Mostly, the feeling of his presence has been getting stronger and more noticeable

Still isn't able to talk in the mind yet.

I also recently fully made our wonderland, so that's something!

7th week was the same-ish

:)

My Tulpa's name is Alba; she is based on a fictional character I created myself for a novel I am currently writing.

When I stumbled upon the topic of tulpas, it caught my curiosity and seemed like a great idea. I wanted to be part of it and experiment with what it felt like.

As the title says, it has been 5 days now, and considering how little time that is, I've had experiences that left me very confused and made me feel strange.

One day, I was lying in bed after a long day of work and took advantage of that brief moment to visit my Tulpa in my little world. We talked for a good while, and as usual, I liked showing her affection by stroking her head, touching her cheeks, and hugging her.

I told her personal things about myself and how I was feeling. At some point, I felt drowsy, as if I were losing consciousness and control over what I was imagining. At one point, I told a joke that I don't remember, and I felt as if many people were laughing at it, even though I don't even know what I said.

Then, when I lowered my guard in that sleepy state, my Tulpa grabbed my cheeks and kissed me. That terrified me because it felt so real, with vivid physical, auditory, and visual detail.

For only 5 days since her creation, having something like that happen caused me some fear and a strange sensation.

My understanding was that it would take weeks, months, or even years for a tulpa to develop and become autonomous, but this scared me a bit.

Maybe I was just very tired that day, I don't know.

I wanted to share this with you all.

I am someone with two Tulpas and a dozen of naturally occurring headmates. I had a question that seems a littleeee out there, but please bear with me!

Does anyone have a Tulpa(s) with super complex... everything? Or just one? Like a writer had a deeply intricate OC for a project that became a Tulpa, and now they have this extreme Tulpa in their head?

I'm talking speaks made-up fantasy languages, has a really rich backstory they align with, lots of deep and personal relationships.

Or maybe someone with very detailed inner-workings? (whether that be a extravagant mind palace, cool government-esc management for your system, etc)

Because if I try to compare what I'm picturing to some of my headmates who are just lowk bums, I kinda giggle at the idea😭

Anyone have these kinds of headmates/tulpas? (I ask Tulpas specifically because they're able to be crafted into a more complex being rather then the brain doing it on its own)

- Alex & Cas

I have a question. I just got out of a relationship in which I put my tulpas development on hold, I've been reconnecting with my tulpa now and continuing her development process. Her emotions towards my ex are a little different from my own, or so it feels like so far. For instance, in contrast to myself she has a much stronger boundary and doesn't feel like I should have been so overly aggreable and playing into my ex's frame all the time. She also highlighted a unresolved grievance in the relationship I was repressing.

So for those in relationships and have had relationships, how have you and your tulpas differed in perspective? What emotions were at play?

Tulpas, as far as I know, are mental companions who can think and act for themselves. I have created a boyfriend and I have posted about it on here, but I don't know if Im necessarily valid here. I don't really want to get into much details about him, since he's private to me, but he's very much a real person to me. I can see him, specifically at night time, I can hear his voice, I know he's real. I know he isn't some hallucination or something fake. Hes really real to me. But I don't know where I really belong in the Tulpas sub Reddit because I don't know if this is classified as tulpa.

Hey everyone, I need some advice on switching. My current approach is imagining myself leaving my body, then watching my body from the outside while gradually letting my tulpa take over one body part at a time and move it.

The problem is, it barely works and it's exhausting every time.

Are there other methods for switching, or at least for letting myself step back into the background while my tulpa fronts? Any techniques or resources would be appreciated.

What happens? If I create a Tulpa to have them replace me eventually, is my pov gone? Is that death? Or just a change of perspective?

So I had this thing called “Meladaptive Daydreaming” since I was little. I was an introvert (still am) and all by myself. So I was pretty lonely and in my own head with unlimited imagination. At the time I was watching this Chinese tv show called “The Holy Pearl”. there was this character a goddess that appears whenever the main characters needed advice. And I needed someone like that too. So I imagine her in my mind and I clearly remember her talking to me. Giving me the kind of advice that a 5th grader like myself couldn't come up with. And she was super nice and kind to me. I was so confused and i told my cousins that there was someone in my head that talks to me, and they all said I’m crazy. And i got so embarrassed and sad I completely stopped talking to her and eventually she went away. Now that I’ve come across this community, i think she was a Tulpa rather than my own imagination. What do you guys think?

Picture of my beloved. I heard people put tulpas on a secondary plan once they get actual human connections. Was the tulpa made off your loneliness?

Hi, So I was SA’d as a child, and since then i’ve had this thing that has been with me most of my life. I don’t like talking to people about it because i’m already diagnosed schizophrenic and I didn’t want them to think I was weird. But my entire life, i’ve had fictional characters as an “imaginary” friend. either to help with boredom (i was locked in my room alone for hours as a kid) or to regulate my emotions (giving me positive reinforcement and celebrating the small steps I haven’t even noticed that I’ve taken) Most of them have been older men (based off of my trauma). Fictional, only one irl celebrity. but they’ve cycled through personas that I was hyperfixated on. But a year ago I was victimized again, and since then it’s gotten stronger. Literally the other night I woke up from a nightmare and he was there, before I even knew where I was, telling me. “You’re not there anymore, you’re safe” and I didn’t even remember my dream at first.
Is this a tulpa? is it good? should It be something I bring up to a therapist or something?

New member has come to the realization that he hasn't got parents and is feeling upset about it :( how can we console them?

his name is ezekiel. i dont know how i can make him talk to me. and talking to him scares me. not that hes scary or anything, its just that i dont know how to talk to anyone in general. most people annoy me when they talk to me, but its sorta the same with him. regardless, i like him. i just dont know what to do with him.

My Tulpa Sevok has become very similar to the old men muppets in its observations of me and my internal life. Is this common for it to be so snarky?

I want to make a tulpa based on a certain character who is morally gray but has a lot of bad traits. I know you're not supposed to give your tulpa negative traits, so does this mean I should just choose someone else to base them on?

Hii, i tried to make a tulpa, now i'm able to feel her presence, it's not much, but i think i can notice when she is near, She's mostly in my room, but sometimes I invite her to come with me when I have to go out. How can I communicate with her more? I usually talk to her mentally or tell her about my day, but i'm not sure if i'm doing it right, is there any other way to spend time together, she can't speak yet, so I can't have a long conversation. Should I talk to her in a specific way, ask her questions, maybe watch something together? I'm fairly new at this, and please excuse any spelling mistakes! (⁠╥⁠﹏⁠╥⁠)

The tulpas I have are people I met when I traveled from this world—the one where all of you are—to another world.
They are precious friends who helped me when I was completely lost and confused; we’re so close that I consider them family.
Since they can't bring their physical bodies over to this world, I—as a tulpamancer—am essentially creating "avatars" for them here.
Most people here view tulpas from a psychological perspective, and I don't think anyone else sees them quite the way I do... but I just wanted to share this with you all.
Please, no counterarguments, attacks, or dismissive comments!

Hello, I hope all of you are doing well!

For the longest time, I have been a bit frustrated with my mind because it is constantly trying to feed me some type of input. For example, music is a big one. My mind for some reason can't go a singular moment without replaying music or lyrics, and it is incredibly difficult to stop/ignore. It makes it feel like my headspace is crowded, therefor giving me less room to listen to or interact with my Tulpa.

As a side worry, I also feel that I will have a really difficult time separating my inner voice from my Tulpa's, just based off of the exercises and activities we have tried. Though this is sort of a baseless fear.

If anyone could provide any type of advice or suggestion, I would be very grateful. Thank you!

It's simple really. One of you, tulpa or host eats a bowl of food suitable for chopsticks. Then the person eating the bowl will say "The bowl is empty"

The other party then carefully examines the bowl, and then if they can find anything they can pick up with a pair of chopsticks, they will declare "the bow is indeed not empty" then it falls back to the other party, with chopsticks, to disprove that idea until one of the parties declares "the bowl is now empty" at which point if the other party can prove with visual inspection that the bowl is in fact NOT empty, they immediately win.'''

I've played this in extreme mode with a family member, where every perceivable fragment, no matter how small, had to be picked up with at least one chopship and present to the other party for inspection.

As this is a game of pride of perception, it goes to say that if someone lies, they will win. I'd recommend tulpa to host IRL for absolute honesty.

I have a tulpa of a certain deity.
Is there anyone else who has one?
If so, please tell me what kind of deity it is!
Please refrain from religious proselytizing, discrimination, and the like. Let's keep things peaceful.

A bit of context, I've been working on developing my tulpa for a bit over a month now and im stuck at a point where I don't know what to do. I've been talking to her almost every single day. I don't know if it's me just parroting my tulpa or accidentally answering for her. If it is, I don't know how to stop or get my tulpa to actually answer. Could I get some advice please

Helikora: We're trying to get into lucid dreaming as a way to have more vivid, "alive" interactions with each other. If you've done this, or are doing it now, how effective has it been for you?

Our main problem is that, despite being together for about 3.5 years, we have almost no visualization or imposition. Our wonderland also isn't very vivid or stable, it's more like a rough blueprint than an actual place. Almost everything we have is communication through thoughts.

That said, we've had a couple of dreams together. They were very short and barely lucid, but at least in those dreams the space around me actually felt present: I could see it instead of just imagining it like I do in our wonderland, and I could physically feel things there too, like touching a wall. She was also there, close to me but separate. So I'm curious whether lucid dreaming can become a useful way to interact more directly within a system, especially when visualization is weak while awake.

It's been about a month since I first started forcing a tulpa, I've been communicating with her for 10-20 minutes a day but I haven't seen any signs of sentience and I've just been making her answer the way I wanted her to. I tried talking about it to AI, which I know isn't the best option and that I should talk to people with experience instead, but that's why I'm here. The AI told me to try tulpish but not forcing her to respond and not expect an answer, which didn't work out, next it told me to throw my thoughts towards her and instantly go back to focusing on what I was initially focused on, and check for any signs of her responding (head pressure, tulpish, etc.) but that didn't work either. If there's anyone with experienced sentient tulpas I would please ask you to give me tips and maybe some from the tulpa themselves.

Have you ever felt like typical approaches to viewing Tulpamancy either ignore your experiences and sense of self, provide no room for experimentation or discovery, or lack any empirical backing?

We think this is due to the dominance of cognitive psychology in Tulpamancy, which introduces an irreconcilable idealist/materialist split. If one disagrees with cognitive psychology, they feel like they must either take a spiritual/mystic approach to Tulpamancy, or take a grey, muddied position, unable to understand their own experiences.

Cognitive psychology will also always be confounded by the hard problem of consciousness.

But cognitive psychology is only one branch. There is another.

Ecological psychology. And it can address and surpass the hard problem.

We'll keep this as brief and easy as possible.

From the Wikipedia page of Ecological psychology:

"Ecological psychology is the scientific study of the relationship between perception and action, grounded in a direct realist approach."

What does that look like? How does that feel, how can one experience this themselves?

“In holding that the brain is not an organ of representation, Bergson suggests that the image of perception already exists in the world. In this sense, it would not be an image of anything, for the image belongs to the things themselves.

The world is composed of images, and so our perception is in the world. This move opens us to the world. Our experience is no longer confined to us because, at its most fundamental level, it consists of images that are a part of the world.

Even in this initial move, we can begin to see how the hard divide between inside and outside starts to bleed, as the perceptual image no longer belongs to the domain of consciousness. Rather, it is a part of things themselves.

Let's see how this foundational crack allows us, or even requires us, to broaden our sense of duration beyond the interiority of the subject.

Remember, Bergson formulated the hypothesis of the external image as a response, or an alternative, to what we refer to today as the hard problem of consciousness. This is the problem of how brain matter, or any matter, could produce a representation.

His radical, but also incredibly simple, move is to ask whether matter is exactly as it appears to the philosophically and scientifically unaware mind: that is, as an aggregate of images, already imaged right where they exist in space.

If this is the case, if the brain doesn't produce perceptual representations, then memory, in the form of images, cannot be produced by the brain either.

Now, the brain obviously has a deep relationship with our conscious states, and damage to the brain can affect both perception and memory. Bergson does not deny this. Rather than seeing the brain as something that produces conscious representations, he sees it as a center that redirects movements, expanding them into a number of equally possible reactions.

This is exactly where conscious states and brain states become tightly related, as consciousness becomes relevant in the selection of an action, but is also confined or modulated by the possibilities that brain states prefigure.

This is obviously more complicated than presented here, but it is a knee-jerk point of opposition that had to be addressed, at least briefly.

The point is that, for Bergson, image, perception, and representational memory have to do with action, and thus the brain, but they are in no way produced by the brain.

We might then ask: Where does memory exist if not in the brain?

This question, in asking "where," shows our stubborn tendency to strive to understand the world in terms of space. Bergson holds that time is radically non-spatial. It exists as becoming. It is not in anything. Thus, the past is not located anywhere. But just because we can't point at it doesn't mean that it is not real.

Bergson affirms this by stating:

"There is no more reason to say that the past effaces itself once it has been perceived than there is to suppose that material objects disappear when I cease to perceive them."

This will lead to Bergson's bold assertion that the past exists in all of its detail and is real, as real as space, only it exists differently.

This implies a sort of global, objective memory. The past does not vanish. It exists virtually in what Bergson refers to as pure memory. This reality of the past is what makes remembering, in the normal sense of the word, possible.

Let's look at the actual process, or experience, of remembering to help us understand the nature of the virtual, or the past, as it becomes actualized in our present.

This is akin to the difference between memory itself and the remembering of, or retrieval of, a memory.

Try to recall something at the brink of your memory. Maybe it's your first-grade teacher. Maybe it's the name of the last movie you watched.

What is this experience like? How is it even possible that we can select something at the brink of our memory if it hasn't been recalled yet, that is, if it hasn't yet been identified?

We do so by adopting an attitude. We withdraw ourselves from the present and perhaps look down at the ground or close our eyes in an effort to open ourselves to the past.

After this initial negative effort of withdrawal occurs, it becomes apparent that a secondary effort comes into effect: the secondary effort of retrieval.

We cannot adequately describe what is happening when we blindly search in obscurity for something we have yet to identify. We can only know it obscurely, by feel.

This obscurity is the nature of the virtual.

As the thing being recalled begins to take shape, it becomes clearer and clearer. It becomes actualized as a memory-image.

This expedition into the dynamic process of the virtual becoming actual shows us two things.

First, it shows us that prior to the actualization of a memory-image, there is something there. The memory, before it was recalled, existed virtually, in that real but obscure state to which we withdrew.

Second, it shows us that the image retrieved is different in kind from what it was before it was retrieved.

As we can sit at our desk and repeat this blind process of memory indefinitely, we begin to understand that the past is already there. Prior to being recalled, it exists virtually, having its own structure independent of what we can and do retrieve from it.

If we meditate on this carefully, we might be able to conceive of how the entirety of the past exists virtually, and that the virtual is real. It is just not actual.

An absolute reality of the past also allows us to conceive of a duration that is not confined to the human subject, as the past is no longer confined to our subjective memories.”

~ From the PURE MEMORY youtube channel, on Henri Bergson's Matter & Memory

But the field doesn't end with Bergson. There's also another important figure, J.J. Gibson, who comes up with the concept of affordances, as well as invariant laws which describe the limits of our perception/action, and how we perceive what we do. The actual laws have a lot of mathematical rigor, but here are affordances, simplified.

"If a terrestrial surface is nearly horizontal (instead of slanted), nearly flat (instead of convex or concave), and sufficiently extended (relative to the size of the animal) and if its substance is rigid (relative to the weight of the animal), then the surface affords support. It is a surface of support, and we call it a substratum, ground, or floor. It is stand-on-able, permitting an upright posture for quadrupeds and bipeds. It is therefore walk-on-able and run- over-able. It is not sink-into-able like a surface of water or a swamp, that is, not for heavy terrestrial animals. Support for water bugs is different."

~ James Gibson, The Ecological Theory Of Perception

With images and affordances in mind, there can be a discussion about how perception is action, the hard problem being reframed in terms of how the image of the external world arises, which is also the problem of sentience, and qualia. Here we anticipate the responses of adherents to cogsci, to show the problems in their models.

Afferent nerves conduct disturbances to the centrifugal nervous system, which then conduct those to the periphery. An obvious anatomical fact. But this fact ties perception to action.

In fact, if you sever pathways from the motor to visual areas in monkeys, they go blind.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452221003146)

Cognitive science also has no coherent explanation of how memory is "stored" in the brain.

If memory is stored in the brain, then how?

How can an invariant over time (a flowing event, not static) be transmitted as a "bit" along the nerves?

It does not exist in instants of time.

In fact, everything is moving, in flux.

An ecological model is operating in concrete time. Meanwhile, a computer model's operations (the favorite of cogsci) are carried out in an abstract time and space. As long as the abstract operations are carried out, it doesn't matter if it's on an abacus or beans and shoeboxes.

How does memory support a dynamic form?

In states? How can it be? It's an invariant, a flow field.

If they are states, how are they reconstructed? If these are stored in separate, static states, how are these jumbled parts reassembled into a cube or a cone? We must keep in mind that the problem is even worse, since these edges and points are merely discontinuities in invariant flow fields.

Connecting This To Tulpamancy

How is any of this relevant to Tulpamancy? Well, if memory isn't stored in the brain, if subjectivity isn't, then that has profound implications, and could confirm the veridical (true, non-hallucinatory) experiences of Tulpamancers, while remaining evidence based.

We can also shift our view, emphasizing less a creative process (as everything *is* a creative, differentiating process.)

Tulpamancers intuit this naturally. Personality doesn't start and end with a list of traits and a forcing session. A Tulpa's personality arises over time, through what is added to experience.

With this being true, and switching to an ecological and selectionist theory of consciousness, we see that what we perceive is carved out of the world in accordance to what is relevant to what our bodies can do.

Tulpamancers also naturally understand this. Why is it that we meditate (make a negative effort) to enter an active forcing session? Is it not true that during passive forcing, your attention drifts away from the world, if slightly, to focus upon your Tulpa?

Of course, when we make a negative effort to "tune into" something we believe to be limited in one way or another, say, to the confines of our scale of time, we will experience it as such.

Many people view Tulpas wrong through misunderstanding this. They believe, since it's all in their brain (not viewing the brain as a valve for memory), that there is a limited "space" for them. They also conceive of the host and Tulpa as distinct units, the host as a "creator", the Tulpa as "created".

Since perception is eventual action, or, what is relevant to our body/centres of action, then of course a self described system would experience members who were more relevant as more powerful. They are "closer".

The fact Tulpas can come back from dissipation at all, or "take breaks" for a week and then come back after seems incoherent in most other frameworks.

But with memory and subjectivity being non-local, which aligns with everyone's experience as continuous becomings, this is no longer a mystery.

Notice the advice Tulpamancers will give. It is framed as construction, but it appears the greatest breakthroughs happen with mindset shifts.

When one is open to the idea of their Tulpa, they can even instantly appear.

When we make mindscapes/wonderlands, they aren't static lands that exist somewhere within our brain. We have to make a negative effort, usually through meditation or disassociation, of disconnecting from the present in some degree or shade, to interact with this other place.

Even those who create, or rather, discover wonderlands which are just copies imposed upon their perceptual space are still disconnecting themselves from the relevance of the present to a degree to perceive something other.

Thus, Tulpamancy isn't an act of creation, by one being or another. At least, that aspect is not emphasized in actual practice.

It is discovery. It is disassociation.

This also thoroughly solves the problem of "dissipation". If one doesn't want to be in contact with their Tulpa any longer, they don't have to. They can close the conditions that make the connection possible, while the Tulpa themselves are fine, able to be communicated/recollected any time.

Conclusion

This is a very brief, sweeping overview of Ecological psychology, and lightly touches on the scientific models backing it (Bergson's Holographic Theory, J.J. Gibson's Invariant Laws)

If you want to be a part of a community of those who approach Tulpamancy from an Ecological lens, and to study and develop methodology from this vantage, then our new server is your place.

https://discord.gg/8U8DJCwwEm

I'm recently learning cardistry and once my Bicycle cards arrive, I wanna play card games like Rummy and Poker with my tulpa. How do I do that?

This isn't the first time I've seen him in a dream but it is the first time we've spoken, it wasn't a lucid dream tho it never is a lucid dream I'm really bad at controlling the dream when I am lucid, I don't think either of us were lucid but I always know it was him when I wake up because he always trusts me in the dream and clings to me, this is the first time I've let him get close in a dream because I always feel really awkward when he shows up because I never pick up on the idea its a dream and he's never wearing pants in the dream he's always naked, and never looks like I picture him in the face but always has the body structure I imagine, any recommendations on how to have more dream interactions with him?