[split] Are tulpas subjective and in the mind?

[tulpa001]

No, but someone on page two abouts on a thread asking what tulpas are was giving them out.

 

http://furmorphed.com/index.php?/topic/1807-furry-assistant/&page=2

 

Pretty sure you know a huge amout can change in 4 years on a forum, though. Probably better to hit up discord.

[suhail Al ketbi]

May be

The whole issue ( I trust that )

Is in the forcing standard only .

Which you give your tulpa a level of power.

But if we look to the orginal texts of Indian and tebitan budahsim about tulpa ..We got different view which the process we have it here in this site , is sort of standards of tulpa's existence.

[Solune]

Look up the definition of a word like "sentience".

Now find the key word used in the definition and look THAT word up (there may be more than one key word).

Now look up the key words in THOSE definitions up.

Continue ad infinitum until you realize you aren't getting anywhere.

Now go and look up "Deconstruction".

 

Language provides only the illusion of comprehension- true comprehension is impossible.

The definition of "comprehend" is "to understand".

The definition of "understand" is to "perceive the intended meaning of".

 

"Words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words.

No word can acquire meaning... by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)" - Jacques Derrida

 

Arguing about the sentience of tulpas is like trying to explain color to a person born blind.

They can understand the concept of color, how it affects people with working vision, how it can be used to convey emotions in art and stuff like that...

but the blind person will never "truly" understand color until they are somehow able to perceive it themselves.

Not only that, but you will never be able to provide objective evidence for the existence of color to this blind person.

That person must take your words on FAITH alone.

Nothing is ever proven, it is simply accepted as being true.

 

We will never know for sure whether tulpas are "real" or "imaginary" or something in between those two ideas- the same way we will never be able to prove that we ourselves exist in the first place.

 

It is my belief that the fear of death is ever present in our human experience. We seek control as a means to delay the inevitable.

Arguing, debating, researching, innovating, communicating... all the things we strive to do are simply elaborate schemes to create this illusion of control.

Even possessing the self-awareness to realize this does not free you from its effects. "Enlightenment" is another illusion we create in order to feel like we are in control. Me taking the time to write all this out is a form of control.

And that's it. There isn't a grand point to all this... Normally after writing something like this I'd delete it and move on with my day feeling better for having vented- but I think I'll post it instead just to see the responses I might get.

[Luminesce]

The natural progression of that train of thought is nihilism, ie "Nothing matters". In case you meant something else, as I usually do there, you should probably mention it. I continue that "life is meaningless -" thing with "- except for the meaning we humans give it". Meaning there is no ultimate truth, except that "truth" is what you make of it. Subjectivity is, by definition, in the eye of the beholder, and everything you can perceive is also by definition subjective, as far as your perception of it is concerned. Maybe a thing observed is or is not objective, but that's not for us to say. Unless we all agree that subjective experience is definitely probably objective, et cetera. But let's tone it down from hard science a bit back to where we actually live, where humans absolutely love to think things are just-so when they just aren't. Your home isn't a home, it's a lot of things, and the subjective feelings you have toward it are meaningless in the eyes of the world, and anyone you can't convey them to.

 

And? The pessimistic view here is that everything is meaningless, the optimistic that there's no need to worry about "objective" truth and meaning is something you and other humans create for yourselves. It's also just a long-winded way of saying "We can't know the answer to this philosophical question, so don't bother worrying about it", to which the typical response of those 'worrying' about it is "We're just discussing it, for fun or curiosity or otherwise".

 

Anyways I'm a proponent of the optimistic "You create your own subjective reality" side of "life is meaningless (on its own)". Maybe you're a nihilist. Maybe none of this matters ;)

 

 

seriously though for peace of mind "We can't know, believe what would make you the happiest" seems like the best overall answer

[tulpa001]

[stuff]

I remember that particular deconstruction. That's a basic question for how people learn language.

 

I have also heard of the theory that the meaning carried by language is an illusion (through my host). I believe it is a type of nihilism. My host's usual response to that is this only seems to be the case for human language, which is all wibbly wobbly. Computer languages in their precision and strictness do not have cyclical definitions in them.

 

I have also heard of the contrast theory of the meaning of language. But my host and I prefer the shared representation theory of the meaning of language. This one holds that though the word teacup has no meaning itself, two people have come to use the word teacup to refer to teacups so they can talk about teacups with each other. Through an agreement process.

 

I would like to point out a single flaw in your argument. Talking about tulpa sentience may be like talking about colour to the blind. But if the conversation is between tulpamancers, then it is talking about colour between two people who should in theory both see colour.

 

...researching, innovating[...] all the things we strive to do are simply elaborate schemes to create this illusion of control.

Nah, in the rare case those aren't get rich quick schemes, the motive is lazyness. How can I get a machine to do something for me so I don't have to ever do it myself again?

 

Arguing and debating could also be done for fun.

[Dreamerald]

If you would like to see the original discussion, please go here. -Ranger

 

19 hours ago, Ranger said:

So first of all, no, tulpas and hosts only have that difference if you put down those barriers in the first place. I live in the "sensible" world all the time, and I do so by controlling the body.

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

So, tulpa, of course you can have access to the sensible world by having access to the senses and having control, but you do not reside in the sensible world. Excepting from the host, no other human in the world can perceive your form, voice, texture, temperature, whatever. Done. Actually, they can have an idea of these attributes by description/graphic representation, but still, that's it. If you touch someone else using your host's arm in possession, they felt your host's arm, not your form. The host's arm cannot morph itself to have the texture of your form, so anyone being touched by it would claim it's your host, rather than you. Therefore, other humans cannot have the same experience of your presence in the same way your host can.

 

To reiterate, yes, of course you have access to the sensible world. I haven't said tulpas can't. Tulpas can see anything hosts see, they can move the body, and so goes on. I never tried to say that there was a barrier, I even said it in the post:

 

On 4/16/2020 at 8:47 PM, Dreamerald said:

This discernment is very important at first, because it's not easy to make, and these realities are not completely separate from one another.

 

But after all, this is just a thing I made up for myself to prevent from getting mixed up.

Have a nice day 😉

Edited April 19, 2020 by Ranger
added link

[Ranger]

Ah okay, so we believe the body belongs to both of us. The body is not my host's, it's just a living and breathing tool both of us have to take care of. We also consider both of us to be human because the mind itself is human.
 

7 hours ago, Dreamerald said:

So, tulpa, of course you can have access to the sensible world by having access to the senses and having control, but you do not reside in the sensible world. Excepting from the host, no other human in the world can perceive your form, voice, texture, temperature, whatever. Done. Actually, they can have an idea of these attributes by description/graphic representation, but still, that's it. If you touch someone else using your host's arm in possession, they felt your host's arm, not your form. The host's arm cannot morph itself to have the texture of your form, so anyone being touched by it would claim it's your host, rather than you. Therefore, other humans cannot have the same experience of your presence in the same way your host can.

So actually, my host has a wonderland form and mindvoice that does not match the body's physical appearance. You can't interact with his form just like how you can't interact with mine, and we have found it very useful for giving him something to hold onto when he switches out.

That's why the belief that hosts and tulpas are really the same makes sense to us. Me and my host both exist in the mind. The only thing other people can experience is the body, and both of us are capable of experiencing the body's sensations. However, while the body will never randomly morph into my form, I can wear different clothes and change our body's appearance.

It is also possible for a tulpa to become the main host. Both of us co-host, but if I were to switch in and stay switched-in, my host would be just like a tulpa. I would be living in the real world and my host would live in wonderland.

[Guest]

I think what Dreamerald meant was that when someone sees you, they perceive your host -insert real body's name-, even if said host doesn't feel directly attached to the looks/name. Even if you were to make the body look as close as possible to the tulpa, people would still see your host and not you.

[Ranger]

35 minutes ago, Mirichu said:

I think what Dreamerald meant was that when someone sees you, they perceive your host -insert real body's name-, even if said host doesn't feel directly attached to the looks/name. Even if you were to make the body look as close as possible to the tulpa, people would still see your host and not you.

I agree other people will see the name and appearance of the body instead of who is inside of it. However, the body's name and appearance being the host only works if the host is the only one who controls the body.

 

Cat's family will see Cat instead of me because they have an expectation of what she's like and Cat primarily fronts around them. In my previous English class however, I would argue they would see me when they see the body because I was the only one who controlled it around my classmates. The only people who would think otherwise are people who met Cat or remember Cat from the past before I was controlling the body. Even then they would see a mix instead of just her, and their perception of who we are will depend on who fronts more around them.

[Guest]

My point was that the identity/personality/whatever they'll always (probably) see is your host. They'll refer to the body as the host, even if you're the one fronting for 30 years. I was the one who always talked to my friend, yet they still see 'Miri, the person who was born first'. Even when I shared body's name with my host, I still knew when someone mentioned our name, that they weren't referring to me at all. I guess it's the intention behind it, if they know I am a tulpa and call me, I'll see it as them referring to actual me. But sure, being you the only one interacting with certain people will make it easier.