Jump to content

How Relevant Is Real Sentience to How We Treat a Tulpa/Thoughtform?


Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

I gotta day, I jive with your view waaay more than I ever expected to after reading the first couple posts of yours I saw. Embracing our doubts was so scary, but it's strengthened us so much.

Physicist, mathematician, philosopher.

Vessel of uncountably many passions.

 

Tulpa: Lotus Ponens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Anonymous

Really? Wow. Well I am glad what we wrote helps. Coolness!

 

The thing is though that Mistgod and I can be too brash and blunt. We struggle constantly to remember that doubt is poison to tulpas and that it is important to treat people the way they want to be treated. Also, in the past, there have been times we used loaded words just to get people worked up for a big fight. Yeah, we are guilty of that big time. We were always sincere in what we were saying, but were deliberately brash and toxic, just to stir up activity and get attention. We admit it. That is less true now than it was in the past.

 

The second thing we do is we get defensive and insulted when someone dares to disagree with us. Both my host and I are like that. That is really a bad character trait on a discussion forum.

 

Working on it. Still. *ahem cough*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then let's drag it out of you.

 

Guys, really all I really wanted to know with the OP was would we still love our tulpas and care about them as much if some test proved they were only imaginary. That's all I wanted to know. I thought the questions were very simple. I am an emotional person and so is Mistgod.

 

Yes, I’m sure every other human being and tulpa would be emotional as well, but that has little to do with the thread.

 

To suggest, in even a small way, that a tulpa would be rejected or diminished because some machine qualified his mind as part of his host's is really sad. It tells me something about this community a little bit. I don't want to overgeneralize, but the fact that even some of you think that was is really sad to me. It's just how I personally feel.

 

I think you’re just strawmanning as this point because I have yet to see anyone that has such a negative view in wanting to degenerate, or disrespect a tulpa if some deux ex machina machine came about to dispose problems of sentience being emerged/instantiated. You always pull this emotional card, and start blaming it at an invisible group of individuals as a two-way plot where if someone asks if you’re shifting the blame on them, you play coy, but if they don’t admit, and you apply blame to that imaginary crowd, you still put up this front. I don’t get it.

 

Point to me to those individuals that would contemplate the thought. If it’s me, show me in my posts where there’s apathy. If it’s reguile, you’re probably confusing his bluntness and honesty as being cruel.

 

Tulpas are people to me no matter what test is done on them, no matter what skills they have, no matter what someone else thinks of them. That was the point of this OP. I think some of you missed that completely.

________________________________________

 

You don’t make a thread about a machine that will naturally objectify the very existence and validity of a tulpa if you cannot reign in your emotions, and fear they will go haywire. You do not make a thought experiment that is naturally going to have others deconstruct it to no end, and expect that the answers will be a circle jerk of everyone holding hands together. You do not make threads just for a confirmation bias, and yet cannot accept the probability that people will see something other than your belief of seemingly sentient, and yet wanting the mind to condition this instantiation, and yet still chalk it up as imagination that’s equivalent to roleplaying, and what have you.

 

A tulpa is always at least partially part of the host and vice versa. For instance, when a tulpa thinks of a duck, he is probably using the same memory experience (and brain synapses) as the host in relation to what is a duck and what to expect about ducks. Therefore there is not a total separation between a tulpa and a host.

 

Basically, like what I mentioned with all-inclusiveness. No physical separation of the mind, obviously, like you stated, and yet I still felt you were arguing with this sentiment.

 

You really cannot separate a tulpa from imagination or we would not be having this conversation.

 

Really? We’re talking about imagination, and yet you apply emotive context in wanting to believe she, Melian, is real to you, or in this case, imaginary real, or whatever wording you two use. I want your opinion on this: What do you think about possession and switching? Do you think the two concepts are imaginary in-and-of-themselves? Do you think shifting awareness, and having another presumed conscious experiencer (that can share that same all-inclusiveness with the host’s mind) is just imaginary? That putting things into context in their perspective is imaginary? That their association with memories from the host is imaginary? Because the more you embellish everything as imaginary, even with the concept of presumed sentience itself, it seems you’d be perfectly content with tulpas being p-zombies.

 

If this is the case, there would be no point in applying love to someone that cannot even consciously experience those sensations of having love reciprocated to them. It would be sentiment done in vain, as one’s imagination, and feeling a tulpa is perpetually trapped by that imagination would prevent them that potential. Narrative imagination can go so far, Melian, to where the host is only fixated on determinate probabilities, and determinate existence without actually interacting with a tulpa. If it’s in your nature to revel in a fantasy personality, by all means, we can’t do anything about that.

 

But to moralize this imaginative personality, to cultivate it, and give it a persona that you would call whatever context you apply Melian as is metaphorical at best given your circumstance. I’m not demanding that you believe them having the potential to be sentient beyond narrative imagination. I’m just acknowledging to you of what you get yourself into when you get used to that trap, and brag about making an art out of it.

 

Tulpamancy is also conveniently unfalsifiable. This is similar to elements of religion.

I think there is a potential of it being falsifiable given that phenomenological viewpoints, i.e., views pertaining to subjective experiences, face the hard problems of consciousness. For this practice to be conveniently unfalsifiable would imply that those problems were disposed of, but they’re not. However, even if there is a potential of it being falsifiable, it’s not going to stop everyone from still trying. If you keep imagining it being unfalsifiable in spite of information out there showing that it has that potential of being falsifiable, it’s just creating another bubble where everything goes your way. If that’s what you want, then okay, but don’t expect that moralizing this whole thing would be sound for some who will continue to penetrate that emotional card you put up when you make threads that would make one naturally inclined to think deeper instead being generic and circle-jerking.

 

Realness in a tulpa is totally subjective.

 

Thought it was irrelevant to you, but okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Drag what out of us? Skepticism? We have been kinda skeptics from day one.

 

Really, I just wanted people to say they would still love their tulpas even if they are imaginary, cause Mistgod and I don't understand why proving they are sentient is so important. We think it should be kinda irrelevant. No really, that was all it was about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for you to admit to being emotional had to imply that you used some form of context to even make that presumption. To chalk that up as still being an imaginary process undermines you in some way. The fact that you're distressed over people over-analyzing, and not keeping things simple as you intended can be a testament that there was some emotive context applied. Being confined as imaginary wouldn't even allow you to apply those things into context.

 

You're not understanding why it's so important for others maybe because you have a deep conviction of this still being imaginary; the sharing of memories of your host, and your application of them being imaginary to you. To even pay attention in this thread, and notice behavorial trends from me, reguile, and others...do you still think this is some imaginary application of context you're doing?

 

I'm not in this for appreciating one's tulpa; that's something I already came to terms with a long time ago. What I'm in this thread for is that if you're concerned as to why sentience is even relevant in treating them as such, it's this undermining of signs of sentience vs. one being a p-zombie that implies they can't do this is what could be making you distraught over having any sense of appreciation of there being potential of you being sentient within the inner experiences of the mind you share with your host.

 

Hey, I get that Science can make this difficult, but if there's anything that it would be pursuing is merely figuring out if consciousness, and what have you can be instantiated in some way, or through some other theoretical approach. It can't tell you how to love, or appreciate a tulpa irrespective of their existence, I get that, there's no argument there. But this importance of sentience is one where passion tends to trump over logic, and I'm just asking you things to see if you can see for yourself that you could be sentient in spite of us not being able to prove it at face value.

 

All of this is really constructed to portray to you that sentience can be inferred in some way. I didn't need a machine to tell me that I can have an autobiographical context over previous experiences. I didn't need a machine to tell me that I have to make some understanding of this reality, to know this is a forum, and know what a forum entails, and what a discussions entails. It's more than just a game of imagination, it's realizing that sentience at some point can't be undermined as imaginary, even if the tulpa has the convenience of utilizing the memories of the host; that contextual application is an inference that can be made that it's more than just imaginary.

 

This is the only reason why I'm beating around the bush past the thread. But hey, I know when to call it quits. It's just distressing that you yearn for appreciating love in whatever way, but you can't even appreciate the potential for you to put things into context to even arrive at that awareness of wanting to be loved by the host. This is why I mentioned that it's even more horrifying if one cannot even have the capacity, or potential to consciously experience these emotive thoughts, even if one feels they're locked into sharing the host's mind either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this talk about just wanting to hear if tulpas are sentient or not is it consdiered derailing to respond to the posts linkzelda made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

With all this talk about just wanting to hear if tulpas are sentient or not is it consdiered derailing to respond to the posts linkzelda made?

 

Yes. Thank you.

 

I am finished with this thread I guess. I got my answers I think from the responses already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are finished with the thread then is it okay to bring up off topic stuff?

 

I'm asking more in the context of forum-wide rules. It's been a long time since I've been active on any forums, so I'm not very familiar with common practice 'round these parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Well, I might be finished with (as I continue to respond LOL) but others might not be so I would say to keep it on topic. But you can always PM me or write on my Living Imagination thread that's all random and bloggy anyways.

 

I think Linkzelda has his heart in the right place. He talks about my potential and I interpret his words to mean he feels it is unfortunate that I am not growing beyond a certain point. So I am going to take what he was trying to say as a very sweet thing. He might say it had nothing to do with helping me or caring, but that is how I am taking it. I hope this thread and the responses Linkzelda made and the ones others made are helpful to someone. At least one person already stated so. So that's great.

 

As for me, I am ready to move on. Others can continue the discussion if they want to.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...