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

[jdawg70]

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

Explain why you doubt a three year old is incapable of making a tulpa.  Ideally, this explanation would be in the form of:
"In order to make a tulpa, one must be able to..."
"In order to make a tulpa, one must possess..."

Alternatively, you could also try:
"The differences between an imaginary friend and a tulpa are..."

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

This is what rational people call 'talking to one's self internally in order to help organize thoughts, concepts, and ideas'.

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

Why is it difficult?

[Angus and Alexis]

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

Explain why you doubt a three year old is incapable of making a tulpa.  Ideally, this explanation would be in the form of:
"In order to make a tulpa, one must be able to...concentrate immensely."
"In order to make a tulpa, one must possess...good design skills."

These tend to help, but for all i know, a 3 year old can make a tulpa, but is unlikely.

Alternatively, you could also try:
"The differences between an imaginary friend and a tulpa are..."

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

This is what rational people call 'talking to one's self internally in order to help organize thoughts, concepts, and ideas'.

The quote did state that the voice answered by itself, thus not being normal self talk.

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

Why is it difficult?

Sometimes i find it hard to concentrate, at other times Alexis seems to be hibernating, sometimes she doesn't want to and instead just wants to be worked on.

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 stated that i said something i did not, that is not a question. But please do ask something.

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?

You never asked, the topic is for questions after all ;P.

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

The tulpa concept is not my own, but tulpae are indeed creations.

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.

Please understand that i am not saying tulpae are real in the sense of external reality, like a dog or a table. I am saying tulpae are existent mentally, like mind talk and imaginary friends. (That is, on the same realm, do not comprehend this as me saying tulpae ARE imaginary friends.)

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.

Oddly enough i sense sarcasm here...

[Mrjason]

One of the tests to see if things are living is whether they reproduce. Do tulpa make other tulpa?

[Angus and Alexis]

One of the tests to see if things are living is whether they reproduce. Do tulpa make other tulpa?

I wouldn't say a tulpa is alive, unless you count the creator's body as well.
But according to some people, tulpae can make more tulpae. I am not sure if it needs the creators help or not.
Lastly, due to how long it takes to make a tulpa, i can only assume that a tulpa made tulpa would take perhaps years.

EDIT: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Tulpas

Here is a forum my uncle found somehow...worth a few minutes i guess?

[Mrjason]

One of the tests to see if things are living is whether they reproduce. Do tulpa make other tulpa?

I wouldn't say a tulpa is alive, unless you count the creator's body as well.

But you do say it is sentient and seperate from yourself. this would suggest life unless it is in fact a figment of your imagination.

But according to some people, tulpae can make more tulpae. I am not sure if it needs the creators help or not.
Lastly, due to how long it takes to make a tulpa, i can only assume that a tulpa made tulpa would take perhaps years.

If they can reproduce with or without the assent of the host this implies that tulpa are parasitic or, given that these beings are sentient, possibly malevolent

[jdawg70]

Please understand that i am not saying tulpae are real in the sense of external reality, like a dog or a table. I am saying tulpae are existent mentally, like mind talk and imaginary friends. (That is, on the same realm, do not comprehend this as me saying tulpae ARE imaginary friends.)

What you're talking about is that tulpa do not possess a corporeal form outside of yourself, but I would still contend that you are saying that a tulpa does exist as a part of reality.  In the same way that you exist as a part of reality - the 'you' we're referring to is your person, which is above and beyond simply your biology or your corporeal form.  You are your personality, your thoughts, your feelings.  That's what I mean by 'exist in reality'.

What I am questioning is that this 'tulpa' actually possesses an independent personality, independent thoughts, and independent feelings, and that you willfully instantiated such an entity.

However, while thinking through some of this a tangential question has arisen in my head:
I'm uncertain if it's possible for you to destroy this tulpa, but since we're in the world of hypotheticals we'll just assume that it is possible.
Would it be morally wrong for you to destroy Alexis?  If so, what is the moral transgression?

[Angus and Alexis]

One of the tests to see if things are living is whether they reproduce. Do tulpa make other tulpa?

I wouldn't say a tulpa is alive, unless you count the creator's body as well.

But you do say it is sentient and seperate from yourself. this would suggest life unless it is in fact a figment of your imagination.

But according to some people, tulpae can make more tulpae. I am not sure if it needs the creators help or not.
Lastly, due to how long it takes to make a tulpa, i can only assume that a tulpa made tulpa would take perhaps years.

If they can reproduce with or without the assent of the host this implies that tulpa are parasitic or, given that these beings are sentient, possibly malevolent

*sigh*
Lets get this straight...again...
TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).
You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically, although it is also possible that a tulpa can gain the power to do so automatically, they are kind of iffy.
And tulpae are not alive, that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.
EDIT: tulpae are as nice or mean as you make them, or as influences makes them. If a tulpa is evil, your probably going to want to dissolve it...asap...
Also, a tulpa is not a parasite, as the tulpa is not gaining anything, tulpae are more like a mutual relationship, with both parties gaining a bit from the other.

Please understand that i am not saying tulpae are real in the sense of external reality, like a dog or a table. I am saying tulpae are existent mentally, like mind talk and imaginary friends. (That is, on the same realm, do not comprehend this as me saying tulpae ARE imaginary friends.)

What you're talking about is that tulpa do not possess a corporeal form outside of yourself, but I would still contend that you are saying that a tulpa does exist as a part of reality.  In the same way that you exist as a part of reality - the 'you' we're referring to is your person, which is above and beyond simply your biology or your corporeal form.  You are your personality, your thoughts, your feelings.  That's what I mean by 'exist in reality'.

To put bluntly a tulpa would be similar to a person, just without the physical part, just a mental emulation.

What I am questioning is that this 'tulpa' actually possesses an independent personality, independent thoughts, and independent feelings, and that you willfully instantiated such an entity.

Then yes, a tulpa "exists" in reality.

However, while thinking through some of this a tangential question has arisen in my head:
I'm uncertain if it's possible for you to destroy this tulpa, but since we're in the world of hypotheticals we'll just assume that it is possible.
Would it be morally wrong for you to destroy Alexis?  If so, what is the moral transgression?

A tulpa generally cannot be "poofed away" like an imaginary friend, it takes a long time.
As for morals, i cannot make up my mind...while she is indeed just a part of my mind, we have also had some fun times together, i do not think it would be right to destroy her without a justified reason.

[Mrjason]

*sigh*
Lets get this straight...again...
TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).
You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically,

so you have to progamme them to reproduce

although it is also possible that a tulpa can gain the power to do so automatically, they are kind of iffy.

but they can also gain the ability automatically.

Got it.

And tulpae are not alive,

so it isn't a being that is seperate from yourself. Imaginary friend then. I agree.

that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.

would a sentient self-replicating machine not be alive?

[Angus and Alexis]

*sigh*
Lets get this straight...again...
TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).
You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically,

so you have to progamme them to reproduce

Generally yes, often it can be as simple as saying "you can now do "X" " so programming them is not necessary, tulpae dislike being altered.

although it is also possible that a tulpa can gain the power to do so automatically, they are kind of iffy.

but they can also gain the ability automatically.

Got it.

A great example on automatically gaining abilities is how Alexis (annoyingly) chose her form, yet i had other plans.

And tulpae are not alive,

so it isn't a being that is seperate from yourself. Imaginary friend then. I agree.

Not separate from the mind, but instead shares it. Although its traits are generally different than the creators.

that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.

would a sentient self-replicating machine not be alive?

It would fit the needed criteria, but would lack the biological part...

[jdawg70]

A tulpa generally cannot be "poofed away" like an imaginary friend, it takes a long time.
As for morals, i cannot make up my mind...while she is indeed just a part of my mind, we have also had some fun times together, i do not think it would be right to destroy her without a justified reason.

Frankly I'm unconvinced that you believe a tulpa to be an independent entity with independent thoughts, feelings, and emotions.  First you readily admit that 'she' is indeed just a part of your mind.  Secondly, can you make up your mind as to whether or not it would be moral to destroy, say, your next door neighbor?

[Mrjason]

A tulpa generally cannot be "poofed away" like an imaginary friend, it takes a long time.
As for morals, i cannot make up my mind...while she is indeed just a part of my mind, we have also had some fun times together, i do not think it would be right to destroy her without a justified reason.

Frankly I'm unconvinced that you believe a tulpa to be an independent entity with independent thoughts, feelings, and emotions.  First you readily admit that 'she' is indeed just a part of your mind.  Secondly, can you make up your mind as to whether or not it would be moral to destroy, say, your next door neighbor?

Crazy or POE?

[Angus and Alexis]

A tulpa generally cannot be "poofed away" like an imaginary friend, it takes a long time.
As for morals, i cannot make up my mind...while she is indeed just a part of my mind, we have also had some fun times together, i do not think it would be right to destroy her without a justified reason.

Frankly I'm unconvinced that you believe a tulpa to be an independent entity with independent thoughts, feelings, and emotions.  First you readily admit that 'she' is indeed just a part of your mind.  Secondly, can you make up your mind as to whether or not it would be moral to destroy, say, your next door neighbor?

*sarcasm on*
Sure, to hell with my neighbors, why not nuke them from orbit to make sure?
*sarcasm off*

Come on, what would any non-murderous person do to their neighbors?...
Also, read up on parallel processing, allows 2 things to run in one package.
Also, i never said they are independent, tulpae rely on their creators to keep them functional, via talking to them, working on them, etc.
They do however have their own feeling and such.

Crazy or POE?

POE? O.o What does that (acronym?) mean?

[jaimehlers]

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

I wanted to single this out, because I feel that there's an important point being missed here.  Why would a second (or third, or fourth...) personality not also be a "separate process" within the brain?

[Angus and Alexis]

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

I wanted to single this out, because I feel that there's an important point being missed here.  Why would a second (or third, or fourth...) personality not also be a "separate process" within the brain?

While they would be different processes, they would only contain a personality, not an entire tulpa.
Hence the difference.

[jdawg70]

*sarcasm on*
Sure, to hell with my neighbors, why not nuke them from orbit to make sure?
*sarcasm off*

Come on, what would any non-murderous person do to their neighbors?...

Then why wasn't the answer so obvious in regards to a tulpa?  Your tulpa has it's own feelings, emotions, personality, etc.  Feelings, emotions, and personality that are not you.  Shouldn't that really have been enough information for you to readily say 'in general, it would be immoral to destroy a tulpa' in the same way you'd say 'in general, it would be immoral to destroy my neighbor'.

Also, read up on parallel processing, allows 2 things to run in one package.

Alrighty...computing analogy time.  Maybe we can get on the same page that way.

Let's go with your brain being the equivalent of a computer.  You're rockin' an brand spankin' new Haswell i7 with all of the trimmings.

Now this computer is running a host OS of some kind.  It's really nothing more than a hypervisor - it's got some capabilities to talk to some of the low-level hardware, and runs a copy of VirtualBox or VMware or whatever.  Now, there is at least 1 virtual machine, running AngusOS (you).  AngusOS has a few different programs and applications running on it, like the KDE desktop, drivers for an NVidia GPU, drivers for a SoundBlaster 16 (because you're old-skool and badass), several cron jobs that process incoming data and output some type of response, etc.

The totality of software that is AngusOS is an independent entity.  AngusOS will run the same way regardless of whether it is running on this hypervisor, a different hypervisor, your i7, someone else's i5 or A10-5750M, etc.

Now, as I understand it, you are claiming that a second virtual machine running AlexisOS exists and is running in the same hypervisor that AngusOS is running.  AlexisOS has it's own set of programs...maybe it's running the Xfce desktop, using drivers for an Intel GPU, drivers for a Turtle Beach sound card (because AlexisOS is also old-skool but in a completely different way), a different set of cron jobs, etc.

The programs running in AngusOS and AlexisOS comprise feelings, emotions, and personality.

Is this analogy to tulpa valid?

[Angus and Alexis]

*sarcasm on*
Sure, to hell with my neighbors, why not nuke them from orbit to make sure?
*sarcasm off*

Come on, what would any non-murderous person do to their neighbors?...

Then why wasn't the answer so obvious in regards to a tulpa?  Your tulpa has it's own feelings, emotions, personality, etc.  Feelings, emotions, and personality that are not you.  Shouldn't that really have been enough information for you to readily say 'in general, it would be immoral to destroy a tulpa' in the same way you'd say 'in general, it would be immoral to destroy my neighbor'.

Because if you kill your neighbor, many others will care, if you dissolve a tulpa, only you should care. Not that i am saying your should dissolve tulpae, but the option is there...just in case...

Also, read up on parallel processing, allows 2 things to run in one package.

Alrighty...computing analogy time.  Maybe we can get on the same page that way.

Let's go with your brain being the equivalent of a computer.  You're rockin' an brand spankin' new Haswell i7 with all of the trimmings.

Now this computer is running a host OS of some kind.  It's really nothing more than a hypervisor - it's got some capabilities to talk to some of the low-level hardware, and runs a copy of VirtualBox or VMware or whatever.  Now, there is at least 1 virtual machine, running AngusOS (you).  AngusOS has a few different programs and applications running on it, like the KDE desktop, drivers for an NVidia GPU, drivers for a SoundBlaster 16 (because you're old-skool and badass), several cron jobs that process incoming data and output some type of response, etc.

The totality of software that is AngusOS is an independent entity.  AngusOS will run the same way regardless of whether it is running on this hypervisor, a different hypervisor, your i7, someone else's i5 or A10-5750M, etc.

Not really, the processor would determine its speed, its stability ,etc. *nitpicking*

Now, as I understand it, you are claiming that a second virtual machine running AlexisOS exists and is running in the same hypervisor that AngusOS is running.  AlexisOS has it's own set of programs...maybe it's running the Xfce desktop, using drivers for an Intel GPU, drivers for a Turtle Beach sound card (because AlexisOS is also old-skool but in a completely different way), a different set of cron jobs, etc.

Sounds right, but the tulpa still uses the same brain, so the hardware would need to be the same, the software could change however.

The programs running in AngusOS and AlexisOS comprise feelings, emotions, and personality.

Is this analogy to tulpa valid?

Seems alright, not particularly the best computer guy out there, but the analogy seems fitting.

[jdawg70]

Angus and Alexis, please work on your quoting.  Fixing it nearly every time I respond to you is getting a little frustrating.  You'll get the hang of it; just make liberal use of the 'Preview' button.

Now...

Because if you kill your neighbor, many others will care, if you dissolve a tulpa, only you should care. Not that i am saying your should dissolve tulpae, but the option is there...just in case...

So...killing a homeless person who has no relationships - not a problem?  If that is also a moral failing, why so?

Not really, the processor would determine its speed, its stability ,etc. *nitpicking*
Sounds right, but the tulpa still uses the same brain, so the hardware would need to be the same, the software could change however.
Seems alright, not particularly the best computer guy out there, but the analogy seems fitting.

So I guess I'm getting more confused at this point.  You seem to be leaning towards your biology (hardware) being an essential part of who you are.  If that's the case, and the tulpa 'runs' on your exact biology (hardware), in what way is a tulpa not merely an extension of you?  I mean, that, coupled with:

*sigh*
Lets get this straight...again...
TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).
You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically, although it is also possible that a tulpa can gain the power to do so automatically, they are kind of iffy.
And tulpae are not alive, that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.
EDIT: tulpae are as nice or mean as you make them, or as influences makes them. If a tulpa is evil, your probably going to want to dissolve it...asap...

Alexis can't do anything without your consent.
Alexis' traits are entirely dependent on you.
Alexis must run on the same biology as you.
Alexis exists because you made her exist.
It's just becoming increasingly difficult ascertaining exactly how a 'Alexis' isn't just 'you'.

Ultimately, though, I think the main problem here is that you simply haven't thought this whole thing through yourself.  Sentences such as:

Also, a tulpa is not a parasite, as the tulpa is not gaining anything, tulpae are more like a mutual relationship, with both parties gaining a bit from the other.

seem to indicate that you're trying to answer questions on the fly without serious thought behind the answers.  Seriously - there are only 11 words that happen between you declaring that a tulpa doesn't gain anything and the tulpa does gain something.

[Angus and Alexis]

Angus and Alexis, please work on your quoting.  Fixing it nearly every time I respond to you is getting a little frustrating.  You'll get the hang of it; just make liberal use of the 'Preview' button.

What?...

Now...

Because if you kill your neighbor, many others will care, if you dissolve a tulpa, only you should care. Not that i am saying your should dissolve tulpae, but the option is there...just in case...

So...killing a homeless person who has no relationships - not a problem?  If that is also a moral failing, why so?

Damn, ii dug myself in a hole...Hmm...I would say that being that i am against just dissolving tulpae, the option should only be used in emergencies.

Not really, the processor would determine its speed, its stability ,etc. *nitpicking*
Sounds right, but the tulpa still uses the same brain, so the hardware would need to be the same, the software could change however.
Seems alright, not particularly the best computer guy out there, but the analogy seems fitting.

So I guess I'm getting more confused at this point.  You seem to be leaning towards your biology (hardware) being an essential part of who you are.  If that's the case, and the tulpa 'runs' on your exact biology (hardware), in what way is a tulpa not merely an extension of you?  I mean, that, coupled with:

I find that my biology makes me unique, yes.
I am not sure how that equates to a tulpa being an extension of you however.

*sigh*
Lets get this straight...again...
TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).
You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically, although it is also possible that a tulpa can gain the power to do so automatically, they are kind of iffy.
And tulpae are not alive, that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.
EDIT: tulpae are as nice or mean as you make them, or as influences makes them. If a tulpa is evil, your probably going to want to dissolve it...asap...

Alexis can't do anything without your consent.
Alexis' traits are entirely dependent on you.
Alexis must run on the same biology as you.
Alexis exists because you made her exist.
It's just becoming increasingly difficult ascertaining exactly how a 'Alexis' isn't just 'you'.

Wrong, i did state that tulpae are capable of doing things themselves, and often start doing so automatically without consent. Secondly, am i a pony? (Y/N), is my personality somehow not my own? (Y/N), do i lack a physical presence? (Y/N), etc. Lastly, as i have said before, tulpae are not entirely separate, please stop bringing it up.

Ultimately, though, I think the main problem here is that you simply haven't thought this whole thing through yourself.  Sentences such as:

Also, a tulpa is not a parasite, as the tulpa is not gaining anything, tulpae are more like a mutual relationship, with both parties gaining a bit from the other.

seem to indicate that you're trying to answer questions on the fly without serious thought behind the answers.  Seriously - there are only 11 words that happen between you declaring that a tulpa doesn't gain anything and the tulpa does gain something.

Yeah, my wording was wrong (i guess that happens when its late and im tired...), i think i was trying to point out that tulpae don't get everything, thus not a parasite.

[Jag]

Maybe this will help?

Angus and Alexis, please work on your quoting.  Fixing it nearly every time I respond to you is getting a little frustrating.  You'll get the hang of it; just make liberal use of the 'Preview' button.

What?...

Now...

Your formatting needs work. In the Dead Zone (last group in the forum index), there's an topic called Test Area. Practice a bit in there until you get the hang of it, your just misplacing a few keystrokes that will make a big difference if you get them in the right places.

There's a tutorial on quoting as well in the top group, complete with screen shots on exactly how to do it right. It really will help if you can get it down - I'm assuming that jdawg has been going through your posts and correcting the formatting in order to reply to them.

Notice that the above quotes from your post looks different than the way you posted it? That's what he's talking about.

[Angus and Alexis]

Maybe this will help?

Angus and Alexis, please work on your quoting.  Fixing it nearly every time I respond to you is getting a little frustrating.  You'll get the hang of it; just make liberal use of the 'Preview' button.

What?...
Now...

Your formatting needs work. In the Dead Zone (last group in the forum index), there's an topic called Test Area. Practice a bit in there until you get the hang of it, your just misplacing a few keystrokes that will make a big difference if you get them in the right places.

There's a tutorial on quoting as well in the top group, complete with screen shots on exactly how to do it right. It really will help if you can get it down - I'm assuming that jdawg has been going through your posts and correcting the formatting in order to reply to them.

Notice that the above quotes from your post looks different than the way you posted it? That's what he's talking about.

They look fine to me, what issue is present?
EDIT: just realised i got a -1 "darwin" Woot.

[wright]

They look fine to me, what issue is present?
EDIT: just realised i got a -1 "darwin" Woot.

In replying to another's post, your replies shouldn't be enclosed as part of the quote (the shaded blocks), but apart. As my reply here is distinct from my copy of your post above. Bolding your replies is better than nothing, but setting them apart (outside quotes entirely) makes it even clearer who is replying to whom. Hope that helps.

It took me awhile to get the hang of it too, but it isn't very hard. All we have to judge each other here with are our words, so clearly formatting replies shows a measure of courtesy and respect.

Please note that I don't mean I think you've been disrespectful, just that learning to format according to forum standards is a further sign of courtesy.

And don't assign too much significance to Darwins, positive or negative. The use of them varies quite a bit by forum members. I tend to hand out pluses relatively freely (I awarded two in the last hour or so) and negatives hardly ever. Others use them more sparingly.

[Angus and Alexis]

They look fine to me, what issue is present?
EDIT: just realised i got a -1 "darwin" Woot.

In replying to another's post, your replies shouldn't be enclosed as part of the quote (the shaded blocks), but apart. As my reply here is distinct from my copy of your post above. Bolding your replies is better than nothing, but setting them apart (outside quotes entirely) makes it even clearer who is replying to whom. Hope that helps.

It took me awhile to get the hang of it too, but it isn't very hard. All we have to judge each other here with are our words, so clearly formatting replies shows a measure of courtesy and respect.

Please note that I don't mean I think you've been disrespectful, just that learning to format according to forum standards is a further sign of courtesy.

And don't assign too much significance to Darwins, positive or negative. The use of them varies quite a bit by forum members. I tend to hand out pluses relatively freely (I awarded two in the last hour or so) and negatives hardly ever. Others use them more sparingly.

Ehh, when it comes to answering several questions at once, i cant be bothered having to quote each one...efficiency ftw.

[wright]

Ehh, when it comes to answering several questions at once, i cant be bothered having to quote each one...efficiency ftw.

Not a very polite attitude for a newcomer. If you're really in that much of a hurry, then just post one or two replies at a go; there's no forum rule that states you have to answer every last question in every post. And again, once you get the hang of it, formatting clearly really doesn't take much effort.

[Anfauglir]

Ehh, when it comes to answering several questions at once, i cant be bothered having to quote each one...efficiency ftw.

Well, let me put it this way.  You have already  been told by one Mod - Greybeard - to use the quote function correctly.  Now I - also in my mod capacity - am telling you again.  You will use the quote function correctly, please.  That means separating out your responses, NOT putting them in bold inside the quoted text.  (In case you weren't aware, when addressed in green bold text, it means we are acting in our Moderator capacity.

The quoting tutorial can be found here - please review it before posting please.

[Angus and Alexis]

Ehh, when it comes to answering several questions at once, i cant be bothered having to quote each one...efficiency ftw.

Well, let me put it this way.  You have already  been told by one Mod - Greybeard - to use the quote function correctly.  Now I - also in my mod capacity - am telling you again.  You will use the quote function correctly, please.  That means separating out your responses, NOT putting them in bold inside the quoted text.  (In case you weren't aware, when addressed in green bold text, it means we are acting in our Moderator capacity.

The quoting tutorial can be found here - please review it before posting please.

I have found no posts where Greybeard warned me to quote.
But, as you wish, i will quote correctly now.

[jaimehlers]

He didn't warn you - he asked you to learn how to use quotes.  Since it was inside a quote block, I can see why you might have missed it.

[Angus and Alexis]

He didn't warn you - he asked you to learn how to use quotes.  Since it was inside a quote block, I can see why you might have missed it.

Ahh, okay then, that is likely why i missed it.

Anyway, enough derailment with how quotes should be made.

Any other questions.

[Zankuu]

I've read this thread in it's entirety twice now, and I still don't see the difference between forming a tulpa and inducing a type of controlled auditory and visual Schizophrenia.

[Angus and Alexis]

I've read this thread in it's entirety twice now, and I still don't see the difference between forming a tulpa and inducing a type of controlled auditory and visual Schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia normally cannot be disabled, and normally cannot be destroyed without external help.