Jump to content

Philosophizing, require input from Tulpae


Nakra

Recommended Posts

- They're not real, no bodies.

 

Might want to amend that statement in some manner. I dunno.

 

To waffles: I'm not trying to offend or be rude in any manner; just curious

What difference do yo see between "should treat them [...]" and "not their right"? The way I use these phrases, they come off almost as interchangeable. Allowing that there is a difference, does it change anything?

 

Related to this, but a bit different, is your bit about humans starved of conflict. I saw something about it not too long ago, and it was fascinating.

However, to draw that line between human and tulpae require that we admit some commonalities between the two. Could these common factors influence the idea of rights owed to Tulpae?

 

(Not trying to grill you. Going to clarify that. It's because your viewpoint seems different than mine that I must ask THOUSANDS OF QUESTIONS. I'm not in it to win it, I'm in it to gain information. Woohoo!)

[Wut] is indicative of Adam. He's 16 and not nice at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nakra:

I agree, but Alice was pretty firm on her word use. In our life we use "real" to refer to the real world and physical objects therein; so from her perspective she exists but isn't "real". It's just how i talked to her during creation, and even now. She doesn't seem to mind, and having the hard line between real and imaginary has helped me stay sane so far.

"The way is in training."

- Miyamoto Musashi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference do yo see between "should treat them [...]" and "not their right"? The way I use these phrases, they come off almost as interchangeable. Allowing that there is a difference, does it change anything?

If you 'should' treat something some way, that just means that it would be preferable (in an objective sense, I suppose) to do so. But if it is that thing's 'right' to be treated that way, then you should do it because of whatever reason that it is their right. Let me give an example:

 

When we talk about 'human rights' and 'animal rights', what we mean is that it is bad to cause them suffering because suffering is, well, suffering. It's not nice to them. And it is because of this that we should treat them ethically. In fact, everything should treat them ethically because suffering is always bad for them.

 

However, if we look at a humanoid robot, they cannot suffer. It is not bad for them to 'suffer', or be treated 'badly' in such a way that would cause a human to suffer. We should not do it because it might cause others to suffer (as Nobillis wrote), but this is not universally true. It is specific to whoever is doing an action: for example, if I were the only person in the world then I could do whatever I wanted to robots because there aren't any other people who I could harm as a result of it; as another, if a robot (without learning capabilities) were to harm another robot it would be fine, whereas a robot harming a human is not.

 

And yes, this makes a difference. Strictly speaking, it is not a right for non-sentient (as in not being able to suffer in a conscious capacity) beings to be treated kindly. And there are circumstances in which you are no longer bound by the restriction Nobillis set: if you aren't going to have any human contact then it doesn't matter if you become a horrible person. In any case, it ceases to become a property intrinsic to tulpas.

 

 

However, to draw that line between human and tulpae require that we admit some commonalities between the two. Could these common factors influence the idea of rights owed to Tulpae?

Certainly, there are many similarities. The answer to your question really lies in whether or not the link makes tulpas being sentient more or less likely. And in answer to that I can only say it doesn't change much as far as I'm concerned; so to answer your question, I don't suppose it really does.

 

That is, unless you want to count "kind of seems a bit like a person" here too, the all-too-obvious similarity which gives us the idea that they might be sentient in the first place.

 

 

To waffles: I'm not trying to offend or be rude in any manner; just curious

[...]

Not trying to grill you

Don't worry, it's good to have a proper discussion once in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there are circumstances in which you are no longer bound by the restriction Nobillis set: if you aren't going to have any human contact then it doesn't matter if you become a horrible person. In any case, it ceases to become a property intrinsic to tulpas.

 

Of course! If we've defined ethical value by the effect it has on others, and there are no others, then almost all of ethics can go in the bin. Ethics to self aside, as not relevant, lol. Or is it? If Tulpae are a product of our minds, what is changed by the separation caused by sentience?

 

I agree, but Alice was pretty firm on her word use. In our life we use "real" to refer to the real world and physical objects therein; so from her perspective she exists but isn't "real". It's just how i talked to her during creation, and even now. She doesn't seem to mind, and having the hard line between real and imaginary has helped me stay sane so far.

 

Hmm. See, distinguishing those definitions might be useful. Existence and manifestation into reality. Are these two as linked as mainstream (for lack of a better word) culture puts them? Can something manifest into reality without being real? Come to think of it, what definition of these terms allows us to examine these questions in the best light?

 

~I dislike it when he goes on like this. Bo-ring!~

[Wut] is indicative of Adam. He's 16 and not nice at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course! If we've defined ethical value by the effect it has on others, and there are no others, then almost all of ethics can go in the bin. Ethics to self aside, as not relevant, lol. Or is it? If Tulpae are a product of our minds, what is changed by the separation caused by sentience?

That's not what I mean. What you quoted treats a tulpa as a separate entity to yourself: the comparison would be you alone with a tulpa to you alone with another person. So on the desert island, the restrictions still apply to the other person but do not to the tulpa. See what I'm getting at?

And note that this is for non-sentient tulpas, just in case you haven't been reading what I've been saying properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And note that this is for non-sentient tulpas, just in case you haven't been reading what I've been saying properly.

 

Maybe.

 

the comparison would be you alone with a tulpa to you alone with another person. So on the desert island, the restrictions still apply to the other person but do not to the tulpa. See what I'm getting at?

 

I think that crystallizes your reasoning. In the case of non-sentience, which would be the part I wasn't grasping, I think it reasonable to make a comparison to a machine or script; input flows to output, x flows to f(x).

 

In that case, I plead something or other.

[Wut] is indicative of Adam. He's 16 and not nice at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can something manifest into reality without being real?

 

Of course! You may not have thought of it in these terms, but money is a virtual reality. Digital money has no real existence, and even the Australian dollar is ultimately backed by SRD's (virtual credits with the world bank). Yet, we all treat money as though it is real. So exists but not real is a common thing in human culture (from a certain point of view).

Please consider supporting Tulpa.info.


 

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...