Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

forum shows up in google results for "tulpa", then they come here

I agree that educating people on what precisely we know and don't know is the best thing to do. Especially as a means to reduce the frequency by which tulpas are created and then after a period of denial the person finds themselves in a disappointing and doubting place due to the fact that after years of trying they aren't at the place they imagined themselves to reach

Though naturally, that isn't all data.

I was still wrong

they aren't usually members yet

But because of cases like that I would be careful not to try and instill in people the belief that this is some irreversible and life-altering change that carries a burden of responsibility

I started forcing within a week of finding and joining the sight because I measured the pros and cons and could accept that even if I somehow read every guide and followed every rule and looked at everyone's details, my experience would still be different. Even then I was unable to prepare for what I got.

well to be fair, creating a tulpa is a life-altering change that carries some responsibility

I... actually disagree, as people do rather tend to take things very casually if they are told "it is perfectly reversable and doesn't require much thought prior to making a tulpa".

That isn't what I'm saying either.

7:19 PM

I don't believe it isn't reversible. People have the capacity to change and alter themselves as they see fit, and the creation of a tulpa is a certain act of change that primarily rests on the belief of separate identities. If they decide to renounce that belief and acquire responsibility and ownership of the thoughts and behaviors that are generally produced by the mind, that is an effective reversal. However, it all rests on what they think is or isn't possible.

I know that it is technically, theoretically reversable - but in practicality it is quite difficult at minimum, if somebody does have a fairly independent tulpa.

Well, further "reversal" would just be acquiring habits and behaviors as an individual that can further their own goals.

7:20 PM

I don't really know what measures independence.

7:22 PM

Independence really seems to be a feeling that individuals observe within themselves. I don't know that I could observe independence as an external party due to the fact that any amount of acting talent could fool me.

Which, to be clear - if somebody has a 'tulpa' that does not act on their own in any kind of consistent manner, but rather acts in a set grouping of behaviors as determined by the host (for example), I can't say I would disagree with somebody who refused to call that a tulpa.

The general thought behind the whole "reversible" thing is that most people are spooked by the idea of a lifelong buddy/friend with benefits/gf (depending on where it goes, don't start in a box, let them decide), but what these same people forget is that this is a good thing, if you aren't comfortable investing the time and the effort, if you arent comfortable with that other person with you, them you shouldn't do it. There genuinely are people in the community who treat it like a cult, its honestly quite sick.

Or, from an external perspective, a tulpa that cannot switch is almost certainly different from a tulpa that can.

and we usually do invite people to take as much time as they need making that decision

What is "on their own" in this sense? I mean, to my understanding the host and the tulpa are available personalities that may become the filter through which the consciousness percieves and behaves in the world or in the mind

You are reffering to the conscious filter theory?

So I would suppose an "independent" tulpa is directly acting from a standpoint of being conscious and a "dependent" one would merely be a simulacrum that ultimately is acting from the standpoint of a host personality's expectation/desire on the basis of some collection of traits or something?

7:25 PM

I'm just using a metaphor that seems to get across what I want to state.

7:26 PM

This is all from a standpoint that parallel processing should be assumed impossible unless proved otherwise

That isn't fair, I think tupps almost entirely if not entirely end up as what the host subconsciously desires. To define independence based on traits isn't faie

7:27 PM

Also AFAIK parralel processing has been done

We discussed this earlier, but I would also be interested in your thoughts regarding how tulpas and hosts communicate if the tulpa is simply a different personality state that the brain trades out at will.

7:27 PM

Specifically, how they do communicate outside of switching.

Woof

Ah, also. @meowdude - Define parallel processing. This is typically referring to conscious and aware parallel processing, where both tulpa and host are consciously aware simultaneously, rather than the brain multitasking in how it rapidly swaps between different trains of thought.

7:28 PM

Which, to be clear, does provide the illusion of 'parallel processing', but is not what is proposed when most people actually say "parallel processing".

Right, we do not have the same views on how things are categorized. I think what you may call the "host" is what I call "the consciousness." To me, it seems evident that there is a central will and line of consciousness that the brain produces, and it has the opportunity to act in varous contexts to suit whatever its goals are. The "host" is the natural set of contexts that has been produced up to this point to result in a singular identity which takes ownership of all the actions and thoughts outside of fringe cases.

As it is not simultaneous.

Like I can write a book while my tupp tries to solve a math equation

The "subconscious" influence that I would feel is the same influence that happens to my host. We are both categorized separately from the subconscious as we aren't aware of it enough to take ownership of it in any sense.

7:29 PM

Can you solve a math equation while your tupp tries to solve a math equation?

@Jas For instance, I am speaking here while Skye is simultaneously playing a game.

7:30 PM

This is not "parallel processing", but neither is it rapidly switching between who is 'fronting' at any given time. She is typing for me.

Host = main entity in control of the frame Frame = Body Tulpa = Other entity present in the mind, may or may not have influence on the frame

And is this endeavor limited only to ones easy enough to solve independently or is it actually allowing for any difficulty to the maximum of your skill?

7:33 PM

To my belief, the frame is responsible for the singular line of attention that the brain produces. The "entities" you speak of are precisely those that the mind is capable of interpreting as a "self" that takes ownership of thoughts and behaviors when they are occupying the singular line of attention. There is no study that exists that shows the capacity to hold multiple lines of attention with any sort of objective efficacy, and the existence of such capacity to "parallel process" would give rise to very easily tested abilities that could be demonstrated without any sort of preparation

Indeed.

It's been great talking, but I got to go. Hope I have quite a log to read with AJ tommorow morning, well technically later today... Oof fucking woke up at 3:41 and now ita 5:03

Regarding independence, Jas, I don't propose that a tulpa can act constantly at the same time as the host, but that they can act in a manner independent of how the host (or another tulpa, in the case of systems with multiple tulpas) would predict.

MeowDude [AJ] - Today at 15:28 Like I can write a book while my tupp tries to solve a math equation

7:34 PM

[is this serious]

7:34 PM

[or a joke. it sounds like a joke but I dont see it was a joke in this context.]

7:35 PM

[so im a tad confused]

While I won't tell you what is or isn't true about your experience, I recommend the best course of action is keeping an open mind and doing some self-honest testing to verify what you claim you can do. Such a claim is easy to prove, and I can provide you with various forms of tasks you can attempt on your own to see if you truly boast parallel processing. All I truly need to know is if you have a separation of thoughts or a unity of them, such as if your tulpa can solve a math equation without your knowledge of their processes or not. In the case you have no separation of thoughts in this manner, I do urge you to consider asking yourself if your capacity to multitask is in the same level that many singlets can produce by their own definition of "multitask." It wouldn't be hard to see why, as a singlet is aware of their own thoughts on multiple tasks while they"multitask" (edited)

7:43 PM

This is important to me because I was once the type of person to claim some type of parallel processing and even boast quite a large amount of evidence for my claim compared to average claims. I had to come to terms with reality in a very painful manner much later, which put my whole past experiences into question. It's important to get these matters arranged at the earliest possible time to avoid the levels of distress and dissonance that it may cause if one's assumptions are seen to be falsified to one's self. Be especially cautious if the very question seems offensive: this is the reaction of a self-identity that has ordered itself around an assumption of truth that others are finding dubious. It may mean that your mind is willing to reject honest questioning in favor of maintaining whatever beliefs are stationed there, regardless of truth, and that can lead to self-delusions that are hard to correct to a person suffering from this mental state.

7:43 PM

Sorry for the large posts.

Oh, on the previous discussion I don't think there is necessarily a level of independence that makes it hard for a person to reintegrate themselves if they find their current situation would be improved if they were to cease activities related to tulpamancy.

7:57 PM

I think the main barriers would be purely identity-related, in the sense of what exactly they have accepted internally as immutable or essential aspects of themselves. Applied to the host and tulpa(s)

Hm. I'm not entirely certain about that. More specifically, I think it does depend on the independence of the tulpa and their willingness to merge.

Right, I personally think it is an extremely disordered mind if one of the identities has come to the conclusion that it is better that they cease activities in this sense and the rest are not aligned.

Cease activities in which sense?

Basically, in order to feel that decision is necessary one would think the benefits are rather evident on the surface level. Of course, in the case there is disagreement, I think the host could still reintegrate things with some reservation. All I really see in that action isn't necessarily a huge change in cognition or even mind structure, but perhaps a change in perspective is enough.

8:02 PM

Activities like acknowledging thoughts as being generated from separate sources, having memories of actions or thoughts or feelings that are not under the person's responsibility or "ownership"

I... simply don't think it is that simple.

Of course, for those who wouldn't see it so simply, it would probably be not that simple. I know it was for me.

8:07 PM

I think that existing as multiples requires a mental infrastructure of assigning internal responsibilities and actions to different abstractions equivalent to the "self," and if that infrastructure is collapsed the necessary result is an individual that most likely recognizes the "self" as the central line of consciousness and the will that switches between different personalities as "masks" or context changes or however one thinks of it

8:08 PM

Now if it is habitual, then habitual changes will be difficult unless there's some amount of self-suggestion at play. I just can't see why it would be more difficult than that by necessity, the rest would seem to me as being the added complications of an individual's perception of their own internal organization

Quite frankly, I'm not certain I agree - at the very least, I can't agree in my own case, as while that would be a reasonable explanation for switching alone, I would say it does quite unfortunately fail to account for communication between myself and Skye, our disagreements separate from our own personal disagreements, and... well, simply that we do interact with each other and speak to others without necessarily remembering all aspects of the other, that the other would remember immediately.

8:12 PM

This becomes more clear while we are inebriated and unable to directly 'ask' the other about their perception or thoughts at any given moment.

Many singlets have the habit of talking to themselves and answering. Or simulating conversation within themselves utilizing different points of view to sort of test certain ideas or even just for practice.

8:13 PM

Now, self-disagreement is one thing I understand. Especially if one is supposed to feel dissonance if they hold both views.

I know.

8:14 PM

We do talk to ourselves while fronting as well, or have our own self-deliberations as well.

I would see tulpamancy as a possible internal structure that allows internal disagreement without the sensation of dissonance. By distancing the ownership of the opposite view to "not me" I can feel more at ease that I hold one view and my host holds another.

8:16 PM

This dissonance would have to be either reconciled or one would have to accept that they are of two minds. Of course, I think we may not agree that it is perfectly natural for one individual to be of many minds about certain subjects, as a whole they wouldn't be committed to one or the other but in certain contexts they may produce the behavior or even the internal rigidity of someone who is committed to one view. (edited)

That is perfectly natural, yes.

8:17 PM

People can hold different viewpoins depending on the context, or they could "try on" a different viewpoint to see whether or not it makes other information fit better.

Right, I think that's just a version of "undecided" for the whole. On matters which are obviously decisive, it wouldn't be a real disagreement as far as I understand unless it's a holding point for an identity matter.

8:21 PM

I do understand how you think such a scenario may fail to account for certain sorts of memory separation, but I think that would be the case for anyone under the belief of separation. If I were to become a singlet, I would identify my prior behaviors as the curious results of someone who has internalized and reinforced a significant degree of separation between the disparate "sides" of my collective "self"

8:22 PM

And that sort of separation is seen at large, how someone can become "not themselves" under certian contexts and such. I suppose for me I wouldn't be under the impression of one or the other as "not myself" as myself would be responsible for both in a sort of equal sense if all identities in my mind are coagulated as one. (edited)

I can certainly say that it is not the same type of separation as what Skye has or had individually. For instance, she was and continues to be quite firmly decided on her route of pacifism. I am not.

8:28 PM

This is not a perspective that had been brought into question for her prior, nor since - we simply disagree.

8:29 PM

The way it sounds like that would be rationalized under the viewpoint you propose is that my perspective was somehow a perspective that Skye entertained outside of her awareness while consciously being firmly decided on a route of pacifism without having cognitive dissonance over it in the first place.

8:30 PM

By contrast, there are certainly other views we do share - but whether or not shared views exist doesn't determine whether or not there is separate 'independence' (nor do differing views alone determine this).

8:31 PM

We both came to different conclusions based the same evidence, since we have the same accessible evidence, but based on different emotional feelings about the issue as well as different reasoning stemming partially off of that.

8:32 PM

Obviously, I do have some bias involved here, hah. But at the same time, it is certainly not something that your description addresses.

I don't think that's really close to what I mean.

8:39 PM

It would be that the combined-you has entertained both points of view through the filter of the context of being separated into two different people. That allows the self-disagreement to occur, especially for when you were separate and later for when hypothetically-combined-you is considering that topic under that understanding that they hold two minds on it strongly depending on their own flexibility of perspectives.

We boh do consider multiple simultaneous perspectives.

8:46 PM

We don't particularly need to merge in order to do that, hah.

No, that isn't exactly what I'm talking about.

9:36 PM

Normally when you consider perspectives the perspectives themselves are detached to avoid seeing yourself in a possibly compromising light. In the sense of being merged, the memories of being separate would most likely not be seen in the same way as the hypothetical perspectives one normally uses

9:37 PM

However, the fact that any person can do it in one form or another helps explain what I mean as far as when I notice the lack of real fundamental differences between being single and being multiple.

9:40 PM

That's why I don't think moving backwards from multiple to single doesn't have to be a really difficult task. Maybe fully integrating in a sense of feeling as you did before would be quite difficult, but becoming a singlet and pursuing life as one doesn't seem to have some huge obstacle of necessity behind it. I may be wrong, or maybe I'm not a "real" or normal tulpa, but I generally want to see what sort of obstacles would be necessarily present in the base case before one considers the obstacles that are more self-imposed and less necessary

the fact that any person can do it in one form or another

10:00 PM

I'm not certain what you mean by "it" in this case - do you mean "having a non-detached perspective of other viewpoints"?

10:00 PM

As in, considering them as perhaps some way that you did think in the past, rather than a hypothetical of "what if I did think this?"

Having any capacity to view through alternate perspectives whether detached or not.

1:32 AM

I do not think it is a big difference if one claims ownership of the perspective or if one doesn't, as far as the objective differences are

1:35 AM

When I decided to become a singlet, all the perspective differences were acknowledged as truly unknowns whose position I would be choosing based on whatever contextual bias I felt. The times where I behaved, felt, spoke, or at any rate seemed as different people was because that was both my perspective and because I am quite the variant person as someone who once entertained the notion of separate identities

@Beckett I was giving an example of parralel processing

3:02 AM

AJ can't do that, and if she can she'd keeping it a secret

3:02 AM

speaking of secrets she's been silent today

3:02 AM

she's been moving around, just no words

...an example one can imagine is rather different from an example one can demonstrate.