Tulpae and Ethics

[FAQ man]

Over time debates that rest solely on how one feels happen in communities. With tulpae, there is the argument that merely making one is not ethical because it equates to "playing god" or "forcing a sentience to see life but not be able to experience it" and all that. And then there is the other branch: What of destroying tulpae? You're bringing their own consciousness back into the loins of your mind, but is destroying the separate consciousness destroying the being? Is this considered murder?

 

I have always been interested in what Means for the person involved to destroy a tulpa. All the accounts I could muster were not very detailed. But alas no one seems to be gung ho to destroy what they took so long to create: perhaps this is for the better.

 

So where do you draw the moral line? Do you think that destroying a tulpa is wrong? Tht merely having one has connotations you're not comfortable with?

 

(sorry for the typos, I'm on an iPod as I dumped vodka on my keyboard last night and am dependant on this small piece of machinery I barely have the dexterity to use)

[Guest]

Not speaking from much experience, of course, I'd say there's no big deal in "destroying" or simply stopping hallucinating something created from your mind, unless you hold it very dearly. In the latter case, it probably wouldn't be for the better of yourself, but who the fuck would destroy a tulpa they love in the first place?

 

You could kinda say those that like to play god can receive their satisfaction through their tulpa instead of being a control freak to real people.

 

Also, the wulrus should've hidden the vodka.

[Guest Anonymous]

Fede-lasse, I don't think it's that simple.

 

If tulpae are conscious beings like we are, it would be close to murder as from your perspective, they would no longer have a next experiential/conscious moment. If you think murder is only wrong because it makes someone inaccessible to the rest of the world, then killing a tulpa is only "harmful" to yourself. If you think murder is wrong because it stops someone's consciousness permanently (this is a matter of philosophy/religion, but let's assume it be the case for the sake of this argument, regardless if it's true or not), then killing a tulpa is morally wrong if the tulpa doesn't want that.

 

If tulpae are not conscious, but report beings so, you probably believe in philosophical zombies, whose possible existence is questionable.

 

Captcha: crime of passion

[DreamCloud]

If a tulpa is but merely your own subconscious, then the only person you're hurting is yourself.

 

If a tulpa is actually some alien being, then you are hurting someone other than yourself.

[Orq9000]

From my point of view, when i didn't yet experienced sentient tulpa, I can only tell that i have strong feeling of responisbility. I feel really obligated to continue tulpaforcing. Because i know, that if I stop now, I'll kill her. I'm not sure yet, did I'm able to achive sentient tulpa. But until there are some chances, that what i created is a seed of sentient person, I'm responsible for Her. And no matter that I'm only physical person, that would be affected by her disappearance. If there is a conscious being, and I'm stopping it permanently, from experiencing world, without it's will. It's murder.

[Deleted]

Im going to say its like a baby. Its not wrong to make one but killing one is murder and a teribble thing to do.

[DreamCloud]

What proof is there that it actually is an entirely seperate being? Everything you do in the whole process seems to point to a person just training his mind to think in two different directions at once.

[Din]

And that's where the debate lies. I don't think there's an easy answer to this question. People who believe it's wrong would argue that the tulpa has feelings, emotions, is essentially a person, so to speak, and that killing it would be wrong.

 

Those who don't believe it's wrong argue that the tulpa is simply a hallucination from one's own mind and, as a result, killing it hurts nothing, because it doesn't exist for you to murder in the first place.

 

This makes for a very interesting debate.

[Guest]

What proof is there that it actually is an entirely seperate being? Everything you do in the whole process seems to point to a person just training his mind to think in two different directions at once.

Because those that have a tulpa say that the tulpa has separate memories different from the host and can think in parallel, as well as the tulpa claiming to have separate experiences/qualia. If you don't have the tulpa's memories and the tulpa doesn't have your memories (beyond what you shared or gave access to), how are they not like 2 different beings implemented in a single physical substrate (a brain)?

 

That's what people say the experience is like, but I suppose if you want more evidence, a lot of scientific testing would have to be done to reach that point, however from a purely philosophical perspective, my position is that philosophical zombies make no sense, thus a tulpa has to be conscious. It's hard to say if a tulpa would actually stop existing if you ignore it, so what "killing" it does is unclear to me. Other possibilities: the tulpa becomes inaccessible to you because you refuse to recall it, but it still continues partially existing in your brain, but with less access to your senses, the other option is that it continues existing as a memory which only "resurfaces" from time to time - I don't think you can just directly erase memories like that (after all, a tulpa and our own self-image are just memories), but you can suppress them or pretend to forget them and eventually they would fade away.

[bila bila]

The only thing I don't get with people killing their tulpae is why bother making one in the first place. Yea so what if they don't like them, it's their fault that they gave them that certain personality. Personally I wouldn't kill my tulpa (if I finish), but different people have different morales.