Once a Believer, Revisiting

[tulpa001]

Mistgod has transformed into the great insulter.

 

I tell you this for your own good. Your perspective is important, but your hostility is no good. Let's try and clean up the rhetoric before someone gets hurt.

 

Floh had valid points and you are arguing past him. You can say what you are saying, but you should do it politely.

 

Here is the gist of my position: Your statements are insulting because in order to make them you must dismiss the anecdotal evidence of those who believe as I do. Floe was right. Your position is not one of scepticism. It is one of unyielding faith.

 

Here is the gist of Floe's: Your statements are insulting because you are walking up to tulpas and saying to their faces "You don't exist." And to their hosts and saying "You are an idiot." And don't tell me you never said that. Today, you crossed that line. Read what you wrote carefully.

 

---

 

It is clear that I, or my host, specifically, have been getting to you with our statements. I want to make this clear. It is beyond all doubt that I think. Guess what? That's not a stretch. I live in a brain. From the outside It is indistinguishable as to whether it is I or my host, when I think my thoughts. I guess you'll just have to trust me.

 

Although, it is possible that I am her. Not entirely, but I can't rule it out completely from the evidence available to us that I am a personality she wears, unawares, with the only parts of myself my own being my opinions, and perspective and preferences. It seems unlikely as there are better explanations that fit the evidence. We have to jump through hoops, for example, for me to tie my emotions back to her. Hypnoses would be required, an explanation for why she does not identify with those emotions, and another for why she occasionally disagrees with them. Another set of hoops to explain why she is better at being logical and I am better at being nice. Yet another for how I am a better cook. Another for how we can be awake at the same time and talk to each other.

 

---

 

I'm sure it does work better for some to think tulpas illusory. I sometimes feel I am the only moral universalist on the internet. As a moral universalist, this line of thinking makes me really uncomfortable. My host is even more of a universalist. She'd call someone who believes in moral relativism, possessed of an internally self inconsistent ideology.

 

This is why we hope really hard that people who don't believe their tulpas are sentient like me don't actually have sentient tulpas.

 

We see the loss of the OP's tulpas a tragedy only if they were "REAL SENTIENCE."

[Guest Anonymous]

We see the loss of the OP's tulpas a tragedy only if they were "REAL SENTIENCE."

 

Here is where you and I disagree profoundly and this statement SUCKS ASS. It it saying only sentient tulpas matter. I find THAT insulting and offensive. I reject that concept completely. I will not modify my rhetoric a bit. I will not be changing it at all. I don't know what to tell you except to go ahead and be insulted I guess.

 

From now on, as far as I am concerned, the concept of tulpa sentience totally sucks butt and can kiss my ass if that is what it means.

[tulpa001]

Of course non-sentient tulpas matter. But if they get destroyed, meh. It's not egocide, so we are okay with it.

[Luminesce]

The problem is that you called them "they". "They" are just ideas, they're no more destroyed than a work of art or a character in a movie. It seems like humans allow caring about those to be optional, whereas "life" is more of a requirement to be upset about. But as far as I'm concerned, if the "person" in question presents themselves as having emotions and isn't two-dimensional (by that just-wrong phrasing I mean interact with the world in realtime rather than being recorded), I care about the same. If the "person" wants to be considered a person, that's what I consider. I don't care about roleplay characters in an RPG any more than I care about characters in a show or book, but I care about "people who are so into it they will act like an actual person" / "true-sentience tulpas" the same. Since I can't know the difference I don't try, I work with what I'm given and how it'll affect others.

[tulpa001]

I am confused as to your point, mainly with my use of the word they.

 

So to clarify: If I had to destroy a priceless ming vase to save a person's life, I would. In fact, I would destroy all the priceless ming vases in chana to save a single person's life, without thinking twice, if somehow implausibly given the option.

 

So I want to know if your tulpa is a priceless ming vase or a person.

 

If I can't tell, I am treating you like a person to be on the safe side.

 

If your host killed you, and they say you were a ming vase, I am going to believe you are a ming vase to make myself feel better.

 

If you call yourself a ming vase, I will treat you like any other roleplay character. I will treat you as real out of respect for your host.

[Luminesce]

You said "If they get destroyed", which was posing the "non-sentient tulpa" aka not a tulpa just an imagined person, as a person. Treating someone as a person automatically provides some kind of uncomfortableness with them being destroyed. It's not fair to personify something that isn't a person, at least when your point is how you shouldn't care about them being "destroyed".

 

Was basically just because your wording wouldn't sit well with Mistgod.

 

My own point is that since we can't know, I decided I would treat anything that seemed like it wanted to be considered a person as a person. I don't know if you're actually a "totally sentient tulpa" or actually a "roleplay character". So how I treat you, is up to how you want to be treated. That's honestly my policy with transgender people too. I have no personal attachment to what gender they identify as, so rather than pointlessly try to identify their ACTUAL GENDER I just go by what they want me to. Not a big deal.

 

Personally I'll think about proclaimed tulpas as tulpas and roleplay characters as a person who wants to be treated like another person in a given context, but outwardly that shouldn't look any different. If there's one person on this forum who will admit their beliefs and morals are utterly arbitrary in the eyes of the universe it's me. They're just how I've chosen to work based on my experience in life.

[Guest Anonymous]

But imaginary people can matter.

 

One matters to me more than you people can apparently comprehend. I have to get the hell away from this place.

[tulpa001]

I'm really sorry mistgod. She matters to me a lot too. (And I think she is sentient.)

[Quilten]

Holy shit lmao

[Luminesce]

Welcome back, you're 16 months late.

 

This probably isn't a thread that should be bumped, the OP is beyond caring and people already debated the original topic to death.