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 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.

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.

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.

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~

Oops, sorry guys. Fede, I already responded to your email before I saw this.

Everything is coming together rather chaotically, as that tends to be my workflow at this point in time. I have a lot going on, and I'm trying to push the release of the zine as rapidly as possible--as a result, this doesn't really allow for a democratic process.

I agree in theory, this is an awesome idea, and I can incorporate that in future issues when I get shit together and have a more organized basis for releasing each issue. Right now, I'm still trying to nail down the format of the zine, and unfortunately this includes a lot of spontaneous decisions on my part. I haven't quite made anything official, and haven't sent waffles a solidified prompt or anything. That's something I'm generating tonight, and since nobody else has contacted me about submitting articles for the zine, I assumed waffles was the only person interested.

In the future, I can generate this prompt much earlier in the planning stages, and post it on the forums as an "open response" format. Ideally, for me, I would prefer to have 2 complimentary articles on opposing pages by 2 different authors. This still leaves choosing whose 2 to display a tricky decision, and while for me, it's easier to choose the authors based on my decision, I'm at odds with the idea of making a zine that's for a community that doesn't get a say in the decisions being made as to what content is displayed.

Personally, not knowing any of you, I'm unsure as to how to proceed with a democratic process. Would open IRC "meetings" be something anyone would be interested in? I don't have the time to moderate this process, per se, so the resulting free for all might be chaotic. I'm open to suggestions, though.

It's a self-published work. Not super legitimate, but I have my own means of distribution, printing, and the skills required to make a 'professional' looking publication.

What separates this from others that have tried to go before is that mine will keep updating. Additionally, I am technically an outsider of the community, so this isn't really for my personal use as a guide.

I could argue the importance of what I'm doing, but I don't think anyone really cares. My point can only be proven or disproven by the act of doing it. You can send me content if you want to, or not. Please still send me stuff even if you think what I'm doing is pointless or stupid. I'm still going to do it. We'll see what happens.

Sup.

I've been considering this a lot (see: just made a thread about the tulpa zine.)

I don't really have an opinion of the mainstreaming of it. If it happens, it happens, and there will be consequences for everyone, positive and negative. It's inevitable if this occurs, and I think the response shouldn't be "no, that can't happen" or "how can we stop it". I think it becomes an issue of getting shit together and presenting as a community of which the mainstream can communicate with, without coming off as crazies, teenagers, or pretenders. A pre-emptive strike of sorts.

Personally, as someone without a tulpa, I have tried to have conversations about tulpa to multiple people.
A few of them, surprisingly, would recount how they relate to tulpa. For example, an imaginary friend, rogue voices, etc. They all have the sentiment that they thought it was schizophrenic, unusual, and shameful. There seems to be an outstanding paradigm that the human mind does NOT hallucinate on its own (e.g. without drugs); if it does, you're sick.

The rest of those that responded to me prove this point: normally mouth agape, eyes wide, and the more I talk, it seems the less credible I become. They thought I was crazy, and this is coming from someone who does NOT have a tulpa. I can't imagine trying to communicate the idea as a host.

For tulpas to become acceptable in the mainstream, the mainstream has to accept the fact that hallucinations=/=drugs and schizophrenia. I think that when people talk about meditating, etc. as well, it is automatically connotative as being meta and not having real-world effects.

Back to my zine, this is sort of what I want the purpose to be. Something devoid of memes, tropes, and presented as a professional looking publication with production value. It's bells and whistles, but those are what legitimize information more often than not before scientific academia will take a look at it.