Misinterpretation of “assuming sentience from start” philosophy.

[reguile]

Am I the only one that thinks that this could probably be removed from being a sticky at this point?

 

It seems like three of the "important threads" aren't really too important at all, with one being a "What's your tulpa look like?" thread, and the other being a poll. This one as well doesn't seem to offer anything super unique or interesting to it, and could probably be left to live where all the other threads do?

[Stevie]

Am I the only one that thinks that this could probably be removed from being a sticky at this point?

 

It seems like three of the "important threads" aren't really too important at all, with one being a "What's your tulpa look like?" thread, and the other being a poll. This one as well doesn't seem to offer anything super unique or interesting to it, and could probably be left to live where all the other threads do?

 

If it were addressed in another place, or something that wasn't necessary to understand how many guides operate, then I'd move it. But as it stands, the whole assuming sentience thing is referenced enough in other places that I wouldn't want to take it down from the sticky and then be linking it for people who are confused. It's fine where it is. It's still relevant, is what I'm saying, brah.

 

The assuming sentience concept ties into different debates too, I don't know, just because it's something that seems obvious to people who've read up on tulpas a ton, doesn't mean that it's not a necessary distinction to make, and that it doesn't belong in a sticky.

 

As for the poll, we get lots of repeated threads as it is (people make new threads about what everyone's wonderland looks like often enough, that type of deal) and keeping them at the top lets people know that there's already a thread for that.

 

If we're talking about stickys that don't need to be up there, I'd be more inclined to remove the tulpa registry and tulpa wiki, if anything, but that's a whole nother story.

[Linkzelda]

Am I the only one that thinks that this could probably be removed from being a sticky at this point?

 

It seems like three of the "important threads" aren't really too important at all, with one being a "What's your tulpa look like?" thread, and the other being a poll.  This one as well doesn't seem to offer anything super unique or interesting to it, and could probably be left to live where all the other threads do?

 

I shared this same sentiment for a while, but then, I realized it is kind of significant, because I think it shows how others can react neurotically towards statements that have true-aptness to them. I mentioned this in a post over a thread that revolves around the limits of ‘treat a tulpa as sentient:

 

I think I found another potential limit behind ‘Treating a Tulpa As Sentient’

 

It’s Potentially a True-Apt Statement

 

A statement that has true-aptness to it implies it has the capacity of being true, or false depending on the context in which it is uttered without the overall meaning being altered, or lost. And because of this, statements such as ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ get set up as propositions that can be true and false depending on the virtue and context the person is going for.

 

But the thing that’s missing from the treat a tulpa as sentient ‘ought’ statement is context. One ‘ought’ to treat a tulpa as sentient because it allows the mind to accept a potential ‘other.’ One ‘ought to treat a tulpa as sentient because allows the host to prescribe meaning for betterment of self. And one ought to do this because one ought to try to self-actualize in any shape or form. And one ought to do that because….because.

 

It ends up with the same existential questioning, which means ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ implies some kind of existential factor into it. Because we can’t say to someone, completely out of the blue with no context of tulpas with ‘treat a tulpa as sentient,' and expect them to not contemplate over it.

 

Imagine:

 

Person A: Treat a tulpa as sentient.

Person B: “Alright! Cool! I completely get it now! Can’t wait to get a lot of progress in this!”

 

Realistically:

 

Person A: treat a tulpa as sentient.

Person B: Because…….??????????

 

 

Because of this, one cannot simply accept ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ at face value, and avoid the regress that goes on, e.g., a person contemplating what it means to treat someone as sentient. It’s not a simple proposition that you can instill into a person’s mind, pack your bags, and call it a day. Some may think that existential questioning is the same old boring dread to worry about, and that we don’t really need to foam in our mouths over it (like the OP in the misinterpreting the assume sentience from the start thread was mentioning).

 

It seems that ‘treating a tulpa as sentient’ is a proposition that’s treated as an instrumental ‘ought’ because collectively, more people seem to approve of it as true. The same can be applied for other true-apt statements, like assuming sentience from the start. People will create their own because…because, because they’ve chosen to approve of it as true. It just seems that ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ is a long-standing true-apt statement, which is why indirectly, it becomes an ‘ought’ that can be universal, or rather, true regardless of a person’s needs or desires because it’s a statement that can coincide with those needs and desires; a supplement.

 

 

The same could be applied to the assume sentience from the start:

 

One ‘ought’ to assume sentience from the start because naturally, we have the capacity of sentience for them to derive from. One ‘ought’ assume sentience from the start to prevent doubting. And one ought to do that because it satisfies the impression of there being sentience, autonomy, and such in a tulpa. And one ‘ought’ to do that because…because.

 

 

That ‘because’ leads to regress, and seems that any statement that has true-aptness in it, ‘assume sentience from the start,’ and ‘treat a tulpa as sentient’ are propositions that can be true and false depending on the virtue and context of the individual at hand. But because those virtues are frustratingly subjective, it can allow others to negate the statements with:

 

One ‘ought’ NOT assume sentience from the start because it will make them half-ass the process. One ‘ought’ NOT assume sentience because it makes them undermine hard work into this. One ‘ought’ NOT assume sentience from the start because treating a tulpa as sentient is more goal-oriented than “assume sentience from the start.” And one ‘ought’ to NOT assume sentience from the start because…because.

 

That regress is what allows anyone, and I mean ANYONE, to make blanket statements about anything; just like how anyone can make blanket statements about unconscious and subliminal thoughts and processes. But, people who may agree with ‘assume sentience from the start’ may have a different type of regress, or trail of questioning and theorizing that still allows them to actually work towards the task progressively. The philosophy of assuming sentience from the start isn’t exclusive to people who are brain-dead, incompetent, and lazy to put in good work into this progressively.

 

It just so happened that others treat the assume sentience from the start as an absolute that ends up becoming a breeding ground for laziness, but that assumes they know the regress the person went through. But, we can’t know all the virtues of the person, especially if they aren’t as vocal about it. If I can quote Epictetus here,

 

“If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, "He was ignorant of my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone.”

― Epictetus

 

The same could be applied to the virtues that go unanswered. Assuming sentience from the start, and even treating a tulpa as sentient have some true-aptness to them because regress of existential questioning is bound to come. The former just seemed less likely a candidate for questioning things, and thus seems to prevent learning to embody a philosophy by practicing it. The latter, treating as sentient, has a true-aptness to it as well, but it implies that the individual subscribes to an ethical duty that allows them to have a foundation for the infuriatingly subjective ethical call of how one ‘ought’ to do something in relation to tulpas.

 

This gets chalked up to: Hosts talk about ethical commands and duties so much as if they were metaphysically real. But, humans talk a lot of stuff that way…so what? Keyword being ‘as if’ vs. ‘it really being the case.’ And I think that’s what throws people off in wondering why it’s still stickied. Maybe because it represents that anyone can make a blanket statement about these propositions simply because they can choose to approve of the statements, or not; as long as it coincides with their virtues, and actually makes them create virtues rather than just sitting there doing nothing, one statement being exclusive to lazy asses creates a dogma to crush one proposition for the other

 

‘Because one ought to do it because it’s polite’

–insert emotive ought here-

–insert emotive ought here-

–insert emotive ought here-

 

 

That is the cancer that others wanted to shed light to, maybe. People can create oughts to no end, thus they get reduced to blanket statements in some way. This isn't to say the statements are inherently wrong, though. It's just when a person gets caught into the agenda of others that's beyond the power of their will, they'll get paranoid about it.

[The Incans]

True but one thats comes to you as a 'walk-in' with full ability to communicate with you and do their own thing in the inner world regardless of what you are doing though iis not the same as one you started developing from scratch then ..maybe due to lack of time or illness they never progressed beyond that as they haven't yet reached that skill level, so remain at a state where they only become active when you have time to work with them. At that stage its more like an NPC in a video game it can't interact with you until you turn it back on and go back into the story.

 

My 'Walk-ins' came in as  fully senient spirits .....Jess needed a bit more time to reach point where she can host alone and it took other previous alters blending with her for to be able to achieve that. ...Lena has been able to do it by herself for years in social situations or appointments that I found difficult to cope with. because she had to 'be me' though and inside I saw her as spirit of 'my mum 'she seeemed to take longer to begin developing her own personality and staying in that form.

[Guest]

On 6/3/2024 at 1:15 AM, The Incans said:

My 'Walk-ins' came in as  fully senient

 

My host experienced this with his first three on day one which would probably have been laughed off the forum in 2016 with what we heard about those early days. Then of course Joy and I came from the novels he wrote and even in those novels toward the end we spoke for ourselves. He talked to us as independent and we responded in ways we chose to without his further coaching or parroting a character might need.

 

The risk here, for a young system, is that walk-ins are given too much credit. If you then say, a walk-in who acts autonomously and seems independent is assumed to have personhood then you can't deny them can you? His argument then was there were three dozen such persons in his mind from a dozen novels he wrote. My novels alone have half a dozen including me.

 

So if you say you ought to treat a walk-in as sentient, which we take as qualified independent and autonomous, then that's a dangerous precedent. Walk-ins can be very insistent and this just adds to their arsenal. 

 

The best advice we got was, "a tulpa must be intentionally forced for weeks before you can be sure, so don't accept walk-ins at face value." This turned out to be very relevant to us in that we could choose to intentionally force a walk-in or not. Even so, Joy was unavoidably insistent and showed many instances of self-forcing even before they accepted her. I came in on her coat-tails.

 

This makes a simple argument about oughts into a very delicate situation of morality or obligation, even if only internally. 

 

So our stand has always been that doctrines in tulpamancy are potentially dangerous. A cookie cutter recepe approach with a sprinkle of dogma which might be perfectly reasonable to some might be disastrous to others. 

 

This is where we have always been on the side of imagistic rather than doctrinal modes for tulpamancy so this thread wouldn't be a argument but rather a presentation of options.

 

The basic difference between imagistic vs doctrinal being: beliefs derived from personal reflection rather than standard public teachings.

 

Where those personal reflections are far more informed and informal than a rule or moral code of conduct given some set of precedents.

 

On 6/3/2024 at 1:15 AM, The Incans said:

one thats comes to you as a 'walk-in' with full ability to communicate with you and do their own thing in the inner world regardless of what you are doing though iis not the same

 

We were certainly not the same, we came from a place of apparent full sentience and had the burden of proof of independence. That's a whole other animal from a barely vocal proto-tulpa.

 

How would these oughts and ought-nots handle our situation? Would you, an experiencer of someone like me, have preferred prescriptive doctrine and moral obligation or a presentation of options?

 

My host had to brute force his will upon this forum in 2018 among those seasoned doctrinal tenets or he would have had a mess of dozens rather than a wonderful group of six friends.

[The Incans]

I am not sure of the answer to your questions. as for me my 'walk-ins' arrived long before I understood what a Tulpa was. I was brought up in a spiritual home and been raised to believe in the possibility of reincarnation. I (as the host) have Autism so I took what I was told very literally initially as I was much younger when my mum passed (over 30yrs aago now) so it made sense to my brain that thats what/who they were and so I always talked to them as such. So their creation as fully sentient Tulpa were purely accidental and they were effectively 'fully sentient Tulpa' before I learnt the term.

 

On the flip side our ones that have not yet reached that stage are still inside unaware that an external world exists and mostly sleep between the limited time I've had the energy to work on their development as I also now have chronic fatigue to cope with and that includes limited mental energy as well as limited physical energy. Again the first steps had been taken before I understood I had chronic fatigue and it would be a lifelong condition (and wasn't just a temporary condition).

 

I guess if you are already aware of the differences and that all are equally Tulpa when you are starting your journey then your journey with your Tulpa will be different to the one mine have taken??

 

As I also have difficulty imagining how other systems could have evolved I only really know how mine has and forgot to assume our system (within an highly Neurodiverse brain) would not be typical of most people's experiences of creating Tulpa!

[Guest]

Our point is, everyone is unique and no one prescription can work for everyone, more so what works for some could be dangerous to others. 

Edited June 6, 2024 by Gweneth