Ask tulpae related questions here. (By Angus and Alexis)

[jynnan tonnix]

This is actually a pretty interesting thread, and it got me to thinking how vivid imaginary friends can be in childhood, and of the inevitable day that you can no longer conjure them up, so to speak. It seems to me that the concept of a Tulpa (which I had never heard of before this) is like a method to reconnect with the part of your brain which used to have such facility with imagination.

Maybe (probably) there are those creative people out there who never do completely grow out of that, but it's something I lost around about adolescence.

There's a passage in The House at Pooh Corner which, ever since I realized that part of me was slipping away, I have never been able to read without crying (yes, I still pull it out and reread it occasionally. Maybe I will have some grandbabies in the foreseeable future and be able to read it with an actual purpose again)...When Christopher Robin starts school and has to explain to Pooh that he won't be able to just do "nothing" anymore...that Pooh should  never forget him, even when he (Christopher Robin) is 100
 

"Pooh," said Christopher Robin earnestly, "if I—if I'm not quite —" He stopped and tried again. "Pooh, whatever happens, you will understand, won't you?"....

And though the book ends with the image of the enchanted place at the top of the forest where "a little boy and his bear will always be playing", it's still so gut-wrenching for me.

Heck, I cry through the last verse of Puff the Magic Dragon as well.

In any case, I don't see it as necessarily being something with any great potential to mess up one's brain. If anything, it should really be something which would help tap into creativity, and that's generally a good thing.

[Graybeard]

A tulpa is a fantasy friend, perhaps my definition of real is not the best...

But if you have any questions, please ask.

1. Why would you want a fantasy friend?
2.  Isn't this all a little pointless?

[jdawg70]

He isn't explaining himself very well.  I'm recognizing similar symptoms of groping for an answer that I have when I have an intuitive understanding of something, but don't have all the intermediate steps grasped.

I understand that.  Sometimes concepts are difficult to articulate.  But, I do want to say that 'Making things up on the fly for purposes of storytelling' also showcases the same symptoms that difficult-to-articulate concepts have.  Difficulty in articulating a concept doesn't necessarily mean that it's just hogwash, but it does make it more difficult to differentiate between 'ill-understood', 'hard to explain', and 'made up fantasy'.

Angus, I'm going to try my hand at setting the record straight here.  If I say something wrong, please correct me.

A tulpa is basically a mental construct.  It's similar to an imaginary friend, except that it's considerably more developed, to the point where it has some ability to act (inside the mind) without the conscious intention of the person who created it.  It's like a parallel process in a computer; it runs along with the other processes, using the same resources, via the equivalent of time-sharing.  So it's not real, in the sense of being an independent entity, such as another person.  It can't directly affect the real world the way a person can.  However, it exists because it's a part of the mind.

But...apparently the tulpa can directly affect the real world the way (well, at least in some ways) a person can.  I mean, the primary identity/personality (you know, the not tulpa entity that is a part of this shared mind) is an entity of the real world, right?  And if the tulpa can process information for the primary identity to consider, and this processing is done independently of the primary entity's will, isn't it fair to say that the tulpa is having a direct effect on the real world?

Anfauglir isn't asking if the altered states are real - he's asking if the recreational drug use is real.

No, he's not.  He's asking if the tulpa is real, not the process used to make a tulpa.

I see the distinction now.  Point taken.

If there is actually no recreational drug use, then you can ask all the questions in the world you want about the effects of LSD but the answers you get will be meaningless.

Bad analogy - the tulpa isn't the equivalent of recreational drug use.  The process used to make the tulpa is, however (after a fashion, it's not exactly comparable in any case).

As per the above, yes I now see the distinction so I'll accept that it is a bad analogy as presented.  I'm thinking about it and may try salvaging the analogy (assuming it can be salvaged) later when I have more time.

[jaimehlers]

But...apparently the tulpa can directly affect the real world the way (well, at least in some ways) a person can.  I mean, the primary identity/personality (you know, the not tulpa entity that is a part of this shared mind) is an entity of the real world, right?  And if the tulpa can process information for the primary identity to consider, and this processing is done independently of the primary entity's will, isn't it fair to say that the tulpa is having a direct effect on the real world?

True.  But the same can be said of almost anything fictional.  Did Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker affect the real world?  Did Harry Potter?  How about Captain Kirk?  Not a single one of them did anything directly to the real world - but every single one of them influenced it in some way.  For that matter, what about YHWH, Zeus, and Thor?

A tulpa appears to be similar, except that the effects are essentially limited to a single person, rather than being a thought meme that can be spread.

[Zankuu]

First link I got to said: "A tulpa is a thoughtform/being you create with the power of your mind. They are completely sentient and can talk to you. It's like splitting a piece of your mind off that turns into another person. Eventually you can impose them into the real world, as a forced hallucination. A tulpa can have access to your subconcious, and can recall anything there for you."

Using this definition, wouldn't a self projection as god be considered a tulpa?

Is the being is created from your mind? Check.
Is the beings personality and wishes part of the creators subconscious? Check.
Does this being supposedly talk to you? Check.

[jdawg70]

True.  But the same can be said of almost anything fictional.  Did Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker affect the real world?  Did Harry Potter?  How about Captain Kirk?  Not a single one of them did anything directly to the real world - but every single one of them influenced it in some way.  For that matter, what about YHWH, Zeus, and Thor?

A tulpa appears to be similar, except that the effects are essentially limited to a single person, rather than being a thought meme that can be spread.

I guess that's part of the point I'm trying to make though.  How is asking questions about a tulpa any different than asking questions about Darth Vader, YHWH, or Zeus?  Unless we have some requirement that the concept we're talking about has some basis in reality, I do not see how it is different from storytelling...

...which is fine.  If Angus is just interested in waxing about some cohesive narrative or mythos revolving around tulpae, I don't see the harm in that at all.  We don't really need to worry if a tulpa is actually a distinct, independent entity from the primary identity to do a Q&A around aspects of tulpae.

But perhaps I'm merely confusing things here (or, rather, I'm just confused).  Maybe some clarity on what everyone here means by 'real'.  If I were to ask Angus 'are tulpae real', I guess what I'm really asking is - is a tulpa actually a distinct, independent entity from the creator of the tulpa, or is it like an imaginary friend that isn't actually a distinct, independent entity but merely treated as one?  Did I miss the boat on what the whole 'real' conversation was all about?

[Angus and Alexis]

But perhaps I'm merely confusing things here (or, rather, I'm just confused).  Maybe some clarity on what everyone here means by 'real'.  If I were to ask Angus 'are tulpae real', I guess what I'm really asking is - is a tulpa actually a distinct, independent entity from the creator of the tulpa, or is it like an imaginary friend that isn't actually a distinct, independent entity but merely treated as one?  Did I miss the boat on what the whole 'real' conversation was all about?

A completed tulpa should be dependent from the creator, but distinct too.

First link I got to said: "A tulpa is a thoughtform/being you create with the power of your mind. They are completely sentient and can talk to you. It's like splitting a piece of your mind off that turns into another person. Eventually you can impose them into the real world, as a forced hallucination. A tulpa can have access to your subconcious, and can recall anything there for you."

Using this definition, wouldn't a self projection as god be considered a tulpa?

Is the being is created from your mind? Check.
Is the beings personality and wishes part of the creators subconscious? Check.
Does this being supposedly talk to you? Check.

I could assume that constant attempts to talk to "God" could make a tulpa, perhaps that is why some claim they hear voices?
Although, it all hinges on sentience, if it isn't sentient, it is not a tulpa.

But...apparently the tulpa can directly affect the real world the way (well, at least in some ways) a person can.  I mean, the primary identity/personality (you know, the not tulpa entity that is a part of this shared mind) is an entity of the real world, right?  And if the tulpa can process information for the primary identity to consider, and this processing is done independently of the primary entity's will, isn't it fair to say that the tulpa is having a direct effect on the real world?

So in your opinion, anything that exists in the mind, even the thought of Darth Vader equates to reality?

[Fiji]

Now, there's proof that ALL of our actions/decisions happen before we are aware of them.

Correction, there's evidence that we do subconscious processing as part of decision-making which often (but not always) lines up with the conscious decision we make.  That is not the same thing as conclusive proof that decisions are made before our consciousness is aware of them.  To quote a scientist involved in studies of this phenomenon, "What we need now is 20 years of serious neuroscience, not more speculation about the handful of studies that have been done so far."[1]

I'm not trying to start an argument about what is actually happening.  I don't have the technical expertise to accurately judge it, and I don't think anyone else likely to get involved in that particular debate here does either.  My point is that we don't have a sufficient basis of evidence to come to a firm conclusion yet, and we likely won't for years or decades.

But that reminds me of a question.  Has anyone with a tulpa ever submitted to brain scans to help determine what it is they do and why they do it?

1.	http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23367-brain-imaging-spots-our-abstract-choices-before-we-do.html

Surprisingly no, if someone did i would love to know the answer, regardless of the results, just to settle it once and for all.

Man, this topic just gallops along, doesn't it.
I must admit that my initial wording was sloppy. We indeed don't have the 'proof' I mentioned.
And I concur with  jaimehlers  and Angus (and maybe Alexis, who knows?) that it would be a good idea to stuff a tulpa-ist into a scanner, like they did with those praying nuns. See which parts of the brain light up. If it's the part responsible for imagination, than we're indeed talking about Darth Vader. If some other part(s) ... hmm.
I don't suppose anyone around here knows any tenured neurologists[2]?
It would also be fun to compare this with a theist engaging in SPAG ... though, good look trying to find a theist who's willing to admit that a) SPAG exists, b) he's doing it and c) get him to talk to this god of his while inside a big scary science machine

2.	Cause, you know, those are a dime a dozen and you run into them all the time on the Internet

[Anfauglir]

I'm no mental disorder know it all, but MPD is separate personalities, tulpae are essentially imaginary friends.

Its one of the precautions that stops tulpae (well, nasty bad tulpae) from taking over if they get pissed. Sadly, some people have apparently been taker over

Sorry, are tulpa no more than imaginary friends, or are they potentially (and sometimes actually) extremely dangerous to the person's mental health?  Given your second paragraph, how exactly is a tulpa distinct from MPD?

[Anfauglir]

Does it matter at all what questions are asked and what the answers are? 

To me, yes. To people interested, yes. To others, no. If you are not interested, please leave.

I asked this question a while back:

I'm curious, what kind of questions were you expecting to get in this thread?
Questions about tulpae and Alexis personally.

And I'm still trying to get a handle on exactly what level you intend, or are able, to answer questions.

Can we please deviate away from whether or not tulpae are real or not? I am not here to prove it, the topic is for tulpa related questions.....but if you have any questions, please ask.

Please ask more questions, i do not find them nosy.

.....can you ask anything but "Are tulpae real?" As you already know i do not have any answer......One of the reasons on why I cannot answer your questions is that I lack the knowledge to answer them.

Would it be fair to say that you expected answers about your own particular tulpa, her appearance, mannerisms, preferences et al, and possibly questions about how long it took you to create her and her development, but not questions about the psychological and neurological effects, or the objective reality of the construct?

To paraphrase something that jdawg said earlier on, would it be a fair analogy to say that you would be happy to discuss the history and personalities of the Star Wars universe, but not to answer questions about how the films were shot or how the CGI effects were created?  Basically, to discuss the mythos rather than the "behind the scenes" mechanics?

[Angus and Alexis]

I'm no mental disorder know it all, but MPD is separate personalities, tulpae are essentially imaginary friends.

Its one of the precautions that stops tulpae (well, nasty bad tulpae) from taking over if they get pissed. Sadly, some people have apparently been taker over

Sorry, are tulpa no more than imaginary friends, or are they potentially (and sometimes actually) extremely dangerous to the person's mental health?  Given your second paragraph, how exactly is a tulpa distinct from MPD?

I have always said tulpae are more advanced than imaginary friends, i never said they were exactly the same.
Tulpae are potentially dangerous, yes.
It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

Does it matter at all what questions are asked and what the answers are? 

To me, yes. To people interested, yes. To others, no. If you are not interested, please leave.

I asked this question a while back:

I'm curious, what kind of questions were you expecting to get in this thread?
Questions about tulpae and Alexis personally.

And I'm still trying to get a handle on exactly what level you intend, or are able, to answer questions.

Can we please deviate away from whether or not tulpae are real or not? I am not here to prove it, the topic is for tulpa related questions.....but if you have any questions, please ask.

Please ask more questions, i do not find them nosy.

.....can you ask anything but "Are tulpae real?" As you already know i do not have any answer......One of the reasons on why I cannot answer your questions is that I lack the knowledge to answer them.

Would it be fair to say that you expected answers about your own particular tulpa, her appearance, mannerisms, preferences et al, and possibly questions about how long it took you to create her and her development, but not questions about the psychological and neurological effects, or the objective reality of the construct?

I wouldn't mind answering psychological and neurological effects, granted that i know the answers.

To paraphrase something that jdawg said earlier on, would it be a fair analogy to say that you would be happy to discuss the history and personalities of the Star Wars universe, but not to answer questions about how the films were shot or how the CGI effects were created?  Basically, to discuss the mythos rather than the "behind the scenes" mechanics?

I wouldn't mind answering "behind the scenes" for tulpae, but constantly asking "Are tulpae real?" is not going to get anywhere.

[Anfauglir]

I'm no mental disorder know it all, but MPD is separate personalities, tulpae are essentially imaginary friends.

Its one of the precautions that stops tulpae (well, nasty bad tulpae) from taking over if they get pissed. Sadly, some people have apparently been taker over

Sorry, are tulpa no more than imaginary friends, or are they potentially (and sometimes actually) extremely dangerous to the person's mental health?  Given your second paragraph, how exactly is a tulpa distinct from MPD?

I have always said tulpae are more advanced than imaginary friends, i never said they were exactly the same.
Tulpae are potentially dangerous, yes.
It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

"Multiple" is "more than one".  How is having a tulpa different from having multiple personalities, given that you have accepted that the tulpa can indeed take over the body?

[Angus and Alexis]

I'm no mental disorder know it all, but MPD is separate personalities, tulpae are essentially imaginary friends.

Its one of the precautions that stops tulpae (well, nasty bad tulpae) from taking over if they get pissed. Sadly, some people have apparently been taker over

Sorry, are tulpa no more than imaginary friends, or are they potentially (and sometimes actually) extremely dangerous to the person's mental health?  Given your second paragraph, how exactly is a tulpa distinct from MPD?

I have always said tulpae are more advanced than imaginary friends, i never said they were exactly the same.
Tulpae are potentially dangerous, yes.
It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

"Multiple" is "more than one".  How is having a tulpa different from having multiple personalities, given that you have accepted that the tulpa can indeed take over the body?

Because personalities do not equate to sentient advanced imaginary friends.
Personalities equate to...well...personalities.

[Anfauglir]

It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

"Multiple" is "more than one".  How is having a tulpa different from having multiple personalities, given that you have accepted that the tulpa can indeed take over the body?

Because personalities do not equate to sentient advanced imaginary friends.
Personalities equate to...well...personalities.

So Alexis, and other tulpa, do not have a personality?  In what way does a "sentient" advanced friend not have a "personality"?

If a tulpa is not a personality, how exactly are they able to "take over" the body?

[Angus and Alexis]

It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

"Multiple" is "more than one".  How is having a tulpa different from having multiple personalities, given that you have accepted that the tulpa can indeed take over the body?

Because personalities do not equate to sentient advanced imaginary friends.
Personalities equate to...well...personalities.

So Alexis, and other tulpa, do not have a personality?  In what way does a "sentient" advanced friend not have a "personality"?

If a tulpa is not a personality, how exactly are they able to "take over" the body?

Tulpae have personalities, yes.
But saying that tulpae are MPD because they have personalities is like saying that all ice creams are sundaes because sundaes have ice cream in them.

[Anfauglir]

Tulpae have personalities, yes.
But saying that tulpae are MPD because they have personalities is like saying that all ice creams are sundaes because sundaes have ice cream in them.

So then can you please be specific:  in what way does a tulpa differ from a personality, given that tulpa are able to take over a body?  In what way is a sentient tulpa NOT a distinct personality within your body? 

I'm trying to get a clear picture of the distinction between "fantasy friend", "tulpa", and "personality".  It would help perhaps if you gave yur definitions of the three, and listed the ways in which they were dissimilar.

[Angus and Alexis]

Tulpae have personalities,

yes.

But saying that tulpae are MPD because they have personalities is like saying that all ice creams are sundaes because sundaes have ice cream in them.

So then can you please be specific:  in what way does a tulpa differ from a personality, given that tulpa are able to take over a body?  In what way is a sentient tulpa NOT a distinct personality within your body?

Are you saying that the human mind, in all its different functions and complexity, is just a personality? If so, i can understand your confusion.

I'm trying to get a clear picture of the distinction between "fantasy friend", "tulpa", and "personality".  It would help perhaps if you gave yur definitions of the three, and listed the ways in which they were dissimilar.

All the words are rather self explanatory.

I give up trying to correct the quotes - A & A, please learn how to use quotes. GB Mod

[Mrjason]

What you're describing is "Anfauglir wearing a Bernie mask" -

In the same way that anfauglir is a mask for an unknown person sitting behind a computer in the UK.
The anfauglir internet presence may have some differences to the from the flesh and blood person, granted I don't think there are many in this particular case. At the very least I doubt that his driving licence says anfauglir.

Based on the above my question for A & A  is what makes a Tulpa different from any other personality that is adopted by a person. I.e. a sports person that gets in the zone.

[Angus and Alexis]

Based on the above my question for A & A  is what makes a Tulpa different from any other personality that is adopted by a person. I.e. a sports person that gets in the zone.

*sigh*
Okay...lets get this straight.
A tulpa is not a personality, a tulpa has a personality.

Just like how you have a personality, doesn't mean you are just a personality.

[Mrjason]

Based on the above my question for A & A  is what makes a Tulpa different from any other personality that is adopted by a person. I.e. a sports person that gets in the zone.

Just like how you have a personality, doesn't mean you are just a personality.

My biological functions are practically indistinguishable from any other humans'. My physical being is not my individuality.
Cogito ergo sum.

A tulpa is not a personality, a tulpa has a personality.

what else does it have?

[Anfauglir]

]I'm trying to get a clear picture of the distinction between "fantasy friend", "tulpa", and "personality".  It would help perhaps if you gave your definitions of the three, and listed the ways in which they were dissimilar.

All the words are rather self explanatory.

No, they are not.  At least not how you appear to be using them.  Especially with reference to "personality"

It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

I'm wondering why you are shying away from defining what you see as the essential differences between "fantasy friend" and "tulpa", and between "person with a tulpa" and "person with MPD"?  I am, quite honestly, confused by the differece between the three things as you see them, and that's why I am asking you to define them.  Because at the moment, depending on which aspect you are trying to defend, you appear to be veering between "fantasy friend=tulpa" and "MPD=tulpa", as I noted here:

I'm no mental disorder know it all, but MPD is separate personalities, tulpae are essentially imaginary friends.

Its one of the precautions that stops tulpae (well, nasty bad tulpae) from taking over if they get pissed. Sadly, some people have apparently been taker over

A fantasy friend does not, can not, take over the body.  Yet tulpa can, which so far as I can tell puts them into the MPD category.  But you say they are not.  So I'm asking you to please define your terms clearly, and what the differences are.

[Angus and Alexis]

Based on the above my question for A & A  is what makes a Tulpa different from any other personality that is adopted by a person. I.e. a sports person that gets in the zone.

Just like how you have a personality, doesn't mean you are just a personality.

My biological functions are practically indistinguishable from any other humans'. My physical being is not my individuality.
Cogito ergo sum.

So that is all you have? A personality? You don't have anything else? Aha...

A tulpa is not a personality, a tulpa has a personality.

what else does it have?

A form, voice, emotions, etc. Generally all the human traits.

]I'm trying to get a clear picture of the distinction between "fantasy friend", "tulpa", and "personality".  It would help perhaps if you gave your definitions of the three, and listed the ways in which they were dissimilar.

All the words are rather self explanatory.

No, they are not.  At least not how you appear to be using them.  Especially with reference to "personality"

Personality defined as: The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character.

It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

I'm wondering why you are shying away from defining what you see as the essential differences between "fantasy friend" and "tulpa", and between "person with a tulpa" and "person with MPD"?  I am, quite honestly, confused by the differece between the three things as you see them, and that's why I am asking you to define them.  Because at the moment, depending on which aspect you are trying to defend, you appear to be veering between "fantasy friend=tulpa" and "MPD=tulpa", as I noted here:

I was always against tulpae being MPD, im not sure where you got that from, my standing for quite some time has been that tulpae are similar to "fantasy friends" but more advanced. (Notice "similar" not "is a fantasy friend").

I'm no mental disorder know it all, but MPD is separate personalities, tulpae are essentially imaginary friends.

Its one of the precautions that stops tulpae (well, nasty bad tulpae) from taking over if they get pissed. Sadly, some people have apparently been taker over

A fantasy friend does not, can not, take over the body.  Yet tulpa can, which so far as I can tell puts them into the MPD category.  But you say they are not.  So I'm asking you to please define your terms clearly, and what the differences are.

Maybe because a tulpa is not a fantasy friend? I did state tulpae are more advanced, similar, but not the same.

MPD defined as: multiple personality disorder, is a mental disorder characterized by at least two distinct and relatively enduring identities or dissociated personality states that alternately control a person's behavior, and is accompanied by memory impairment for important information not explained by ordinary forgetfulness.

Tulpae normally do not control behaviors, or the body. Tulpae are also more than just a personality. Lastly MPD is just the person with a different personality, tulpae have (mostly) every aspect different.

[Dante]

Tulpae are also more than just a personality. Lastly MPD is just the person with a different personality, tulpae have (mostly) every aspect different.[/b]

What other differences, besides personality, does your tulpa have, exactly? Hair or eye color? Height? What?

[Mrjason]

Based on the above my question for A & A  is what makes a Tulpa different from any other personality that is adopted by a person. I.e. a sports person that gets in the zone.

Just like how you have a personality, doesn't mean you are just a personality.

My biological functions are practically indistinguishable from any other humans'. My physical being is not my individuality.
Cogito ergo sum.

So that is all you have? A personality? You don't have anything else? Aha...

That and a sack of meat with it's meaty needs. Everything else is driven by and given meaning by personality.

A tulpa is not a personality, a tulpa has a personality.

what else does it have?

A form, voice, emotions, etc. Generally all the human traits.

A form? what form, you have said that tulpae are brought into being as an abstract of yourself.

It has your voice. your emotions.

[Quesi]

Doesn't it seem like the human brain is somehow programmed to create these sorts of things?  From Native American spirit animals, to my own personal Jesus, to the imaginary friends who most children create, to AndA's tulpas, it seems like we have some sort of need to seek strength or advise or guidance from something outside of ourselves.

When my daughter was about 3, when I corrected her for making her "5"'s backwards, or when I suggested that she could build a block tower higher when it had a larger base, she would sometimes dismiss my suggestions, and explain that "cousin Lilly' had told her to do it the way she was doing it.  "Cousin Lilly" told her to do a lot of things.  Of course, we don't have a cousin Lilly.

Jesus gives personal advise to lots of Christians in turmoil, suggesting that they be patient, or change jobs, or buy lottery tickets or stay with abusive husbands.  Spirit animals gave Native Americans special insight into hunting or human interactions, or ways to blend into nature. 

And me?  When I have a complex ethical dilemma, or when I am having trouble prioritizing really important things in my life, I often imagine conversations with my dear, sweet, gentle father, who has been dead over a decade.  I present the issues to him, and in my mind, I hear his deep, slow voice, weighing the pros and cons of each set of options.  He never "tells" me what to do.  In real life, he always lead me to seek my own conclusions.  But I imagine his responses, and go through the process of an imaginary conversation with him, and often come up with the answer I was seeking.   

The cartoons of my childhood often depicted a devilish creature and an angelic creature, sitting on a character's shoulders and whispering in his ears, offering conflicting advice.  Don't know enough about Christianity to say whether this image is based in scriptures, or whether it is a literary creation or just a metaphor for a process of conflict resolution that so many of us can identify with. 

You want to play with a tulpa?  Ok.  I guess.  Me?  I'll just keep replaying imaginary conversations with my long-dead father in my head.  I do not need to create his personality.  It is the personality that was responsible for my ethical development, and it sometimes feels like the right place to go when I am in need. 

But don't let your tulpas or Jesus or your imaginary friends or some great power from beyond replace your human interactions. 

[Angus and Alexis]

A form? what form, you have said that tulpae are brought into being as an abstract of yourself.

It has your voice. your emotions.

I said no such thing, please be more careful in the future with quotes.

A tulpa has whatever form, voice, and emotions as you, or the tulpa, gives it.

What other differences, besides personality, does your tulpa have, exactly? Hair or eye color? Height? What?

For starters, Alexis looks like my avatar, and obviously i am not a pony.

Doesn't it seem like the human brain is somehow programmed to create these sorts of things?  From Native American spirit animals, to my own personal Jesus, to the imaginary friends who most children create, to AndA's tulpas, it seems like we have some sort of need to seek strength or advise or guidance from something outside of ourselves.

I did not create Alexis for strength, i did so for companionship and adventure. (And boredom, etc...)

When my daughter was about 3, when I corrected her for making her "5"'s backwards, or when I suggested that she could build a block tower higher when it had a larger base, she would sometimes dismiss my suggestions, and explain that "cousin Lilly' had told her to do it the way she was doing it.  "Cousin Lilly" told her to do a lot of things.  Of course, we don't have a cousin Lilly.

I would doubt a three year old has the ability to make a tulpa, more likely it was an imaginary friend.

Jesus gives personal advise to lots of Christians in turmoil, suggesting that they be patient, or change jobs, or buy lottery tickets or stay with abusive husbands.  Spirit animals gave Native Americans special insight into hunting or human interactions, or ways to blend into nature. 

And me?  When I have a complex ethical dilemma, or when I am having trouble prioritizing really important things in my life, I often imagine conversations with my dear, sweet, gentle father, who has been dead over a decade.  I present the issues to him, and in my mind, I hear his deep, slow voice, weighing the pros and cons of each set of options.  He never "tells" me what to do.  In real life, he always lead me to seek my own conclusions.  But I imagine his responses, and go through the process of an imaginary conversation with him, and often come up with the answer I was seeking.   

That is what tulpamancers call a "Servitor" AKA, a non-sentient tulpa who only can respond, not ask.

The cartoons of my childhood often depicted a devilish creature and an angelic creature, sitting on a character's shoulders and whispering in his ears, offering conflicting advice.  Don't know enough about Christianity to say whether this image is based in scriptures, or whether it is a literary creation or just a metaphor for a process of conflict resolution that so many of us can identify with.

I thought that symbolized how people have decisions, and must accept consequences _/o_o\_

You want to play with a tulpa?  Ok.  I guess.  Me?  I'll just keep replaying imaginary conversations with my long-dead father in my head.  I do not need to create his personality.  It is the personality that was responsible for my ethical development, and it sometimes feels like the right place to go when I am in need. 

Surprisingly enough, while playing with Alexis can be fun, it is also particularly hard to do.

But don't let your tulpas or Jesus or your imaginary friends or some great power from beyond replace your human interactions. 

Of course. While I am a bit odd, i would not ever replace people with tulpae. (well, maybe excluding one person...) I personally would like to spend time with Alexis when i am alone, not when i am in public.

[Dante]

What other differences, besides personality, does your tulpa have, exactly? Hair or eye color? Height? What?

For starters, Alexis looks like my avatar, and obviously i am not a pony.

Yeah. Sure you're not.

[jdawg70]

So in your opinion, anything that exists in the mind, even the thought of Darth Vader equates to reality?

Well, yes, the thought of Darth Vader exists in reality.  But it is a thought about the fictional entity that is the dark lord of the Sith and has excellent control of the Force.

So I certainly do not deny you the reality of your thoughts that this 'tulpa' is a distinct entity.  I question the reality of the tulpa as a distinct entity.

[Mrjason]

A form? what form, you have said that tulpae are brought into being as an abstract of yourself.

It has your voice. your emotions.

I said no such thing, please be more careful in the future with quotes.

A tulpa has whatever form, voice, and emotions as you, or the tulpa, gives it.

Sorry, I'm confused. You did say to ask questions

You have just said that you give it form, as it doesn't have a physical presence are the voice and emotion and your mental image of a pony its form?

If so then it is an abstract concept created by yourself and is only real as an abstract