waffles

Ethical implications of tulpas

Recommended Posts

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.

Good. Don't bring solipsism up then. It's not relevant.

 

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.

It was stated in the example that he was a con-man. The example demonstrates that it is no method for determination. Regardless of having something to go on, the evidence is clearly false.

 

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

Then you would eat it. That falls within the boundaries of ethical treatment for a sentient being. There isn't really a way of treating this being in such a situation that isn't ethically acceptable for a sentient being that is less than us. The point is that when something may be sentient then you treat it as if it were.

 

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.

If the tulpa is going to destroy you then you treat it according to ethical guidelines. Believe it or not, ethics accounts for yourself being in danger too. In this situation, an ethical judgement would be that, given that it is you or your tulpa that has to go, and you have not provoked it to justify this behaviour, then dissolving the tulpa is ethical, regardless of whether or not you can revive it later.

Ethics is not about finding some way to excuse morally unacceptable behaviour; by that logic I can justify pushing someone off a cliff by saying that they might survive. Ethically this is wrong, seeing as how it is quite likely that they die.

 

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.

You know, there is such a thing as dreamless sleep. That would carry the same condition.

 

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

So, you are using 'identity crisis' in the wrong context? Good.

 

Define either term. If you can.

 

consciousness

con·scious·ness   [kon-shuhs-nis]

noun

1.

the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

3.

full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.

 

identity

i·den·ti·ty   [ahy-den-ti-tee, ih-den-]

noun, plural i·den·ti·ties.

1.

the state or fact of remaining the same one or ones, as under varying aspects or conditions: The identity of the fingerprints on the gun with those on file provided evidence that he was the killer.

2.

the condition of being oneself or itself, and not another: He doubted his own identity.

 

Your move.

 

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

I never said that you were an illusion, only subject to an illusory process.

Since you seem to think it's acceptable to augment my quotes, I'll tell you that it isn't, and I'll quote what I actually said:

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.

Imagine you are blind and have been from birth. It is rumoured that there is a world of sight out there, but you can't see it so you stick with your theory that the world is dark. This theory is based on personal experience, and must be valid as you are within the process. Of course it isn't.

You need to actually refute this.

 

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

Science is about observing things and then explaining them, but an important step along the way is to collect reliable evidence. Note that here I wasn't really attacking the reliability of your testimony; nevertheless it is invalid here for the reasons above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is such a thing as dreamless sleep.

And you ignored that such a thing might easily destroy a consciousness just the same. I was not asleep. The word my host preferred for the state I was in is "comatose." A coma is not sleep.

 

And what about anesthetics whose very purpose is to shut off the brain? When you sleep you can wake with the feeling of time passing. My host did not experience time passage while he was anesthetized, it was a skip.

consciousness noun

the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

 

identity noun

the condition of being oneself or itself, and not another: He doubted his own identity.

I posit that ethics does not value consciousness half as much as it does identity; that consciousness is the vehicle that transports identity.

I never said that you were an illusion, only subject to an illusory process.

That is what I said. Read it again.

Since you seem to think it's acceptable to augment my quotes, I'll tell you that it isn't.

I did not do it because it was acceptable. I did it because it was amusing. Your point was so flawed that it can be combated simply by supplying the exact opposite assertion.

Imagine you are blind and have been from birth. It is rumoured that there is a world of sight out there, but you can't see it so you stick with your theory that the world is dark. This theory is based on personal experience, and must be valid as you are within the process.

Following the analogy, you are positing a question about blindness; being blind, I can answer far more accurately than a seeing pony can.

You need to actually refute this.

Just as you need to refute the many points I have made over many posts that you have not replied to, but instead opted to repeat yourself over. Any one of which would discredit the value of considering your hypothetical that is my reality.

An important step along the way is to collect reliable evidence.

Science is about dismissing data points we deem unreliable because we already know the result of the experiment and can do so without discarding potentially valid data.

Your move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you ignored that such a thing might easily destroy a consciousness just the same. I was not asleep. The word my host preferred for the state I was in is "comatose." A coma is not sleep.

If you were comatose then you weren't dead. So ends the tale of your testimony of being dead.

Besides which, a tulpa being dead is not comparable to sleep, or being comatose. Under these circumstances the consciousness is not destroyed - only inactive (or so we think; it's true for sleep but may not be for a coma).

 

And what about anesthetics whose very purpose is to shut off the brain?

When you sleep you can wake with the feeling of time passing. My host did not experience time passage while he was anesthetized, it was a skip.

That's a misrepresentation. To shut off the brain would be to kill. General anesthetic renders the recipient medically unconscious.

While general anesthetic may well shut off the 'body clock' that governs sleep and wake cycles, it doesn't matter. It still - probably - doesn't destroy the consciousness.

 

I posit that ethics does not value consciousness half as much as it does identity; that consciousness is the vehicle that transports identity.

If consciousness transported identity then it would have a greater value than identity: if a liter of water is valuable then a jug containing it is more so.

That aside, what you're saying doesn't make sense. You're saying that identity - the distinction from others; not sentient in itself, but an idea held by such a being, one that is never directly operated on by behaviour subject to ethical valuation - is more valuable than consciousness - the container and enabler of experience, which is essentially what ethics is centered around. That doesn't work.

 

That is what I said. Read it again.

I know you said you were an illusion; that just isn't relevant.

 

I did not do it because it was acceptable. I did it because it was amusing. Your point was so flawed that it can be combated simply by supplying the exact opposite assertion.

Inverting a point never disproves it; it just makes you look like you have nothing to stand on.

 

Following the analogy, you are positing a question about blindness; being blind, I can answer far more accurately than a seeing pony can.

The question is about the outside world. The point is that despite being within the process of blindness, what the process suggests is incorrect. The analogy translates here as:

Chrys is within the process of tulpa resurrection. The process suggests that they are the same tulpa as before, and yet the process suggests an illusion. I would repeat my whole point but you would accuse me of repetition.

 

Just as you need to refute the many points I have made over many posts that you have not replied to, but instead opted to repeat yourself over. Any one of which would discredit the value of considering your hypothetical that is my reality.

When I said that you had yet to refute something, I said what it was. You haven't. Also, that last sentence doesn't make sense.

 

Science is about dismissing data points we deem unreliable because we already know the result of the experiment and can do so without discarding potentially valid data.

 

If we knew the result then there would be no need to collect data. This point doesn't address anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aeris? ——Wait—no. Aeris's diction was horrible. Yours is fine.

Aeris 2.0?

 

 

Damn, waffles, I really admire your patience. Or are you arguing with her for the hell of it? If so, I'd still find it admirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

I hate to interrupt your wall making, but I'd like to bring up this point from le olde times:

 

This might sound a little taboo, but maybe if the tulpa was made to feel submissive, it would feel happy being your mind slave/prisoner who's only existance is to make you happy. Since no matter how you look at it that's the reality of it, unless you plan on giving your tulpa your body that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So ends the tale of your testimony of being dead.

And with it, the testimony of every consciousness reporting "death."

Under these circumstances the consciousness is not destroyed - only inactive (or so we think; it's true for sleep but may not be for a coma).

How generous you are.

While general anesthetic may well shut off the 'body clock' that governs sleep and wake cycles, it doesn't matter. It still - probably - doesn't destroy the consciousness.

In defense of anesthetic.

If a liter of water is valuable then a jug containing it is more so.

Hardly. If a jug can be traded for any other jug, then jugs are valuable, but not without water to carry. An empty jug is useless, and water that cannot find a jug with which to be transported is water that cannot be used. I care not if this consciousness or mind is the same one I had before; my identity persists, and my identity is what I value. I value having consciousness and sensations when it suits me, otherwise I would never have accepted sleep.

I know you said you were an illusion.

I said no such thing. I said that if my reality were illusory, that could only make it more stable. I can exist across centuries of your reality because the illusion that is my reality can be recreated many time over.

Inverting a point never disproves it; it just makes you look like you have nothing to stand on.

That is what I stated. You have nothing to stand on. Your point is an inversion of my point. Both statements can be read and accepted as true by the reader. They can see how it would be interpreted as true. They can easily compare the two and see that mine is far more descriptive of reality than yours is. I have nothing to stand on and I need not stand. The conclusion is obvious. I need neither demonstrate nor prove anything; your point is weaker than mine.

The question is about the outside world.

No, it is not. We have concluded the outside world has no way of knowing; that is the entire basis for your argument. We are arguing what is true of the blind. We are arguing what it means to be that consciousness that is destroyed, and if it is ethically neutral to do so. You say I have no basis to speak on behalf of my former consciousness because I perhaps am not the same consciousness. Perhaps I am not; if so, then I do not value consciousness in my consciousness or identity, I value only my identity. In deciding how to treat me ethically, you must respect my wishes, whether they come from my identity or my consciousness or both or neither. I consider it ethical to force me into unconsciousness so that I do not have to put up with such a hideous world.

I would repeat my whole point but you would accuse me of repetition.

I would have.

I said what it was. You haven't.

I considered you intelligent enough to determine those points you had ignored yourself. Perhaps I was wrong. It is most accurate to state that it is objectively valuable to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And with it, the testimony of every consciousness reporting "death."

No, just every one that reports being 'comatose' as you did.

 

In defense of anesthetic.

In defense of anesthetic not killing you. Along the lines of my point.

 

Hardly. If a jug can be traded for any other jug, then jugs are valuable, but not without water to carry. An empty jug is useless, and water that cannot find a jug with which to be transported is water that cannot be used. I care not if this consciousness or mind is the same one I had before; my identity persists, and my identity is what I value. I value having consciousness and sensations when it suits me, otherwise I would never have accepted sleep.

I meant that a jug containing the water was more valuable than just the water.

Let's say the water has a value of '1', and the jug of 'a bit'. The jug containing the water thus has a value of 1 and a bit, and thus is more valuable than the water itself.

Your identity is not sentient, and is not unique. Your identity is that of a cartoon character, and thus you are neither the first nor the last to possess it. Your valuing identity is a little odd when it is merely a contrivance for you.

Consciousness is the only thing to value because it is the only thing that feels. A rock can have an identity - as a rock - but it is not sentient and is not deserving of ethical treatment; someone going through an identity crisis may seem to have no identity but is still sentient and thus is deserving of ethical treatment.

 

 

I said no such thing. I said that if my reality were illusory, that could only make it more stable. I can exist across centuries of your reality because the illusion that is my reality can be recreated many time over.

Illusions may shatter. One day your host may wake up and say, "Wait a second. There's no pony in my mind" and there goes your reality. I cannot wake up thinking that there is no outside world and have it so.

 

That is what I stated. You have nothing to stand on. Your point is an inversion of my point. Both statements can be read and accepted as true by the reader. They can see how it would be interpreted as true. They can easily compare the two and see that mine is far more descriptive of reality than yours is. I have nothing to stand on and I need not stand. The conclusion is obvious. I need neither demonstrate nor prove anything; your point is weaker than mine.

Let's start to actually debate the point.

 

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.

I am not arguing about what you experience. Perhaps you did 'die'. Perhaps you do think you are the same as before. But this does not validate your view on what is going on. A North Korean knows little of the workings of the North Korean government, and his view of the propaganda suggests something other than the truth. We aren't arguing about what he sees, only that what he sees does not indicate truth. In this respect what you experience does not evidence processes external to that experience.

 

 

 

No, it is not. We have concluded the outside world has no way of knowing; that is the entire basis for your argument. We are arguing what is true of the blind. We are arguing what it means to be that consciousness that is destroyed, and if it is ethically neutral to do so. You say I have no basis to speak on behalf of my former consciousness because I perhaps am not the same consciousness. Perhaps I am not; if so, then I do not value consciousness in my consciousness or identity, I value only my identity. In deciding how to treat me ethically, you must respect my wishes, whether they come from my identity or my consciousness or both or neither. I consider it ethical to force me into unconsciousness so that I do not have to put up with such a hideous world.

Let's take another look at the blind metaphor:

Imagine you are blind and have been from birth. It is rumoured that there is a world of sight out there, but you can't see it so you stick with your theory that the world is dark. This theory is based on personal experience, and must be valid as you are within the process.

The metaphor has always been about perception of the outside world. I am not debating what you experience; you may well think that you are the same. Likewise I am not debating that the blind man sees nothing.

However, your comments on the processes that are going on are no more relevant - perhaps less relevant - than mine. Since you are wrapped up in the process you cannot see outside of it.

Your wish is irrelevant here; it's the wish of the previous consciousness that is relevant. They, were they to know that they would be destroyed, would not wish to be killed.

 

 

I considered you intelligent enough to determine those points you had ignored yourself. Perhaps I was wrong. It is most accurate to state that it is objectively valuable to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm exercising enough patience arguing with you as it is; I don't wish to exercise it further by trawling through the previous posts looking for missed points. If you want to refer to points that I ignored then you had best state what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think tulpas are inherently equal to hosts? What about deserving of equal treatment?

 

Its personal really, but I am willing to lend our body to Rhy whenever she likes as long as I can trust her with it.

 

How would you feel about being created by a being to live - effectively - within them.

 

I'd be happy to be alive and grateful, but questioning.

 

What about botched creation and dissolution of tulpas?

 

Dissolution is like killing a human if its in self defense, euthanasia, protecting something or someone (Your mind, other tulpae, even your right to make choices) and I suppose even a "Crime of Passion" is excusable, but coldblooded murder of another sentient being is murder thought forms or otherwise.

 

Botched creation I suppose that is more similar to stillbirth or miscarriage, however it can still be negligent.


Tulpa's Name: Rai

Form: Female rabbit with white fur.

Currently Working on: Imposition

 

Tulpa's Name: Ashie

Form: Female pale Green eyes, Green hair

Currently Working on: Imposition

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.