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

[War]

As a sentence fragment, "treating a tulpa as sentient" is not technically truth-apt. Same problem with "treat a tulpa as sentient", as that is imperative.

 

Looking at "one should treat a tulpa as sentient", I disagree. If a tulpa is potentially sentient, then one should assume the tulpa is sentient for safety and reasons of respect. If the tulpa is not sentient, but has the potential to be sentient, and this is the goal, then I also disagree. Pretending they are sentient I do not believe will be helpful in any way. Acknowledging the truth should be more than sufficient.

 

Note that I am technically sceptical, but not of Tulpa's sentience or sapience, which I have seen irrefutable proof of.

[Linkzelda]

Hey, War:

 

Sorry for not seeing this any sooner. I guess 'treating a tulpa as sentient' tends to give the impression of 'pretending,' or just having 'benefit of the doubt.' And I think the whole 'treating as sentient' was a shift from the 'assume sentience from the start' is that there were previous cases in the past of people just being lazy after assuming sentience. But, that was back then when there weren't that many guides, and people didn't have referents to continue fostering that conviction of there being sentience.

 

I would agree, personally, that I would be assuming sentience vs. 'treating' as such. If anything, 'treating' seems to be a placeholder until the person has an experiential collection of assurances over time that eventually makes them realize, for themselves, that they can assume sentience of a tulpa like they assume sentience of any other person. Maybe because one, like a user mentioned before, has to put up a mirror, metaphorically speaking, and wonder that if the mind can spur things to instantiate qualia and such for the host, then what's stopping it, the brain, from doing the same for the tulpa in question?