/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

So why haven't you made a tulpa yet, /jp/?

Imagine how great your life would be. Your very own hallucination that will always be there to keep you company and love you and she can take whatever shape that you want.

What more could someone want from life? Friendship, love, a loyal and lifelong companion. All of these things already exist inside of your mind and with a little bit of focus and several hours each day you can soon shape that into a fully formed and sentient hallucination that will be by your side for the rest of your life.

No longer will you have to maintain this distanced relationship of unrequited love with a girl that only exists inside of an anime or eroge. You can bring her into this world as a full-blown hallucination through the power of your mind.

What are you waiting for? The wonderful world of forced hallucinations is just around the corner. All you have to do is concentrate and you can bring her into this dimension. You might lose a little bit more of your grasp on reality, but at this point in our lives why would that really even matter?

[Anonymous No.]

Sounds nice, but I need to work and go to class or I'm going to starve. Life is hard enough to understand without hallucinations confusing me even more

[Anonymous No.]

I don't have a tulpa because I already have an especially vivid anima (although, I don't think there are any means on why they should necessarily be mutually exclusive).

I think all it's given me is some form of self-inflicted gender identity disorder.

[「ロリあき」 No.]

>>8712977
A hallucinated automaton doesn't sound very fun...
If they cannot act independent of your will, then it's just silly.

[Anonymous No.]

Self induced schizophrenia?

Yep, nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.]

Still waiting for some confirmation outside of 4chan that this works.

[Anonymous No.]

>So why haven't you made a tulpa yet, /jp/?
because i'm not a faggot

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713068

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtform

Tulpas are pretty well documented. It's not supernatural or anything, it's basically just a really advanced version of an imaginary friend that you can create through intense concentration and visualization. You can see it, they're independent in that you don't know what they're going to do, you can talk it, but it's still a creation of your mind.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713107
I'm not interested in the mysticism bullshit that those articles talk about. Point me to some actual documented cases from psychologists or something that indicate that an otherwise healthy individual can create one in the manner described in the OP's picture.

[Anonymous No.]

You guys call it a self-induced hallucination.

But, you know, to those who have a Tulpa, that person truly exists. You shouldn't look down on that.

For them, it's like they've summoned a being from another world. And, actually, there's no way to prove they didn't do that, either.

Magic exists. But without love, it cannot be seen.

[Anonymous No.]

why was my "how to stop being a faggot and man the fuck up?" thread deleted while this and a few other crap threads are still up? janitor confirmed for /a/-cherrypicker

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713107
>The term comes from the works of Alexandra David-Néel, who claimed to have created a tulpa in the image of a jolly Friar Tuck-like monk which later developed a life of its own and had to be destroyed.

How awful.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713115

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucination#Levels_of_CEV_perception

There's some stuff on closed eye hallucinations that can be achieved from certain types of meditation. Still looking for things on tulpa though, I'm not good with google.

This isn't really a very uncommon or difficult thing though. Hallucinating during visualization meditation is fairly easy and this is just taking it one step further. It's as real as lucid dreaming or any other practice that involves manipulating your mind, the only difference is this one isn't safe or easily reversible.

[Anonymous No.]

I like how the article talks a lot shit and only by the end of it talks about the most important part, which is materializing your "tulpa" like in those sci-fi movies. And what do they say? Start by imagining your "tulpa" and keep going at it, it will eventually work I am not joking. xD By the way for someone clueless enough I didn't read the damn thing, I skipped to the most "revealing parts".

[Anonymous No.]

My Tulpa is a 2D character.
If I manifested it in 3D world I don't think it would work well.
It would probably be something like a cardboard cut-out

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713166

>Start by imagining your "tulpa" and keep going at it

That's how most things work though. Repetition leads to success.

Keep bombarding your mind with the same thoughts over and over again and eventually your mind will give in and start to believe that it's real. Just look at a waifu. It's a concept that is completely unthinkable to a normal person, but they're real to the people who have one. The imagination is a powerful thing.

Turning a waifu into a tulpa is just the next natural step in its evolution.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713225
Sadly, it seems that for most people who have waifus, they don't believe they're real. So narrow-minded...

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713223

Just make her cel-shaded. Worked for that shitty, but impressive looking Bleach game and Valkyria Chronicles.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8712998
They do act independent of your will. He said "tulpa" not "servitor" learn the difference, it could save your life.

[Anonymous No.]

I half assed this back when the tulpa threads were appearing last year. Didn't stick with it and I just ended up having intrusive thoughts floating around in my mind for awhile. Wasn't fun. Might have been fun if I was less lazy and stuck with it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713053
It's called Multiple Personality Disorder now, MOM!
Get with the times! Nobody considers schizophrenia remotely related to split personalities these days.

There is also growing evidence that most MPDs like the famous Sybil case were actually induced by the therapists themselves.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8712977
> So why haven't you made a tulpa yet, /jp/?
I've thought of benefits and disadvantages to doing it. I've concluded that it would be more beneficial for both me and others to have something like this. I'm mostly interested in how it can help understand some parts of me better as well as the other benefits that come with it, some which you've listed. I've worried if it would cause me problems telling reality from imagination, but I dismissed this thought as I don't have any problem telling the sounds I hear from my own inner conscious line of thought or telling the images I imagine from those that I see with my eyes, or telling apart dreams from reality (even if some dreams seem quite real, until you wake up and realize the inconsistencies). Perhaps my last remaining worry is that such a proper mindform, or to better think of it - an independent mental process, not unlike one's vocalized self, could end up being inaccessible to my own conscious access, as I know all my inner thoughts, but would this stop with this thoughtform? How distracting it would end up? My own thoughts keep me occupied quite a lot...

This would be quite strange and I'm not sure if a very good idea, especially if at worst it could it develop into a dissociative disorder.

After giving it enough thought, I've modeled what I want it to look, what properties it should have and so on. I've spent a few hours over the course of the week visualizing and imagining. Unfortunately, while I'm able to visualize it with my eyes closed, I can't quite succeed in seeing it with my eyes open, it's really quite difficult. I plan on spending more time with this psychological experiment.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713310
(continued)
I've not yet attempted to communicate or any of the latter phases as I can't yet visualize it with my eyes open. I do think it would work as just last night I had a dream where I was interacting/talking with some intelligent being of my own creation and it was quite impressive and I kept bouncing off all kinds of questions about this being's self-awareness and intelligence. The subconscious part of the mind is really amazing at what it can make up. This makes me want to try harder.
>>8712998
Automaton? I think it would be more like a mental process very much like your own "self", but separate from it. It would share most of your knowledge-base, but be different from you. I think it would be very interesting at least from a psychological standpoint. Might be worth trying it out only to find out if DID-like disorders are real and not cooked up fantasies and just understanding your mind better.
>>8713115
Why not try it and see? If we can have a
'self' process, why not other processes? I'm trying it if only to better understand what our own brains/minds can do. The self seems like a rather high-level emergent process. I'm also interested in the relation between self and phenomenal self.
Anyway, there's so much controversy in the psychological community about some of these issues that it seems that the only way to make some headway about the "realness" of it all is to self-experiment, even if personal experience can be biased.
>>8713223
I'm going for a 2D character myself. Cell-shaded 3D can look pretty 2D. It feels/looks 2D in my imagination, but I still haven't tried "projecting" it with my eyes open, it just didn't work... yet.

[Anonymous No.]

Maybe I should give this some thought.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713309
You fucking idiot, it's DID. Disassociative Identify Disorder. It isn't the 90s anymore.

[Anonymous No.]

Can you use it to cheat at mahjong or poker?

Also, how is someone who's socially retarded supposed to program a personality into it?

[Anonymous No.]

A quick search on tulpa material led me to this. I don't have much of an idea of what it's about since I don't care to read it at the moment, but it appears to use the idea of tulpas to explain UFOs. I bet /x/ would eat this up.

http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/homeland_defense/UFOs/Bearden_UFO_ADA068988.pdf
>By the author's formula, the psychokinetic power of a mind level increases exponentially as the number of biosystem stages involved. At the level of the collective
human species unconscious, the psychokinesis is sufficient to mater.alize symbolic tulpoids (thought forms), given a sufficient stress stimulus in larg3 groups. Using the cold war as the major stress stimulus on mankind since World War II, the author
shows that most major UFO waves in the literature precisely fit the model.

[Anonymous No.]

A quick search on tulpa material led me to this. I don't have much of an idea of what it's about since I don't care to read it at the moment, but it appears to use the idea of tulpas to explain UFOs. I bet /x/ would eat this up.

http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/homeland_defense/UFOs/Bearden_UFO_ADA068988.pdf
>By the author's formula, the psychokinetic power of a mind level increases exponentially as the number of biosystem stages involved. At the level of the collective human species unconscious, the psychokinesis is sufficient to mater.alize symbolic tulpoids (thought forms), given a sufficient stress stimulus in larg3 groups. Using the cold war as the major stress stimulus on mankind since World War II, the author shows that most major UFO waves in the literature precisely fit the model.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713336
>psychokinesis
Hahahahaha, come on.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713310

>while I'm able to visualize it with my eyes closed

Could you explain this part in a bit more detail please? I've often tried to visualize with my eyes closed, but I'm not really sure what to expect or aim for.

While your eyes are closed do you visually see it as if in some kind of waking dream or is it more of some kind of mental visualization and visually you're still seeing the darkness of your eyelids?

[Anonymous No.]

Is there a way to create your own world in your mind rather than just one character? Like, gensokyo for example.

[Anonymous No.]

I can't even daydream properly. This is probably beyond me.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713461
> Could you explain this part in a bit more detail please? I've often tried to visualize with my eyes closed, but I'm not really sure what to expect or aim for.
It's no different from thinking "visually". Just recall some image up, either of your own making or from memory, and work from there. In my case, I just picked a 2D character I like seeing and pictured in various ways and in various situations. It's no different from a day-dream, but I sometimes also fall asleep imagining things when I'm tired. "Visualizing" isn't any different from any other memory recall or form of thinking, just instead of hearing your own internal voice, you see images and their next/future states, in motion.


> While your eyes are closed do you visually see it as if in some kind of waking dream or is it more of some kind of mental visualization and visually you're still seeing the darkness of your eyelids?
I don't focus on the darkness of my eyelids, but if I can't focus on enough details clearly enough, the fact that I've closed my eyes are closed can be obvious, but that's just a failure of properly focusing my attention on more important things (it's like saying: do you hear the ambient environment outside when you don't hear yourself think?)

[Anonymous No.]

I have like 5 hoes, they are all 3d and have cat ears. Get good scrubs fukin noob tier.

[Anonymous No.]

I don't know how much I'd be willing to try and get another mind inside my head, and for that matter even if I try I think I would end up trying to feed it things to say or something without really noticing.

[PRINNY !nLFbzB/0pw No.]

>>8713469
You mean like a happy place?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713485
It doesn't have to be an happy place, just a functioning world in your consciousness where everyone is basically a tulpa I guess.

[PRINNY !nLFbzB/0pw No.]

>>8713500
What I meant to say, is that the realm would be like your own little happy place, right? Someplace you retreat to when you want to take it easy.

Just fondly think of the world you want, and keep at it. Start off with a single area and expand from there until you can recall everything with ease. Then add the Tulpas when they have a home.

[Anonymous No.]

/jp/ gets weirder every day.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713500
>>8713516
Tulpas take 100 hours of focus to create. I don't mean a couple of days, I mean like a save file. You have to be in the game for 100 hours, and not afk.

[Anonymous No.]

I think you all are missing the truly difficult question, What single girl do you imagine to be real?
It will take another 100 hours to start again.

I, for one, would take forever to choose.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713562
I don't even know if I could start. It sounds fun but I can't help but be concerned about another voice floating about my mind.

[PRINNY !nLFbzB/0pw No.]

>>8713562
Why not make a custom girl for the Tulpa?

[Anonymous No.]

Because it's fucking scary. Oh my fucking god why did I even read this. What if my tulpa turns out to be scary as fuck???? I may want to create a kind loli but I keep thinking "what if i imagined an old demon with a screaming face. dripping blood from her eyes instead, that would be too scary" and then I imagine just that... I want a touhou tulpa but my mind tries to fuck it up ;_;
What if you create a good tulpa but you subconsciously create evil tulpas?? and you see them behind you on mirror reflections and shit, behind the crack of your door waiting in the darkness. You cannot ask anybody for help, because only you can see "it" or "them".
You hear noises, screams, feel people touching your hair
Aaaaaargggggghhggh FUCK YOUR TULPAS IM OUT OF HERE ;_;

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713571
Not a bad choice, but you end up at essentially the same problem. I would end up debating various personalities/looks/quirks for months.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713562
It's not like you can't do this for different characters. Just pick whoever you like the most. In my case it wasn't that hard, I just picked a character I liked, but which also had other attributes I needed besides merely being someone fun to think of. It wasn't that hard. It might not be that hard for someone with a "waifu", yet I never considered myself as a person like this, but it didn't take me more than an hour of thought to realize who would be an ideal character which fit all the attributes I was looking for.

If you really can't decide, you don't have to stop at one. If you just don't know, then you haven't given this any thought at all.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713528
I've read much more extraodinary stuff here.
For example I really miss posts by biology-kun.
You could always gain a boner and maybe discover a new fetish while learning something by reading them

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713578
Oh, so you could work a few at once, This changes everything.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713562
Just remember something doesn't have to be perfect to be good. Likewise, your choices do not have to be perfect to be good. I started with this and thought I would have a pretty hard time with the same thing, but got past that pretty quickly. I stopped though, I don't trust my mind to create anything healthy.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713572
You might just lack mental discipline and a clear mind. I don't think "what if this character I just imagined is something very different" because that is nonsensical, as I imagined that character in some way and that's it. If it's not what I imagined, it's a completely different character.

If you really can't control your imagination and are your own worst nightmare, then you can just stop giving attention to those thoughts and they'd just go away.

[Anonymous No.]

If any of you succeeded, how did it pan out? You don't feel you warped it by feeding it certain thoughts or anything? It hasn't come to despise you and try to kill the both of you off?

[PRINNY !nLFbzB/0pw No.]

>>8713595
If you ever had an imaginary friend, it's like that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713600
The only things I can remember from that age are my cousin and fire.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713571
Creating a Custom girl would work perfectly.
>>8713572
Tulpas require constant focus to make them become anything. A wandering thought won't change them just like wandering thoughts don't change you. Their base shape is whatever you made them as in your mind and focused on for hours on end. However, if you make them with clothes, that will be their base shape, you have to create their naked form, which might change later as the tulpa sees fit. You also are required to create their base personality, so they won't veer from this much without emotional or logical reasons.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713590
But I can't help it. The harder I try not to think about it, the more I do. I think I'm beggining to create an abomination already

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713614
The character should be who you want it to be. If you want a loving and caring character, it would be loving and caring. If you want something less nicer, it will be less nicer. Why think of things you do not want? Better think of it like this: I want * to be like this and like that, and when you have a thought of what you don't want * to be, you think: I don't want * to be like this and that. Problem solved. Just don't project attributes you don't want onto your character, or if you really can't help it, project their negation. It won't turn out as anything you don't want it to turn out, unless you really want the opposite. There's nothing to be afraid of.

[Anonymous No.]

I have one other process in my brain already, but they're not as developed as a Tulpa, so they usually don't manifest themselves in my mind.

He/she/it isn't really an imaginary friend. And that's because, while I do like them, they don't like me very much... If I developed them into a Tulpa, I'm sure they'd torment me endlessly.

So, either I'd change enough to raise their opinion of me, or my mind would eventually break into pieces...

I don't think I'd be able to handle it. I think I shouldn't try that...

If I'm going to make a Tulpa, I'll think of something else probably.

[Anonymous No.]

Too much work. Reward doesn't seem interesting enough.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713469
yes, it's called autism

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713584
Can anyone confirm this? I know some people have more than one, but can you work on multiple ones at a time?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713664
So, you have something else better to waste 100 hours on?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713636
You don't understand... obsessive thoughts don't go away easily. It's very hard to trick myself the way you describe.
The more scared I get the harder they're to control, it escalates. If I try to think of a face, I will obsess about a different one that I don't want, precisely because I don't want it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713704
All I was trying to say is that even if you have them, all you have to do is not attribute them to your character, just throw them away or attribute them to something else, so you don't have to worry that your character got unwanted attributes. It would be like 1 + 1 never equals 3, because 1 and + are defined in a specific way which can only give one possible result.

If your character is defined as "loving and caring", you don't have to worry about attributes that contradict that. Either you match those attributes to something else, ignore them entirely or match their negation to your character.
If A is defined as having attributes B and C, then A does not have attribute ~B or ~C. Just your standard classical logic here. If you think A has ~B or ~C, then maybe what you're thinking of isn't A at all, and you don't have to give it any attention at all as you only care about A and not something else.

/autism

[Anonymous No.]

I've actually tried to create a Tulpa a little while back, for about a week or so. I had the ambient, the silence, the place inside my head I would dedicate to it, and a basic image. Every day I would go back and talk to it a little. I wouldn't have it respond, but every day I would end our sessions with "please think it over".

Eventually, at the end of the first week, I realized I had the perfect conditions, except for the focus. Since I'm a very reminiscing person, more often than not, I find myself wondering out in thoughts and past memories instead of focusing on talking to my Tulpa. Eventually, I just decided to shut it down before it even started to begin.

I actually had a base form to it, a girl wearing a male suit and no shoes. I came up to her and said it wasn't really working. Then I asked her if she would hate me if I stopped coming to see her.

Of course, she didn't answer. But before I left, I asked her; "It's okay, you don't have to answer right now, please think it over".

One day, I want to get back into it, when I learn how to focus better on the things I'm doing. The sad thing is that by the end of the first week, she would actually smile at the mundane things I would chat with her. Or maybe it was just me imagining everything and wanting it to be that way.

[Anonymous No.]

I've actually tried to create a Tulpa a little while back, for about a week or so. I had the ambient, the silence, the place inside my head I would dedicate to it, and a basic image. Every day I would go back and talk to it a little. I wouldn't have it respond, but every day I would end our sessions with "please think it over".

Eventually, at the end of the first week, I realized I had the perfect conditions, except for the focus. Since I'm a very reminiscing person, more often than not, I find myself wondering out in thoughts and past memories instead of focusing on talking to my Tulpa. Eventually, I just decided to shut it down before it even started to begin.

I actually had a base form to it, a girl wearing a male suit and no shoes. I came up to her and said it wasn't really working. Then I asked her if she would hate me if I stopped coming to see her. Of course, she didn't answer. But before I left, I told her; "It's okay, you don't have to answer right now, please think it over".

One day, I want to get back into it, when I learn how to focus better on the things I'm doing. The sad thing is that by the end of the first week, she would actually smile at the mundane things I would chat with her. Or maybe it was just me imagining everything and wanting it to be that way.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713784
She was smiling, Anon.

She's waiting for you to return.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713784
You did it too quickly. It requires mannnnny hours of focus for you to do it correctly. It's only simple in theory, actually doing it is way harder than it seems. Read FAQ_MANLY's guide at the top and you will be good.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713751

I don't see how that removes the dilemma at all. A may have attributes B and C, and ~A may have attributes ~B and ~C, but we don't know whether anon's emerging tulpa is A or ~A in the first place, so knowing what A is defined as alone won't help.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713751
what if my tulpa dislikes the law of excluded middle since it's shit?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713902
Let me put it this way. Tulpas are so fucking hard to make, one mistake won't affect them at all in the grand scheme of things. If you fuck up 50% of the time, then its something to worry about, but if you go "What if my character has cowtits instead of a flat-chest?" once, then it won't ever happen. It's like working about a drop of blood in an ocean of water, it won't matter. If you absolutely under no conditions can keep a straight thought going then give up.

[Anonymous No.]

You're mistaken, I'm not completely insane, I only have autism.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713927
>He isn't completely insane

Casual.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713918

Or, they can like the law of the excluded middle, and have both attributes at different times, but not both at once. They can be loving at one moment and absolutely hateful at another.

Or, they can have a chest that morphs from flat to cowtits from time to time.

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

You guys understand this is a copy pasta from /x/?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713895
Maybe it's not for me, then. I already find it incredibly tedious to sit in a half-lotus and try to focus for more than 20 minutes. I imagine attempting it for many hours is only for the hardcore lonelies.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713982
Yes.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713902
All he has to do is focus on A and not focus on ~A. If he mostly focuses on A, then he'll get A. It's supposed to take a lot of mental effort.
>>8713918
As long as you and your tulpa aren't absolute magical thinkers, it should still work mostly okay. Many logics should work just fine, even intuitionist or constructivist ones, or various uncertainty/probabilistic logics. Basically as long as the thought has SOME structure it would likely be fine.

If I was completely serious, I can see magical thinkers being able to do it just as well, but then the character might not be as stable and more prone to random changes.

>>8713934
I like your ideas, but would you really want a tulpa who turns into something you might not like? Having a strained relationship between internal mental constructs doesn't seem too pleasant or healthy, but people should be free to do whatever they want...

[Anonymous No.]

>>8712977
Already done.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713982
Go back to your idol threads if you're not interested in the discussion.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713982
So what? All that matters is if the ideas are valid or not. This seems to be a recipe for causing one real psychological phenomenon that most of /jp/ would be interested in. You don't seem to like it, so you should just ignore the thread instead of trying to stir shit up (such as 2D vs 3D), better yet, stay in the idol threads and let the rest of /jp/ alone if you can.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714002
How is it? More details!

[Anonymous No.]

>Don't make one for sex

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713986
If you're simply worried that you might be wasting your time doing this, think about it; you won't be dying tomorrow, or the month or year after that. What if you dedicate some days of your life to simply sitting down and relaxing? You'll get much more effective and satisfactory results!

[Anonymous No.]

I did,

after a while she died though.
I'm sorry Yukari-sama from my mind, but you lacked initiative.

Maybe I'll make another one, one day

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>8714012
np enjoy to troll some new people with it , just post some funny stories later on irc

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714033
Damn. That ruins any real reason to make one.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714033
>testimonies
Haha, as fucking if. Tulpas are bullshit

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714069
>crazy people on /jp/ are bullshit

[Anonymous No.]

wow is this real?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714055
If you have an unstable mind, it might be a bad idea, but it seems other /jp/sies that tried to make waifus didn't have any problems, all that is needed is the right attitude: think of her as someone you love and it's okay, think of her as a sex object and you have a very shallow character and if you have an unstable mind and you just end up very horny all the time.

First thread /jp/ had on this was quite enlightening:
http://archive.foolz.us/jp/thread/8553674/
http://archive.foolz.us/jp/thread/8647487/

[Anonymous No.]

you guys are nutters

[Anonymous No.]

I.. wow.. I felt like I was a schizo for the longest time. I go through this process whenever I create a character for my novels... And as soon as I finish carving them out (which does take a similar process and amount of time to do!) they kind of.. join the party. Wow.. I'm really happy to hear this. I gotta tell my bf about this!

[Anonymous No.]

Important Note:
Is it highly inadvisable to form emotional bonds to your tulpa, it will just make your condition 10x worse.

[[トキ子] No.]

>>8714081
Can you have an imaginary friend if you have enough faith? Yes, definitely.

Is it possible to create an imaginary friend that has its own consciousness? I would think not, since I define consciousness as being memories held by a brain. But that's me.

[Anonymous No.]

Just know that you were warned.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714464
> Is it possible to create an imaginary friend that has its own consciousness? I would think not, since I define consciousness as being memories held by a brain. But that's me.
I'm not so sure. After a long and great deal of thought on the subject of consciousness I've come to consider it as "what it is like to be some abstract structure", which is what we typically call our cognitive architecture, implemented at the neuron level and higher. This awareness can be in time and is of the current events that go on in this structure, while obeying certain self-referential reflective laws, which means that you will behave as if you were the internals of some particular 'self'-structure' and you will report having particular experiences consistent with it. The thing is that we're not entirely conscious of the whole process, but only of the reflective part. What would happen if there were more than one part and they didn't fully share information or if there was some censoring? I do think such inner structures could very well have awareness of their own, but they might not be self-referential in the way that our 'self' is. I don't know if such
imaginary friends" would be capable of doing this or be able to direct attention like we do. I certainly would like to investigate how this all works if I do succeed in making one myself, obviously I won't be able to know if there is any form of phenomenal self like mine if it's not anything transparent like my own conscious stream of thought, but if these mental constructs do happen to obey enough of the same laws and constraints that our self obeys, I might be persuaded that they are aware and thus conscious.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714531
(continued)
Obviously this all depends on your philosophy of mind and if you believe in consciousness at all (some people claim they don't). I don't actually know many such theories where consciousness were your stored memories, instead it's considered to be identified or correlated with current activity in the brain, not with data which is not currently used.

[[トキ子] No.]

>>8714531
Sorry, you're using too many big words, so I can't understand what you're saying.

How can a subset of yourself be different from yourself, in other words?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714542
>That name

You know I love you, right?

[[トキ子] No.]

>>8714554
I'm glad that you do, Anonymous.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714559
I've debated getting a tripcode and name, but each time I've thought of it I decided against it. Anonymity is good enough for me. I'll stop goofing around with tokiko in the tulpa thread, though.

I suck at making tulpas.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714542
> How can a subset of yourself be different from yourself, in other words?
The way I'm looking at it is that the 'self' is an emergent process which runs on your brain. Your consciousness corresponds partially to it and various *processed* sensory and internal data (you don't see the raw input, the raw input is a noisy unrecognizable mess, instead your brain updates changes and constructs high-level models of the world, this is what we *see* internally). Now imagine what it would be like if there was more than one such process? I don't know if these "tulpas" can qualify as they don't exactly have the same functions as our 'self', but it's something worth investigating at least.

Let me put it in a bad analogy: imagine there's this one big database and you're one client. *you* correspond to this one client. What happens if there are 2 clients, is the other client no more real?
Personally, I don't know if this analogy would work because the other client might really not work the same as the other.

[[トキ子] No.]

>>8714568
If the second client and the first both use the same database of memories, instincts, etc, why would they be different?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714574

Are you implying that identity is solely contingent upon memories and instincts?

[[トキ子] No.]

>>8714592
Perhaps not identity, because our identity is how society views our self, but I believe that our soul is memories and instincts.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714598

If your memory/instincts are erased, are you no longer you? Conversely, if I was brainwashed so that my memories and instincts were conditioned as to resemble yours, do I become you?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714574
When there is only one client, he knows everything that is to know about what goes in that database. When there are 2 or more, he might not know, unless there are logs or something.

Not that we even know everything that goes on in our subconscious, that which rises enough to our conscious attention.

Maybe it's really not possible for one client to hide anything from the other client, but in the case of tulpas, from what is explained in these FAQs it seems that they might have the ability to keep secrets from you, which is very strange and unusual.
Putting it differently, we can think consciously and we can speak, these 2 actions are similar, but different. Can a tulpa do the same, or is it merely 2 openly accessible threads of thought?

I've yet to make one myself, so I don't know if this is possible, but I'm really curious to find out. If tulpas can maintain some degree of privacy and they have certain logical properties similar to the self, it might be worth considering giving them similar statuses.

Fuck if I know though, will find out when or if I manage to make one.

[Anonymous No.]

What if we're all someone else's Tulpas??

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714531

>you will behave as if you were the internals of some particular 'self'-structure' and you will report having particular experiences consistent with it

Possibly the most astute and insightful definitions of consciousness I've ever read. Your whole post was a treat - thanks, anon.

[[トキ子] No.]

>>8714604
I would argue that if you were to lose your memories and instincts, you would become a different person. Your body is only the vehicle of the soul.

If your memories and instincts were the same as mine up to some point, you would remember me, but unless your experiences would be identical to mine from that point onward (which is impossible) you would still remain a different person from me.

But again, only my thoughts.

>>8714612
This is exactly why the metaphor of a database does not work. I think that the most important thing we can have to further our understanding of tulpas is to have those who have successfully created tulpas to document their processes and explain their thoughts. I've been working on a tulpa for a month and I'm at the point where I can imagine a girl giving me responses and imagine her moving in the physical plane, but she still does not feel like a distinct person from myself.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714618
Reinventing "God's mind" metaphysics much?

I've actually seen this idea in Charles Stross' Accelerando, when an AI simulates a human's behavior in his own mind in an incredibly accurate manner, it was all very surreal.

This is not really likely for our world because of the sheer data. I would even venture a guess that the simulation hypothesis is false, or if it's true, it has never been changed and CANNOT be changed, but this is really going into philosophy of physics and philosophy of mind a bit too much and derailing the original thread.

[Anonymous No.]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714624
do you have to sage everything, everywhere?
That's abusing the sage function.
Please go attempt to be an elitist somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714624

Ah, but suppose I could take your sensory inputs and remotely channel them into my brain through the same neurons that I would normally receive my sensory inputs from, such that I experience what you are experiencing at every moment.

Would you conclude that both of us are you then?

[[トキ子] No.]

>>8714644
You raise an interesting point! I suppose I will agree with you.

>>8714618
Let's assume that were are other people's tulpas. Now what?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714644
I'm not [トキ子], but I would venture to guess they were different persons unless the internals evolved in the exact same manner. This might not work with physical brains due to quantum mechanical effects still being capable of adding some degree of randomness and uncertainty, but it should work with a perfect simulation of a brain starting from a known state, so if both start from the same state and are fed the same input, I would say, yes they are the same, but if they deviate somewhere, then no.

There's a relevant short story that reminds me of such identity issues with "side-loads" when the input is shared, you might want to read it: Greg Egan's "Learning to Be Me" and "Closer" (part of the Axiomatic collection) .

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714652
I'm locked in a mental prison. I want out, and the escape is to master the master, so I can see what the TRUE reality is.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714638

The bastardization and eventual migration of sage's meaning towards insult is a purely American phenomena. It can also be used as a form of humility, signifying that the poster's contribution was perhaps not meritorious enough to bump the thread to the front page, or perhaps because the comment was off-topic. Probably foreign concepts to Americans (not trying to be an elitist either) due to our cultural norms.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714680
What if your core values are to care for others that you share the resources with? It's not like you wouldn't be able to access the same resources, just that you wouldn't have as much direct control over them.

[Anonymous No.]

I really enjoy this conversation about consciousness, so I'd like to throw in my two-cents about the whole tulpa thing. I'm sure it'll make about as much impact as any other shitpost, so where's the harm?

With regards to the "self," I like to think that an individual is more a collection of selves. When trying to define your own "identity," you're faced with having to consider various influences in many scopes: large-scale (environment, society), small-scale (immediate family, close friends), outside influences (as already mentioned), and inward (emotions, memories).
If you were asked, every year, or every month, even every day, to explain who you were - not just by name, but by traits, by personality - or to describe what makes you unique, your answer would change due to many of the above factors.
I like to think that a person is a collection of all of the answers he/she would give to that question; multiple identities coinciding with one another.

I don't know what my character limit is here, so I'll make a second post to continue...

[[トキ子] No.]

>>8714680
An uncreated reality is just as real as a created one.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714679

My impression of quantum physics is that it is only relevant on the quantum level. Our brains may very well work on a scale much too large for any quantum effects to be meaningful.

>>8714652

Not so fast you may agree. But if you wish, then I will play devil's advocate against myself.

There's nothing logically contradictory in assuming two bodies are the same person, so why reject that outright?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714695

I believe humans, for whatever reason, probably for convenience more than anything, are incapable of experiencing more than a single "self" at a time. In a way, you are only the self you are at the moment you consider your "self."
I'm jumping over a few points here, mostly out of laziness, but to tie it to the thread...
I think that creating a tulpa is a means of allowing ourselves to see, and ultimately, to understand another of these selves. They are projections of yourself, but seem as other people, other consciousnesses, because they are a self that isn't perceived.

Humans are able to view others from so-called "outside perspectives" that give them insight about a person that that person may not have had about him/herself. By doing the same with one's tulpa, they can do a sort of self-reflection while still taking on that "outside perspective."

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714542
It's like hardware virtualization. Have you ever used VMWare/VirtualBox/Virtual PC? Tulpas are the same sort of thing. You're essentially installing software (meditation/visualization process) that allows you to use the physical hardware (brain) to run another abstracted, sand boxed OS (personality) inside your existing host OS (subconscious/physical brain). This shit is so eerily analogous to virtual machines, it's not even funny.

Like running a VM, you are basically splitting the consciousness processing resources into two and using unused mental processing facilities to execute an entirely separate personality independent of the host personality.

The wonderland visualization process is essentially the creation of a hypervisor to properly contain the separate personality thread and run it concurrently with the host.


Also, I think arguing about the "realness" of the resultant personality is mostly just a meaningless debate over semantics. Even if it were "only" self-hypnosis, does that really change the perceived result?
It's like the difference between compatibility layers like WINE, hardware emulators like Bochs and virtualization tools like VMWare. To the end user, they all achieve essentially the same result despite using completely different methods with different degrees of emulation "realness" to do so.

[Anonymous No.]

The guy writing about tulpas around here is someone who doesn't even understand half the stuff himself.

Everyone that needs a tulpa does not need a guide like this anymore. Everyone else that is still interested should just start with their own subconciousness instead.

[Anonymous No.]

How much RAM do humans have and what happens when we crash? Which program takes highest priority?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714701
> My impression of quantum physics is that it is only relevant on the quantum level. Our brains may very well work on a scale much too large for any quantum effects to be meaningful.
I agree, I don't find any quantum theory of consciousness very plausible myself, especially given all the contrary evidence against them. However, quantum effects could result in a synapse being different over there or some other small change may get amplified and result in various other structural changes which may, in due time, result in a different macroscopic evolution of the brain. If this was a perfect simulation of the brain I wouldn't be arguing about this, but as we know, brain's (and most of the rest of the bodies) evolution is quasi-classical, not classical.
I really doubt it would result in changes in consciousness, but it might result in different macroscopic states given enough time and "luck".

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714727
Not exactly RAM, but you could think of the brain as a huge specialized memory system which can predict, compress and decompress information (lossily).
There are about 9*10^10 neurons, each with some 1000-3000 synapses (links between neurons), and these synapses are modifiable (changeable in strength). That's a lot of memory and it all processes in parallel. We still have a decade or more until we could simulate anything of that size in real-time or faster (using neuromorphic hardware).

[Anonymous No.]

>>8714727
We're not digital computers based upon any existing, human created CPU architecture. Who knows?

[Anonymous No.]

So the basic idea is create a character in your mind and think about her intensely for at least three hours a day?

That sounds easy enough.

[None !bwth5x9d7s No.]

>>8714926
>>8714926
not so much '3 hours a day' just however long, i only manage to do an hour or so a day before i start to get breaks in concentration and exhausted.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8716752
I usually do two 30 minutes sessions. Pretty sure a single hour session would be more productive, though.

[Anonymous No.]

Maybe not related to tulpa discussion, but I was thinking about making what it takes to make seperate personalities and in what ways it could be helpful. I already feel like I do a lot of self-conversation and retrospective, so maybe some aspects of this were a little easier for me.
I was feeling a bit down tonight and got ready for bed sooner than later without saying much to my folks. I went upstairs to my room and let my mind drift a bit while laying on my bed and started having self talks. I already do a lot of self talking, but this time I did it with a firm belief that there's an actual active participant in the conversation besides myself. After some chatting and getting things off my chest, I started to immediately feel better and was basically convinced to head on back downstairs and be sociable now that I wasn't feeling burned out. It felt pretty great, just to councel with someone and come out of it feeling charged. I got along with my folks great and am definately feeling a swelling of pride.
I want to look into this more, but there's already potential for this to be something healing. Looking forward to where this could go. Maybe some hikki tendancies could start to subside.

[Anonymous No.]

This thread is still alive.

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>8724666
this thread is being posted on on /b/,/x/,/mlp/,/v/... and even on /hc/ by the same guy
cant you guys see you are getting trolled ?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713118

Say it in red!

[Anonymous No.]

>>8713118

So Beatrice was a Tulpa

[Anonymous No.]

Too much going on in my head for it to be safe to even attempt, and even considering the possibility of failure will cloud my mind if I put any concentration in to it.

This is not something people should be trying, first time I saw one of these threads here worried me.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8725626

I... I refuse.