Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

And is only that easy to do without extensive practice/mental discipline because of the plurality aspect

That placebo can be powerful, but it doesn't remove them by any means.

IE, believing in plurality makes it easier to convince yourself of some things, which you were always capable of changing about your mind, but didn't have the mental means.

5:00 PM

I don't mean to refer to true mental illness by the way.

I think you use placebo to mean a lot more than it does, there. I'd say that relatively permanent change is not placebo at all

...I'd also point out that creating an imaginary character that embodies specific traits is, in fact, different than making a tulpa.

You can't fix the chemical imbalances with depression, but you can learn to think positively. It can make a huge difference.

"Believing it really hard" alone doesn't cause a tulpa to exist.

Just.. as an example, the one relevant to our system.

I want to clear something up here, then

Well, I sure wasn't talking about tulpa creation.

Identities are not imagined, they are built into your head like the reacting to a loud sound is.

Just that believing in plurality/tulpamancy can lead to affecting your mind through what is effectively equivalent to placebo

5:02 PM

where you probably weren't able to do that on your own, hence the placebo aspect.

Not to worry, Tewi. I don't disagree with what you've said.

Honestly I wasn't talking about tulpamancy, really. The conversation started on "identities" after all.

5:02 PM

Identities and personality traits

To make an identity encapsulating a mode of thought is to make your brain, on identifying that mode of thought, automatically associate it with an identity.

Right.

5:04 PM

Perhaps I came at this too strongly after last night's discussion. I was under the impression that Reguile thinks identities as he has been explaining them are literally tulpas.

More like tulpas, when sufficiently developed, lead to the creation of separate identities in the mind.

5:05 PM

My only point (aside from agreeing with the interesting original statement) was that there's more to an "identity" such as a tulpa or host has than any one pesonality facet.

Whereas I believe there is a fundamental difference in the idea of "pushing specific traits into an identity of a sort" and "making a tulpa".

Depends on what you take the term identity as meaning

Whole different ways of thinking can be developed attached to them, along with memories and such obviously.

5:05 PM

Identity is a term we absolutely took and made our own definition for.

As I've been speaking so far, I did consider them the same or as identities being A superset of tulpa

Well, there is more to a tulpa than just an identity obviously, but yes, identities are a major aspect of a tulpa.

5:06 PM

But I feel like less developed tulpas don't actually have their own separate identities yet. Only the way their host thinks of them.

Again, depends on what you call an identity

Uhm

It's it something you control?

The collection of ways of thinking, associations with emotions and memories, and general ways-of-being associated with a specific - identity.

5:07 PM

You normally can't control something like that, no.

5:07 PM

Our system can to an extent due to the, uh,

with a specific what?

I'm not sure what to refer to it as. A lot of reading, learning, thinking, philosophy, personal development, so on

What's the difference, say, between a single thing that swaps identities given some set of situations, and a tulpa?

Mental discipline is a very rough and dirty term for it.

I agree with that, Tewi - regarding mostly undeveloped tulpas. It's actually quite analogous to young children.

As in age 4 and below?

They rarely have fully separate identities to their peer group for a long time, though there are of course traits they don't share.

I've always found that whatever-it's-called so interesting, the inability for young children and animals to grasp the concept of another perspective.

actually some animals can do that?

I forget what the phenomenon/study/test is called unfortunately.

People build up independent identities over time, and it takes time for them to develop those full "characters" that they are.

I don't believe they can?

5:10 PM

I recalled apes failing the test, unless I recall incorrectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind_in_animals

So what's the difference to you all between an identity and a tulpa?

Interesting, that is indeed what I was referring to.

5:11 PM

An identity has no implication of a tulpa existing. A tulpa is a specific thing, you know.

specific how?

We literally created and defined the term tulpa ourselves..

Also shiny, I hope you end up as a mod.

huh?

(On reddit)

ah geezies.

As a basic example, there are "systems" who cannot talk to their alters or what have you, only switch (on purpose or not)

Reguile: The specific difference is separation between the identities and autonomous behavior of them relative to the other.

Yeah, the autonomy. Parallel to the host.

So an identity isn't autonomous?

Uh, no.

As in: They may very well not know details about the other.

I think those systems have a specific thing happening; almost complete memory isolation?

I was under the impression that they were

An identity is a major part of a "person" in a system (or not), but I see it more as instructions for the brain's consciousness than the entity itself.

Can you control what identity your attach to your thoughts?

No.

Define you. Our system, or everyone in general?

My thoughts are my own, Skye's thoughts are her own.

Then an identity is autonomous

We've done extensive work on more or less controlling and modifying our mindset and beliefs.

how do you know Skye's thoughts are Skye's thoughts though

It exists and is applied and grows and changes without you

She also doesn't know things about me that I do, and likely vice versa - though I don't recall a specific example immediately.

5:15 PM

...Reguile, autonomy is the point.

autonomy is an awkward word when it comes to a single brain you don't control yourself; no?

Haven't you two had this argument several times over the past 4 years?

But so far as I see you consider identities as autonomous

Yeah, that same "autonomy" applies to literally everything in the brain on some level.

5:16 PM

I do not.

5:16 PM

Tulpas and hosts with consciousness are the driving forces, identities are the instructions on how to be "who"

5:17 PM

Again, using a definition of the term identity we absolutely made up.

what if you reverse this idea though? If you take the basis of the consciousness not being the governor itself? (edited)

5:17 PM

but a consumer of the thoughts?

I think you lost me.

5:17 PM

Define take, as in propose the idea of?

But when you look at the brain, the sort of parallel process and side by side systems that are required for independent tulpa and hosts seem very improbable

Shinyuu: We know which thought is each other's because of the way it comes across, the underpinnings of why it is thought... I'm not sure I could entirely describe precisely why, but there are differences in my thoughts to Skye's that distinguish them, like a mental "fingerprint" of sorts.

that's the modular theory of the mind thing I was studying recently

We cannot even walk and talk without being worse at talking or walking

5:18 PM

Why do we expect to have two independent beings driving the brain?

tl;dr; parts of brain that "feel" emotions create thoughts that are attached to those emotions; the strongest emotion wins and you "think" the thought

5:18 PM

you as in the "conscious you"

Two, three, sometimes ten or twenty

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the brain is entirely deterministic and the conscious part of the brain has no actual say over what happens - but, it is in our best interest to act as if we do.

that's what I was talking about – that we don't decide what happens most of the time if not all the time; instead being driven by emotional background

There is far more that goes into thought than what we understand right now, and there is no particular point in acting otherwise and removing personal responsibility for our own thoughts and actions.

Think the other way around, you aren't the consciousness, you are the parts that aren't, being made aware of itself through the consciousness.