Extreme & hypothetical scenarios.

[J.Iscariot]

The following is an important part of an upcoming 'research' on tulpamancers and tulpas. Please answer truthfully. Feel free to post your reasoning behind your answers for each, separate case, and vote in the polls for statistics. The poll is private, none will be mentioned by name in any research or 'paper' regarding tulpamancy and tulpas.

 

The following scenarios are purely hypothetical, meaning that to answer the following, you need to actually imagine how it would be like despite how it would 'not be you'. Answers such as 'it would not be me', any preventive measure, any implicated measure that 'the host and the tulpa would already know what to do for the other' that cancels decision-making and evaluation with critical thinking will not be considered and tossed aside. As such, please do your best to answer the following. If not, please refrain from posting.

 

First scenario:

 

You are the tulpamancer you currently are, and your tulpa (please choose dearest and most loved tulpa for this first scenario) has the exact same traits. All doubts are dissolved, and you live a peaceful life full of energy and interaction. Until, one day, a curse is cast upon you both.

 

A paper appears before you, reading:

 

Your tulpa's life... an entity conceived by a human being, not by the Creator. You must pay.

 

For each week your tulpa lives, one person will die. This person shall not hold any world-changing impact on your life, this person shall not be a relative of yours by blood. This person will be randomly chosen out of the approx. 7.4 billion human beings on Earth and more. Each week, you will cause the death of someone without any conviction; meaning that their deaths will just happen without your intervention, you will not be apprehended, concerned or questioned about their deaths. This person's death will hold, on the global scale, the significance the president of the United States would give to a simple ant; their death would result in no true loss on the global scale.

 

BUT.

 

For each person that dies, you, the host, and not the tulpa, get to experience a vision in which you see with clarity the funeral of the person who just died. In the vision, you will witness and even feel the emotions of those who lost a father, a son, a brother, a lover, momentarily. Visions will last 15 minutes.

 

If you agree to this contract, the agreement will be put in place for a length of 3 years.

 

If you do not agree, your tulpa dies a painful death with the feeling of betrayal.

Additionally, your tulpa cannot interfere or communicate with you until a decision is made.

 

This first scenario is one the host has to answer; would you AGREE or DISAGREE?

 

Second scenario:

 

This is directed at tulpas.

 

Same as the first, only this time, YOU, the tulpa, are the one to take the decision. You decide for your right to live, without having the host communicate or interfere with you. You get to sign this, and the host will be subject to those visions on a weekly basis.

 

Do you AGREE or DISAGREE?

 

I look forward to see what people have in store.

 

 

If you or your tulpa voted for the agreement, please PM me for further questioning.

[SomethingDire]

My answer to the first question would be: I disagree.

 

There are people out there who are going to change the world for the better, and I cannot risk their lives for mine. Of course, the humanity will reach to turning points with or without them, sure. This will happen sooner or later, and maybe it will even happen in more convenient ways.. But I still refuse to risk it, because I truly do not matter when compared to anyone that even has the potential to change something big and change it for the better.

 

..I would have to be locked up afterwards, though.

 

Céleste's answer is..

 

"I disagree."

[J.Iscariot]

Oh, I forgot to mention that the chosen person won't have that big of an impact on the world. That's kind of what I meant but I forgot to be specific; they're going to be your average father, brother, husband, average worker, having a small impact in the world. I wouldn't kill off a future Einstein (considering the gravity of the term 'Einstein')

 

But I take it that your decision would remain the same nonetheless.

[SomethingDire]

You would be correct.

 

"I truly do not matter when compared to anyone that even has the potential to change something and change it for the better."

 

And it doesn't have to be a future Einstein. An author, an artist, someone that works hard to provide for their loved ones.

 

Céleste also stands his ground.

[J.Iscariot]

Noted. Thank you.

[Tewi]

"your tulpa dies a painful death with the feeling of betrayal.", lol. Reisen would not for a nanosecond entertain the idea of someone dying for her. And Lumi knows it. He's not so selfish as to deny the grounds on which she exists for his own benefit. Everything in that hypothetical after "Your tulpa dies, or someone else dies -" was irrelevant.

 

I don't think it matters which of us it was, either. We all know what we are, and we aren't worth a human life. Each of our morals would never let us hurt someone else for our own sake. Lumi's own feelings are somewhat irrelevant also, as he would follow ours before his in any case in which it mattered. He wouldn't feel good about it, but he wouldn't feel bad enough to do otherwise.

 

Luckily this sort of thing only applies in hypotheticals. We're otherwise protected from such situations. We made Lumi agree years ago that he would never put us above someone else. As far as I can tell that would only normally apply in the context of spending time with us instead of spending time with someone else, where that someone else is hurt because of it. Again, his personal feelings have no relevance in the matter. Names are anonymous so I voted on my account instead of logging into his for 2 and 4.

[Temar]

Jesus, what a question.

 

Heh. My host and I were reading this together, so she knew my thoughts on it before she could answer. So her answer isn't as much of a vacuum as this study might need, though she tried to reason around that.

 

Case 1: I DISAGREE

 

It took some deliberation, because this is an ethical question that involves weighing one life over another. I don't even care about the "funeral vision" thing... the simple fact that my choices would somehow be responsible for anyone's death, no matter how indirect, is just so insanely horrifying. Much less 156 people over three years.

 

But then, there's the tulpa to consider. Disagreeing would mean actively choosing to kill them, and in an awful, painful way. I love my soulbonds, and even though I might put them through difficult scenarios I would never want lasting harm to befall them.

 

In any other circumstances, I would have left the decision up to the tulpa, since it's their life I'm gambling with. But that is explicitly forbidden by the scenario. So, I'd try to think of what the tulpa would want if they could weigh in.

 

Before reading the scenario, I chose Temar, since he's been with me longest. Even without any communication or empathic connection, I'd know exactly what he'd pick. We've been together for 17 years. It's hard not to know how a person thinks after that long. So I know he'd find the idea of someone else dying for his own life absolutely abhorrent. Lingering superhero complex, and all that. So that's something to take into account; if I agreed, I don't know that he'd ever forgive me.

 

So. I acknowledge that it would be a difficult decision. It would be easy to be selfish and want to keep my soulbond healthy... but the fact that it would probably irrevocably ruin our relationship is a point against that. And he'd be right to be angry at me, too, because how can you possibly weigh the life of a single person (especially one who does not influence the outside world beyond a few posts on the internet) over 156 people?

 

So. After some hesitation, I'd disagree.

 

 

 

Case 2: I DISAGREE

 

Strongly, viscerally disagree. No deliberation necessary. Just reading the question made me nauseous. I don't care that we would never know the people who die; it would still be indirectly killing them, and that is just so wrong, I can't even... ugh.

 

If I can make the choice, then it is my moral obligation to take the bullet. Absolutely disagree.

 

(But if it matters, I think if it were someone other than me, it might be different. Pretty sure Sparrow would always find a reason to disagree no matter which of us was at stake, but some of the soulbonds in here would be willing to put themselves before a bunch of strangers. And that's something I'd fight them on, if I had the ability to stop them from agreeing. I just can't stress how strongly I feel about this question.)

[waffles]

Yeah I don't think that you will find anyone who agrees with this. I mean the reasoning is kind of obvious and honestly like a lot of your threads, Judas, it's kind of irrelevant whether it's tulpas or hosts you're talking about. Very few people would want to live if someone died every week because of it, much less keep a loved one alive. I find your "BUT" kind of funny, because it's not a "but", at least for most people, it just makes it a bit harder to ignore the deaths that would, I guess, be weighing on most people's consciences anyway.

[J.Iscariot]

The reasoning that is presented to you, the community of tulpa.info and affiliated members of the staff and other lurkers, is not the actual topic of my 'research'. Furthermore, this is not about whether people would do it for not, it is an evaluation and identification test to a certain component. I don't have the goal to make your typical '50% of people voted against parroting' survey with lame and boring stats. All I need is the input of this community, and to study each and everyone's situation case-by-case. I then attach the provided responses and try to establish a relation between their upbringing, their beliefs, their thoughtforms and the answer they present.

 

I believe that if and when I see someone voting yes, that will be the step forward my research. I would like it if people who feel like they would agree, and more specifically and urgently, tulpas who would agree reach out to me as I have a lot of questions and hold a very specific interest in their reasoning, without acting as the devil's advocate in such questioning.

 

I'm not going to tell what the purpose of my research actually is, though. Every sub-section of it is, in many ways, an important point of reasoning and tulpamancy model. It's the little pieces that come together. I'm not even discussing of the type of empathy you would find in tulpas as a reflection of the host's best side, for instance. There is one specific answer that I would deem highly intelligent and would bring my research an entire step forward in terms of reasoning, and as bad of a classification model where I include some and exclude others it may seem, it is something I've been studying for a very long while, methodology in evaluation and identification, forming this type of questions and hypothetical scenarios does not involve a direct answer. For all I care, everyone will vote yes, it's the reasoning behind it that interests me, along with my association of that reasoning to many other logical factors and even personal ones. The little pieces that contribute to this type of analysis are what help.

 

But, yes. This is still open for anyone who will eventually vote yes. That I would like to get in touch with.

[yenu]

Yeah I don't think that you will find anyone who agrees with this.

Ahem, ... I would agree.

 

I do not take responsibility for any deaths a giant super-powerful space-tyrant decides to make supposedly "because of me" - because seriously... any being that is willing to both torture me and kill strangers on a whim would probably do that anyway.

 

So, in short, I'd agree and then I'd make the names of the victims public so to put the blame in the right place and hopefully find a way to just kill that monster. XD

 

 

While writing, I felt strong agreement from Graiho and Jonas, ... both of which like to see me angry in general. I cannot proxy their independent answer, because on ethical questions, we do only ever make decisions together after debating... that may be an independence issue, but that's how it is. I wanted to get out my answer anyway. :-)