Author Topic: Absence of Disbelief or Schrödinger's Tulpa  (Read 9406 times)

Absence of Disbelief or Schrödinger's Tulpa
« on: October 04, 2013, 05:35:47 PM »
Hey guess what, it's time for some words again.

There was that time ages back when it was thought that a tulpa will absolutely no questions asked take hundreds of forcing hours to become vocal and thus, sapient. Everything that happened before that was parroting and not a real response. Obviously, the doubts hindered both the tulpas and their hosts. When a response was deemed as parroting, similar response after the supposed time of them becoming vocal would also be parroting, then. Because it would be identical to "parroting".

Then people started screaming "believe". Believe no matter what, it is always your tulpa. If you don't know, it is your tulpa. It was decided that doubt is the killer, so obviously the exact opposite is what would help the hosts and the tulpas the most and fast progress would be made.

That's where we are today. Many people in tulpa communities have decided that skepticism isn't healthy and you should always blindly believe that it is always your tulpa with no chance of it being you parroting or puppeting them. Who can blame them, many of the old tulpamancers doubted too much and many didn't get anywhere because they couldn't believe, waiting for the proof that never came. Many tulpas were ignored when they tried to communicate, because it felt exactly like it did early on, before they possibly could have been sentient. So of course it must've been parroting.

Compared to that, always believing should be good for both, right? Well, in my honest opinion, I disagree. I have seen firsthand how a person believed in their tulpas and was hoping to go further down the rabbit hole. But as time passed and not much progress was made other than having a mindvoice coming from the tulpas, an ugly problem reared its head. To the person, the tulpa just felt like themselves, just as if they were parroting. But the host believed and didn't doubt, because it would get better, surely. But it never did. The feeling of the tulpa just being the host didn't go anywhere and now even worse doubts became a part of them. Because the host blindly believed and hadn't questioned anything at all, nothing was left once they started doubting those responses they first thought were real. It was easy to believe in the start, but became impossible later on. They never got over the hurdle where they truly could believe in the tulpa after a lot of work, thinking and dedication, because they thought they never had to jump and the jump would be made for them later on. And once the host got to this point, the jump no longer was possible in their eyes.

And now, the host no longer has tulpas or is a part of any tulpa communities.

That is just as bad as doubting constantly, isn't it? So, let's get to the actual point of this post and discuss another look at tulpas. Instead of doubting until proof is presented or blindly believing, I think the best way to approach this phenomenon is the absence of disbelief. It might sound like just "belief" to you, but it's not quite that. You don't just believe, you just don't worry about it much. You think you got a response from your tulpa, but you're unsure? Why do you have to decide if it was them or not right now? You can go far accepting that you might have gotten something and it might have been your tulpa, but knowing if it was or wasn't for certain isn't necessary when you're still early in the tulpaforcing process. Trust is something that comes with time and shouldn't be forced to happen, or it will feel unnatural and possibly lead into tons of problems later on.

Just like the Schrödinger's cat, you won't know for sure if the cat is dead before you take a look in the box, 50/50 chance. When it comes to tulpas, you can't really easily check to see if it was them or not as no response doesn't mean they aren't sentient, so why not stay in the state where it is and is not your tulpa, at the same time? You can have enough skepticism to calm yourself and say you don't blindly believe in everything when you have no reason to do so, yet at the same time you do pay attention to what you think you just got from the tulpa, not ignoring it but not believing it was them for sure. You give your tulpa the respect they need in case it was them, but you also don't force a response that wasn't them on them. You can tell them you got the message if it was them and perhaps act on it, you could also apologize if it wasn't them and you misunderstood, if you wish to explain it. It hopefully would satisfy your tulpa's need and make them realize they can contact you and you do listen to them, even if you haven't thrown all the doubt and skepticism away. It is important for the host to figure many things out on their own pace, so it's an excellent compromise in my eyes. A healthy way of thinking to lead you closer to the right mindset to have a bountiful tulpa journey of your own. One day, you will find something to really believe in, but you don't have to disbelieve until you get there.

In a way, this is what I think the whole "treat your tulpa as if they were sentient" mindset came from, before it was corrupted into "your tulpa is sentient from the start". Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but we can't know for sure and some tulpas don't seem to be sentient from the start according to their words. Treating them as if they were sapient, however, means you respect them and don't treat them as non-sapient when they might very well be sapient already, but you haven't just noticed it yet. That, and you probably have to think that there is something actually listening to you or there is no reason to keep talking to your tulpa, right? But treating them as sapient doesn't mean they are that right away. You don't know for sure, so you might as well be respectful. Don't blindly believe, but don't ask for proof when you can't get it. You don't have to make a decision yet, it will come.

Those sure were some words. To sorta summarize, I think both not believing and blindly believing in your tulpas to be just as dangerous depending on the situation, but the absence of disbelief would be an excellent tool in helping new tulpamancers. Think of the state of it both being and not being your tulpa, not worrying about it and just rolling with it. Ignoring a tulpa's response isn't good at all, but skepticism is healthy and you can listen to your tulpa without fully believing it was them if you are having doubts. Blindly believing won't get rid of those doubts when they surface, but doubts of course are natural. Just don't let them take over or try to cover them with pretty words.

There's been a plenty of talk about how HOURCOUNTS ARE TULPA POISON and such. Or how doubt is a tulpakiller. But the person in my head often wonders if such words are host poison and if it will seriously hinder their process.

Absence of disbelief, people. Strive for balance instead of extreme beliefs. Also discuss, if this post made you think - or better yet, actually helped you - my job is done.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 07:53:13 AM by Sands »

Re: Absence of Disbelief or Schrdinger's Tulpa
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2013, 06:37:17 PM »
Some quality words there, Sands.
I think it's fair to say I've thought the same thing for a while; just hadn't worded it quite that way. Although I did notice that my guide says something similar to what you did at some point--that not I, or anyone else knows whether your tulpa is sentient or not, but they should be treated as such. Because there is a difference between treating, and being.
Honestly, if all tuppers were truly sentient from the beginning, I don't think the phrase would have been "treat them as if they're sentient", because you know, if they are all sentient, then it goes without saying that they should be treated as though they were. Duh.
Just goes to show again, how people misinterpreted the entire thing.

Anyway, I think these words should be spread around more. It's definitely something people should think about, as it could certainly avoid many problems, for many people. That, and I don't really see any down-side to this point of view.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2013, 06:43:19 PM by Kiahdaj »

Re: Absence of Disbelief or Schrdinger's Tulpa
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2013, 12:19:52 AM »
Some quality words there, Sands.
I think it's fair to say I've thought the same thing for a while; just hadn't worded it quite that way.

Anyway, I think these words should be spread around more. It's definitely something people should think about, as it could certainly avoid many problems, for many people. That, and I don't really see any down-side to this point of view.

All of my agree. I couldn't have worded it better. People are always so worried and confused about parroting, while (especially if you take Fede's method into account) it doesn't really matter. Even if you are parroting at first, as long as you keep consistently forcing, your tulpa will eventually become sentient. And even if it were the case that tulpas aren't really sentient and are just people who train themselves to fake a second personality that's indistinguishable from a real person, then wouldn't that be the same as them being real? If your tulpa can surprise you, make you think about things, tell you off when you did something stupid and congratulate you when you did something wise, and most importantly be there with you and for you, if they can do all those things, regardless of being truly conscious or not, does it really matter? Do we really have to prove that our tulpa is conscious, even if their behavior makes it pretty damn clear that they are?

I feel as though proving the tulpa's sentience seems to be more of a point of focus of tulpaforcers than actually spending time with them and having fun, which is why we make them in the first place, right? If you're gonna treat them as some scientific experiment, you might as well not make them. Tulpas are your friends, not lab rats. I don't disagree with a little experimentation to sate the curiosity, but your friendship with them should always come first, and all the other sciency crap second.

I'm glad you addressed this problem the way you did, I only wish more people would read this.

Re: Absence of Disbelief or Schrdinger's Tulpa
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2013, 05:22:36 AM »
I think both not believing and blindly believing in your tulpas to be just as dangerous depending on the situation, but the absence of disbelief would be an excellent tool in helping new tulpamancers.
I agree with this, and I think it's a good go-to position. However, I wouldn't necessarily discourage people trying for themselves to discern what is and isn't their tulpa, because I think that's very important to learn for later on. I'm not sure the two viewpoints are completely compatible though.


When I saw it in the title I knew you were going to use it wrong. Firstly, whether or not the cat is actually alive or dead or alive and dead depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is, in many ways, the point of the thought experiment. Secondly, it's not about knowing whether the cat is alive or dead as you put it - that's just probability and has nothing to do with quantum mechanics - so as a metaphor I think it's really weak.

Re: Absence of Disbelief or Schrdinger's Tulpa
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2013, 05:46:03 AM »
I think both not believing and blindly believing in your tulpas to be just as dangerous depending on the situation, but the absence of disbelief would be an excellent tool in helping new tulpamancers.
I agree with this, and I think it's a good go-to position. However, I wouldn't necessarily discourage people trying for themselves to discern what is and isn't their tulpa, because I think that's very important to learn for later on. I'm not sure the two viewpoints are completely compatible though.

I did write something about it being important to come to the conclusion on their own pace. Seeing that this was meant for those early tulpamancers who really don't know yet, it's better to avoid the most popular method because it lacks what you were talking about, never really thinking if it was them or their tulpa because it's supposed to always be your tulpa. When you don't know at all, it's better to be have absence of disbelief. Later on, you definitely will be able to trust your tulpa and yourself more and then you can leave this little tidbit to rot in the deepest depths of your mind, because it no longer is as useful as it was. Trying to learn a skeptical mindset after you've been blindly believing is much more difficult, perhaps even impossible and will cause you to question everything you used to believe in. Not very good for the future, I think.

I might be the one who wrote this post about absence of disbelief and all, but of course I actually 100% believe in my tulpa and am able to tell when it was him or when it was me. But before, this was a big part of my mindset and I haven't seen it go wrong.

When I saw it in the title I knew you were going to use it wrong. Firstly, whether or not the cat is actually alive or dead or alive and dead depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is, in many ways, the point of the thought experiment. Secondly, it's not about knowing whether the cat is alive or dead as you put it - that's just probability and has nothing to do with quantum mechanics - so as a metaphor I think it's really weak.

ViolinAfficionado

  • The Steampunk Husbando
  • *
    • View Profile
    • My Tumblr
Re: Absence of Disbelief or Schrdinger's Tulpa
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2013, 08:47:31 AM »
If you're gonna treat them as some scientific experiment, you might as well not make them. Tulpas are your friends, not lab rats.
Wow thank can I hug you? I can't tell you how uncomfortable it was talking to other tulpamancers who didn't have a tulpa yet because they treated me like this.

While I'm commenting on this I may as well give a tulpa's view point on this. I like your standpoint Sands, and I think that it's a good one especially for new tulpamancers. We do need time to develop and if the host starts assuming everything is us, it does get very discouraging. However, at the same time, it's a lot MORE discouraging when a lot of the stuff we say is rejected. Thinking that something else you may hear is us that really isn't every once and a while doesn't hurt and doesn't hinder progress at all. Eventually the host will be able to figure out who is who, and it'll all be okay, and the host will be able to gayskip through the ghetto with their fully sentient sapient tulpa soon enough.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that keeping an open mind is the best option.

Re: Absence of Disbelief or Schrdinger's Tulpa
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2013, 09:01:31 AM »
I guess what I'm trying to say is that keeping an open mind is the best option.

That's my entire point, isn't it? Not blindly believing or doubting everything, but instead not worrying about it and accepting it as both a response and not a response, until the host is comfortable enough in believing - no, knowing - that it is a response?

Re: Absence of Disbelief or Schrdinger's Tulpa
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2013, 04:48:07 PM »
I definitely agree. I witnissed someone who had been tulpaforcing for, geez, 8 months or maybe more, a huge regular on the general as well as the rest of the community--and one day they had a breakdown of doubt and completely wiped their tulpa from their mind and blocked them from speaking to them, because suddenly the host had nothing to stand on, no reason to believe anymore, it all crumbled.

It took, I think two days or so, before the host was willing to go back to the headspace/wonderland and see if they could contact their tulpa, where he got the talking to of a lifetime from her. It still took time after that for him to recover, but he learned he had to face his doubts and acknowledge them rather than hide from them so they would build. When he was able to acknowledge his concerns, he was able to talk about them, and find his own reasons for believing in her existence and reasons for treating her as sentience beyond just pretending not to doubt.

I think there has to be balance and, uh, well things have to be within reason. If Kate believed every random ass crazy thought that came from her head was from me, who knows how my personality might have formed honestly. Legitimate responses yes, even if you aren't sure I think you should accept the likelihood of it being your tulpa, but I see people say they saw a face of a clown killing babies or whatever and talk of intrusive thoughts like they are their tulpas trying to send them some cryptic message or scare them or what freakin ever.

Anyway yea, good ideas. Agreed.

Re: Absence of Disbelief or Schrdinger's Tulpa
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2013, 05:46:22 AM »
In my experience that is a useful mind state to make progress in an uncertain situation with little immediate feedback. I used it quite a lot when practicing various mental techniques and such. It's similar to a state of scientific inquiry, where you can take action for some time and then see results later. Some things take practice or work intermittently until there is a lot of experience./practice.