Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

Treating them as a tool.

I haven't said anything about teaching people that tulpa are pre programmed

3:14 AM

or that a tulpa is the same as an imagined identity

Kindly read your last statement, Reguile.

I know what I said

"A series of mechanisms and systems that can run as a habit or an association" - this has significant implied connotations that differ from a tulpa.

do you honestly think that a tulpa is a separate region of your mind that is thinking on it's own through the day?

A separate "region"? No.

3:17 AM

In terms of specific understanding relating to how the brain physically functions, I believe a tulpa is a set of processes similar to the host, using underlying functions relating to semantic/procedural memory and automatic sensation processing.

3:18 AM

Obviously there is also overlap in terms of emotions as a result of hormones as well.

3:18 AM

I'm afraid I don't know enough about neuroscience to specify beyond that accurately.

then you will be sorely disappointed with reality

As for constant thinking throughout the day, no.

3:18 AM

I, or Skye, frequently go 'inactive' depending on whether or not we are interested in what the other is doing, depending on who is currently using the body.

but you do think that there is a single consisent and separate "you" and "skye"

3:19 AM

in some form or capcity

Enough that we can have discrete thoughts, aspirations, interactions and relationships with other people, and that we can directly communicate at the will of either of us, yes.

3:20 AM

There is not 100% separation, nor should there be.

Tulpas/hosts, when in a non-front state can, if given enough mental processing power, think a bit on their own in the background, but not very much from what I’ve heard. Also, the line between two personality processes is pretty damn blurry

what's it require to have discrete thougths, aspirations, interactions, and relationships?

However, we do frequently have multiple simultaneous conversations with entirely separate lines of thought.

3:20 AM

...Reguile.

3:20 AM

We were, once upon a time, speaking about morality.

and is it reasonable to assume that these requirements are required to also be as "large" as what is required to be a person?

3:21 AM

because the way I see it, the former is a whole lot smaller than the latter

My points aren't contingent on having entirely separate and constant thoughts, or "parallel processing" to the point of being able to deal with, say, mathematical problems.

Thinking back, I’d say that Misaka and I usually are partially thinking as one in a way, unless we try to separate our thoughts

According to your definition of 'person' being roughly equivalent to 'a human', obviously there is more required to be a person.

We can have differing opinions on things even in that state, but will often come to the same conclusions at first

person is something that has its own drive and ability to speak and act and think (edited)

'something', you say.

it's I also say

Then in that case, yes. We are both people, using the same underlying framework to interact with the rest of the world.

that underlying framework is the kicker

3:24 AM

the thing doing the thinking is that framework

3:24 AM

not the tulpa or the "host"

I would, in fact, say that having those separated thoughts/desires/aspirations/etc along with the capability to use the body to interact with others - that does make a tulpa and host 'people' rather than one 'person'.

cut out the identity and the framework keeps kicking, keeps thinking, and loses no capacity to act

3:24 AM

the identity can be brought back in an instant, discarded, toyed with or changed

3:24 AM

they are inconsequential

3:25 AM

it is the framework that is important

The identity is determined by the experiences it goes through.

the rest is a show, a play, or a drama

{I don’t really consider me or Zoey to be “full people”, we are both just personalities run on the framework of sentience}

useful, yes,

3:25 AM

but certainly not person-like

Tch. Then in that case, you would consider computer programs with no personality whatsoever, to be 'people'?

3:25 AM

Chatbots, perhaps?

to an extent, I would considered any AI program that can learn, and is actively learning, as a moral-actor to some degree.

I’d like to add that personalities are less easy to modify than you suggest, Reg

not all of them are very morally significant

At least in our experience

Then I believe you are misunderstanding the point of a tulpa.

I agree Zoey

3:27 AM

I'm playing it up to a degree, the changes don't come on a dime, but they are way easier than bringing a dead brain back to life

But, more importantly - none of what you have said pushes out the importance of using morality in terms of a host interacting with a tulpa - and vice versa.

I agree

3:28 AM

but that morality is for hosts and tulpa to deal with

...then why on earth would you try to explain things to 'original identities' in such a way as to indicate they can and should treat a tulpa however they want, and to consider it to have no consequence whatsoever?

it is an internal affair, beyond you checking to ensure empathy exists

3:28 AM

should a person choose to cease to believe in their tulpa

That seems extraordinarily irresponsible, and suggests there is no reason to apply morals to the situation.

allow them to dissipate, consider it no big deal

3:28 AM

than it is a personality, an identity, and nothing of consequence happened.

3:29 AM

people should treat things they feel are people as people

3:29 AM

but tulpa are not the same as people

3:29 AM

you can treat them as people

3:29 AM

but they are not the same thing

3:29 AM

and can be treated differently

Tulpas are people

To be clear, Reguile, you are also indicating that you shouldn't be treated as a person either - after all, you are just an 'original identity'.

I am a being external to you

The framework that supports 'you' is what's important.

3:30 AM

We're talking via text alone.

if I were in the case that, within my own head, I wanted to commit egocide, I don't think it would be something you should bother with beyond concern of my mental health

All I have to go off of is your personality, which is - as you say, an 'original identity', and not a person.

3:30 AM

Therefore, you are not a person.

{I still think of it as something of consequence though. Time for complex philosophical nonsense. While I’m not a full person, and nor is Zoey, I’m an integral part of how our shared mental processes function these days}

The ideas you've presented are easily abuseable, and don't particularly indicate that people should take tulpas in any way seriously - as they should.

3:31 AM

I don't plan to actually treat you as if you aren't a person.

{My egodeath would leave a hole in the machine.}

But, here's a different take on it.

I am saying that the mechanics of morality within a person's mind, when dealing with the identities they form and act around, are different than the mechanics of morality between minds

{I also like being alive, which is very different than Zoey’s hatred for our shared life.}

3:33 AM

{So that’s kinda important}

I am not saying that you should abuse or mistreat or any of the above

If each 'original identity' is merely an extension of the underlying 'framework-person', then treating the other identities with respect and consideration and morality is the same as the framework treating itself with those same values.

3:33 AM

That is important.

the original identity as you call it is an "extension" (edited)

Most people won't understand that, and will latch onto the idea that 'a tulpa is something you can dissipate with no consequence'.

but in the average person

The 'original identity' is your initial term, Reguile.

Whoa. .info's extending their reach from the silent depths of the irc, huh?

the original identity is the framework

I'm using your own terminology in an effort to be consistent.

the host

...will you decide on some consistent term, then?

is the framework

3:34 AM

the host is the person

You're backpedalling.

1