Author Topic: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?  (Read 851503 times)

Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« on: October 29, 2013, 03:53:15 PM »
So we know that with tulpas, we can achieve mental feats such as parallel processing. This feat seems unprecedented, but the more I consider the function of tulpas such as servitors, is it possible that tulpas are only notable because of the controlled/conscious quality they have, and that besides that defining characteristic (although it is an important one), are otherwise un-noteworthy?

For example, consider the act of walking and talking simultaneously. For those who struggle with this activity, is it possible that they have simply (unknowingly) not programmed the correct function or servitor for this activity? Can tulpas/servitors be used to explain everyday functions that the brain executes without the conscious mind being aware? Other examples include people who are great at mental math, imposition used for drawing, etc...

If this has already been discussed, please link for my lurking pleasure. Thanks~

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2013, 05:00:32 PM »
Well, we can never really know that, can we. Whatever it is, everything isn't a tulpa. A tulpa more or less would require that perceived sapience, because that's what we mean with the word here. Also "programming" servitors sounds like people trying to make the mind be a computer when it's not, really.

I doubt it, honestly. But we just can never know. Or uh, at least we don't know it now. I'm sure waffles could probably say a lot more about this if he decides to take part in this conversation, but I guess it all is just about creating connections in your brain. Do it enough and it strengthens and you can actually do it/get good at whatever your multitasking is. I guess the people who can't do some of that stuff just either haven't done it enough or something has been damaged.

Speaking of imposition used for drawing, there was that one guy who had photographic memory and could draw anything he saw more or less perfectly. He just had to take one look at bam, he could get every detail down. I'm not sure if his technique included what we call imposition when he actually started drawing, but his memory at least was excellent. I think his brain just was special.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2013, 05:59:33 PM »
It was discussed on tulpa.info here, though not in much depth.


I'd say no now, like I did then. In a way, it is more a matter of what you call a 'servitor' - since people do use differing definitions - than anything in psychological theory. You said
is it possible that tulpas are only notable because of the controlled/conscious quality they have, and that besides that defining characteristic (although it is an important one), are otherwise un-noteworthy?
which is, in my opinion, wrong. You recognise a tulpa as a distinct entity in your mind, and the same can be said for a servitor. You have to characterise it with something, otherwise it is not a servitor. In fact, the older, magical definition agrees with me, here:
Quote
Phil Hine whose interest in his User's Guide to Servitors is the creation of such beings writes:
"By deliberately budding off portions of our psyche and identifying them by means of a name, trait, symbol, we can come to work with them (and understand how they affect us) at a conscious level."
As you can see in this quote, a servitor is given a defining characteristic as well as a function.

Closer to home, our definition, loosely, is this:
Quote
a servitor is a thoughtform that is only able to react to parroting/puppeting
and here the important part is "thoughtform". A thoughtform is
Quote
a being or object which is created through sheer mental discipline
In other words you need to create it, or at least recognise it, yourself. This, then, is where your servitors fall down, as they are neither defined nor recognised as separate from the rest of the mind.


That still doesn't consider the actual psychology of the subject, though. In truth, a servitor doing something unconsciously might well be equivalent to other unconscious functions. But even if you did consider -everything- to be done by a servitor/tulpa, that doesn't explain much. You'd still be wondering what's going on, just how the servitor does it as opposed to how the mind does it. I mentioned motor memory in the link; it's how you walk without thinking, and if you had a walking servitor chances are it would use the same basic circuits.

That's one last point then, that if someone could not do something then they could make a servitor to do it for them. It's not exactly what you mentioned, but it's close enough. I'd view the process of creating the servitor as being akin to learning how to do the thing itself, and I don't have any examples or anything to evidence this but there you go, my opinion. Perhaps the same could be said about parallel processing with tulpas, that tulpas are a method of learning parallel processing. If anyone without a tulpa is willing to try, sign up here.

Re: Can tulpa farting help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2013, 10:05:52 PM »
I guess I'll never really know.
This answer isn't fun, so I refuse it.
Quote
Also "programming" servitors sounds like people trying to make the mind be a computer when it's not, really.
I beg to differ. This is a matter of opinion, but computers were made by humans. Programming is a set of logic that is based from the human psyche. If you're bored and want to read some pretentious critical theory, Sarah Hayles' "Trauma of Code" is an interesting read.

For my purposes, the answer is yes. I know servitors are basically defined by the act of being a servitor.
I'm asking because if the awareness of this is what sets them apart, yet they still use the same neural pathways, wouldn't that open up new possibilities for understanding the ways brain development/learning works? Or am I placing importance on something that is already mundane? Specifically considering those people who may have certain impairments or disabilities.

For example, there was a fellow on tulpa.info who said their tulpa would lessen their tremors during possession. If it is possible to create a servitor for this function (which I am assuming is possible, I'm going to be contacting them further), what does that mean for the current understanding of how the brain works? Understand that this is a condition deemed impossible to cure by doctors, yet their tulpa can stop it very simply.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2013, 02:03:58 AM »
Fortunately, my field consists of making baseless assumptions about everything, so you're in luck. This is one place where we differ, I get great enjoyment out of abstracting everything as much as possible and convoluting situations as much as possible.

Re: Can tulpa farting help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2013, 09:51:25 AM »
Quote
Also "programming" servitors sounds like people trying to make the mind be a computer when it's not, really.
I beg to differ. This is a matter of opinion, but computers were made by humans. Programming is a set of logic that is based from the human psyche.

Well, sure. You could do that. But the mind isn't a computer and trying to "program" it is just overcomplicating things. Like seriously, there are people who "program" their servitors with an actual programming language. The programming part would be symbolism, which of course can be really powerful when used by the right person with the right beliefs. But really, what else does the mind need except your determination for things like these? Say it happens and if you know it will, then it will. Placebo, possitive affirmations, those work and are rarely heavy on symbolism or "programming", just your words and/or beliefs are enough. So, programming is symbolism and it can be used, sure, but it's unnecessary in the end if you can achieve things without. Which would be a better way to train your mind to work, really. Less of a hassle.

I'd say that sometimes symbolism is even outright distracting for me. A lot of hypnotists for example are very heavy on symbolism and it becomes really hard to follow their symbolism when I'm already ready to slip into trance. I'd do much better with a hypnotists who just gets me in a relaxed mood and tells me to go in trance than someone telling me to float down a river of whateveritis and feeling the water and the sun and blah blah. I'm not trying to visualize, I'm trying to trance, right? So tell me to go in trance instead of visualizing crap that has nothing to do with it and only distracts me from the main goal.

Roflmao and waffles have tons of talk about things like these, yeah. You might enjoy joining their conversations one day, when they both are around and in the mood for some words. They usually have really different views on the things so it's even pretty interesting to watch.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2013, 04:01:24 PM »
Like you said, for some people, the brute force method works by using sheer processing power. However, constructing a more formulaic algorithm is almost always more efficient. To come to these algorithms we need to understand how the system works. By getting shit done faster, more gets done, so why not? You're still speaking the language of how a computer functions.
Following your example, I'm sure the relaxation technique the hypnotist is trying to employ is trying to run simultaneously to a subconscious relaxation technique that you have already established, creating an error. (This is a subjective assumption, so obviously my point is arguable.)
Personally, I'm not that powerful, and would try to construct a method to follow to make it easier as opposed to a brute force method like you described. For me, this is much less of a hassle.

But that's a personal preference, again. I find raw thoughts distressingly agitating, and have a feeling most people have an organized (subconscious) method of filtering them... again, similar to the way a computer filters 1s and 0s into a GUI.

I'd be interested in dropping in on that, if only to lurk and to have some logs to comb through.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2013, 07:01:43 PM »
You're a sassy one.

The problem with what you're suggesting is that metaphysics is a self-fufilling theory. The entire structure that makes up metaphysics was created not based on a physical documented entity, but to justify phenomena that are already occurring. There's no evidence for the existence of metaphysics, only a lot of things that can align and suggest its existence.

Computers and programming are widely documented as, well, ... being real. So, comparing something tangible (something we can physically interact with; computers, and by proxy, programming) to something intangible (that only exists in the brain; tulpas, subconscious) is a more concrete analysis than comparing something intangible (metaphysics) to something intangible (subconscious).

Additionally, the theories I'm referencing are widely documented and widely accepted field of academia. As opposed to metaphysics, which as you obviously pointed out, is a joke.

All I'm suggesting is that by examining the structure of code, it reveals something about the structure of the subconscious, something that has been discussed ad infinitum by critical theorists at this point.

I find it intriguing to contrast this idea with the phenomena of tulpas (lifting this citation from a web page since I can't be arsed to dig through this paper right now):
"In "Traumas of Code" Hayles asserts that "trauma has structural affinities with code" because "code, performing as the interface between humans and programmable media, functions in the contemporary cultural Imaginary as the shadowy double of the human-only language inflected and infected by its hidden presence" (Hayles 157)"

I can't help but find an uncanny metaphorical semblance between that assertion and how tulpas function between the body and subconscious.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2013, 09:12:08 AM »
Yeah, I must agree that if you just want to call the mind a computer because it helps you to understand how it basically works is just fine, but obviously the mind is not a computer but well, the mind. Computer is just a metaphor, not what the mind is. I find that calling the mind a computer is just people not understanding how powerful the human mind really is, because it's a lot more than that. A lot more.

Why I say symbolism is a hassle is that if you can actually condition yourself to work with by just saying you want something to happen to get it happen just is much faster than trying to think of pretty little birds and flowers doing whatever it is that makes something in your mind happen. Sure, it's a skill you need to learn, but it's a very useful one and when you got it, you can use it more or less everywhere. It's like knowing the secret of how something works and going right to the point instead of taking an unnecessary route through something else. So I disagree a lot with you saying a more formulaic algorithm is going to be more efficient more often than it isn't. Let's go back to the hypnosis stuff I talked about, when I skip the, what, 10 or 20 minutes of the hypnotist talking about flower fields and instead relax and force myself into trance under that time, it's just much faster no matter how you look at it. And anyone learning their trick would be able to do it much faster than the symbolism route. If you like metaphors and analogies, I guess "just doing it" is a cheat code to get to the last level instead of playing through the entire game.

Also subconscious as a word is something people in scientific communities try to avoid because of the term being turned into something that means whatever the person writing the word wants it to be. A meaningless word with way too many definitions. There also is no proof of some "subconscious" that is there, like a single entity or place in your mind like saying the word subconscious sorta tends to imply. Unconscious thoughts/desires/whatever is what I think you should be using. Just a little writing tip considering that you did want to write that thing, so maybe you'll find it useful.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2013, 02:51:15 PM »
I'm not sure if my point is coming across the right way.

I'm in NO way making a literal comparison between the human mind and computers.
Obviously, no, the human mind isn't a computer.

"All I'm suggesting is that by examining the structure of code, it reveals something about the structure of the subconscious..."

Rephrased, the same logic that governs code logic is embedded in human thought.

By finding key similarities between the two and extrapolating the differences, I think there's a better understanding that could be reached. When you throw the phenomena of tulpas into the mix, it gets saucy.

Specifically, in example, consider a thought experiment. Compare the process of programming a code to the process of creating a tulpa. What are the differences between the two? The most immediate difference I can think of is that programming takes much less time for the code "to take", if you want to state it that way. The code can evolve and gain a sense of sentience, but only if you program it to, similar to a tulpa. It opens up the question of what is "true" sentience and loads of other philosophical nonsense which I'm sure you all would love.

Are there not specific methods of tulpamancy that are widely documented here as guides? How is following a guide for tulpa forcing, parroting, possession, etc. different than using pretty little birds and flowers? I'm sure most of the community would agree that the guides are faster than just figuring it out, otherwise the guides wouldn't exist.

Also, yep, I love those nebulous terms, that's why I'm not writing any of the content in my zine. Technically, I don't know anything about tulpas, as I don't have one. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

What theory of consciousness does anyone follow, doesn't seem like Freud is too popular here? From how people talk on the forums, it seems like the majority of people conclude that there is a pretty clear split between consciousness and subconsciousness (maybe just unconscious?), and tulpas are used as a way to bridge the two together. Would love it if someone could correct me on this one, as I've stated previously, science and hard psychology are not my expertise.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 02:53:50 PM by penultimate.forme »

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2013, 04:12:58 PM »
Well dunno about you, but I see coding pretty different from fooling yourself into thinking there's someone else in your head so there is. I find guides that tell you what to do a bit silly seeing that we all are different and what works for one doesn't work for someone else. Everyone does emphasize these days that they're just guidelines so people would avoid following them to a T when it's not working for them.

Guides are mostly there to show others how the person writing them managed to get it to work and see if others could possibly learn something useful from them. And some guides like Kiahdaj's really don't do anything except put you in the right mindset, which is the best way to get to the "cheat" and realizing how exactly shit tends to work when it comes to tulpaforcing. For some of the newer ones who can't believe that the idea could possibly be that simple, adding in some symbolism and whatever else as training wheels can help them get to the right mindset, but again, if you already are there then that's not necessary. Man, I think everything I've written here these days has been very heavy on the mindset...

I can't say I really know anyone's theories of consciousness well enough to say. I just say I'm me and anyone not me isn't me. Obviously, unconscious thoughts are unconscious until I notice them and they become conscious. I don't see how a tupper bridges anything there, want to explain your reasoning so I might?

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2013, 05:54:51 PM »
I still feel like what you are saying is continually proving my point. I understand that coding symbolism is pointless when it comes to actually creating a tulpa, and that it's easier to just think of tulpa creation in its own vernacular. I understand that my computer programming metaphor makes everything more complicated. I'm doing that on purpose.

I'm trying to point out that the logical structure that goes into coding follows a similar structure that goes into tulpa creation, but not to be used to imply anything about tulpas; rather, to point at a liminal space that exists between "code and programmable media", and "tulpas and unconscious thought". This is the "psychosomatic relation" I was trying to reference in the first post.

Let me stake out this metaphor plainly again by replacing words from the quote I sauced earlier:
"code, performing as the interface between humans and programmable media, functions in the contemporary cultural Imaginary as the shadowy double of the human-only language inflected and infected by its hidden presence"
can be translated into (and let's remember, purely for fun at this instance)
"tulpas, performing as the interface between humans and unconscious thought, functions in the contemporary cultural Imaginary as the shadowy double of the human-only language inflected and infected by its hidden presence"

From what I understand, tuppers performing stuff such as parallel processing are technically operating in your unconscious realm of thought, whereas normally, you are unable to access those unconscious thoughts, and with a tulpa, you can control the thoughts/what they're doing. Another example is there are people who have tulpas that can access 'hidden/forgotten' memories, although I guess it's arguable whether you are actually accessing real memories or making them up.
Oh, this is the diagram that has probably informed my opinion of how tulpas operate within the psyche: http://i.imgur.com/AoObO.png
If that's been proven idiotic by this point, let me know where to get more informed.

If the above assumption is wrong, then that effectively destroys my entire argument. Which would actually be fantastic.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2013, 07:50:56 AM »
It's the Freudian model, so it's not exactly the height of credibility.

Anyway, if you're saying that computer code is fundamentally similar, in terms of logic, to human thought, conscious or unconscious, then I really think you're wrong. I don't know how much experience you have with either computer programming or psychology, but I'd like to see some basis for this assumption, if you have any. I know Hayles said it but I haven't read her paper and I'm not planning on paying for it. But it's a paper on English literature, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.

And your unconscious mind isn't made accessible by your tulpa; it's still unconscious. If you're thinking about tulpas manipulating vitals, we don't hear about that too much and you can do it yourself. About 'repressed memories', repressed memories are bullshit. Parallel processing doesn't have anything to do with this, as well. I can tell you I haven't seen an example of a tulpa doing something that you can't do yourself, given some practice.


Look, I know roughly what you're trying to say but I don't know why you're saying it. I'm going to pick a few quotes from you that I think are wrong.

Specifically, in example, consider a thought experiment. Compare the process of programming a code to the process of creating a tulpa. What are the differences between the two? The most immediate difference I can think of is that programming takes much less time for the code "to take", if you want to state it that way. The code can evolve and gain a sense of sentience, but only if you program it to, similar to a tulpa. It opens up the question of what is "true" sentience and loads of other philosophical nonsense which I'm sure you all would love.
No, the two are completely different. When you write a program, you lay out a set of processes formally and get a computer to do them. When you make a tulpa, you think of something as distinct and pay attention to it until it talks back. I don't know where the similarities begin for you, but if your computer code "evolves and gains a sense of sentience" then you're either a brilliant or a very poor computer scientist.

Are there not specific methods of tulpamancy that are widely documented here as guides? How is following a guide for tulpa forcing, parroting, possession, etc. different than using pretty little birds and flowers? I'm sure most of the community would agree that the guides are faster than just figuring it out, otherwise the guides wouldn't exist.
There are guides of some sort for more or less every activity in existence. Here is a website with various guides about windsurfing. I don't think that there being guides for making a tulpa makes any sort of point for you here.


Basically, you're drawing links without telling us why, really. Your only motivation seems to be "Because it would be cool if it were so", which is not very good. Lastly, why did you say "psychosomatic"? That word refers to interaction between the mind and the body.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2013, 05:06:18 PM »
Any suggestion for a better model?

Quote
  But it's a paper on English literature, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.
It's not.

Quote
About 'repressed memories', repressed memories are bullshit
Research sauce? Would like to see that substantiated somehow.
I wasn't referring to repressed memories anyways, more just things you happened to forget because the brain filters out unimportant memories . I remember seeing multiple posts about tulpa/servitors that could remember scripts of entire movies, or otherwise do things that require extraordinary memory.

Quote
I haven't seen an example of a tulpa doing something that you can't do yourself, given some practice
I have been receiving multiple surveys with people claiming that their tulpa has allowed them to control their bodies in ways that they had not previously been able to control. (I guess you could argue they're lying if you wanted to.)
The tulpa is a part of yourself, so technically it's all being done yourself, just that tulpas are somehow doing special that allows them access to parts of the brain previously unknown to function in that way. Maybe you can achieve these abilities without a tulpa specifically, however why I am so fascinated is that the tulpa can 'figure out' how to interact with the mind more intimately than conscious thoughts.

I'm approaching that concept abstractly, the way you explained it still makes sense to me metaphorically. Making an evolving program is rather easy, just depends on how useful you want it to be.
When tulpa creation begins, you don't only begin to talk and wait for response. You decide its functions, what it looks like, personality, etc. The host is the user who makes the decisions. I was abstractly comparing the process of forcing to the process of programming.

I can drop the computer metaphor since it is being taken literally. It doesn't concretely play into the concept like it was taken to be; just for me, it's easier to understand through abstract metaphors. But none of you want to play like that, unfortunately..




I'm trying to point out that a tulpa functions differently in the mind on a neurological level. Again, if someone can counter the chart I posted with a more accurate model, that changes the argument.

Take the example of the individual who has tremors. His tulpa stops the tremors. Doctors told him nothing could stop them. He doesn't know how to do it on his own, and his tulpa can't explain it to him. His tulpa says it's simple, like the act of breathing. How is this possible?

The only way for me to justify it is that tulpas have some kind of more intimate relationship with the brain, or occur somewhere else other than where conscious brain activity is. I'm not saying tulpas are some 'other' thing, or that they are inherently special, or that they're omg programs in ur mind !!1

The fact that tulpas are born without a body may contribute to this. As humans, we are born into a body, and learn to experience the world through senses. How is this different for a tulpa? They are born into your mind, and all knowledge of how to relate to a body comes through the hosts' secondary experience. The sensory information has been processed and abstracted for them already.

Until they learn how to switch, tulpas don't experience a psychosomatic sensation. They receive the impression of one from the host.

Re: Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2013, 06:04:37 PM »
Any suggestion for a better model?
There are theories out there, but no nice clear diagrams like that one.


Quote
  But it's a paper on English literature, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.
It's not.
It is a paper by a professor of English literature published in a journal of literary analysis.


Quote
About 'repressed memories', repressed memories are bullshit
Research sauce? Would like to see that substantiated somehow.
The reality isn't as clear-cut as I make it out to be, naturally, but here is a paper on it.


Quote
I haven't seen an example of a tulpa doing something that you can't do yourself, given some practice
I have been receiving multiple surveys with people claiming that their tulpa has allowed them to control their bodies in ways that they had not previously been able to control.
That does not mean that they couldn't have done it themselves, given practice. Although, you are right in mentioning the person with the tremors. It might be as you say, but it could also be that the means of possession cuts out the tremor somehow (I'm not familiar with the neurology).


Making an evolving program is rather easy, just depends on how useful you want it to be.
I apologise. I misread your statement there. Still,
When tulpa creation begins, you don't only begin to talk and wait for response. You decide its functions, what it looks like, personality, etc. The host is the user who makes the decisions. I was abstractly comparing the process of forcing to the process of programming.
None of those are essential. People can and do create tulpas without those aspects, although I'm not sure whether anyone has done it without any of them.
Having said that, you could easily take the host's expectations as implicitly defining the tulpa's behaviour.


The fact that tulpas are born without a body may contribute to this. As humans, we are born into a body, and learn to experience the world through senses. How is this different for a tulpa? They are born into your mind, and all knowledge of how to relate to a body comes through the hosts' secondary experience. The sensory information has been processed and abstracted for them already.

Until they learn how to switch, tulpas don't experience a psychosomatic sensation. They receive the impression of one from the host.
You might be right, but I don't agree with you completely. It might not be entirely true that tulpas derive all their experiences from the host. Many tulpas report 'sensory sharing' or similar. And you did narrow down to sensory experience specifically, whereas anything related to the body could equally be a factor.