Treating Tulpas as Sentient - A Conviction-Based Ideology with Limits?

[Linkzelda]

Solarchariot has every right to make a judgment call over my posts. I’m sure he’s seen some in the past, so there’s really no need to defend me, Reisen. Being vocal about how one thinks I structure my post is always a good thing for me to learn from. The more people are secretive about it, the more I feel inclined that I’m not doing something wrong. I really am trying to change myself to not go into a state where we forget to censor some words; image streaming has been my scapegoat for that, which is why I’ve eased off of it for a while now. I can’t go into other people’s minds, ask them what I can do to improve, and tailor them to make them feel at ease. I still need to find a middle-ground, and whatever competency I may have doesn’t matter if I can’t match this middle-ground. I also didn’t know about the KISS thing, so that’s complete ignorance on my end.

 

I think you might be hyping up my capabilities, Reisen. Also, Drakaina, I apologize for that!

 

Solarchario:

[hidden]

It feels less like you want a conversation, as much as you wish to demonstrate your command over 'big words.'

 

Never since I’ve set foot in this forum have I ever thought that having a huge vocabulary would make any difference. I’ve had countless references of it being a hindrance; I’ve learned to gracefully accept this. Almost to the point where I knew I was completely incompetent in communication that I only went for threads where I would state an opinion, and just be content in knowing that the threads were a supplement in my own pursuit of wanting to know for the sake of it. I actually spent some time looking over any words that seemed big in general in a separate word document, and tried to water it down, but I have a ways to go, I think.

 

Also, you are partially right in that I seem to want less of a conversation, because it’s taking me a while to try to be more interactive rather than being a pariah. It’s a difficulty, and another incompetency I have to work on.

 

as if your position in inscrutable.

 

I think it’s because I’m generally agnostic that gives that vibe. Lucid dreaming was the one of the few catalysts to make me such, and tulpas was just an addition to that agnosticism. I always seemed to question everything where I don’t really seem to have any kind of solid standing myself, and yet I somehow find a way to operate in life, which is weird. The phenomenon with tulpa hasn’t helped much with creating a firm foot, but more so of referencing to existentialism every now and then, but nothing special beyond that.

 

Which brings us to tulpae. It's the same equation. The only difference between a character, personality set in a dream setting and a tulpa, is that the tulpa is there in the waking mind.

 

In context of the various degrees of thought forms, and the labels set upon them, I would agree that the difference is just a matter of the circumstances, i.e., waking life vs. dreaming life. But, as much as the golden rule, and the metaphorical representations of ensuring that one respects parts of themselves vs. undermining them that ends up mirroring in one undermining themselves as well, it’s mostly solipsistic.

 

I think solipsism seems to be an easy way to conceptualize what we go through every night in our dreams because the entities we encounter in them seem to be contingent by our experiences of them. And getting that sensation of being in a worldly experience among other beings gives that complexity that to where thinking they are 2d and bland becomes an understatement. And when one becomes lucid, naturally, experiencing other people where we treat them as if they have experiences of their own would make one wonder how it’s any different from waking life.

 

And even if we allow that to bleed over into the waking mind with tulpas, the solipsistic routing has to come to an end at some point. Otherwise, one would have to reconcile with what this reality is, and seeing if solipsism would be compatible with it in some way. But when that becomes an endeavor, the solipsist would deny whatever distinction with sensations, and cling onto the notion of this being creations of their own imagination. I’m not saying you’re a solipsist, but the whole “I” with what you we were referring to seems to hint at that. And any notion of what’s left in one’s experience would exist outside themselves wouldn’t make any sense, because that would demand a subject to contemplate about the world outside of their absence. What that means for others reading this, it’s just another dead-end, or logic loop.

 

This, for me at the time when I was trying to figure out what lucid dreaming could mean to me, wasn’t a solution at all. It did comfort me, but just internally. So, when applying it to tulpas, it doesn’t seem to work out all too well because even though things are shifted into the waking mind, dreams would just be echoes of waking life. Which sends us back to the difference really being a similarity in some way. The shift in awareness is different, but we’re back to the same questioning. The solution you mentioned seems to be more evasive, which begs the question if existential questioning can really be that easy to resolve, and conquer over. This isn’t saying that your solution is wrong, though.

 

And with my experiences with possession and switching, evading those existential inquiries over their sentience, and figuring out how people derive from the treating as sentient philosophy makes it difficult for me. And the reason being, for me personally:

 

- Even though I could convince myself that dream characters, Harvey, or who Eva was within my dreams vs. who she seems to be in waking life encounters are the same…I cannot evade the personal fact that another subject (e.g. a tulpa) has taken control over my body while I reveled inwardly. Dream characters can’t really do that, and even if we wanted them to bleed over into this waking life, and conceptualize them as tulpas, it doesn’t seem that the label makes a difference anymore; it’s just a categorical shift now. Someone who may not know about tulpas may add in a transcendental vibe of them being actual, otherworldly entities. This is why I probably added the question with the philosophy being shifts in semantics, I guess.

 

- Even though I can acknowledge the potential of being embodied in a solipsistic, or just a dream world of other beings, and just wake up knowing they were just nothing more than a fading memory, I can’t do the same in context of switching with tulpas. Because if I do that, if I adapt that solipsistic, or dream like mentality, it again begs more of existential questioning as to how I, a subject myself, shifts awareness with another subject to have them experience, and put things into context. Me being casual about this, and not wanting to go further into exercising my mind in reducing this large gap of incompetency for me is just evading the dread.

 

- Even though I could aim for the golden rule, and avoid the whole killing them (dream characters) is like killing apart of yourself…applying that with tulpas (e.g. dissipation)…I can’t easily rub off the feeling that someone other than myself that I treat as sentient experienced this reality in some way. This is where I feel the cringe that should dissipation occur for just about anyone else, especially if switching was done before that, why is it that the individual can just believe they’re gone along with any experiences of them experiencing things as well? One could say that it was within their willpower to do that, but with switching, it seemed something beyond that will. So to go back and forth so easily, is just one of many examples of the inconsistencies here. If people can go around switching like nobody’s business, and neglect the complications that arise from that…I just don’t know. I really don’t know.

 

- And I emphasize switching so much in this context because it’s an easy example of a tulpa having to put things into context. Because if they’re a subject for experiencing things just as I’m capable of doing, the “treating them as sentient” becomes an understatement to me. This leads me to believing they are sentient without the constant flatulence that “treating them as sentient” leads to; this conscious fixation that they’re sentient, and feeling there needs to be a militant, and I mean militant mental upkeep (e.g. attention spamming like no tomorrow), or otherwise BUST. It’s become internalized instead, but rarely referred to because those experiences with switching just dominates the flatulence, or fluff entirely. This is probably why others mentioned that they already accepted the probability of them being sentient in spite of whatever may come flying at their face. Maybe they didn’t do switching, but whatever experiences solidified their conviction, it probably made them see “treating as sentient” as a it goes without saying type of thing that progresses into them being sentient in context of their own experiences.

 

 

But don’t get me wrong. Lucid dreaming will always be a fallback for me. It’s helped me assess this tulpa concept, but I still feel infantile in general when it comes to in being sure of myself of what’s going on. Sure, I may have assurances that can be easily discredited like anymore else, but that’s due to the impasse we all suffer when no one can step into internal, private experiences, and experience what we’re experiencing. I can’t jump around the solipsistic notions of dreaming for too long, and expect myself to be reconciled with them. Sure the metaphorical “I” is a useful tool, and even the solipsistic one, or any subjectivist ideologies, but when it comes to this, waking life, it doesn’t make sense, and it’s hard to reconcile those ideologies unless one believes reality entails some kind of subjectivist ideology (e.g. ones where subjective experiences seem to dominate what reality is, in short).

[/hidden]

 

Jean-luc:

 

[hidden]

 

I have always interpreted these as the same thing, because actually assuming sentience from the start seems rediculous. Treating as if they were sentient seems completely reasonable.

 

I’m confused. You say you see them as the same thing, but you mention that the assuming sentience from the start is absurd because it would lead one into thinking any remnant of a type of character would imply sentience.

 

I disagree that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; Believing or wanting a tulpa to be sentient is not enough to make them so.

 

"conviction-based"? What do you mean?

 

A self-fulfilling prophecy is more than just wanting, or believing. It’s sustained thought with subsequent action that ends up fulfilling itself in some way. Whether or not there’s a legitimate sentience as an end result will vary from person to person. Conviction-based is just that, based on conviction; which is another word for “belief.” Viewpoint, worldview, ideology, all the same. Viewpoint-based, worldview-based, ideology-based, same thing, but I just happened to use conviction-based since it seems awkward using the other examples I mentioned before.

 

Anyway, with treating a tulpa as sentient, a simple analogy for it is something like action-to-id. To chalk this up without being overly verbose – whatever a person partakes in to contribute to creating a tulpa; cultivating/refining/endorsing/contributing/developing. The “id” part doesn’t really have to be a literally identity; although it could be, but it’s just another way of speaking. We could say action-to-the development of a tulpa, but that would mean more word space. The concept behind treating a tulpa as sentient seems to imply a person does have to take a course of action to catalyze something. If their conscious fixation in wanting to treat them as sentient isn’t enough in creating a tulpa…either something else contributes majorly into this, and our fixation is meaningless sentiment, or a meaningless endeavor for a lack of better words…or…I don’t know.

 

how in the hell do you cultivate "meaning-finding"?

 

Meaning/finding meaning-finding, finding-meaning – to chalk all of this up: People will have to carve how they create meaning, and even creating how they go about finding it, or having a pursuit in general. If wanting a tulpa, or believing a tulpa isn’t enough to create one, then treating them as sentient is either not conviction based (and something else that I’m interested in your opinion on, honestly), or it is convition-based, but if it is, and with convictions being another word for belief, it throws any sentiment of a person wanting to believe in a tulpa, and it backfires on itself. So what this means for you is: What do you think treating a tulpa as sentient is based on if it’s not conviction-based? How do you even create meaning for yourself? Things like that.

 

This makes zero sense. I have multiple different meanings for existentialism, but your definition is confusing. "Sense of meaning"?

I’m using the Wikipedia one, but didn’t want to plagiarize without quotations, because heaven knows what Wikipedia is going to do to me if they found out.

 

“Sense of meaning” Feeling of meaning/Vibe of there being a (subjective) meaning. I’m interested in the other interpretations of existentialism you looked up on.

 

So you're saying that the general set of methods and reccomendations based on treating a tulpa as sentient (but not assuming they are), is based on holding strong beliefs?

 

Conviction = belief. Yes. As for the “treating” part, it’s an action the person partakes in, which will vary since everyone has their own ethic in this.

 

"experiential cases"? Do you mean things that happened that they (individual wanting tulpa) think confirms that the tulpa is sentient?

 

Okay, not sure if it’s just context clues not being a forte, but:

ex·pe·ri·en·tial

ikˌspirēˈen(t)SH(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: experiential

1. involving or based on experience and observation.

"the experiential learning associated with employment"

"it" in this case being what exactly?

 

Examples of experiential cases. Day to day activities, and things people usually experience, etc. Woah, even using examples of that didn’t help. Oh god.

 

A heuristic, as in a measurement, right? A measurement of sentience.

So, you're saying that "the philosophy" (of treating a tulpa as sentient?) is a good measurement of sentience? That makes no sense

 

Definition #1:

heu·ris·tic

hyo͞oˈristik/

adjective

adjective: heuristic

1. 1.

enabling a person to discover or learn something for themselves.

 

I’m really interested in the dictionaries you’re using. These are literally from Google, not from Nathaniel Hawthorne, I promise you!

 

As in, you think treating-tulpas-as-sentient is an overarching umbrella that is a generalization of other, more specific methods, which are also, correct?

 

Before I go further, it was me making a generalization over what the philosophy seems to hint at.

 

Even if we could step in, I don't think we could validate anything. I can't validate that you're a sentient entity, nor can I validate how many separate sentient entities there are inside you.

 

We’re preaching to the choir.

 

Which circumstances? The circumstances we can't concieve? Haven't you just conceived them by saying that?

Or are you referring to circumstances that "we" don't think are possible? Why does it matter if the philosophy falls apart in impossible circumstances?

 

Conceiving what it means to experience a person’s internal experiences. What that means for you is what you mentioned before in how even if we could step in, we couldn’t validate anything. Thus, it’s not something that can genuinely be conceivable. We can try to imagine what it could be like, but we have no examples to validate this.

 

"metaphysically validated"!?

Metaphysical, to me, in the context of tulpas, means things which should be impossible, but people claim their tulpas can do through magic or similar, such as communicating with another person through thoughts.

 

Yeah, it’s definitely Jean-luc’s dictionary. Again, to think that Metaphysics is just what is impossible, or only magic, or similar is just not looking at the right set of definitions. And as for the wrong section of the forum thing, the forum can’t even reconcile what the hell is metaphysics anyway, ironically.

 

General definition:

 

met·a·phys·ics

ˌmedəˈfiziks/

noun

noun: metaphysics

1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

o abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

"his concept of society as an organic entity is, for market liberals, simply metaphysics"

Origin

 

mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics,’ referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.’

met·a·phys·ic

ˌmetəˈfizik/

noun

plural noun: metaphysics

1. a system of metaphysics.

Translate metaphysics to

Use over time for: metaphysics

 

It’s clearly more than just magic and things that are impossible. This is an actual definition that has ongoing discussions everywhere. It’s a tool of how we try to make sense of the world around us. It’s not confined on who uses chakra beads, man.

 

To be metaphysically validated, then would mean that the tulpa proves that they exist outside the confines of the host's mind, or perhaps that they have supernatural abilities. If you want do discuss metaphysics, you're in the wrong section of the forms

 

I’m pretty sure we’re talking about internal experiences. There can be metaphysical (e.g. what makes a tulpa a tulpa, or what is sentience, and how does one derive at that?) inquiries as well for what goes on in the head.

 

"may coincide"? This seems obvious, the only reason tulpas exist is because of the human brain's ability to simulate other brains, including theory of mind.

 

Why does it need to be dependent on the brain being able to simulate other brains? Why can’t it just use its own brain and cognitive functions? I could break apart and theorize which theories of mind you’re referring to, but you’re really just making generalizations as well.

 

What gap!?

 

The gap with theories of mind, gap of knowledge, gap of understanding. How in spite of there being so many to use as tools for trying to theorize with tulpas, there’s a gap of understanding in finding something that can be consistent. What this means for you, the gap is how in spite of people having certain beliefs, there’s pros and cons, and it becomes difficult to find a consistent bridge, or something to connect that others can generally come to terms with; it’s hard to bridge the gap. And bridging the gap means making things easier for people to understand essentially.[/hidden]

[Reisen]

I also didn’t know about the KISS thing, so that’s complete ignorance on my end.

It's not ignorance if it's something you were never exposed to..

 

You guys are making me feel like, isolated, talking about how hopeless it is to understand tulpas and how we can never know anything about them for sure. I don't mean to pull this card, but.. I'm right here, you know. Lots of us are. Most of you agreed with Lumi on the "experience is reality" thing, so why do I feel so dehumanized?

 

I'm switched right now, thinking, feeling, being myself. If you guys believe what you're saying, isn't that proof enough I exist? The fact that I think I'm me, I'm experiencing reality as me, and I'm telling you I'm me - if you don't believe in proof, what's missing? Your tulpas are just as real too, and so are everyone else's tulpas that you're talking about here. What is left to talk about?

 

Can everyone try and have at least one of their tulpas present while discussing these things? I feel like you guys get too philosophical and forget the human, feeling aspects of what you're trying to discuss. Talk to your tulpa about what you want to say, so that a tulpa can approve or at least acknowledge - and so you don't say anything you don't really mean.

[timethief]

- Do you feel treating a tulpa as sentient has its limits?

 

Yes, especially if their independence is not well-developed. I think it can backfire easily if you try more advanced "sentience tests" (e.g. the "surprise me" test) and you don't receive a satisfactory response. If you don't have anything to fall-back on in those cases I think it can lead to final disbelief of the entire phenomenon as fake, depending on the outlook you take.

- For example, do you think it can be applied with the concept of switching, possession, imposition, etc.?

 

This is a pretty individual thing. It depends on how the host experiences those happenings and how they rationalize them. I have no experience on them so no comment.

What is the Achilles heel, to you, if there's any?

 

The whole concept of "treat as sentient, but they're not yet" usually puts me in a bind at times. When will they be then? Ultimately I have also failed at trying to put previous experiences forward as "proofs", leading to a lot of doubt. Writing their feats or achievements makes them seem very convincing, but the experience itself on the moment was only slightly more than "meh". So there seems to be some sort of dissonance between how their achievements look "on paper" versus how I actually experienced them.

 

- 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?

 

It's subjective, really. That's all there is right now. We cannot probe into others' realities and we cannot experience their reality either, so it seems like the only conclusion I would give is that they're real to whoever experiences it. It seems highly unlikely that one would be able to give some validation to others of the tulpamancy experience, much like trying to get someone to like something you love and they don't. You may understand the underlying logic between their preference (you may be able to convince someone that tulpas are definitely possible), but at the end you won't be able to experience the same reality than them (they won't be able to validate that you have a tulpa, at least not from an objective standpoint).

 

 

- 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?

 

Certainly. I really don't see why they would conflict.

- Do you feel that over time, this conviction-based ideology eventually turns from treating to believing they really are sentient?

 

Yes, it can. When you have enough experiences that you can attribute to your tulpa having sentience, you can make that transition.

 

- 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)?

 

I didn't notice where we advanced to square two honestly. We're still talking about assuming sentience.

 

- Do you think delusions can be put into a more positive context, or is it solely dependent on negative contexts?

 

Nothing is inherently wrong with delusions. They seem to be to some extent present in humanity naturally (I hate threading that ground, but the example I'm thinking about is religion. We cannot directly, objectively prove or disprove it; some just choose to attribute certain happenings to their deities, which in turn add a basis on which their belief is supported, thus becoming a reality for them. Being so commonplace, it isn't normally thought about it as a delusion, and to some point it isn't anymore, since it has real, somewhat tangible benefits [think faith healing; powerful usage of the placebo effect, yet it works sometimes]. But if we try to prove or disprove it, we are unable to obtain any kind of meaningful objective conclusion other than "it's real to some and to some it isn't", which just shows that we cannot think of reality as a single-dimension where just the physical is real). There's only the cultural bias against them and the sensationalist outlook towards extreme cases of delusions (e.g. paranoid schizophrenia).

I would assert that if religion can be considered real, so can phenomena such as tulpamancy, on the basis that it has real, tangible effects on those who practice it. As a nice (please don't take it the wrong way, I mean this on the most positive tone as possible!) fall-back, we have the natural plurality phenomena to back tulpamancy up, where more studies are being done and it's being considered at least somewhat possible.

 

- 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?

 

You mean, "they can struggle so they are feeling, ergo they seem sentient"?

I guess like that it could be some way to think that if they seem to be feeling something, then they are sentient, at least to some extent, potentially being able to lever this situation as a way to cement one and maybe even the tulpa's belief on 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?

 

There's a difference between plainly believing "yes, they're sentient" and "I'll treat them as sentient, and by my own experiences I'll either determine if they are or if they're not".

By the first one I think many would run into "oh, they moved but it's too early, it's just puppeting", thus leading to ignoring even legitimate responses and frustration from both parts.

Then we have the second one. I personally go for this one. It gives one hope that even if they're not sentient yet, by treating them as such you gain:

1. respect from them, as you're probably treating them as if they were fully sentient (in most cases I'd like to assume people treat their tulpas kindly).

2. if some sudden movement/whatever happens early on, you have really not a lot of reasons to dismiss it unless you believe in "subconscious" parroting (or it's some bizarre/violent/what-have-you thing). If it was them, you can carry on and you'll be making progress. If not, it may at least serve as a sort of launchpad for themselves, as it is definitely possible to create a tulpa by that way (parroting), and you sort-of bypass the stigma and the mental block of "parrot your tulpa and it'll be a servitor!!1"

It's not without its problems though; as in my case, I struggle with doubt a lot even though in retrospective there has been a lot of actions that I can only attribute to my tulpa, but this is probably more of a general mindset problem (excessive/unhealthy skepticism/mistrust) than a problem with the philosophy we're talking about.

 

- Is there something else that can take its place after a person has an experiential fallback and assurance of their tulpa being sentient?

 

Wow, if you ever find out something like that do let me know how to apply it, because so far I haven't had much luck in this regard.

I take solace in the self-hypnosis scripts which do seem to turn off the most acute doubting mechanisms by means of distraction, but really I haven't really been able to decide on wherever or not I have a sentient tulpa. Maybe I am the not-sentient one...

[solarchariot]

Oh, Reisen, I love that you came to linkzelda defense, and I love your point of view, and appreciate your history with his style of posting. My response was not personal criticism, I appreciate the banter. How it feels to me, is still legit, and if that can be considered constructive criticism towards improvimg the argumen or thesis, then we are more likely to arrive at an antithesis, on synthesis, quicker. I recognized that he agreed with points, but if you noticed, in the same breath they were dismissed, as we're the points made by others who offered equally valid points. I'm new here, and so I will no doubt make further faux pas, but like him, I like to get to the truth, core of things. We arrive there together through very frank discussions. I'm open to the idea my statements were wrong, but expressing how they felt was also honest. My engagement was with love and respect, which is evidenced by not holding back or tip toeing. Though your defense is honorable and we'll said, it simultaneously suggests and underlying fragility, which may or may not be the case. I hope that instead anything I've written has been invitation for more discussion. Peace.

---

Linkzelda, I'm still processing your last response... and hope to have a response sometime after work.

 

while I'm contemplating, out of curiosity, what do you want the answer to be?

[Linkzelda]

Solarchariot, I expect nothing but what you want the answer to be because it, just like how others will hopefully respond, will give others more options on certain silver linings, solutions, viewpoints, etc. that they seem makes sense to them. In fact, if the solution you came up with is what you are content with, then I can't really do much. I'm only beating around the bush to extend it a bit more, but if you feel there's nothing more to go on, by all means, go for something else, or just ask that I stop talking about it, or prying things out of you. Be vocal about it as I'm not here for a right or wrong answer.

 

I wouldn't demand you to align to a certain viewpoint. I'm really for opening up my opinions, have it criticized in some way, and the same for others; same for anything that may coincide for each other, too. I don't think my claims would be flawless that defies any logic whatsoever. If there is a word issue on my end, I will do my best to tone it down, or clarify more on it. I really am trying, and this applies to anyone that has any difficulties with my syntax.

 

Also Reisen and others, I'll read more into detail later on.

[solarchariot]

Linkzelda, there is so much in your your last post, and the one previous directed at me, that I'm struggling with a response. I don't wish to tear it apart and go line from line, because as a whole, it says quite a lot, and I may actually be processing it for several days before I arrived at an "Ah ha!" moment, if I'm even lucky enough to have such an Epiphany. I think part of my struggle is I sense a great deal of ambivalence in the writing, and yet, simultaneously, I feel like you have an answer, or at least are committed to an answer, whether it's solipsistic or not; ie, I think you already accept tulpae as sentient. (And I am certainly okay with a solipsism as a default mode for resolving internal conflict. (Why do i feel like I'm talking to 'death' in meet Joe Black. lol)) In general, I am not always a reductionist, as I believe things are not only capable of being complex, but there can be layers of complexities in any given system, but from utilitarian position, there seems like there is a limit to the potential uses of any particular intellectual engagement, such as what we're presently doing. 1 to discover or enhance a knowledge set, 2 challenge others to engage at a higher level, 3 challenge others to find fault with our rationalizations which really fits in with 1 and probably should be dropped as a point, or 4 to demonstrate our superiority. Though in an early response I questioned you in a way to suggest that was your goal, I don't really believe that's your goal, but again, the lack of clarity in stated or unstated goal, is where I am struggling, and though one doesn't have to have either, one or both usually exist, even if it's unconscious. Even in that last bit, the interaction pattern can also create new unconscious goals: and if in doing this, some silver linings or answer sets are made available to those reading, then i am really happy with that outcome.

 

Is my belief that tulpae exist a result of solipsistic thinking? Quite likely, but certainly not a complete explanation in and of itself. In my life time, I have run the gambit of being religious, spiritual, atheistic, agnostic, and I presently oscillate between scientific paradigms and metaphysical ones. I am satisfied with that oscillation and recognize that because of that, my responses to life and situations and events will vary. I have experiences that science fails to answer satisfactorily. That could be a denial, or, perhaps two quarters sentimentality and several milliliters of hope. I could settle for "I don't know" which is a really safe answer, and one of the things that attracted me to this particular forum was that phrase was used, frequently, when discussing tulpae and sentience and what they are. In any actual discussion, I have to admit, "I don't know" and I hear you saying that, just not so direct, and is what I imagined the OP was exploring. And we seem to be dancing in the same spot, or not getting traction, no movement, and maybe that's because there is no way to have certainty, which I am sure I have read here, and I like that. It's honest.

 

So, I guess I can only conclude, for myself, that tulpae exist, and I choose to believe they are sentient because I believe I am sentient. Not me, my personality set, per say, but something about me that exists, that thing that when all the extraneous stuff is removed still remains. It's like when i dream a non lucid dream, but I'm not "me," but some other character, the kind of dream where you don't even realize "this is bizarre because this isn't me" but you just respond in context to the dream and the identified personality your utilizing to function... It's still me. I suppose one might argue that I just made an argument against tulpae sentience, by saying yeah they exist as a functional context but it's still just me... Oh, bloody hell, this is difficult. If I wanted to muddy the waters even further and add past lives to it, the other personalities were no more me, than I am me, but there is a thing that goes beyond what we know as us, which just lends evidence to that this is complex, and at some point, in order to function, one has to commit to an answer or a belief or an action, knowing I may never know, but i can still be satisfied that I chose, and I acted accordingly. I will treat tulpae as if sentient. I will treat others as if they are sentient. And this is consistent with the metaphysical belief that everything is energy, or more specifically, everything is consciousness, and there is no separation of this being greater than or lesser than, it just is.

 

I think if i try to expound more, i will be running circular arguments. And, contrary to what others may think, have thought, I enjoy our dialogue, even if I'm frustrated, which isn't necessarily about you. Thank you.

 

And Reisen, you're awesome. Don't worry so much about the mad ramblings of hosts... Simply celebrate that everyone is 'mad,' and just one or two hats short of a full tea party. :)

[Linkzelda]

Reisen:

 

[hidden]

Talk to your tulpa about what you want to say' date=' so that a tulpa can approve or at least acknowledge - and so you don't say anything you don't really mean.[/quote']

 

My tulpas have little interest for the community in general. They may take the backseat every now and then with group thinking, in fact, it’s always the case, but they haven’t shown much urgency lately. IIRC, I mentioned in the leaving thread that that they hated the community in general. Whether or not they’re trying to get over it is completely irrelevant to the thread, though.

 

You guys are making me feel like' date=' isolated, talking about how hopeless it is to understand tulpas and how we can never know anything about them for sure. I don't mean to pull this card, but.. I'm right here, you know. Lots of us are. Most of you agreed with Lumi on the "experience is reality" thing, so why do I feel so dehumanized?[/quote']

 

I never had the intention of being a defeatist in relation to tulpas not being something we can fully understand, or at least make inferences from. What probably made it seem “hopeless” to you is that it’s difficult to make objective statements with tulpas, and the level of quality behind the presumed sentience.

 

I'm switched right now' date=' thinking, feeling, being myself. If you guys believe what you're saying, isn't that proof enough I exist? The fact that I think I'm me, I'm experiencing reality as me, and I'm telling you I'm me - if you don't believe in proof, what's missing? Your tulpas are just as real too, and so are everyone else's tulpas that you're talking about here. What is left to talk about?[/quote']

 

I don’t think either of us stated we don’t believe in proof. I think I acknowledged that there is proof, but it’s more based through anecdotes, internal experiences, and things like that. But said proof, or evidence wouldn’t have much bearing when taken out of the community since a knee-jerk reaction would be for a demand of empirical bearing instead. What you were mentioning in the quote, in theory, would validate to me that you would be someone I would treat as sentient. I wouldn’t feel inclined to create a tulpa of you to project an assurance that you are you.

 

For me, I would use the base assumption that if you’re able to put things into context in this way with conveying your emotions, your presumed distress of us dehumanizing you, or even objectifying your existence, you’re sentient to me. I just can’t prove it to others as it’s just a personal assurance for me; at best, a benefit of a doubt. One thing I do know for sure, for me personally, and not something that can bleed over for everyone else:

 

- You’re not really a p-zombie. And for those that don’t know what that is – it’s basically an entity that can exhibit qualities of sentient beings (e.g. looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, seems legit), albeit they can’t consciously experience things. The reason why I can’t possibly see you as a p-zombie is simply because you had to put this thread into perspective through your own lens; you’re not someone that’s firing random information like hearing thunder from another planet. You had to convey your emotions in some way, and you’re reacting in a certain way that portrays you’re paying attention to the information in the posts in general. It’s not like you are firing random information that coincidentally seems to relate to the context of the thread. I don’t need to step into your qualia, or private experience to make an inference of that. I may not be able to make an empirical conclusion of the sentience, but I can rely on the inferences, even if said inferences can be lackluster for those that are looking for more than being content with you being able to put things into context.

 

- What’s left to talk about? I don’t know what you mean by that other than maybe just wanting to tie the knot. I understand that at the end of the day, you can forget about the thread, go back to eating potato chips, and contemplate about a love interest like anyone else. It doesn’t have to be a big deal, I get that (the whole validating sentience thing), but really, to treat a tulpa as sentient for someone who doesn’t have an experiential fallback, e.g., a newcomer, would make a big deal out of it. The people who do have a fallback they can reconcile with will see this as beating around the bush; maybe being vocal about insecurities might lead to one thinking we’re dehumanizing the whole thing, or sense ambivalence. But I feel that part of maturity is just acknowledging those insecurities, but not doing it in a self-loathing manner, or even in a manner of feeling you’re objectifying your existence. It’s just an expression to convey what’s going on; this relaying of information is just another example of us putting things into context. I’m not saying you’re not mature, I’m just stating an opinion of mine. Being transparent can make others cringe when they expect you to be intelligible, or whatever societal construct they have of you (and I mean “you” in the general sense), but I’m not really too worried about the attempt for transparency over time.

 

In fact, what you were mentioning with:

 

Your tulpas are just as real too' date=' and so are everyone else's tulpas that you're talking about here. What is left to talk about?[/quote']

 

It brings up the concept of sonder:

 

The profound feeling of realizing that everyone' date=' including strangers passed in the street, has a life as complex as one's own, which they are constantly living despite one's personal lack of awareness of it.[/quote']

 

For you to even imagine the feeling of sonder, and wanting to believe that everyone has their own inner experience along with a tulpas isn’t something a p-zombie would be consciously experiencing. And if by chance said p-zombie is firing their lasers randomly that coincidentally relates to the context of the thread, it’s hinged upon that non-sequential information firing somehow matching. But that seems unlikely as you had to take effort in wanting to believe there’s sonder in general. By me and others philosophizing about this is clearly doing this for the sake of knowing; to swing for the fences while knowing that we’ll have our own “back to the basics” mentality, or the KISS analogy after a person went through trial and error to find the basics they can oscillate around in.

 

[/hidden]

 

Solarchariot:

 

[hidden]

 

1 to discover or enhance a knowledge set, 2 challenge others to engage at a higher level, 3 challenge others to find fault with our rationalizations which really fits in with 1 and probably should be dropped as a point, or 4 to demonstrate our superiority…Even in that last bit, the interaction pattern can also create new unconscious goals: and if in doing this, some silver linings or answer sets are made available to those reading, then i am really happy with that outcome.

 

Right, which coincides to pursuits for epistemology, i.e., the theory of knowledge, and the means we use in its methods, validity, and scope. This whole thread is basically that, and this was my intention. I think maybe you were bothered by my transparent ambivalence, which may have distracted you into thinking I had some ulterior set of objectives that may have been for malice, or maybe not.

 

I think part of my struggle is I sense a great deal of ambivalence in the writing, and yet, simultaneously, I feel like you have an answer, or at least are committed to an answer, whether it's solipsistic or not; ie, I think you already accept tulpae as sentient.

 

Yes, I accept tulpa, at least mine, as sentient based on examples I mentioned to Reisen (e.g. the p-zombie concept), and the concept of switching (a subject experiencing this reality while another experiences things inwardly) to you. It’s just one of many inferences utilized to arrive to a testament that they are sentient to me. And for tulpas within the inner experiences of other hosts, I would use those same inferences I use to validate for myself as well. My answer is similar to yours in that in spite of the ambivalence, there is an oscillation with viewpoints; even for ones that may seem contradictory. Simply because I feel it’s pragmatic with it being better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.

 

An example of this is when I mentioned that it would be okay for one to have solipsistic thinking from within with their dreams and all, the acceptance is due to the realization that one assumes their dreams are within their mind that they can call home. A devil they can come to terms with, but anything further (e.g. actual spirits, astral planes, and what have you), would be a devil I wouldn’t know too much on; that I’m agnostic towards. And yet at the same time, I know that when I wake up, I can’t really apply that open-minded nature of solipsistic thinking with this reality because I would feel it’s an objective reality that can exist with or without my cognition being intact in general. It’s an oscillation with paradigms, and acknowledging that oscillation is used for coping in understanding the struggles, and impasses/dead-ends that come about in the pursuit of knowing.

 

I think if i try to expound more, i will be running circular arguments.

 

What’s important is that you were vocal with your opinion. I haven’t shrugged off what you stated entirely. It’s there for others to see if they share the same sentiment, or even didn’t know how to put what they’ve been feeling into words. If anything, the questions aren’t just to see an opinion of a person, but rather to see how they formulate a syntax, and maybe through more threads like this over time, I can tailor my own syntax and word choice that could coincide with theirs, or one where I presume they can be familiar with. If they happen to not be familiar with it, then I would just tone it down. Everybody wins, but only if others are mutually vocal for needing clarification, or just another analogue/outlook on the matter; kind of like how you went through great efforts to give me another outlook to a post I probably misread from you before.

[/hidden]

 

timethief: Thank you for your response!

[Luminesce]

I don't think she was really responding to anyone in particular, it was more the sense she got from the entire thread. Emphasis was on the term "dehumanizing". I told her her response seemed somewhat off topic and that she should maybe rethink it, but she stood by the point she made - that we're dehumanizing tulpas by talking about their sentience or lack thereof, I suppose.

 

I don't really feel that way of course, I discuss stuff like that all the time. But it seems she's used to my philosophy, which is complete acceptance of how things are and disregard for why they should maybe not be. Also by proof she meant empirical proof, of course the subjective stuff is a given. Which is generally what we're discussing, proof or lack thereof of sentience.

 

Anyways, point or not it still wasn't really a post to further the thread. It was more of an expression of distress, I think. Something about the nature of the discussion bothered her, something that wouldn't bother the rest of us. Though I feel Lucilyn would tell us we were wasting our time worrying about such things.

[Linkzelda]

I see. It may seem like I'm looking way too much into this, almost to the point where it seems there's a win-lose mentality, or a matter of life and death of being so engrossed in learning about it, but it's really the desire to want to know for knowing's sake; because it's fun, to me at least.

 

Though, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if you and your companions aimed for humanistic, or secular ways of thinking, that one of them would feel that dehumanizing might be an issue would be ironic. I thought acknowledging these implications over sentience was just a learning curve rather than something that causes distress. Though, at the same time, I wouldn't expect anyone to be stoic about those secular ways of thinking anyway. Welp.

[Luminesce]

Not that you're causing doubt or something. Seems a similar feeling to someone watching others of a group they're in fight, like in movies before the one character says "Please stop fighting, we have to work together!"

 

Different scenario here, but that was the feel. I dunno why.