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

[ThatZenoGuy]

Thank you for clarifying.

I hope i made myself clear... ;\
I'm not very good at clarifying...

Edit: Woot, six pages, cheese for everyone!

[LoriPinkAngel]

A & A -- Are you for real or is this "tulpamancy" a "tongue in cheek" thing?  I frequently refer to my alternate personalities or threaten to convert to Pastafarianism and start shopping for a pink pasta strainer. I do this for comic relief due to major stress in my life.  However I do not really have Multiple Personality Disorder and I don't really worship the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster although I would like to own a pink pasta strainer. But I might get me a tulpa now.   

Anfauglir:  I'm pretty sure this isn't Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends..

Loved that show when my son was little.   

[ThatZenoGuy]

A & A -- Are you for real or is this "tulpamancy" a "tongue in cheek" thing?  I frequently refer to my alternate personalities or threaten to convert to Pastafarianism and start shopping for a pink pasta strainer. I do this for comic relief due to major stress in my life.  However I do not really have Multiple Personality Disorder and I don't really worship the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster although I would like to own a pink pasta strainer. But I might get me a tulpa now.   

I am for real.
I do use tulpae as a tongue in cheek thing with theists, as it drives them mad, but at other times, i am for real.

Anfauglir:  I'm pretty sure this isn't Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends..

Loved that show when my son was little.   

That show was great xD.
I hate TV though, too many advertisements.

Edit: -2 darwins, yay?
Edit#2: As a question, how many atheists here get more -'s rather than +'s?

[Anfauglir]

Question.  Someone you consider a friend locks you in a little room, where the only connection to the outside world is a TV screen.  You have no control over what that screen shows, no control over whether that screen is even on.  Your "friend" determines what you see and experience, decides when and if they will talk to you.

Answer honestly.  How long would you consider your captor a friend?  How long would it take you, locked in your little room, to get to the point where your desire for freedom, for self-determination, would outweigh friendship?

Considering in this situation i am a tulpa, and thus understand that i am a tulpa, a construct, and that in my own place i can do pretty much anything i want.
I talk to my creator, and enjoy my life, not needing feeble requirements like "air" and "food".
Your analogy was rather flawed to be honest.

So the fact that she knows she was created specifically to serve your interests, that you did your best to force her to be the way YOU want her to be, that she will eternally be dependant on your whims for her stimulation, can never interact with anyone else.....basically, she accepts that she is a good little construct who must toe the line or get deleted:

it is possible for deviation to occur.  I guess in that case, i would have to rethink the situation, no?

I'm not surprised she lets you think she is your friend, if deletion is the alternative.  Though I suppose it could be Stockholm Syndrome.

One final point:

i personally chose a beachfront, ironically Alexis does not like getting wet

So....you KNOW that a great deal of the environment you generously created for her is something she doesn't like and won't use.  You ARE a good friend, I'm really NOT surprised that she wouldn't dare reveal she is anything other than happy and grateful to you. 

You've created something dependant on your whim for its existence.  Given it an environment that fits YOUR desires, not hers.  Done your damndest to make it the thing you want it to be.  Are convinced it should and does love you, should be grateful for its existence.

Bravo Yahweh.  You've done a good job there.  I can't see THAT going wrong.

[ThatZenoGuy]

So the fact that she knows she was created specifically to serve your interests, that you did your best to force her to be the way YOU want her to be, that she will eternally be dependant on your whims for her stimulation, can never interact with anyone else.....basically, she accepts that she is a good little construct who must toe the line or get deleted:

Never stated i would just poof her away, i would try to get better in relations, like you would with actual people.
She does know she is a construct, she cannot dismiss it.
Lastly, when you make a tupa, you make its personality and framework, then let it deviate.
Level of deviation is impossible to estimate, but can vary from "completely different from the start" to "One difference...".

I'm not surprised she lets you think she is your friend, if deletion is the alternative.  Though I suppose it could be Stockholm Syndrome.

Please, entertain me, post where i said "i would delete her if she doesn't do as she is told."

The fact is with her personality (and cute looks ), she will be my companion, it is inevitable.
If she deviates too far, i would just have to accept it, no?

i personally chose a beachfront, ironically Alexis does not like getting wet

So....you KNOW that a great deal of the environment you generously created for her is something she doesn't like and won't use.  You ARE a good friend, I'm really NOT surprised that she wouldn't dare reveal she is anything other than happy and grateful to you. 

No, she likes the beach (probably the sun and sand), and she doesn't go in the water, also hooves are not very effective at using things (maybe she could do with telekinesis...).
Also remember that the beach connects to the mainland, she is not on a desert island.
And trust me, she hasn't been all happy and grateful, she has gotten angry at times (one such time with an incident involving water...), i apologized, obviously.

You've created something dependant on your whim for its existence.  Given it an environment that fits YOUR desires, not hers.  Done your damndest to make it the thing you want it to be.  Are convinced it should and does love you, should be grateful for its existence.

A tulpa is always dependent on the creator for its existence, they do not care.
She is happy with the beach.
You design a tulpa and then let it deviate.
We enjoy each other because of our personalities, not due to force. (*shivers*, love+tulpa brings me bad memories of a persons log...)

[Anfauglir]

I'm done: you don't appear to want to even consider the issues I'm raising, just deny they could ever exist, and I'm bored with the contradictions in your posts.

[ThatZenoGuy]

I'm done: you don't appear to want to even consider the issues I'm raising, just deny they could ever exist, and I'm bored with the contradictions in your posts.

I am considering them, its not my fault they are invalid and flawed.

Thanks for the questions though.

Edit: I might add that a large number of your questions i have to use Alexis for context, being that she has an obviously different mindset than you, its no surprise you are aggravated by her not caring being my tulpa/ being at the beach/ etc. I mean, you cant read her mind, so the answers might seem surprising.

[Mrjason]

I'm done: you don't appear to want to even consider the issues I'm raising, just deny they could ever exist, and I'm bored with the contradictions in your posts.

Angus and Alexis, I think why you struggle with giving the type of answer that Anfauglir would like is because you have taken a part of a philosophy and ran with it out of its original context i.e. Buddhism.

Its a bit like using CD roms as reflectors on your bike, sure they may do the job but thats definitely not what they're designed for.

[ThatZenoGuy]

I'm done: you don't appear to want to even consider the issues I'm raising, just deny they could ever exist, and I'm bored with the contradictions in your posts.

Angus and Alexis, I think why you struggle with giving the type of answer that Anfauglir would like is because you have taken a part of a philosophy and ran with it out of its original context i.e. Buddhism.

Its a bit like using CD roms as reflectors on your bike, sure they may do the job but thats definitely not what they're designed for.

Possibly, the "process and result" of what i am doing is different than the Buddhist method.
I honestly don't know why the name is the same, one is magic, the other is not..

Edit: Do you have any questions by the way ?

[Mrjason]

Possibly, the "process and result" of what i am doing is different than the Buddhist method.
I honestly don't know why the name is the same, one is magic, the other is not..

Edit: Do you have any questions by the way ?

Yes.  Why do you think that the names are the same.

[ThatZenoGuy]

Possibly, the "process and result" of what i am doing is different than the Buddhist method.
I honestly don't know why the name is the same, one is magic, the other is not..

Edit: Do you have any questions by the way ?

Yes.  Why do you think that the names are the same.

Hmmm...
Possibly as they are similar, being that both involved using thought to make something?
Maybe the version most people use was made by a pirate (stealing other names ).
;\
Cant think of much more...
Ask more questions please if you want to xD.

[Mrjason]

Hmmm...
Possibly as they are similar, being that both involved using thought to make something?
Ask more questions please if you want to xD.

are they similar or the same?

[ThatZenoGuy]

are they similar or the same?

Similar, not the same.
Otherwise i would be saying "Alexis is real, thats right, i made a real life changeling queen with my head".

[Mrjason]

Similar, not the same.
Otherwise i would be saying "Alexis is real, thats right, i made a real life changeling queen with my head".

Isn't the ultimate aim in Buddhism for the creator to realise that the tulpa is a hallucination?

[ThatZenoGuy]

Isn't the ultimate aim in Buddhism for the creator to realise that the tulpa is a hallucination?

According to sources, yes.

Hence why the process of tulpae (the one i am doing) is different, Buddhist make hallucinations, we make sentient companions.

[Mrjason]

Isn't the ultimate aim in Buddhism for the creator to realise that the tulpa is a hallucination?

According to sources, yes.

Hence why the process of tulpae (the one i am doing) is different, Buddhist make hallucinations, we make sentient companions.

Isn't this just cherry picking the aspects of a philosophy that you like and rejecting those parts that you find unpalatable? Much in the same way that christians do.
As Buddhism does not have a Central deity I would suggest that what you are doing as as close to SPAG[1] (acronym not insult, see link below) as you can get with this particular belief system?

1.	http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SPAG

[ThatZenoGuy]

Isn't this just cherry picking the aspects of a philosophy that you like and rejecting those parts that you find unpalatable? Much in the same way that christians do.
As Buddhism does not have a Central deity I would suggest that what you are doing as as close to SPAG[1] (acronym not insult, see link below) as you can get with this particular belief system?

1.	http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SPAG

Nononono, i'm not a Buddhist, nor is Tulpae exclusive to Buddhism.

So far, i believe there is a Tibetan tulpa concept, a Buddhist one, and the one i am attempting, lets just call it modern tulpa concept?

Its also not a philosophy, its a process (in this case at least).

Im also not "SPAG", as i am not self projecting anything other than myself, an obvious human being, excluding the required answers from Alexis that Anfauglir requested.

[Mrjason]

Nononono, i'm not a Buddhist, nor is Tulpae exclusive to Buddhism.

So far, i believe there is a Tibetan tulpa concept, a Buddhist one, and the one i am attempting, lets just call it modern tulpa concept?

What you are saying is that you like the tulpa concept, hence you have created one, but you don't like the philosophy that they are derived from. This is cherry picking.

Its also not a philosophy, its a process (in this case at least).

A process that is a teaching tool as part of a philosophy unless, as in your case, it is taken out of context.

Im also not "SPAG", as i am not self projecting anything other than myself, an obvious human being, excluding the required answers from Alexis that Anfauglir requested.

To be honest I'm not 100% sure that SPAG can be used in the case of Buddhism. You're certainly adopting parts of it and projecting your own ideals upon it.

The answers from Alexis will be the same as the answers from you. Even if Alexis is its own consciousness [wiki]determinism[/wiki] will mean that the responses from Alexis are identical to yours

[ThatZenoGuy]

What you are saying is that you like the tulpa concept, hence you have created one, but you don't like the philosophy that they are derived from. This is cherry picking.

No, i did not make the concept i follow, some one else did.
According to the forums, the one we use is more similar to the Tibetan concept.
Essentially, they found it interesting, tested it, modified it, then that led to what it is now.

A process that is a teaching tool as part of a philosophy unless, as in your case, it is taken out of context.

I don't follow it as a philosophy, very few do.

To be honest I'm not 100% sure that SPAG can be used in the case of Buddhism. You're certainly adopting parts of it and projecting your own ideals upon it.

No, I am not.
I have not adopted anything from Buddhism.

The answers from Alexis will be the same as the answers from you. Even if Alexis is its own consciousness [wiki]determinism[/wiki] will mean that the responses from Alexis are identical to yours

Not at all.
I don't like being lit on fire, Alexis does not mind, i like water, Alexis does not.
Alexis does indeed answer differently than i would, not all of the time of course, but she does do it.

I'm not sure what Determinism has anything to do with this...

[jynnan tonnix]

I don't like being lit on fire, Alexis does not mind, i like water, Alexis does not.

OK...so how does THAT work??

Obviously Alexis cannot sense anything except through you. She cannot sense the water on her beach in any concrete way, neither can she sense being on fire. In fact, unless YOU have been lit on fire, there is no way that anything in your mind could meaningfully construct that sensation except as an extrapolation of burning your hand on a stove or something.

[Mrjason]

What you are saying is that you like the tulpa concept, hence you have created one, but you don't like the philosophy that they are derived from. This is cherry picking.

No, i did not make the concept i follow, some one else did.
According to the forums, the one we use is more similar to the Tibetan concept.
Essentially, they found it interesting, tested it, modified it, then that led to what it is now.

A process that is a teaching tool as part of a philosophy unless, as in your case, it is taken out of context.

I don't follow it as a philosophy, very few do.

To be honest I'm not 100% sure that SPAG can be used in the case of Buddhism. You're certainly adopting parts of it and projecting your own ideals upon it.

No, I am not.
I have not adopted anything from Buddhism.

As I said, you follow the tulpa concept but not the buddhism that it is derived from.

The answers from Alexis will be the same as the answers from you. Even if Alexis is its own consciousness [wiki]determinism[/wiki] will mean that the responses from Alexis are identical to yours

Not at all.
I don't like being lit on fire, Alexis does not mind, i like water, Alexis does not.
Alexis does indeed answer differently than i would, not all of the time of course, but she does do it.

I'm not sure what Determinism has anything to do with this...

Alexis has no physical form, I don't see how it can like or dislike something that it can have no concept of. Unless you have told it/imagined that it doesn't. But this takes us back to the "servitor" questions of a few pages ago.

If alexis has the same experiences/social motivators etc as you (which it must by definition of being a co-existant entity) determinism means that alexis does not have a range of responses outside of those that you have.

[ThatZenoGuy]

OK...so how does THAT work??

After finding out she disliked water, i asked her if she liked fire or not, she then proceeded to light on fire and not care at all...

Obviously Alexis cannot sense anything except through you. She cannot sense the water on her beach in any concrete way, neither can she sense being on fire. In fact, unless YOU have been lit on fire, there is no way that anything in your mind could meaningfully construct that sensation except as an extrapolation of burning your hand on a stove or something.

I have had bad run ins with hot things and fire...
I can only assume she knows fire= Normally really bad.
And what do you mean she cannot sense the water?
Of course she can sense it, that is where she essentially lives (the beach that is, not the water), she can sense anything internally, but relies on me for external input.

As I said, you follow the tulpa concept but not the buddhism that it is derived from.

In that context, then yes, i guess i do.

Alexis has no physical form, I don't see how it can like or dislike something that it can have no concept of. Unless you have told it/imagined that it doesn't. But this takes us back to the "servitor" questions of a few pages ago.

While she has no physical form, she knows what is good, and what is bad, she is no idiot (okay...she is a bit lacking with intelligence at the moment).
Tulpae are known for using memories from their creators, i would say that may have something to do with it.

If alexis has the same experiences/social motivators etc as you (which it must by definition of being a co-existant entity) determinism means that alexis does not have a range of responses outside of those that you have.

Again, do i like being lit on fire? I would hope you say no...
Alexis seems to not fear fire, i sure as hell fear it.

[Mrjason]

As I said, you follow the tulpa concept but not the buddhism that it is derived from.

In that context, then yes, i guess i do.

This is why I say that you, unwittingly or not, are cherry picking from a philosophy. Which is perhaps why you do not have the answers to the questions that have been asked.


Hence these utter contradictions

While she has no physical form, she knows what is good, and what is bad, she is no idiot (okay...she is a bit lacking with intelligence at the moment) Tulpae are known for using memories from their creators, i would say that may have something to do with it.

And

Alexis seems to not fear fire, i sure as hell fear it.

[ThatZenoGuy]

Hence these utter contradictions

While she has no physical form, she knows what is good, and what is bad, she is no idiot (okay...she is a bit lacking with intelligence at the moment) Tulpae are known for using memories from their creators, i would say that may have something to do with it.

And

Alexis seems to not fear fire, i sure as hell fear it.

How is that a contradiction, one can know what is bad and what is good, yet not fear it.

I know sharks are bad for your health (Om nom nom...), yet i do not fear them.

In this case, Alexis knows that she cannot be harmed by fire, but knows i can.

[jynnan tonnix]

So in her world, being burned is not painful? Or does she not feel pain? Why would she dislike the "sensation" of virtual water? You say she can sense it, but there is no actual water for her to sense on her beach, only through you going in actual water can she "know" what it feels like. And whether she "enjoys" it or not, the feeling of water on the skin is not worse than the feeling of fire. Or is it just harmless pyrotechnics in her world? How much reality crosses over?

This is sounding more and more like some sort of video game.

[Mrjason]

How is that a contradiction, one can know what is bad and what is good, yet not fear it.
I know sharks are bad for your health (Om nom nom...), yet i do not fear them.

A bad analogy unless you fear fire whilst swimming.

The contradiction lies in you explaining that tulpa's concept of a corporeal experience is based on your own but then going on to say that it isn't.

How can alexis like being set on fire when it can't be set on fire as it has no physical form?

It seems to me you're making it up as you go along. For the reasons I posted above (which you agreed with) Whilst maybe not SPAG I would lable this SPAPH - Self Projection As Philosophy.

Edit Aaaaand I'm spent, with this arguement

[ThatZenoGuy]

So in her world, being burned is not painful? Or does she not feel pain? Why would she dislike the "sensation" of virtual water? You say she can sense it, but there is no actual water for her to sense on her beach, only through you going in actual water can she "know" what it feels like. And whether she "enjoys" it or not, the feeling of water on the skin is not worse than the feeling of fire. Or is it just harmless pyrotechnics in her world? How much reality crosses over?

This is sounding more and more like some sort of video game.

I would assume that she senses no pain or feeling from fire.
She knows what water is like, as i know what water is like, apparently she does not like getting her hooves wet, hence she stays away from water.
I wouldn't say water hurts her, she just dislikes it t a great extent.

Edit: Heheh, all my negative darwins are from screwtape, nice .

[ThatZenoGuy]

How can alexis like being set on fire when it can't be set on fire as it has no physical form?

Easy, simply light her on fire mentally.
Doesn't require physical form at all.

The contradiction lies in you explaining that tulpa's concept of a corporeal experience is based on your own but then going on to say that it isn't.

Simple, she has the framework on how to act from input, she just has to change it.

Edit: Screwtape, i have this to say .
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120824035017/mlpfanart/images/0/09/ChrysalisButthurt.png

[ThatZenoGuy]

*sorry for triple post, edit seems to be not working O.o*
Okay, screwtape, i admit, butthurt is not the right thing to say there.
But all of my - darwins are from you, this seems...partial, to an extent.