Hello There, Guest! Register

Misinterpretation of “assuming sentience from start” philosophy.
Stevie Offline
& Chris, Tag Team Champs
Registered

Posts: 350
Threads: 7
Joined: Mar 2015
#91
 
RE: Misinterpretation of “assuming sentience from start” philosophy.
(08-10-2015, 07:44 AM)reguile Wrote: Am I the only one that thinks that this could probably be removed from being a sticky at this point?

It seems like three of the "important threads" aren't really too important at all, with one being a "What's your tulpa look like?" thread, and the other being a poll. This one as well doesn't seem to offer anything super unique or interesting to it, and could probably be left to live where all the other threads do?

If it were addressed in another place, or something that wasn't necessary to understand how many guides operate, then I'd move it. But as it stands, the whole assuming sentience thing is referenced enough in other places that I wouldn't want to take it down from the sticky and then be linking it for people who are confused. It's fine where it is. It's still relevant, is what I'm saying, brah.

The assuming sentience concept ties into different debates too, I don't know, just because it's something that seems obvious to people who've read up on tulpas a ton, doesn't mean that it's not a necessary distinction to make, and that it doesn't belong in a sticky.

As for the poll, we get lots of repeated threads as it is (people make new threads about what everyone's wonderland looks like often enough, that type of deal) and keeping them at the top lets people know that there's already a thread for that.

If we're talking about stickys that don't need to be up there, I'd be more inclined to remove the tulpa registry and tulpa wiki, if anything, but that's a whole nother story.

We're all gonna make it brah.
08-10-2015, 12:40 PM
Find Reply
Linkzelda Offline
>MFW Image Streaming
Registered

Posts: 2,010
Threads: 31
Joined: Oct 2012
All Accounts Posts: 2,068
#92
 
RE: Misinterpretation of “assuming sentience from start” philosophy.
(08-10-2015, 07:44 AM)reguile Wrote: Am I the only one that thinks that this could probably be removed from being a sticky at this point?

It seems like three of the "important threads" aren't really too important at all, with one being a "What's your tulpa look like?" thread, and the other being a poll.  This one as well doesn't seem to offer anything super unique or interesting to it, and could probably be left to live where all the other threads do?

I shared this same sentiment for a while, but then, I realized it is kind of significant, because I think it shows how others can react neurotically towards statements that have true-aptness to them. I mentioned this in a post over a thread that revolves around the limits of ‘treat a tulpa as sentient:
 
(08-16-2016, 04:56 AM)Linkzelda Wrote: I think I found another potential limit behind ‘Treating a Tulpa As Sentient’

It’s Potentially a True-Apt Statement

A statement that has true-aptness to it implies it has the capacity of being true, or false depending on the context in which it is uttered without the overall meaning being altered, or lost. And because of this, statements such as ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ get set up as propositions that can be true and false depending on the virtue and context the person is going for.

But the thing that’s missing from the treat a tulpa as sentient ‘ought’ statement is context. One ‘ought’ to treat a tulpa as sentient because it allows the mind to accept a potential ‘other.’ One ‘ought to treat a tulpa as sentient because allows the host to prescribe meaning for betterment of self. And one ought to do this because one ought to try to self-actualize in any shape or form. And one ought to do that because….because.

It ends up with the same existential questioning, which means ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ implies some kind of existential factor into it. Because we can’t say to someone, completely out of the blue with no context of tulpas with ‘treat a tulpa as sentient,' and expect them to not contemplate over it.

Imagine:

Person A: Treat a tulpa as sentient.
Person B: “Alright! Cool! I completely get it now! Can’t wait to get a lot of progress in this!”

Realistically:

Person A: treat a tulpa as sentient.
Person B: Because…….??????????


Because of this, one cannot simply accept ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ at face value, and avoid the regress that goes on, e.g., a person contemplating what it means to treat someone as sentient. It’s not a simple proposition that you can instill into a person’s mind, pack your bags, and call it a day. Some may think that existential questioning is the same old boring dread to worry about, and that we don’t really need to foam in our mouths over it (like the OP in the misinterpreting the assume sentience from the start thread was mentioning).

It seems that ‘treating a tulpa as sentient’ is a proposition that’s treated as an instrumental ‘ought’ because collectively, more people seem to approve of it as true. The same can be applied for other true-apt statements, like assuming sentience from the start. People will create their own because…because, because they’ve chosen to approve of it as true. It just seems that ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ is a long-standing true-apt statement, which is why indirectly, it becomes an ‘ought’ that can be universal, or rather, true regardless of a person’s needs or desires because it’s a statement that can coincide with those needs and desires; a supplement.

 
The same could be applied to the assume sentience from the start:
 
One ‘ought’ to assume sentience from the start because naturally, we have the capacity of sentience for them to derive from. One ‘ought’ assume sentience from the start to prevent doubting. And one ought to do that because it satisfies the impression of there being sentience, autonomy, and such in a tulpa. And one ‘ought’ to do that because…because.
 
 
That ‘because’ leads to regress, and seems that any statement that has true-aptness in it, ‘assume sentience from the start,’ and ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ are propositions that can be true and false depending on the virtue and context of the individual at hand. But because those virtues are frustratingly subjective, it can allow others to negate the statements with:
 
One ‘ought’ NOT assume sentience from the start because it will make them half-ass the process. One ‘ought’ NOT assume sentience because it makes them undermine hard work into this. One ‘ought’ NOT assume sentience from the start because treating a tulpa as sentient is more goal-oriented than “assume sentience from the start.” And one ‘ought’ to NOT assume sentience from the start because…because.
 
That regress is what allows anyone, and I mean ANYONE, to make blanket statements about anything; just like how anyone can make blanket statements about unconscious and subliminal thoughts and processes. But, people who may agree with ‘assume sentience from the start’ may have a different type of regress, or trail of questioning and theorizing that still allows them to actually work towards the task progressively. The philosophy of assuming sentience from the start isn’t exclusive to people who are brain-dead, incompetent, and lazy to put in good work into this progressively.
 
It just so happened that others treat the assume sentience from the start as an absolute that ends up becoming a breeding ground for laziness, but that assumes they know the regress the person went through. But, we can’t know all the virtues of the person, especially if they aren’t as vocal about it. If I can quote Epictetus here,
 
Quote:“If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, "He was ignorant of my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone.”
Epictetus
 
The same could be applied to the virtues that go unanswered. Assuming sentience from the start, and even treating a tulpa as sentient have some true-aptness to them because regress of existential questioning is bound to come. The former just seemed less likely a candidate for questioning things, and thus seems to prevent learning to embody a philosophy by practicing it. The latter, treating as sentient, has a true-aptness to it as well, but it implies that the individual subscribes to an ethical duty that allows them to have a foundation for the infuriatingly subjective ethical call of how one ‘ought’ to do something in relation to tulpas.
 
This gets chalked up to: Hosts talk about ethical commands and duties so much as if they were metaphysically real. But, humans talk a lot of stuff that way…so what? Keyword being ‘as if’ vs. ‘it really being the case.’ And I think that’s what throws people off in wondering why it’s still stickied. Maybe because it represents that anyone can make a blanket statement about these propositions simply because they can choose to approve of the statements, or not; as long as it coincides with their virtues, and actually makes them create virtues rather than just sitting there doing nothing, one statement being exclusive to lazy asses creates a dogma to crush one proposition for the other
 
‘Because one ought to do it because it’s polite’
–insert emotive ought here-
–insert emotive ought here-
–insert emotive ought here-

 
That is the cancer that others wanted to shed light to, maybe. People can create oughts to no end, thus they get reduced to blanket statements in some way. This isn't to say the statements are inherently wrong, though. It's just when a person gets caught into the agenda of others that's beyond the power of their will, they'll get paranoid about it.


(This post was last modified: 08-16-2016, 05:36 AM by Linkzelda. Edit Reason: Auto-correct is messing up my posts. )
08-16-2016, 05:23 AM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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