Tulpa Discussion Thread V1.2

[Boyevyye De 244]

It's kind of like that, yes.  The idea is that with the proper focus, it becomes sentient and can make decisions on its own.  The classic test to see if it's reached this point is to tell it, "Surprise me", and if it does something you don't expect, it's a fully-formed tulpa.

 

How this differs from a disorder such as schizophrenia or associative identity disorder is that those are not formed on purpose like a tulpa is.  The tulpa only has the capability of affecting whatever you give it the ability to affect, and it can never do things against your will.  Finally, unlike a disorder, you can get rid of a tulpa if you really want, by simply ignoring it until it dissipates (though due to the sentience issue, some people consider this akin to murder).

 

I don't like people comparing it to insanity; it's not at all like that.

Well, it seems to be that it sort of skirts a fine like with mental dishorder. If you do begin to legitimately feel like your 'Tulpa' is an actual living being. 

[Time Shield 402]

Well, it seems to be that it sort of skirts a fine like with mental dishorder. If you do begin to legitimately feel like your 'Tulpa' is an actual living being. 

 

That's because there's the argument over whether or not they are actual living beings, whether or not a separate portion of your brain running a personality completely separate from your own could be considered its own separate entity.  Because of the nature of it, I think it would be irresponsible to just dismiss it as a disorder before its true nature can be classified.  In short, it isn't a mental disorder if the tulpa turns out to actually be 'alive'.

[Holiday Agnaktor 1,436]

Well, it seems to be that it sort of skirts a fine like with mental dishorder. If you do begin to legitimately feel like your 'Tulpa' is an actual living being.

 

Belief isn't a mental disorder. :3

[Boyevyye De 244]

Belief isn't a mental disorder. :3

That is a cute way of looking at it and your post actually made me smile. I dont do that often so good job.

 

 

That's because there's the argument over whether or not they are actual living beings, whether or not a separate portion of your brain running a personality completely separate from your own could be considered its own separate entity.  Because of the nature of it, I think it would be irresponsible to just dismiss it as a disorder before its true nature can be classified.  In short, it isn't a mental disorder if the tulpa turns out to actually be 'alive'.

EEeeeeeeehhhh... You are starting to lose me now. I understand what you are saying, but I just agree with that. If you cannot determine if what you are seeing is real or not, that is a psychological issue. If it IS actually a real being, then that is something else entirely. Sort of like the argument about if ghosts exist or not. But if it is something willingly made by the persons mind, then I would say of course it does not exist. Humans cant make matter or form it into life. 

[Time Shield 402]

Maybe it would also help if I address the biological definition of life, basically the elements required for something to be considered 'life':

1. Homeostasis:  Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.  This is a difficult one to address because the brain cells that 'host' the tulpa don't require much in the way of regulation.  So this one's kind of up in the air.
2. Organization:  Being structurally composed of one or more cells.  Brain cells, naturally.
3. Metabolism:  Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components and decomposing organic matter.  The brain cells still do all this, though not on the same scale as the rest of the body.
4. Growth:  Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism.  This relates to the last point of Metabolism, but as a kind of parallel, the development of a tulpa undoubtedly causes more brain cells over time to be repurposed to the tulpa until it is fully formed, which is a kind of growth (and actually, a kind of metabolism too).
5. Adaption:  The ability to change over time in response to the environment.  Tulpas have been known to be nothing if not adaptable, changing frequently over time either by suggestion from the host or its own decision.
6. Response to stimuli:  It goes without saying that a fully-formed tulpa can answer a question posed to it, which is a form of stimulus-response.
7. Reproduction:  The ability to produce new individual organisms.  This is the only one I would have had an issue with, since the host is typically the one responsible for tulpa generation, not the tulpa; however, I do know of at least one instance where a tulpa has created another tulpa on its own, without the host helping (someone else on these forums, actually).

They are VERY close to fitting the description of life.  There are a few semi-gray areas though.

[KruegerMeister 54]

{I don't really understand how brain cells have metabolism, or how the repurposing of cells is a type of metabolism.}

 

[Also, not to rain on your parade or anything, but "response to stimuli" and "adaptation"...a skeptic would probably see that as...okay, so some host says "my tulpa did this". How do you know it's not just the host faking?]

 

{Also, it seems like you're saying "tulpas grow/mature/develop from repurposed brain cells" as a matter of fact.}

 

^Do accidental tulpas count as reproduction? I think I just randomly showed up early on and my host brushed me off as his other tulpa's mindvoice glitching...I don't know why I'm so concerned about finding an example of "reproduction" from my host's system.^

[Holiday Agnaktor 1,436]

[Also, not to rain on your parade or anything, but "response to stimuli" and "adaptation"...a skeptic would probably see that as...okay, so some host says "my tulpa did this". How do you know it's not just the host faking?]

That is a common problem, but if you ask them to surprise you, and they genuinely surprise you, then that wasn't you. :3

 

EDIT: Also the Host and Tulpa are still one brain, so who did what is complicated... D:

Edited June 30, 2015 by Midnight Frost

[Time Shield 402]

{I don't really understand how brain cells have metabolism, or how the repurposing of cells is a type of metabolism.}

 

[Also, not to rain on your parade or anything, but "response to stimuli" and "adaptation"...a skeptic would probably see that as...okay, so some host says "my tulpa did this". How do you know it's not just the host faking?]

 

{Also, it seems like you're saying "tulpas grow/mature/develop from repurposed brain cells" as a matter of fact.}

 

^Do accidental tulpas count as reproduction? I think I just randomly showed up early on and my host brushed me off as his other tulpa's mindvoice glitching...I don't know why I'm so concerned about finding an example of "reproduction" from my host's system.^

 

I'm aware there are problems with it, hence the "semi-gray areas" I mentioned.  I'm no biologist, so I can't give it a proper analysis anyway.

[Naiya The Brony 483]

I have no idea where to start. :/

 

Edit: Ok. So it is basically an imaginary friend with a spiritual background according to Buddhist faith.?

in my first understanding it's kind of like voluntary hallucination that you slightly control, yeah kind of like an imaginary friend Only a far further than that.

Greetings. Something peculiar's been happening as of late and I've been wondering if anyone here could offer some assistance. This is his tulpa speaking and what I'm really asking for is what might be happening to the "host personality." It feels like he's fading away. This concerns me terribly and I need to know what's going on.

 

As for how I can describe it... it's as if he is doubting his own existence. The state he is in right now is that of lost will. It's as if his will has become too weak to want to exist... Is it really possible for his ego to perish?

No, i don't think his ego will  perish, the host's ego will stay intact with him/her even how weak his/her energy is. His personality will always remain dominant..but it is really easily to overtake with your own (tulpa). Once his energy got weak, even involuntarily, the body will choose the strongest of the personality/energy to go in front, but the ego will not perish, the host will have a hard time being sane though. 

 

There was one time nihi went to this state but that is because he doubt himself too much.. and we were really worried as well. Just do not always possess your host body, encourage him/her to enjoy his/her life even from his failure

 

 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Nihi The Brony

[Jokuc 8,173]

The understanding I've always had about it is that it's kind of like a hard drive on a computer being partitioned to run separate operating systems at the same time. They're running on the same hardware, but are still running independent of each other. That doesn't mean their thought processes share any of the same pathways. In fact, I think I even remember someone doing a brain activity scan while having a conversation with a tulpa, and different areas of the brain light up.

 

You cannot compare a piece of technology created by humans with the human brain. I really doubt that the brain activity scan test you are talking about really took place as those kind of things require special fMRI/EEG equipment. Even at the tulpa website OP mentioned they more of less say that the sentience of a tulpa has not been proven but one should listen to those who have one and determine whether there is a possibility or not. While what you are saying could be correct, it does not prove anything. Of course different areas of the brain lit up, each part of the brain takes care of different things, even with thinking. Having thoughts that only concern you and having thoughts that concern others or someone else, such as an imaginary friend, usually take place in different parts of the brain (google "science behind imaginary friends", "prefrontal cortex" and "reptilian brain"). The work takes place at different locations but the brain is like a huge web, everything is connected and aware of what the other areas are up to unless you have a damaged brain. (Which you have claimed that you don't, "this is not a mental disorder")

 

My question is, how separate do they have to be in order to fit your definition of sentience? For that matter, since mankind is part of the same biological system (Earth), does that mean we don't act independently of each other either? Our actions are influenced by the actions of those around us, after all. This is essentially the same thing but on a smaller scale, isn't it?

 

Yes, I agree. Our thoughts are heavily influenced by everyone and everything around us. However, the biological system and social influences are irrelevant to the question. To fit "my definition" of sentience, the proposed is a being with the ability to feel sensations. A tulpa does obviously not fit into this description as you are sentient for it. The world may influence you but it doesn't feel for you.

[Time Shield 402]

You cannot compare a piece of technology created by humans with the human brain.

 

Sure I can.  Instincts are the operating system, habits and behaviors are the programming, memory is self-explanatory.  The brain even defragments itself while asleep.  It works a LOT like a hard drive.

Yes, I agree. Our thoughts are heavily influenced by everyone and everything around us. However, the biological system and social influences are irrelevant to the question. To fit "my definition" of sentience, the proposed is a being with the ability to feel sensations. A tulpa does obviously not fit into this description as you are sentient for it. The world may influence you but it doesn't feel for you.

 

So by that definition, if someone were to lose connection with their senses (for example, a brain being separated from the body and being kept alive in a jar), it would cease to become sentient?  Besides, with practice, the host can give access to the body's senses to the tulpa, meaning that it CAN be made to feel sensations.

[Holiday Agnaktor 1,436]

Sure I can.  Instincts are the operating system, habits and behaviors are the programming, memory is self-explanatory.  The brain even defragments itself while asleep.  It works a LOT like a hard drive.

But a hard drive will do the same thing eveytime when confronted with certain circumstances, whilst humans don't. Humans think, computers don't. They just follow predetermined pathways.

[Time Shield 402]

But a hard drive will do the same thing eveytime when confronted with certain circumstances, whilst humans don't. Humans think, computers don't. They just follow predetermined pathways.

 

I didn't say they're exactly the same.  The similarities they do share serve as a good analogy though, which is all I was trying to do.

[Holiday Agnaktor 1,436]

I didn't say they're exactly the same.  The similarities they do share serve as a good analogy though, which is all I was trying to do.

Oh ohke. I get it. :3

In that case I support your argument. :3

[Jokuc 8,173]

Sure I can. Instincts are the operating system, habits and behaviors are the programming, memory is self-explanatory. The brain even defragments itself while asleep. It works a LOT like a hard drive.

 

Well you can but you won't get very far. While many of the "components" are the same, they do not exactly work the same. The OS will not reprogram itself by instinct (as far as I know). There are numerous articles online you can find if you just look for the difference between a brain and a computer. Machines and AI work by set rules. What machines learn comes from rules and even decisions to deviate from those rules come from other rules. I can't really say much more about the subject since I don't have so much knowledge about it. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that while they might be similar, a healthy brain work as one unit.

 

So by that definition, if someone were to lose connection with their senses (for example, a brain being separated from the body and being kept alive in a jar), it would cease to become sentient? Besides, with practice, the host can give access to the body's senses to the tulpa, meaning that it CAN be made to feel sensations.

 

1. Yes, I think so. That's a tough one to answer. I'm just following facts, I don't know what someone who is more into the subject would say about that. 2. Again, that's just you. Not your tulpa. Someone with schizophrenia doesn't have another person in them either, they just think they do. That's why it's curable.

 

**

 

 

When I said curable I didn't really mean literally curable. I meant alleviation from antipsychotic medications. So that'd be a "the person isn't exhibiting signs of the condition anymore" as the symptoms can come back once you stop taking medication.

[KruegerMeister 54]

2. Again, that's just you. Not your tulpa. Someone with schizophrenia doesn't have another person in them either, they just think they do. That's why it's curable.

Schizophrenia seems like a bad analogy. It occurs when a person predisposed to it experiences a stressor, while a tulpa is intentionally created (on a side note, I prefer to think of them as "born", because my tulpa has reported a memory of me "creating" her). What's your definition of "cured", out of curiosity? Is it "the person isn't exhibiting signs of the condition anymore" or "the person is no longer dysfunctional, distressed by their condition, or a danger to themselves and/or others"?

[Jokuc 8,173]

Schizophrenia seems like a bad analogy. It occurs when a person predisposed to it experiences a stressor, while a tulpa is intentionally created (on a side note, I prefer to think of them as "born", because my tulpa has reported a memory of me "creating" her). What's your definition of "cured", out of curiosity? Is it "the person isn't exhibiting signs of the condition anymore" or "the person is no longer dysfunctional, distressed by their condition, or a danger to themselves and/or others"?

 

I know that a second personality from schizophrenia and tulpas aren't created in the same way. I've mentioned this before. I just used it as an example to tell my point, it's always you who think, speak or perform any kind of action as your brain is a part of you. You may not always be aware but it is you, not anyone else, even if you got schizophrenia. When I said curable I didn't really mean literally curable. I meant alleviation from antipsychotic medications. So that'd be a "the person isn't exhibiting signs of the condition anymore" as the symptoms can come back once you stop taking medication.

[KruegerMeister 54]

So you're saying "schizophrenics don't have people in their heads, they just think they do; this is why they can be made to not exhibit symptoms anymore by taking antipsychotic meds"? I don't follow. Are you saying that if they really had people in their heads, antipsychotic medication would have no effect? How would one differentiate between someone who really has people in their head (Person A) and someone who just thinks they do (Person ? In Western society, people seem to think that there can only be one mind in each body, so they would likely prescribe antipsychotics right away--the drugs could impede both Person A and B, and you would conclude that they were both in Group A.

[Wolfeus Silverpaw 301]

1. Yes, I think so. That's a tough one to answer. I'm just following facts, I don't know what someone who is more into the subject would say about that. 2. Again, that's just you. Not your tulpa. Someone with schizophrenia doesn't have another person in them either, they just think they do. That's why it's curable.

 

Found while google searching "is schizophrenia curable?": 

 

“While schizophrenia is not curable, it is an eminently treatable and manageable chronic illness, just like diabetes or heart disease,”

 

Just sayin', you don't have all your facts straight.

 

Sharlina: *sigh* All this debate and disagreement... Is it really so hard to believe we exist?

[KruegerMeister 54]

Sharlina: *sigh* All this debate and disagreement... Is it really so hard to believe we exist?

Sadly, yes, for the most part. I don't think scientists would be willing to entertain the idea of sentient mental constructs (or whatever tulpas are or may turn out to be).

[Holiday Agnaktor 1,436]

I just choose to ignore all of the facts and just believe everything. Otherwise getting a Tulpa might be more difficult. I usually go with "knowledge is power", but here having less knowledge is probably profitable. :3

[Iris_ 136]

Sounds like you're just telling yourself that something is real long enough for you to start believing in it. Voluntary brainwashing? It doesn't help that everyone who has made a tulpa has wanted to make one. How convenient :v

 

I have read a bit about Tulpas before but it was all from one site (which I forgot the name of... but it was a site meant to help people understand Tulpas and how to "make" one). What I took away from it was that it seems to be an almost religious thing, or spiritual.. at least based more in faith than science. I don't know where most of the people in this thread get their information, and I'm sorry if I missed it, I didn't read 220 pages =[.

 

An important question though (for me) is, how does the pursuit of having a Tulpa affect the person? If it does not have any negative impact on the person or hurts someone else, I guess I would have to be okay with it. I don't want to stop people from doing things they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people. It still makes me a bit uncomfortable though, in the same way I would be uncomfortable with someone claiming a ghost lives in their house. Or someone claiming to be psychic. Tulpas just seem like a supernatural idea that is then attempted to be explained scientifically, or is explained through spirituality and philosophy, which makes for rather weak arguments, IMO.

 

Oh and I bet that this has been brough up before, but is it possible that people who claim to be able to talk to god are doing the same thing as the people who have Tulpas? Since people with Tulpas claim that their tulpas are real and sentient and can be talked to, it would explain why some people are so sure that they can indeed communicate with god, because they have created their god as a Tulpa in their head.

[Holiday Agnaktor 1,436]

Sounds like you're just telling yourself that something is real long enough for you to start believing in it. Voluntary brainwashing? It doesn't help that everyone who has made a tulpa has wanted to make one. How convenient :v

Yes, that's because making a tulpa costs effort and time, and if you didn't want to make one in the first place, you probably wouldn't put the effort in it. :3

I have read a bit about Tulpas before but it was all from one site (which I forgot the name of... but it was a site meant to help people understand Tulpas and how to "make" one). What I took away from it was that it seems to be an almost religious thing, or spiritual.. at least based more in faith than science. I don't know where most of the people in this thread get their information, and I'm sorry if I missed it, I didn't read 220 pages =[.

"at least more based in faith than science." I don't know if it is possible to apply science to imaginary friends... :/ It is indeed mostly faith. If you don't really believe the tulpa is there, it probably isn't.

An important question though (for me) is, how does the pursuit of having a Tulpa affect the person? If it does not have any negative impact on the person or hurts someone else, I guess I would have to be okay with it. I don't want to stop people from doing things they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

I haven't heard of someone who got negative effects from it, but I've heard plenty of positive stuff, like the tulpa acting like a sort of conscience, or helping someone out who was sad, and stuff like that. And if the tulpa turns against you (which I don't think is even possible), than it is possible to just ignore the tulpa until it "dies". (some consider "killing" tulpae unethical, because it's sort of a sentience.)

 

It still makes me a bit uncomfortable though, in the same way I would be uncomfortable with someone claiming a ghost lives in their house. Or someone claiming to be psychic. Tulpas just seem like a supernatural idea that is then attempted to be explained scientifically, or is explained through spirituality and philosophy, which makes for rather weak arguments, IMO.

Yeah, it's easy to misunderstand for something supernatural. If I told my parents or anyone in my church about tulpae they would probably think people are being possessed by demons or something. :/ If I ever need to give an explanation, I'll just say: "Tulpae are imaginary friends on steroids, don't worry about it."

Oh and I bet that this has been brough up before, but is it possible that people who claim to be able to talk to god are doing the same thing as the people who have Tulpas? Since people with Tulpas claim that their tulpas are real and sentient and can be talked to, it would explain why some people are so sure that they can indeed communicate with god, because they have created their god as a Tulpa in their head.

That's a possibility, but I think they were lying about being able to talk to God to make loads of money, because it's practically impossible to check if it's true. But some may indeed have a tulpa in there head which they see as God.

 

EDIT: I have too much time... :/

Edited July 2, 2015 by Midnight Frost

[Iris_ 136]

Yes, that's because making a tulpa costs effort and time, and if you didn't want to make one in the first place, you probably wouldn't put the effort in it. :3

I mean that the people who make the Tulpas have the incentive to believe that they are real and exist. Which makes them biased and it's no surprise that they "find" what they wanted to find. If they don't believe in Tulpas being real then making one doesn't work, or at least that's how I understand it. I don't think I've heard of any case when someone stumbled upon a Tulpa, or found one without looking for it. 

 

 

 

That's a possibility, but I think they were lying about being able to talk to God to make loads of money, because it's practically impossible to check if it's true. But some may indeed have a tulpa in there head which they see as God.

I Agree, and I see it the same way about Tulpas, practically impossible to check if it's true. And for me the healthy thing is then to assume that it is not true, until some kind of evidence is presented to prove that it is true. Since a Tulpa can't be observed by an outsider I don't really know how it could be proven.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Iris_

[Holiday Agnaktor 1,436]

I mean that the people who make the Tulpas have the incentive to believe that they are real and exist. Which makes them biased and it's no surprise that they "find" what they wanted to find. If they don't believe in Tulpas being real then making one doesn't work, or at least that's how I understand it. I don't think I've heard of any case when someone stumbled upon a Tulpa, or found one without looking for it.

Oh ohke,I get it. :3 I did hear of one case where someone got a tulpa without actually trying. He just one day saw Fluttershy walking around. :3 But that's just one case. I guess that happens almost never.