that said, there is a distinction between perfect parallel processing and merely some parallel processing: if you find 2 problems that would take you 5 minutes to solve, you and your tulpa don't have to solve them both in 5 minutes total to have parallel processing, just less than 10
More in-depth responses also typically have significant amount of typing time, since they are often done via typing - and that allows time for thought.
Perhaps for the ones claiming parallel processing, they could try to draw two separate images with the tulpa controlling one hand and them controlling the other hand, directly in front of them.
If people really want to claim that parallel processing is legitimate in the manner they claim, they should have an observer test it - or better, record their conversation... say, on stream - and demonstrate that it is possible.
11:02 PM
Especially in a manner that the person cannot do themselves.
11:03 PM
(I suggest streaming since that typically involves a facecam video, footage of the computer screen, and voice - recording all specifically relevant factors in the example of talking and typing simultaneously without large pauses)
11:03 PM
The point being - people who want to believe they can parallel process are biased.
11:04 PM
It is extremely reasonable to assume that they may not notice the pauses without a recording pointing them out clearly.
I think a tulpa can be opposite handed because the form is just a representation of what they are. When fronting or switching, your body might not change hands because muscle memory and neural networks are already in place.
The problem is that it genuinely seems like you're trying to test things that are putting mental ability to its maximum level of stress, which doesn't work well considering that you're not accounting for the already admitted issue with not expanding metal overheads- the ability to handle 2 separate tasks would be way more fair
Astounding we don't have peer reviewed papers about imaginary anime girls being able to do stuff at the same times the sweaty neckbeard that made them is trying to :p
I asked for a clearly recorded demonstration of the additional ability being claimed.
11:12 PM
That is evidence - at the very least, it is more convincing to make the claim with footage backing it up than anecdotal stories that are fairly directly explained by existing psychological models.
...the question of what additional ability you are claiming?
11:15 PM
Saying "more research should be done" is very different from saying "my tulpa can stay consciously active while daydreaming while I simultaneously act in real life with no noticable reduction in capability" instead of "my tulpa thinks that they did something while inactive and generated a memory that sounds vaguely plausible as imagination".
...and naturally, if they are going to directly contradict existing understanding of brain functioning, some demonstration is reasonable in order for that claim to be taken seriously.
11:19 PM
Or for one to expect others to accept it, at the very least.
I do not believe parallel processing contradicts currently established understanding of brain functioning, because anything currently established does not deal with plurality
[Demonstrated? Oh for sure. They don't really demonstrate or go to far into finding the limits of what the brain can do in normal studies. Simply because it isn't of much interest. That's why it isn't really reliable to try and use research to figure out what the limits can be.]
It's hard to answer that question because all of the criteria that defines normal brain functioning is based on a model of the brain that may no longer apply once you introduce plurality
[For example can you have insta-tulpas just by trying for a moment, fairly autonomous and developed ones? I think so, if simply because some brains are prone to it.]
"The physical structure of your brain does not change" is not only a negative which does not require proving compared to a positive claim, but you physically can not change the structure of your brain consciously - human bodies just don't do that. It's like willing yourself to grow an extra toe.
[And really why is there this assumption that the brain has to have massive changes to change habits and thoughts. Just some quick changes in electrical impulses from active thoughts and voila. Massive changes in thought-proccess or tulpafication without massive brain changes.]
My view of what tulpas are implies the existence of parallel processing, at least under my view of what parallel processing is. What does everyone here view tulpas as in the 'inner mechanics' sense? In what ways do you believe they impact brain functioning, and how do they fit in with the currently established understanding of the brain?
Unless there's physical changes, including head trauma (as happened to a man who developed savant syndrome with maths), you can not gain "
magic" memory recall abilities.(edited)
[I don't believe you really. Take an addiction. You can decide to break it and stick to it and you will. In 1 go. It's hard, but can be done. Presistent behaviour changed in 1 second.]
I agree, if you have the willpower you can break a habit pretty quickly.
11:37 PM
I used to do drugs, and I quit the habit in an instant, just cold turkeyed them because I was sick of throwing my life away. That's a chemically induced habit too. If you have the willpower, a habit doesn't take months to kick.
