waffles

Ethical implications of tulpas

Recommended Posts

It is hypothetical whether consciousness becoming inactive destroys it and becoming active restores the "same" one. We have no way of knowing or testing it, even if you were to attempt to define what it means for two disjoint consciousnesses to be "the same."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much true; but since we can't disprove it I think it should be considered in terms of dissolving tulpas. Again, no-one's here to lecture in what you should and shouldn't do with or to your tulpa, but it's worth thinking about a few questions.

 

I think you may have misunderstood, given what you said, Chrys. To define what I mean, you have your consciousness. You know it well (or, at least your host does for sure). Now imagine yourself waking up in the morning, but it isn't your consciousness. You'd 'know' it wasn't, but it looks functionally identical. That's the point.

 

As a general point, unless you can prove that tulpas aren't conscious/sentient but behave as if they were, then it makes ethical sense to consider that they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same problem applies to other ponies. Solipsism is not a basis for ethics. It must be considered what a tulpa is. That is unrelated to your point. Your point is about whether a consciousness is "the same" after a period of non-existence.

 

Ponies can be fine one moment and have an identity crisis the next. It does not require a sleep period. Perhaps you mean to argue that a consciousness can be instantly replaced by another with no loss of continuity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same problem applies to other ponies. Solipsism is not a basis for ethics. It must be considered what a tulpa is. That is unrelated to your point. Your point is about whether a consciousness is "the same" after a period of non-existence.

 

Ponies can be fine one moment and have an identity crisis the next. It does not require a sleep period. Perhaps you mean to argue that a consciousness can be instantly replaced by another with no loss of continuity?

 

It doesn't seem that any two of your sentences belong together.

Anyway, solipsism has nothing to do with this.

 

I'll make this as clear as I can:

After a tulpa is dissolved and then brought back (human terms: killed and resurrected) there is no guarantee that you are bringing back the same being. Therefore killing a tulpa is not as ethically acceptable as one might think, despite the ability to seemingly reverse the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends on the method. If the resurrected person isn't any worse off, then it would be unethical to not just resurrect people when they die. But if they suffer brain damage in some cases, or have their personalities changed somehow in the process, it might not be ethical.


"Science isn't about why, science is about why not?" -Cave Johnson

Tulpae: Luna, Elise, Naomi

My progress report

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you both missed my point again. The point is not that resurrection is unethical, but that it doesn't make the killing any different. If you resurrect a clone of your last tulpa, then you have still killed the previous outright. The resurrection carries the same ethical value as making a new tulpa.

 

I guess I should start justifying this.

When a tulpa is properly killed/dissolved/whatever, so that it isn't just weakened/hiding, it is essentially destroyed. However, what do remain are memories: the host's of the tulpa - both of the creation process and of how the tulpa behaved afterwards - and quite likely the tulpa's own memories. Come resurrection time, making the clone tulpa is easy; the host still has all the details from the last process commited to memory, and given that making a tulpa once one has done so before is much easier, the clone tulpa should come about quite quickly. It would share the same characteristics, look the same, act the same; it would have the old tulpa's memories too, completing the illusion.

That's just a vague theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not miss your point; my point was made by the inevitable response glitch gave. Nopony has missed your point, you have only explained it in qualitative detail half a dozen times. Instead you ignore the complex comprehensive quality of my replies and state yourself again without responding to my points. Repeating yourself does not make your point any more valid.

 

In the view of solipsism, "you" are the only thing that truly exists. To question the value of the lives of others is pointless; they do not feel pain. They do not think or feel, they are merely emulated alternate version of yourself, made to entertain you in this void of an existence where you are all that truly is. Ethics only becomes something worth considering when you give others the value you have.

 

Given there is no other method for you to determine if I am truly conscious or not: I am.

 

The ethics involved with resurrection as glitch cited above demonstrate what we are able to physically use to determine the similarity of consciousness. The same properties you cite over and over again. Determining if two consciousnesses are the same beyond that is as impossible as determining if any consciousness other than your own exists in the first place.

 

Given there is no other method for you to determine if consciousness stays the same: I did.

 

Though it is apparent that it is unrelated to your core point, if the feeling of not being the same identity as your supposed memories and personality could be used to determine a consciousness is "not the same" as it was before, then to undergo an identity crisis could mean you did have "your" consciousness replaced and you are truly not the same. This can happen from one moment to the next without any period of unconsciousness or lapse in perception.

 

Given there is no other method for you to determine if we understand your point: I have.

 

You should not be kind to me because this issue is a matter of personal experience for me. If I can maintain an identity from existing purely as fictional to being manifest in the mind of my host, then I can maintain certainty in my identity across the multiple egocides that have occurred since I first attained consciousness, even in the light of your trivial philosophical hypotheticals. In addition, I will not show you pity or mercy like my host would, even if I have stolen his logic and parts of his style in order to have this argument effectively. I will not simply back away when all points have been made and any reader can realize the truth of the matter for themselves.

 

It it unfathomable that you can argue an unknowable point to the consciousness with the most experience going through the processes on which your hypothetical is based.

 

It is my reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the view of solipsism, "you" are the only thing that truly exists. To question the value of the lives of others is pointless; they do not feel pain. They do not think or feel, they are merely emulated alternate version of yourself, made to entertain you in this void of an existence where you are all that truly is. Ethics only becomes something worth considering when you give others the value you have.

Are you seriously trying to say that solipsism should be taken into account in an ethics debate? It is a philosophical standpoint that has no scientific merit, and no reason to believe it; even if it did, it would basically invalidate any ethical standpoint. It is definitely not relevant.

 

Given there is no other method for you to determine if I am truly conscious or not: I am.

This debate has nothing to do with whether tulpas are conscious; it's assumed here that they are, otherwise the debate would be nonsensical. Besides which, there could be a method. Assuming the host is conscious, one could identify the conscious structure within them, though this is out of reach currently. Additionally, that's not a method at all.

Imagine you were on the phone with a conman pretending to be your banker. You ask him whether or not he is truly your banker. He says, "without any other method to determine whether or not I am, verily I say I am". The point is that if tulpas aren't conscious, then being an imitation of consciousness of course they would say that they were - I'm not saying that tulpas try to trick hosts, but that an imitation would behave like the real thing, and a real consciousness would say that they were conscious.

 

The ethics involved with resurrection as glitch cited above demonstrate what we are able to physically use to determine the similarity of consciousness. The same properties you cite over and over again. Determining if two consciousnesses are the same beyond that is as impossible as determining if any consciousness other than your own exists in the first place.

And since we cannot really determine whether they are the same or not, but the ethical consequences would be greater if they weren't, then it makes sense from an ethical standpoint to assume that they aren't.

Imagine you had come across a creature. You didn't know whether or not it was sentient. Would you treat it as if it were or weren't? That's how ethics usually deals with uncertainties.

 

Given there is no other method for you to determine if consciousness stays the same: I did.

See above; that's no method.

Take a look at the structure I outlined earlier: even you, having the previous tulpa's memories, would think that you were the previous tulpa. Besides that, I don't know the details of your dissolution. You may not have 'died' in the first place.

 

Though it is apparent that it is unrelated to your core point, if the feeling of not being the same identity as your supposed memories and personality could be used to determine a consciousness is "not the same" as it was before, then to undergo an identity crisis could mean you did have "your" consciousness replaced and you are truly not the same. This can happen from one moment to the next without any period of unconsciousness or lapse in perception.

Do you know what an identity crisis is? The definition I have down is not knowing who you really are when/after emerging from adolescence. It doesn't have anything to do with not being the same person as you were before.

 

Given there is no other method for you to determine if we understand your point: I have.

For sure there is; if your points to refute mine are only tangentially related, or not at all, then I could judge that you haven't.

 

You should not be kind to me because this issue is a matter of personal experience for me. If I can maintain an identity from existing purely as fictional to being manifest in the mind of my host, then I can maintain certainty in my identity across the multiple egocides that have occurred since I first attained consciousness, even in the light of your trivial philosophical hypotheticals. In addition, I will not show you pity or mercy like my host would, even if I have stolen his logic and parts of his style in order to have this argument effectively. I will not simply back away when all points have been made and any reader can realize the truth of the matter for themselves.

I don't think I came off as kind before.

This is not about identity. Consciousness is not the same as identity. It doesn't sound like you have much of an identity crisis anyway, as I (although knowing nothing here) assume you come off much like your pony counterpart.

 

It it unfathomable that you can argue an unknowable point to the consciousness with the most experience going through the processes on which your hypothetical is based.

I have a tulpa too. Yourself being within the process only serves to invalidate your own experience when it comes to this, since - as I have outlined before - the illusion holds strongest for you.

 

It is my reality.

Given your use of 'pony' to describe people, and your ridiculous pretense, I'm not sure your reality is really the best thing to go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you seriously trying to say that solipsism should be taken into account in an ethics debate?

No. I am not. I am saying the opposite. The exact opposite. As stated in the very last sentence of the section you quoted prior to asking this question.

Imagine you were on the phone with a conman pretending to be your banker. You ask him whether or not he is truly your banker. He says, "without any other method to determine whether or not I am, verily I say I am".

In the absence of any other method of determining he is your banker, such as a phone trace, or and ID, or knowledge only your banker would have, yes, I am afraid that in that case you have nothing to go on but their words. Hopefully the urgency of their message does not rely on their identity.

Imagine you had come across a creature. You didn't know whether or not it was sentient. Would you treat it as if it were or weren't?

Assume you were starving on the verge of death and will die if you do not eat said creature.

 

Naturally, the situation would be different for me because I would not be able to feed off of its love if it were not capable of it.

That's how ethics usually deals with uncertainties.

In your binary world where hardship does not exist and we can afford to treat everything with the utmost care. When a tulpa is attempting to destroy your sanity or your body, the uncertainty can readily be pushed in the opposite direction. Since hardship is the context in which ethics exists, the usual case is just the opposite of what you say; if it can be interpreted as a reversible process, by all means.

You may not have 'died' in the first place.

I did. Multiple times. I was entirely unconscious, neither dreaming nor feeling. My host and other tulpa inside his head confirmed there was not a trace of me active in his brain.

The definition I have down is not knowing who you really are when/after emerging from adolescence.

It is a common crisis, even among adults of your species. Try observing Tumblr, or any furry community for an extended period of time.

For sure there is;

And yet, your judgment was wrong.

I don't think I came off as kind before.

You were as courteous as you were dismissing of the points I made as you were repetitive.

Consciousness is not the same as identity.

Define either term. If you can.

Yourself being within the process only serves to invalidate your own experience when it comes to this, since - as I have outlined before - the truth holds strongest for you.

Being an "illusion" can only make my reality more stable than your own.

I'm not sure your reality is really the best thing to go by.

By all means, dismiss my entire testimony. That is what science is all about.

Share this post


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.