I think I lean towards the "Treat tulpas as people from the start" page myself which I would say treating them as just that and not treating them as a "concepts to be". As for loving "unconditionally", honestly in the first place love isn't a particular intellectual thing by default and is rather an emotional thing. I am not even sure if that's a thing to decide.
6:51 PM
Like you just feel it you don't "love x and y trait" of you... Usually I think. Love is an iffy concept I remember writing long texts about it >.>
@Talin If people aren't thinking, why let them simply act without thinking rather than try to clarify problems and prevent them from acting in a thoughtless and problematic manner in the first place?
Thoughtlessness isn't necessarily a problem for many people though. Quiet the opposite filling them with doubts, questions and analytical views on their own tulpas could be detrimental.
Like I refused to seriously (skeptically) analyze the existence of my tulpas early on because of the way the brain work in that scepticism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy... Well not in quiet those terms but the gist is the same
Acknowledging that a negative is a possibility is not the same as assuming that it is the case.
7:03 PM
Similarly, acknowledging that a positive is a possibility is not the same as assuming that it is the case.
7:03 PM
In either case, they are legitimately being closed-minded in the actual definition of the term, not considering a possibility when it is very possible.
7:03 PM
Both can cause problems, as I've actually discussed numerous times in the past.
Success is more important than speed, and deliberately fighting against assumptions (both positive and negative) helps that by avoiding the traps of ignoring actual responses (pretending the tulpa doesn't exist at all) as well as assuming personal thoughts are the tulpa (resulting in a simple roleplay character, similarly stopping the tulpa from developing and existing).
Not that I particularly buy that anyway. Since I still hold as long as you and your tulpa believe that they speak they do. "fake" responses that are actually "roleplay characters" under such circumstances seems sketchy to me.
...but, I would rather people not simply pretend that they have a tulpa, prevent the tulpa from actually developing for years, and later realize that they did so.
That harms the tulpa, which you stated you did not want, and similarly harms the person who was trying to make the tulpa in the first place with emotional pain.
That is not a positive outcome, and simply saying "But if they think it's their tulpa, it is" isn't answering much.
7:10 PM
Believing that the earth is flat doesn't make it so. It means that you are believing something false. That isn't a large stretch of logic, that is the literal reality of the situation.
The actual experience of having responses consistent in tone, behavior, intent, etc - is quite different from generating responses that one wishes were their tulpa, and thinking "This is a response in line with what I imagine, clearly it must be them rather than my projecting what I want".
People do that all the time. They make characters or models of other people, and act as if they are those other people in order to simulate conversations before they happen in order to make a 'prediction'.
The you is just a simulation or model of a character gaining autonomous responses and seemingly autonomous inner thoughs/feelings/associations. So would a tulpa/host be
Alright. I would define a tulpa as an independently thinking 'mind' that has its own opinions, thoughts, desires, etc - not requiring the host to think for them. This does include sharing the same underlying structure for how thoughts are generated, perhaps, but the point is that the two are independent. One cannot think 'for' the other and come to the response the other would actually give fully.
7:16 PM
Ah, fine. More to the point, I would not define 'host' and 'tulpa' as different things aside from one having existed first.
7:17 PM
Or, I suppose one could consider the difference to be the one that fronts the most, but in either case, the 'difference' is not significant to what they actually, literally are.
You know another funny thing. You can imagine how someone else will feel/think. Making a simulation of it. It's basic empathy. So even then you would be able to some extent predict/understand how your tulpa thinks.. I say but that doesn't seem what actually happens. The simulation takes control of itself and you "sever" the connection in tulpamancy so you don't have associated influence. hm
That aside. Even if you define tulpas as that. How do you differentiate a "fake" response from a "real" response. or fake/real desire or fake/real opinion ect. Oh I agree with your definition. I just don't know that I necessarily agree with your interpretation of "independent". I don't think I think for Silina. That is the "evidence" I have. If you say it's actually a roleplay/fake I can't actually tell. So again I see it as belief that I don't is sufficient for that to be so.
I claim that I can be(and presumably others as well) positive of it happening by virtue of experience because that's the only evidence that matters in this regard.
For those that do actually care about more than their own wishes, I'll reiterate points I've made before - some people project stereotypes onto 'tulpas' that become one-dimensional caricatures of what they "are". For instance, the "girl" that constantly acts in a 'cutesy' manner, giggles all the time, acts dramatic constantly, etc. Sex toys that simply back up the 'host' opinion and otherwise only act in accordance with a character existing in hentai. "Depression" tulpas that say absolutely nothing but how sad they feel and how much they want to die, with no opinions or statements about anything else, at any point, except for upset at people who don't immediately give in to the drama.
7:29 PM
That is one of the more typical cases where it is fairly obvious. Certainly some people do act in a 'cute', giggling, dramatic manner. However, when it is caricatured to be all they act on, and they otherwise simply mimic the host's opinions on everything, or back up the host's behavior regardless of what it is, that is a fairly strong indication that it is not actually independent.
7:30 PM
More subtly - cadence, stature, tone, phrasing. People have consistent phrasing and tones when they speak and type, and their own 'dialect' of body language.
7:31 PM
Quite a few tulpas that are not independent, as well as roleplay characters declared to be such (or even in the case of quite a few authors and their differing characters' speech/behavior) have their cadence, phrasing, or even tone of voice be extremely consistent with the host.
7:33 PM
In person, I have actually seen multiple people claiming tulpas - in some, their body language was the same as the host's, just comically amplified in an artificial manner if it was different at all. In others, their actual body language changed. It became more fully loose, or tense, and they engaged in other visually habitual behaviors than the others, such as occasionally touching their hair instead of stroking their chin - or shuffling their feet and sitting in a different way by default.
7:33 PM
These are things that can be observed by anyone - host and other people alike.
