Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

Anyways, I'm off to the meta channel

Add places you've been to that you like, I guess?

Perhaps try recreating fictional settings you like as well

@Deleted User The "mindscape" is essentially just a daydream.

Keep in mind that a mindscape is just an imaginary place you can use when you force your tulpa, it's not actually all that important and not very difficult to add places

If you think of it like that, you can simply add ideas to it. I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near consistent with details either, hah.

I mean, I want a place my tulpa can go to when I'm not tulpamancing

That doesn't exist

3:47 PM

your tulpa doesn't go to another place

3:47 PM

they simply go inactive

They do?

If you solidify a mindscape enough, they should be able to impose into it

yes

3:47 PM

the idea that a tulpa goes off to frolic in the wonderland is a myth

Alright

I know Alna hung around in one of mine quite a bit

So what happens when a host switches with their tulpa? The host goes inactive?

I would think so yeah

3:48 PM

we've never successfully switched before

That's weird.

3:49 PM

There is no basis for tulpas being able to be active in the mindscape while you do other stuff

The idea that a tulpa goes off to frolic in the wonderland is, at best, unsupported - and there is quite a bit of evidence against it.

So when you switch, do you "fall asleep", until your Tulpa switches back with you?

3:49 PM

And there is strong basis for tulpas being able to confabulate. Not only tulpas.

Think of it like this. When one switches, the host 'becomes the tulpa'.

What is confabulate ?

"Make things up".

Thanks

3:50 PM

Do you see things through your eyes still though etc?

3:50 PM

Make things up being convinced yourself they are true, to be precise. Confabulation is not lying. (edited)

It's more like willful hallucination

Sensory processing is the same, yes. It is simply from the perspective of it not being "your sight", necessarily.

Imposition, essentially

My understanding was that a tulpa is like dual booting a hard drive. They exist even if you don't think about them.

3:51 PM

And that they were active

Nope

Ah. I don't think that would be an apt comparison, no.

That's wishful thinking.

They're inactive

Remember that much of this is theory stuff

3:51 PM

And difficult to completely prove or disprove

Certainly theory, albeit much based on actual fact about how the brain operates.

If they go inactive

3:52 PM

Then where is the line between imaginary friend and tulpa?

A tulpa may be able to still watch while you're not paying attention to them, but that takes a lot of practice, and they still don't really have any active thought of their own

Don't imagine friends go inactive too?

If we are going to go with a computer comparison, being "inactive" is equivalent to a computer program being in the background and running on minimal resources.

The line is that tulpas are sentient/independent, imaginary friends are merely puppets

3:52 PM

Imaginary friends have no mind/thoughts of their own, tulpas do

It can certainly become "active" if a trigger occurs, but for the most part it does nothing.

Ok

As for imaginary friends vs tulpas - many tulpas are not exactly distinguishable from imaginary friends showing apparent agency (or those are two terms for the same phenomenon).

3:53 PM

That said, there are also tulpas that can switch and possess, or otherwise demonstrate a far more highly developed personality than that of an imaginary friend character.

So a tulpa is an independent mind that can be activated or deactivated in your head.

Not entirely independent, either.

3:53 PM

There is quite a bit of underlying functionality of the brain that individuals don't actively control.

3:54 PM

It simply happens and our conscious experience is taken along for the ride. (edited)

3:54 PM

Those things, at the very least, are shared - not doubled.

That's true

3:54 PM

Not doubled.

3:54 PM

Meaning it's not 2 separate entities? (edited)

But, in terms of what makes a person an 'individual', yes. A tulpa is independent.

3:54 PM

...well. That is ostensibly the goal, at least.

What she means is that the brain's functionality is not doubled

It's more shared

Oh

3:55 PM

The same input goes to 2 outputs

it can't suddenly handle two major processes at once, instead the tulpa/host trade who uses the brain's functionality

Quite a few people don't actually act on that, but again - some people have 'tulpas' that are equivalent to imaginary friends with apparent agency.

But you don't get 2 inputs

Indeed - the brain doesn't suddenly double in capability.

3:55 PM

Think of it as running two programs off the same operating system using the same hardware, if we are to go back to the computer analogy.

3:55 PM

(Not a perfect analogy, but close enough).

With two, three, or a few, you'll be fine

3:56 PM

But if you get too many you might start having resource issues

I knew the hard drive analogy wasn't isomorphic, but it was close enough

Regarding 'inactivity' of the 'tulpa', think of it like this - the more the one fronting is using the brain, the less available 'resources' are available for the others.

Did you all see that post I made to .info? I saw something very interesting in regards to at least the ability to do some parallel processing. I don't think it extends so far to "tulpa having a second conscious experience in parallel with host" but it's interesting to read about and changed a bit of how I think on the topic.

If less is available, they don't act but simply wait for a trigger to 'reactivate' them.

3:57 PM

@Reguile I haven't. Could you link it?

https://community.tulpa.info/thread-neuroskeptic-do-we-all-have-split-brains-a-summary-and-my-thoughts

Neuroskeptic - Do We All Have Split Brains? - A summary and my th...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuros...z1WubhOmUk I found this of interest and I figure you all might as well. I am generally skeptical of the idea that parallel processing is a thing. Namely, whe

Ok. So since the brain can not use parallel processing for higher thoughts, only one or the other can be active at one time

You found it faster than I did

Ah. That study.

Multiple tulpas can be "active" at one time, but only one at a time can actually do any real thinking. The tradeoff between doing the thinking can be fast, though, and that allows for things like seamless conversations/interactions

I think that links more to the idea that a brain has a limited amount of... "focus" - and the more that focus is split, the less efficiently it is used (and since it is split, a lesser amount is available for each task requiring focus in the first place).

of course, they may be able to do other smaller tasks at the same time as someone else

That is quite simplified, of course - but even so.

4:00 PM

it could explain there being a "simple-part" of a tulpa running.  Not something "conscious', but something nonetheless acting on its own and not tied into by your conscious mind.

 Another thing it might imply is that the tulpa-process could be separate when it is not being thought of or interacted with, but then becomes "integrated" with the consciousness and unified into a single process during the act of communication or interaction.

When all your tulpas engage in deep responses, how would you describe the process of those responses coming to your mind. Do you "hear" the process of your tulpa thinking, then the long-form thought comes about through that, or do the larger in depth respnses appear to come from nowhere?

I can scream "HI!" over and over while Tacio tries to talk, since that doesn't take a whole lot of thought, but if I start trying to do something more complex like writing, then it will stop Tacio from talking (edited)

These two bits are of particular interest to me - I think this is actually solidly supported by how tulpas have been self-reported to behave, or otherwise demonstrated to behave.

That last one is what I find the most interesting, if it were true

It seems like that would only happen if the tulpa was related to the task at hand

@Reguile The former, in our case - though Skye and I do often think through things simultaneously and piggyback off of logical conclusions the other has made after verifying that it makes sense.

4:02 PM

...and then, of course, proceed to draw different conclusions on occasion.

So your thoughts (as I assume you are the tulpa in this case) are "public" and heard as skye's thoughts are, rather than your conclusions being drawn "from the void" so to speak? (edited)

Yes, though... I suppose to be more accurate, we notice what the other is thinking about more 'in post' - a moment after the logical steps are made.

Akin to checking each others' notes?

Close enough, yes.