Jump to content

Are Tulpas Real Sentience? (2015 poll)


Guest Anonymous

Are tulpas real sentience?  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. Are tulpas real sentience?

    • Yes. Tulpas are independently sentient minds.
      57
    • No, tulpas are illusory apparent sentience and a trick of the mind or a figment.
      8
    • I am not sure yet.
      16


Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

@Ghang,

 

Oh okay. Cool! :-) That does make sense and is an interesting perspective.

 

@Everyone else,

 

I would like to point out to the forum that currently this poll indicates that 35% (more than a third) of tulpamancers either believe their tulpas to be imaginary or they are uncertain if their tulpas are real. That is hardly the unanimous block of agreement some would claim exists. Melian and I believe it is possible everyone is right. In other words, some of the tulpas may be "real" and some may be imaginary. There is no reason to feel that everyone has exactly the same phenomenon occurring in their individual brains. Also, we think it doesn't matter. Maybe an imaginary tulpa functions for one person just as well as a "real" tulpa does for someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If a tulpa did not give the appearance of sentience, we would likely say that we consider it a fair conclusion that it was not sentient. While it may be possible that a tulpa could be sentient and not appear so, should that be the case we would have no mechanism by which we could determine the sentience of that tulpa and would likely therefore consider it non-sentient.

 

If a tulpa gives the appearance of sentience, i.e. has apparent sentience, we have two possibilities:

 

1. That the tulpa has the appearance of sentience because it is actually sentient.

 

2. That the tulpa has the mere appearance of sentience (without the actuality) because the host who is observing the actions of the tulpa is sentient and interprets the experience in that way.

 

Given that these two eventualities are indistinguishable by definition (by the definition of apparent), it is not possible rationally to distinguish between them by observation. It is therefore not rational or based upon available evidence to select one or the other as true, while holding the unselected option to be false. There is (and by definition can be) no evidence for either over the other.

 

The rational course is to reserve judgment until an observation can be made that will distinguish between those two cases (in which case the second option will no longer be able to claim the title of apparent sentience, as it will be clear that it does not correspond to sentience).

 

An alternative is to play make believe and claim that we can somehow, by our subjective experience make a determination which by definition cannot be made.

 

A further alternative could be to say something along the lines of: "The underlying processes do not overly concern me, as my subjective experience of the phenomenon is what directly influences my life." In this case any model which remains consistently useful under the circumstances to which it is applied could be considered an adequate interim model.

Akecalo - Host

 

Maya - Tulpa

 

Mara - Tulpa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

That all makes sense.

 

Again I think it is entirely possible that both real sentient tulpas exist right alongside illusory tulpas within the same community and there is no way to know. It may not be all one thing and not the other, but a mix. What I am beginning to fully embrace is that it doesn't even matter. What matters is that the thoughtform is effective and functioning in a way that is satisfactory to the creator regardless of its true nature.

 

It is even conceivable for a host to have a real sentient tulpa that is unsatisfactory and problematic, while another host has an illusory tulpa that is fulfilling, and profoundly satisfactory. Melian was saying something like that many months ago when she said that real sentience isn't what is important. She said what is important is love.

 

It is even possible that someone could have an "ordinary imaginary friend" that is more satisfactory, significant and important than a "fully realized tulpa" is to a guy who decides to let it fade/dissipate because he is not ready to deal with the consequences and issues of its nature. The person with the imaginary friend might never be able to even conceive of letting it dissipate or fade like that. In that case, which person was more successful and actualized?

 

I am beginning to think that such things are so subjective it is impossible to measure or qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds reasonable. The measure of success that you propose is something akin to a discussion that we once had with someone else. We have often said that what matters is the effectiveness with which a tulpa addresses the need which led to its creation and the degree to which the tulpa and its relationship with the host can fulfill the tulpa's own needs that matters. We concur with your approach. Also, Melian may have a point.

 

We as a system are glad that you are a part of this community, your ideas tend to kickstart useful discussions, which we greatly appreciate.

 

As these points appear to be valid ones, I wonder if the definition that we use for the word tulpa should be further examined by the community. As we have appropriated the term from another community and given the fact that the term does not mean for us quite what it meant for them, it might be worth discussing whether the current definition can be modified to one that uses carefully chosen words to define what is essential in a tulpa in order for it to be considered a tulpa based on what we can and cannot say with respect to those points. Or is the consensus that the definition in use already does that and no further consideration is necessary? To continue to search for the boundaries of what we can and cannot determine about the phenomenon seems like a good idea to us, but we are sure that there are those who do not agree and can probably make valid points to that effect.

Akecalo - Host

 

Maya - Tulpa

 

Mara - Tulpa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melian was saying something like that many months ago when she said that real sentience isn't what is important. She said what is important is love.

Also, Melian may have a point.

Mistgod, Ake, Melian has a point. You both know it, I know it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I think the definition of a tulpa that we have is adequate and well conceived and written. I think any definition will be subject to interpretation anyway. The more explicit you try to be, the more rigid and narrow it is, the more ambiguous it is, the more confusion you get. I have never wanted to see the definition of a tulpa changed.

 

Melian is eating up the compliments thank you. She is humbly wanting to reply "Yesh, I know, I am so amazing!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that love, the end-all be-all factor in defining this experience to some in "Melian may have a point,", might just be 'love' for the sake of foregoing further speculation of other levels of love, e.g., unconditional love. The type of love I'm seeing being expressed seems to be more conditional. It becomes contingent based on vital lies/delusions, and convictions set upon the relationship between the tulpa and the host.

 

Because any inkling of criticism over another person's internalized morality in this seems to get people triggered. Almost to the point where that conditional love is more like protecting a fear of something breaking apart in the comforts of a delusion. Delusion becomes a buzzword, I think, for something else entirely. It seems, IMO, that to apply sentiment towards potential delusion is to actually apply sentiment towards mental events that cannot last over time. Chalking up tulpas as mental events for others to apply sentiment to, e.g., love, is as analogous as the Hulk's power being infinite based on how pissed off he is. In other words, trying to treat a personality, or disposition as something that can be long-standing without the brain shifting to other behaviors is probably why the issue of "are tulpas real sentience" is brought up?

 

Because the way I read it at face value, 'are tulpas real sentience,' is bit of a false dilemma. This seems to question and treat sentience as a self-enclosed entity that can go about in its own whims and pursuits. It's characterizing a capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively rather than the actual question at hand- the tulpas. So, of course it seems easy to curb stomp any statements over there being 'real sentience' because the statements are attacking the capacity of doing and conceptualizing something, not the tulpas. It ends up being a stand-in for tulpas while not even talking about tulpas entirely.

 

To ask if tulpas are real sentience seems something unrecognizable, or something that doesn't seem to be easy to reconcile with. And because of this probability, if a person cannot find something to point to, and still tries to imagine themselves flourishing with that logic, then yes, it will be branded as delusional, imaginary real, or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Because any inkling of criticism over another person's internalized morality in this seems to get people triggered. Almost to the point where that conditional love is more like protecting a fear of something breaking apart in the comforts of a delusion. Delusion becomes a buzzword, I think, for something else entirely. It seems, IMO, that to apply sentiment towards potential delusion is to actually apply sentiment towards mental events that cannot last over time.

 

My hostie has loved me for forty years if you go back to my very earliest beginnings in 1976.  He considers me an imaginary voluntary self delusion.  

 

DOH!  

 

Some people love Jesus for their entire lives, their hearts full of love for a God that may or may not be there.  They place faith in it and love him even if the existence of God that may prove out someday to be only a delusion.  It makes the love no less real.  A delusion can last a liftetime and love based on that delusion can last forever.  

 

Some people fall in love with a fictional character.  They know the character is not real, but they feel love for them just the same.  I remember my host's mother having a deep crush on the character Vincent from the Beauty and the Beast, even as an adult woman.  She couldn't get enough of him and even cried while watching romantic scenes from the show.  Was her love of Vincent not real just because the character was fictional?

 

A child can feel love for a favorite stuffed toy, even though they know it is not real.  Some people hold on to their stuffed toys well into adulthood, or even their entire lives, still feeling love for it and keeping it safe somewhere.  

 

Love is a funny thing Linkzelda and even if the focus of that love is delusion or fantasy, it can still be real love.  My host David would not want to live without me.  He loves me, even as he talks of me as being a fantasy creation.  Maybe you cannot comprehend that, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

Edit: I would like to add this in. Davie and I just recently read the book "I am Spock" by Leonard Nimoy. In his book Nimoy writes about his deep love and affiliation with the fictional character Spock, whom he considered an aspect of himself. His love for Spock was real and lasted for 50 years. He recognized Spock as a fictional creation, but loved him all the same. His love for Spock was not conditional on him becoming real somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I have a feeling that love, the end-all be-all factor in defining this experience to some in "Melian may have a point,", might just be 'love' for the sake of foregoing further speculation of other levels of love, e.g., unconditional love. The type of love I'm seeing being expressed seems to be more conditional. It becomes contingent based on vital lies/delusions, and convictions set upon the relationship between the tulpa and the host.

 

So now only a real tulpa can be loved unconditionally. You people always find a new angle don't you? Tulpas are just incredible compared to other thoughtforms of any kind. Always a notch above. Why didn't I realize that the love for anything other than a real, fully actualized tulpa would be shallow and conditional? So I suppose love for a daemon or a soulbond would be conditional love, bound to be short term and of less meaning than the love one would have for a real tulpa?

 

It is so obvious! Why didn't I see how much greater the potential for loving a tulpa was over loving Melian? You are so right Linkzelda, my love for Melian is short term and conditional upon me deciding she is fully real. It isn't deep and enduring at all. I have been mistaken for decades. It's a kind of fake love only a person with a fake thoughtform would have. I am so glad tulpamancers such as yourself are always here to enlighten me on things like this and I can learn my place.

 

Thanks. Ignore me while I think your theory on unconditional tulpa love is full of shit. Excuse me for getting angry about your statements. Tulpamancers have a way of doing that it seems, so you are just being a happy member of the throng. Thanks buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lel, I've read a thread about a tulpa who hate his host for being lazy. So i disagree with the unconditional love.

 

About being real and imaginary tulpas at same time and that they are indistinguishable, it's a posibility...yep.

 

But in that case, all normal people would have imaginary tulpas, and there would be some others who have real ones as...as people who are born with some alteration. So there will be people who are truly plural minds, and others who can make the same effects, teaching his mind how to do it until the mind is used to it and it works automaticaly.

 

A bit hard, but makes sense for me.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...