Linkzelda May 8, 2016 Share May 8, 2016 The mentality of “treating a tulpa as sentient” seems to be something generally accepted in the community; a potential step-up from a previous ideology of assuming sentience from the start. In my opinion, it’s sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy in some way in that it seems to be conviction-based, and because of this, people will cultivate their own meaning-finding that almost seems similar to existentialism—which is basically the thesis that one can create their own sense of meaning through action. And through the conviction-based ideology of treating a tulpa as sentient, the individual that wants to create and interact with their tulpa will ultimately have to rely on experiential cases of what they could consider validating sentience in some way. Whether it’s through the people they meet, or the things they do day to day, it becomes highly subjective, and the philosophy seems to be a useful heuristic in chalking up what we’re all striving for. However, as much as it seems to be a viewpoint that can generalize other potential conviction-based ideologies, it doesn’t seem to ease the apprehension, or the skepticism completely in whether or not the tulpa in question is truly sentient; at least in context of being true within the host’s internal, private experience. And because we can’t step into another person’s private experience, and validate if they have a sentient entity, or not, the philosophy kind of falls apart when adapted to those circumstances that we can’t even conceive of being possible. However, it seems to be a form of consolation of telling us that tulpas are conceivable indeed, but that conceivability does not necessarily mean that they can be metaphysically validated. And to chalk up what I mean by that—basically anything that has to do with theories of mind, and how the concept of tulpas may coincide with certain theories of mind. And because of this gap that’s just begging for scientific inquiry, philosophical discussions and theorizing, and what have you, there seems to be this frequent referring of that same meaning-finding being delusional, lying to oneself, and cultivating a reality in which one feels their tulpa as sentient while knowing they’re limited in validating this to others. And although one can just be content with the conceivability part, some may want their tulpas to reach to others, but are faced a challenge in how to assess themselves in having them being acknowledged for who they could be. And it seems one of the few things a person can rely on is that through this conviction-based ideology, they can give meaning towards the goal, and find things that match the context of appeasing their questioning of what it means to be sentient, and such, but that cringe factor of “what if it’s just a lie” can still linger. A simple analogy for this is that we don’t really need to treat others as sentient outside of our experience because we already assume they have competencies as sentient beings. In fact, it doesn’t really matter what we think of them, and what we think goes on inside of their heads because their sentience isn’t really dependent on us creating a conviction-based ideology to validate this. And because that validation isn’t dripping with contingency on our end, it seems difficult to assume the case with tulpas. Because again, it leads to an assumption of sentience being cultivated from the start, or something that’s emergent. To say the least, the philosophy seems to comfort in what-ifs on what it means to be sentient while allowing one to neglect those soft and hard problems with consciousness entirely. So, I have some questions: - Do you feel treating a tulpa as sentient has its limits? For example, do you think it can be applied with the concept of switching, possession, imposition, etc.? What is the Achilles heel, to you, if there’s any? - Do you feel the philosophy ultimately leads to one referring if they’re deluding themselves, creating a reality that can’t be validated to others, but only within their internal, private experience? - Do you feel that even though they can be conceivable, can there be any hope of any metaphysical connections (e.g. theories of mind) that could support the concept of tulpas? - Do you feel that over time, this conviction-based ideology eventually turns from treating to believing they really are sentient? Are we back to square one in assuming sentience, but with more of a fallback to rely on (e.g. the experiences where tulpas are putting things into context)? - Do you think delusions can be put into a more positive context, or is it solely dependent on negative contexts? - Do you think the conviction-based philosophy is a way for a tulpa to cope with the probability that they would exist in this mental, veiled prison (metaphorically speaking, of course with no negative context of booing a person in making a tulpa), and having to struggle, and using those experiences of struggle to find meaning in validation of their sentience? - Is the philosophy really just a shift in semantics with assumptions that means the same thing (e.g. with the assuming sentience), or is it a real step-up in how we assess ourselves? - Is there something else that can take its place after a person has an experiential fallback and assurance of their tulpa being sentient? [align=center]7 Hours of Active Forcing 8 Hours & 29 Minutes of Active Forcing 10 Hours of Active Forcing[/align] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.