Tulpas > General Discussion

Can tulpa formation help understand the psychosomatic relation?

(1/4) > >>

penultimate.forme:
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~

Sands:
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.

waffles:
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

--- Quote from: penultimate.forme on October 29, 2013, 03:53:15 PM ---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?

--- End quote ---
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."

--- End quote ---
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

--- End quote ---
and here the important part is "thoughtform". A thoughtform is

--- Quote ---a being or object which is created through sheer mental discipline

--- End quote ---
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.

penultimate.forme:

--- Quote from: Fede on October 29, 2013, 04:40:15 PM ---I guess I'll never really know.

--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.

penultimate.forme:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page