, but that could very well be wrong. There isn't much I can say until I actually know what either of those means.

 

Maybe your means of looking for them are limited.

 

Anyway, those are just terms that I’ve seen were used in a few forums that talked about the hard/soft problems of consciousness, most specifically the materialistic worldview on it. While it’s easy to just see the world as a bunch of materials, and series of connections that somehow emulated what it means to be us, or having a consciousness, the worldview avoids the deeper problems in cracking down what consciousness really is. The same goes for those who may have dualistic implications of consciousness; both sides are at an impasse, especially in circumstances when using the scientific method as an epistemological endeavor to conceive a knowable world.

 

The greentext wasn’t really my opinion, or presuming what your opinion really is in general. If you look at the bigger picture, you’ll see all sorts of threads where people cling onto their convictions of what’s true, and not true with sentience and non-sentience with tulpas. Some go to the point where they feel being agnostic about what’s really true isn’t enough, and they must side with one extreme, or the other, or go back into realizing they may not know anything beyond their cognitive horizon.

 

Secondly, the question of why we have experiences and such. The "hard" question of consciousness. I find that question kind of funny, because looking at this:

 

"Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

 

It’s always funny when we imagine ourselves in an objective worldview, and trying to see the absurdities, or validities in things like this when we’re really furthering our subjectivity in guise of objectivity. In other words, imaginary objective standpoints can be useful when it comes to something like creating fiction, or at least trying to conceptualize something as a learning tool. But when taken too far to reach to conclusions that things are bullshit, non-this or that, we reach to confusions on hard questions of consciousness, or anything in general about life; we become mystified when coming out of that objective standpoint of the overall meaning behind it all, and yet feel so assured and confident when we’re in that imaginary objective viewpoint.

 

Kind of shows a misunderstanding of how evolution or our minds work in the first place. "should" isn't a term that happens in evolution, just "did it happen?" and "did it survive?". A truly efficient mind wouldn't bother with simulations of experience, a sense of self, etc, instead opting for efficient systems that skip the crap. However, the human body/mind is not a perfectly efficient system, just one that had the traits that lead to survival.[/quote[

 

Yeah, you’re talking about misunderstandings of evolution, teleological implications of what defines an efficient mind, and going so far off the subject that you’re not talking about consciousness anymore. If you feel that an efficient mind won’t bother with simulations of experience, sense of self, and other attributes that may come with that (e.g. having a recollection of memories and a conceptual roadmap in personally defining the reality you’re in), it seems that mind is just there to exist to revel in nihilistic thinking about the world around them, and beyond.

 

This is where the Scientism may come in where one only seems to integrate an objectivist worldview, or even a materialistic worldview, and feels there’s a lack of any inherent quality or value when it comes to efficiency of the mind. It’s like absolving yourself from your daily lifestyle, thinking it doesn’t really matter, and going to such lengths that it doesn’t matter (rather than seeing it as a chance to create personal meaning), and yet trying to be humanistic about it.

 

Unless the question is less "it doesn't make sense for the brain to do this" and more "how can matter that doesn't have expierences make something that does" or it's kin. In which case there honestly isn't much to say. The answer is the same as "how can unthinking matter form a brain". (by creating a system where physical reactions represent and produce thought).

 

What is a tautological statement.

 

The third possibility is the question of "my experiences don't feel like neurons shifting things". In that case you are speaking as an incredibly biased observer. Anything' date=' or anyone looking at you from the outside will see all your thoughts, experiences, etc, represented by reactions in your head.[/quote]

 

Where have I stated that I thought it wasn’t my neurons shifting things? You’re implying way too much into this. Aren’t you being an extremely biased observer?

 

I like how you try to imply that lucid dreaming being scientifically proven means or proves anything about consciousness existing as it's own thing.

 

Where have I stated in that greentext that would imply that just because it’s a scientifically proven phenomenon that one should use it as a crutch to prevent further thinking of the problems when it comes to defining consciousness existing as its own thing? Where have I stated in that greentext that consciousness is dichotomous from us, and things in general?

 

Stop strawmanning me, please?

 

All a lucid dream has to be is the mind remembering and keeping the areas that manage "high level" thought awake while doing all the other things required for a dream. Nothing about it implies anything higher or different than physical going on.

 

Where have I brought up metaphysical implications of lucid dreaming? Where do you see any subjectivist implications in that greentext? Jeeze, just a few comical statements, and suddenly you’re putting words in everyone’s mouth. It’s like you need to create sham arguments just to continue on debating.

 

">mfw I ask my tulpas if they feel their existence holds no value"

 

I thought you were smarter than this, to be honest.

 

Wait—

 

Wait, just wait a second. Why should it really matter what a person asks their tulpas about if you strongly believe that tulpas are non-sentient, non-independent, and non-being beings? How do you even know if I even asked them that? What if I just added that bit in there for shits and giggles with inside jokes on variations of the word tulpa (e.g. Tupperware, tupper)? It’s not like, in your perspective, that it would tarnish any efficiency of the mind based on Darwinian implications.

 

Why does everyone need to pull out a cognitive scale of who they discuss with? Who cares if you see someone as smarter, dumber, or whatever level of cognition you deem fit? Why can’t we talk like individuals that understand that as much as we’ll have our opposing views, we’re really unsure when it comes to the probability of any long-lasting teleological value with tulpas?

 

 

--

 

Though I guess we can't have it any other way in a thread where it's supposed to be unpopular opinions about tulpas...whether they're dogmatic, or just loosely biased.

[reguile]

When I mentioned looking at the brain from another viewpoint, I was not talking about the view being different that matters. Honestly, with a camera and a bit of technology you could observe the mind yourself in the same way. My point was that there is some physical process that matches/can match any feeling or experience anyone has. (although we do not have the specifics yet, on a very low level, we can observe brain activity through any experience, and even recreate-relate dreams to movies and such.)

 

I have to say that my statement above isn't a tautology, just saying that what X is explained by is the same as what Y is. Doesn't make it true by default, just makes the connection where it can be set true or not.

 

Also, I would still love to know the definitions of this experimental and non-experimental matter.

 

What are the things that cannot be explained by a material definition of consciousness? Outside of philosophical bullshit such as "something can't come out of nothing so consciousness can't come from non-consciousness" I know of nothing that can't be. Why are they unexplained? What is explained by dualism that is not by materialism? And the reverse?

 

You have to remember that I didn't have much to work with with your greentext wall.

 

The area that you speak of lucid dreaming seems to be in support of "alternate modes of consciousness" and the idea that because lucid dreaming both exists and is proven by science, it implies that there is something "more" going on with a person's consciousness. Why else would you put that in the rant?

 

Secondly, the greentext's general note of sarcasm heavily implies that it is in disagreement with my own post, and I assumed all the parts of it were also. Based on this I assumed the greentext was in support of a non-materialistic definition of consciousness.

 

If you don't want to be straw-manned, make your posts clear to read and harder to be interpreted wrongly.

 

>greentexting outside of 4 chan.

 

I considered the part with the tulpa as to be the classic "well, my tulpa doesn't think it's pointless"/ the "I am telling my tulpa you think it's pointless and it feels bad, so you should" routine. My "I thought you were smarter than that" means exactly that. I thought you were smarter than to use such things in a post.

[Linkzelda]

TL;DR at the bottom.

 

What are the things that cannot be explained by a material definition of consciousness? Outside of philosophical bullshit such as "something can't come out of nothing so consciousness can't come from non-consciousness" I know of nothing that can't be. Why are they unexplained? What is explained by dualism that is not by materialism? And the reverse?

 

I only stated that both worldviews are at an impasse when it comes to having anything proven about consciousness in general. They may be able to supplement each other for circumstances, but that’s the thing, it just depends on the circumstance. Some take things too far with overarching one worldview of consciousness that’s not compatible for those circumstances.

 

The amazement you had with the potential with tulpas, correct me if I’m wrong, where the mind can at least fabricate something that could be akin to sentience, and yet not really be sentient (e.g. your claim on non-sentient, non-being beings, etc.) seemed like you didn’t want to feel they’re non-sentient, non-being beings, and such. But presuming you do feel that way, I was really wondering that if you’re willing to feel it’s merely pseudo-sentience, implicit sentience, etc., what really makes you different compared to the potential communities like this impose on what a tulpa can, or cannot do?

 

In other words, like you mentioned the research with analysis of rudimentary type animals and consciousness, you raised the question on how things will turn out with more complex lifeforms. I would presume we as humans would be added into that question. It seemed you developed a bit of apathy in any kind of meaning that we seem to want to create in our lives, and combined what could be Darwinian implications with evolution, and seemed to have skewed what you felt would constitute as an “efficient” mind.

 

So I felt you used that as an argument with tulpas in general, and probably don’t see much efficiency, or long-lasting benefit when it comes to self-fulfilling prophecies with treating them as sentient. Because, at least with the logic you’re going with non-sentient, non-being beings as what tulpas can be defined as, going along with the belief mentioned before, it would contradict things, at least in how you may want to assess things if you choose to create a tulpa or not (I’m not so sure on the status on your journey, so forgive me if I’m wrong there).

Here’s the thing, and here’s my opinion that can be relatable with tulpas. The guide you made that was being critiqued by the GAT members (rationalistic guide to tulpas), I honestly saw you as a person that probably didn’t go far enough to where they reached some kind of breakthroughs where their critical nature and skepticism gradually subsides, specifically for any personal validation of tulpas. In other words, you would eventually have some accumulation of assurances that they could very well be sentient in some way; implicit, pseudo, etc. vs. non-sentient.

 

If you remember any of the responses from those GAT members, it seemed that was the overall problem in how you conceptualized what would be rational with tulpas. So when I saw your post of tulpas being, in your perspective, non-sentient, non-being, non-independent beings, I honestly thought you still had the same mentality since the guide submission. You seemed to have been open to the implications of another “consciousness,” but took it with a grain of salt, but you still came to terms with what you define tulpas.

 

I felt that although it was perfectly fine for you to formulate your own opinions on tulpas, I felt like you were doing this to dodge further questioning of the logic behind non-sentience, non-being, etc. with tulpas. In other words, if you're willing to be amazed on how the mind create this virtual experiential reality with tulpas, be it through imposition, mind-voice interaction, and things of that nature, it would tempt you to speculate if your reasoning makes any sense.

 

And I’m not talking about finding revelations that you feel you can tell people that tulpas are real and valid. More like a personal thing you find while knowing you can’t really prove those experiences to others. I felt maybe you haven’t attempted something like possession and switching for instance, which are two things that I personally felt that made my doubting years ago completely demolished.

 

The idea is, at least from my experience, is that if I tried to combine your reasoning of what tulpas could really be, and combined that with the experiential learning, and all I did to make some success with possession and switching, it just raises questions on whether a tulpa can truly have some kind of authentic sentience that could be equivalent our sentience as well. If I’m having someone I’m consistently believing is sentient, and even expressing myself in ways to further that assurance, and seeing myself lose control of my body while I presume they’re operating, I had a nagging feeling in my head that maybe you didn’t have that kind of experience.

 

My main point is just giving an example as to why if you felt that tulpas are non-sentient, non-being beings, and non-independent, it would be more difficult for you to make that compatible should you ever reach some breakthrough with what people would presume possession and switching to feel like.

 

After those experiences with possession and switching, it keeps becoming more apparent and easier for me to detect, and being agnostic on how everything is done has been my only way to just to deal with the demystified attitude we have when trying to find the answers in an imaginary objective point of view that’s really just pushing our subjectivity.

 

This is why I felt the discussion was useless when it comes to siding with one extreme with another, and I’m sort of in the middle, i.e., agnostic about it all. I just felt you still had some experiences to go through for you to be convinced that your logic is just a distraction from speculating on the bigger questions. It’s the same behavioral trend people have who may have went with blind faith, and found the idea of tulpas more bullshit, and any means of curiosity was destroyed, and their mentality is one similar to yours.

 

 

The area that you speak of lucid dreaming seems to be in support of "alternate modes of consciousness" and the idea that because lucid dreaming both exists and is proven by science' date=' it implies that there is something "more" going on with a person's consciousness. Why else would you put that in the rant?[/quote']

 

 

Again, I don’t feel that just because the concept of lucid dreaming has empirical roots in being a phenomenon anyone can go through, it doesn’t mean I feel we stop questioning it there. I just personally find the concept akin to what people want to do in assessing themselves with tulpas. I don’t feel lucid dreaming can be a crutch, or an excuse to say “well, if this is true for lucid dreaming, it must be for tulpas.”

 

It’s just that with any phenomenon that seem to be too complicated to conceptualize, and barely has any sustaining empirical underpinnings to it, it doesn’t mean that some collective anecdotal cases of how people assess lucid dreaming should prevent those who are skeptical about it from actually attempting it. In other words, even if LDing is something proven, it doesn’t answer, or validate any conclusion on something like consciousness.

 

But if you’ve ever had a lucid dream, something that’s always apparent is just having further curiosity on our own mental boundaries; be it through interactions with dream characters that we can associate with your perspective of merely being non-sentient, non-independent, etc., or just trying to see if there’s some symbolic meaning behind our dreams, or whether or not they’re just fabrications with no inherent meaning whatsoever.

 

Even if dream characters could really just be non-sentient and all, one would have to question how the mind would be creating that virtual experiential reality that seems to emulate them as sentient, independent from your conscious being, and things of that nature. And going along the premise of a thread like this, one would probably have the same questioning with tulpas as well (e.g. if there’s any “authenticity” if we presume and treat them as sentient beings). So maybe you haven’t had experiences like that, so I felt this just restricted you to that conclusion you made with tulpas.

 

Also, I would still love to know the definitions of this experimental and non-experimental matter.

 

I was using “experiential” and “non-experiential,” not those words you mentioned. If you want a general idea with experiential matter, just matter that doesn’t really have something “experiential,” or even having awareness of being able to experience things at all. For instance, something like panpsychism would claim that all things material of any level has consciousness in some way (which would be a perfect example for one to question how does something we consider being non-experiential matter (e.g. a rock) suddenly has consciousness in some way).

 

Kind of like neurons and associating that with tulpas, or anyone that wants to use computer analogies with tulpas; we’d have to question how something that may be non-experiential matter (neurons, brain parts, whatever you want to call them) suddenly combine together to be experiential matter that people want to associate tulpas being composed of (e.g. those with a materialist view on tulpas, or even a reductionist worldview, or even those who may feel tulpas are part of the unconscious mind that’s presumed to be conferred sentient, sense of self, etc.). Not saying you attach yourself to those beliefs, but just throwing those out there for examples on my word usage there.

 

 

 

TL;DR:

 

The premise of your previous post that started this all seemed to have absolute assurance that tulpas are non-sentient, non-being beings, and non-independent. Though you didn’t discredit the amazement one could have in appreciating how the mind can creating whatever virtual experiential reality in their heads to make it feel as if a tulpa is sentient, autonomous, etc.

 

I found it concerning that you allowed an open-mindedness to something, and yet sustained a more militant mentality that would contradict your openness as well. And the topics you brought up with experimentation with certain animal’s nervous systems and what you have made me wonder if you didn’t speculate further than that.

 

I felt like you let a few circumstances with that validate your assurance of what you felt tulpas really were, and just didn’t have some experiences with something like switching and possession; two concepts I personally feel may subside in varying levels of a person’s critical nature when trying to foster assurance on whether or not a tulpa could have some kind of authentic type of sentience, but it would be a validation one could gain solace in for themselves, and not for validating it to others.

 

For example, something like qualia; if you only can affirm that tulpas that non-sentient, non-being beings, and non-independent (and we can just forget that both of us will have opinions that would need further analysis empirically and all that, just like anyone’s opinions), it’s limited on your experiences; be it sensations, subjective experience, etc. So if you’re open to something like being amazed on how the mind can emulate things as implicitly expressing what a tulpa can exist as (e.g. sensations, virtual experiential realities in your head, or even in your current perception of reality of), your personal validation, and what you come to terms to on tulpas will just be based on your experiences.

 

In other words, even if you were to accept the mentality that it could be all just a self-delusion we’re putting ourselves into that our mind can do a near-perfect emulation of with tulpas, even the illusions would be real, in the context of our qualia/subjective experience (not something tangible); this is different from associating it from an objective reality that can exist with/without our subjective experiences.

 

So to say your experiences of what’s really a knowable world, and what you would call real, and yet say how one’s experiences of their mind emulating what could just be a virtual experiential reality with tulpas in general are not real (e.g. non-sentient, non-independent, non-being beings) in context of our own private subjective experience alone becomes contradicting; you don’t have, just like anyone else may be in, of some real experiences to contrast them with. Like some objective view where you can feel assured is real without having your subjective view invade that (which brings me back to how when we feel we’re trying to objectively analyze our experiences with tulpas, we’re really just furthering our subjectivity, and masking it with another name; in hopes that through a collective knowledge of people’s experiential cases and anecdotes with tulpas, that we could formulate some kind of understanding that can be as objective as possible when it comes to information to be made to the public, even if it may not really fulfill what it means to be in an objective point of view).

 

It’s mostly a matter of debating on perspective, and other metaphysical and ontological matters where we could be at each other’s throats for denying/proving the existence, or sentience/non-sentience of a tulpa (in the circumstance of our own personal validation, and not for scientific inquiry and analysis). It's nothing against you personally, just for the sake of discussing in hopes that more theories can be thrown out to question the logic of all sorts of beliefs, and maybe come up with plausible explanations for those circumstances.

[Joshua+1]

I'd say Durdan is more DID than tupperware. The symptoms are there.

[D@nzingtree]

1. Keep it strictly platonic, as long as you dont get in approached.

If you get approached think thrice about it.

2. I think that ponys are autistic beyond good and evil and I have therefore a purely subjective disdain for the idea of squeezing a poor tulpa into such an abomination, espeacially if you think about the fact that the host will be in its 30s someday and then regret having a pink fluttershit circling around him that he shaped as he was an immature teen.

 

Thats it, im not very experienced and this are the only things I have formed a distinct opinion about yet.

[Laach]

1. Tulpa.Info should have another goal in mind for when it's finished studying and researching tulpas. Like how to give them physical bodies in the real world or something.

2. This site needs to be more active.

3. There needs to be more tulpa related media. Maybe a video game based on tulpa?

4. Just more community projects in general. Science and tulpa can't be the only thing keeping us together, right?