...in simplified, easier-to-understand terms, the brian has limited focus. Focusing on multiple things (the 'parallel processing' I disagree with) reduces efficiency proportional to the amount of things you are attempting to focus on.
And, yes - technically 'splitting focus' in that way is rapidly switching between those tasks, hence why I would state it is not parallel processing as people present it from their subjective perspective.
[Well yeah. But we really don't care about efficiency. It is more efficient if just 1 person focuses on everything. But that's not really important to us.]
So, when explaining it, I greatly prefer explaining it with the external perspective as well so people understand that there is no magic, no unexplained, unsubstantiated ability being claimed.
okay, yes, Winter, I believe everyone here knows that basic fundamental concept of this conversation. I've described it as "parallel" processing before a couple times, but only as a sort of term to describe what it's like, as for many people, a decreased brain power/efficiency to each subject is more than enough per subject
You are coming at this from an egocentric perspective where your subjective experience is literally the case - but when other people are coming at this from an external perspective of what is literally, physically happening without the illusion of subjectivity, saying they are "wrong" somehow because what literally happens in the brain isn't the same as the subjective experience you have isn't really productive or even addressing their statements at all.
Ultimately, your brain is fast enough and smart enough that the decrease is entirely negligible as your focus is "split" and cycling between the two really fast, so it may not be advantageous in the long run, but what matters here is that the subjective experience effectively portrays it to the point where it is functionally equivalent to parallel processing.
[It is pointing out the weakness of the definition. There are multiple ways to define things like "parallel processing". And there are multiple ways to look at statements like "you are thinking 2 things at ones".]
It's like saying packaging your libraries with your software and referencing them to external files are fundamentally different and affect the end result. The performance difference is totally negligible and ultimately what really matters here is the subjective experience of the end user.
[I claim we feel like we think multiple things at the same time. One of us can write while another plays in wonderland or counts. At least it feels that way to us.]
If you write programs, it's like saying it really matters if you use a hacky, standards-breaking solution compared to a built in one on a modern system where wasting a few CPU cycles doesn't actually matter much. End result is functionally identical, if there's a negligible drop in performance, well, it's negligible.
No, it's not literal, but the term parallel processing as I've used and understood it in the context of tulpamancing for as long as I've known about this is just that - it's not true parallel processing, but the end result is functionally identical, so it can be described as parallel processing without needing context.
Except, in the case of parallel processing, people generally have the mental faculty to understand that people are speaking from a subjective point of view.
Language and communication do not exclusively rely on literal definitions of the words and phrases, context exists too, and context is important. What she is saying isn't relevant to what you're saying, since this entire time she has been claiming it in entirely subjective terms.
I will say that I do not think you have a valid point there, High. People do not broadly assume that parallel processing, or anything in tulpamancy, is not what it appears to be or is said to be. I think there is a big layer of either dishonesty or half truth if you say parallel processing when that is not what you really mean.
[Well the claim is about a physical thing. I just don't make claims at all about brain structure because I don't find them relevent to the question. Like "I can think multiple things at once" I don't translate it to "my brain can preform multiple actions at once"]
I don't think you are necessarily being dishonest, but I do think that is what ends up happening when the person who does not understand what you mean reads the use of parallel processing as it is commonly used.
12:07 AM
I think this sort of language is a big big big source of the "doubt cliff" a lot of new tulpamancers find themselves on after being in tulpamancy for a few months.
Tulpamancy is mostly a subjective experience as it has not really been measured objectively as far as I know, so when someone who is experienced in this community (example, Winter) sees information regarding someone's experience with their tulpa, then it should be taken as subjective, given the context of the subject matter.
Feeling it is not the same as doing it. If you claim you are actually doing it, that’s a lie. If you claim that you feel that you’re doing it, it’s not.
I don’t claim my “tulpa” exists, but I claim that I “feel as though he exists,” and I think that feeling is enough for a tulpa community to go off collectively
[But see with Reguile here he sees the same thing you see about parallel processing as with the question "tulpas exist" pretty much why my answer is in the same format for both questions.]
Honestly I only want to mediate here but I'm not sure how. Silina has a right to say how they think things are based on their experience, and you guys are saying it can't be the case due to popularly held belief. But.. it's a popularly held belief for a reason.
While we can measure changes we can not directly measure the tulpa itself and therefore your experience is subjkective and claiming that a tulpa exists in and of itself is claiming a subjective experience as an objective fact.
1