[misc] Where Do You Stand -Right Now-? Automatic Hallucination vs Person

[Yori]

This may have been asked already, but my own view on what tulpas are in general has changed, so others' views may have, and I thought I knew what the general view was, but now I'm not so sure... and I forget what it is I thought the general view was first.

 

 

Basically, I notice two views in regards to consciousness.

1. Tulpas are automatic hallucinations, and thus we have no real obligation to -not do- harm to them or prevent anything from happening to them.

 

2. Tulpas are people, and thus we.. do, and anyone who doesn't fulfill these obligations will be judged the same way someone would be with a human person. Hurting is.. hurting, killing is killing, and letting one die without trying your best to prevent it is wrong. Although, there may not be a time limit to preventing it, so the judgment would actually be on what the host's intentions were - did they think there was, and just give up? Rambling a bit, sorry.

 

 

I personally am thinking about just looking at the poll results and not engaging in any discussion so it's okay if all I get are poll answers and no posts ^^ people can respond aggressively sometimes.

[Kiahdaj]

The fact that this is a twofold poll kind of throws off the results.

Just because someone believes that tulpas are hallucinations doesn't mean they don't treat them with the same respect and kindness as people. Likewise, just because someone believes that tulpas are people doesn't mean that they (think they should) treat their tulpa with respect, and avoid harming them, etc.

If you are curious as to what people think tulpas are, then you should say so. If you are curious as to how people think tulpas should be treated, or one's responsibility when it comes to having a tulpa, then you should say that. If you are in fact curious of both, then I think the poll options should reflect that. Otherwise, this is just your average discussion thread. So here I am.

[LordV]

I personally kind of consider a tulpa to be something slightly less valuable than a human, but something significantly more than a mere hallucination. Basically, I think that a tulpa's safety and wellbeing are important, but the host must come first under most circumstances.

[Hornets]

For me it's a mix between the two. I do believe it's a self-induced hallucination (in my opinon), but to a degree they ARE their own people. However, they're not actually existent on a physical plane.

It's a different thing for everyone and it's definitely not black and white.

[Guest Anonymous]

Dissipation and giving up are separate cases, but treating your tulpa anything less than human is fucked up.

[ThunderClap]

You can still believe a tulpa is an "automatic hallucination" and treat them like another human.

 

You are making the assumption that everyone who thinks their tulpa is an "automatic hallucination" treats them as if they are less than human.

[soapjackal]

Is there a third option? Even if we assume assume just psychological sources for the Tulpa in question one would have to agree with derps comment.

[zerofox21898]

Yeah... I think you need a few more options than the two you currently have. Personally though, I believe that they are what your poll is calling "human", but I don't believe they are entitled to the same "person-hood rights" a regular human would be. I think it's an unfair move to

deprive them of most rights, but they certainly have no entitlement towards them.

[xtar]

Huh. Thought more people would share my view of tulpas being more hallucination than person. I personally see my tulpa as some kind of psychological extension of myself, like a phantom limb hence why I refer to it as 'it' rather than a gender pronoun. Sure it has fancy 'sentient' like qualities but no one is really sentient, not even 'people'.

 

Personhood as in humanhood? That would be like granting yourself double personhood which imo is senseless.

[Yori]

I think you need to look up the words sentience and sapience if you believe you are not sentient.

---

I don't see how anything I said is granting anyone double personhood. I'm not sure what you misunderstood. Why do you say that?

---

Yeah... I think you need a few more options than the two you currently have. Personally though, I believe that they are what your poll is calling "human", but I don't believe they are entitled to the same "person-hood rights" a regular human would be. I think it's an unfair move to

deprive them of most rights, but they certainly have no entitlement towards them.

 

Same rights such as?...

---

Is there a third option? Even if we assume assume just psychological sources for the Tulpa in question one would have to agree with derps comment.

 

What do you mean? The psychological option would be automatic hallucination, is there another way I haven't thought of or heard of for tulpas to be a psychological thing?

---

You can still believe a tulpa is an "automatic hallucination" and treat them like another human.

 

You are making the assumption that everyone who thinks their tulpa is an "automatic hallucination" treats them as if they are less than human.

 

I'm not making an assumption that they don't personally treat theirs like a human, but someone who believes they are an automatic hallucination wouldn't have moral qualms against other people not treating them the same way, since there isn't a person to hurt, in their view. There's no obligation or "should" they'd apply in general. That was my point, not whether or not someone personally treats their tulpas a certain way. Someone could think they were people and still do what they want with them, for instance.

 

What's yours?

---

For me it's a mix between the two. I do believe it's a self-induced hallucination (in my opinon), but to a degree they ARE their own people. However, they're not actually existent on a physical plane.

It's a different thing for everyone and it's definitely not black and white.

 

I don't understand how you can think it is a hallucination but they are also people? Can you explain in more death?

 

And, the person option isn't about them being on any particular plane or physical. I think you're talking about metaphysical views, but I'm not certain.

---

The fact that this is a twofold poll kind of throws off the results.

Just because someone believes that tulpas are hallucinations doesn't mean they don't treat them with the same respect and kindness as people. Likewise, just because someone believes that tulpas are people doesn't mean that they (think they should) treat their tulpa with respect, and avoid harming them, etc.

If you are curious as to what people think tulpas are, then you should say so. If you are curious as to how people think tulpas should be treated, or one's responsibility when it comes to having a tulpa, then you should say that. If you are in fact curious of both, then I think the poll options should reflect that. Otherwise, this is just your average discussion thread. So here I am.

 

A couple of people keep making the mistake that I'm asking "Do you treat your tulpas less than human or do you treat them like a human?" rather than what they think they are, and thus, how they -should- be treated.

 

I said in a previous post to the other person that someone could believe they are people with the same rights, and still violate them, just as someone could violate physical human beings.

I guess someone could think, "hey, I think tulpas are people, but I don't think people should treat them like they'd treat others".. but I can't think of an explanation as to why, and didn't think to put an option like that.

---

Overall so far I wasn't expecting as many people to object to the general two views. In discussions on forum and IRC, people seemed to easily talk about whether they think a tulpa is an advanced hallucination in all or a person, in relation to duty to them, without other things coming up.