I am reminded of an occult practice I have heard of called evoking or assuming a godform, in which one temporarily assumes the role of a 'god' - a personification of some aspect of humanity which is conceived of as having infinite capability in some sphere of activity, often taken from an ancient pantheon to give it personality and depth. With your mind temporarily working in that framework, it 'rubs off' on your everyday activities and you sometimes stop limiting yourself and do things that you wouldnt do before in that sphere of endeavor.

It looks like people trying to intentionally produce personifications with similarities to all sorts of archetypes and minor deities that people have dealt with across history. People have been doing this as long as there have been people, just normally by invoking personifications and archetypes from their culture, not trying to create their own. The saner strands of modern neopagans and occultists acknowledge that these archetypes only exist in the mind but make the point that they have effects in the real world through human action, especially when they are in the minds of many people. You also don't need to hallucinate to use an archetype as a focus for thought about a matter (example: "what would Jesus do?"), and trying to actually get one strong enough to hallucinate during normal consciousness (as opposed to say, dreaming) seems unhealthy.

I can, though, relay an interesting experience I had in unintentionally constructing some kind of similar mental archetype while dreaming that kind of stuck around in my mind for a while. I didn't reach into any pantheon though, my mind reached to a mythology which has had its claws in my psyche since childhood - star trek. Q is always trolling the crew of the Enterprise for humanity's benefit, in attempts to get them to meet their potential and progress in understanding or test them. He was there, and let's just say I was thoroughly trolled in a dream, in ways that emphasized certain capabilities of mine that I was not using. And just before waking up he specifically told me that he would be watching me with my own eyes since he was actully part of me that normally didn't speak. That sense of part of me watching and making sure I actually did what I was capable of stuck around for over a week.

On the topic of religious experiences, I found this bit from the linked tulpa FAQ very interesting:

By talking and fleshing out something to your own subconscious for so long, you start to receive answers from them. The answers will tend to align themselves with all the preconceived traits you give them. The answers you get may surprise you, and in doing so show independent sentience. This sentience can be thought of as the "core" of the tulpa. The rest is just building a form in your mind for them to take, allowing for deviation of that form, and finally trying to visualize the form and experience it in sensory detail in your own environment until it becomes natural and you do it without thinking about it.

That sounds quite strongly like some believers' experience of being able to talk to God and hearing Him answer back would be a manifestation of the same phenomenon. A while back, gwern was pasting excerpts from a book which talked about religious communities where the ability to talk with God was considered a skill that you needed to hone with regular practice. That sounds strongly reminiscent of this: talk to God long enough, and eventually you'll get back an answer - from an emulated mind that aligns itself with the preconceived traits you give it.

That sounds like some serious dedication to internal family systems for someone who is very superstitious.

Ask them if they're utilitarians.

If they say yes, suggest that according to some versions of utilitarianism they may be ethically obligated to mass produce tulpas until they run out of space in their heads.

That sounds like a very practical use to me. Many people are lonely. (I remember reading one thing where wasn't there a guy making a tulpa of MLP's Twilight Sparkle?)

This is incredibly pedantic. (Also rather unjustified, due to my own lack of knowledge regarding occult enthusiasts.) However:

It's interesting that demons in computer science are called that way. They have exactly the same functionality as the demons that occult enthusiasts proclaim to use.

Although daemons in computer science are rather akin to daemons in classical mythology (sort of, kind of, close enough), they really don't particularly resemble our modern conception of demons. I mean, they can totally get a programmer into "Sorcerer's Apprentice"-style shenanigans, but I've never heard of a daemon tempting anyone.

You can always say: "Well, it's just my mind doing something strange." At the same time it's a hard confrontation.

I have previously recommend to friends that alcohol is a moderately good way to develop empathy for those less intelligent than oneself. (That is, it is a good way for those who really cannot comprehend the way other people get confused by certain ideas). I wager that there are a wide array of methods to gain knowledge of some of the stranger confusions the human mind is a capable of. Ignoring chemical means, sleep deprivation is probably the simplest.

Also, congratulations for going through these experiences and retaining (what I assume is) a coherent and rational belief-system. A lot of people would not.

Even if you don't believe in the occult, be aware that out culture has a lot of stories about how summoning demons might be a bad idea.

Isn't this more like, our (human) culture has a ton of instances when "summoning" "demons" is encouraged, and Christianity didn't like it and so ...demonized...it?

I think tulpas are more like schizophrenia than dissociative identity disorder. But now that you mention it, dissociative identity disorder does look like fertile ground for finding more munchkinly ideas.

For instance, at least one person I know has admitted to mentally pretending to be another person I know in order to be more extroverted. Maybe this could be combined with tulpas, say by visualizing/hallucinating that you're being possessed by a tulpa.

I really doubt that tulpas have much to do with DID, or with anything dangerous for that matter. Based on my admittedly anecdotal experience, a milder version of having them is at least somewhat common among writers and role-players, who say that they're able to talk to the fictional characters they've created. The people in question seem... well, as sane as you get when talking about strongly creative people. An even milder version, where the character you're writing or role-playing just takes a life of their own and acts in a completely unanticipated manner, but one that's consistent with their personality, is even more common, and I've personally experienced it many times. Once the character is well-formed enough, it just feels "wrong" to make them act in some particular manner that goes against their personality, and if you force them to do it anyway you'll feel bad and guilty afterwards.

I would presume that tulpas are nothing but our normal person-emulation circuitry acting somewhat more strongly than usual. You know those situations where you can guess what your friend would say in response to some comment, or when you feel guilty about doing something that somebody important to you would disapprove of? Same principle, quite probably.

As someone who both successfully experimented with tulpa creation in his youth, and who has since developed various mental disorders (mostly neuroticisms involving power- and status-mediated social realities), I would strongly second this warning. Correlation isn't causation, of course, but at the very least I've learned to adjust my priors upwards regarding the idea that Crowley-style magickal experimentation can be psychologically damaging.

Technically, making tulpa would be considered DDNOS, except that the new definition exempts shamanistic practices. Making tulpa is a shamanistic meditation technique practiced in Tibet for the purposes of self-discovery. It takes years of focused practice and concentration, but self-hypnosis can help some.

This modern resurgence of tulpas seems to be trying to find faster ways to make them, with less then years of effort. The evidence for success in this is so far anecdotal. I would advise caution - this is not something that would suit everyone.

I have made tulpas in the past. I've some that are decades old. I will say that seems to be rare so far. Also, in my observation, tulpas become odd after decades, acquiring just as many quirks as most humans have. I personally don't think that there is as much risk of insanity as people think, but I would err on the side of caution myself.

What would you estimate the cost/benefit ratio to be, and what variables do you think are most relevant?

Say you want to write a story - can you offload the idea to your tulpa, entertain yourself for a few hours, then ask them to dictate to you the story, now fully fleshed-out? Can you give them control of your body so they can write it themselves?

I have a bunch of LW relevant question I'd like to ask a tulpa, especially one of a LWer that's likely to be familiar with the concepts already:

Do you see yourself as non human?

Would you want to be more or less humanlike than you currently are?

What do you think about the possibility that your values might differ enough from human ones that many here might refer to you as Unfriendly?

Does being already bodiless and created give you different views of things like uploading and copies than your host?

I'll probably have more questions after getting the answer to these and/or in realtime conversation not in a public place. Also, getting thee answers from as many different tulpae as possible would be the best.

Edit: I also have some private questions for someone who's decently knowledgeable about them in general (have several, has been in the community for a long time).

...just to be clear on this, you have a persistent hallucination who follows you around and offers you rationality advice and points out fallacies in your thinking?

If I ever go insane, I hope it's like this.

Is there a headspace, as well?

Would Vigil want to post under his own nick? If so, better register it while still available.

...many people argue for (their) god by pointing out that they are often "feeling his presence" and since many claim to speak with him as well, maybe that's really just one form of tupla without the insight that it is actually a hallucination.

Surely that's not how most people experience belief, but I never really considered that some of them might actually carry around a vivid invisible (or visible for all I know) hallucination quite like that. Could explain why some of the really batshit crazy ones going on about how god constantly speaks to them manage to be quite so convincing.

From now on my two tulpa buddies will be Eliezer and an artificial intelligence engaged in constant conversation while I make toast, love, and take a shower. Too bad they'll never be smarter than me though.

It's a waste of time at best, and inducing psychosis at worst. (Waste of time because the "tulpa" - your hallucination - has access to the same data repository you use, and doesn't run on a different frontal cortex. You can teach yourself the right habits without also teaching yourself to become mentally ill.)

You know what it's called when you hear voices giving you "advice"? Paranoid schizophrenia. Outright visual hallucinations?

What's next, using magic mushrooms to speed the process? Yes, you can probably teach yourself to become actually insane, but why would you?

I've been wondering if the headaches people report while forming a tulpa are caused by spending more mental energy than normal.

You should get one of the occult enthusiasts to check if Tulpas leave ghosts ;)

More seriously, I suspect the brain is already capable of this sort of thing - dreams, for example - even if it's usually running in the background being your model of the world or somesuch.

I do worry about the ethical implications though -- with what we see with split brain patients, it seems plausible that a tulpa may actually be a separate person.

So, "Votes for tulpas" then! How many of them can you create inside one head?

The next stage would be "Vote for tulpas!".

Getting a tulpa elected as president using the votes of other tulpas would be a real munchkin coup...

I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

I think you may be generalizing from one example here. We're quite happy with just the two of us.Any more would be too crowded for us. I imagine the optimum size depends on the personalities of those involved. I'm not sure I agree about suggesting people avoid this entirely, but I certainly would advise caution.

If domain experts say that the obvious ways to exploit having a tulpa fail, they are probably right.

There are tulpa domain experts?

Domain experts saying that the obvious ways to exploit a phenomenon fail is usually evidence against the existence of said phenomenon.

The most promising idea is to exploit your interpersonal instincts: trick your brain into thinking someone is there. This has benefits for social extraverts

It may also have benefits for people who want to be more comfortable in social situations. For instance, if you used tulpa techniques to hallucinate that a crowd was watching everything you do, public speaking should become a lot easier (after some time). But it would probably be a lot easier to just do Toastmasters or something.

According to an anonymous poster on 4chan:

Pretty much everyone that has them has reported that they do a lot of interesting things that are just plain impossible for a puppet, from memory access (can retrieve a lot of lost memories, or even remember entire books in perfect detail) to reported dream experiences to them joining you in your dreams and have their own experiences.

I proposed a simple experiment to test if the tulpa is its own being: have the tulpa work in parallel with you own some problem, for example, some advanced math. You would be focusing all your attention on something specific thus having no time to work on the problem, while the tulpa does just that. If the tulpa succeeds, you can conclude that it's its own independent mental process separate from your own.

One person who was asked to performed this experiment reported some success that's just not feasible for normal humans. Failure was reported for those that parroted (regular imaginary friend).

I plan on trying this stuff for myself and experimenting, then I will know for sure.

Even if the poster is straight-up lying, this is a clever munchkin use for tulpas and interesting idea for an experiment (although I admit I know practically nothing about the typical performance patterns with that kind of problem-solving).

also, a couple of other points:

• Psychologist T. M. Luhrmann has suggested that tulpas are essentially the same phenomenon as evangelical Christians 'speaking to God'. I can't find any evidence that evangelicals have a higher rate of mental illness than the general population, so I consider that a good sign on the mental health-risks front.

• If you are worried about mental health risks (EDIT: Or the ethics of simulating a consciousness!), then you should probably treat guides to tulpa creation ('forcing') as an information hazard. The techniques are purely psychological and fairly easy to implement; after reading such a guide, I had to struggle to prevent myself from immediately putting it into action.

ETA:

Some prior art on the parallel problem-solving idea. I'd say it fairly well puts to rest that munchkin application. In terms of implications for the mechanics of tulpas, I'd be curious how teams of two physical people would do on those games.