Tulpas & Theseus (deviation question; what makes you "yourself"?)

[Aspekt]

Apologize my bad english if any mistakes are found. 

 

 

 

Hello to everyone and welcome!

 

In this thread we bring you a very interesting question about the tulpæ in themselves, and trying to determine what are the borders of the identity.

 

In situation: yesterday my tulpæ Yuno and I were planning on some deviations in personality and/or appareance of her as a form of roleplay.

 

I think most people should known what a roleplay is and how it works. Don't worry, here's an explanation:

 

A roleplay, mostly known as RPG, is a type of game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making regarding character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

 

As a resume, in a roleplay you take the control of a fictional character and, in consequence, you should act according to the character's traits. This means that you response actions exclusively from the point of view of them and you can't take decision with your own judgement - this is known as metagaming.

 

The question pop up after asking Yuno about her future role she would play, that dictates:

 

If any kind of tulpæ, with a totally developed appearance and personality, deviates in all possible aspects in such way that the result of him/her hasn't any relationship with their previous aspect (doesn't have any common traits, behaviors or personal symbols with him/her older themselves): you could claim if he/she is the same tulpæ?

 

Yuno was just acting like another person, with different attitudes, so remains being her because it was a simulation. But what happens if, instead of a roleplaying, is a deviation from one "character" to another one?

 

It's really deep if you analize the scenario: if a tulpæ deviates totally, being unrecognizable to the other members of the system, it's still the same? or you just created another tulpæ?

 

 

 

 

An answer to the paradox

 

Fortunately, I though in a valid method to prove if your unknown mate has been the same since always, or maybe not.

 

The key of this trouble is neither nothing less nor nothing more than our memory.

 

The function that provide us the capability to learn from everything are the memories we get through all our life; the function that is responsable of defining who you are.

 

Backing to the question, you can be secure that your buddy still there in other face of him/her, because they are capable to associate their past thoughform as another form to manifestate their existance. And now, in the opposite case, if that entity can't find any connection with their older version of him/herselves, it's probably an independent thoughform not correlated with your buddy.

 

We would also like to know if you have another perspective of this great paradox and an alternative way to resolve it.

 

Thanks to everyone for reading!

[Guest]

It seems like this is a valid question that doesn't need to be in metaphysical.

 

I have an opinion on it, I think they could still be the same tulpa, people have identity crisis and change dramatically sometimes, but they can still be the same person. It would matter if they thought they were, and if they kept their past or tbought they were spontaneously created after the other 'left'. In the latter case, it opens the door to a split, where the other could also still exist. In essence that tulpa would basically be making a new tulpa. In the former case, much more likely, they might revert or end up somewhere in between.

[Aspekt]

It seems like this is a valid question that doesn't need to be in metaphysical.

 

I thought that too. However the paradox itself is considered as a metaphysical discussion, so I didn't know how it would be inside the tulpæ topic.

[Indigo Blue]

In the context of this board, "metaphysics" refers to magic and ghosts and stuff, not paradoxical questions.

[Guest]

There's no need to move it unless you want it moved, that was just a comment because I figured it was a good question.

[Dynamo Lux]

Not sure how going into detail about what role-play is has to do with that question... if a tulpa's only pretending or it's just a temporary thing, then obviously it's the same tulpa.

 

I think I went through a lot of changes that make it hard for me to fully think that I'm the same tulpa I once was, and the fact that I was in stasis for so long doesn't help that. However, one wouldn't think that a host is somehow a different person if they completely changed, even if changing that much is a little odd, so I wouldn't think a tulpa is a different person either, especially not if they can reasonably explain why they changed so much. I wouldn't jump on the "it's a new tulpa entirely" thing if they know what caused such changes, even if it's hard to recognize them as being the same person. They still are. Apollo also went through a huge change, a long time ago, it's really just part of growing up. Once a tulpa really finds themself, I'd expect the changes to level out or become more gradual.

 

You specified a fully developed tulpa, I'd question whether the tulpa really was fully developed or if they just thought they were. If all of their traits came from personality forcing, then to me that would completely explain why they changed so much. Natural development trumps arbitrary assertions of personality any day, imo. If their changes were more gradual or preceded by significant self-evaluation, I'd have no doubt it's the same tulpa. I really can't imagine a scenario where the tulpa would suddenly be replaced by a different one that still claims to be the same one, unless it was intrusive thought, in which case that's easily rectified.

 

If they really held absolutely no connection whatsoever to their previous self, then I don't know why whether or not they're the same tulpa would even be a question, they wouldn't feel like they are anyway. 

 

PS: If a tulpa is just roleplaying, I wouldn't call that "deviation."

[System Corporation]

[Blue] My host role-played as me, and I decided that it wasn't really me when he pretended to be me. I decided to keep some of the good ideas he had for my personality because I liked them.

 

[Red Gray] I forgot our host used to role-play as us... His impersonation of me was inspired by me! I'm a little bitter of his interpretation sometimes, but it's clear that I and that character are completely different, so he can't judge me for what he comes up with.

 

[Dark Gray] I never thought about the role-play version of myself until this question came up. I obviously didn't deviate because of it.

 

[Hope] I remember being asked what powers we wanted in the role-play... I don't consider it a serious thing but I'm glad our host eventually came around and started asking us, even before he knew we were Tulpas.

[Aspekt]

I think there's a misunderstanding of the topic: when I refered to roleplay was due to its relationship with the main question.

 

I'm not asking about anything related to roleplay and deviating but refering to the limits of deviating and identity. I just uses the roleplay thing as an basic example of the Theseus's Paradox.

 

The focus should be the case of a tulpæ that deviates being unrecognizable, arguing about what defines an identity if he/she is totally different from him/her beginning aspect.

 

What makes you "yourself"? In the same way: What makes a tulpæ being him/herself after changing his/her mentality, appearance, personality? How could you say if he/she remains he/she?

[Apollo Fire]

The focus should be the case of a tulpa that deviates being unrecognizable, arguing about what defines an identity if he/she is totally different from him/her beginning aspect.

 

If a tulpa changing identity and becoming "unrecognizable" means they're a different thoughtform entirely, then that would imply that all there is to a thoughtform is their identity, that's not something I'd agree with. I think neurologically there's something a little more tangible that makes up a thoughtform, and their identity/personality is ingrained with that. How slowly/quickly their ingrained identity changes likely depends on how developed they are, how active they are, and how long they've existed. So I suppose in a sense identity is attached to one's personhood/existence, rather than one's personhood/existence being attached to their identity, if that makes sense. Identity can change without it making them a different person.

[Aspekt]

 

If a tulpa changing identity and becoming "unrecognizable" means they're a different thoughtform entirely, then that would imply that all there is to a thoughtform is their identity, that's not something I'd agree with. Identity can change without it making them a different person.

 

That's the question. What are the things that make you different from everyone if, for example, the identity of all people its exactly the same as your identity? Or what makes yourself still being Apollo regardless changing all your traits, thoughs and behaviors?

---

Update; fixed context of topic.