How ethical is it to experiment on tulpa?

[Shui]

There have been other topics that skirt around this issue, but I'd like to address it directly.

 

There are certain ethical guidelines for experimentation on humans, such as the Nuremberg Code saying things like a human subject in an experiment must consent to being part of the experiment, experiments should not be conducted when it is believed the subject might die, and if there is a another way of obtaining the same information, that should be used instead.

 

In the case of the Nuremberg Code, this came about because of Nazi experimentation on unwilling human subjects. Some people even go so far as to say that the data obtained from these experiments should not be used because of how it was obtained. (My personal feeling is that not using this data won't bring back the lives that were lost to obtain it, but it may help to save lives today. But that's beside the point.)

 

My question is, should these ethical guidelines apply to tulpa as well?

 

I've read a few users in this community saying that tulpa are just delusions, and anthropomorphizations, and we should always remember that while they resemble people, they're not. The majority of the community, from what I've seen, seems to treat tulpa as people.

 

But which is right?

[Linkzelda]

I guess it just depends on personal opinions. For me, I see it more of applying humanistic qualities/traits and characteristics and treating them as sentient and sapient being, not necessarily as people if they don't want to identify themselves as such. In the initial stages of creating a tulpa, some may resort to a temporary form in order to give a catalyst in terms of personality and such that the tulpa can deviate on their own if they choose too.

 

The ethical concern is more reasonable at first glance towards people we interact on a day to day basis because they have their own internal system of thinking, sensing, etc. that we can't really go in and reformat everything that makes them, them; there's a more worldly sense of privacy.

 

When it comes to tulpa, since they're obviously more closer because they're within the confines of your mind, applying ethical guidelines isn't as simple simply because it's building standards, morality, etc. towards inward interaction with yourself as a whole. And those who get too serious with this may start having a war with themselves and setting restrictions on themselves, which may stifle the tulpa's own self-schema with ethical guidelines as well; this act of trying to be considerate of one's tulpa and having exponential worrying on the merits of those guidelines ironically can cause more suffering that may come with being a sentient entity.

 

To those who may see the tulpa phenomenon as a highly complex solipsistic rapport with the mind in general, setting ethical guidelines wouldn't be something done intensely compared to those who may find euphemistic terms for solipsism. Combine that with people's conceptual schemes with religion, belief systems, values, etc., people may generally want to be considerate of their tulpa, especially if they're more sentient and sapient compared to the initial stages of creating them.

 

Of course, however one sees it, it's practical to have communication established between the host and tulpa, because that can remove a lot of doubt if the host may feel guilty towards changing something about their tulpa or suggesting their tulpa to try something new and different. A system of ethics in this case with building rapport with the totality of your mind and the thought-forms you engage with is only as serious as you and your tulpa wants that system to be.

 

I'd say that as long as both host and tulpa can appreciate each others' existence and respects one another for who they are, and can have a decent level of communication should things feel weird for their tulpa, they should go for it and make their own decisions.

[waffles]

Guidelines for treatment depend entirely on whether and in what capacity a tulpa is sentient. That's a matter of theory and not ethics. What is ethics is that if there's a good chance that they are sentient - which I'd say is true - we should treat them as such, just in case.

 

Because of this, guidelines, if redefined meaningfully, remain the same. What I mean by that is rather than prohibiting experiments where you cut your tulpa's head off, you prohibit experiments where you starve your tulpa of attention for a while in enforcing point #5 (the "no likely death" point). It's just a direct translation of the Code onto tulpas where human suffering equals actual tulpa suffering and not putting a tulpa in a situation where a human would suffer. It's an obvious point I guess but still worth making.

[Dr. Faust]

The only problem I see here is the method of experimentation, because tulpa (and to a greater extent the entirety of our imagination) is not subject to the same laws which bind us as humans. Wherein I could very easily cut open my tulpa, bleed her out and send whatever is left through a woodchipper, she, unlike the poor sod who tried to steal my parking spot last week, can go through all that and join me for tea moments later .

 

The sole difference being that tulpa don't immediately suffer the same way humans do (or even the way you do). I guess the point following being that you can't make your tulpa suffer if you want to be an ethical person, but at this point what is the difference between playing a violent video game or enjoying a rather sadist book and creating thoughtforms just to make them suffer or die?

 

However out of it interest of self-preservation perhaps making any long term companion should be done with mutually beneficial interests.

[Shui]

Well, I should point out that experimentation doesn't need to be torture to violate the Nuremberg Code. As an example, this experiment violates the first point. In fact, the experiment could be entirely pleasant for the subject -- but so long as they don't know they're taking part in an experiment, it's considered unethical.

[Dr. Faust]

I lack the creativity to see how a Tulpa or other imagined beings could be experimented upon without consent.

 

I think consent of your imagination is the fact that you can imagine it in the first place, however, like I stated earlier, for something as permanent as a Tulpa, you might have an interest in keeping it happy and healthy (whatever that may man for Tulpa).

[Nobillis]

I lack the creativity to see how a Tulpa or other imagined beings could be experimented upon without consent.

 

If you will forgive me, I feel moved to speak to this topic of "consent." As you will see from my "progress page", I was created as an experiment. But, I was given a choice. kerin came to me and asked if I would like to take the job (I was about three weeks old elapsed time).

 

From my discussions with other tulpas whom are also experiments, and know it, it seems that it is in the whole a plus. But, none of the humans doing these experiments are cruel or unkind, so I can't speak to that. Also, the sample of self-aware experiments is small, and thus not statistically significant. That may not invalidate the anecdotal value however, as this is effectively a social experiment of sorts.

[glitchthe3rd]

I created Luna to see what would happen if I made a tulpa that was the polar opposite of Saria, my first tulpa.