Are Tulpas Real Sentience? (2015 poll)

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't want to speak for Linkzelda before he can respond to my angry retort. I sometimes misinterpret him so I am waiting before I get too much farther into that. But I imagined some responses that might come my way from people.

 

1. An illusion cannot return your love.

 

But it can effectively seem to. Melian has emotional responses that are good enough for the greatest romantic, drama filled Melian Show day dream movies you ever could experience. I don't just visually see her body language and facial expressions (smiles, laughter, tears, sobbing cries or whatnot) I feel her emotional expressions in my mind. I feel her love for me. I still consider all of it a sort of day dream. That includes her autonomous and spontaneous actions and her seemingly autonomous emotional responses.

 

Think of an android designed to simulate a human being, such as Data from Star Trek (yes I know a fictional analogy, but there are no real androids ...yet). His "emotion chip" was all subroutines to allow his program to simulate human emotions in a convincing way. Some people would argue that it was all an illusion and that Data's emotions, though effective and socially functional, were only a program and not truly real. Some would argue that the simulation itself reached a point of emergence where the emotions were actually real. It is a matter of perspective. Both views are perfectly valid and in the end there is no way to know if Data is truly sentient. His friends, such as Captain Picard don't care, they love Data regardless no matter what. There love for him is not conditional upon him being proven to be real sentience somehow. They react to him and treat him as if he is a real person. Data's friends have deep and enduring love for him despite what any "tests" would show about the reality of his real sentience.

 

It doesnt' matter. Love is more important than real sentience. Effectiveness and functionality are more important than whether or not it is truly real.

[Guest Anonymous]

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.

 

Yep, our tulpas, simulated or real can really give us some tough love can't they?  LOL

 

Thanks for your response.  It isn't a difficult concept at all though.  We are all discussing the two possibilities.  My hostie is just saying both possibilities may exist simultaneously.  There really is no reason to believe everything, every functioning tulpa, is one or the other.

 

(Mistgod and I love that ability to switch the author on a post)

[Ghang]

Yep, i just explained how the posibility existing real and imaginary tulpas, is viable, but was a bit hard for me to do it (to explain it).

[Guest Anonymous]

Oh okay! Okie doke.

[Linkzelda]

Just because I mentioned unconditional love as an example once in a prior post in this thread does not imply that I was creating a theory about it. So, it’s obviously bullshit to even think I was making a theory of unconditional love that’s bullshit in respect to a person’s opinion. There wasn’t even anything to place disbelief in relation to ‘unconditional love.’ If anyone needs something to point to in order to call BS on, then call out on the types of conditional love I mentioned that seem to be rooted on confusion and fear.

 

The conditional love that I mentioned in the post is more so of one fueled by fear and confusion, but, conditional love isn’t exclusive to these two dispositions. So, I don’t see how anyone can over-exaggerate what I was stating when I acknowledged there are many degrees of how love can be interpreted.

 

If anyone proudly wears like a badge over how they can pretend to go about the motions of imaginary real, or whatever context they use to describe their experiences with someone in their head, they should not be offended if another person uses those terminologies to try and get on the same page. To actually be offended by the same wording –delusion, fake, imaginary, imaginary real when someone else states it, but not being fazed when that individual themselves are using it is a double standard.

 

In other words, if Mistgod is spewing this from his own mouth, of course it’s not going to faze him, because it’s how he arrives at a context for others to point to. But when, me for example, uses that same context, somehow, I’m insulting them? That seems like a double standard, and even hypocritical to get angry about.

 

I never stated in that post, in a satisfying manner, that one’s experiential learning over time was fake. I did not explicitly state this; you, Mistgod, are putting words in my mouth, and allowed your anger to cloud your judgment.

 

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.

 

Point to me where I was making a theory. Quote me, so I can know where I can clarify things to you.

 

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

 

You looked to one circumstance, and poof, it was apparent to you. Well, it just shows that the love is conditional. There are different types, but it doesn’t seem to be inherently unconditional unless the person really believes it can be to stand the test of time. So, if you’re disagreeing with the unconditional love, then okay, good for you. But, if you’re disagreeing as if I was actually creating a theory on unconditional love in the prior post, then it’s pretty much non-existent.

 

I sometimes wonder if people just imagine their own brand of what a person is saying, and over-exaggerate just to have something to be angry about. It’s pretty weird. I’m not saying you’re angry, though.

 

 

1. An illusion cannot return your love.

 

But it can effectively seem to.

 

How? Can you give me some inferences as to how this can come to be within a person’s subjective experience? If illusion giving off the effect of reciprocating love, then it’s just a mental event that will soon subside. This is the same in regards to personality, dispositions, and such – we can’t embody them forever as we react with those emotions based on the circumstance. Chalking up tulpas as mere personalities, or a feedback to get an illusion, or impression of reciprocation will naturally have them categorized as being temporary. The continuity of themselves will be considered an illusion because if an illusion can effectively seem to, it means they, the tulpas, aren’t required to have any capacity in being conscious to reciprocate that love in the first place.

 

It’s like a mental blow-up doll where a person can vent their frustrations; no capacity for sentience because the person is bothered by any intellect of there being a capacity of it simply because sharing the same mind in which sentience is apparent. I’m not stopping anyone from using a mental blow-up doll with questionable capacities of sentience, and anyone has the right to get by with illusions giving them the effect of reciprocation, but it’s more of appreciating the narratives rather than the thought-form in question.

 

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not sure if getting by with reciprocating love with someone that may have questionable sentience, and even questionable capacity for conscious experience is really reciprocation; it seems more one-sided in the person’s favor. Now, if anyone can clarify to me there’s something deeper than that, then feel free.

 

Some people would argue that it was all an illusion and that Data's emotions, though effective and socially functional, were only a program and not truly real. Some would argue that the simulation itself reached a point of emergence where the emotions were actually real. It is a matter of perspective. Both views are perfectly valid and in the end there is no way to know if Data is truly sentient. His friends, such as Captain Picard don't care, they love Data regardless no matter what. There love for him is not conditional upon him being proven to be real sentience somehow. They react to him and treat him as if he is a real person. Data's friends have deep and enduring love for him despite what any "tests" would show about the reality of his real sentience.

 

Conditional love doesn’t undermine overall love. I’m not sure how conditional love suddenly became a deterrent for everyone. Nowhere did I state that conditional love, by default, is exclusive to fear, imaginary, and confusion; there may be a type of conditional love that’s rooted on that, but it’s not exclusive to that.

 

Whatever analogy you used for AI is meaningless as it’s only useful for a person that really feels that conditional love is a bad thing. I never mentioned this sentiment, and I’m not sure where you gathered the inference to make it so.

 

It doesnt' matter. Love is more important than real sentience. Effectiveness and functionality are more important than whether or not it is truly real.

 

If you want to talk about effective and functionality:

 

- Human nature is subjective, so naturally, whatever floats a person’s boat is simply chalked up as that

 

- Some people have a preference to believe there’s a capacity of them having conscious experience to reciprocate that love, and others strip away that, and focus more on the instant gratification of love due to the imagination propagating that impression of reciprocation; the latter may be one-sided, but really, it’s all in a person’s head, so it’s just self-referential in some way.

 

If it doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to create a thread questioning if tulpas are real sentience. Because they are not an ability in regards to what sentience is. They would be presumed to have the capacity of that ability, which is a completely different perspective; it’s all about perspective, but sometimes, people can blow things out of context.

[Guest Anonymous]

How? Can you give me some inferences as to how this can come to be within a person’s subjective experience? If illusion giving off the effect of reciprocating love, then it’s just a mental event that will soon subside. 

 

This assumption is what Melian and I were offended with and what we are calling your "theory."  Melian and I already gave you several examples and some analogies.  If the apparently reciprocated love from a thoughtform is indistinguishable from the real thing, it will be just as effective and functional.  You are implying that the condition of love from the host will necessarily be transient with an illusory tulpa.  I disagree with you and think you are full of shit.  

 

For examples of subjective experience I provided you with my own with Melian.  I also gave an example of Leonard Nimoy and Spock.  My love for Melian, a fictive imaginary thoughtform, is just as real and as enduring as any tulpamancer's love for his or real tulpa ever was, as far as I can know.  

 

You are trying to tell me how I feel about Melian, in an indirect way, and it is pissing me off. You have no idea how I feel about her, except from what I am telling you.

[Linkzelda]

This assumption is what Melian and I were offended with and what we are calling your "theory."

 

Mistgod, a few questions for you:

 

- That quotation you used was quoted from the post before yours. However, it’s not the post I made before that, which leads me to wonder, where you just being angry for future events? Because nowhere did I see you quote from the prior post that seemed to have distressed you. I want to see what it is specifically in that post, and not post #45 that bothered you. Post #37 – I want to know, through you using quotations on that post, that offended you. If you’re not quoting from it, then you were getting angry for nothing. You just “happened” to feel insulted in the recent posting, but I’m still confused as to how you were angry before the post even existed.

 

Melian and I already gave you several examples and some analogies.

 

Those analogies, especially with the AI, is rooted on people allowing themselves to embrace those impressions. Now, if it helps them get by day-to-day, then that’s okay, as I mentioned with:

 

Some people have a preference to believe there’s a capacity of them having conscious experience to reciprocate that love' date=' and others strip away that, and focus more on the instant gratification of love due to the imagination propagating that impression of reciprocation; the latter may be one-sided, but really, it’s all in a person’s head, so it’s just self-referential in some way.[/quote']

 

You are implying that the condition of love will necessarily be transient with an illusory tulpa. I disagree with you and think you are full of shit.

 

If you can point to me to any individual that can be in love 24/7, then do so. Emotions are transient, and we have certain demeanors to reflexively respond to the circumstances. Being pissed off about an illusory tulpa, and me being full of shit is actually mirroring what you’ve been advertising all this time – imaginary real; a type of illusion to give off the impression of something. You’re angry at yourself, not me. Another person is just redirecting the terminology, and you’re offended by your own context. Wow.

 

My love for Melian' date=' a fictive imaginary thoughtform, is just as real and as enduring as any tulpamancer's love for his or real tulpa ever was as far as I can know. [/quote']

ou are implying that the condition of love will necessarily be transient with an illusory tulpa. I disagree with you and think you are full of shit.

 

Just look at yourself talk, man.

 

You are trying to tell me how I feel about Melian' date=' in an indirect way, and it is pissing me off.[/quote']

 

Oh, here I thought you thought I thought I was doing it in a direct way. Now that I know that’s not the case, thank goodness, I have to question how you can arrive at the inference that I’m doing it indirectly. I cannot control your subliminal thoughts that create an implicit, and indirect interpretation of posts of mine that would be directed towards you. You’re the one that holds that indirect interpretation, not me.

[Guest Anonymous]

Whatever. This is derailing the thread at this point so it stops here for my part. Let's leave at the fact that I think you are dead wrong.

 

I had a friend once who fell in love with a person he thought was the girl of his dreams. Their marriage lasted four months. He was desperately in love with her. It turned out she was a repeat offender con artist. The entire thing was a lie. All the love she seemed to show for him was false. She was totally convincing. When they arrested her for emptying his bank account, maxing out his credit cards, deliberately wrecking his car to get the insurance claims and false medical claims, she was almost ready to run. She had done it to four other men under other aliases and had been to prison for it. Her entire prior life was a fake story.

 

When it happened to my friend, he still loved her. He did not turn off his love like a light switch. He went through depression and it took him years to recover emotionally to what had been done to him. He thought she loved him and reacted to that illusory love as if it were the real thing. It changed his entire life. It is possible she might have kept the false relationship going for years.

 

An illusion of reciprocated love can be just as profound and life changing as the real thing. In the case with Melian and I it may even be stronger than most host/tulpa relationships because I sense her emotions and have direct access to them. Most tulpamancres try to separate themselves from their tulpas minds and emotions. It has been a FORTY YEAR experience.

 

Tell me how forty years is transitory or temporary. Tell me how it is "soon subsiding."

 

NO scratch that. I don't want to read any more from you on this as we will just be going in circles and nothing more productive will come of more of it. Maybe someone will learn something or gain some insights from our prior argument. There is something of value in the discussion and it is interesting, even if it ticks me off. But I am done with this thread from this point on. Congrats, you get the last words. Have at 'em and enjoy yourself. I'm out.

[Lucilyn]

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.

 

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

 

Anyways, basically all love is conditional love. Don't pretend it isn't just because it's really strong. There's nothing at all wrong with conditional love. Of course, those conditions may be subpar or less than fair or transient, but they don't have to be. Conditional love can last a lifetime.

 

But people sometimes say their really strong love is unconditional love because it's strong. Well, I have direct experience with both, and they aren't the same. Flan and Lumi's relationship is conditional love, even if those conditions are so basic as "you're you" as to be almost unconditional. Reisen though unconditionally loves everyone, and there's not so much qualification as "you're you" to her. Like, she just sees you and you feel loved, it's really weird. And idk if normal humans can really exist like that. We tuppers can have kinda extraordinary personalities and traits I think, stuff that a normal human can only imagine. Literally! Poetic.

 

 

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.

[Guest Anonymous]

It seems, IMO, that to apply sentiment towards potential delusion is to actually apply sentiment towards mental events that cannot last over time.

This is what set Melian and I off.  (Well, okay mostly me, Melian wasn't all that offended).  Delusional fantasies can last a life time.  I think he is wrong about it not being able to endure over time.  By implying that it is transitory, he is trivializing the feelings one can have for an illusory thoughtform.  That is how we interpret this.  We simply think he is wrong.

 

EDIT: Okay now I am out of this thread for good. As Melian would say double pink promise with my eyes crossed too.