What is a tulpa?

[sushi]

I still feel like "tulpa" is poorly defined, and I think the vagueness of that definition is not helping our community any.

 

Take this for example: Melian says that most hosts are roleplaying their tulpas and just aren't aware that they're doing so. This offends a lot of us, but let me ask you: What is the difference between having a part of your brain trained through habit and belief to act out a personality without conscious thought, and actually having another sentient being in your head? Is there any difference? Could we ever know if there's any difference?

 

Where does being a tulpa end, and being whatever Melian is begin? And if Melian is not a tulpa, what is she?

[Stevie]

This is something that's gonna be hard to slap a definition on, because everyone has their own experiences. We try to assume that everyone who has the same ideology relating to tulpas has a similar set of experiences to support that ideology, and that people with different ideologies must have different experiences, and that's not necessarily correct. Say that Milan is a full fledged tulpa (which I honestly don't have enough information to support or deny) and Mistgod is experiencing all the things that we experience, but still coming to a different conclusion. Plus like, any inversion or offshoot of that situation. I don't know dude, I think that when you're talking about something that's so subjective, and maybe being reported inaccurately (not through anyone's fault, but we all leave things out and gloss over things on accident) that it's hard to build a concrete set of conditions for a mind person to be considered a tulpa. Hell, we could probably try, but in six months someone would come along and say that we're wrong because of x,y,z.

 

There's so many other questions attached to that though. Many tulpas report memories, do their memories exist before they report them? I think it was Linkzelda who brought up the idea of philosophical zombies in a thread not too long ago. It's a little troubling, because I like knowing for sure what's going on in my head, and just having to leave something to theory, like the idea of an entire experiential consciousness maybe just being the illusion of an experiential consciousness is becoming more and more of a bummer. I don't know if we could ever know if there's a difference, and again, I'm willing to bet that even if everyone put their heads together and found a way to separate sentience from the illusion of sentience, there'd still be butthurt people arguing the other way.

 

That's the thing with all this, it's like, once someone lays down a ground rule, it seems like tons of cases pop up that challenge or refute it. It seems like maybe it's just the nature of the community, FAQman laid down a lot of ground rules and once there were enough people proving those rules wrong, the community changed a little.

 

If we made a definition, for the sole purpose of getting everyone on the same page, not only would it probably take a while to begin with, but damn, it'd probably get changed in six months. Not that change is bad, or anything, but it seems like a lot of work for something that might not help a ton.

[sushi]

Yeah, any definition we make will probably be changed in six months, but I don't think that should mean that we shouldn't define things.

 

All science is essentially about stating what we believe, and seeing if anyone can prove us wrong. But that shouldn't mean that we should give up on putting forward new theories.

 

We used to believe that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it, and eventually that was proven wrong. And because we were proven wrong, we have advances in medicine and communication that have enriched our lives beyond measure.

 

Likewise, much of what Irish and FAQ Man said was wrong, but they made it possible for us to have this community and to discover new things about tulpas. I don't think we should stop now.

[waffles]

I don't think the definition of tulpa has changed much in the last few years. Especially if you define it merely experientially: something that responds persistently and autonomously in your head. But most people feel the need to slap on stuff about being sentient and stuff, which may or may not be 'proven' wrong, but it sure hasn't yet. Is it a poor definition? I don't really think so. There are not clear boundaries between different phenomena, between tulpas and multiples, whatever else. So a term that tries to cover the whole thing really should be vague enough to do so.

 

The stuff Melian says is interesting but the language is far too ambiguous to read into it literally. At one point she explicitly says that

May 20 00:01:25 I am not an RP character

What does being an 'illusion' mean, if that 'illusion' will say

May 19 23:58:55 I really feel I am Melian talking to you.

May 19 23:59:08 I have emotions and feelings and memories and dreams

May 19 23:59:29 I have my own likes and dislikes

Picking apart logs like this is boring but you get my point. In any case I can't see much in there to suggest a conscious effort on David's part, at least.

 

But yeah, what's the difference between unconsciously roleplaying (whatever that means) and something being there? Experientially the two are indistinguishable (although in this case Melian bizarrely denies that, e.g., possession is possible) and in terms of underlying mechanism, the whole thing is confused beyond hope to try to disambiguate there. I think whatever you're actually trying to distinguish with these two separate ideas will come down to something that is some other subjective measure of 'realness', not particularly relevant to the original dichotomy.

[Ro Tembrin]

I still feel like "tulpa" is poorly defined' date=' and I think the vagueness of that definition is not helping our community any.[/quote']

So, you mean the former theories were not vague? At least I showed you something that is a bit more than just a philosophical concept.

 

But that shouldn't mean that we should give up on putting forward new theories.

On the one hand you tell me that theory I raised is not suitable, because 'no', and on the other hand you tell me that we are in need of seeking different theories. Can you explain this to me?

 

What is the difference between having a part of your brain trained through habit and belief to act out a personality without conscious thought' date=' and actually having another sentient being in your head? Is there any difference? Could we ever know if there's any difference?[/quote']

I don't know why you connect 'acting out' with 'training your brain'. Is your skill, let's say the skill of playing the piano, less of a skill because you trained it? You need to magically possess it to make it real?

 

Tell me, where is the human conciousness coming from? Isn't it growing and slowly changing during years? Isn't that exactly what is happening with tulpas? I only tried to show how you can PLACE a concept of another conciousness in your brain using science which you, as I can see, desire.

 

To be honest this theory helped me and my host a lot. Thank to that we felt tulpamancy isn't just about concepts. It has its physical connotations, it's this real. I already recommended the article in another thread but I think you would be glad to read it to fully understand what I'm saying: 'Neurons Gone Wild'.

 

This 'physical connotations' enables us to discover tulpamancy further, seeing possible boundaries and ways to cross them. Discovering new possibilities, as well.

 

Where does being a tulpa end' date=' and being whatever Melian is begin? And if Melian is not a tulpa, what is she? [/quote']

I think that Melian's attitude is coming from ambiguity she faces. She is very intelligent, to the point she can't easily delude herself into something she's not fully convinced to. She lacks strong arguments and nobody is giving it to her so she's labouring the point because she thinks that if she repeats questions many times she'll dig to satisfying answers at last (Melian if you're reading this and you're like 'hell no', tell me, this is just how I see things).

 

This story you linked, well, I can tell you how I see it: there's a being asking provocative questions and questioning one's beliefs in order to discover herself. There's another one, simply feeling uncomfortable, especially because she/he doesn't have arguments strong enough to defend his/her beliefs. What's the result? Knowledge-seeking attitude clashing with don't-touch-my-comfort-zone attitude.

 

The problem is: what is convincing for one person, isn't for another (that's why rhetoric is about finding what's convincing for the recipient, not the sender). Not understanding this by both sides may lead to the vicious circle - no answers and a lot of anger.

 

But, hey, isn't there 'For science!' in the Tulpa Info headline? Isn't science about asking uncomfortable questions? Looking for maybe even more uncomfortable answers? Undermining existing theories?

 

Still, I prefer the knowledge-seeking attitude than don't-touch-my-comfort-zone attitude. I prefer development, even if it's uncomfortable (in the majority of cases it is).

[Alexx]

I still feel like "tulpa" is poorly defined, and I think the vagueness of that definition is not helping our community any.

 

Take this for example. Melian says that most hosts are roleplaying their tulpas and just aren't aware that they're doing so. This offends a lot of us, but let me ask you: What is the difference between having a part of your brain trained through habit and belief to act out a personality without conscious thought, and actually having another sentient being in your head? Is there any difference? Could we ever know if there's any difference?

 

Where does being a tulpa end, and being whatever Melian is begin? And if Melian is not a tulpa, what is she?

I think the key is in Melian's personality - she strives to be the best.

[Luminesce]

On the one hand you tell me that theory I raised is not suitable, because 'no', and on the other hand you tell me that we are in need of seeking different theories.

 

Unless something happened in PM, I don't see where he denied any theory of yours. I also didn't really see a theory from you in the first place, just how you think about them. Of course tulpas are composed of neurons, as is our personality, but there's more necessary defining than that.

 

I don't know why you connect 'acting out' with 'training your brain'. Is your skill, let's say the skill of playing the piano, less of a skill because you trained it? You need to magically possess it to make it real?

 

And I don't understand where this came from exactly. He's basically asking, what's the difference between a tulpa, a supposed separate consciousness, and a philosophical zombie trained to act like one by your brain? Meaning, what's the difference between a true tulpa and something you only think is a tulpa, acts like a tulpa but doesn't truly think?

 

Problem for me and many others, it seems, is the inability to experience that other consciousness to prove it exists. I'm personally of the belief that there's only one "consciousness", and that it can be focused into personas and therefore defined (and limited). So a tulpa, or five, and the host are effectively sharing the same overarching consciousness - the toppest level of awareness in a human with few defining traits - which is being focused through their personalities, beliefs, forms, and any internal mental barriers to appear as their own person. So to me, an imaginary friend is a person you imagine in your head, and more or less control directly or indirectly; and a tulpa is a person in your head who has enough established neural connections to effectively function on their own. That means they don't need your split of the consciousness to control theirs, because your brain has established everything it needs to "run" them like it does you. They have their own ways of thinking, memories, identity, needs and wants and so on.

 

And that basically means that they don't rely on you, as in the persona your body naturally defaults to, to function. They don't need you to imagine or think things for them, because they're set up enough to do that on their own terms. I don't believe there's such a thing as "another consciousness", rather the overarching consciousness is being utilized by another persona besides your own. If you were to call a tulpa's use of consciousness its own separate consciousness, then we'd need to create another word to encompass ALL of the brain's consciousnesseseseress. And that just seems redundant for the sake of sounding legitimate. One overarching consciousness, any number of sets of personalities/identities/forms utilizing it, either one at a time or multiple at the same time, which probably requires practice for most.

 

 

That's just what makes sense to me at this point in time though. I've never experienced any other consciousness than my own, and my tulpas more or less tell me they think unconsciously/automatically, but certainly not with a full brain of their own. And I wouldn't expect that to be necessary or possible. But if I ever see evidence to say otherwise, I'll rework my beliefs. Until then - one overarching consciousness, one persona by default and potentially any number of others, and a tulpa is a persona+identity that's obtained an established-enough presence in your brain to think and act without your influence.

[Ro Tembrin]

Unless something happened in PM' date=' I don't see where he denied any theory of yours. I also didn't really see a theory from you in the first place, just how you think about them. Of course tulpas are composed of neurons, as is our personality, but there's more necessary defining than that. [/quote']

Well, I understood that the 'vagueness' refers to the different definitions of 'tulpas', so to the one I chosen as well. Sure the theory isn't mine, that's why I shared the article and let the scientists speak for me.

I don't see this necessity, to be honest. The only thing I see missing there is forming identity and defining the goals but that's what need to be done by the tulpa individually.

 

And I don't understand where this came from exactly. He's basically asking' date=' what's the difference between a tulpa, a supposed separate consciousness, and a philosophical zombie trained to act like one by your brain? Meaning, what's the difference between a true tulpa and something you only think is a tulpa, acts like a tulpa but doesn't truly think?[/quote']

How are you going to check if tulpa is really thinking? Are you even able to approve your conciousness?

What you quoted is exactly what I think about it. The fact that tulpa is made by a training (even on this forum you can find guides to do so) isn't making it any less conscious or 'real'. It's the opposite - I would find the concept of consciousness coming from nowhere a bit artificial. I can remember the process of me slowly becoming me (it's no real proof, just an addition).

 

one overarching consciousness' date=' one persona by default and potentially any number of others, and a tulpa is a persona+identity that's obtained an established-enough presence in your brain to think and act without your influence. [/quote']

Seeing the consciousness as something separate from 'ego' and above all 'selves'... How would you define 'the self' then?

How the tulpa is going to build an ABSOLUTELY separate module in your brain using your neurons? And, at the same time, remain a part of the system under the common consciousness?

I'm really interested in that because actually I want to see how separated I can become.

[sushi]

So, you mean the former theories were not vague? At least I showed you something that is a bit more than just a philosophical concept.

 

On the one hand you tell me that theory I raised is not suitable, because 'no', and on the other hand you tell me that we are in need of seeking different theories. Can you explain this to me?

 

As Reisen said, I'm not disputing a single thing you said. In fact, I agree with you. I just think there needs to be more definition.

 

I already recommended the article in another thread but I think you would be glad to read it to fully understand what I'm saying: 'Neurons Gone Wild'.

 

Thank you for posting that here. Actually, part of the reason I took so long to reply to all of this is because I was reading this article in the other thread. And that article is an excellent example of what I'm talking about:

 

Each of these different types of agents — hallucinated voices, alter egos, possession spirits, split hemispheres — has a different 'wiring diagram.' Each commandeers verbal faculties, reasoning faculties, and control of the body in different ways. Each has a different set of triggers for being summoned and/or appearing unbidden.

 

I don't think anybody in this community honestly believes that the entities produced by schizophrenia, Dissociative Identity Disorder are the same as tulpas. Most of us see multiples as being different, and some of us see daemons and Melian as different.

 

So what's the difference? Why is a daemon not a tulpa? Why is Melian not a tulpa? Why is any kind of headmate not a tulpa? What makes a tulpa different from all of this other stuff?

[Ro Tembrin]

As Reisen said' date=' I'm not disputing a single thing you said. In fact, I agree with you. I just think there needs to be more definition.[/quote']

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Can you specify what are you looking for? Is there more than questions beneath?

 

Thank you for posting that here. Actually' date=' part of the reason I took so long to reply to all of this is because I was reading this article in the other thread. [/quote']

No problem. I'm glad you took time to read it.

 

I don't think anybody in this community honestly believes that the entities produced by schizophrenia, Dissociative Identity Disorder are the same as tulpas. Most of us see multiples as being different, and some of us see daemons and Melian as different.

 

So what's the difference? Why is a daemon not a tulpa? Why is Melian not a tulpa? Why is any kind of headmate not a tulpa? What makes a tulpa different from all of this other stuff?

I really like how you keep adding questions.

 

I think all of them are thoughtforms. And according to what characteristics and roles they're about to undertake, they differ.

 

Actually, in schizophrenia voices are more common (they have no consciousness, they just express hidden desires, disturbances and such).

DID is sometimes a part of schizophrenia but it does not have to. The DID thing I would call 'wild thoughtforms' because they're a product of personality falling apart due to trauma. You have no control over what actually detaches and starts to dwell on its own. Also, these 'wilds' can have negative attitude towards the host, which may cause self-destruction attempts.

I see daemon as a limited tulpa because you dictate which traits are going to 'detach' and create one. You also dictate the attitude a daemon should undertake.

Why is Melian not a tulpa or why isn't she an imaginary friend? I don't know. I don't have enough data. I asked them this question, maybe I'll get an answer.

 

So, to make it short: all tulpas are thoughtforms but not all thoughtforms are tulpas.

 

Could you answer your own questions, Sushi? I wonder what would you say.