Tulpa.info - tulpa-discussion

Maya 5/11/2018 12:06 PM

^^^

Hey that's me

It takes me at least ten times as long as that

As literally nothing but such a thread can change the community's overall beliefs very much, I'd have to say this thread generally steered .info in the direction of "It's not really possible in a real sense; it's not really real, but experience itself need not be real"

The illusion of "I made shit while you were gone" is so easy to pull off, it's unbelievable. Your brain works off expectations so hard that if you expect it to happen it will have

Maybe you are limiting yourself for realism, Tulpa

Yes. This was discussed a lot.

For us, a wonderland is just a setting for dedicated forcing sessions that usually becomes the less vivid the more focused things become. Unless I'm directly interacting with whoever is using the body, I'm idle.

Probably, considering we can be in the wonderland in about two seconds.

12:08 PM

Same as Vos except that focus/vividness thing?

Eh, I really don't like "it doesn't matter if its real" excuse. I don't want to have synthesized memories of going on wonderland adventures

Indeed. intense "forcing" sessions.

We wonderland as a "forcing" activity, but forcing has never been "forcing" for us, it's moreso an effort to keep everyone in our system active for their own sakes.

hehe

Getting good at parallel processing is great, really. Nothing is better than being able to pull yourself free of falling idle

12:09 PM

Except it becomes way harder to be idle

12:09 PM

If you want to be idle

12:10 PM

You can't really turn it off... (edited)

Meditate?

Our system has the exact opposite of a natural talent for parallel processing.

Heh, I've been fronting nonstop lately, very few moments of being idle

My host is idling.

Couldn't learn piano because of it.

She does it constantly.

Parallel process=/=multitask (edited)

Yes.

My host passively observes

Parallel process==some people don't believe it exists lol

12:11 PM

Anyways, playing piano with two hands is not multitasking. In any sense.

It exists. It's not perfect though, there's some mental overhead you can't beat

Parallel process has two definitions I can think of: Thinking two things at once, and the one we decided was more realistic, the ability to combine multiple tasks into a single task. Multitasking is efficiently switching between tasks, not making them one.

One of you should recite the alphabet backwards while the other chats with us.

Like your eyes and ears have fixed information gathering ability, independent math problems have issues with sharing a thought space etc

I can't even properly do that on my own.

^

And obviously considering literally anything going on in your mind right now, ""parallel processing"" by the brain is possible.

12:12 PM

It should only be used in reference to conscious actions, to avoid fluff in arguments/discussion. (edited)

I strongly agree that "true" parallel processing is impossible

We've found little evidence for it.

12:13 PM

We certainly aren't remotely capable.

12:14 PM

The best example we found is "Pat your head while rubbing your stomach in a circle"

I can control the body while my host contemplates other things.

You will (probably) experience: One, then the other with both hands, then after a moment of confusion you'll start doing both separately.

I think it's fine as long as different parts of the brain are engaged.

I feel like I can confidently exist as my own person at the same time as my host at all times. I just can't listen to one conversation while he listens to another or do complex math separate from him etc

Are you actively focusing on something or just going on autopilot

However, to shill my explanation for tulpamancy, I think a lot of tulpamancy is built up on the idea that we can build "abstracts" or "constructs" in our head that appear to be one thing while driven by other things. We can parallel process, it's just that what's going on underneat that experience is not parallel processing

What's happening (should that happen, it normally does) is your brain combining two tasks into one.

https://pastebin.com/xrAcvZdY This was the thing I did to get better, it worked for me at least :p

Maya's Parallel Processing Guide - Pastebin.com

If you could easily do both right from the start, you've either got a knack for parallel processing, or have sufficiently learned how to do this specific action in the past.

I am actively focusing on things, yes.

12:16 PM

Like getting my computer to work, or finding random objects while my host is thinking.

Probably just rapidly swapping focus between the two

Eh, I don't really care for that answer. I'm not able to say it's wrong, objectively.

12:17 PM

It just doesn't align with how things feel

Separate focuses.

For us at least. There's too much of both of us at once now.

Her focus is not my focus.

Remember that the brain is often incredibly limited, but is also incredibly powerful at rationalization and filling in gaps.

Exploring the borders (if any) between what is "conscious" and can't be parallel processed and what is "within conscious awareness" but is obviously ongoing parallelly is interesting.

It sucks to be such a untrustworthy observer to your own brain :T

way better than if we wasted the time on being a trustworthy one

Something tells me that wasn't an evolutionary accident.

and I'm somewhat confident that tulpamancy would be impossible if we were trustworthy observers

Humans survived better not having to worry about their inner workings. For a few thousand years at least.

Parallel processing is fundamental to cognition.

The other day I was doing something and then Tacio started doing random things to mess with me, like hitting things. The moment he started actually applying active/conscious thought to the front (vocal possession in this case), my own focus halted and I became passive like my host

I bet you're looking at the left half of your field of vision and your right at the same time.

parallel processing talks largely about the high level tasks that are being done, rather than the low level tasks that all sum together

But, the human mind does seem surprisingly open to opening up if you're persistent... I've always appreciated that.

12:21 PM

Better than being brickwalled into being a smart animal.

And tewi, I think the distinctions are not that consciousness of an act makes it impossible to parallel process: you're looking at sensory bottlenecks and cognative interference as the main points of failure in my experience

Uh, sure?

comparing sides of your vision, walking (to a small extent), and other unconscious tasks are very often done in parallel and are almost all running all the time

I'm just replying to what you said lol

I'm not including literally all of consciousness, as I said, there's a difference in conscious thoughts and what you're conscious of.

but the process of thinking, pulling things into memory, processing them, producing thoughts, appears to be a single sort of pipeline from what I have seen of research that has been done on the topic

The latter is filled with tons of things going on parallel. The former, not so much.

and it is in that pipeline that a tulpa would live

12:23 PM

the most I have seen of parallel processing in the classical way is that left and right sides of your brain can "hold memory" while the other works on a task, and then they swap off. However, both sides were not observed to be processing different information at once in that case.

12:23 PM

that was from some article I found online, though

I bet you're looking at the left half of your field of vision and your right at the same time. I can look to my left and focus on something on my right, as if I were looking there but only mentally. However - these are two entirely different things. I can't apply either the physical-accompanied or mental focus to two places at once.

12:24 PM

But maybe some people can.

12:24 PM

I maintain parallel processing may be possible to varying extents in other people. Primary evidence being that weird guy who could play multiple songs in his head at a time and accurately continue whichever was requested of him when tested on it.

12:25 PM

He was an extremely exceptional outlier, but proof nonetheless.

The single pipeline argument seem like it's challenged by the notion of a second consciousness. Bring us brain scan studies!

Nah Tewi, any average 16 yr old tulpamancer is ofc a master at multitasking, because tulpas

Consciuosness is not a term I like to use, it may be an exceptional claim, but it's very possible that rocks are conscious

Oh please, multitasking is different entirely but: Anyone who claims to be specifically good at multitasking statistically is likely to be the opposite. Especially teenagers.

Why wouldn't rocks be conscious.

12:26 PM

The alternative is that physicalism is a false theory.

Rocks could only be conscious in a philosophical or like, quantum physics sort of level.

We in there now, boys

Biologically, they aren't, end of story.

I am saying it is possible that they are, and that if that is the case then single-pipeline isn't conflicting with multiple-consciousness

But for the former - yes, we're all just things following the rules of the universe.

12:27 PM

No such thing as free will.

I wouldn't personally call tulpa conscious, because we just can't know if that's the case or not, but still, the two don't necessarily conflict.

Too bad that perspective is irrelevant to human experience.

I maintain that free will requires determinism. It is not in conflict.