How do we know what tulpas are, while it is unclear what we are?

[Grudge]

Does anybody get lost in understanding what a tulpa is, after they get lost in understanding what they are? I don't know if I should identify with my personality, my consciousness, or both. Where does a tulpa come in? That seems hopeless to answer. We can say tulpas are observed, so they are a real phenomena. What they are beyond that seems to be a mystery, requiring faith or presumption to 'solve'.

 

Step 1: Answer the poll.

Step 2: State which you chose, and ask yourself, where do you figure the tulpa exists? Why?

[TulpaFox]

I feel that my personality exists within my conciousness. This is a big reason why I considered tulpas to be possible without a ton of persuation. The Sub conscious part of our brain is vast, so I never saw why there would not be room for another personality.

[Linkzelda]

1. The first one seems to imply Solipsism. The second one seems contingent on emotions. The third one seems relatable to epiphenomenalism, or any other ideology where thoughts are byproducts of some physical processes of the brain, and yet are casually inert when it comes to affecting this reality. The fourth seems to be an extension of the second one. The last one implies pretty much any form of dualism depending on the context that would be utilized to go further for it.

 

 

2. N/A since I didn’t pick one.

 

Where does a tulpa come in? That seems hopeless to answer. We can say tulpas are observed' date=' so they are a real phenomenon. What they are beyond that seems to be a mystery, requiring faith or presumption to 'solve'.[/quote']

 

I guess it seems hopeless to answer because trying to figure any kind of ontological basis of tulpas, i.e., what makes a tulpa, a tulpa tends to be a bit thought-provoking to others. Maybe because being able to refer to ourselves as sentient, and finding qualities that makes us sentient, modes of existence, and other concepts is something we could personally build up assurances with, but can’t really solve objectively.

 

And when this impasse seems more apparent, trying to refer and treat a tulpa as sentient seems more problematic because there’s probably a propensity for us to try and see it at an objective, God’s eye point of view (and I say that without religious connotations, mind you), and can see the concepts at play, but when we come back to our personal, subjective standpoint, one may end up demystified.

 

The whole objective standpoint, and being unbiased on analyzing our mode of existing, and existence in general is probably just a misapplication of objectivity in things where it works just fine in works of literature, and things of that nature. Simply because the presumed objectivity is really just our subjectivity giving it sustenance, and things like appeal to the populace where if we feel many people believe certain concepts to be so, that it is so; at least in terms of being more probable, but not absolute and inherent.

 

Though, instead of being demystified about it, how one may create their own hypothetical models of what it means to treat a tulpa as sentient may give them a sense of liberation simply because there’s a plethora of ways to refer to them as sentient, and maybe, them being able to refer back to things that we utilize to assure ourselves as sentient beings.

 

But if we’re utilizing standpoints where that gets objectified to the extreme, e.g., thoughts merely being byproducts of physical processes of the brain, and are casually inert with this spatio-temporal reality, then yes, it’s not surprising to feel the sense of meaningless behind it simply because those standpoints, or just about any standpoint in theorizing on consciousness, and what have you, tends to lean towards that. But, that’s probably a matter of our disposition towards realizing the sense of meaningless behind it, and realizing that at best, they are heuristics. When heuristics are applied to go beyond our level of cognitive horizons, then yes, there seems to be moments of consternation and apprehensiveness.

[TheSanctuary]

I think I just understood all of a linkzelda post . Milestone reached in personal development! Anyways.

 

I guess when I think about my conciousness and how much it has changed in it's perception of the world around us and the like, I've really ended up with a duality of sorts internally. One half saying 'your not really a thing, there is not a definitive line or sphere where the concious starts and ends, it's amorphous and defined only by the chemical processes of the brain etc'. And then there's the other half clinging to my original 'nononono I'm me because feelings etc etc. I am not a simple case of random reactions but something more'. Honestly I'm leaning more toward the first , but the stubborn nature of said combination of chemical reactions seems to dislike being defined as such XD.

 

With respect to where a tulpa exists inside that sphere I guess would be within my own conciousness in a way given I kinda consider all activity of the brain to contribute in a way to my concious mind. While a tulpa may have independant links and it's own sphere eventually I would say they at least start out in our own conciousness and perhaps over time migrate of sorts away, splitting off ( seperation of thoughts/parallel processing etc) into their own entity. I find it hard to understand how the brain could create an entity outside of our own concious realm consciously ... For surely to be concious of it would bring it into our own concious minds scope... Perhaps then looking at it like this there is a point where tulpae can ALMOST completely seperate, but would still need some kind of conduit for inter communication I suppose- Blegh going in circles now.

[Guest Anonymous]

I voted what I think my host would have voted. I say that I am a person. I am Melian.

[glitchthe3rd]

This sounds like a Jaden Smith tweet. Just saying...

[Stevie]

This sounds like a Jaden Smith tweet. Just saying...

 

How Can Tulpas Be Real If Our Brains Aren't Real?

[Akinkinit]

I'm an organism. My personality is part of it as well, as much in my liver as it is in my brain. That's been substantiated by several pieces saying that organ recipients get some qualities from the donor, a few of which are here. And I'd argue my consciousness is a part of it as well. Yes, it's centered in the brain, as are my head ghosts, but without the supporting hardware my consciousness could not function. So I can't say I'm there and only there either.

 

Closest poll option would be the second one then for me. I can point to a place in my head where my head ghosts are centered, but they don't only exist there, just like I don't only exist there either.

[evil-eric]

i've often wondered if a thoughtform is actually a creation of something or a summoning of some sort, if they exist prior to generation or not.

[GlassJustice]

I picked three because all the evidence as to the origins of consciousness point to it being an effect of the complex thought processes of a sufficiently advanced brain.So basically:existence is(because it must imo)>physics/astrophysics>life>complex life>animal life>complex animals>said animals become aware that they are.My thoughts on the nature of tulpas is that personalities are a product of the consciousness(this including the sub-conscious ofc) that are kinda just the same thing at the source,yet separate.So it's kind of like an oversoul in TES metaphysics.