Is it wrong to kill a tulpa?

[Jake0]

I don't think you people understand what science is. Science is just a method for investigating reality. "Science" does not make tulpas sound lame. You did that, Bin, by making a bunch of assertions for which you had no evidence. If people actually did serious scientific investigations into tulpas, they might find that tulpas are indeed hallucinations with no sentience, or they might find that they are separate minds within their hosts' brains. You can't just assert that they aren't conscious and then call that "realistic" or "scientific" when no one has actually investigated this scientifically.

[Bin]

You're right, it's really a second whole brain that grows in yours. I'm sorry.

Anyway if you actually look at psychology you'll find it's kind of a bunch of bullshit, there's no proof for anything unlike algebra. Any time you ever find out anything, someone comes along and says it's different for them, which is not only why the classification of mental disorders exist but why everyone seems to have a disorder as well. I mean damn we already have like, what, 4 different words for autism?

You're free to believe what you want, I'd hardly call psychology a scientific field, to the point where anyone's opinions are valid. The scientific field that anyone can edit™

 

Although, if you want a shoddy backup for what I said, I already gave my arguments. A tulpa is a concept because it behaves like a concept, it can be created, frozen, forgotten, remembered, have it's characteristics change on the fly, and most importantly behaves according to how you believe it will. Anyone will back this up, and several guides state it. It'll believe anything you believe, consciously or unaware. That sounds like a concept.

[Discord]

You're right, it's really a second whole brain that grows in yours. I'm sorry.

Anyway if you actually look at psychology you'll find it's kind of a bunch of bullshit, there's no proof for anything unlike algebra. Any time you ever find out anything, someone comes along and says it's different for them, which is not only why the classification of mental disorders exist but why everyone seems to have a disorder as well. I mean damn we already have like, what, 4 different words for autism?

You're free to believe what you want, I'd hardly call psychology a scientific field, to the point where anyone's opinions are valid. The scientific field that anyone can edit™

 

Although, if you want a shoddy backup for what I said, I already gave my arguments. A tulpa is a concept because it behaves like a concept, it can be created, frozen, forgotten, remembered, have it's characteristics change on the fly, and most importantly behaves according to how you believe it will. Anyone will back this up, and several guides state it. It'll believe anything you believe, consciously or unaware. That sounds like a concept.

 

That's where you're wrong. For example, someone stated that while he believes in the government working for individual good, his tulpa believes in the government working closer with the people for the common good, and while he didn't have a preference for the election, his tulpa wanted Obama to win. If believing what the host believed was the case, then they wouldn't have had such radically differing opinions, because they would've acknowledged each other as right, due to sharing the same exact beliefs. Of course, I'm no neuro scientist or whatever, but this makes a ton of sense to me.

 

Yes, initially, they only know what we know, but I believe that tulpae can learn on their own once they master parrarel (sp?) processing. Of course, no two tulpae are the same, but for most tulpae, the only common thread is that they share the host's subconscious.

[Bin]

Yeah, like I said

>this was different for me so it invalidates everything you said

I'll go get a PhD in psychology when I run out of toilet paper.

 

Edit: also that's what people normally call a character flaw, it makes it a lot more realistic. I recall some guides recommending they give a tulpa conflicting views. People can do this naturally too. Still, like I said, believe what you want, I'm not going to answer every little gotcha you have.

[Discord]

Yeah, like I said

>this was different for me so it invalidates everything you said

I'll go get a PhD in psychology when I run out of toilet paper.

 

Edit: also that's what people normally call a character flaw, it makes it a lot more realistic. I recall some guides recommending they give a tulpa conflicting views. People can do this naturally too. Still, like I said, believe what you want, I'm not going to answer every little gotcha you have.

 

If you were referring to me, I wasn't attacking you or anything. I was attacking your argument. If I understand correctly, you're saying that tulpae will always agree with their host because they come from the same subconscious, I simply stated that they're capable of developing their own set of beliefs. Judging from the experiences I've read, no tulpa is the same as it's host, or at least they don't stay the same as their host forever (unless they don't get enough development). The end all qualifier for humanity is the ability to feel emotions, which shows that they're most likely much more than just a simple delusion or mental simulation. They are indeed their own being, who deserve the same rights as hosts. Add on top of that that some tulpa are able to switch places with their hosts and allow them to ride along as the tulpa while the tulpa gets to experience being a full corporeal being, and I rest my case.

 

I'm sorry if my opinion offends you, but it's not like I'm stating it as fact or science. If it sounds like I'm stating something as fact, it's just that I can't be arsed to mention that it's theory, and I don't want to discredit anyone's experiences by calling what they experienced theories. Nothing has been 100% proven yet, one way or the other, and I have a feeling that nothing will be proven for many years. Although like someone else said, even if they are just illusions, they are awesome illusions :D

[Ayre]

Just my 2 cents here, and a little off topic. Bin, discounting psychology just because it changes and is an expanding field is ignorant. Nothing in any scientific field is 100%, hell gravity is "just a theory." which to add to that, all a theory is (scientifically at least) is a hypothesis that no one has managed to disprove yet. "The scientific field that anyone can edit™" I hope you do not mean literally anyone. If you do then please I beg you to create your own mental disorder and actually manage to get that published into the DSM-VI (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). But, assuming you do not mean this, anyone with sufficient evidence can "edit" ANY scientific field. This is the definition of science given to me by my professor (someone with an actual PhD) Science is a way of knowing. Considered to be a body of knowledge about a subject arrived by: careful observation,testing a hypothesis, accepting ideas supported by the test, and rejecting the ideas not supported by the your's and others' tests. Meaning that yes, anyone can attempt to change a scientific field, and those fields are always expanding and changing; psychology does happen to fit into this definition.

 

Now on to the topic, I feel that each person has their own morality and is free to dissipate said mental construct as they wish. I would not personally want to dissipate mine but if another feels the need to eliminate theirs I would see no logical reason for them not to. Also wanted to ask OP, why would a person "kill" a tulpa only if it was benevolent? and why is there not a selection for "only if it is harmful?"

[Discord]

Just my 2 cents here, and a little off topic. Bin, discounting psychology just because it changes and is an expanding field is ignorant. Nothing in any scientific field is 100%, hell gravity is "just a theory." which to add to that, all a theory is (scientifically at least) is a hypothesis that no one has managed to disprove yet. "The scientific field that anyone can edit™" I hope you do not mean literally anyone. If you do then please I beg you to create your own mental disorder and actually manage to get that published into the DSM-VI (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). But, assuming you do not mean this, anyone with sufficient evidence can "edit" ANY scientific field. This is the definition of science given to me by my professor (someone with an actual PhD) Science is a way of knowing. Considered to be a body of knowledge about a subject arrived by: careful observation,testing a hypothesis, accepting ideas supported by the test, and rejecting the ideas not supported by the your's and others' tests. Meaning that yes, anyone can attempt to change a scientific field, and those fields are always expanding and changing; psychology does happen to fit into this definition.

 

Now on to the topic, I feel that each person has their own morality and is free to dissipate said mental construct as they wish. I would not personally want to dissipate mine but if another feels the need to eliminate theirs I would see no logical reason for them not to. Also wanted to ask OP, why would a person "kill" a tulpa only if it was benevolent? and why is there not a selection for "only if it is harmful?"

 

He probably meant to put "only if it was malevolent", and malevolent is pretty much the same as harmful, because a malevolent being wishes bad things on others.

[Ayre]

 

He probably meant to put "only if it was malevolent", and malevolent is pretty much the same as harmful, because a malevolent being wishes bad things on others.

 

Hey you never know lol. Just trying to make sure and maybe resolve any one else's confusion by pointing this out.

[Argentum]

[i saw some people in the previous posts talk about killing tulpas only if it could be done painlessly, or if it was done ethically. I don't think that there is an ethical way to do this, and it isn't because I myself am a tulpa. There is no valid reason to destroy a sentient being other than ending its pain. However, the process of ending a tulpa is painful, and there is no foreseeable way around this. Attention starvation is slow and painful, as it is with food starvation for flesh and blood humans. Therefore the argument to kill tulpas painlessly becomes irrelevant.

 

Besides, I feel that even if it came to killing a tulpa, then there should have been more thought and planning when the tulpa was created. Anyone here should realise that a tulpa creation is like creating a baby, and entails many of the same responsibilities. If I were a parent, I would not discard my child simply because his or her characteristics did not exactly match up to a list of predefined traits.]

[Kiahdaj]

Also wanted to ask OP, why would a person "kill" a tulpa only if it was benevolent? and why is there not a selection for "only if it is harmful?"

 

I see what you're thinking, but perhaps you should re-read the question. The question is "Is it wrong to kill a tulpa?", to which one might respond "Only if it is benevolent"; so as to say it isn't wrong if the tulpa is malevolent.