Tulpa.info - tulpa-questions

top right kinda?

Specific headaches have specific zones. When I started reaching out for Cilsc’ thoughts, which I visualised to be in the back of my head, I got mild headaches at the back of my head. Stress headaches tend to emanate from there, so that was probably why.

Is it ethical to create a tulpa with no intention of letting them interact with the outside world?

i would say no, until you actually denied said tulpa access if they asked to

I believe it is unethical to restrict another person's freedom without a good reason.

3:16 AM

Disregarding any disagreements about what "people" are, I'd say it is unethical to deny someone human interaction if they request it and you don't have a good reason to deny that.

bleh, i just now realized i wrote that wrong. yes, not no, is what i meant

3:22 AM

but i agree

I asked my tulpa about their relationship with the information already present in my brain

5:46 AM

They told me that it's like reading an encyclopedia without actually knowing about the subject: the data is there, but you need to know how to link it

#Hmm... I think for me it's sort of the opposite. I can see most general things, but not specific details.#

Tewi:

Is it ethical to create a tulpa with no intention of letting them interact with the outside world?

Including Tulpa.info, its Discord, or any other tulpa communities? (edited)

3:07 PM

If so, I dunno, other people are going to say no. But if you exclude those, I'd say that's very normal. Most people can't really tell many others outside those places about their tulpa(s).

3:08 PM

And there's no reason you can't proxy your tulpa here or a similar place at some point if they want to interact with others.

3:09 PM

If you only meant you don't want to learn possession or switching, that is totally fine. Your tulpa may or may not want to, but that's your choice in the end. I by no means consider intent to possess or switch a necessity to create a tulpa.

Well, that kind of tulpa is called an imaginary friend I guess

Tewi: Whoah, what? (edited)

3:59 PM

I agree with almost everything you say, but if you're saying a tulpa who cannot switch or possess is an imaginary friend, I'm going to have to heavily disagree.

I don't want to offend those tulpas but that's how I feel it. Tulpa who cannot possess is indistinguishable from an imaginary friend showing illusion of independent agency.

Tewi: An imaginary friend has no independence, and therefore is not perceived as sentient. But we can't tell what's going on in other peoples' minds. (edited)

4:07 PM

Illegitimizing tulpas because they've not learned to switch or possess seems outright offensive to me.

4:07 PM

Though, given what you're saying about calling tulpas alters, I get the feeling you may mean less of their nature and more of their categorization.

4:07 PM

If that's the case, the answer is simply that this community considers them tulpas from conception.

4:08 PM

There are a few not-agreed-upon terms for pre-sentient tulpas (like that one), such as proto-tulpas, but yeah, they're not agreed upon.

4:08 PM

We generally just consider them a tulpa that's yet to become sentient, assuming the intent for them to get there is there.

About imaginary friends having no independence I have an article for you.

If they have independence they no longer fit our definition of imaginary friend, they're a tulpa.

IIA.pdf

649.6 KB

It's only considered "illusion" because they're speaking from the perspective there can only be one person per body.

4:11 PM

Which, is a relatively normal one outside plurality communities.

For the record, I don't consider tulpas to be a 'tulpa' initially. The lines are certainly not the clearest, but tulpas do rather develop as an errant thought or concept/idea in a person's head, progressing to be a 'proto-tulpa' of some type (though I would love to have a better term than that), be it closer to a typical 'imaginary friend' in which the host is pretending to be the tulpa as means of... "developing it", or something closer to the 'imaginary friend' displaying apparent independent agency as Luna referred to. That said, I do think that in the latter case, that apparent independent agency doesn't necessarily occur in the same way that it does with, say... authors. Some people do in fact develop their tulpas without making them into a character first, but instead developing them via experience.

4:12 PM

Beyond that, I suppose I would consider one an actual 'tulpa' in the more specific sense (rather than as shorthand for all of the above) once it displays a clearly developed personality at minimum, and certainly once it can possess/switch and assert itself as somebody different than the host.

Tewi: I resent the necessity for a tulpa to learn to switch or possess to prove itself a person. (edited)

She didn't say it was a necessity

4:16 PM

and certainly once it can possess/switch

4:16 PM

she only said that would add to it

I suppose I would consider one an actual 'tulpa' in the more specific sense once it displays a clearly developed personality at minimum

4:16 PM

at minimum

You still brought up the possession/switching as a final proof, and that rubs me the wrong way.

Before that point, there isn't much in the way of proof that can be provided, so I do need to account for the possibility that somebody is good at typing fake characters.

It's hard to prove being a person since this term is also not clearly defined

Tewi: We (me, Flandre and Reisen) were created just over 8 years ago, and until sometime late 2014 after Lumi found Tulpa.info, never considered possession or switching even a thing. That means we were 4 years old yet had no ability to switch or possess yet; we existed only in the mind. We didn't even have a wonderland. (edited)

But, that is relatively minimal, so I don't really use that as any kind of consistent metric.

Wait, are you talking about proof to other people the tulpa is "real"?

A wonderland is entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to a tulpa existing under that more specific definition I gave.

Or the host/themselves?

I am referring to what I would consider a tulpa with regard to interaction with others, yes.

4:18 PM

Skye and I don't plan to make another tulpa, so it doesn't matter to myself at all.

Well, okay. But that'll always need to be taken on faith regardless.

4:19 PM

On the internet at least, all instances of "switching" could possibly be the "host" proxying a non-sentient tulpa.

Arguably, yes. But, to varying degrees.

As far as proof goes.

4:19 PM

I only consider "proof" to the host really relevant.

4:19 PM

And to the tulpa.

Ah. Not to worry, then. We have twenty thousand tulpas.

4:20 PM

Would you believe me if I actually said that and tried to convince you of it?

4:20 PM

Or, acted in such a way consistently over time?

Tewi: You could sit here and speak in a slightly different style all day a hundred times over just fine. (edited)

4:20 PM

That won't prove to me you're actually switching with a tulpa each time.

4:20 PM

But it may prove to the host, or tulpas themselves, that they are themselves.

4:21 PM

Worrying about "proof" of tulpas' legitimacy is reminiscent of Tulpa.info's "witch hunt" days, but we've since dropped that nonsense.

4:21 PM

Each person is free to, silently, decide on their own how likely a tulpa of someone else's is "real".

4:22 PM

That harkens back to the fact that all of this is simply going on in our own subjective minds and experiences, and none of it is traditionally "real" outside of that.

4:22 PM

Yet, anyway. We'll see if the science ever finds us.

Ah. My apologies. I do try to approach tulpas from the perspective of trying to legitimize them and not indulge in anyone's random fantasies. At the very least, here in tulpa.info, I strongly support taking a more rigorous approach than "what my biased perception is, is all that matters" as I would rather like to study tulpas from a psychological perspective and try to see how the actual science plays out with regard to them.

4:23 PM

I think that the reality of how the brain works, as well as evidence of related phenomena, is in fact relevant to tulpas - far more than any random person's personal beliefs/perceptions.

This all sounds much more relevant to in-system proof.

It is relevant to both.

If someone's dedicated to the lie, or fooling themselves, nothing they can say will prove anything.

4:23 PM

You can just make assumptions and judge on your own how likely it is a supposed tulpa is real.

4:24 PM

Based on how stereotypically "RP" they sound, for example, among other things.

I am generally basing this on the idea that people are trying to be honest based on their own perception, and quite a few people describe phenomena that are different on their basis than others - I would much rather these two fairly separate phenomena not be called the same thing.

I consider the in-system proof part very important, though. Everything you're talking about as proof, not necessarily of whether any one tulpa is sentient but rather legitimacy of the phenomenon itself, is still important in my eyes.

4:25 PM

It's made up the bulk of most heavy discussions on Tulpa.info.

4:26 PM

The only "proof" that matters to me, of someone else's tulpa, is that the host feels they experience them as a separate person they are not influencing. At the very core of the matter, that is all that matters.

Look. What I'm talking about is generally applicable - of course it isn't perfect. It won't weed out every roleplayer, or legitimize every person with a legitimate tulpa - however, my goal isn't perfection, but reaching a 'good enough' point.

Proof within our own system is - (edited)

4:26 PM

Being distracted IRL, sorry

...I strongly disagree with solely using self-reported metrics of a phenomenon which is described as entirely separate phenomena depending on the group of people one asks, as a means of determining what that phenomenon is.

Shouldn't a proof be intersubjective by definition? Well, I guess it depends on what counts as a subject... (edited)

Proof within our own system is an entirely different story.

4:28 PM

That part is just my opinion, Winter. On how I decide to consider someone else's tulpa "real" or not. I go off of what matters to them.

4:28 PM

In the search for actual proofs, explanations and understanding, it doesn't really mean much as it's still taken on faith as much as anything else.

4:29 PM

It's more of a social thing than scientific one.

4:29 PM

In actual discussion of tulpamancy, the legitimacy of one's own tulpas is hardly even at play, in my opinion.

4:30 PM

It's all about agreeing with (or disagreeing with) others' conjectures.

4:30 PM

If someone doesn't have a tulpa like the others do, their conjectures may simply not line up with the majority, and are relatively disregarded in the end. Assuming they are drawing upon their own experiences.

4:30 PM

Plenty of people have learned enough about others' tulpas to participate in legitimate discussion without having tulpas of their own.

4:31 PM

But as they're quick to admit, it can make quite a difference.

4:32 PM

"It sounds like you don't exactly have what we consider a tulpa" is something I've seen said in such discussions, lol. Usually not the heavy ones though. I see it far more often in IRC/real-time discussions.

4:33 PM

Those without matching experiences don't seem to make it all the way to the heavy discussion on the forum.

If a tulpa is defined as you have defined it earlier, something the person 'feels is a tulpa' or more accurately 'claims is independent', then that can be almost anything.

4:35 PM

And then, the term "tulpa" turns into a blanket overview term for a large assortment of roleplay characters, imaginary friends, alters, 'tools', personified feelings, etc.

All of those can give you an impression of independience

I think tulpas exist on a continuum. There are “proto-tulpas,” barely independent on one end and advanced tulpas on the other. By advanced tulpas, I mean systemmates who are on par with their host in terms of levels of complex thought, ease of thinking, spontaneity, control over the body-all that. They may even be capable of a high level of parallel processing. On the other end, proto tulpas are only differentiated by imaginary friends by spontaneity. As Reguile said, “primed” not “summoned” for interaction. They have consistent personas, including beliefs and cognitions. Their thoughts are not put into their heads by the host’s influence, desires, or memories, but are a result of the interaction between their own values and incoming sensory input. (edited)

9:04 PM

As long as a thoughtform or systemmates has their own core beliefs, and as long as those beliefs can interact swiftly with input to produce cognitions with minimal effort from the host, they’re a tulpa. And this could be observed by how spontaneous a tulpa appears to be.

Is it necessary to create a personality? I've heard that you can leave that to them and personally I'm more comfortable doing that

You do not need to personality force, no.

Alright thanks

Oh, @Blitzeen I missed you rmessage and intended to respond to it a while back. I agree to some extent, but one category I would use would be "tulpas by addition" and "tulpas by regression". A tulpa by addition is going to be a sort of proto-tulpa, and is thinking "in addition" to the host, while a tulpa by reduction is going to be held in the same standing as the host in the brain, with the host "reduced" in scope to allow for it, giving the tulpa more independence in a way.