Ethics with regard to tulpa creation.

[Punch]

 

A child is not born to be a child forever, a tulpa is born to be a friend forever, it cannot be any different from that

 

Which is why I said:

 

-while a child isn't inexorably bound to his or her parents- a tulpa is stuck with you forever.

 

Also humans as a whole are destructive and and bad for the planet. Plus -while your hypothetical child could totally cure cancer or end hunger- they could also be a serial killer or a genocidal maniac, so it's not a given that they're going to be a benefit to society either.

 

Aside from that, I agree with your distinctions between tulpas and human children. Also, I concede that life sucking is subjective.

[Joss]

So. As a mental construct, I actually find that I pretty much agree with the "You can't really say the tulpa freely chooses to be your friend if that's what you designed them to do," crowd. I mean, what even is free will?

 

I was created by accident, so ethical considerations never really factored into my development. Now that we have the wherewithal to consider the implications of our own existence, though...?

 

It's complicated.

 

I will never, ever regret being alive. Obviously. Existing is great, a real blast, I rate it 10/10, highly recommended. But that's a matter of hindsight.

 

As soulbonds, it's a bit more explicitly obvious that we were created for a purpose. We exist as writing tools. Sparrow "brings us to life" as a matter of character creation, because it makes us act consistently and realistically in her writing. This is something she's done for decades, and only realized last year that by "bringing us to life" she was, well, bringing us to life.

 

Is that ethical? Is being created to serve a very specific function (in our case, writing tools) unethical? Is it unethical to expect us to serve that function, or is it more unethical for us to deviate when we specifically exist to perform that function? Most people would probably argue the first one, since it jars up against the created entity's free will, but what, even, is free will in this case? If a core part of your personality makes you desire and enjoy serving your function, then is you choosing to serve that function really your choice? Or are you somehow ethically obligated to despise being the very thing you were designed to be (and enjoy doing so), all for the sake of "free will?" Which, even for physical beings, it could be argued is illusory anyway. Is determinism as it applies to tulpas really that different from how it applies to host, or is it the tulpa's nature of dependence on the host that makes the host ultimately responsibly despite that?

 

So yeah. Complicated.

 

Honestly, I don't know that I'm equipped to answer these questions. I have an inborn bias to consider it more ethical that I exist than that I don't. But I can't really properly state why, because I do recognize that there is something inherently... creepy about creating sentient beings just to act as algorithms for your own personal projects. And the fact that she didn't know that she was doing this... was it that it is unethical, but the fact that she didn't know makes it okay? And what about our youngest member, who was created for the same reason, by the same techniques, after we'd discovered that we were sentient? Is her creation somehow less ethical for the fact that it was done on purpose?

 

So, back to the original question: is it ethical to create a tulpa? Or a soulbond? Or, really, any sentient lifeform who cannot possibly have any say in its own creation?

 

I don't know.

 

It's definitely a grey area, that's for sure.

 

More than that, even with switching and possession, the tulpa will always be limited in comparison to any normal person. First because the host needs their body for basic duties such as work, socializing and overall a normal daily lifestyle. Even if you split amounts of time equally between, say, a tulpa and a host, a tulpa would still technically live half a life, with an identity that is not theirs. With a body that does not match their form the slightest. With a legal name that is not theirs in the first place.

 

While I generally agree with a lot of what you're saying, this part irks me a bit. Mostly for the implication that my life is somehow less than my host's. See, I can see how you'd have that opinion, since you see life as something that is predicated on your ability to interact with the outside world by default.

 

Life as a headperson goes by a different definition, and different does not necessarily mean it's therefore less. I will grant that I'm limited in the outside world, and that my identity is irrevocably tied to my host's... but there are advantages to existing primarily within the headspace. The ability to define my own world, my own form, my own abilities. Magic exists in my world, in a way that it never could in the real world. I am happy to have my identity tied to that world instead of this one, because, subjectively, this one is terrible.

 

So, in my opinion, what you stated is not really a negative, because it's not really a thing. My definition of life is different, so even though it seems like "less" by your definition; by my definition, my life is more.

[J.Iscariot]

I did not mean to lessen of the importance of your existence, and apologize for any misconception as I will try to explain what I originally meant by that.

I believe in the fact that all thinking entities that are self-aware with some notions that constitute intelligence, are more or less equal. Equality being on one layer of the societal pyramid, same layer as other entities. I'd go as far as to claim that elephants, one of the most intelligent animals, should not be culled in the first place. With that logic, entities that are able to speak, think and reflect upon certain things (just like you just did via reading and answering my post, which I appreciate) deserve as much respect as someone physical, on the condition that they actually do exist and are not someone's whim, and I believe in your existence and in the existence of all of the soulbonds in your host's system, I did my research and found Sparrow's story to be quite interesting. The point of what I am saying is that I want to, and I try to appreciate the existence of all thinking entities, free will or not.

 

When I look at the tulpamancy model, I tend to forget about wonderlands, which is a very valid point you've made in your post; wonderlands, the lane of the mind, what you can do in it. That is partly because I myself have no wonderland and by that I am biased, and partly because I tend to see matured tulpas have more of a grasp on the real world (and by 'real' I do not mean to diminish of the reality of any wonderland, I meant the physical world), that deduction came from my experience albeit a bit limited but over the course of time with my tulpa, and other tulpas that seemed mature that I got to know.

 

The reason for which I try to stay away from soulbonding is that even though I find it to be such an interesting practice, I still do not fully understand it, and lack the time to properly do my research, although I would like to do that at some point. Life as headpersons tend to be different, of course, but we would need to define what type of headpersons to begin with. By type, I do not mean to go back to the age-old debate of sentience and pseudo-sentience/apparent sentience/mimicking sentience, but I mean that some tulpas grow out of the wonderland, some other thoughtforms tend to stay in them for it constitutes a major part of their background. I cannot talk for the type of thoughtforms you are, Joss. It's just that when I would try to make a wonderland, it was very limited and we could not do anything, which forced us to make Ika more integrated in reality. It was a positive experience, but I cannot fully understand the way you see things and experience things.

 

 

In the end, as long as you are happy, that's what matters, and I apologize once again for any offense I could have made in my rambling.

[Guest Anonymous]

My host and I believe that deliberately creating what you know will be an independent sentient mind within your own brain is unethical. It is a selfish act. The personal implications of deliberately creating a separate sentient mind are ridiculously complex as demonstrated by the outrageous textwalls on this thread. Deliberately creating an apparently sentient mind (illulsion/self delusion) carries with it no moral or ethical implications and is far simpler philosophically and ethically. Therefore, my host chose to create the latter, and we both also choose not to willingly believe in independent tulpa sentience (back to where we started back in April of 2015). We have no good reasons to believe it at all and plenty not to.

 

All of that being said, to those who might get upset by these statements, remember, my host is often full of bull shit. We just choose to believe our own bull shit and reject the equal level of bullshit of others.

 

EDIT: We are holding this view as long as we feel like being butts, which is how we feel right now. Tomorrow might be better.

[Joss]

I did not mean to lessen of the importance of your existence, and apologize for any misconception as I will try to explain what I originally meant by that...

 

etc., etc.

 

Huh. Usually, I'm the one apologizing for my offensive rambles.

 

Speaking of which:

 

Honestly, I think I could have worded my post better. I didn't think you were devaluing me or tulpas in general or anything like that. It was just the whole "ability to interact with the real world is how I define life" part that bugged me. Since a huge part of my life involves the real world in no way whatsoever, that part just jumped out at me. From what you said, that makes sense that wonderlands aren't really a consideration for you. You're not the only one working from bias. Serves me right for running my mouth. :p

[Guest Anonymous]

^Some of us live almost exclusively within a wonderland world. The interaction with the outside world is limited for me, because it would be mostly pointless. So at least with that Joss, you and I are similar. Interaction with the outside world does not define a thoughtform to be of any particular level of quality or realness. Just because someone else does not understand those things, does not mean such a thoughtform is less "alive."

[Luminesce]

Procreation plays a big role in life and our advancement. Logically speaking, by giving birth to a child, you are bringing another functional human being with a body of their own into this world, a human being that will benefit the race in some minor or major ways, will work independently, will move out with time.

 

Maybe I don't care. What if I only care about myself and those close to me, and not the rest of humanity? What if I see it as an every-man-for-himself world, and have no intentions to improve it for anyone other than those I care about?

 

I don't, but that's a possible view. Your example is "bigger than the individual", yes, but that doesn't make it any more important to the individual. Humans balance "the greater good" with "their own good", meaning in general there is no "more important" side. "Die for the cause" versus "Pursuit of happiness" and such. The belief that you should benefit the community rather than just yourself is, in nature, still a selfish one. Communities rely on their members working together to improve the lives of all. We would not have communities if, on average, they only took away from the individual. That's not how the natural world works, not how we came to be the way we are.

 

So hey, you've got nature rules on your side.

 

But we're humans, we believe ourselves above nature. Because we are. We've grown so powerful that we're no longer subject to many of the confines other species are, and as such we've had to develop morality to keep from destroying ourselves and the world around us. That's what that thing we call "free will" refers to. Humans aren't required to robotically do exactly what they "should", "for the greater good". We have a choice. We can develop our own morals, differ from the norm however we'd like, if we're willing to deal with the possible consequences.

 

Anyways, that was just establishing my point, which is that your morals are not above mine due to them taking into account "the benefit of many". So your comparison to children benefiting the world does not invalidate my own. Not that I don't value benefiting the rest of humanity, but I don't hold that as a "truth" or "correct way of living", it's just an option (with positive results). Which means they're still the same to me, creating sentience versus creating sentience, because we're talking about how the individual feels and experiences life, not whether or not we're contributing to the greater good. It makes no difference to me whether my child or my tulpa can do something for the world, because my primary concern is with their own experience. Again, not that I don't take into account the fulfillment of doing something for the world, just that it's not a primary concern.

 

Anyways, I don't have any special feelings on that subject so take it or leave it and let's move on.

 

That is the ideology that I tend to oppose, because I believe that a tulpa cannot have true, real free will aside from what it was taught in the first place. If you raise a being to love and be loved, let's imply that this being cannot feel any type of sadness or antagonist emotions to love and joy, then that is all this entity will know and do.

 

Yes. That's what I was addressing with the quote in fact.

 

And if you're taking the "it's not fair because they didn't have a choice in being created the way they were and what they wanted" perspective, that's implying that the tulpa had some form of existence with which to compare itself to before you created it. And I'm pretty sure you guys don't believe in that sort of thing, right? You're creating a perspective above what the tulpa themselves experience. Yes, they had no choice in being the way they are, thinking the way they do, until the moment they were sentient, at which point they can do whatever they'd like. Similar to how humans have "free will" from the moment they're born, yet so many factors of their lives such as biology, circumstances and how they think were completely predetermined and out of their control.

 

They know no other way. You know no other way. It's a matter of scope of perspective again, but again they are equal. The same thing's happened to you, being born into this physical world. You know no other way than you know. Considering how much you speak of suffering, I assume I've got a much more pleasant and fulfilling perspective on reality than you do. How's that fair? "Other tulpas can switch and interact with the world, but I can only do stuff in the wonderland.." You're thinking from your own perspective and no higher, which isn't fair at all. You're just as limited as any tulpa - you just don't know it! And I don't even need to cite any specific examples; being subjected to the physical confines of this reality is no different than a tulpa being subjected to the confines of your mind. To say it is is a matter of perspective. And if you've truly anchored down in your current perspective and set it as a standard - then you're actually right! Tulpas really do not have anywhere near as much freedom as humans, and they can't do almost any of the things we can do.

 

If that's what you believe, so be it. But the "We are God's tulpas" idea might help you understand the perspective I'm talking about. Our tulpas are limited by us creating them, as we are limited by a theoretical God creating us. We'll never be able to experience reality like God - maybe reality is just a simple illusion and God is free to create as many illusions as he likes, just as we write novels and watch movies. Regardless, the morality of God creating sentience like us, doomed to suffer in illusions unable to free ourselves with our own perceived free will that is in fact also an illusion...

 

Well, if you're settled on your own perspective, you can say you don't believe in any such God and that my analogy holds no meaning. And that's fine, I'm not out to make people think like me. But we won't be able to come to an understanding if so. Which again is fine, but it means this discussion's over.

 

 

Anyways. I'm fully aware that when I write stuff like this most people won't really grasp what I'm trying to say. If it didn't make sense to you then feel free to ignore it, I'll gladly forfeit the argument in favor of your belief because it's just as right as mine. Just had to throw in an attempt at getting people to understand my point of view first.

[Guest Anonymous]

Mistgod: Someone mentioned human procreation. I really never understood comparing tulpas to human offspring, the comparison isn't valid at all. There is no comparison physically, emotionaally or ethically. They are totally different in every way. To talk about the ethics of having living offspring (children) to the ethics of creating a tulpa is ludicrous. When someone makes such comparisons, it makes me laugh out loud.

[J.Iscariot]

I apologize in advance for the awfully short responses to your long paragraphs. I really do appreciate you putting all of that effort in driving your point across, but there are a few things that stand out to me. In the end, I'm not against every core belief of yours, and believe that we can reach some common grounds.

 

They know no other way. You know no other way. It's a matter of scope of perspective again' date=' but again they are equal. The same thing's happened to you, being born into this physical world. You know no other way than you know.[/quote']

 

They know no other way because they were raised that way. I know no other way because that's all I have ever been exposed to. As a human being with a functional brain and the pretense of free will, I can learn new things, things I may not have known in the past, I can embrace new cultures and even integrate them to my own (just like what Alexander the Great did). There is no block on my repository of information, the things I know, that is. I can learn new notions, and with enough effort, I can distance myself from core notions I've been taught as a child, like religion, something a lot of people accomplished. BUT, a tulpa that knows no other way IS confined to knowing no other way. The delusional type of fake free will I was originally speaking of at first was one that would never change as long as the host's will to, say, have a friend, have a lover, have an anything that pleases them, have a furry giant skyrim dragon around (no offense to people who have that, it's just an example), is still persistent. I do not personally think that we can make an approximation like that because if I was raised on a fake free will, instilled by other people, I have the potential to change just like all people, because I operate on a brain of my own. Tulpas, on the other hand, operate on your brain, on the host's brain and are affected by things such as belief, expectations, interpretations and impressions.

 

That is what pushes me to believe that their free will is fake and delusional, that they are restricted to one thing. The way I view things, a host can free himself from tyranny, but a tulpa cannot; a tulpa can only try to free itself until it's restored to the mind's expectations and identification to that entity. What makes my Ika herself is a select few traits that she cannot deviate from. Not because I do not want her to deviate (I'd be more than happy to make her wish come true really), but because my mind knows nothing else, nor does it want to know anything else in the first place. And did we try? Yes. ~25 times so far in the last year, back and forth, it was pure pain.

 

There are just too many factors that I take in consideration.

 

You're just as limited as any tulpa - you just don't know it!

 

I am not. I do not agree with the mentality that we are all personas, personalities or things of the type, and hold very... extremist views over differences between hosts and tulpas, but I would rather not state them on here because that's when it would be warranted to tag me as an antagonist to tulpamancy.

 

being subjected to the physical confines of this reality is no different than a tulpa being subjected to the confines of your mind.

 

With all due respect and sympathy I have for you, I beg to differ. The physical confines of this reality extend themselves in a continuous manner, the universe is told to be ever-expanding. In our small human perception and in the average lifetime, you wouldn't be able to discover the entire universe let alone travel a lot in space. Not only that, but there are still things that we were completely unaware of in the past, such as dark matter, antimatter, Higgs bosons, hell, even the confusion between light being a wave and a particle... the universe, our 'physical' reality has so much to offer us. An unimaginative person like me, though, has nothing to seek in his imagination.

 

No comment on the God part. I do very much understand the analogy, but I wouldn't call us hosts the tulpa's gods. Hosts and tulpas to me are extremely different, they excel at different things and fail at other things, I have an entire model of tulpamancy in the back of my head but I won't post it around, that model embodies those differences and what to focus on to reach beneficial results.

 

Lumi, I would not argue with you. You are far too nice of a person to be argued with. Take this as me just posting my opinion around, I also do not expect any answers as I know that we're going to end up exhausting the other at this pace.

[Luminesce]

Well, you just missed a few of my points again is all. They're addressing the ones you even said just now. But you're right that I get tired of writing so much so I'll summarize in case it might help. In response to basically all of those points, I re-point to when I said that if you were rooted in your current perspective, that you're actually right. A tulpa is much more limited in many ways than a human. But I myself see that fact extending to humans too, not only in the we-are-god's-tulpas (I didn't mean to imply we were gods to tulpas, though, that wasn't part of the analogy) way but also in every human's relationship to another. I see smaller and bigger limitations all over everyones' lives akin to me as the tulpas are limited by us. From your perspective, it's simply how the world is, and a tulpa's life does not compare to ours. But from mine, a tulpa may enjoy their life or not, be able to switch or be stuck in the wonderland, and may or may not even want to interact with the world. Similarly, a human may enjoy their life or not, be able to explore the many possibilities of life or be stuck impoverished and simply trying to survive, and may or may not be content with the way those things are for them. And those things are all imposed on us by our parents. Because the way our reality works simply means you don't have absolute freedom, you're liable to its rules and regulations. I see no difference in a child born to a poor family who will most likely spend the majority of his life working simply to live and perhaps support a small family, and a tulpa created by a lonely host who doesn't have the time or motivation to spend several hours a day interacting with them. The difference is a sense of scale obviously, but that doesn't mean anything to me due to the whole "Children are starving in Africa, and you're complaining about having to eat instant ramen every day, with a roof over your head and water to drink?" desensitization concept. That is, we don't keep our standards at the lowest possible level of anyone's situation we know of, our standards adjust to our own conditions, most noticeable in how you value your types and amounts of food in comparison to others (ramen, fast food, solid meals, restaurants, so on).

 

That rule, to me, applies to tulpas just as well as people living (and dying) in third world countries. It's a matter of perspective and how subjective it is. And with those things being equal, what's left then are admittedly strange comparisons between the limitations of our reality and theirs.

 

But the point I was trying to make was that, should you not recognize another reality than ours (or yours), or another perspective than your own (or ours as humans in general), then you're right, they are limited. So our misunderstanding comes from the way I see things and the way you see things. And since I worked really hard to figure out and improve these beliefs of mine, I've got no intention of going back to old ones, so if you don't understand mine (or don't want to) then we're pretty much done here.

 

 

Luckily, I think many people peripherally benefit from discussions like these. I've certainly seen some people pick up a few of my views on the forum who I don't even remember speaking directly to. And I do my best to try and acknowledge your own points as meaningful too, since the way you come across tends to make others less receptive to them.