can tulpas lie?

[NekoiNemo]

I personally disagree about what another said that a tulpa cant know things oneself don't know. Tulpas if they are able to access ones mind may pick up things that a person has only picked up subconsciously and not consciously, so it is possible for one to know more then ones normal self does.

Well, technically you do know that which why your tulpa might know that as well. Know means it's recorder somewhere inside your brain whenever you're consciously aware of that or not.

[Linkzelda]

I personally disagree about what another said that a tulpa cant know things oneself don't know. Tulpas if they are able to access ones mind may pick up things that a person has only picked up subconsciously and not consciously, so it is possible for one to know more then ones normal self does.

 

I agree with this presumption as well because how a totality of memories, experiences, and such one has can be interpreted differently in some way, i.e., there would be some kind of nuance in how another would conceptualize things. Especially if one wants to further their propensity in treating them as sentient entities, then the probability of one treating them in a way where their (the tulpa’s) subjective experience is somewhat qualitative, rather than wholly quantitative (e.g. being contingent solely on a host’s competencies). Things like implicit knowledge, for example, where doing something more complex where people would have different approaches to try and understand something may make one wonder if those implied nuances with treating them as sentient would foster the idea of some kind of uniqueness, I guess.

 

It just depends on how far we want to go into types of memories, and what a person feels validates “sentience” to them in their subjective experience.

 

 

 

As for the OP:

 

The first thing that pops in my head is that if a tulpa wanted to lie, there may be emotive reasoning, i.e., they felt it was ethical to do so for the sake of sustaining rapport with their host, or they fear how they (the host) may react. Some analogues to further my presumption:

 

- Imagine being an entity implied as sentient, and the host trying to garner trust from your own existence where they’re trying their best to salvage and acknowledge so that they can refer to you while you hopefully can refer to them as well, and hopefully have some kind of iteration loop where they have the assurance that their existence is somewhat mostly contingent on you being able to refer to them in some way. And if they feel a lie to make you feel at ease may be more pragmatic, it’s probably the same justification as anyone that may have some consideration of your well-being.

 

- But even with the first analogue, if they admitted to you that they were lying in some way, and even if you came to terms with that and understood their justification, somehow, you may be predisposed for other circumstances that seem sketchy, and you question the validity in their statements. So you may end up going on a hunt within the maelstrom of thoughts, potentially feeling your tulpa is trying to be some kind of trickster when all you may really be doing is furthering that propensity in feeling as if one’s tulpa inherently has a cutthroat disposition where they only consider their own well-being and agenda rather than yours along with absolving themselves from being aware of the philosophical and emotional weight that comes if they were to do something like that.

 

- And with the second analogue, it seems it would be pragmatic (matter of opinion) to presume that a tulpa has to have some kind of degree with implied sentience, and maybe other attributes, e.g., sapience, to even revel and fixate and worry about things like that. And if that’s the case, the probability of them trying to map out the repercussions, and finding something that can maximize utility and rapport with their host may become more difficult for them due to having to find loopholes around a little lie when they could’ve been honest from the start

 

- But even if they were to tell the truth to their host, how can they know how their host, the ones who created them, and invested in so much time in furthering their propensity in treating them as sentient would react to something like that? What if in their subjective experience we presume they have, they may worry that if the host can’t have an inward and deep, close-knit trust with their own companion after a few lies, or many, the host may consider something drastic (e.g. dissipation, having regrets in even investing their time in treating them as sentient, etc.)?

 

 

There’s so many analogues that would have a plethora of ethical frameworks that would make it difficult if tulpas inherently would have a cutthroat behavior with deception and such with their host if how people map out what it means to be sentient, and whatever normative ethic, i.e., “how one ought to do –insert whatever mode of ethic here-“would be filled with contingency and nuances. So maybe a silver lining towards these analogous that makes one feel they may be at an impasse is to maybe engage in reciprocation.

 

And learn accordingly based on the circumstances, and just affirming to each other that we all can’t have a sound, and ethical framework simply because trying to sustain rapport, especially inwardly when it comes to tulpas, seems like a perpetual process of coming to terms only to face more adversities again to learn something once more; it may seem that this good and evil type of thing is just an opportunity for us to develop a certain attitude in reacting to it, and coming to terms with that, and maybe becoming more emotionally mature with ourselves, and vice versa for them as well.