>>17819
>if she isn't actually here, does that mean the few weeks we spent and experienced together were all just an illusion?
It really depends on what you mean by "illusion".
Is it all in your head? yes, obviously.
Is it real? yes, obviously.
Is it different from interacting with a wholly separate person? yes, obviously.
I think if any part of it is illusion for you, it's probably that last one. Lots of people just don't look into how it's different, and come in with a bunch of assumptions about how it should feel based on interacting with separate people. When those assumptions are challenged without conscious awareness of them, it just feels vaguely fake and wrong, rather than an evidential challenge to a specific belief that you can then account for. She IS actually there, and it IS all similar to roleplaying.
>Am I overthinking this and blurring the line between parroting and her natural response, where what I consider to be artificial roleplay is actually her natural response that you were meant to listen for?
Yes. There is no difference whatsoever between parroting and real responses of a tulpa. Searching for a difference is driving a wedge into your immersion for no benefit. You are blurring the line, but on the other side of the line there isn't a definite thing called "parroting", it's just a vague cloud of unknowns that make you anxious. If you find a difference, it's only a difference that you accidentally created by searching.
>at least for now, all her responses are simply me roleplaying with myself
You have the wrong idea. It's never not 'roleplaying with yourself'. It's also never not a profound connection between two beings that are sub-parts of a mind. Of course, it's also not quite the same as roleplaying, but it has enough in common that it's way more descriptive to call it roleplaying + secret spice than it is to call it something else entirely. The thing is that the two perspectives of "just me playing with myself" and "me and fluttershy hanging out" are both simultaneously true, they are parallel perspectives - "me" refers to the mind as a whole as well as the mind's model of itself. You (the concept) and fluttershy are separate like two branches on a tree, separate up top but the same being at the bottom, where You are just the mind that contains you and your tulpa.
In general it seems like you're kinda stuck on the idea of development, but you really don't have to be. There's not a special point that you have to charge towards before you can have fun, it goes much more smoothly if you relax into it and enjoy what you've got. Your relationship with your tulpa is the most important thing, development comes naturally out of that - hence the people who have accidental tulpas from just fantasizing about their waifus.
Any guide that suggests that "for now" your tulpa is not valid, and at some certain point or judging by some certain sign, they will be valid - those guides are garbage of purely historical value. Buzzwords such as "sentience" or "independence" or "parroting" are all undefined (because they hinge on the unprovable phenomenon of parallel processing/separate consciousness), and as a result of that vagueness they are never useful, they serve ONLY as a sticking point for people to get confused and anxious about. The old-school fags only repeat them in guides because it's how they were taught.
I'm not sure if you've picked up on this but what I'm teaching is quite a different paradigm from what you'll generally find out there. If the stuff I'm talking about makes more sense to you, then try scrolling through this thread when you're in a guide-reading mood, seriously.
>>17818
I don't think anybody's too autistic for tulpas, though tulpamancy might involve stretching those capacities a bit. If not predicting your friends or family members, then you can at least predict your waifu's behavior - meaning you already have a model of her in your head, so you can just talk to her. If you can write a story with her then you can interact directly with her as in tulpamancy.