Hello There, Guest! Register

We finally have a discord server

[Misc] Once a Believer, Revisiting
Anonymous
Unregistered

 
#21
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
So now you can make some new super real seeming imaginary friends (tulpas) for fun and companionship, without all the fuss about sentience, existential crisis, and ethical and moral consequences. You will get all the benefits without all the drawbacks! Just treat them nice is all and like they are real, because that is the nice thing to do and good for you.

Welcome to the higher level of tulpamancy wisdom. Congratulations, only the keenest of minds make it out of the delusional "it has to be real" bubble that is part and parcel of common tulpamancy practice.

Well, I have to assume the above is true. I have never successfully made a tulpa. Apparently I fucked up and ended up with an adorable median aspect. In my case "median aspect" is a fancy way to say an incredibly vibrant imaginary friend that I very closely identify with and easily "channel from inside" or method act/roleplay.

...or is she a tulpa?
09-10-2016, 12:25 PM
Reply

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

Linkzelda Offline
>MFW Image Streaming
Registered

Posts: 2,008
Threads: 31
Joined: Oct 2012
All Accounts Posts: 2,066
#22
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
Quilten Wrote:Basically, there's absolutely no way to know wether a tulpa is sentient or not, none. The reason is because (if you subscribe to solipsism, or any varying degree of uncomfirmability of the consciousness of others, which most people do, really, but it doesn't make a difference because regardless of whether everyone but you is a philosophical zombie or just as conscious as you, you're going to act the same because you have no way of confirming either) nobody knows what it's like to know that anything is conscious but themselves.

But, think about it, isn’t it ironic that while we can’t find a way to absolutely know whether a tulpa is sentient, or not, we convince ourselves that we have this unchallenged reigning of our own sentience? On one hand, we have all the assurance to ourselves that we’re sentient, but it seems we can’t see our own consciousness right in front of us when trying to pursue ourselves in treating a tulpa as sentient; almost as if we cannot know our own mind.

Granted, we can’t know the totality of our minds to the point where we can, with a blink of an eye, control subliminal, and unconscious thoughts. And that uncertainty you expressed with not being sure is dependent on philosophical views that cling onto personal assurance of one’s validity in reality, i.e., solipsism. But something like solipsism is easy to debunk if the person takes some time to investigate how we make inferences of sentience.

Because here’s the thing: It’s easy for you to chalk up the experience with tulpas as your subconscious uttering out what a sentient entity could utter, albeit without consciously experiencing it, but you have to question why your subconscious exclusively does that to tulpas, and not you. And I think this categorization in distinction is probably rooted by potential fear of having that unchallenged reigning of self being compromised, or even broken down to metaphorical representations like splits of self, higher self, median aspect, and such; like how others mentioned their own realizations with something like switching for example.

And although we can’t find validity through empirical rooting, I don’t think people are waiting for hard science as the greenlight to validate the things they’re experimenting with because if that were the case, the waiting time would make going to the DMV seem like a cakewalk. Switching, the concept behind it, seems to be, but not the only way, to really test out the question of tulpas being p-zombies, or not.

If one is shifting awareness, and having some part of them that they feel have a continuity in form and identity take control of the body and mind, to chalk up that other half as a p-zombie leads to questions like:
- If a p-zombie can do basic tasks on a day-to-day basis that requires the host to have conscious awareness of, then what’s the point of the host having conscious awareness in the first place?

- Wouldn’t this undermine these same day-to-day task? To feel that at the end of the day, when one is expressing love to another, or trying to help their daughter, or any acts of altruism and reciprocation can be done at a level where there doesn’t need to be a conscious observer….it makes one question why there’s even a thing as ‘conscious’ in the first place.

- Everything we do; if that can be done without conscious awareness, and we’re truly uttering things to emulate sentient beings, there would be no point in the brain needing a continuity of form and self. It’s creating a pseudo-problem, IMO, because it’s distracting one from even having novelty behind their own sentience. As for other minds outside of one’s mind, that’s a different story, but inwardly…it’s just creating a dead-end where a person can’t really know something about themselves without it being undermined as random utterances.


Quote: The only ones I could think of would be that their "lives" we're ending, so a moral consequence, but like I just very lengthily explained, I didn't believe they were sentient, so it's a moot point. I think I covered everything alright. Sorry for the text wall, et cetera.


Again, it’s about the person’s own benchmark of ‘correctness’ of what would be sentience to them. They didn’t meet your criterion, so, it’s only natural to feel confident in this. Though, I would imagine that even if this were the case, this may end up in undermining the potential because the person just didn’t see any incentive to investigate further. And even with that, it still surprises me that people are willing to undermine this, and yet not realize they’re kind of doing a self-referential thing of undermining their sentience. Almost as if to create a tulpa, to them, that one has to ‘go back to the basics;’ like ignoring the mental reservoir and faculties of the mind already there that ‘could’ instantiate sentience, and making the tulpa exclusive from these things rather than all-inclusive.

I don’t know, but hey, I know that each person enjoys the privacy of their own mind however they see fit.



Mistgod Wrote:Welcome to the higher level of tulpamancy wisdom. Congratulations, only the keenest of minds make it out of the delusional "it has to be real" bubble that is part and parcel of common tulpamancy practice.

I'll philosophize to no end to see if this is really 'higher' level. Especially when setting a criterion for inner, subjective experiences seems so hard to do.


(This post was last modified: 09-10-2016, 04:02 PM by Linkzelda.)
09-10-2016, 04:00 PM
Find Reply
tulpa001 Offline
<void>
Registered

Posts: 2,013
Threads: 27
Joined: Aug 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,070
#23
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
I would like to point out two things.

First, I don't believe in the unconfirmability of other intelligences. Why? Because I have been surprised. Not often, but it has happened. Therefore, at least one other mind than mine must exist.

Second, there is a teapot floating out in space. As the number of habitable worlds in the night sky increases, the odds of a teapot ending up in orbit tends to one.


If I could add one thing, I would never demolish a building if I couldn't confirm it was empty, by the reasoning that I can't confirm that it has occupants.

Do you want to know why your forgetting your tulpas does not concern me? They didn't fight back against your decision. I don't think they were ever sentient.

What does concern me, is those people who seem to think not going to prison is where morality comes from. No. People like that don't actually believe in morality.

@Linkzelda: Don't ever change. That post made me feel much better about the nature of my reality.

Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.
09-10-2016, 08:07 PM
Find Reply
Solune Offline
The Pack's consensus
Registered

Posts: 170
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2016
All Accounts Posts: 172
#24
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
(09-09-2016, 11:42 PM)Linkzelda Wrote: I mean, if feeling grief over the death of a loved one gets chalked up as a disease, then okay.

Grieving is not the same as depression. Grieving is a normal, emotional process. Depression... wait for it... is an ILLNESS.
Your ignorance does not constitute an argument.
And again, nihilism wasn't a "phase I grew out of". I chose to take bits and pieces of it with me, and still consider it a completely acceptable philosophy for anybody to fully subscribe to.
It has just as much merit as any other philosophy. The fact that I disagree with parts of it does not invalidate it.
Now that I have attempted to educate you, I'm done with this. Please don't bother responding unless your ego demands it.
In which case I will ignore you, because your attitude pisses me off.

"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." - Carl Sagan
Host: SubCon | Tulpas: Sol, Luna, Alice, Little One, Beast and Solune (me) | Servitors: Odonata, Guardian

09-10-2016, 08:10 PM
Find Reply
tulpa001 Offline
<void>
Registered

Posts: 2,013
Threads: 27
Joined: Aug 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,070
#25
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
Depression is not an illness.

Clinical depression is a condition or disorder, and controversially, an illness. There is also general depression. Grief is a common source of both types of depression.

Nihilism is indeed a philosophy.
> Nihilist1: No it isn't, philosophy doesn't exist. We can know nothing. You're an idiot.
> Nihilist2: No, he isn't. Idiot's don't exist. People don't exist. Thought does not exist.
> Nihilist3: Stop arguing you two. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. It is irrelevant. Nothing is relevant. Everything is pointless.

Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.
09-10-2016, 08:31 PM
Find Reply
Linkzelda Offline
>MFW Image Streaming
Registered

Posts: 2,008
Threads: 31
Joined: Oct 2012
All Accounts Posts: 2,066
#26
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
EDIT: Oh, tulpa001 got to it before I did.

Solune Wrote:Please don't bother responding unless your ego demands it.
In which case I will ignore you, because your attitude pisses me off.
 
You could be focusing on your own conception of my tonality behind this. But you’d be surprised that I wasn’t foaming in my mouth when responding to you. Do you do this for anyone that states an opinion that doesn’t resonate with your own?
 
Also, how does one absolve themselves from their own ego when making a valuation about anything? You actually have a way to separate a part of yourself from this? Because if not, then the statement ‘unless your ego demands it,’ is irrelevant until you show a standard that a person can make objective statements without their subjectivity interfering with it. I will personally be amazed if anyone can find the holy grail in doing this; valuations about someone without valuators
 
 
Quote:Now that I have attempted to educate you, I'm done with this.
I would like some clarification, because your attempt shouldn’t go in vain.
Quote:Grieving is not the same as depression. Grieving is a normal, emotional process. Depression... wait for it... is an ILLNESS.
Your ignorance does not constitute an argument.
 
Even if you tell me that depression is an illness, or a mental condition rather, it doesn’t really negate anything I’ve stated. You treat it as an illness that isn’t grounded on emotional processes. You treat grief as a normal, emotional process. But depression, by definition, are feelings of severe despondency and dejection. And maybe me applying context clues that despondency is a synonym for despair, sadness, misery along with dejection is a synonym for a sad and depressed state.
 
Maybe I’m also too egotistical to cling onto the fact that there’s clinical depression, and another depression caused by a loss, like the analogy with the death of a loved one. You’re making it look as if depression is exclusive to the clinical rooting vs. definition #2.
 
Maybe there’s hard-pounding, empirical evidence that depression is exclusive only to the medical context of it, but a simple link makes me think otherwise; especially if said link makes a clear distinction of clinical depression vs. other forms of depression:
 
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi...q-20057770
Quote:Depression ranges in seriousness from mild, temporary episodes of sadness to severe, persistent depression. Clinical depression is the more severe form of depression, also known as major depression or major depressive disorder. It isn't the same as depression caused by a loss, such as the death of a loved one, or a medical condition, such as a thyroid disorder.
But I need your leadership in this if I’m misinterpreting actual definitions vs. your own definitions that seem to be very restrictive. If this is an egotistical thing that’s preventing me from seeing the bigger picture, I would like more resources other than just what’s going on with your posts.
 
If not, this only solidifies what I stated before that if depression was only chalked up as a disease, then okay. But, it seems it’s not just chalked up as that, so doing a:
 
Quote:Depression... wait for it... is an ILLNESS.
 
Has no ounce of value. Nor is it something that makes everyone go “OMG I BETTER STOP BECAUSE HE SAID SO.” If this ends up with someone bathing in another person's blood, then okay.


(This post was last modified: 09-10-2016, 08:37 PM by Linkzelda.)
09-10-2016, 08:34 PM
Find Reply
Akecalo Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 97
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2014
All Accounts Posts: 105
#27
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
We remember you, Phaneron. Or we remember your posts at least. You were one of a number of posters who convinced me that Maya had a point that it could be a good idea to register here. Of course, you were likely long gone by then.

I am glad that you were able to come to a conclusion about your experience that you are at peace with. I was interested to hear your description of your change of heart. I think that a number of people have experienced a similar process.

I was slightly uncertain of one part of your description. You noted that the sentience of another is an unknowable thing. That we cannot ever experience the sentience of another and cannot conclusively prove that those around us (whether external entity, or tulpa) are sentient (or I suppose sapient). I have mentioned this at length in a number of posts, both here and elsewhere. Probably too much.

I understand therefore that you chose to have the position of not accepting the assertion that it can be proved that a tulpa is sentient, because it cannot be demonstrated to be true. I have argued that this is the rational position on a number of occasions. However, your subsequent action of ceasing tulpamancy and leaving the community seem to me, rather than being a result of a lack of acceptance of the assertion that tulpas are sentient, to be a tacit acceptance of the assertion that they are not.

After all, if one shares a head with another who may or may not be, but cannot be proven to be sentient, they are already there, it would seemingly be more of a positive action to eliminate them than the passive give them the benefit of the doubt. Should you accept the assertion that they are not sentient, then you are assured that there is no harm in eliminating them and saving resources by eliminating them may become a more understandable course of action. However, to do so simply because you have no positive proof of their sentience seems a bit drastic, as by your own admission, we have no positive proof of anyone's sentience. Does your lack of extreme action towards others solely depend on the potential consequences of those actions should they be taken? Or is there another criterion by which you select courses of action?

I do not mean to criticize, I am simply expressing my acknowledgment that I perhaps don't entirely understand your situation. I suppose that I do not identify entirely, because although I cannot positively prove the sentience of my tulpas, giving them the benefit of the doubt seems the thing to do, as they do not take any conscious effort at all for me to maintain their presence. If I don't (consiously) pay any attention to them at all (as has happened very occasionally), they are still present and as strong as ever. So i suppose that our experiences may be sufficiently different as to result in my not quite being sure of your experience from your description.

Nevertheless, I thank you for returning and posting, it is definitely interesting to hear the experiences of someone who has a different understanding of the phenomenon to that commonly encountered in posts by community members.

I appreciated your posts when i first encountered them here, I appreciate your recent posts too. It is fascinating to hear from someone who has reflected upon their time in the community from the perspective of one who no longer considers themselves a part of it.

Also, I would definitely appreciate it if you could look in from time to time to comment on goings on here, as I don't believe your point of view is commonly represented here and the more disparate points of view that are available on a subject, the more likely we are to find wisdom Smile .

Thank you for taking the time to post and update us, I and I am sure many others appreciate it.

Akecalo - Host

Maya - Tulpa

Mara - Tulpa
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2016, 09:57 PM by Akecalo.)
09-10-2016, 09:47 PM
Find Reply
Maya Trueheart Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 8
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2016
All Accounts Posts: 105
#28
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
I get it, I think. You were in a place where it was totally convincing to you, this tulpa thing. Then you weren't. The contrast between the two states of being made it seem that perhaps the activity was a waste of time or resources or whatever. So you resolved the situation in a way that you could live with. Is that close?

I guess it comes down to something like, when that happens you can decide ok, even though it might not be real is it of value to me? Do I get something positive out of it? If you do, does it really matter whether it is objectively real or not?

Another thing to think about is, what is it that makes the experience invalid? Is it because the source of the experience is something that an external person could not directly detect? Did the experience have a positive effect on you? For example, an effect on your emotions perhaps. If it did, well emotions are just chemicals in the brain and body (and our responses to them) right? So they are something that can be measured or observed by an external observer. And they can be observed in the same way regardless of whether the cause of that response was external or internal. So is the internal cause any less valid than the external one if they both result in the same measurable result?

It seems that you have come to a conclusion concerning this question that was right for you. I am glad. Both that you found your resolution and are happy with it, and that you have returned to tell us about it.

I was pleased to hear about your experience, especially as we remember your posts from when I was trying to convince Ake that we should give this place a try. Thank you for returning to update us. I look forward to hearing more, if you have more to tell.
09-10-2016, 10:50 PM
Find Reply
| Eva | Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 39
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,066
#29
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
(09-09-2016, 03:41 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: Nothing substantial. It’s just the usual state of affairs where some people get depressed over the fact that they have to make subjective decisions. Almost to the point of being nihilistic about it, or hopefully coming out of that desert, and reaching towards some existential closure with themselves.

Just going to give a second opinion about this:
 
In relation to this thread, and the opinion Linkzelda gave to the OP of some individuals reacting in a way of almost being nihilistic about it:
 
-          Nihilism isn’t exclusive to just one emotion, or one disposition. Apathy, idleness, suffering, depression (the general definition; not the clinical one that people think is the only definition in the world, and tout ‘ignorance’ to anyone that thinks otherwise).
 
-          The type of scenario with nihilism Linkzelda was referring to was simply a matter of ‘contemplation.’ Nihilism, in context of contemplation, and the emotional level behind it is pretty simple. Nihilism can be like this vacuum, or black hole where the more you get into it, the harder it is to not get sucked up by it. This militant contemplation of meaninglessness obviously can leave one exhausted and robbed of there being meaning in the world, and ultimately, their own lives.
 
-          This contemplation is rooted upon all probable meanings being futile along with coinciding with the lack of there being an ultimate meaning, or ulterior motive behind everything. But, even when it considers all probable scenarios, actually knowing all the meanings in the world while still being constrained by subjectivity is what ends up consuming the person.
 
-          So in relation to the thread, and OP’s contemplation; even if they thought really hard about it, they reacted in a way that it doesn’t seem to matter, or was irrelevant because they chose to make it irrelevant. Because they stripped away the notion of there being any existential factors into this, they swept the dust that clouded their judgment, and this is how they moved on.
 
-          In some way, it’s nihilistic – in context of them getting into that serious contemplation of potential meaningless in the endeavor (because it didn’t match their new line of thinking of value placement), but at the same time, it’s nihilistic in the sense that they walked through that desert, and found some form of existentialism. Which is basically anything related to ‘I decided---XYZ’; indirectly, and directly. Some people may feel this is existential nihilism where there may be a lack of existential, or inherent things (both apparent by birth, or ones that have continuity after there’s enough experiential context applied to it), but sometimes, I feel existential nihilism is an existentialist in denial, or like tulpa001 mentioned with the analogy of nihilism:
 
-         
tulpa001 Wrote:> Nihilist3: Stop arguing you two. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. It is irrelevant. Nothing is relevant. Everything is pointless.
Except with the existential nihilist, they could react in a way where this lack of meaning creates a sense of liberation to actually take hold of one’s reigning of self and creation of subjective meaning, and live life accordingly through their own criterion. The difference here is with this individual for nihilism is that they know how to get OUT of that metaphorical black hole that nihilism is in relation to contemplation
 
Not saying OP is a nihilist, but it’s to emphasize how it, nihilism, can be a type of philosophy that ends up being a thesis for cultivating an attitude in life; some people create something good out of it, and some people just stay in the black hole of it. And to emphasize on the bigger picture behind this post: Let whatever ultimate meaning take care of itself, and don’t bother trying to investigate all of these probable, ultimate meanings because we’re limited by our subjectivity anyway. Anything else where we try to transcend above that subjectivity, and that’s where that black hole comes again; it doesn’t take into consideration of what’s outside of our subjectivity, and using it as a supplement in figuring out gets us nowhere, and thus that emotional level (e.g. depression) of it robbing any sense of meaning becomes apparent—for some people, that is.
09-13-2016, 07:13 AM
Find Reply
Brassow Offline
Look at this dude
Registered

Posts: 284
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2014
#30
 
RE: Once a Believer, Revisiting
My goodness! It's been a while old pal!

Even if you don't believe it anymore, that shouldn't stop or discourage new users from making a tulpa.
You can choose whether or not you want to believe something or not, but as of now, there is no way of confirming either side of the argument.

You know what they say about tuppers, "Third time's the charm."
"Try to get a better understanding of things before making your judgement." -Khan, Metro 2033
09-13-2016, 11:53 PM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to


Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication