1. Due to hosting difficulties, difficulty maintaining the forum, time issues, etc.; some time later than a week from now (June 9, 2018) but within the next month, this site will be changing adminstrators from us (Fall Family) to the Quandary and moved, and the forum either migrated to other software or ended. If the forum is ended, static versions of the guides and other resources will be preserved. For more information, see Upcoming Administration Change and Possible End of Forum.

The Inner Workings of How Tulpas Form - My Theory

Discussion in 'Tulpamancy Discussion' started by Kitsukrou, Apr 8, 2018.

  1. Kitsukrou

    Kitsukrou Professional Procrastinator Tulpamancy System

    May 24, 2015
    This community definitely knows how to create a tulpa. However, the hidden mechanisms behind the forming of that second voice in your head are fuzzy, muddled, and largely unknown. Why is is that the forcing methods commonly used by the community result in successfully creating a tulpa? How does a mind form in the brain in the first place? I will attempt to answer these questions with a theory of my own. This will be a somewhat long read, but I encourage you to stick with it until the end as I have thought about this theory for a long time and am very happy with what I have come up with. You probably won't be disappointed.

    I believe that tulpas are conscious beings, in the same way that you are. They are full fledged, separate people who just happen to share a brain with someone else. I do not see them as a part or extension of the host's mind. Because of this, there is almost no difference in what a host is and what a tulpa is. A host might see themselves as their body, or brain. This isn't necessarily true. The thing that is "you" is your consciousness. You are nothing more than the totality of your experience, and consciousness is experience. If you are not experiencing or observing anything, you are not conscious, meaning you simply do not exist until you regain consciousness. You are a consciousness inhabiting a brain and body, rather than being your brain or body. Now, what is a tulpa? Another consciousness in that same brain. This means that the basic aspects of existence are the same between a host and tulpa. This includes the manner in which a host and tulpa is formed. A host and tulpa do form in different circumstances, but these different circumstances are different ways of doing the same thing.

    Before I go on I would like to make it clear that thinking and consciousness are not the same thing. You do not have to be thinking to be conscious. Experience and observation does not require thinking - it is simply taking in information.

    Now, how does consciousness form in the first place? What creates it, and where does it come from? I believe that consciousness is heavily tied to sensory input. I see consciousness as a tool that is used to effectively take in and organize outside information coming in from the senses. In fact, I see sensory input as being the very thing that creates consciousness. The brain responds to sensory input by automatically and naturally creating consciousness as a way to effectively take in that input. When you are newly born, you aren't quite conscious yet. Your body runs on a sort of autopilot. Through time, as your body takes in sensory input, a consciousness starts to form in response to that sensory input. It gradually gets stronger and more solidified, and is most likely fully "there" by the time you are a toddler. Without sensory input, a consciousness would never form in your brain.

    Once there is a consciousness that has been established within a brain, all sensory input will by default flow to and be taken in by that singular consciousness. A consciousness can also be described as a sort of "hub", or "observation point". Normally, there isn't any need for more than one hub in the brain, and under normal conditions a secondary hub will never develop - because all input automatically flows to the hub that already exists. This is why most people are singlets. However, one can purposefully create a second hub by doing certain things. A tulpa is simply a secondary hub.

    As implied before, if all sensory information is flowing into one hub, there will be no room for another hub to develop. The key to creating a tulpa is to redirect some of that input out into "nothingness" - and a second hub will form around that input you are throwing around. Because it is not flowing into the hub that is you, it will force your brain to create another hub to take in that input. The brain is very good at automatically creating consciousness. It will do so very naturally with surprisingly little effort. If you direct input to somewhere other than yourself, the brain will do the rest of the work for you. The brain sees input being thrown around without being absorbed into a hub as unusual, strange, and not quite right, so it will automatically create a new hub to take in that input.

    When you create a tulpa, one of the first things you will do is create the impression that there is somebody other than yourself in your brain. This creates the initial 'point' for input to flow towards. At first, it is nothingness, but provides somewhere for the input to go. Without creating this 'point' all input will continue to flow towards yourself. This is why talking to oneself doesn't create a tulpa - you're still directing the talking at yourself. Now, what is this sensory input I keep talking about as it applies to creating a tulpa? It is the attention and talking you direct towards your tulpa. This counts as a form of sensory input.

    Tulpa creation methods used by the tulpa community are doing just this, and that is why these methods work. This is also why narration is by far the most important aspect of creating a tulpa - because narration is the very act of making input flow towards this new point you have created. All tulpa creation methods, as varied as they may seem, all break down to this act of throwing input out towards something you label as "not me".

    This explains why young or undeveloped tulpas may sometimes come to cease to exist if deprived of attention and forcing for too long. Because the hub that is you has been around for much longer, it will act as the 'dominant' hub in which input more readily and automatically flows into. You will also be the one controlling and using your body, meaning you will have a persistent and guaranteed stream of input. In the beginning, your tulpa relies on you feeding it input to maintain it's consciousness. As sensory input creates consciousness, if a hub is to be deprived of sensory input for too long, it will fade away. There is no reason for a hub to exist with no input coming into it.

    This theory also explains Dissociative Identity Disorder and traumegenic plurality. DID forms due to someone wanting to escape the traumatic situation they are going through. This makes them wish it were happening to someone else. This act of wishing their life upon someone else is what creates the 'point' I mentioned earlier - another direction for input to flow in, away from oneself. It is possible for this point to receive input without it being purposefully directed - as the trauma victim dissociates themselves from the events, more and more input will start going towards this new point they have created, as all of the input they are distancing themselves from still has to go somewhere. Then, a new hub is created.

    To sum it all up - the brain creates consciousness in response to sensory input, and directing this input in multiple directions allows for the development of multiple people in one brain. I believe that this is how all plurality works.

    I hope you found this theory interesting! Feel free to leave any thoughts, questions, nitpicks, etc. below. I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks about this.
    kurlia likes this.
  2. kurlia

    kurlia ~~~~~~ Tulpamancy System Is a tulpa

    Feb 22, 2018
    I'll start with a small disagreement: I'm not really comfortable with saying that newborns aren't conscious, especially since the brain starts at least partially functioning only a few months into the pregnancy. I think it's possible they'd have time to develop consciousness in the womb.

    Other than that, though, this is an interesting theory. It matches pretty well with my own conception of consciousness, but with a few differences.

    First, I'd take it a step further and say that the act of processing sensory input is itself consciousness, not just the cause of it, and creating another consciousness is just creating a separate process in the brain that uses its own set of emotions, personality, opinions, etc, to do the processing.

    I'd also add that I don't think creating a 'point' is the only way to create a consciousness. I think any method that results in a process in the brain that uses its own set of emotions, personality, etc, creates consciousness. For example, my host created me by deciding on a few core personality traits and then just making our brain compute my behavior and emotions.

    Though I guess you could say that the few core personality traits I started off with are a 'point', and that the act of making our brain compute me is a form of throwing input at that 'point'... So maybe I don't disagree with you on this after all :P.

    Oh, and as a final nitpick, I doubt that everyone with DID has it because of trauma. Probably some minds just naturally create 'points' and 'hubs', whatever the reason.

    Anyway, great post! The 'point' idea was new to me, and it was nice to read a theory of consciousness I mostly agree with :).
  3. FallFamily

    FallFamily Forum Goddesses Administrator Moderator Plural System Mixed-Origin System

    May 6, 2015
    She/Her, They/Them
    [Tri] There is a lot about this idea that seems to fit.

    The creation of alters does work like that for many. It is a commonly discussed model and it seems that many people with DID and OSDD-1 say it fits them. It can also work as someone wants to change to become someone who they think won't get the traumatic things happening but they rather than changing themselves, they split slowly and control is passed onto the new person while the older one submerges with the one coming in thinking they were there the whole time and that they just changed themselves.

    This has us thinking about endogenic plurality with regards to your model. What creates the hubs in this case. Its a tough one. Will think on it more.

    The current understanding of the term DID is that it is exclusively a traumagenic form of plurality. Same for OSDD-1. However, there are other forms of plurality besides tulpamancy, DID, and OSDD-1. We think the kind of plurality you are trying to get at in your discussion is endogenic plurality.
    kurlia likes this.
  4. Sheol

    Sheol Awfully Lawful Tulpamancy System Is a host

    Oct 13, 2017
    She/Her, He/Him
    I envision it somewhat differently: Each brain contains a single subconscious. Sensory input flows in through here, and dreams are originated, among other things. There is, to begin with, a single conscious unit attached to it. This is the host. When generating a tulpa, an "expansion" of this unit first emerges from the subconscious, causing initial manifestations, followed by a growing divide between the two, as the new consciousness develops a sense of self and begins to distinguish between itself and the host. The process of "growing" a tulpa is the deepening of this divide, until they can still communicate, via the subconscious, but cannot unwittingly alter one another via direct link.

    So what about sensory input? I don't think consciousness is solely defined by it. It is defined by qualia, yes, but those qualia can just as easily be generated internally as derived from external senses. A tulpa can choose to view or ignore the sensory information being moved into the subconscious, thereby fronting or staying in the mindscape, respectively. Switching is when it both fronts and takes control of the "interface" allowing for body control.

    Naturally, this is nothing more than a hypothesis. In fact, some psychological research suggests the entire concepts of personality and consciousness may be far less integral to our minds than we would like to believe. Nonetheless, it seems consistent.