• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nakra

  • Rank
  1. Maybe. I think that crystallizes your reasoning. In the case of non-sentience, which would be the part I wasn't grasping, I think it reasonable to make a comparison to a machine or script; input flows to output, x flows to f(x). In that case, I plead something or other.
  2. Of course! If we've defined ethical value by the effect it has on others, and there are no others, then almost all of ethics can go in the bin. Ethics to self aside, as not relevant, lol. Or is it? If Tulpae are a product of our minds, what is changed by the separation caused by sentience? Hmm. See, distinguishing those definitions might be useful. Existence and manifestation into reality. Are these two as linked as mainstream (for lack of a better word) culture puts them? Can something manifest into reality without being real? Come to think of it, what definition of these terms allows us to examine these questions in the best light? ~I dislike it when he goes on like this. Bo-ring!~
  3. Might want to amend that statement in some manner. I dunno. To waffles: I'm not trying to offend or be rude in any manner; just curious What difference do yo see between "should treat them [...]" and "not their right"? The way I use these phrases, they come off almost as interchangeable. Allowing that there is a difference, does it change anything? Related to this, but a bit different, is your bit about humans starved of conflict. I saw something about it not too long ago, and it was fascinating. However, to draw that line between human and tulpae require that we admit some commonalities between the two. Could these common factors influence the idea of rights owed to Tulpae? (Not trying to grill you. Going to clarify that. It's because your viewpoint seems different than mine that I must ask THOUSANDS OF QUESTIONS. I'm not in it to win it, I'm in it to gain information. Woohoo!)
  4. So then, would I be going too far to say that some form of "social link" is an absolute requirement? It's part of an answer to number one, with that link allowing the perception of existence. Number two and three are a little linked; any basic needs they have are things they can expect from us, seeing as we are the only ones able to provide it. In fact, since basic needs are required for existence (is this correct?), then we also have an indirect link between questions 1 and 2. Moreover, the removal of that link has the result of, in essence, deletion. Not a pleasant thought. Any thoughts?
  5. Usually, Semerel can come up with a point or two like someone triple his age. On these, however, he cannot seem to. I'm not the proper stakeholder in this issue, so asking myself them doesn't do as much as I'd like. (Also, I'll go on and assume that this is the proper forum) So, do any tulpae have answers, and justification (where required) and whatnot, for these questions: 1. What are your (the Tulpae) fundamental characteristics that all have? Rephrased, "What aspects of your existence, were they removed/changed, cause such a drastic change (change here purposely left undefined) that you would either be a different being or cease to exist?" For example: lack of physical form; caused by an outside force; etc. I want the BASICS here, and as many as I can get. 2. What rights or "legitimate expectations" would you say you have? Don't have? Do any of the fundamental characteristics above play into this? The justification I would like here would be tracing the LE back to an obligation as a result of a role in a relationship: "I am a child of my parents. As parents, they are required to ensure my basic needs are met, including food. Thusly, I can expect that my parents feed me." 3. Basic needs are mentioned in that example. Do you have any basic needs? Assume a definition of "minimum resources required to sustain". Do these basic needs (or lack thereof) change any aspect of your answer to question 2? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. I'm ist the fool oftentimes. Perhaps this could be moved to Q&A?