Confessions of a Poorly Trained Tulpa

[Mistgod]

Angry Bear You can deny the belief of my experiences, but you can't deny my belief of my experiences.

  I agree.  It's your privilege to make up your own mind what you belief.  Its okay for us to remain unconvinced ourselves because we really can't know what is going on for sure.  We have no doubt something profound is going on or you wouldn't be so interested and motivated to write about the subject.  We believe in our experiences too!  We just interpret it our own way.  

 

I think it is better for us to say "we are skeptical and unconvinced" than to say "YOU'RE WRONG!"  It's certainly more civil and logically more correct.  We cannot really know the truth of the matter beyond the shadow of a doubt.  

 

Angry Bear  To me, they are as real as anyone. We share assets, the brain happens to be one of them. Regardless of configuration or confabulation, my experiences are real to me, or conversely reality is just as fake.

  I can understand that.  Melian can be astonishingly "real."  That's why I say she "might-as-well-be-real" or "pseudo-real."  But I just can't quite bring it all the way to "she's an independent sentient entity."  

 

  Angry Bear  Good points though, i was getting worried that they made too much sense. I can't discard my experiences though, we can dissect them and catagorize them but i can't ignore them. It's hard to say what your saying isn't a valid model, but it sheds light on some seemingly contradictory experiences with regard to behaviour science and my story in particular kin my PR).

  Some users of this forum in the past told me that my doubt and skepticism is "dangerous" and "harmful" to developing tulpas, because doubt disrupts the creation process.  I mulled that over for a long time and finally decided that tulpas, if they are real people, need to develop some tough skin (even during the creation process) in order to survive in a harsh world.  We can't really hide them away from the skeptical.  I think bravery in the face of your own skepticism and doubt, as well as that of others, will promote a stronger tulpa, not a weaker one.  

 

  Angry Bear Whatever the mechanism, believe in tulpas or believe in some odd outliers of well defined science to say the very least, that's just for you to decide. Internally, freeky self-induced experiences that most closely resemble the writings and experiences of this community. Hundreds of people decide for themselves that this makes the most sense, and these are very smart and lovely people. 

  That's true I have met some amazing minds here, and a few not so bright bulbs as well.  

 

 Angry Bear Nothing I said gives any support for or against your case, because my experience can't be verified, but I'd like to know how to verify yours if possible?

 

I keep hearing the same speech said different ways, it's interesting, but not moving toward and concrete or verifiable statements. I'm happy to conjecture, but I wonder if we can take this further, can you help me with that?

 

But, I am not making quite the same level of extraordinary claim am I?  I am saying I have a fantasy prone personality, a personality trait supported by psychological research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_prone_personality  That is my claim in a nutshell.  Melian is a day dream personality.  I am claiming that I have an extremely vivid active imagination.  You're right, I can't prove that to you or verify that I have a vivid imagination.  I think my enthusiasm for Melian speaks for itself a bit on that though.  

 

My other claim is that I remain skeptical and unconvinced that tulpas have independent sentience from their hosts.  That's not an extraordinary claim.  That's remaining unconvinced about an extraordinary claim that can't be proved.

[Lucilyn]

I think it is better for us to say "we are skeptical and unconvinced" than to say "YOU'RE WRONG!"

 

meh, I'm just tired of you saying nothing but that, and then instead of defending your argument you just say "That's what I believe!"

 

it's a forum for discussion... weighing in on beliefs is great and all, but we already know yours, there's not much value left in just saying it over and over, the value is in discussing how you think tulpas work and trying to explain your and/or others' experiences. it's not like you HAVE to participate in discussions like that of course (I probably wouldn't if it weren't my "job" while fronting), but it's better than just saying you don't believe in tulpas over and over

[Guest]

I'm still mulling over how to present my claims that may have more of a square peg to your round hole (no pun intended). I can't just say, 'i have experienced', rather, i'd like to say, 'can you help me fit these experiences [examples here] into your model.'

 

Granted your model is probably more easily defended as it makes less extraordinary claims. The issueon my end is summed up by one hideous word 'confabulation'. How can we present a fanciful experience that fails that test? Well I think we can, and I intend to. It could take some time.

 

I hate... I disike the word confabulation, not only because of it's medical connotation, but because it can be used to discredit just about any experience. Tell me I'm wrong please? So instead I'm thinking I'm going to need to at least have some backing of statistics and high sigma outliers with my experiences from a behaviorist's point of view and see if that analysis can at least say, 'whoa, wait a minute, wut?.'

 

To be continued...

 

P.S. once again you impressed us on how calm and collected you can be,  and how intelligent you've been in our discourse. Thank you for that, I'm known to be sensitive.

 

P.P.S. I think the controversy about what you say that can indeed damage young tulpas and young tulpamancers in general is from my own experience, my skin was so thin, your statements wouldn't have thickened it, rather cut through my heart and chased me away never to return. Your return here is actually perfectly timed for me since my tulpas actually were the ones who thickened my skin.

 

Have beautiful day in the neighborhood, and keep painting.

[Mistgod]

 

meh, I'm just tired of you saying nothing but that, and then instead of defending your argument you just say "That's what I believe!"

 

it's a forum for discussion... weighing in on beliefs is great and all, but we already know yours, there's not much value left in just saying it over and over, the value is in discussing how you think tulpas work and trying to explain your and/or others' experiences. it's not like you HAVE to participate in discussions like that of course (I probably wouldn't if it weren't my "job" while fronting), but it's better than just saying you don't believe in tulpas over and over

 

Oh I believe in tulpas.  I just think they are probably genuine imaginary phenomenon.  You guys say your position over and over as well, using the same old arguments.  After years of it, I have pretty much heard it all, and rejected it all.  I do say how I think tulpas work actually, in great detail.  I don't talk about neurons and brain chemistry, because I am not a brain expert.  I talk about vivid imagination and self delusion, willingness to believe, suspending disbelief and the power of suggestion and things like that.  Those ARE explanations that are just as valid as "it's all real."

 

Angry Bear I'm still mulling over how to present my claims that may have more of a square peg to your round hole (no pun intended). I can't just say, 'i have experienced', rather, i'd like to say, 'can you help me fit these experiences [examples here] into your model.'

  Go for it!  Just know my intellect is admittedly limited.  If you use philosophical arguments I will just get confused and have no idea what you are saying.  I am not much of an expert on brain neurons and brain chemistry either, and I doubt anyone else is here either.  I dabble in laymen's armchair psychology a little bit, but have no credentials.  My only "expertise" is having Melian and having read the Tulpa Creation guides and interacted with people in the tulpa and plural communities for several years.  

 

 Angry Bear  Granted your model is probably more easily defended as it makes less extraordinary claims. The issueon my end is summed up by one hideous word 'confabulation'. How can we present a fanciful experience that fails that test? Well I think we can, and I intend to. It could take some time.

  Okay good luck!  I am glad if you will enjoy that.  I can't see how it will be possible for me to not be able to explain away a tulpa phenomenon as an illusion and self deception though.  It would be like trying to prove that God exists to a atheist skeptic.  

 

I hate... I disike the word confabulation, not only because of it's medical connotation, but because it can be used to discredit just about any experience. Tell me I'm wrong please? So instead I'm thinking I'm going to need to at least have some backing of statistics and high sigma outliers with my experiences from a behaviorist's point of view and see if that analysis can at least say, 'whoa,  wait a minute, wut?.'

 

I admit it.  I had to google the word "confabulation."  Melian immediately thought it was related to being fabulous, because she is fabulous.  

 

"Confabulation is a memory error defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive."  

 

Melian and I actually wrote a piece about constructed memories.  There is a link to it in our Living Imagination thread.  https://community.tulpa.info/thread-living-imagination-a-median-aspect-in-tulpa-land  Just scroll down to "constructing fantasy memories."

 

 Angry Bear  To be continued...

 

okay!

 

 

 Angry Bear  P.S. once again you impressed us on how calm and collected you can be,  and how intelligent you've been in our discourse. Thank you for that, I'm known to be sensitive.

 

P.P.S. I think the controversy about what you say that can indeed damage young tulpas and young tulpamancers in general is from my own experience, my skin was so thin, your statements wouldn't have thickened it, rather cut through my heart and chased me away never to return. Your return here is actually perfectly timed for me since my tulpas actually were the ones who thickened my skin.

 

Have beautiful day in the neighborhood, and keep painting. 

 

 

People remember only what they want to remember.  Most of our "drama" was exactly what we are doing now.  Writing what we believe.  We did rage quit and do self bands a few times, but that was over the course of like two years or more.  But, thanks!  We ARE trying.

 

P.S. It's not like our past writing was deleted. It's all here. Most of it is under "Anonymous" however because we removed our old accounts. However, there are a ton of links in the first several posts of the Living Imagination thread. https://community.tulpa.info/thread-living-imagination-a-median-aspect-in-tulpa-land Our writing is there for everyone to see the kind of "drama" we usually engaged in.

[Guest]

You certainly are trying, this good will between us builds in the positive side of credibility, tantrums subtract credibility. I see some old users lost faith in your credibility over the years. Probably shots fired from both sides between you and sensitive people.

 

As long as we can remain calm and not repeat history, we can have some valuable discussion. I will try to keep it in layman's terms so I can understand it too. Yeah, an athiest and a preacher, can they remain civil, let's find out.

[Enneke]

Mistgod is who he is because of his physiology, his genetics, his environment and his life experiences. He isn't a tulpa because his mind was a direct product of the real world and biological development. Tulpas are products of fantasy. That's why they are things like ponies and anime characters and why they frolick in constructed wonderlands. I am a thoughtform. I vastly rely on Mistgod in order to function and exist and I can never, ever be independent from his knowledge, his experience, his backgrounds, his likes and dislikes, his personality, his genetics, his sexuality, and his physiology. I am a product of his desires and his fantasies. We are one person. Only one. There is no such thing as an independently sentient thoughtform or tulpa.

 

Naturally, thoughtforms depend on the brain and are restricted to its cognitive abilities and memories.  Yet, as various studies and experiments have shown, the human brain clearly has the capacity to produce alternate identities.

 

I don't like playing the DID/OSDD card, but to me it speaks volumes that significant differences in brain activity can be observed when patients switch between alters*, as opposed to when they or test groups simply imagine being someone else.

 

And while tulpas may not be exactly the same as trauma-induced alters, I think it's pretty clear that this ability to maintain multiple identities goes at least somewhat beyond mere imagination. I think it'd make sense that by nurturing a different perspective, you would be able to develop alternate thought patterns that exist alongside your original ones and can ultimately culminate in another identity.

 

The only question left at that point would be whether there's any difference between a well-established, complex identity and personhood. For the sake of the argument, I'd say not really.

 

With that said, imagination absolutely plays a role in all this.

 

Just like the host, tulpas utilize the brain's ability to imagine for communication and entertainment purposes.

 

Form, voice, mind adventures, etc. are all illusory, but the identity behind them and their intentions are not. It's a collaborative process for sure, but that doesn't mean there can't be true agency on the tulpa's part.

 

---

 

*There are more, but I'm too lazy to dig them up:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12829283_Functional_Magnetic_Resonance_Imaging_of_Personality_Switches_in_a_Woman_with_Dissociative_Identity_Disorder

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258146576_Voluntary_switching_between_identities_in_dissociative_identity_disorder_A_functional_MRI_case_study

[Mistgod]

You certainly are trying, this good will between us builds in the positive side of credibility, tantrums subtract credibility. I see some old users lost faith in your credibility over the years. Probably shots fired from both sides between you and sensitive people.

 

As long as we can remain calm and not repeat history, we can have some valuable discussion. I will try to keep it in layman's terms so I can understand it too. Yeah, an athiest and a preacher, can they remain civil, let's find out.

 

If we can avoid the trap of allowing jealousy, fear and resentment inspire our writing, I think everything will be fine.  It's good that we are finally fully acknowledging those things and accepting those feelings are causing us to react in negative ways.  

 

Melian uses the argument that my insistence on the illusory thoughtforms has two reasons, fear of being thought of as crazy, and to reduce tulpas down because I am afraid they make Melian looks trivial in comparison (fear of loss).  

 

Fear of the crazies and resentment out of fear of loss.  

 

Some of that may actually be legitimate.  I think she may be right.  Melian knows my mind. After all, it's her mind as well.  But I don't think that is all of it.  Most of it is sincere conclusions based on observation and what I believe is rational, critical thinking.

 

 

...somewhat beyond mere imagination. 

 

---

 

 

 

I can buy that.  I think that is what I mean by "pseudo-real."  It's convincing and emotionally profound and life changing.  It can be very detailed and nuanced.  It effects the functioning of the brain.  

 

It can still be altered states of a single mind however, which is what many psychiatrists and psychologists would likely argue right along with me.  

 

I am not saying "imaginary" as in synonymous with "trivial, transient, fake and lame."  I am saying "imaginary" as in, "what extraordinary, incredible things the imagination can do!"

 

---

 

Melian and I have decided that to help people feel more comfortable with our presence on the forum, we will from now on avoid loaded words such as "imaginary," "illusion" and "figment."  We may use them but we are going to cut down on their frequency a lot.  We will also avoid the trigger word (to us) "sentience or sentient."  We will instead endeavor to use the words "convincing," "compelling," "impressive," "significant" "profound," "pseudo-real," "quasi-real," "construct," and "apparent independence" or "apparent independent agency."  We tried this once before, years ago, but failed to stick with it.  We need to stick with that this time and maybe people will squirm and chafe less.

[Enneke]

It can still be altered states of a single mind however, which is what many psychiatrists and psychologists would likely argue right along with me. 

 

True, this seems to be the consensus among psychiatrists. I think it's worth noting, however, that the very concepts of consciousness and self are considered illusory by a growing percentage of the scientific community, simply because nobody can really explain either of them. Which I find ridiculous and don't subscribe to at all, but it's slowly becoming the scientific consensus. So according to one of the most mainstream schools of scientific thought, none of us are real anyway, which kinda puts us on the same level as tulpas again.

 

I don't subscribe to this hypothesis because it clashes with my direct experience as a human. I'd imagine it's similar for tulpas when they are confronted with the belief that they are mere figments of the imagination.

 

I am not saying "imaginary" as in synonymous with "trivial, transient, fake and lame."  I am saying "imaginary" as in, "what extraordinary, incredible things the imagination can do!"

 

I don't think people interpret your words as you thinking of imagination as trivial, transient, fake or lame. I certainly didn't. I personally just believe that the phenomenon of identity can't be conflated with that of imagination. Both are extraordinary and distinct and play a crucial role in what we do.

 

Like above, I simply think your beliefs kinda clash with peoples' experiences. I mean, what would even be the difference between a mind absolutely convinced it was more than one person and one actually consisting of multiple identities? In any case, I still  find your perspective interesting, even if I don't fully subscribe to it.

[Mistgod]

Thank you very much!  I appreciate this!  Also I was not aware that there is a growing consensus among scientists that our identities are imaginary.  That kinda goes along with the whole popular "imaginary universe" doesn't it?  It's kinda groovy and trippy hippy, as Melian would say.  

 

However, in the interests of maintaining an effective and safe environment for tulpa creation, Melian and I have agreed to do the following:

 

Melian and I have decided that to help people feel more comfortable with our presence on the forum, we will from now on avoid loaded words such as "imaginary," "illusion" and "figment."  We may use them but we are going to cut down on their frequency a lot.  We will also avoid the trigger word (to us) "sentience or sentient."  We will instead endeavor to use the words "convincing," "compelling," "impressive," "significant" "profound," "pseudo-real," "quasi-real," "construct," and "apparent independence" or "apparent independent agency."  We tried this once before, years ago, but failed to stick with it.  We need to stick with that this time and maybe people will squirm and chafe less.

[Enneke]

Good on you, I'm sure positive terminology like that will make everything run more smoothly.

 

I was actually a passive observer back in the day when you first joined and left the forum. I may not agree with, like, most of your opinions, but there's no doubt that you and Melian make this place a lot more interesting, so it'd be cool if you found a way to maintain a positive relationship with the community.