Jean-luc's thoughts on all the things people argue about.

[jean-luc]

I have found myself repeating my beliefs over and over, and I wanted to just collect everything in one place for my own and other's reference.

 

1. Tulpas are purely psychological. A mind with tulpas cannot do anything that a singular mind cannot, although it may make some things easier (such as considering things from different perspectives). Tulpas cannot affect or see anything that a singular mind cannot (such as seeing around a corner or communicating with other brains that are far away).
   
2. Tulpas cannot be proven to be real or not. Because the experience is entirely subjective only those on the inside can say anything for sure. This also applies to a tulpa's sentience.
   
3. Inside the brain, belief is reality. There is no placebo effect. If you believe that your tulpas are sentient, then they are. If you believe that a pill will make your tulpa russian, it will. If you are skeptical, it may or may not.
    
   Someone brought up that no matter how hard you believed that a tulpa could speak russian, they cannot unless they learn it. From the outside, this will be obvious to anyone who speaks russian. However, if someone irrationally absolutely believes that their tulpa can speak russian (even though they can't), then reason and common sense go out the window, and anything that points to their tulpa not speaking russian must be false.
    
   As a consequence, anything that is not externally verifiable is true if the host believes it is true. (median systems are more complicated, I won't pretend to know)
   
4. The most fundamental (and the only required) ingredient in the tulpa soup is attention. It usually comes in the form of talking to them, but it doesn't have to.
   
5. The parroting method of creating a tulpa is a perfectly valid way to make a tulpa, and tulpas created this way are not any lesser people.
   
6. If ever any laws are created, we must treat the entire physical body as one (with some exceptions), since it is not possible to determine how many tulpas a person really has. This is more of a practical thing and not really a belief, but I put it here because I've found myself repeating it. A notable exception being this site, where a single person in a system can be banned while letting the others in the same system participate.
   
7. It doesn't matter whether a tulpa is sentient or not. As long as you care about them, the question of sentience is not only unanswerable (as it always is) but irrelevant.
   
8. For many people, their "God"(s) are thoughtforms similar to tulpas. As has been pointed out, there is a large variety of religions. But whenever you hear about someone talking to god and/or getting a response (asking for advice perhaps), that is a thoughtform. Many have a defined form, and many stories to define a personality.
   

 

I will likely add more and/or edit these later.

 

EDIT: Added #8 about god

EDIT: "God is a tulpa" -> "God is a thoughtform similar to a tulpa."

EDIT: Completely reworded God & added clarification on belief.

[Guest Anonymous]

Mistgod and Melian approved.

 

Not that you need or want Mistgod and Melian approval but I bet it makes you feel all happy and squishy inside to get it anyways.

[mysonofrageandlove]

There's been some discussion on here between me and another user that Jamie might not actually be a tulpa. The fact that I instinctually agree with the first point on your list, but then have had experiences with Jamie that directly contradict that, make me wonder even more about the nature of Jamie's....species? I don't even know what word to use there.

[jean-luc]

Mistgod and Melian approved.

 

Not that you need or want Mistgod and Melian approval but I bet it makes you feel all happy and squishy inside to get it anyways.

 

…

 

Yeah, yeah it does :P

[Guest Anonymous]

I knew it!

[LifeInside]

I agree with everything you said as well, man!

[Dav_Edward]

I entirely agree and made the same points myself to all 7 of those points made as of original post.

[Linkzelda]

It doesn't matter whether a tulpa is sentient or not. As long as you care about them, the question of sentience is not only unanswerable (as it always is) but irrelevant.

 

 

 

Then let's stop treating them as sentient. Yeah, as long as we care about them, we don't really need to treat them as sentient, and end up wondering what it means to be treated as sentient. Let's all hold hands and be happy! It's completely irrelevant to treat them as sentient anyway. I think the real question is the emergence of sentience, which can seem impossible to figure out, but that's only a convenient thought based on the fact that hard problems of consciousness have yet to be resolved that still revolve in questioning emergence of sentience, or consciousness.

 

Having absolute certainty that sentience is unanswerable is also a testament of absolute apathy in figuring out how they can be treated as sentient for one to even care for. I think maybe the reasoning shot itself in the foot somewhere.

[Lucilyn]

Haha, shoot itself in the foot by giving you a gun huh? But he did say earlier the belief thing, they're sentient if you believe they are and such. While you're defending the reason we try and figure out tulpa sentience, his view is he's tired of seeing people argue over something that can't be proven again and again. I think you two can meet in the middle.

 

Also I can't agree with "God is a tulpa." That's a statement, meaning fact, not even a suggestion. It's not scientific to say something is true if you can't prove it. God might not be a tulpa.

I think the concept we call God is in most cases a lot like a tulpa but hey, I'm not saying that's a fact. (It's rude to call peoples' beliefs wrong)

[Guest Anonymous]

Then let's stop treating them as sentient.

 

But you treat me as "sentient" do you not? I admit I am not real (as in independent from my host), but you still treat me like a distinct person.