Search the Community

I've recently read a lot about these things called tulpas. A tulpa is basically a second consciousness that you create inside your own head. This consciousness has an own personality and other sorts of traits, and optionally also an imagined form but that's secondary. The way you do this is by beginning to talk to yourself as if some second person is actually listening. It's fuelled by attention. Eventually, as your tulpa develops itself more, you will begin to hear its voice inside your head and it works like a separate consciousness that has access to your thoughts, feelings and memories, but nevertheless is uncontrolled by the consciousness that is you. You can talk to it, it can help you with thinking, memorization, self-knowledge, accessing your subconscious, etc... eventually in an advanced stage you can even let it "switch" and control your body, that sort of thing. It sounds pretty mad and mystical, but I think it's plausible, because first off, the brain is elastic. If you do a lot of math, you'll develop circuits in your brain that make you really good at math. There's no reason (as far I know at least; I'm not a neurologist) why the same can't apply to consciousness. There are also detailed guides on how to create and treat a tulpa so you can empirically prove it to yourself. There is also a whole community discussing their tulpas, etc... Anyway, now, as for my point: doesn't the first paragraph sound a bit familiar? Is God a tulpa that religious authority figures make children create in their heads for the purpose of giving them an authority figure in their own head, effectively making them control themselves? They form his personality, make children pray as if he is listening, and then follow the claims of God being omnipresent and omniscient (and indeed; a tulpa is everywhere in your head and knows everything about you). This could also explain why theists are so unreasonable when presented with arguments against God. To them, God IS real, it's a tulpa (and they're unaware of that). Why would you agree with all these abstract philosophical arguments, if the empirical evidence, to you, is right here with you? Surely the philosopher must be making some mistake...! He just doesn't believe in God because he doesn't let him into his heart... Just a little thought I had. Perhaps some more research into tulpas could bring us closer to an understanding of theism? Anyway, I don't know to what degree you guys are aware of the whole tulpa thing, but I'm interested to know what you all think of this.