Still no progress after 10 months.

[DragonFriend]

I remember reading this a while ago and seeing all the hostility... I later realised exactly why when browsing through several threads with Fede's replies... Isn't he banned from the site now? Anyway, I tend to not agree with Fede's idea of constantly parroting. It seems to be counter-productive, and I might even go as far as saying harmful to tulpas development.

[Quilten]

I think that parroting is productive to basically kick-start vocality, in the same way you have to pull the crank on a lawn mower a few times to make it run until it clicks and turns the original movement into something it can do on it's own. Honestly, parroting in a long-term sense would get on both of our nerves.

[UnknownCraos]

My theory is that you need to parrot at least a little to get your tulpa into the swing of things. Without getting too much into my theory of how tulpas work, I would say that parroting is almost essential to some degree to tulpa development as it allows certain pathways in the brain to come into being. Your tulpa can use these pathways on their own after a while to be sentient. Or that's the theory, anyway.

[Guest amber5885]

^^^ actually it's rare for a host to have a tulpa that needs parroting. Most of the time they begin talking On their own but if you find this method useful there's no harm in it

[Linkzelda]

Perspective #1: People have their own ways of conferring intelligence, sentience, and what have you with their tulpas. If you’ve been narrating for months with no progress, it depends on what you technically did. If you just find things to talk about, and the usual stuff (e.g. reading books, discussing experiential learning, past events, etc.), and did little to no imagination of what it would be like of them listening to you, and just plain existing, it shouldn’t be a surprise that you’re not going so far.

 

From the posts within the thread so far, it’s a little mini-debate of how people react when they hear the words “subconscious,” “unconscious,” and seem to associate negative trends if someone went hardcore in parroting to sustain a self-fulfilling prophecy of treating them as sentient. People seem to correlate that because a person does something enough with conscious effort, that the metaphorical representation (e.g. unconscious) of their mind will only be limited by those pre-existing memories, and not have any associations with things like implicit knowledge, and other forms of memory and cognitive abilities that leads to subjectivity; i.e., those aspects with cognition don’t always have to be associated with your mind controlling every fiber of your tulpa’s existence.

 

If you want to question parroting, and whatever hopes a tulpa has in learning things on their own to gradually augment whatever traits we feel validates their sentience, we have to question what makes us so sure that we’re sentient entities, and not people controlled by some metaphorical association of our mind. Just because we learn something long enough to gain unconscious competence in it, it doesn’t mean we brand ourselves as robots doing mechanized tasks, do we?

 

How can one expect to make progress when they’re willing to look at the deeper confines of their mind as their own enemy because of fears of that part of them dictating every single action rendered out in their perception of reality? Why can’t people see that part of our mind as merely a conduit to process, and experience these things with a tulpa? Especially if people are wanting to go through the implicit dichotomy and autonomous existence, there’s going to be some point where you’ll have to distinguish the nature of your own tulpa’s existence, i.e., their ontology if you will.

 

Just because a few methods and processes that would involve your mind rendering something out to you (e.g. auditory imposition) doesn’t mean you stop right there as that being your tulpa trapped only to that circumstance. Did people just forget imagination is more than that, and just being suggestive that they can exist without being victim/controlled/dominated by our conscious efforts?

 

If we aren’t predisposed into feeling we’re being controlled by our mind just because we use a cognitive ability to our advantage, why do we feel the need that the mind will make any exception to the thought-forms we want to create? When it comes to sentience, it seems people lose sight of what it really distinguishes us from other sentient entities (e.g. ability to make meaning through symbolism, association, patterns, etc.), and feel they can’t believe their tulpa can do that; whether implicitly, or something that could really be an event that we can’t explain empirically.

 

Perspective #2:

 

It’s more than just narration and making a schedule to lounge around active and passive forcing. You have to really feel their existence in your reality. You have to imagine what it would be like of them reacting in certain ways you narrate to them, or just talk to them in general. You imagining them doing things (e.g. how they move, how they speak, their tonality) shouldn’t be correlated to an inevitable domination of your mind to where you feel modes of cognition that we have that would allow us to make subjective interpretations of reality is suddenly improbable for our tulpas be conferred by us, whether consciously, or through unconscious predispositions and what have you.

 

People have their own ways to confer intelligence and sentience to a thought-form, but you’re going to have to make a compromise with how you see your own mind. And ultimately, it comes down to symbolic representations of how it may work, e.g., seeing the subconscious/unconscious as a conduit for the totality of your cognitive competencies to render out these experiences to you, and going beyond just that when it comes to validating the existence of your tulpa.

 

If we believe we have these competences engrained in our own minds to help us do tasks, and live out our days just fine while knowing how to be sure of our own existence, it’s not improbable for a tulpa to reach the same level of experience; whether this experience for them is implicit, or something beyond our cognitive grasp to explain empirically. See your mind as a heuristic/experiential canvas that helps kickstart/initiate/etc. these things you want to see your tulpa be brought to life. Their existence doesn’t have to be restricted by what we would categorize as levels of competences we would gain cognitively.

 

You have to guide them, not dictate them, on what it means for them to be sentient to you. Whatever methods you utilized, parroting, or anti-parroting methods, just focus on the end result, and maybe reconsider the seemingly negative conception that your mind is a grandiose master in dictating your life, and their lives; it’s merely (metaphorically) guiding you based on the totality of your predispositions, desires, recollection of memories and cognitive functions. But again, merely ad hoc claims, so you’ll have to make another compromise, like many probably have to do anyway.

[jean-luc]

Did you force a personality?

No i want that my Tulpa choose.

 

This was my thought as well when I first started. What ended up happening was that I got to a point where snow had some sliver of a personality, so I didn't want to force something on her. But the thing is, it's kinda hard for your tulpa to choose who they're going to be when they don't exist yet. If/when I make my next tulpa, I will certainly do personality forcing. My best advice for you now is to, as I said, just keep swimming.

[Luminesce]

My "natural"(didn't know about tulpas beforehand) tulpas went through a parroting phase where we had trouble telling whether they were talking or if I was making up the thoughts, but I kept at it and soon enough they developed a sort of context attached to their thoughts that made them distinguishable.

As for personality, I'm sure it differs for each person, but I gave my tulpas personalities when I created them (I didn't know any other way). A while after they learned to express their sentience, they started drifting toward personalities they preferred, and eventually one brought up that they didn't like theirs and we worked together to reshape it. They're a lot happier now.

 

Giving a base(your preference) personality to work with for maybe a few months while your tulpa gains sentience, and later asking them questions about what they like/don't like, seems like the best way to do it. Unless you have a specific personality you want, or are afraid of getting too attached to certain traits, I suggest doing it this way. My tulpas all eventually grew into their preferred personalities from the original ones I gave them, but looking back they're completely different than their original concepts.