Guest Anonymous

Do you consider your own tulpa(s) to be independently sentient?

Do You Consider Your Own Tulpa(s) to be Independently Sentient?  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. Do You Consider Your Own Tulpa(s) to be Independently Sentient?

    • My tulpa(s) is/are independently sentient and other tulpas in the community probably are independently sentient as well.
      15
    • My tulpa(s) is/are NOT independently sentient but other tulpas in the community probably are or may be.
      3
    • I have a tulpa in development that is not independently sentient yet, but I expect he or she will be eventually.
      2
    • There are no independently sentient tulpas in reality.
      0
    • All tulpas are independently sentient, or it is not a tulpa.
      4
    • Glitterbutt (Melian) you are amazing and I want to hug you.
      8


Recommended Posts

There is not a single option in the poll that I can check. :-(

 

I'm going with my new belief that "sentience" is not a term that can be applied to either tulpas or hosts, or any thought-forms, personas, whatever.

 

-> My body is sentient. <-

 

My headmates are sometimes somewhat independent, but that has nothing to do with sentience.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

OH hey, I kinda like that. It almost sounds like how I say Davie and I are sentient together. I like that a lot Yenu. Could you clarify that a little more? Maybe I can get something out of this thread after all that is more than "your words are messed up Melian." I did get that most everyone is clueless and that is pretty helpful to me actually. LOL

 

Well I said clueless, but "everyone has subjective opinions that may or may not be right" is much closer to the mark. I said clueless at the time because I was frustrated.

 

The "facts" of tulpa sentience are subjective? Uh oh. My little mind is working again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

[...]

The first is the definition I expect people to just kind of know.

Sure, I guess if you say that a heated discussion is an argument, that's fair enough. I try not to get heated, usually.

 

 

 

I have no idea what you think constitutes "truth" in tulpamancy. Usually when people make claims of objectivity, they talk about brain scans and all that jazz we never do here. But the fact that you think we can "find truth" on this forum implies you think it can be done through discussion, no? Can you show me a few examples in this forum's history of us finding "truth"?

 

Okay, fair enough. I get your objection and yeah, I guess I misunderstood what you really thought about this. Well, yeah, that was soort of my second point - it's kind of hard to do because we're armchair forum posters. In truth I wanted to make that clear more than anything else; if this were "physics forums" and we were trying to find the truth about physical laws with only MyBB and our keyboards, we wouldn't get very far either. If you remember what I said about things being "your fault", well, that's what I meant - not an ascription of blame, just, we can't talk about truth very much because we're not prepared for it, not because it's not there.

 

 

But yeah it'd be a bit trite to leave it at that. One of the things that I like, and one of the most useful tools I think we have, is these censuses, the surveys that people have done in the community over the last few years. You'll see me waving them around, getting annoyed at people over them, and so on. Because they're like, 70% more factual than anything else we really have, and if someone asks a question that's been asked there, you can use it to get a pretty good answer. Anyone who says that, oh, the sample size is too small, no, they don't know anything about statistics, they're wrong. I can explain that further if you want. The issue is that they might not be representative, but to me I think they're at least representative of the average forum-goer.

 

The answers to demographic questions like "How long did it take for your first tulpa to be vocal?" aren't in themselves deep truths. They're data, and then can be used to inform our reasoning. The more general question of "How long does it take to create a tulpa?" is getting closer to a more fundamental question about the nature of tulpas, and, well, every time it comes up, I bring out these numbers and show people these numbers, and make various points using them. I wouldn't say that we have arrived at a 'truth', but I think that the community has come to a conclusion over the last few years about creation, which is meaningful.

 

 

There's another thing that I think is interesting. Unfortunately I don't really have the psychology background to comment on it myself, but when I do see people, psychologists, maybe, who are asked what they think about tulpas, they're usually pretty blasé about it. They have some explanation, maybe, or don't really see the need to explain it. That's in contrast to some people in the community who think that it has revolutionary consequences for our conception of the mind and self and so on. So the question is, can we deal with tulpas entirely using current psychological thought and theory? Because if so, we don't need to leave our armchairs to come to our "truths".

 

That's part of the reason why I balk at the suggestion that we have no clue about what tulpas are, in this community. I'd say we're not really sure, but there are plenty of, well, clues, and people do have coherent ideas that make sense, I think. This is not really that surprising, because, yeah, we didn't discover some new laws of physics, it's happening in the human mind, or human brain, and we already have prior ideas about how that works.

 

 

I'm not sure if those are good examples of what you want or not. I realise that I didn't really discuss the content of those ideas, truths, theories, data, whatever, just noted that they are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've taken a statistics class too. Like I said, statistics are the only "truths" we have. But the statistics are about subjective truths, the same things we discuss here on the forum (At least, the qualitative statistics, not the quantitative). I suppose I just rely on my own gatherings of that data rather than surveys. Really, that's what everyone who discusses stuff here does. That is perhaps why it's so messy.

 

But it's also where the data comes from in the first place.


Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no, data doesn't come from "your own gatherings", that really is messy. The nice thing about taking a real survey is that you actually get numbers. "How many people can I think of who xyz " is ... data, but it's extremely suspect. Yes, if everyone who discusses stuff here eschews any good sense for reasoning about things and only uses their uninformed impressions, then it's not really a surprise it's messy.

 

Okay, I don't know what your gatherings are. If you took surveys and have data, then, well, share them.

 

Either way, statistics aren't the only "truths", they're not really even ""truths"" in themselves. They're data, they inform our reasoning. If you have bad data, you'll end up reasoning to bad conclusions. It's not really subjective. Say I look at a quantitative question asked to a few hundred people at two different points of time and reason, based on prior knowledge, to a conclusion. The subjectivity in this process comes from my reasoning, it's nothing to do with the matter at hand. And hey guess what everyone does everything and it's subjective and yeah, we could be talking about hard sciences right now and it would be no less ""subjective"".

 

I'm not trying to equivocate this process to something that's scientifically rigorous. But it's not philosophically distinct from seeking out truths in a sensible and normal way. Which is why "it's all subjective" and stuff rubs me the wrong way, because it almost seems like people will raise it as an excuse for not trying to seek anything out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just meant where you depend on data from surveys (or so you say, I doubt that you have no thoughts on tulpamancy of your own), I rely on my own experiences.. of experiences. We just learn from interacting and gathering "data" in the form of knowledge. But we aren't claiming to be doing science here. (To be fair though, we often remember posts we read from many months ago and use the Search feature to find them relatively easily, so that might not be as shoddy as it sounds.)

 

It is all subjective, at least what most people here are concerned with talking about. All the stuff that goes on in Q&A and GD anyways. Like I just explained in some big post from the last few days though, we aren't just believing what we will willy-nilly. Rigorously scientific or not, we logically discuss beliefs and ideas based on the cause-and-effect we've experienced from them (which is why it's subjective, you can only truly understand someone else's experience so well), trying to come up with the ones (or new ones) that make the most sense, and seem the most beneficial.

 

I guess you can pretend all we do here is the really serious logical discussions native to Linkzelda's threads, but the bulk of it is the bulk of Q&A and GD. It's the stuff we answer newcomers' questions with, and the answers we give to questions and polls in General Discussion. That's actually what I'm primarily interested in, because as we've noted before, we're here to help people. We don't require answers that others can provide per se, although just participating on this forum may help us find our own. Mostly we're trying to spread understanding and positive beliefs.

 

Believe it or not, I'm not here to discuss the nitty-gritty of tulpa nature or the psychoanalysis of peoples' thoughts on it. I'm a practical person, and I've found when it comes to humans just living their lives, absolute (or 99.99%) truth doesn't matter to them. They want to be satisfied with their life experience and that's about it. Some people though - like you, Linkzelda, and I too when not on the subject of tulpas - are only satisfied when seeking truth, simply for the sake of knowledge. And that's why I participate in those discussions anyways.


Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with that you're back to what you said before, or what I had thought you meant, that you don't really care about the truth, just about beliefs that make people happy. Before you said that the latter and the former are equivalent when used right, so, you leave me a bit confused about what you're trying to say. If you just don't care about the questions being asked then, okay. I do find it a bit hard to believe.

 

Anyway, yeah, I don't base all my thoughts about tulpas on data from surveys. That was just one example of something that we can use to move beyond the traditional "I think", "you think", etc.

 

I think this would be more concrete with some examples. When you talk about "the stuff we answer newcomers' questions with" - that to me is one of the things that we really can make a bit more rigorous. Most of us have some ideas of what works for creation, but ... we don't really know what does tend to work. We don't need machines to study it, we don't really need much at all to just get a clear understanding of what does and doesn't work. (But we don't.) This is relevant to what you said before, about the correct beliefs being the most useful ones: if you do want to help people, it is useful to know what you're doing.

 

So yeah, you can forget about the "nitty-gritty" questions like what a tulpa is, or something like that, if you want. There is more progress to be made in practical areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I have a pretty clear understanding of what does and doesn't work? One person can only ever experience things for the first time once. I learn what does and does not work from the experiences reported here. People talk about what works/ed for them all the time, and they talk about what didn't occasionally too. I didn't just show up yesterday, I don't just take my beliefs and five other peoples' and call it good. We've been active on tulpa.info every single day for over two years now. We've seen many thousands of posts (written well over a thousand, too), participated in hundreds of discussions, read about peoples' experiences in a lot of different formats. That knowledge is what I use to come up with my ideas of "What works; what doesn't". But it's much more detailed, accounting for what tends to work and how for which type of people - based on how they think, what they already believe, what their problems are. My own conclusions are probably mixed in there too. But my own conclusions are also mixed into others' knowledge of "what works for others", and we tend to discuss directly how we feel about these conclusions with the goal of sharpening them in General Discussion. Questions & Answers is where we give information to those who don't quite have enough to discuss yet. Although both can happen in either board.

 

 

Anyways if you're back to thinking I don't care about truth, then I'm back to not understanding what you think truth is. I'm not talking about the absolute basest definitions and explanations of tulpa nature when I talk about positive/beneficial beliefs and subjective truths. I'm talking about everything people ask about in Q&A, and GD. We simply have nowhere near the knowledge base for what is "true" to answer almost any of their questions, we only have our combined experience of "What works; what doesn't". And since there aren't clear answers, we rely more on a rounding of many different peoples' contributions, as opposed to site-wide declarations of correctness.

 

I don't really see that changing any time soon. However, the serious discussions probably help influence the less serious ones by providing a better knowledge base to work with in the first place.


Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, okay, I could also use those words to describe my experiences here. You have that, for what works, and that's ... fine. You know, and I also know, some things that seem to work quite well and other things that don't seem to work that well. That is a very far cry from knowing what does and doesn't work, in general.

 

The big problem that I have with this kind of "I've helped a lot of people" knowledge is that it's so reminiscent of what people who were actually completely wrong thought. Doctors practised their trade successfully for thousands of years, but for most of that time the prevailing ideas about how the body worked and how disease worked were completely false. Undoubtedly they had acquired knowledge about what methods worked in what circumstances, and what didn't ... but clearly they were no House M.D. There were substantial gaps in knowledge, even if you don't care about underlying truths - they were vastly less effective at their craft than modern doctors, technology notwithstanding.

 

That's more of an analogy than a precisely reasoned argument. But, uh, there were a lot of doctors, and a lot of kings and warlords who hired doctors and entrusted their lives into those doctors' hands, and most of those doctors saw more patients than you've talked to people on here, and certainly spent far more time and effort practising than you have here. And yet, no, they didn't have a clue. It's easy to feel like you're right when you're not, so, let history be a cautionary tale for overconfidence here.

 

I mean, that's just one example. Show me a trade or intellectual tradition and I'll show you millennia of barking up the wrong tree. It's hard to get things right even with a lot of people, time and methodology. We have none of those! It doesn't really help if you insist on discarding what little we do have that's in the least bit reliable.

 

 

About the truth stuff, yeah. We have a combined experience of what works, which like I said, is useful for, well, helping people. I agree, even when I answer questions that people ask I mostly have to talk from this. If this is what you care about, then, well, yeah, I still think that more fundamental enquiry helps here, unless you want to be stuck with the tulpa equivalent of Hellenic medicine or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this conversation really matters much to either of us. Certainly not to me. I'm just trying to be understood, but that doesn't really matter either. I wrote a big post, it took a long time, and I completely rewrote several of the paragraphs. But it just doesn't mean anything to me, I'm talking for nothing. If you, like Linkzelda, think you yourself will benefit from the concepts presented, feel free to read it.

 

[hidden]That's pretty iffy, comparing my knowledge of how people think they think to actual science. I don't really have the time or patience to explain why they're totally incomparable right now

or ever

so I'll just acknowledge the point you were making. But to be fair, you made up the quote "I've helped a lot of people" to better fit your analogy, but that wasn't a claim of mine. I have, but for the reasons you pointed out, I wouldn't bother using that to mean anything, because it means little. I've collected knowledge of how people think, how people think they think, how people think other people think, how people want to think, and all the things people think that prevent them from thinking what they want to think. From a lot of experience of experiences. It's all very shaky by your standards, but it sure is a lot of information. And unlike with actual sciences in your analogy, I'm not sure there are secrets of the universe to be uncovered when it comes to tulpas.

 

Actually, I don't think there are any at all. I don't quite understand.. What makes all of you value this neurological-brain-scan Golden Knowledge so much. I mean, I understand the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake as well as anyone, I practice it. But it has so little to do with what we do here, so little practical use to anyone who doesn't specifically seek it. This tulpa stuff is all in your mind, without exception, what you believe is almost entirely what you experience. Getting technical as you seem to prefer, on the subject of educating others about tulpas or how to raise theirs, it's almost moreso about how to convey that message - "It is how and what you think it is" - than it is defining the message itself. We see people constantly showing up with fears; fears of failing, fears of being hurt, fears of hurting their tulpa, metaphysical fears. And what do we tell them, waffles? Convolute it all you want, but what we tell them is there's nothing to fear, unless they think there is. And that if they think there is then it's a very real concern of course. And some people probably do give it straight-er in telling them it's completely up to what they think, perhaps neutrally citing some examples of others' previous experiences, refusing to "nudge them in the right direction" and leaving them to figure things out for themselves. But mostly, we nudge.

 

What do you think objective knowledge will accomplish? Suddenly, when we can perfectly scientifically explain what tulpas are (which is not a thing as "tulpas" are so varied) and how they work (re:that), all of the skeptics that wanted facts can.. make tulpas? And? What'd they gain exactly? They feel a bit better about the people they're imagining. Unfortunately I simply can't imagine a future where we've so thoroughly explained the tulpa phenomenon that we can use that objective knowledge to develop 'better ways' to develop them. It's a subjective experience no matter what, so it would probably be a subjective interpretation of the objective knowledge anyways. I guess it could be a good subjective interpretation, but we're extrapolating way too far. I can tell you still believe that objective knowledge will help in some way and what I'm saying means nothing to you, but I just can't grasp what "objective knowledge" even entails here.

 

My own intuition keeps countering the arguments I attempt to write for you, and I can't ignore it - in any example I try (literally tried and erased) to write, no matter how many people don't care about that knowledge, there are still others who will use it to advance their understanding and.. somehow affect the rest. Someone's going to make better TV's no matter how many people simply care about watching them, and those people will benefit. But I can't figure out how that can ever apply to tulpamancy, I really can't. You really think objective, laboratory-level knowledge will improve the experiences of those just trying to make tulpas? At best I can imagine physical improvements - more efficient "forcing" and such. But there's just nothing objective after, "What You Think is What You Get". Objective knowledge does not account for values and opinions, and those are the things we use to further the tulpa-developing experience. Objective knowledge won't help with dissociation issues, bringing a "dead" tulpa back to life, or the infinite dang sentience threads. It won't help with anything subjective, and it's almost all subjective! The difference in advice from objective facts and my subjective truths is negligible when a person's own specific biases may mean mine works better for them. That's why we have lots and lots of different subjective "truths" advice. Honestly, with how illogical humans are, objective advice may only even be relevant to a few of them.

 

 

Well, I wrote all that, but I haven't said anything. I still don't think either of us knows what the other is talking about. I understand your point morally, but not practically. I just don't see how "truth" is relevant to tulpamancy at all, really. The truth is that tulpas, and life itself, are meaningless until a human gives it meaning. Reality does not care what you think reality is. A tulpa is exactly what you experience it as, on all levels but physical, which can be explained logically. Aside from the literal physical experience going on in your brain, they're completely subjective. They can be demons or alternate-universe-characters or split brain processing power into another "mind" or you talking to yourself or anything else. No "objective knowledge" matters to the people who want to think those things. Maybe the more science-minded can help translate it into more insightful subjective 'knowledge' to appease the majority, as is the case with nearly all existing technology resulting from science.

 

 

Ugh. I'm doing everything wrong.[/hidden]

 

I can't do that anymore. All of that thinking just doesn't mean anything. This isn't about or a result of the discussion by the way - recently I just don't like the way I sound, the way I act, the way I think, and I want to change it. So I'm going to, and that's starting with stopping.. This. There's nothing wrong with these discussions at all, but they're not for me. I'll be more concise in the future.


Hi, I'm Tewi, one of Luminesce's tulpas. I often switch to take care of things for the others.

All I want is a simple, peaceful life. With my family.

Our Ask thread: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.