Jump to content

Tulpa sentience discussion


Recommended Posts

1) Well-developed tulpas are real in the same way DID (dissociative identity disorder) identities are real. Tulpas aren't DID, but the same code of morals applies. Both can posses their own thoughts, memories and emotions that are just as valid as experiences of the original identity. Both would clearly show up on fMRI scans and psychological tests.

 

2) Young tulpas often lack skills necessary to be considered a full fledged person. This is analogous to young children. Nonetheless, there is consensus that young children should be treated with equal amount of respect as a fully developed person, due to the potential they hold. If children were valued for what they currently are, they would be seen as dysfunctional animals. Young tulpas should be treated as children and valued for the potential they possess. The majority of tulpa community is at this stage.

 

3) If no genuine attempt/plans are made to develop a character into a person, this is role-playing. A request can be made to treat your role-playing character as a person, however the nature of your role-playing character should be made transparent to all parties. Role-playing characters have no concerns/wishes that need to be considered with same level of importance as that of a person; however the person who acts on their behalf does. A request for a role-playing character to be treated as a person without transparency regarding the nature of said interaction is deception and devaluation of persons with genuine plurality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll make this short because I ramble too much.

 

Firstly, I don't see what the topic title has to do with the original post. Sentience and perceiving sentence are not the same thing. Something doesn't stop being sentient just because you stop believing in that. Yes, you can cancel a tulpa, but if someone wants to smack me then I'm not going to stop them by just telling myself they don't exist.

 

First, let me describe what I mean by sentience, since most discussions on psychology involve needing to specify your own meaning of vague terms, just so we're on the same page. Sentience is, for all intents and purposes, the ability to make decisions based on input and your own rule system, unaffected by external sources aside from the input itself. As in, something is sentient if it sees a flower and decides to pick it. Something is not sentient if it cannot read the input of the flower, and cannot decide on it's own without external sources to pick it.

 

In this context, I include the host's consciousness as an external source, since the tulpa's sentience is a closed system here. This is the point where people can actually start to debate, since we're now on common ground and have a mutual understanding of what we're both talking about.

 

I personally believe, yes, a tulpa is sentient. The brain itself is one sentience, but runs a personality on top of it. Originally, people have one personality, themselves. But one can create a separate personality, equal to themselves, and even allow it to have it's own thoughts. It's kind of like how an operating system runs two programs at once, with multitasking. Although there's one "sentience", it ultimately acts like there are two, since both have individual thoughts and can perform actions without prompting from each other.

This is just what I believe, but I also wanted to just clear up what we're all talking about here. I suggest people describe their own idea of what sentience and consciousness is before talking about it, along with any other vague psychological terminology.

Scarlet - anime, 8/15/2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

good post bin, we agree with all that

 

I don't really like discussing this topic but we've been here a long time. It's not that I want it to be ignored, just I think the general answer doesn't take that long to come to and convey, and after that shhhh continue as normal. But I guess there's new people all the time huh. OK, well, Bin's post was good and that's pretty much how we think too!

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your post, Bin. I would just like to make a minor point.

 

I do think that sentience and perceiving sentence are the same thing. Scientifically speaking, if you have two objects and all your observations say that they are identical, then then they must be identical. If you build a robot that appears sentient (whatever the definition of that word might be), then it is sentient unless someone can show otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can know another's sentience in the philosophical sense. In the scientific sense, you could perhaps verify (easily in fact) another living thing's ability to perceive its environment. But most people prefer the philosophical "feeling" definition. Most people would not consider a relatively advanced robot/AI (one conceivable in the near future) to be "sentient", and that's the philosophical definition.

 

"Real sentience" has nothing to do with tulpamancy twofold, at least in non-tulpamancy definitions. First, whether your tulpa "is sentient or not" does not change how you should treat them. Seems like a logical fallacy to treat something that functions the same as different because of how you think it thinks, or doesn't. Plus treating them like they're "sentient" is an important part of the development process. Second, they can't not be sentient in the non-tulpamancy sense, because they share your brain. Since you can know your own sentience, you know your brain is sentient. Treating your tulpa like it's not just a part of the greater whole that makes up your being may be a helpful and immersive mindset, and I don't think most people are in a position to discredit tulpas' legitimacy without being ignorant to the nature of their own existence, but that doesn't change the fact that to some effect their independence from you is an illusion. Though most people are comfortably rooted in their idea of their sense of self being their entire being, and so the "illusion" suits them as a reality.

 

Point is, unknowable sentience has nothing to do with it. All that matters is what you experience, and what they appear to experience. And in a technical sense you and them share the same overarching sentience. But you can believe whatever you like, considering the popular definition of sentience is arbitrary 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pancake: Be careful there. Just for starters, children are not respected because of their potential to be people, but rather because they already are.

 


 

@bin: Your definition of sentience is way too broad. All computer programs would count as sentient under that definition. And I mean all of them.

 

They all make decisions based solely on the input they receive. They each have their own exclusive rule system.

 

Personally, I think there is something wrong if your definitions include any publicly known programs under the definition of sentience.

 


 

"Real sentience" has nothing to do with tulpamancy twofold, at least in non-tulpamancy definitions. First, whether your tulpa "is sentient or not" does not change how you should treat them. Seems like a logical fallacy to treat something that functions the same as different because of how you think it thinks, or doesn't. Plus treating them like they're "sentient" is an important part of the development process...

Sentience is at the heart of the issue of moral worth. I like star trek for this. You have two railways and a switch. On one sits a super advanced AI computer and millions in tech. On the other sits a human. Which way does the rail car go? It destroys the equipment.

 

Equipment does not care if it gets destroyed.

 

Better example On one line is a human, and the other a vulcan. Which way does the rail car go?

 

Spock would say that the rail car should go over the vulcan given no other option, as the vulcan has no emotions. Thus the vulcan does not desire life. The human would be upset at the fate of the human if the human gets run over. The vulcan would see someone getting run over as a logical consequence of the situation and thus necessary.

 

Basically, no sentience, no morality. None.

 

Indeed, it is not a logical fallacy to treat something different that functions the same. As engineers will tell you, a more expensive pipe gets better care and attention.

Host comments in italics. Tulpa's log. Tulpa's guide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a very similar post on my DA back then too:

 

http://aurora-alley.deviantart.com/journal/Tulpa-sentience-655093775

 

I did it because I wanted to stand up for my rights and indirectly speak out against unjustified levels of hatred they are projecting at all tulpas and tulpamancers in general.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Lucilyn
      This discussion originated from the thread Did I give the right answer? -Cat_ShadowGriffin
       

       

       

       
      the "controlling" is somewhat unconscious I guess, just.. like if you imagine something (visualize) totally made up, you're doing that, even if it can happen/continue really naturally, like that
       
      tulpas just have a little more going on y'know
    • By Carlos
      I have a romantic relationship with my tulpa, but I would like to feel the emotions of love that she feels for me (I guess this is related in some way to the sentience)
      She is not vocal yet, she has a certain level of judgment and I communicate with her through music, but I want to communicate in other ways with my tulpa so that she can transmit me the emotions of love she feels for me. How else can I communicate with my tulpa?
    • By Kalushar
      Recently, I’ve been feeling head pressures, which I believe to be my Tulpa gaining sentience. However, as of late the feeling has been weaker and I don’t feel it as much. I was wondeing what this might be and what I could do to fix it.
    • By teapup
      I'm not sure if how I hear my tulpas voice is correct.
       
      It sounds exactly like my own, quiet and in the back of my head. I can only hear her when I really focus on listening, and I feel sometimes I accidently parrot her responses. It's because her talking is very quick and very far back under my mental "layers" of voice and is hard to hear. Im not sure if this is promising, or is actually my mind voice having like multiple layers if that's normal?
    • By Cat_ShadowGriffin
      Last night, Ranger wanted to chat again and I asked if he wanted me to explain some Calculus concepts to him. He expressed interest in fronting during class time, but he was dormant for most of my time in calculus class so I wanted to make sure he was up to speed. Since he knew I figured out something I was confused about, he asked me to talk about the vectors problem I did during my homework.
       
      I was experimenting with the idea of explaining this concept to someone else before Ranger asked for my explanation, so I went with telling him the explanation I already came up with. He told me my explanation didn't make sense to him and he asked for me to use "layman's terms". After going back and forth a few times, I finally showed him that vector addition resulted in the destination point after moving in the direction of the first vector and then in the direction of the other vector. Suddenly everything clicked, and he told me that it made sense to him.
       
      On the first day of class, one of the reasons Ranger was a little uncomfortable was because he never took notes, much less learn Spanish in school before. He was capable of note taking the way I did it, but this bothered him. When we went over the homework the next day, he perked up and seemed more engaged when he gave suggestions for how to organize the notes. I bet he would have been happier if he had a note taking system he had to craft and tweak over time, and I have the feeling our note taking style will change throughout the semester so he's more comfortable with it.
       
      In the past, Ranger has also explained that he likes my brother re-explaining things to him because he said even though he understands "how" or "what", he doesn't know "why". I wonder if this too is about learning the information for himself. Literally, he could explain "the why" if it's a simple fact. Then again, he currently isn't looking for a deeper explanation for why the sky is blue.
       
      Re-learning how to do something isn't always valuable for a Tulpa. For example, Ranger learned how to speak English and write using knowledge I already learned, muscle memory, and accessing my memories. But if a Tulpa is asked to explain something as complex as calculus, do they really have the greatest understanding of the material just because their host understands it?
       
      My ultimate question is this: Even though Tulpas are capable of gaining information and knowledge from their host's memories, is it better if they take the time to process certain things for themselves?
×
×
  • Create New...