Ayaze

How "human" are tulpas, tulpa rights, and more.

Recommended Posts

How much like you and I are tulpas?

 

Totally different in every way except superficial looks.

 

Can tulpas go to heaven?

 

Dunno, haven't been there myself.

 

Should tulpas have citizenship?

 

No. It has too much potential for abuse by humans. Perhaps if there was a concrete way to define a tulpa, yes.

 

About an afterlife, I've mostly looked at Christian views. Your tulpa isn't really a separate person, because they don't have a separate soul - scripture says... you get one from God and that's it. Of course there's nothing in the Bible about tulpas but the alternative - 'splitting' souls or whatever seems a bit nonsensical - is that creating a tulpa is just like conception/birth in that your tulpa gains a soul then. And this alternative does lead you to the above ethical weirdness, so you judge.

 

Assuming that the Christian lore is true, I wonder if your soul suddenly becomes worth less than a whole soul, or if your tulpa's actions help decide where you go? This is what we should be researching, not what tulpas look like from a subjective viewpoint, or how many tulpas are in the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's great about tulpas?

 

Tulpas exist outside of human society, that in turn means that terms like "rights" or "duties" have no meaning when applied to them in contrast to our society. Of course you can see a society encompassing yourself and your tulpa(s), but in that case YOU dictate the rights and duties applied to them because YOU are the ultimate power inside that society, but if you go there this discussion is pretty pointless.

 

Also, why would anyone want to have a citizenship and be bound by a society that doesn't even revolve around the way they exist?

 

This isn't rocketeer science... But hey, maybe I'm just talking straight out of my ass.

 

This is what we should be researching, not what tulpas look like from a subjective viewpoint

 

Did you just imply that a "hypothesis" based on fate (is that even a thing?), is non subjective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you just imply that a "hypothesis" based on fate (is that even a thing?), is non subjective?

 

No. I was referring to the surveys and threads about what your tulpa looks like to the host, which is almost pointless to discuss for any reason other than trying to make conversation, because its impossible to prove that a tulpa looks a certain way. Hell, its just as hard to prove they have a tulpa at all.

 

What did you mean, exactly? I am confused and my ass isn't providing answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to the surveys and threads about what your tulpa looks like to the host, which is almost pointless to discuss for any reason other than trying to make conversation ...

I don't think they only serve as entertainment, but even if they do, do they really need any other reasons to be there?

 

You're treating those threads as if they "take away" from any research efforts at all. And maybe they do sure, because if people weren't in those threats maybe they would be helping with some research. But my point is that you really shouldn't be undervaluing these threats since they can be more than meets the eye, and even if they are not, look around you, "for fun" is not really an alien term.

 

... because its impossible to prove that a tulpa looks a certain way. Hell, its just as hard to prove they have a tulpa at all.

Well, this is a bit of a can of worms right here isn't it? We can also apply this to research. How would you know then if someone chipping in is trust worthy or not? I know this is a bit off topic, but I felt it needed mentioning.

 

Also, about my original comment, disregard it. I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're treating those threads as if they "take away" from any research efforts at all. And maybe they do sure, because if people weren't in those threats maybe they would be helping with some research. But my point is that you really shouldn't be undervaluing these threats since they can be more than meets the eye, and even if they are not, look around you, "for fun" is not really an alien term.

 

I did neglect to mention they provide general information about the community, and its current fandom interests. But even if it does that, it doesn't really matter all that much, scientifically. I bet it matters to advertisers and marketing research teams, though.

 

Well, this is a bit of a can of worms right here isn't it? We can also apply this to research. How would you know then if someone chipping in is trust worthy or not? I know this is a bit off topic, but I felt it needed mentioning.

 

You don't. That is why tulpas are so hard to study, and probably why we will never know what tulpas actually are, and how they work, and all that interesting stuff. That is the unique problem about things that are related to psychology/psychiatry. Its all subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't. That is why tulpas are so hard to study, and probably why we will never know what tulpas actually are, and how they work, and all that interesting stuff. That is the unique problem about things that are related to psychology/psychiatry. Its all subjective.

 

Doesn't mean we can't make some collective conception (philosophically, psychologically, etc.) of a knowable representation of what tulpas would mean for others, though. Kind of like one of the premises of Science that takes an epistemological, and other standpoints to conceive a knowable world/universe/reality.

 

Sure, it's subjective and all, but it's not going to be surprising when people try to find correlations, even if those connections depend on certain circumstances. Somehow, someone is going to use retrospect, and go, "Holy sh---, this is making sense." Maybe after all the cluster of thoughts and speculations that become more frequent (and I mean intriguing ones), someone is going to find some eureka moment.

 

The question is just when will that happen often?

 

Also, it may seem I'm directing this to you, but the rest of the post is just to everyone in general, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doesn't mean we can't make some collective conception (philosophically, psychologically, etc.) of a knowable representation of what tulpas would mean for others, though. Kind of like one of the premises of Science that takes an epistemological, and other standpoints to conceive a knowable world/universe/reality.

 

Sure, it's subjective and all, but it's not going to be surprising when people try to find correlations, even if those connections depend on certain circumstances. Somehow, someone is going to use retrospect, and go, "Holy sh---, this is making sense." Maybe after all the cluster of thoughts and speculations that become more frequent (and I mean intriguing ones), someone is going to find some eureka moment.

 

The question is just when will that happen often?

 

Also, it may seem I'm directing this to you, but the rest of the post is just to everyone in general, I guess.

 

I don't think I (I hope I didn't!) imply that those in the tulpa community shouldn't try to make hypotheses. No, in fact I support the opposite.

 

It's just that there is a very fine line between saying "this is how I think tulpas work," which implies that it isn't necessarily fact, and saying "this is what happens," which implies that what you are saying is some kind of fact. I see that this line gets crossed a lot, and it is a problem for scientific integrity of the community. THIS is what I don't support.

 

It would be nice if we had a eureka moment wouldn't it? No more crazy psychology based explanations. Only /meta/ will reign supreme in the Tulpa Armageddon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see you much as a person that tries to close off deep discussions at all, and I understand you're all for integrity, which is definitely important. But with how people reacted to you, they just weren't used to how you do things, which is probably why they felt their opinions were threatened, but you were just responding to see more from them.

 

And when they probably can't think of more, maybe the aggressiveness is done to accommodate for that, i.e., it may be a preferred option when they can't answer the big questions people may be wondering about. It's not always this cause-and-effect kind of thing with posts, but just saying so you don't feel like people think you're an asshat, or anything. Not putting you in this camp, but I've seen people leave the forum simply because they created their own stigma of what people felt about them, and they were just using that to mask that they can't learn and take the time to see other angles, i.e., they caused their own doom.

 

I'm just looking at this from a standpoint where basic questions can lead to deeper responses, but people rarely seem to do that because of many things (e.g. anti tl;dr passive-aggressive rants, not being able to take great efforts to clarify, short attention span). To be honest, another thread I made that may correlate with this one has me for the first time in the long time to plan out questions I want to ask, and how I may respond to them. I rarely see discussions like these in this thread and others where tulpas and host aren't foaming in their mouths when something personal and controversial is mentioned.

 

Getting people to be comfortable in uncomfortable topics may not make any monumental changes for empirical potential, but for something philosophically, metaphysically, psychologically, and what have you, like others have stated, discussions like these, and in other threads can be a precursor for finding controlled situations where ad hoc claims can make sense while knowing those situations are dependent on those, and maybe much more.

Share this post


Link to post
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.