Human specific traits in Tulpa

[Sands]

You don't physically exist other than a few brain cells.

 

Is human the body here or what's inside our head? Both are human, but different kind.

 

And a tupper in control of the physical body is pretty physical, I'd say.

[hakase]

 

orly

 

Why's that?

 

 

Oh really?

 

Please proceed. I would love to hear why am less "human" than my host.

 

 

Is human the body here or what's inside our head? Both are human, but different kind.

 

And a tupper in control of the physical body is pretty physical, I'd say.

 

Damn, that's an interesting proposition. Well, besides having no physical form, tulpae have no truly static form of any kind either. While the host body is built from genetics, grows old, and suffers wear and tear from the host's environment, a tulpa's body is created by thought alone, does not need to age, and suffers wear and tear from the host's mind, which is the tulpae's environment.

 

Humans are capable of reproduction because of genetics and intercourse, while tulpae have no means of reproduction, because they have no physical counterpart; they are solely mental, emotional, and psychological beings. The argument of "A tulpa can take over their host and reproduce" is false, because it will still be the host that is reproducing, even if the tulpa is controlling it. While humans need a mate of the same species to reproduce, tulpae need their creator to create more of them, and while the offspring of a human couple is formed by a mix of the parents, a second tulpa can be whatever it or the host wants, because all it has in common with the other tulpa is it's creator.

 

All that humans and tulpae have in common are their capabilities of emotion, problem-solving, and other mental tasks. It is only the human hosts that can walk, talk, jump, and move things in the physical world. Humans can create other humans, while tulpae can not create other tulpae. Even if they use the same brain, they are two different things; Human are not tulpae and tulpae are not human.

 

Q.E.D.

[Sands]

And then the question is, is the body always the host even if in use of someone else? Is the body just something we both can wear and use like clothes or is it truly only me? Deep bro, woah.

 

I can be anything in my mind too. I'd be crazy if I went telling everyone that I truly am a foxslut with six huge tits, yiff, but I don't even see much of a point in what some imaginary form is. Roswell's form is imaginary and he doesn't even need to have a form, my mental form is also imaginary and it rarely even exists and never existed before this whole tupperforcing thing. I see no difference between our imaginary forms, nor do I see him using my body for things when he does. It's just a body. Difficult to say it's like, my body when someone else is capable of using it even when I'm not there to see it.

 

But I guess it kinda starts being difficult to say things like that when shit happens, so maybe I am already crazy and nothing can save me now.

 

Is someone less of a human if they are sterile?

[hakase]

And then the question is, is the body always the host even if in use of someone else? Is the body just something we both can wear and use like clothes or is it truly only me? Deep bro, woah.

 

I can be anything in my mind too. I'd be crazy if I went telling everyone that I truly am a foxslut with six huge tits, yiff, but I don't even see much of a point in what some imaginary form is. Roswell's form is imaginary and he doesn't even need to have a form, my mental form is also imaginary and it rarely even exists and never existed before this whole tupperforcing thing. I see no difference between our imaginary forms, nor do I see him using my body for things when he does. It's just a body. Difficult to say it's like, my body when someone else is capable of using it even when I'm not there to see it.

 

But I guess it kinda starts being difficult to say things like that when shit happens, so maybe I am already crazy and nothing can save me now.

 

Hm.... I'm actually having some trouble trying to write what I'm thinking. Maybe it was a mistake of me to separate the tulpa mind from the human mind, and maybe the combination of human/tulpa mind and human body is just as human as somebody without a tulpa, no more and no less? I think that I think that any mind, be it human with optional tulpa mind, plus the body, is human? But I mean... If somebody were vegetative but still mentally capable, I would still say that they're human... I'm really not sure on where I would draw the line, if it's even possible to.

 

Is someone less of a human if they are sterile?

 

I think that they're just as human as a fertile human is, it's just that one of their functions is damaged or dysfunctional. I mean I would still call a car a car if it, for lack of a better example, had broken headlights. The parts are still there, and the whole still functions, but there's just one thing that it can't do. But then this brings up the question of "How many parts can be removed or dysfunctional while still retaining the whole?" and I have no idea.

[Sands]

And that's where shit starts getting weird and we can't really answer anything, huh?

 

Also, you have been putting a lot of emphasis on that reproduction thing, which is why I felt I should bring it up. Might have some unfortunate implications and all, nothing else. Wasn't like a serious question or anything.

[CyberD]

My favorite part was when we completely lost the topic because two users were being intentionally difficult.

 

One could argue in several pointless directions to further antagonize. You could argue circumstances of birth define the differences between a human and a tulpa. You could argue whoever is using the body is a human and whoever isn't is the tulpa. And my favorite one, you could argue that a "tulpa" that has learned how to switch is no longer a "tulpa" as a tulpa is defined as a thoughtform and not an entity that can control a human body.

 

So clarity for those who requested it.

 

orly

 

Why's that?

Quoting what most of us believe to be the best definition of a tulpa (which comes from FAQ_man and is on the front page of the website)

A tulpa is believed to be an autonomous consciousness which also exists in a self imposed hallucinatory body, which is usually much of your choice. A tulpa is entirely sentient and in control of its opinions, feelings, movements.

By that definition a tulpa isn't human because last I checked humans were not self imposed as hallucinatory bodies by other humans.

 

Oh really?

 

Please proceed. I would love to hear why am less "human" than my host.

You probably don't fall under the definition of tulpa anymore. You can be whatever you want to be. Before you continue, consider that a hallucination is experiencing something that has no physical presence. A sentience that could control the host body wouldn't fall under the definition of a hallucination as it now has a physical presence.

 

Moving on slightly.

All that humans and tulpae have in common are their capabilities of emotion, problem-solving, and other mental tasks. It is only the human hosts that can walk, talk, jump, and move things in the physical world. Humans can create other humans, while tulpae can not create other tulpae. Even if they use the same brain, they are two different things; Human are not tulpae and tulpae are not human.

I agree, pretty simple to see. The more developed the tulpa the more similar they would be in these capabilities.

 

On topic:

List of human specific traits that can used to describe tulpa:

C̶o̶n̶t̶r̶o̶l̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶ ̶b̶o̶d̶y.