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

[Linkzelda]

Dehumanizing means' date=' in this context, treating something as less than human.[/quote']

 

How about we change it up to where it’s:

 

Deprive of positive human qualities.

 

So when treating them as sentient, it would go without saying that depriving them of those implications of human, or human-esque for those that are picky, qualities (e.g. sentience), would be a contradiction to the "treat as sentient". Check out that hypothetical/categorical imperative thread I made recently, and you'll see that through that context, contradicting what it means to be sentient as humans would make it futile in treating a tulpa as sentient, i.e., one has to come to terms with treating them as sentient as they would for themselves as a host. The problem really is others aren’t used into being descriptive over tulpas, or I guess anything in general, which is concerning. But being descriptive, putting things into context, and trying to make sense of things is what I would imagine humans would be doing, vice versa for tulpas trying to develop sentience.

 

And I thought something obvious what that while we want to believe they are sentient, we can’t really structure our syntax so much to where it seems it’s an absolute confirmation, or matter-of-fact type of vibe, because outside of the community with others that may read into this, a knee jerk reaction is for them is to demand proof over them having sentience. And because of that dead-end with not knowing how to convey what’s going in our heads to make them convinced there can be potential for them to do the same, I (at least that’s what I want to believe), feel words like “seemingly,” “presumed,” etc. dampens the blow a bit with statements being absolute, and more of “probably” instead. But that doesn't undermine my personal assurance that they're sentient to me.

 

I do not care if your tulpa is a pony' date=' they're basically a human. No animal in the world thinks like humans do. No animal in the world communicates like humans do. Some come close, but I'm pretty sure your tulpa is a lot closer to a human than a dolphin.[/quote']

 

But animals are sentient, but the degree of sentience humans have is presumed to be more complex, especially if they have to make sense of reality, and using context to do so in the first place. Ironically, that’s what happens when humans want to feel they’re the only ones capable of sentience, but really, it’s a more advanced level of sentience vs. animals that would have a rudimentary level of it. And to put this into perspective with tulpas, if one were to strip away all discussions with theorizing how complex our sentience is, and mirroring that with tulpas, it would essentially be a promotion of dehumanizing tulpas by default.

 

Simply because there’s an encouragement over not inferring the complexities of our sentience as humans, and keeping it so simple and rudimentary that a tulpa that’s trying to make sense over who they potentially could be has nothing to reconcile with. That deterrent from knowing for the sake of it, while it seems pragmatic in protecting the insecurities and emotions of humans and tulpas alike, is ironically a dogmatic approach in dehumanizing them nonetheless. Because I’m sure part of being human would be to go through analysis over who we are which would give us a sense of assurance that we can arrive to the fact that we’re sentient, and knowing that we can even be aware of that realization in the first place. Mirror that with tulpas, and you’ll start to realize that discussions like these can be a fallback for validating that in a personal sense.

 

By dehumanizing Reisen was making the fairly easy to understand point that we were talking about tulpas like they were a "thing"' date=' and what we were talking about was a core part of their being.[/quote']

 

It’s Reisen’s fault for thinking we earnestly see tulpas as “things,” or “objects.” That’s the conception that they (Reisen), as a sentient being, created since the discussions apparently seems to objectify the concept of tulpas. But at the end of the day, it’s not like their presumed sentience is diminished, or dissipated. They can be who they are, and still go on with their lives with you nonetheless. No intelligence is being undermined, patronized, or anything like that. I figured that humans and tulpas can come to the realization that even reacting to these discussions with a mixed bag of emotions would be a personal testament to themselves that they have some complex level of sentience; they’re not p-zombies that somehow are reacting randomly that makes it seem that they’re correlating their feelings (e.g. distress) with the context of the thread.

 

For a person that claims to be the most logical with this phenomenon, it seems you’re not used to the potential of discussions potentially objectifying the concepts at hand, or at least being so casual about it. Guess it shows what I’ve been hinting at you in threads before that, like all of us, humans or tulpas, are dependent on our subjective experiences. Being objective, or trying to be objective about it, is literally playing God's eye view. Now you're starting to see the reactions of your companions because of it, and it hurts a bit for them, apparently. I'm not reveling in this hurting for them, nor am I'm giggling at them reacting in this way. It's just an acknowledgement that when you try to be objective, or rather logical at times, we can't erase our feelings for too long.

 

I'm not sure if they're really as smart as adults. They're hyper and disobedient, making others do everything for them. Maybe some are alright though. There might be a chance a child could be as competent as an adult." Etc. The feeling the children get and the general implications of being "lesser" to be judged and discussed is what I'm comparing here, not the subject matter.

 

Ageism, inferiority complex, or whatever psychological terminology that may be implied in this quote, this is the case of intelligence than sentience. Of course, there’s mixed views in something like sapience naturally following sentience, or vice versa, but whatever the semantics, it shows that we naturally undermine, and even overestimate the novelty behind sentience. It becomes an umbrella term for more complex cognitive functions, and what have you, so when other circumstances (e.g. the dog), the concern over sentience being undermined is apparent. Which leads to the question, are we hyping up the basic levels of sentience, applying that to tulpas at a basic level (because going further in the rabbit hole in conceptualizing complex levels of their presumed sentience is suddenly cringe worthy), and thus dehumanizing them by default?

 

Maybe the irony wasn’t conveyed well there, but to chalk it up just in case: By others clinging onto their emotions over something that isn’t intended (e.g. dehumanizing them as a thing, or object), they distract themselves from learning how they could be descriptive in theorizing the presumed sentience that everyone that partakes in this journey holds so much value towards. By being ignorant to the probabilities for assuring themselves of the complexity with sentience for the sake of being casual and having their emotions protected, they are thus dehumanizing themselves.

 

Almost to the point of doing it in a self-loathing manner, and projecting that insecurity towards others who clearly aren’t trying to be trolls, asshats, or meanie-faces over wondering the probabilities. That yearning for knowing, IMO, is driven by a deep, internalized care for one’s tulpa so the next time a tulpa asks, “what’s the meaning of my existence…who am I…and how do I find my place in this world?” the host isn’t going to cry not knowing what they could say. They end up having a fallback, and a means of assessment in being encouraged to endure that strife with questioning, and moving on with their lives with their companions.

 

But, if that care is dehumanizing itself, then I’m being introduced into some fucked up logic here, to be honest. I can’t really sugar coat that disgust I’m getting. Not necessarily from you, but just from others that militantly get a sign with “NO DISCUSSIONS OF SENTIENCE ALLOWED! PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OUR TULPA’S SENTIENCE TODAY!”

 

We call circumstances inhumane' date=' I'm pretty sure calling the treatment of a seemingly-sentient being as less intellectually capable than it is dehumanizing.[/quote']

 

Okay, that’s perfectly fine, but remember, no one has stated that tulpas are less intellectual. That’s just the vibe of insecurities that’s picked up from that gets personified for those that hit a nerve in their emotions. Stepping outside of that insecurity, and you’ll see that we’re just theorizing an potential ethic in treating them as sentient, not really the tulpa themselves. Worst case scenario, or best case for some, we’re objectifying the ethic with treating, but I’m sure the ethic doesn’t feel dehumanized.

 

Again, for your statements with less capable, intelligence, and what have you to have any potency in argument, you have to find others that are actually agreeing to the probability that tulpas have an intelligence equivalent to a dog, or even an amoeba. If you can’t find an audience like that, it’s just a strawman, and useless to discussions like these.

[Luminesce]

I wasn't referring to sentience at all, with anything I said. The dehumanizing had nothing to do with sentience, it had to do with apparent feelings. In this case, the feeling was Reisen getting a general vibe from reading through the thread that made her feel like you guys were forgetting the human(e) aspects of tulpas and treating them like foreign entities.

 

Anyways, if you couldn't tell, I barely agree with the things I myself am saying. I'm all for this type of discussion. But Reisen comes first, even over logic, you understand. Although all she would want is for everyone to get along, so I'll throw out a big "I understand and agree with everything you've all said, and we acknowledge your points. Her response was less of an informed argument and more a reaction to internal feelings that were quickly resolved."

 

 

For some reason I found it interesting that you quoted me as "Lumi". Nothing really to read into, just noticed was all.

[Linkzelda]

Those apparent feelings coincide with their presumed sentience either way, so this really is a reference to sentience. Unless you want to separate the two, but I'm not going to presume that was your intention since I don't want to think you're objectifying things, or whatever.

 

As for whatever priority comes first to you, that's understandable. It's one thing to care about their feelings, and how they can eventually resolve it through whatever means, but it's another to see the biases they create (e.g. the vibe they conceived that turned out to be for the wrong audience) even after I explicitly stated in the thread that it goes without saying that to treat them as sentient, we have to refer to ourselves as hosts, and mirror that in our pursuit for them as well. That's what I was concerned about, and also for others that felt the general vibe was downright offensive or insulting-- to still have the inference that we're treating them as foreign entities (which entails something transcendental beyond the content of this thread) even though the whole pursuit of the thread is acknowledging that we have to refer to ourselves. We can't separate ourselves from our experiences, and view them in a foreign perspective.

 

If it's resolved on your end, then more power to you, but I'm just addressing the apparent problem, and trying to go for damage control in the absurdity of others before you that claimed this was dehumanizing in the first place when they couldn't come to the realization that they themselves are dehumanizing their existence by wanting to make themselves look like simpletons in keeping sentience rudimentary--rudimentary in the sense that seems to be discussed with dogs, and such that we presume have a rudimentary degree of sentience vs. the complex degree we as humans presume to have.

 

By this logic, tulpa goes tulpaing, and human goes humaning, and dog goes woof. No, that makes no sense at all when it comes to persevering emotions and insecurities. They can go dehumanize themselves elsewhere with ducks, and how it quacks, looks, and operates like one.

[solarchariot]

I was rather surprised, Linkzelda, by your stance on the word 'dehumanizing' which, when clarified in the manner you did suggests it was used in it's most common vernacular form, (which I agree, it was, and in the vernacular sense correctly used,) but somehow I imagined you might prefer to be more precise with language, because precision is important. Making distinctions is important if we hope to arrive at the same conclusions, or at least to be on the same page as best we can. And making distinctions between differences doesn't mean lesser than or greater than.

 

So, when I sought clarity on whether "tulpae" are regarded as 'human' by this community, I felt it was very important distinction. If they are regarded as human, then by definition, they are sentient, which also renders the topic you proposed finished before even posted. I mention dolphins not as a ludicrous example to illustrate a point, but because science has demonstrated that they are sentient, and they are clearly not human. Around 2002, maybe 2003, three separate studies proved conclusively that dolphins have names for themselves, which are interestingly enough conferred on the young dolphins at around six months after birth. They have a group name, too. Of course, the scientist didn't use the word "name," but used something clever like "An auditory identifier." (A rose by any other name?...) Besides demonstrating they identify themselves personally and socially, they identify themselves separate from environment. A lead dolphin during the hunt, can single out an individual by name and send it off to do a task, while sending the group to do another.

 

I imagine there will be someone who will say the above point is irrelevant to the discussion. There are definitely people who would deny the sentience of dolphins. I am also confident that many will find me too permissive with the word sentient, because i would also use "sentience" to describe Koko the Gorilla. But here is the rub: if we as humans can't agree on acknowledging sentience on our own planet that take up space in biologically 'different' forms, it is unlikely that there will ever be agreement on the sentience of "tulpae" who have no form.

 

I also imagined that this community would appreciate clarity, based on the fact that in the info guide there is a list terms and how they are to be appropriately used, and newbies are frequently referred to this when terms are misused. You went through fairly lengthy preamble in hopes of allowing a conversation to evolve in such a way that we illuminate the difficulties surrounding the question of sentience. And then when I see you write "By this logic, tulpa goes tulpaing, and human goes humaning, and dog goes woof..." and "... trying to go for damage control in the absurdity of others before you that claimed this was dehumanizing in the first place when they couldn't come to the realization that they themselves are dehumanizing their existence by wanting to make themselves look like simpletons in keeping sentience rudimentary" which seems fairly dismissive of the people you invited into a conversation with you. You reported "They even told me that it’s going to cause backlash in some way, and man, they hit the spot here." I don't see it as backlash. I see it as contribution. They may be in disagreement, but that, too, is also neither 'dehumanizing' or 'demeaning;' it's just another voice to contend with.

[Linkzelda]

They may be in disagreement, but that, too, is also neither 'dehumanizing' or 'demeaning;' it's just another voice to contend with.

 

Again, this statement only applies if I thought the backlash was dehumanizing in the first place. The backlash, how I saw it, is how others would feel the thread is dehumanizing in some way over how people treat tulpas as sentient. Also, I’m not seeing any difference with another voice to contend with if backlash implies opposition, or even a difference in opinion. I’m not talking about people having various viewpoints, which is a given, I’m talking about people that try to shut down the thread to protect their emotions and insecurities instead. It’s one thing to have various opinions, but it’s another where it becomes dogmatic where people want to shut it down, plug their fingers into their ears, and go “lalaalala.”

 

If it’s a contribution towards shutting down the thread, then yes, it’s a prime example of that. As for going deeper, not so much.

 

I imagine there will be someone who will say the above point is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Actually, that’s not really irrelevant if we tie it with the statement you mentioned before here:

If they are regarded as human, then by definition, they are sentient, which also renders the topic you proposed finished before even posted.

 

This is another example that can be extended on. While it seems pragmatic that if it were truly the case that when treating a tulpa as sentient, they would be treated as humans, then this implies that they can embody all qualities of being human. But, it raises questions as to how far we’re willing to treat them as sentient in the sense of the qualities they would have equivalent to humans. Surely, one limit would be a physiological one, as that might cause some metaphysical problems. Another would be whatever the human cognition is capable of, but that still doesn’t mean it’s an end-all be-all that stops the thread entirely.

 

It opens up more questions that if the correlation that anyone exhibiting signs of a human is sentient, those examples you presented with dolphins exhibiting sentience seems to make things more ambiguous. Sentience clearly isn’t something exclusive to humans, if that was the case, then yeah, this thread would be over before even conceived, and we can move on with our lives. But sentience being apparent in dolphins, or just about any creature that has sense in general, the correlation of humans = automatically sentient would lead to “to what degree of sentience?” A typical reaction would be “whatever humans are capable of.”

 

Going back to “treating as sentient,” it would raise questions such as, but not limited to:

 

“To what degree do we treat them as sentient?”

 

“What are the limits of treating them as sentient to whatever human cognition is capable of?”

 

“If they have this potential, then how can their existence be compatible with certain theories of mind?”

 

“What makes them more distinguishable to a dolphin that can exhibit basic qualities of sentience?”

 

To chalk up the one question these questions are trying to find: "To what level of quality with sentience do we treat them as?"

 

 

Because based on the responses in the thread before, people seem to use analogies of sentience being this very basic level of understanding, or making sense of reality. If creatures in general such as the dolphin, monkey, etc. can exhibit these rudimentary qualities, and to take sentience at face value with tulpas alone with those analogies would be dehumanizing. Examples like this were professions of “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.” While it was probably used as a loose analogy, it ironically was compared to, at least indirectly of, “walks like a tulpa, tulpas like a tulpa,” instead. It just question begging after question begging, so even with “if they are regarded as human, then by definition, they are sentient,” it’s not the end of it.

 

Sonder, shifting awareness with this reality and inwardly, and other qualities; how far is it pragmatic for an individual to treat them as sentient in the sense of having more complex functions vs. a dolphin, or a deer? We can’t say “human” as in end-all be-all, or absolute. It’s usually structured, directly or indirectly, as “human in the sense,” “human-esque,” “human-like,” etc. Which means there can still be apprehension in whether or not they can exhibit the complete package.

 

I imagined you might prefer to be more precise with language, because precision is important.

 

In my experience, laymen’s terms tend to lead to some degree of mutual understanding, but still isn’t ambiguity free. Precise terms might really just be verbose ones that leads to more ambiguity. So, for me, I will still have to take effort in explaining things like context clues, and definition #1,2,3 of a word. It takes more effort when others use their own dictionary that I sometimes question the source to see if I can structure it in that manner, if appropriate, that is.

 

And funny thing about language, especially with the forum and the terminology that’s brought about…it seems at first it starts as what goes on privately, and others trying to get feedback to conceptualize what’s going on privately to validate that it’s something that could potentially apply to others. But sometimes, when others make their own twists (e.g. semi-sentient, semi-parallel processing, or anything that involves a lot of gray in the middle), you get those that might be 100% for what’s already there as an end-all be-all to prevent ambiguity and confusion. Which makes fostering more private languages that gets feedback from others less apparent, unfortunately. But hey, it is what it is.

[yenu]

When I first started to read this thread, I found myself immediately agreeing with Luminiscence's first post. Now there are three more pages and a lot of discussion that is going on about "dehumanizing" etc. that are, for me, not the core of the discussion. (While I do think that it was good to mention them, I feel like that specific discussion is not going anywhere.)

 

In the last few months I have updated my view on tulpa-sentience several times. My current position is: I don't know. I don't even know what "sentience" means anymore. Therefore, I cannot make any justifiable claim whatsoever. And, before someone suggests this was "dehumanizing": this applies to all sentience, to human sentience. I do not really know what I mean by that, and I intend to try avoiding the word altogether.

 

Now, while I was reading further on in this thread, it occurred to me that my position was a bit too much cop-out, refusing to ask hard questions. I don't like that. But, instead of throwing around the term "sentience", that may or may not mean a different thing for everybody, I could ask something like:

 

- do tulpas feel pain, that the host does not feel?

 

Which allows for ethical considerations. My own tulpa/characters do not make a positive claim that they can experience pain. In our current model, we share every experience. For this reason I am hesitant to even call them tulpas, quite possibly the term "median" describes us better.

 

However, if the question is about autonomy, or percieved autonomy, I am much more open to consider them autonomous. Like someone else in this thread, I have experienced some very autonomous dream characters in lucid (or non-lucid) dreams, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in general in the whole dreaming sector.

 

But, what am I even trying to say, when I claim, that a thoughtform appears autonomous? The thing is, this kind of autonomy does not require tulpas, does not require forcing, no long-term effects, it can occur simply in one single dream. It can also occur during automatic writing (ecriture automatique), the old surrealist technique. That was actually my first experience with autonomous characters in my head, and my own forcingstyle is still heavily influenced by those experiences.

 

So I would ask: Is there even something about autonomy, that helps us with the desription of tulpas? What do we make of dream characters, whether reoccurring or not? There seem to be a whole lot of thoughtforms that can show some degree of autonomy - because ultimately, the host-personality is just the tip of the iceberg, a small area of slightly more awareness vaguely in the center of a huge cosmos.

 

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?

 

I think ultimately the question is, what can be considered sentient? I suspect that we do link sentience with personality out of a habit, but there is actually not so much reason to do so. I would therefore suggest to say, the human body, not the host, is sentient. Maybe it doesn't even make sense to say "a tulpa is sentient" or "a host is sentient". Those are just personalities, and sentience could be in a completely different category.

 

I do think that, especially considering phenomenons like switching, ultimately, a host and a tulpa are of the same kind. There is no epistemological difference, except one that we use to ascribe to it: We are used to think of consciousness as "our", the host's sole possession, but maybe that is just our illusion.

 

This concept, of course, is just a model that I have been trying out for the last months. It is not meant to be definite, rather it is a way to question the way I (and probably most people) think about consciousness.

 

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?

 

Delusion would be a belief in something that isn't real. It depends on the definition of "real" then, I suppose. I believe that an experience is always real per default, it is only the interpretation of it that can lead to errors.

 

For example, when I do automatic writing, I sometimes encounter some person talking to me. It is not recognizable (I don't know it from some other time); like a one-time dream-character it just turns up kind-of fully-formed (even if that form may be vague itself) and appears to be talking. It could even appear to have a mind of its own, but knowing about tulpas, I do not recognize it as such. Because it lacks permanence.

 

I think, in that case, it would be delusional to call the newly-formed character a tulpa, just like that, and treat it as sentient. But I cannot even know that, of course. Some dream-characters can seem very lively, but if I am not likely to ever meet them again, I rather think of them as random aspects, random collections of memories in my mind.

 

So, to answer the question, I think it can be called delusion if we are making assumptions that turn out to be not true. But our own perceptions are simply that, and there is no delusion involved in experiencing them.

 

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?

 

Yes, obviously.

 

Though the concept may turn out to be slightly different from what we think it is, now. That's in the nature of finding out things, I guess.^^

 

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

 

We could, but I don't think we should. I would rather speak of subjective experience, or maybe of subjective interpretation of that experience.

 

- 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?

 

Hmm, I don't really understand the question. I am troubled by the idea of something, that only works "if you believe in it strongly enough". I would like my skepticism to not stand in the way of what I am doing. So I'd rather not assume something I cannot justify. I have wondered often if this position is compatible with forcing - but what the heck, I'm gonna make it work somehow.

 

As for the idea of tulpas existing in a veiled prison - well, since my concept of mind is "this huge, almost infinitely large space of all kinds of ideas and stuff", it does not really make sense to regard it a prison. It would be a prison only in the sense that the planet Earth is a prison for humans. Technically true, but not relevant.

 

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

 

For me it's the idea that sentience and personality are not necessarily connected. At most, the personality filters the perception.

[solarchariot]

Yenu: you wrote "So I would ask: Is there even something about autonomy, that helps us with the desription of tulpas? What do we make of dream characters, whether reoccurring or not? There seem to be a whole lot of thoughtforms that can show some degree of autonomy - because ultimately, the host-personality is just the tip of the iceberg, a small area of slightly more awareness vaguely in the center of a huge cosmos."

I think this definitely needs to play a part in the discussion of sentience, because there are levels to this that very few people contemplate, maybe because it does expand the existential universe to infinity and its just hard to get a grasp on. And the people in are dreams are not just two dimensional place holders for concept... some of them are down right complex, and, in my bias, have referred to them as sentient because of the interaction pattern, in both 'normal' dreams and lucid. And I wonder if the tulpa is comparable, only instead of just running in the unconscious, we have helped them cross over to a place we can easier access, but they have access to both, which would give them more than just autonomy, but some authority, too. (IE, they are not completely at the whim of the host.)

 

I like median in some ways, because of the above discourse.

[Linkzelda]

I don't even know what "sentience" means anymore. Therefore' date=' I cannot make any justifiable claim whatsoever. And, before someone suggests this was "dehumanizing": this applies to all sentience, to human sentience. I do not really know what I mean by that, and I intend to try avoiding the word altogether.[/quote']

 

I understand your sentiment, as it’s really hard to boil down what sentience means as an all-inclusive type of meaning that everyone can reconcile with. Especially due to the knee-jerk reactions in the thread before, there will be a difference of opinions no matter what comparative analysis we use as a basis for reaching a common ground. And perhaps because “treating as sentient” is hard to be an all-inclusive thing, maybe that’s another apparent limit(s) it has:

 

- If a person isn’t confident of seeing the mentality as a supplement in structuring an orderly mind with their companions, the mentality with treating as sentient falls short. With what you mentioned with things you lay more weight towards (e.g. personality), they would be aspects sentient beings, specifically humans, would do, but there isn’t a need for you to revel too much into “sentience,” and theorizing what that entails.

 

- If the person gets into existential questioning, but ultimately can’t find a way to reconcile with the word “sentient,” treating them as such becomes a distraction from further assurance over who they could really be as tulpas, and vice versa as the host.

 

- And because you strongly feel, due to personal cases with your companions, that they haven’t made any positive claims that they can experience pain, you reconcile more that if they can’t, and that you share the same experience either way, maybe you just have a better competency in experiencing. And through this assurance, eventually learning how to experience through you is why “median” describes the relationship to you all in a comprehensible manner than “oh, they’re sentient, but I really mean it in –x context- instead.”

 

- Treating as sentient, to you, may not be something you have as the bread and butter right now of how they could structure themselves, but rather something you’re trying to work at with them. In other words, self-perpetuation, i.e., doing whatever you can to do it for as long as you can with them; a progressive type of thing vs. trying to reach an end-goal, and wondering what you’re going to do at the end of the path should you ever reach there.

 

- Which portrays that the “treating as sentient” isn’t so much of an unconditional obligation anymore, or a golden rule that can be applicable irrespective of people’s concerns and struggles with interacting with their tulpa, or soon-to-be-tulpas. Because now obligation gets split into questioning if it’s working at something, or trying to accomplish something. And figuring out the certain fruits of labor vs. the types of labor themselves, what we are obligated by “nature” to do to get this, one way or another is another challenge. But through this inference, we don’t necessarily have to be obligated to obtain certain bread and butter logic through a certain method. Some people can be content with “talks like a tulpa, tulpas like a tulpa,” but for you, that’s the least of your concern. But that’s okay, because you’re obtaining your own fruits of labor to cater to your own objective with them.

 

But, what am I even trying to say, when I claim, that a thoughtform appears autonomous? The thing is, this kind of autonomy does not require tulpas, does not require forcing, no long-term effects, it can occur simply in one single dream. It can also occur during automatic writing (ecriture automatique), the old surrealist technique. That was actually my first experience with autonomous characters in my head, and my own forcingstyle is still heavily influenced by those experiences.

 

It’s probably because through dreams, we don’t have to take an initiative with a direct narrative (e.g. non-lucid dreams). Our minds would piece together echoes of waking life combined with our imagination to give the appearance of complexity to where “appearance” becomes an understatement because that emulation of complexity seems to be executed with ease; with or without our lucidity coming into the equation. And when we are lucid, this awareness, and being in awe over the ease of this execution makes us wonder why it can’t bleed onto waking life when we interact with tulpas?

 

Maybe it could be due to a mental constraint we have in waking life experiences. We have to take a narrative as an observer of this reality, and trying to reconcile with our assurance that we’re sentient to put things into context of this reality. We do this so much that we start being concerned solely of our own starring role in this world. So, adding a tulpa, or more into that equation, it feels like they’re minor characters, or people in a Seinfeld episode going nowhere; or in your case, a median in some way that you’re stilling trying to work at, or accomplish, I don’t know.

 

But, with how your model coincides with them potentially sharing experiences with you, day to day while you’re progressively finding certain models of their presumed sentience, and what have you, you start to realize that getting out of that narrative of being the starring role in your life isn’t how it’s going to work out for you. At least, not for very long if one wanted to go for an orderly mind with them. And acknowledging that apprehension isn’t really dehumanizing, it’s really understanding that to you, they may have the same potential to have those same concerns as humans would do. To strip away that concern for protection of their feelings, feelings you’re not too sure of in this circumstance, would, to others, be dehumanizing.

 

But that just shows that with “treating them as sentient,” especially if it’s seen as a golden rule, would actually be a mirror of self. A mirror of what you do to them is what you may do for yourself; the things you speculate, things you’re apprehensive over…the “treating as sentient,” makes one go inwardly, piercing themselves as to who they are to where it seems like a dehumanizing, or an objectifying endeavor altogether. But rather than getting butt hurt about it, it doesn’t prevent you from still trying to do what you can.

 

I do think that, especially considering phenomenons like switching, ultimately, a host and a tulpa are of the same kind. There is no epistemological difference, except one that we use to ascribe to it: We are used to think of consciousness as "our", the host's sole possession, but maybe that is just our illusion.

 

I have this same thought as well. If they’re able to put things into context with this reality to where they, in my experience, have the same capacity as me…”treating as sentient” doesn’t become this golden rule to me just to justify orderly character. Their existence presumably reaches the same capacity that I, like any other human being, was trying to cultivate all their lives. And to see them emulate these things means, for me, the mirror is in front of me once more, and I would ask: “Who am I? Who are they? And what makes me different from them anymore?”

 

I could go even further with my own experiences with dreaming in general, non-lucid, and lucid, and question “Even if dream characters can emulate sentience with easy in my nightly sleep, they aren’t the ones that are taking the narrative in this life compared to a tulpa I switched with that’s doing that…sure, the difference would be where it’s going on (e.g. waking life vs. dreaming experiences), but that transition, or that median, it just begs the question: why isn’t it so easy to transition that ease of emulation into waking life?”

 

Which brings back to what you stated here:

do tulpas feel pain, that the host does not feel?

 

I sometimes question this with dream characters myself. For example, a dream character that may have answered my cry for help may have exhibited unconditional love that I, as the dreamer, would try to emulate, but to no avail. Simply because in spite of their existence, and in spite of whatever narrative they take, they still went ahead and exhibited that unconditional love either way. And the fact that as soon as I wake up, their existence fading away, or becoming nothing more than a fading memory shows that if they can do this in spite of their existence being transient, and I’m the one (in this context, mind you) has a hard time trying to bleed that over into my everyday life…then, I would be no better than that dream character.

 

Because they took great efforts in trying to reconcile with me than I could for myself. But that honest transparency of acknowledging who bears the ethical weight better could end up in being self-loathing in some way. Because it’s still experienced within the confines of my mind, which means that whatever virtue that dream character has that I felt I couldn’t emulate has to exist within me as well; it doesn’t just exist external of my cognition. And I think through that acknowledgment, I would feel inclined that I could mirror those things I learned via dream characters, and the same for tulpas as well. It’s sort of a “I could learn from a rock if I needed to” type of mentality, except I don't end up doing it in a self-loathing manner. And believing in that virtue of the dream character, or whatever thought-form, is the very same reason I would want to help myself, and them in structuring an orderly mind. So rather than feeling that “sentience” implies this existential vacuum that sucks us all up, and objectifies us, one realizes that the dreams themselves are a nice fallback that they can relate to with tulpas. Treating as sentient is rather more of a confidence of one’s sentience, or an attitude, and acknowledging that there may be potential for them to exhibit the same because they share the same cognition either way.

 

It’s not really a golden rule that can be applied irrespective of a person’s opinion on it because it doesn’t become consistent for everyone, having all things considered, unfortunately. But either way, it’s still a useful tool, but not to where it becomes an end-all be-all tool for validating any kind of objective morality.

 

Hmm, I don't really understand the question.

 

I think your response shows you do understand it. It was vague on purpose to see if you would make those inferences (but not limited to that) of how we as humans would feel on planet Earth, and what have you. I apologize for that vagueness; it was just a “swing for the fences” type of question.

 

For me it's the idea that sentience and personality are not necessarily connected. At most, the personality filters the perception.

 

Maybe it could be that personality enhances the perception, as perception would entail some basic structure of sentience. But, instead of glorifying the sentience, you would be focused on the personality, and other things that would be more complex as an attribute to sentience.

[yenu]

structuring an orderly mind with their companions

I am confused by this phrase. I don't know what you mean by "an orderly mind". (As opposed to an unorderly mind?)

 

I have a bit of trouble understanding you, being non-native-speaker; however, after looking up a few words I can generally work it out.

 

- And because you strongly feel, due to personal cases with your companions, that they haven’t made any positive claims that they can experience pain, you reconcile more that if they can’t, and that you share the same experience either way, maybe you just have a better competency in experiencing.

I do not strongly feel this. I'm just unconvinced.

 

Since they have no corporeal form (besides ours) I would assume that pain-perception would be at most on a level like in lucid dreams: Perceivable, but not bad. I don't know that either, of course. To be honest, the ethical questions were freaking me out when I first stumbled onto tulpa.info.

 

We do this so much that we start being concerned solely of our own starring role in this world.

It's not so much only that, but also our tendency to label everything as "me"... we do already show different sides, different personalities when talking to different people, but because we automatically assume that it is all the same person, we play an active part in reinforcing that person.

There are belief statements like "I am a person that likes cherries" or "I am a person that hates mathematics" which get inforced in early childhood, and then reinforced with every new experience. The companion or tulpa personality does the same, but doesn't have this massive head-start. Also, not only do they themselves believe that they have character trait X, "I" also believe it, and being the older personality, I have much more power to reinforce it.

 

Now, this may sound a bit like I want to abolish having character traits. I do not. I also think that having a personality is a very useful tool for functioning in society. But I like to question it nonetheless. (I am hereby inforcing my character trait: "I am a person who likes to question..." ;-) )

 

Which portrays that the “treating as sentient” isn’t so much of an unconditional obligation anymore, or a golden rule that can be applicable irrespective of people’s concerns and struggles with interacting with their tulpa, or soon-to-be-tulpas.

If it's about other hosts' tulpas, I guess it should be easy to adopt a stance of "refer to them as they themselves want to be referred to", as a simple golden rule.

Of course with the necessary limit, that it shouldn't harm other people. If a tulpa wants me to refer to her as "the supreme devil of the twentiest hell", I might refrain from doing so... hmm, no, actually, in this case I wouldn't, because I don't care so much about religious feelings. I can't come up with a better example now.^^

 

“Who am I? Who are they? And what makes me different from them anymore?”

Maybe one of the core traits of tulpamancers is not to identify with everything that goes on in their head? If I did, my companions would always necessarily be "parts" of me.

 

Makes me wonder if it would be possible to completely abandon personality traits myself to give my companions room to claim that as theirs. (Kind of sounds like "dark tulpamancy" to me^^)

 

And I think through that acknowledgment, I would feel inclined that I could mirror those things I learned via dream characters, and the same for tulpas as well.

I have also spent much more time learning from my headmates than they learning from me. (In fact, I don't think they ever needed to learn anything from me, as I didn't start with a concept of gradual growth like most tulpamancers do.)

 

Simply because in spite of their existence, and in spite of whatever narrative they take, they still went ahead and exhibited that unconditional love either way. And the fact that as soon as I wake up, their existence fading away, or becoming nothing more than a fading memory shows that if they can do this in spite of their existence being transient

Not so much "in spite of" - I think the fact that they only have to be like this for one dream enables it. That's were a personality struggles most: being good all the time, consistent, never taking a break. And that would be the reason I give, why I hold myself, my default-personality, so to speak, to a much lower standard than my headmates or even dream characters.

 

Maybe it could be that personality enhances the perception

I think that may be one of the most promising ideas here. Having several different personalities to look at the same thing will result in a broader view, hopefully.

[Linkzelda]

I am confused by this phrase. I don't know what you mean by "an orderly mind". (As opposed to an unorderly mind?)

 

I have a bit of trouble understanding you, being non-native-speaker; however, after looking up a few words I can generally work it out.

 

By orderly, I’m referring to having a stable mind, or having some kind of harmony established with one’s tulpas.

 

I do not strongly feel this. I'm just unconvinced.

 

Since they have no corporeal form (besides ours) I would assume that pain-perception would be at most on a level like in lucid dreams: Perceivable, but not bad. I don't know that either, of course. To be honest, the ethical questions were freaking me out when I first stumbled onto tulpa.info.

Ah, so they would be able to understand what it means, but not really be able to consciously experience it. Or, they understand, but you’re just unsure as to whether or not they could consciously experience it. Sort of them understanding a byproduct of what you experience, or whatever was left over out of the experience emerging, or coming into your perception. Through this, they may never have to take a serious stand in shifting awareness with this reality with switching, and having to consciously experience this reality to arrive at that understanding. In other words, because it's a shared thing, they create their understanding through whatever emerged from those experiences.

 

The companion or tulpa personality does the same, but doesn't have this massive head-start. Also, not only do they themselves believe that they have character trait X, "I" also believe it, and being the older personality, I have much more power to reinforce it.

 

This is interesting, and correct me if I’m wrong in my presumption here over how you structure things with them:

“I am a person that –example of some kind preference/dislikes/competencies-, and we’re all in it to reinforce the overall persona, or personality.” Basically, one supplementing the others to establish the ulterior motive of sustaining the main personality, or “self.”

 

Now, this may sound a bit like I want to abolish having character traits. I do not. I also think that having a personality is a very useful tool for functioning in society. But I like to question it nonetheless. (I am hereby inforcing my character trait: "I am a person who likes to question..." ;-) )

 

Right, and yeah, I don’t think you would just want to reinforce just some personality, as it seems it’s mostly the traits of the overall personality that you all want to reinforce while also absorbing any other trait that may be of novelty to you all that you want to push for. Some may feel personality is used as an umbrella term in this context, but it’s something you’re using to structure yourself, and them; the whole orderly mind thing.

 

If it's about other hosts' tulpas, I guess it should be easy to adopt a stance of "refer to them as they themselves want to be referred to", as a simple golden rule.

Of course with the necessary limit, that it shouldn't harm other people. If a tulpa wants me to refer to her as "the supreme devil of the twentiest hell", I might refrain from doing so... hmm, no, actually, in this case I wouldn't, because I don't care so much about religious feelings. I can't come up with a better example now.^^

 

No, not at all, this is a good example. Referring to them as sentient, or that they’re just in your mind in general, especially with the type of relationship you have with them seems to imply that it’s just unconditional acknowledgement, I guess. No strings attached with subsequent action, i.e., action that needs to be a follow up with the acknowledgment, that is. Because when you think about it, we refer to others, acknowledging that they’re sentient without having to go through the mannerisms that they are before genuinely interacting with them.

 

For example, and again, this might be a bad example too:

 

Person A: “Hey man, how are you doing today?”

 

Person B: “Tuna 67 Pancakes now on the spot! Oh, right and that sentient, though..pew pew pang pang!”

 

Person A: -gets in an evaluative context as to whether they’re just joking around, saying random things that could, or could not relate to a p-zombie, or something else entirely

 

In this example, which is kind of bad, the point I’m trying to make is that I’m thinking a probable mode of expression with “treating as sentient” is that the person naturally gets into an evaluative context, or mindset. A mindset in which they’re trying to analyze the what-ifs, even over a simply pleasantry with “how are you doing” that usually just gets the immediate response of “I’m fine/good/doing alright/I’m just here, you know?” And if one were to ask a tulpa how they were doing, they may get into that evaluative state of mind before the response is even given, if there’s one to be given.

But by just referring to the other individual as being sentient, or just being capable of sustaining an identity, the person isn’t trying to go into evaluative mode just to see if they’re having a genuine conversation that’s usually taken for granted. Because that type of conversation with how are you doing, and such, no one has to really care about true, genuine reactions; some may obviously feel like crap that day, but they can use pretenses, or deceive the other into thinking they’re fine.

 

And looking for a reaction with a tulpa with “how are you doing?”

- One might genuinely feel they’re responding relative to the question. Although simple, and just a mere pleasantry, or a formality in conversation, if you will, it gets the job done for assuring to themselves that they can put things into context, or in this case, they can reinforce a certain trait of a personality, or self (which is to really put emotive context relative to the situation, as woe to the whole self if they couldn’t reinforce something like that, right?)

 

- They may have some assurance that they’re responding relative to the context at hand, but may have some skepticism because the response seems something anyone could do, even to someone who they may not be so sure as being able to consciously experience things.

 

- Or the person is just too paranoid to even be assured that there’s some relation-to-context going on.

 

But you see, compared to the example of someone external to our minds, one doesn’t necessarily get into this evaluative state that much. If anything, the tulpamancer going through the journey is engaging in evaluative, philosophical thinking that’s nothing more than a flatulence. Like going apeshit over whether or not that cherry is something they should like, because the red-ness, or maroon-ness of that cherry seems off, or something.

 

Maybe one of the core traits of tulpamancers is not to identify with everything that goes on in their head? If I did, my companions would always necessarily be "parts" of me.

 

I see, so maybe by “parts,” metaphorically speaking, doesn’t seem to be something interesting to you. But I ask, why would the metaphorical representations of self, or metaphors that allude to “self,” seem to be something you don’t see as a pragmatic trait for tulpamancers? I mean, if they, within your experience with them, contribute to reinforcing the self overall, it seems that you’ve come to terms with those metaphorical contexts of self either way.

 

Which makes me wonder, are you using this example to presume that maybe your model is a bit foreign compared to others?

 

Makes me wonder if it would be possible to completely abandon personality traits myself to give my companions room to claim that as theirs. (Kind of sounds like "dark tulpamancy" to me^^)

 

It may seem like dark tulpamancy in the sense that one continually abandons strives to acknowledge oneself for the sake of tulpas having greater exclusivity. Though, if the experiences are shared to you, especially with the context you provided of one, and the other reinforcing the overall self, these things wouldn’t be exclusive that one has to abandon that to grant the other more authority in coordinating the self better than others. It seems it’s an all-inclusive type of endeavor that strips away the tit-for-tat mentality. Otherwise, the model of yours would have a potential Achilles’ heel, i.e., a potential downfall.

 

Not so much "in spite of" - I think the fact that they only have to be like this for one dream enables it. That's were a personality struggles most: being good all the time, consistent, never taking a break. And that would be the reason I give, why I hold myself, my default-personality, so to speak, to a much lower standard than my headmates or even dream characters.

 

That’s an interesting complex going on there. Something that triggers in my head is strife with novelty with self. Because to you, the personality struggles the most in context of whoever is reinforcing it the most has the novelty rubbed off due to the idea that this sustaining of personality (e.g. being consistent, never taking a break) as a self-perpetuating endeavor, i.e., an endeavor where one feels that have to sustain themselves all the time.

 

However, as much as it seems mentally taxing, that expression of sustaining personality will come to an end (e.g. mortality), it’s just now the transient, i.e., temporary, nature with dream characters will be much shorter because they’re hinged upon nightly sleep vs. a human lifespan. Another concern I’m having is that even though you may hold yourself to a lower standard compared to your headmates, or dream characters, how would you see this ideology in say, 5-10 years from now, presuming they continue to reinforce context towards the overall self?

 

What I’m getting at with this is…would you still hold yourself to a lower standard, and feel there’s a lack of novel feeling, or a sense of novelty intact with your headmates in particular? I’m not including dream characters for this question since they’ll always have a shorter interval of transience due to their existence being hinged upon nightly sleep. I think what makes you hold a lower standard of yourself is that maybe the novelty of reinforcing these things rubbed off to you because it seems like second nature to you. But, for your headmates that supplement in that reinforcement, they too overtime may end up adopting that state of mind as well; an inferiority complex, if you will.

 

Now, I’m not saying an inferiority complex in the endeavor is a bad thing, as that’s a different topic altogether that we can bounce ideas around with. What do you say to this?

 

I think that may be one of the most promising ideas here. Having several different personalities to look at the same thing will result in a broader view, hopefully.

 

Yeah, I think that’s one type of yearning people go after with seeing the bigger picture that may humble oneself in their place in this world.