Jump to content

We need to stop asking IF tulpas are sentient, and start asking HOW they are sentient


Abvieon

Recommended Posts

The number one debated topic ever since the beginning of the modern tulpa community nearly 6 years ago has been "Are tulpas TRULY conscious and sentient, or do they only appear that way and are just part of your imagination?"

 

Yes, this frequently asked question can be fun to ponder. It makes sense to want to know the answer to it. However, at the current time, any attempt to actually answer this question with 100% certainty is useless. There is not yet much understood about consciousness in general, and there is in fact no way to prove the sentience of ANYTHING other than yourself. You know that you have subjective awareness, but you can't know that to be true about anyone else, tulpa or not. Sentience can only ever be proved once MUCH more has been discovered about the technicalities of what consciousness is, where it comes from, etc. Until then, we will be left in the dark.

 

Still, it makes the most logical sense to assume that tulpas are truly sentient. They both act and function as people, and are able to do things that wouldn't make sense for a non-sentient being to be able to do. Almost all of those who have created tulpas experience them as autonomous beings, with the qualities and capabilities of a separate person. 

 

Doubting the sentience of a tulpa makes about as much sense as doubting the sentience of any random person you see walking on the street. The doubt is not completely irrational, after all, you can't PROVE this person's sentience. Though, is it LIKELY that they are a mere robot/automation? Not at all. The person acts sentient, so most people would automatically assume they are. The same should apply to tulpas.

 

I believe that much of the doubt in the sentience of tulpas stems from the fact that they can seem "too good to be true" or the concept of multiple minds in the same brain can seem too "out there" or strange for many. These are more excuses than they are legitimate arguments - Something does not have to seem "normal" to be likely to be true. Some come up with theories of tulpas being the result of "mind tricks" to cover up the true reason for doubting their sentience - the idea is too strange for them, so they look for any other possible explanation, even if the explanation is more complex and makes less sense overall. If going by Occam's Razor, assuming that tulpas are sentient actually makes more sense than assuming they are a "habit", or a "manifestation of your subconscious". Both of those theories are far more unnecessarily complex than the theory that tulpas are simply sentient just like any other person.

 

Now, on to my second point. If anything, we should be asking HOW tulpas can exist, how they make the transition from imaginary friend or character to conscious person, and how the forcing methods used by the community can lead to the creation of a conscious being. These questions are more useful, and if speculated upon can actually better our understanding of the tulpa creation process or even consciousness itself. Assuming tulpas are not sentient only jams up this process. 

 

No matter what your beliefs in tulpas are, assumptions will still be made, but it is better to go with the more likely assumption when asking questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question should still be IF they are sentient.

 

If you look at NLP and hypnosis, the creation of a tulpa makes perfect sense. The brain is a powerful tool that we barely can tap into. It can create a delusion so real well... you wouldn't know it was fake. So a tulpa being a fake construct from the imagination is very plausible in that sense. That would make their sentience an illusion, because without your sentience it cannot have its own. Hence its heavy reliance on the host.

 

For example... demons, spirits, etc. If you consider the existence of tulpas these constructs are not far fetched either. They can be perceived by multiple people at once and have no reliance on a human whatsoever. They are more "real" than tulpas because tulpas are purely subjective thus, CAN be illusions.

 

I was on a discord server briefly lurking and a user posted something cool.

 

"Assuming we were created by 'God' or some higher intelligence, could we not just be 'tulpas' of this higher intelligence? I mean if we can create sentience, how far fetched is it - really to believe that we are artificial intelligence as well?"

 

The difference between us and tulpas is that we can be perceived by multiple people, tulpas cannot unless they switch. Even then, this is 100% reliant on the fact that the host has a body.

 

If tulpas are not illusions, they are certainty lesser thought forms. Depending on your beliefs, humans are leagues higher than any thought-form because its our rightful status to rule over creation. This is why humans can co-create. If we really can make sentience, this just proves our status as co-creators. gods. Tulpa can create too, because we breathed that ability into them.

 

Many spiritual books have this type of saying...

 

"and we created man in our image".

 

Well...

 

"and we created tulpae in our image".

 

If you don't make a thought-form in your image, it wont be sentient nor will it be able to effectively co-create.

 

The "if" tulpas are sentient is a first step because we don't know. The first step is cleared once we know. And I mean KNOW. Legitimate data that can be shared. Not theory, not facts mixed with theory, just pure... unaltered facts.

 

Which would require brain scans and such I'm sure.

 

The more likely assumption is subjective because all assumptions are subjective.

 

To me, my assumption is that tulpas are either illusions or thought-forms. To someone else their assumption is the whole psychological theory.

 

We need to start at the foundations and treat it like a law case. Only facts are allowed to progress in the case, theory and stuff simply won't cut it for a legitimate understanding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My points still stand, BlackWizard. Tulpas act and function in the same way that ordinary people do - under your logic, the minds of ordinary people are just as likely to be illusions. There is little difference between the two. Tulpas are only really different because they usually have to be coerced into existence, rather than naturally coming about.

 

Tulpas are not always reliant on the host - when switching occurs, the host sometimes goes completely unconscious or resides in the mindscape, doing their own thing. The tulpa can operate without any sort of supervision or assistance. This shows that tulpas do not rely on the sentience of the host, and rather have an individual mind of their own.

 

Then, you reference "spiritual books". ... Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My points still stand, BlackWizard. Tulpas act and function in the same way that ordinary people do - under your logic, the minds of ordinary people are just as likely to be illusions. There is little difference between the two. Tulpas are only really different because they usually have to be coerced into existence, rather than naturally coming about.

 

Tulpas are not always reliant on the host - when switching occurs, the host sometimes goes completely unconscious or resides in the mindscape, doing their own thing. The tulpa can operate without any sort of supervision or assistance. This shows that tulpas do not rely on the sentience of the host, and rather have an individual mind of their own.

 

Then, you reference "spiritual books". ... Really?

Like I say to anyone in this community who doubts spiritual books...

 

if you think believing in a tulpa is more rational than spirituality then there's a problem. There's not rationality for either until your experience them subjectively. Mocking spiritual books is no different than me mocking the existence of tulpas.

 

And yes I was agreeing with a lot of your points.

 

Right but without the host the tupps can't do anything until it evolves into an egregore if they exist. They tupps has a body... because the host does. The tupps has sentience... because the host does. If the host dies, the tupps goes along with it. Without the host, tupps can't exist until tupps evolves enough to not be a tupps.

 

They may have an individual mind but if the host had 0 sentience the tupps couldn't have it either. The host (body & mind if you wanna discard the soul) needs to exist for tupps to exist. Spirits don't need a host, they live on. Even if you wanna theorize that spirits are egregores, they still live on compared to tulpas. 

 

Any discussion on tulpas is mere theory and for now it seems that's all it'll ever be until we get proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Personally, I think we should be asking both, and more. But I think the answer is shaking out to be that it's different for different tulpas.

 

However, gravity is just a theory. You, I and everyone else cannot prove gravity. But we know it exists. This is because gravity is not truly physical. It is a principle that exists behind this universe. We cannot observe it directly, only see the consequences of gravity.

 

What are the consequences of sentience? How do you know you are conscious? Aware? Because you feel it? How do you know the feeling is real? How do you know there is something more fundamental, feeding you your reality? How do you know you yourself are not an illusion, an artifact of your mind's processing?

 

I think that there is plenty of reason to ask these questions, but if you are getting tired of them, you can sit out the debates.

 

Occam's razor is notoriously subjective, one person's straight line is another person's squiggle drawn all over the map. The world of concepts and theory is truly a strange place. The very geography of the place is dependent on the perspective you use to frame the discussion.

 


 

If you look at NLP and hypnosis, the creation of a tulpa makes perfect sense. The brain is a powerful tool that we barely can tap into. It can create a delusion so real well... you wouldn't know it was fake.

You open up a whole new can of worms with that statement. Here. Let me open it up even further.

 

What even is a delusion? How do we know it is a delusion and not a religious belief? How do we know that if two people believe they saw different things that one of them is delusional? How do we know that it is science that is factual, and that competing religious claims are delusions? What if a person has a grand insight, but everyone else thinks they are crazy because it makes no sense to them?

 

How does society identify delusions? Othering. Delusions are held by others. Members of the community are sane. Community members hold beliefs.

 

They can be perceived by multiple people at once and have no reliance on a human whatsoever. They are more "real" than tulpas because tulpas are purely subjective thus, CAN be illusions.

Ah, the consensus reality approach. But, why does more eyeballs make for better certainty? Are not mass delusions a thing?

 

We need to start at the foundations and treat it like a law case. Only facts are allowed to progress in the case, theory and stuff simply won't cut it for a legitimate understanding

:P Oh man. I accept your challenge. However, I don't think there are any court cases that are purely fact based. Most involve a lot of theorising. The winner is based on defeating the burden of proof, which is usually placed at plausible deniability in a criminal case, and greater probability in a civil case.

 

So one simply has to ask. Which side does the evidence support? And who is the judge? I would like to request a jury of peers. Other tulpas.

 

There's not rationality for either until your experience them subjectively.

Rationality is a product of logic. Logic is a science that does not care about truth, it cares about what makes sense. What is consistent. What is valid. Consequently, subjectivity should not change what is rational.

 

However, it may if there is a trust gap. Or, to put it differently, if I cannot trust what you say as much as what I say and vice versa. Then we cannot be said to be able to share facts with one another.

 

Your last point does not stand up to host egocide cases. Of which there is at least a couple.

Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tough and deep question.. This makes me think about dreams and how we dream of people outside of ourselves and they have a complete personality. They have a will of their own and respond to stimuli. Are these appearances Sentient? How do Tulpas relate to Dream beings? Do they at all?  I think it's something to think about.

Don't believe the things I say just because I tell you.. Test these things and prove them to yourselves so that you know them to be true. ~The Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think dream beings with demonstrated personalities are common. Often times they are shades, repeating and echoing your thoughts from earlier in the day. Or, they have backstories of being intelligent, but don't demonstrate it. Like an author of a low quality book creating a supergenius or gifted character, but unable to demonstrate it to the audience. Or they are puppets of the dreamer. Extensions of the dreamer doing things the dreamer is thinking about, whether or not the dreamer wants the character to do them or not.

 

I think, if you can rule out all these behaviour, in the event you have character like entities in your dreams in the first place, then they would essentially be tulpas.

Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think dream beings with demonstrated personalities are common. Often times they are shades, repeating and echoing your thoughts from earlier in the day. Or, they have backstories of being intelligent, but don't demonstrate it.

 

Interesting, you think this is usually the case in lucid dreams? My Touhou character interpretations were so detailed they apparently caused some spontaneous tulpas, I'd be interested in seeing if I can talk to a non-tulpa Touhou character in a lucid dream and have a real conversation with them. I always assumed lucid dream characters could think just fine if you paid attention to them.

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us about tulpamancy stuff there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never had a lucid dream-- I have only had one lucid dream and my host one long ago with a character we wer-- I have only had two lucid dreams, one of which is recorded in my progress report where any of the characters met the requirements of independent (not coming from me or Sarah) intelligent (comes up with own ideas, not part of the background of the dream) characters. Absolutely never happened in any of our regular dreams.

Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...