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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.