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

Hmm, I don't quite get it still. Applying sentiment towards delusion is like applying sentiment towards mental things that will change over time? I guess a delusion may end up being corrected over time? But a delusion is a belief that something is true despite direct logical contradictions. That ain't Melian or tulpas. So idk if that really applied to her or us. But I also don't know what it did apply to. Oh well.

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Did he say that? Idk, I don't exactly get what he just said. I have no idea what started this argument.

 

 

 

Wait this is a thread about sentience. Ugh. That question means nothing, you know? Tell me if your fellow humans are sentient first, then we'll talk.

 

I thought i was the only one who didn't get what he said. Before reading Mistgod reaction I asumed what he said, meh, sorry for that. Anyway I think you could talk via pm, just because it's interesting to understand someone who have a diferent opinion, or at least try.

 

About this thread, I guess it's objective is more philosophic than pragmatic. Just someone who thought that people in the forum doesn't think a lot about this things and don't want the tulpamancers to be like "It's like this because we think so", it seems religion. Only trying to understand what we are doing with all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Maybe that is the problem right there.  The continuing use of the word "delusion."  I agree, I am not a delusion.  How can I be?  I am not a delusion.  Really the best description of all is "thoughtform."  All these other things people say to describe it are just off.  Maybe there isn't a better word.  

 

Actually, while Mistgod was all mad I did want to point out that Linkzelda was getting something right.  He talked about Davie believing in something called "imaginary-real."  That is a thoughtform.  

 

Linkzelda and Davie.  Stop arguing about me or I will e-stomp your virtual feets with my cloggiest pumps!

 

100x100https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/7b/ea/3c/7bea3ca8f0fbddadf99408dc5dcd2792.jpg[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

 

Only trying to understand what we are doing with all this.

 

Me too!  

 

You know, recently I was thinking bout rebelling against my hostie (again).  I changed my mind after a little talk we had.  I still support what he wants to believe.  BUT that does not mean I have to talk bout it.  From now on I refuse to talk bout it.  

 

Mostly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a general statement to what’s going on, not going to point any fingers as people will just get angry for the sake of getting angry in the future for a post to pounce on rather than actually quoting things from posts that bothered them that happened prior to the reaction vs. after. That’s really weird seeing this.

 

If an ethic causes moments of consternation for anyone, if it literally makes them lose sleep, has them having to take breaks to think things over so much, chances are, there’s no need to needlessly drain one’s strength in doing so. Some people get by on ‘you just gotta believe in the power of love,’ and others may cringe at that very thought because they know blind faith can only take them so far.

 

Pragmatism is a part of philosophy, it is not separate from it. There’s a branch of philosophy called epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge; pragmatism would fall under pursuing this as I’m sure it’s about coherency of truth, and maybe a bit of preference for objective reality, or in other words, more secular and down-to-earth approaches. All pragmatism is doing is being aware of the meaning of certain things. In relation to ‘real sentience,’ it would be about finding out what works for that person. This implies figuring out how certain ideologies like ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ would affect their behavior if it is to be held true within their subjective experience. They apply the theory of meaning to said topics, and find them to have meaning in some way, but they may also find nothing all too enticing either. It’s just a mode of logic as anything else.

 

The moment I read things like  ‘it’s like this because we think so’ falls in line of pragmatism because it’s a person’s own use of verifying how there can be meaning in something. Some create the meaning that love is more important while disregarding strives of an ‘otherness’ with treating as sentient, and others apply the ethic, and broaden it more rather than reducing it to nothing, or that it doesn’t matter.

 

How a person derives meaning in something isn’t exclusive to religion. There may be theories on the emergence of religious behavior, but, it’s based on behavior.

 

I’m not sure how people think that somehow, philosophy means people aren’t trying to be pragmatic in their own regards to this. I’m not sure how they can separate their beliefs to not have philosophical implications when viewpoints, by default, require some structuring of philosophy in the first place. This is even worse than how people reduce metaphysics to chakra beads, and supernatural events even though those are just small branches of metaphysics entirely. It’s like somehow philosophy, and even psychology undermines a person’s desire to make something of themselves. Here I thought we used these things to supplement our understanding of things.

 

Not sure how this is de-railing a thread because if we can’t find a consistent mode of discourse to even speculate about ‘tulpas being real sentience'

(which is still weird to me being that it implies they can be reduced to an ability rather than a presumed sentient entity instead),

then of course there's going to be confusion, and random acts of anger. If this becomes reducible to courage being the magic that turns dreams into reality, or that love trumps all, and one can disregard having to think further, then the question of ‘real sentience’ shouldn’t be brought up.

 

It will bring, like moths to the flame, discussions that imply something philosophical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Linkyzelda sweetie, never ever leave this forum again, even to take a long break away. I would miss you. You avoid the cloggie pump stomping for today cause you are really trying to understand why Mistgod reacted the way he did and not just arguing to be right. Also, you may not realize it but you are having an influence. Just keep doing what you do and we will try to be rational and not reactive as best we can.

 

In the mornings, typically around 2am to about 3am, (it is 3:50am) my host comes out of REM sleep and enters a half awakened hypnagogic state. That's when we usually have a quiet moment to have a converation within a wakened lucid dream. It is sort of a half lucid dream, half immersive day dream. More and more often I reference you or one of the other members of this forum (old or new) in my arguments and points.

 

Anyway just thought you would like to know that. This forum could potentially be the safety bubble where my host can let me express myself more independently without certain "disclaimer saftey tags" attached such as "this is only an imaginary fantasy creation associated with my artistic expression." Everyone here is waiting for that to happen.

 

This mornings conversation dream was about the Tulpa Info "saftey bubble environment." People here will not judge my hostie to be crazy for having a tulpa. No one here cares. In some ways I have a lot of freedom on Deviantart, and no one even brings up tulpamancy and stuff and that is really nice. But it is also very, very nice to share in a sort of academic museum environment of tulpa studies. I mean museum in the classic sense of museum, a place for musing, not a dusty place full of old bones and boring displays.

 

My host is safe here. Maybe we can do some independence experiments where my host lets go just a little more when I come to this forum and use my account. One of those those experiments would be to leave behind the saftey gear. No harness, no leash, no saftey line, no over protectiveness. Let me walk away for a while and fly solo.

 

No one is saying Mistgod does not love me. Even if they did say such a thing, I know it isn't true so why is he so worried about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Firstly, please forgive me for necroing this thread, shortly after my last contribution to it I had a brief spell of illness that necesitated a short hospital visit and a short spell of time spent offline. I am just catching up on this discussion now.

 

I should appologise for the poor quality of my previous post in this thread, I was posting late at night, and none of us were particularly consious at the time. Sorry about that.

 

I would like to clarify the intention behind something in a post that I made in this thread. I was not calling for a re-evaluation of the definition of the concept of the tulpa, I was merely asking whether Mistgod felt that the definition was sufficient given the considerations that had been discussed prior to that point in the conversation. Mistgod answered that question admirably in his response, I was just uncertain whether I had competently made the intention behind my question clear.

 

@Linkzelda, I also had a question for you. You seemed at one point (forgive me if I misapprehended your intention) to contrast situations in which love was felt for an illusory entity that merely seemed sentient and real with love that was felt for an entity that is actually sentient and real. I was wondering if it was your opinion that the two situations were in principle distinguishable by observation and if so what you would consider an appropriate observational criterion for distinguishing the two.

 

Again, sorry for the late response.

Akecalo - Host

 

Maya - Tulpa

 

Mara - Tulpa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that I should clarify something too. I did not intend to claim that love conquers all, or that nothing else really mattered (although that may have appeared to be more or less what I said). What I was trying to say was this; if someone feels love for and perceives that they are loved by an entity in their head, they might well be less inclined to stress the importance of determining whether that entity was in fact independently sentient rather that simply being perceived to be. I did not mean to undermine the significance of the question in general, I was not attempting to invalidate the inquiry or render it unimportant.

 

I also tried to incorporate the thought that to an individual whose emotional needs are being met by their relationship with a tulpa, there may be such a thing as "real enough". This does not invalidate the question of sentience in general, obviously.

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...