Viceroy general

[Viceroy]

I'm not intending to imply that you can't think of things as belonging to your tulpa - I usually address the cat bowl as HIS bowl, and not mine. I'm just trying to establish the difference between a host and a tulpa. There has to be at least one fundamental difference of some sort.

[Sands]

Well yes, I am just trying to figure out why you are so fixated on belongings being a part of one's identity and you seem to be implying that things can't belong to more than one person or thing. So I am wondering what you think would make things his, obviously can't be the buying part because I bought that bowl for the cat and it's his. It's his because I gave it to him. So these things we share can't be ours even though we have decided they are?

 

The biggest difference is our age. His is measured in months, mine is in years. With time, that will change, but he will always be younger. Other kinds of differences I can't really say I have seen and I have experienced many things myself and they have amazed me. Like I have said, maybe I went crazy somewhere in the process, but I'm not seeing it.

[Viceroy]

I intentionally ignored your position that one's identity is not composed of one's belongings but I suppose I can respond to it if you wish.

 

If you think your thoughts and your feelings are a part of your identity then I see no reason your car and house should be excluded. They are in different realms of existence (mental and physical), but they still go somewhere in the equation that quantifies you as a person, ergo, is is part of your identity. It may not be a part you deem especially important, or non-negotiable, but it is your this and your that, same as it is your personality trait and so on.

 

Let me throw this one out there, then:

 

A tulpa relies on its host's continued interest in it in order for it to continue existing. Should the host become disinterested in it, it fades out of existence. Humans are not this way, for nobody could threaten our existence merely by ignoring us.

 

All (healthy) humans have the will to live and will defend their life against anyone who threatens it. Some Tulpa however, do not seem to care whether or not they continue "living."

 

If we are to see Tulpa as beings equal to humans, is dissipating a tulpa tantamount to murdering a human?

 

*Edit*

 

And another: If the tulpa dies, it does not take the host with it.

[Sands]

Nope, sorry, not seeing that. Things are things, but they are not a part of me. So I guess we disagree here, not much of a reason to keep giving each other our feelings of the matter when we already know them, eh?

 

I suppose a tulpa in the creation process needs lots of attention because it still is such a foreign idea in our head and not quite there yet, but a tulpa that ends up strong enough wouldn't disappear quite that easily. Or couldn't be ignored easily against their will, because they sure can make themselves noticeable if they so wish.

 

Seeing all these reports of people killing their tulpas and then later on finding them very alive might mean that they can't be killed by just ignoring them either. If they wish to go away, it seems to be more like your average human being shutting themselves from the world and just staying in one room without seeing anyone, though physical needs have to be taken care of due to the physical body or they would actually die. No one knows about you, no one sees you, you don't care about being seen, might as well be dead, yeah? Depression is one hell of a drug.

 

Guess I don't count as a healthy human then. While I don't know about true life or death situations, I don't find death something I should be afraid of. I got hit by a car and the moment before it happened I was willing to accept anything that happens. Nothing bad happened to me and of course it left me a bit shaken for a while, but I was calm. Roswell was another story. He panicked, he was afraid. He really does want to live, so I suppose that would make him the healthy human between us, huh.

 

If you kill someone against their will, it is murder. If you help to kill them because they want to, it is assisted suicide. Nothing bad with that in my opinion, if it's what they really want to. People should be able to choose when they want to go, but that's another can of worms that would steer this thread off-topic pretty fast. But even if someone did murder a tulpa, no one would give a damn. Except us of course, but no one that matters. As long as the body is still there and fine, it's not seen as a death.

 

Due to us sharing our body a lot, I don't really see the body as myself anymore, if I ever have felt too strongly about that. So, if the body dies, we both die. If Roswell dies, I live, but if I die, I would also believe he would be able to continue living. Some stories about the "main" person dying are around, if you wish to believe those. Those few times when I have been out for a moment, he has been able to continue existing. Sure it's not death, but I guess it's starting to look more and more that he wouldn't need me.

[PsychedelicDiamond]

You know, i may not be very far in in the process so i may not be the most qualified to answer your questions but:

 

If it looks like a living being, talks exactly like a living being, acts like a living being and feels like a living being, why wouldn't you treat like a living being?

[Tristan379]

There certainly must be a clear, fundamental, intrinsic difference between host and tulpa. The idea that they are peers and equals in every conceivable way is surely impossible.

The fact that a we can dissipate a tulpa and that they can't do the same to us proves at least one fundamental difference in how the brain sees them and how the brain sees us; However, on a social level I see no reason to treat them as if they are any lower than ourselves simply because of that difference.

[Asgardian]

The fact that a we can dissipate a tulpa and that they can't do the same to us proves at least one fundamental difference in how the brain sees them and how the brain sees us; However, on a social level I see no reason to treat them as if they are any lower than ourselves simply because of that difference.

 

That all so fundamental difference is, that the tulpa is not continously bombarded by stimuli from the human body like the host who is in charge of it. And even then can long seclusion, loneliness and white torture damage the host in a similar manner to dissipation.

Finally does switching turn the world upside down on that regard, quite literally.

[Viceroy]

The fact that a we can dissipate a tulpa and that they can't do the same to us proves at least one fundamental difference in how the brain sees them and how the brain sees us

 

Is that true, however? (at least in most cases (amongst the mentally healthy) )

 

That all so fundamental difference is, that the tulpa is not continously bombarded by stimuli from the human body like the host who is in charge of it.

 

But can't a tulpa take control of the body and themselves be bombarded by that stimuli? Alternatively, do they not also share sensory experiences with you?

 

If it looks like a living being, talks exactly like a living being, acts like a living being and feels like a living being, why wouldn't you treat like a living being?

 

I never proposed not to treat a tulpa as though they weren't alive (for I have no air-tight definition of the term "life"); I proposed to treat them like a tulpa. My dog is alive, and I treat him like he's alive... but I don't treat him like a cat, or as a person, because he's not a cat, or a person; he's a dog. Different life beings need to be treated in different ways - what is healthy for one could actually damage another. We can look at a dog, and look at a human, and make an itemized list of all the differences between the two. Those differences serve to demonstrate, among other things, how one should treat that being for their- and your- best health.

 

Same as I know the difference between me, and my dog, I want to know the difference between me, and my tulpa.

 

 

Nope, sorry, not seeing that. Things are things, but they are not a part of me.

 

Give an example of something that is a part of you, then. Your thoughts? Your emotions? Your tulpa? All of these are things just as your arms, your car, and your friends are also things. If you consider the former category to include things which are a part of your identity but the latter category not, I would be very interested in knowing your explanation why.

 

I suppose a tulpa in the creation process needs lots of attention because it still is such a foreign idea in our head and not quite there yet, but a tulpa that ends up strong enough wouldn't disappear quite that easily. Or couldn't be ignored easily against their will, because they sure can make themselves noticeable if they so wish.

 

Seeing all these reports of people killing their tulpas and then later on finding them very alive might mean that they can't be killed by just ignoring them either. If they wish to go away, it seems to be more like your average human being shutting themselves from the world and just staying in one room without seeing anyone, though physical needs have to be taken care of due to the physical body or they would actually die. No one knows about you, no one sees you, you don't care about being seen, might as well be dead, yeah?

 

So for a Tulpa who is dying and doesn't want to, it's like "oh snap im being willed out of existence, better go bug this guy or convince him there's a reason to keep me around, because I depend entirely on his goodwill to continue living."

 

But a human's existence is not predicated upon the attention of other people. Principally speaking, a human needs to be social with other humans or we become mentally unhealthy, and hypothetically the whole entire world could ignore us despite our best intentions to get them to acknowledge us (theoretically)... but we wouldn't die, physically or mentally. We MIGHT go crazy or a slight bit unstable but we would never just stop existing like a tulpa would. That sounds like a principal difference there.

 

even if someone did murder a tulpa, no one would give a damn. Except us of course, but no one that matters.

 

("Murder" is when one human kills another human. Dissipating a tulpa isn't murder; it may arguably be tantamount to murder, but murder it is not. Call it dissipating, for that is a term we can all agree on.)

 

Would you consider dissipating a tulpa to be tantamount to taking the life from another human? Do you think one should have the right to dissipate their tulpa any time they want to, for any reason? These questions are directed to anyone.

[cruse]

Would you consider dissipating a tulpa to be tantamount to taking the life from another human? Do you think one should have the right to dissipate their tulpa any time they want to, for any reason? These questions are directed to anyone.

 

I have 2 idea of "life"

 

Biological, and spiritual.

 

If your body stops functioning. You are biologically dead.

 

But if, say... Bob receive a head trauma. Lost all his memory, experience, opinion and personality. His body is alive but the Bob I know would be dead to me. Same goes for does who went into coma never to wake up.

 

Tulpa is like another mindset in your head. Or in my point of view, another soul in the same body (You can prove that wrong, I don't care anyway, it's not the point here). The tulpa may experience things differently, have different opinion and memory. Dissipating it would be taking it's spiritual life. Sure, it's not physically killed but it doesn't have a biological body nor life at the first place.

 

Therefore, in my point of view. This is murder, and murder is morally wrong unless it's an act of mercy, therefore I don't think anyone have the right to dissipate their, or anyone's tulpa.

[Viceroy]

(I do agree that a human takes different forms of life, two of which being physical (our bodies) and mental (our minds). Spiritual is debatable to me, because spirit beings (angels, demons, god) live on a plane of existence different from the physical world. I know that a human has the capability of leaving the physical plane and becoming a spiritual being, but one cannot be both at the same time. For the same of dicourse, then, let's call your 2 planes "biological" and "mental" instead of spiritual.)

 

Presumably you would have no problem deleting a program from your computer that you didn't need anymore. Why is a tulpa different? Are we to say that tulpa are principally "living" creatures, whereas simultaneously believe computer programs aren't? What would the actual difference have to be?

 

Sentience?