Tulpa related log/discussion/questions/assorted stuff.

[nogodsforme]

I am arguing that they are the same thing. My daughter created someone to talk to. So have you.

[Angus and Alexis]

Tulpae are said to be sentient, imaginary friends are not.

That is kind of the line between them...

[Graybeard]

Tulpae are said to be sentient, imaginary friends are not.

That is kind of the line between them...

are said to be... who says that and what proof do you have? I have already said that if I think about a hippopotamus, there will never be a hippo created. I have already said that you can create nothing that is sentient (other than a baby and then you'll need someone else).

You are using the same deception as Christians: You pull some some vague unsupported claim out of your arse and then your next statement is based on this.

Just tell me how you create something that is sentient using only your brain. How does the biology, chemistry and physics work?

[Angus and Alexis]

A tulpa is a consciousness that is very much like your own, in that has its own opinions, preferences, personality and so on. It can communicate with you, can have its own form, and can understand you like no one else could. It can give you second opinions on things and come up with original ideas of its own. A tulpa lives inside your brain, very much like you do.

This is essentially the phenomenon...

How exactly does it work?

I have no idea, but it ranges from a sheer delusion, an illusion, an actual physical usage of the brain, a modified sub conscience, etc.

According to the concept, constant talking/attention and "forcing" makes a sentient tulpa.

My claim of tulpae being sentient is supported by, ohh dear...tulpamancers...Which i guess makes it hard to believe.
I cannot for sure say that tulpae are sentient, but i can say at the least, that they appear to be sentient.

Edit: http://community.tulpa.info/thread-a-pledge
Gah, the thought that the person who made that thread makes me feel...odd? The thought of a tulpa apparently writing that, or otherwise telling him to write it seems interesting, but scary.


Edit2: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH GOD DAMNIT!
Now the idea of "perma-switching" is in my head.

[Graybeard]

My great objection to this thread is that WWGHA is dedicated to having the religious accept that what they have is a delusion - that gods exist only in the mind: A delusion that can range from the harmless to the fatal. Yet here you are, promoting a delusion and saying how you are making yourself deluded.

You are actively engaged in denying reality - creating a delusion. You are also taking the same route as godbotherers in seizing on anything that might support your argument and ignoring anything that goes against it.

Your arguments are often based upon twisting a few words to mean what you want them to mean, yet not fully understanding them. I do not think that you have listened to anything that has been said, and you certainly have not read and understood the linked New Yorker article that explains the delusion of the tulpa.

Your comments show me that you are convinced in your own mind that you can create something that is sentient, but equally show that you have no idea what "sentient" means nor do you even have the concept of "sentient" available to you.

I have no idea why you are doing this. Perhaps it is a way of gaining attention. Perhaps you feel lonely, perhaps you think you have magical powers, perhaps you are part of a group that "believes" in tulpas and this gives you some identity.

So, to help us, why are you doing this?

[Angus and Alexis]

I do know what the word sentient means, if you need to know.
Its not a particularly hard to know word.

Secondly, i have said many times that it is very well possible that a tulpa is a delusion.
However as i have also said, other people have other theories.

Why am i making a tulpa?

Never really thought that much about why...

I don't know...

It sounds interesting i guess.

I am also often bored.

I also wondered what my OC (original concept, a fictional character i made for a never to be completed fan fiction) would be like...Although, she decided to be Chrysalis.

As a question, what do you think my "argument" is?

[jdawg70]

I do know what the word sentient means, if you need to know.
Its not a particularly hard to know word.

Just a hint here, but if someone questions your understanding of a word, and you reply that you do indeed understand what the word means, it looks really bad if you simply make that assertion and do not back it up with an explanation of that word's meaning (preferably in your own words to showcase understanding).  This goes double if you follow up with a phrase such as "Its not particularly hard to know word."

Secondly, i have said many times that it is very well possible that a tulpa is a delusion.
However as i have also said, other people have other theories.

Why am i making a tulpa?

Never really thought that much about why...

I don't know...

It sounds interesting i guess.

I am also often bored.

I also wondered what my OC (original concept, a fictional character i made for a never to be completed fan fiction) would be like...Although, she decided to be Chrysalis.

As a question, what do you think my "argument" is?

At this point it really sounds like your argument is that a tulpa is not an imaginary friend, and then you go through great lengths to ensure that it looks as much like an imaginary friend as possible.

[Graybeard]

I do know what the word sentient means, if you need to know.
Its not a particularly hard to know word.

Well, I have to say that you do not seem to. For a thing to be sentient, it has to have an independent ability to feels or be capable of feeling;it has to have the power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses; it must be conscious or percipient of something.

To do this, the thing must have a nervous system and an organ capable of interpreting the signals of stimuli. Nothing that the mind alone creates can have this. It is not possible.

Secondly, i have said many times that it is very well possible that a tulpa is a delusion.

Which is a meaningless statement, isn't it? It is very well possible that I am 15 foot tall... as it happens, it is very well possible that I am not. What you are saying here in weasel words is that you honestly are convinced that tuplas are real and have their own independent life complete with a body and organs.

However as i have also said, other people have other theories.

Another meaningless statement, and you knew when you wrote it. You are doing your level-best not to say "Tulpas are imaginary and people invent them in their heads - they cannot be sentient.", aren't you?

I am waiting for you to use some "Christian logic" such as "There are many things we do not know!" "You cannot know unless you accept tulpas." etc.

Why am i making a tulpa?

Never really thought that much about why... I don't know...

I'm going to call you out on this one: you do know.

It sounds interesting i guess.

But you now know that it is impossible and that you "create" nothing other than a delusion, the very thing that we here oppose. There is no logic, there is no science, there is no proof, there is no evidence and there never will be, and there is no advantage.

I also wondered what my OC (original concept, a fictional character i made for a never to be completed fan fiction) would be like...Although, she decided to be Chrysalis.

I have not the faintest idea who or what 'Chrysalis' is. Tell us why you wanted him/her/it to be "real". What purpose did you think this would serve that could not be found in the real world and in reality?

As a question, what do you think my "argument" is?

On base level, you haven't got one. As I write, I feel that I'm telling a 5 year old that there is no Santa Claus and that the tooth fairy has been replaced by dental insurance.

You seem to have once read something about tulpas[1] and, not realising that it is all garbage, and without any critical thought, you decided you'd have a go at making one. You thought that this would make you interesting.

You then found a site, WWGHA, and made a decision to insist on talking about tulpas in the hopes that someone would be a tulpa devotee or be impressed by your knowledge. A moment's thought would have told you that this was as like posting, "Why's the world flat then?" on a serious astronomy site.

The consensus of opinion, no, all opinion, went against you. No one thought you were introducing anything interesting. Not a single person thought there could be "tulpas". and yet you continued and did not notice this. This is the beginnings of obsession and delusion.

Your argument, on a higher level, is non-existent.

You have now hijacked space on this site to publicise your delusion. You would do better to be a missionary peddling these delusions at another site: one that the gullible, shallow thinkers inhabit.

I am also amazed that you can criticise Christians/Muslims/etc. from your position. What would you say if one of them asked, "What about you creating sentient tuplas then?"

 

1.	which is the same as reading a paper on Tellitubby anatomy

[Angus and Alexis]

At this point it really sounds like your argument is that a tulpa is not an imaginary friend, and then you go through great lengths to ensure that it looks as much like an imaginary friend as possible.

I have also said that a tulpa is pretty much imaginary friend 2.0.

Well, I have to say that you do not seem to. For a thing to be sentient, it has to have an independent ability to feels or be capable of feeling;it has to have the power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses; it must be conscious or percipient of something.

I guess i should have posted the definition before, but yes, i do know what sentient means.

To do this, the thing must have a nervous system and an organ capable of interpreting the signals of stimuli. Nothing that the mind alone creates can have this. It is not possible.

Tulpae are said to use your brain, eyes and ears.
I am going to honest and say that i am skeptic on just how tulpae are supposed to do so.

Which is a meaningless statement, isn't it? It is very well possible that I am 15 foot tall...

As far as i am concerned, the square to cube law, and gravity, would make it impossible.
You don't happen to be on the moon, do you?

What you are saying here in weasel words is that you honestly are convinced that tuplas are real and have their own independent life complete with a body and organs.

What nonsense, i do not think of such things.
I believe tulpae are real, yes. But how exactly? I do not know, i admit that a delusion is likely the case.
But i also admit that others have other ideas.

Another meaningless statement, and you knew when you wrote it. You are doing your level-best not to say "Tulpas are imaginary and people invent them in their heads - they cannot be sentient.", aren't you?

Technically, a tulpa is imaginary in the physical sense, so there is that.
Again though, it is claimed that tulpae use the host's brain for sentience and such.

I am waiting for you to use some "Christian logic" such as "There are many things we do not know!" "You cannot know unless you accept tulpas." etc.

Nyet, do not expect such garbage from me. 

I'm going to call you out on this one: you do know.

Please, amuse me. How do you know what i do not know?
Last time i checked, physics were not real.

But you now know that it is impossible and that you "create" nothing other than a delusion, the very thing that we here oppose. There is no logic, there is no science, there is no proof, there is no evidence and there never will be, and there is no advantage.

Never stated there was an advantage, and i never stated that a tulpa is not a delusion.
Heck, i never even said that you must believe what i must believe.

\
I have not the faintest idea who or what 'Chrysalis' is. Tell us why you wanted him/her/it to be "real". What purpose did you think this would serve that could not be found in the real world and in reality?

Originally, she was to be a gender swapped version of my OC, but then she became chrysalis, that black and green thing licking your screen for my avatar.
I guess i was intrigued as to what she would of been like?

On base level, you haven't got one.

Bingo!
Exactly, i never made an argument.
Now i guess i have one, and that is good, as this thread was going stale.

You seem to have once read something about tulpas and, not realising that it is all garbage, and without any critical thought, you decided you'd have a go at making one. You thought that this would make you interesting.

Actually, i started making Alexis, knowing that the idea is unbelievable.
It was when odd things started happening when i started to wonder if tulpae are real.

You then found a site, WWGHA, and made a decision to insist on talking about tulpas in the hopes that someone would be a tulpa devotee or be impressed by your knowledge. A moment's thought would have told you that this was as like posting, "Why's the world flat then?" on a serious astronomy site.

Yes, that is totally why i made such a crazy topic on this website full of people who dislike crazy topics.
I may not be a genius, but i am not stupid. (Granted, i am rather smart for a WA Aussie...)
If you need to know, i made this topic for a personal progress report, for a discussion, and for information.

The consensus of opinion, no, all opinion, went against you. No one thought you were introducing anything interesting. Not a single person thought there could be "tulpas". and yet you continued and did not notice this. This is the beginnings of obsession and delusion.

Actually, if you are capable of reading non-biased information.
Several people here have said that tulpae are possible, but not in the "real sentient thing in your head using your brain" sense, which is not the sense i acclaim myself in.
Mr Jason for example, has said that it is very well possible that tulpae could be a result of a well tuned sub-conscience.

You have now hijacked space on this site to publicise your delusion. You would do better to be a missionary peddling these delusions at another site: one that the gullible, shallow thinkers inhabit.

Missionary? Nyet, i would not tell another person to make a tulpa. (look at my response to Junebug talking about making one)
As for hijacked space, i do honestly want a discussion here, of any kind, i do not want to simply hog up space for a progress report.

I am also amazed that you can criticise Christians/Muslims/etc. from your position. What would you say if one of them asked, "What about you creating sentient tuplas then?"

Big difference for starters.

Theists believe well and truly that "god" is real, can interact with anything, and generally made the universe.

I on the other-hand believe that it is likely that tulpae are a delusion, and generally don't do much.

One thing i like to do is ask a theist "Would you say that i have a sentient companion in my head named Alexis?", of course the response is "Of course not, such things are not possible!" then i say how that is how i feel about god...

[Mrjason]

Mr Jason for example, has said that it is very well possible that tulpae could be a result of a well tuned sub-conscience.

You misquote me. I said that the appearance of autonomy could be a result of you having a finely tuned subconscious.
what I mean by this is that you answer your own questions/formulate responses to input, in your own mind, without realising that you are doing so.


I'm sticking with my tulpae summary;

An imaginary friend that takes cues from your subconscious that you then personify.

Complex, but no more real than harry potter.

What confuses me about your interest in something that is clearly bollocks is that you seem to be rational when it comes to religion.

As I've said on numerous occasions, I don't see a fundamental difference between tulpea delusions and religious delusions.

[Angus and Alexis]

You misquote me. I said that the appearance of autonomy could be a result of you having a finely tuned subconscious.
what I mean by this is that you answer your own questions/formulate responses to input, in your own mind, without realising that you are doing so.

And this appearance of autonomy is for what exactly? 

What confuses me about your interest in something that is clearly bollocks is that you seem to be rational when it comes to religion.

Didn't you just say tulpae are imaginary friends that take cues from the sub-conscience, then get personified?
If so, how are tulpae bollocks?

That being said, any one here have any explanations of what a tulpa is, or how it works?

Edit: i might add that, that is one of the reasons why i made this thread.
Obviously getting info on what a tulpa is from their site is not very reliable, so thus the population here should be able to impartially crack it.

[Mrjason]

And this appearance of autonomy is for what exactly? 

Really?

IMO It is for you to say, well my tulpa is autonomous and therefore a separate entity, in an attempt to add a bit of woo to your claim.

What do you think it's for?

Didn't you just say tulpae are imaginary friends that take cues from the sub-conscience, then get personified?
If so, how are tulpae bollocks?

All imaginary friends take cues from subconscious. What is SPAG if not this?
Is SPAG a load of rubbish?

That being said, any one here have any explanations of what a tulpa is, or how it works?

see above.

[Angus and Alexis]

IMO It is for you to say, well my tulpa is autonomous and therefore a separate entity, in an attempt to add a bit of woo to your claim.

I am here to gain information, so i cannot claim that tulpae are separate entities (Yes, i know, i revoked my early opinions on tulpae *shrugs*).

But i must stress that Alexis has had moments where without any thought, she acted due to stimuli.

All imaginary friends take cues from subconscious.

I must disagree here.
An imaginary friend does what you want it to, when you want it to, how you want it to, using no portion of the sub-conscience.

[Graybeard]

I have also said that a tulpa is pretty much imaginary friend 2.0.

What do you mean by “pretty much”? Is it or isn’t it? You seem to be incapable of stating whether a tulpa is in your imagination only or a real creature

OK, hold that thought and let’s look at what you write:

Tulpae are said to use your brain, eyes and ears.

That is ridiculous. You think of something and that something takes over a part of your brain for its own independent purposes? And that's supposed to explain something?

I wrote: “… it has to have an independent ability to feels or be capable of feeling; […]the thing must have a nervous system and an organ capable of interpreting the signals of stimuli. Nothing that the mind alone creates can have this. It is not possible…”

See that? It has to be independent, otherwise it is you who are sentient... which you are.

“Tulpae are said to” - Who says that? What evidence have they? How do they not know it is merely a delusion? Can anyone see someone else’s tulpa? Have you a photo of one?

I am going to honest and say that i am skeptic on just how tulpae are supposed to do so.

I do not detect any honesty – I detect someone who’s doing his best not to say, “I have no answer to your point as it would require my pulling some explanation out of my arse and you would see through that ploy.”

Which is a meaningless statement, isn't it? It is very well possible that I am 15 foot tall...

As far as i am concerned, the square to cube law, and gravity, would make it impossible.
You don't happen to be on the moon, do you?

That’s neither funny, accurate nor smart. You are dodging by picking up on the wrong part of the point: the point was that you are unable to give a straight answer to a straight question.

I believe tulpae are real, yes. But how exactly? I do not know, i admit that a delusion is likely the case.

If you have a delusion, why should we take note of anything you say? Isn’t it all likely to be bollocks?

But i also admit that others have other ideas.

More weasel words: who are these “others” and what do they have to support their delusion? Do you believe others?

Technically, a tulpa is imaginary in the physical sense,

What do you mean “technically”? If it is imaginary, it is not real. If it is real, it is not imaginary. More weasel words.

Again though, it is claimed that tulpae use the host's brain for sentience and such.

“There you go again – vague statements, weasel words, dodging – who claims “that tulpae use the host's brain”? You? Someone else? What proof do they have? Do you believe them?

I am waiting for you to use some "Christian logic" such as "There are many things we do not know!" "You cannot know unless you accept tulpas." etc.

Nyet, do not expect such garbage from me. 

But I got it didn’t I? All that “special pleading” -> “tulpae use the host's brain” how does that differ from the typical, “Everything needs a cause but God was always there.”

But you now know that it is impossible and that you "create" nothing other than a delusion, the very thing that we here oppose. There is no logic, there is no science, there is no proof, there is no evidence and there never will be, and there is no advantage.

Never stated there was an advantage, and i never stated that a tulpa is not a delusion.
Heck, i never even said that you must believe what i must believe.

That doesn’t answer any of the points, does it. You’re dodging again. See how you used negative statements? Always remember that “I never said it was not” does not mean “I did say that it was.”

Can you give straight answers?

 What does it matter if you did or did not say we must believe what you believe? Are you writing this just out of a theoretical interest?... Don’t say “yes”, look at the title of the thread: you believe tupla are real and sentient, don’t you?

You seem to have once read something about tulpas and, not realising that it is all garbage, and without any critical thought, you decided you'd have a go at making one. You thought that this would make you interesting.

Actually, i started making Alexis, knowing that the idea is unbelievable.

It is not polite to call someone a liar, so I will say, “It appears that your recollection of real events is somewhat inaccurate.”

You were taken in by the idea of others doing this and because there’s something exotic about Tibetan monks.

It was when odd things started happening when i started to wonder if tulpae are real.

This is the Christian argument, isn’t it: “If you believe in God, you will believe in God.” Anyway, I can't see why anyone should think they are "real" - they are in your mind -> imaginary, a self-induced delusion.

I may not be a genius, but i am not stupid. (Granted, i am rather smart for a WA Aussie...)
If you need to know, i made this topic for a personal progress report, for a discussion, and for information.

So, you are using WWGHA bandwidth for personal reasons. You are not discussing, you are dodging. You have provided no information that can be of interest to anyone but yourself.

Mr Jason for example, has said that it is very well possible that tulpae could be a result of a well tuned sub-conscience.

Mr Jason is politely suggesting you’re batshit.

As for hijacked space, i do honestly want a discussion here, of any kind, i do not want to simply hog up space for a progress report.

You will discuss things only with those who do not present you with any cognitive dissonance -> that is not discussion.

Your continued use of “it is said…” “Some people think…” “Many believe that…” "others say..." "it is said ..." is the land of the deluded and the snake-oil salesman.

I am also amazed that you can criticise Christians/Muslims/etc. from your position. What would you say if one of them asked, "What about you creating sentient tuplas then?"

Big difference for starters.

Theists believe well and truly that "god" is real, can interact with anything, and generally made the universe.

I on the other-hand believe that it is likely that tulpae are a delusion, and generally don't do much.

There you go again! Answer! "What about you creating sentient tuplas then?" -> God is held by believers to create sentient beings, isn’t he? Do you feel "God-like"?

One thing i like to do is ask a theist "Would you say that i have a sentient companion in my head named Alexis?", of course the response is "Of course not, such things are not possible!" then i say how that is how i feel about god...

So, you understand that other people might not believe in tuplas, but you do believe in tuplas? That is what you are saying, isn’t it? –> You know why a Christian doesn’t accept tuplas and a Christian should understand why you do not accept the Christian god?

You need to read The Three Christs of Ypsilanti^Wiki

I have difficulty with the way your mind works… you sincerely believe that tuplas are real and are sentient, yet you dissemble that you are in some doubt as a way of bringing people to you to hear about your theory.

Why do you feel the need to tell people about it? Are you looking for acceptance?

Just so we know where we stand, I think we need to hear something from you like:

“Tuplas are just a fancy name for a self-created delusion. They are nothing more than an “invisible friend” like kids have, but if you give the delusion a name, it sounds mysterious because I am copying Tibetan monks. It also makes people who induce this delusion in themselves appear interesting.”

[jdawg70]

At this point it really sounds like your argument is that a tulpa is not an imaginary friend, and then you go through great lengths to ensure that it looks as much like an imaginary friend as possible.

I have also said that a tulpa is pretty much imaginary friend 2.0.

Then provide a changelog or concede that you just repackaged Imaginary Friend 1.0 with an incremented version number.

[Angus and Alexis]

Alright, so saying things that others have said from the tulpa forms obviously is not going anywhere here...

So i might as well list what i have found...

Tulpae are in the brain.

Tulpae are delusions.

Tulpae have the illusion of sentience.

That said, update number 15#: not much has happened recently of interest.

[nogodsforme]

A 'n A;
As a person with a tiny bit more life experience than you, I predict one of two things happening:

1) You will one day ditch the whole tulpa thing when you get older, get a job, get a girl/boy friend, get out of  school, ie get a life and are no longer "bored".[1]
 
1)a) You will divert your obvious creativity and imagination into writing stories, or producing some other art form as a healthier and more useful outlet. You will think of your tulpa time as when you were trying out new creative concepts, like an artist's blue period.[2]

1)b)  You will never mention your tulpa time to anyone. Ever. If someone brings it up you will change the subject. You will become a certified public accountant.

   

2) You will create many more tulpa. You will one day wake up in a strait jacket.

I suggest you pick door number one.

1.	I wish I had time on my hands to create imaginary people in my head, dress them up and take them out to play. Wanna help me with some yard work--pruning, collecting leaves, turning the compost--and recaulk two bathrooms and grade 40 college-level essays and cornrow my daughter's hair? With the two of you it will take no time at all...
2.	I have an artistic friend from high school who did lots of drugs and took thousands of pictures of toilets. She's better now.

[Angus and Alexis]

1) You will one day ditch the whole tulpa thing when you get older, get a job, get a girl/boy friend, get out of  school, ie get a life and are no longer "bored".

Don't want a girlfriend, already have a job, planning on completing school...

I wish I had time on my hands to create imaginary people in my head, dress them up and take them out to play. Wanna help me with some yard work--pruning, collecting leaves, turning the compost--and recaulk two bathrooms and grade 40 college-level essays and cornrow my daughter's hair? With the two of you it will take no time at all...

I know right?
Having a tulpa would make everything twice as easy! *end satire*

[Angus and Alexis]

Update number 16!

God damn am i tired...i need a new job...
Anyway, Alexis claims god does not exist. 9_9

[Zankuu]

Anyway, Alexis claims god does not exist. 9_9

Does it surprise you that a person's imaginary friend would share a core belief or value with them? My friend's daughter loves strawberry shortcake. Her imaginary friend also loves strawberry shortcake. Not exactly unexpected.

[Angus and Alexis]

Alexis also does not care about being set on fire.

I do not like being set on fire.

[Mr. Blackwell]

You've brainwashed yourself into having an imaginary friend based on a children's cartoon.


You honestly couldn't think of anything better to do with your mind's power?

http://www.mindpowerworld.com/how-to-brainwash-yourself-into-positive-transformation

[Angus and Alexis]

You honestly couldn't think of anything better to do with your mind's power?

Probably not.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Fair enough...guess you gotta start somewhere.

[Angus and Alexis]

*shrugs*

[Angus and Alexis]

So, would anyone here say that tulpae could be some form of MPD?

[Angus and Alexis]

Update No17.

Humorous moment.

Wondering what Alexis would wear, first she got a monocle, which i did not like.
Then a top hat, again i did not like it. (Since when do females wear those...)

It then led to her wearing socks...
The connection of socks and bronies is a strange one...

[jdawg70]

Angus -

You appear to really want some manner of outlet for cataloging this whole 'tulpa' thing...and if you want to use this site that's fine I suppose but I question what exactly it is you expect to get from that and how applicable it is to this community.

May I suggest just getting a Twitter account?  A quick search of #tulpa shows a number of people who are doing this; instead of posting day-to-day's here, perhaps it would be better if you tweeted about it?  You may find kinship; you may find more info (for example, just discovered that there is a tulpa-related reddit subgroup); you may find nothing from a social standpoint but it still gives you the same avenue of writing and posting about your tulpa in a more...personal sense.

I just don't know how useful, or even appropriate, it is to treat a forum as a personal blog.  Just a thought.

[Anfauglir]

Tulpae have the illusion of sentience.

Can you clarify this sentence please?

Do you mean "tulpae present the appearance of sentience to the 'host'", or "the tulpa believes it is a sentient entity when it really is not"?