Tulpa Creation as Transhumanism

[shalkek]

Tulpae, on the other hand, were born not so much attached to the body. Why would they need to be? There is already a consciousness in control of it. They are not tied to the body, and therefor are not conditioned into the same "restrictions" that you are.

 

Thus proving Jimmy's point that people with tulpae do have some measure, even if a small one, of transhumanistic abilities.

 

You don't die from sleep deprivation because you didn't dream long enough. You die because your body didn't get enough rest.

 

You actually can't actually die from sleep depravation unless you have Fatal familial insomnia.

 

Sands must be a jew, since he always has pennies to derail conversations!

 

Back to OP's topic, I would consider tulpas as trans-humanist in nature. They can be used to advance psychological and intelligence related aspect of the average human in ways most people can't.

 

How?

 

Side note: I'm not trying to prove some kind of supremacy of tulpa creators over the rest of humanity. Just trying to spawn an interesting conversation.

 

Also, someone on here said that their tulpa could not feel pain during possession, I don't remember who. That could count as a bit transhumanistic, right?

[Sands]

Ignoring pain is pretty simple. Not being able to feel it even if you wanted to is dangerous, though. Ignoring a sick feeling I've found to be much more difficult than just ignoring pain.

[waffles]

Strictly speaking, it's not transhumanism because it doesn't use technology (as has been said before). It's not really scientific either; pretty much no practice is based on scientific analysis at a complex level.

 

Still, it's an interesting point. Do I consider tulpas as non-human? No. They can't be classed in terms of species because they're not biologically distinct. They are simply another part of the same human to which the host belongs in this context.

 

Given that, tulpa creation is simply self-improvement. Regardless of what benefits they offer, available without tulpas or not, they're not transhumanistic if they are inherently a part of a human anyway. That said, I think you would struggle to find legitimate examples of non-emotional benefits that can't be reaped without tulpas anyway.

[Kiahdaj]

 

Thus proving Jimmy's point that people with tulpae do have some measure, even if a small one, of transhumanistic abilities.

 

Notice the "quotes" around restrictions. My point being that they are not actually restrictions, but things that we don't think we can do, or can be very difficult.

 

You actually can't actually die from sleep depravation unless you have Fatal familial insomnia.

 

Dying or not dying wasn't even my point. My point was that the reason we sleep is not so that you dream. It's so that your body gets rest; and if your tulpa is in control of it while you sleep, then you may as well have not been sleeping.

 

 

Also, someone on here said that their tulpa could not feel pain during possession, I don't remember who. That could count as a bit transhumanistic, right?

 

What Sands said.

[Scott Z]

I find this thread to be fascinating, and I would like it very much if the thread were not killer due to bickering. Moving on, transhumanism is an interesting perspective from which to view the entire thoughtform phenomena. I don't think that I agree that the techniques are scientific, but I so think that they fall under a loose definition of the term 'technology.' Tulpa are tools, created by a human and usually for a purpose to be used for a certain effect, and thus tulpa are a form of technology. The practice of tulpamancing is transhumanism, but so is literacy. When an alphabet was introduced in ancient Greece, Socrates was against it. History has shown that literacy is greatly successful in expanding human capabilities to the point of arguably improving the human condition. Transhumanism is typically said in reference to genetic or mechanical enhancement to human bodies and brains. It is not a popular idea. Many people have a gut reaction that transhumanist should 'not play God.' They approve of...

---

...using technologies to repair broken or diesased bodies but not to use the same technology is improve a healthy body. This view reminds me a lot of Socrates' arguments against writing. I think it very naturual for humans to attempt improving themselves in any way they can from weight training to education to constructing memory castles. For a clear example of how transhumanism is unpopular, look at some of the user reviews on Amazon about the book I, Cyborg. Some readers really hate the author on a personal level because, in that book, he briefly explains his moderate transhumanistic opinions. Now, is the creation of a tulpa an improvement of the human condition?We could start a poll, but I think most users on this forum would agree that it is an improvement. That is why we do it (and arguably why we do everything). As for specific applications, I hope to go into that in detail in my thread about a superhero who is a tulpamancer (among other abilities) with a tulpa as a side-kick.