Tulpa Network
Tulpas => General Discussion => Topic started by: penultimate.forme 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~
-
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.
-
It was discussed on tulpa.info here (http://community.tulpa.info/thread-servitors-and-centipede-s-dilemma), 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 (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/servitors.html):
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:
a servitor is a thoughtform that is only able to react to parroting/puppeting
and here the important part is "thoughtform". A thoughtform is
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.
-
I guess I'll never really know.
This answer isn't fun, so I refuse it.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (http://howtowindsurf101.com/) 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.
-
Any suggestion for a better model?
But it's a paper on English literature, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.
It's not.
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.
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.
-
Any suggestion for a better model?
There are theories out there, but no nice clear diagrams like that one.
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.
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 (http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/lof93.htm) is a paper on it.
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.
-
Research sauce? Would like to see that substantiated somehow.
You might want to look at how easy it is to fake memories. I personally like the Bugs Bunny is Disneyland test, it's funny.
I remember seeing multiple posts about tulpa/servitors that could remember scripts of entire movies
Not a very strange thing when you watch the movie enough and pay a lot of attention to it. Kids watching the same movie over and over again and parroting the lines are pretty good at this.
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.
We're pretty biased. We've always done things a certain way so we start thinking there is no other way. Again, it's all about the mindset. The mindset of a person who is unable to do something differently might very well be something like "I can only do it this certain way and I can't change it". A tulpa rarely has a mindset like that, but when they do, they can't change shit either. But if they actually do try to do things differently... Things might very well be different.
Especially early on when this whole tulpa thing was pretty "new", people believed tulpas could do all kinds of things they themselves couldn't. It's pretty easy for a belief like that to rub off on the tulpas and then they think that way, too. So they can do it. I know that my tulpa at least is very sure of his own abilities and that has been a huge help in everything because he doesn't doubt he can do something. No whining of "I'm too weak" or "I don't know how to do that", he just does it. And when I ask how, he says he just does it and because he can do it, so can I. So I can because hell, if he can do it then why can't I? The mind is a crazy place.
I'm sure you know a lot of people who think they can't do something so they don't even try. A person might look at a heavy thing and say they can't lift it, and when asked to try, they try and fail. But then you could go and give them a hand, except you just hold you hands there and make it look like you're lifting when you're really not. And somehow the other person can now lift and move the heavy object themselves even though just moments before they didn't even get it off the ground.
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.
Like waffles said, these aren't necessary.
Again, if someone can counter the chart I posted with a more accurate model, that changes the argument.
Not sure how much faith I would want to put on the Freudian model myself... Not to mention last I heard, Bluesleeves didn't see tulpas even having the possibility of being sapient at all. Or something like that, it's been a while since I last read anything written by him so my memory's probably failing me here.
Until they learn how to switch, tulpas don't experience a psychosomatic sensation. They receive the impression of one from the host.
Possession.
-
I'm probably slow on the uptake, but what's the deal with this article?
http://articles.tulpa.info/amadeus-exodus-a-tale-of-tulpa/
Seems related to what I'm talking about, not sure why I haven't seen it until now:
"I learned to use programmed servitors (and eventually do it myself through conditioning) to manipulate my senses while not forcing. While awake, I started effectively being able to control what information my brain processes. I could block out smells, or sounds. Eventually I could block out very specific chains of sound. Today I can selectively hear or not hear something. I can manipulate the taste of food. I can selectively change the way I perceive color or texture. I can choose to see the sky on fire and snowflakes in the wind."
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).
That's what I'm interested in. It could be something the person would have done themselves; but, they didn't. So what is it about tulpas that makes them able to 'figure this out' while the host is unable to?
We're pretty biased. We've always done things a certain way so we start thinking there is no other way. Again, it's all about the mindset. The mindset of a person who is unable to do something differently might very well be something like "I can only do it this certain way and I can't change it". A tulpa rarely has a mindset like that, but when they do, they can't change shit either. But if they actually do try to do things differently... Things might very well be different.
I buy into this idea on the daily, believe me.
I think that this may be right, but it is more special than it seems to be. This method of simply believing, as a host, seems different than how it functions for a tulpa.
As the host, we do have certain expectations of reality that are ingrained. These are long-standing traditional beliefs we have learned and adopted as dogmas of reality. But I think there are different categories for learning these beliefs, and that the strongest one, that relates to the body and somatic senses, is the most difficult to overcome.
Beliefs as a result of intellect, such as societal norms and what have you, are easy to overcome, as the tulpa phenomena has shown (trumping the belief that you can't create a hallucination (imposition) while sober).
To use the tremors example again, the cause for the tremors itself is neurological. This creates a sensory, chemical impression in the host, that the host feels on a somatic level. The tulpa, never originally having a body with the capacity to be connected to the same neurological wiring, can overcome these sensations. While the host could spend a long time meditating to eventually achieve the same effect, the tulpa is able to do it quickly and without much effort because of this nature. Is this probable?
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.
This is slightly confusing: in my definition, all reports of the body coming to the host are done so through senses, acknowledging the fact that there are more than the 5 standard senses. Proprioception is a sense that is commonly ignored, but it might be the most important one in regards to this discussion. What else related to the body is not obtained through the senses?
'Sensory sharing' during possession, or otherwise? I'm assuming that all sensory information that comes in is processed through the host first, even during possession, where both parties may be technically experiencing the sensation. However, maybe this is a false assumption. I wonder if there's any possibility of setting up some sort of test where this could be measured? Or just give me more information, as this is an important point.
Through posting what I was trying to say seems to be more clear to me now. Understanding that 'placebo' or pure belief is a real force in regards to the mind, how can tulpas relate to the mind and body differently than a host as a result of a disembodiment, and how does tulpa belief function in the mind differently than host belief?
I haven't read much about the experiences of hosts when they are switching, if anyone can provide links to PR or related information/research, that would help me out at the moment a lot.
-
I'm probably slow on the uptake, but what's the deal with this article?
http://articles.tulpa.info/amadeus-exodus-a-tale-of-tulpa/
Seems related to what I'm talking about, not sure why I haven't seen it until now:
"I learned to use programmed servitors (and eventually do it myself through conditioning) to manipulate my senses while not forcing. While awake, I started effectively being able to control what information my brain processes. I could block out smells, or sounds. Eventually I could block out very specific chains of sound. Today I can selectively hear or not hear something. I can manipulate the taste of food. I can selectively change the way I perceive color or texture. I can choose to see the sky on fire and snowflakes in the wind."
All I can read from a lot of what he wrote was "symbolism". Which, again, can be very useful and isn't a bad thing and he does talk about how he learned to do it all himself in the end, using symbolism and other stuff as training wheels. Sorta related, my sense of smell is something I learned to block when I was very young out of necessity. Either my sense of smell is too good or I'm otherwise just weird, because many smells others can handle will make me throw up. So, gotta learn how to not smell if I want to keep my lunch inside me. These days it's actually more like my normal state, only smelling when I want to smell something. And who doesn't have selective hearing...
This isn't really related to anything but maybe you would like to hear it. I do a lot of weird shit these days and I had the opportunity to talk and do stuff with a professional dancer. She approached many things in a very... Well, I dunno, body-thinking way. She talked about how you could move by using your muscles and also how you could move using your bones. The muscles are heavier and you feel how they have to do a lot of work to achieve what you want your body to do, so it feels hard. But moving with your bones (sure, you actually use muscles but if you get what she means by it...) is much easier because they're so much lighter and it's almost effortless to move using them. Despite her being very much into thinking with her body, this obviously is some pretty deep mind shit. And you know what, it works. Think that you're moving with your bones and it does become easier.
To use the tremors example again, the cause for the tremors itself is neurological. This creates a sensory, chemical impression in the host, that the host feels on a somatic level. The tulpa, never originally having a body with the capacity to be connected to the same neurological wiring, can overcome these sensations. While the host could spend a long time meditating to eventually achieve the same effect, the tulpa is able to do it quickly and without much effort because of this nature. Is this probable?
The tremors thing is really interesting. I don't know anything about the brain itself, so I couldn't say why or how things happen here. I kind of suspect that if the tulpa were to start using more of the body's muscle memory built by the host, however, the tremors would come back. But it would have to actually be tested.
The entire thing should, really. This is some pretty good stuff that could help so many people if knowledge of it just was spread. The host has people who know of his condition and has proof of it as well, so them suddenly being able to move without tremors would surely catch the eye of someone who can actually run tests.
Sure, I can see why they might not want to do it. Real reasons. But then again, one possible reason for them not to want to do it is that they're actually lying... You can just never be sure, so take what everyone says with a grain of salt.
'Sensory sharing' during possession, or otherwise? I'm assuming that all sensory information that comes in is processed through the host first, even during possession, where both parties may be technically experiencing the sensation. However, maybe this is a false assumption. I wonder if there's any possibility of setting up some sort of test where this could be measured? Or just give me more information, as this is an important point.
This (http://i.imgur.com/s3LEyf3.png) has some of my thoughts about possession. It's more about explaining switching and such, but what I want to talk to you about is how possession might very well have "levels" to it. A very low level of possession would be something where the tulpa could barely move or feel and the host would still perceive things just like it was them moving the body, with higher levels giving the tulpa much more control and feeling. I'd say sensory sharing always comes with possession when done right. But I can tell you that our usual possession ends with me feeling everything much less. Pain is really obvious because it's like the feeling just stops for me. And when it comes to things with really distinct tastes - something like orange juice - it's like the taste is just different. Like I'm missing few "layers" of taste. Can it be tested? I have no idea, no one really has any equipment at least.
Through posting what I was trying to say seems to be more clear to me now. Understanding that 'placebo' or pure belief is a real force in regards to the mind, how can tulpas relate to the mind and body differently than a host as a result of a disembodiment, and how does tulpa belief function in the mind differently than host belief?
Well, I wouldn't know for sure, but I can throw around theories. I'd say age and what we're used to. My tulpa is pretty unsure when it comes to the physical world and doing things in it, he's much less likely to try something crazy because he's afraid of something bad happening. He's not used to it and I have a good 20 years of experience over him, so I can't really blame him. He has done a lot more mind stuff over me despite my age, because I just haven't been very interested in it. He finds that to be his area and he's much bolder there, where I might have doubts because of my inexperience. But when he tells me not to worry about it, I can still do it. With practice if nothing else, but often I can do it pretty well without, even.
If I had like say, 20 years of tricking my mind experience? I'd definitely have the edge over a tupper, wouldn't I? So much more experience and I would know what to do. I wouldn't think I can't do it because I know I can, having done similar things in the past. A host who is really good at things like that might very well have more trust in their own skills and do better than their tulpa.
-
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).
That's what I'm interested in. It could be something the person would have done themselves; but, they didn't. So what is it about tulpas that makes them able to 'figure this out' while the host is unable to?
This is just speculation, but your tulpa is different to you; different abilities, viewpoints, and so on. So going by your suggestion, it is simply that the tulpa is, more or less coincidentally, able to overcome the tremors by ability that could equally have been inherent in the host. Or that a tulpa is more able to counteract these effects by nature unspecified (what you were going for, I guess).
I'm not sure about that, though. I think it's more to do with the mechanisms of possession and how they interact with the tremor - again, I'm not familiar with the neurology.
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.
This is slightly confusing: in my definition, all reports of the body coming to the host are done so through senses, acknowledging the fact that there are more than the 5 standard senses. Proprioception is a sense that is commonly ignored, but it might be the most important one in regards to this discussion. What else related to the body is not obtained through the senses?
It's not about obtaining through the senses but through the host.
You said:
Until they learn how to switch, tulpas don't experience a psychosomatic sensation. They receive the impression of one from the host.
which means that (until switching), a tulpa won't have any sort of direct sensory connection to the body. I was giving accounts against that specifically, although the evidence isn't all that strong.
'Sensory sharing' during possession, or otherwise? I'm assuming that all sensory information that comes in is processed through the host first, even during possession, where both parties may be technically experiencing the sensation. However, maybe this is a false assumption. I wonder if there's any possibility of setting up some sort of test where this could be measured? Or just give me more information, as this is an important point.
Not specifically possession, though I suppose it would be most evident there. It is your assumption that is questionable, I suppose. As far as sensory processing goes, there's nothing to really suggest anything for or against it, to the best of my knowledge.
About a test, I suppose one would require the host to be 'zoned out' - visualising, really - with open eyes, so that the host is ignoring their senses while these senses are still available. Alternatively some other form of sensory ignoring might be more reliable, if available. I can't think of any. Given that, any tulpa could (attempt to) take information from the senses and relay it. Here I suppose some possession would be useful for reliability.
Anyway, if done correctly and one's tulpa could relay information from senses that the host is not paying attention to (while the host is in control of the body), that would disprove your assumption.