The entire concept of this community hinges on taking subjective information as objective, so it's hard to criticize someone for not clearly defining their personal experiences as subjective.
@Deleted User Ah - you might be misunderstanding, then. I do exist in some fashion, whether that is as a personality state, as a character, as a 'hub' of personality states, etc.
12:12 AM
People are free to disagree with what precisely they think I am, but disputing that I exist in some sense seems absurd.
1
12:12 AM
When Skye claims I exist to people outside the community, I interact with them directly, demonstrating myself.
[And "thinking multiple things at the same time" also "exists" in a fashion. So yeah. I still give priority to actual subjective functioning over objective brain structures. But meh.]
@Sete[Silina]{Set}#7194 Something stood out to me about this statement of yours: "I can feel like I think multiple things at once." What defines parallel processing is not you thinking about multiple things at once, but someone else in your brain thinking about something while you think about something else. That is what separates it from multitasking in the first place
Do you all believe that when you talk about parallel processing as you do that your words give the full nuanced idea of what is going on to the average new user?
and what support? Yet again, while I believe in your existence, you're not providing any evidence because you're behind a keyboard and we will never truly know if you're actually the one giving these messages. I sincerely hope you see the paradox here?
The entire community hinges on these subjective experiences being titled as objective and as such, it should not be criticized when someone states a subjective experience without clarifying.
@Abvieon {Alex} That's a very tulpamancy-minded approach. It might be best to, in order avoid claims of persistent wonderlanding and such, restrict this to one's ability to parallel process themselves?
Using the prior example - claiming that one can simultaneously process multiple tasks rather than switching back and forth constantly, is in fact claiming something that is demonstrably implausible. Research already exists about this. If further research shows otherwise, then that is an altered claim with support.
@Reisen Parallel processing does not apply to a singlet. That is the point I am making. When I talk about parallel processing I am referring only to plurality.
["Clear and honest" again depends on your view. There is "clear and honest" this is what objectively happens in the brain and "clear and honest" This is what you will experience.]
But if you can measure the effects of having a tulpa, you can say that a person has a tulpa. Like a mental illness, if you measure the symptoms relative to each other, you can say that that person has a mental illness.
[The brain might be switching back and forth. Personally I think it does it so fast that I do not notice(And what I don't notice is unimportant to me)]
If I say "there's an invisible, intangible, immeasurable unicorn beside my chair farting invisible intangible immeasurable gases that given the ability for light to shine through it would be rainbows", that is NOT demonstrably false, and is totally infalsifiable, even though it's clearly not true. Saying that something we can not measure exists directly follows into the fact that it is a subjective experience, and a tulpa is experienced only from within the brain, and is unfalsifiable by nature due to the inability to specifically measure an aspect of the tulpa.
I believe that multiple consciousnesses are required for parallel processing. If I were to try to think of multiple things at once, I would not be able to because I am a single 'perspective'
[Yup. The study coming up could claim that I am 1000% a delusion that doesn't exist ect and it wouldn't even matter to us. I would still experience myself existing.]
@Deleted User We can measure tulpas. There should be some way to scan the brain that shows some difference in brain functioning as compared to people who don't have tulpas, or who are just acting.
12:19 AM
A study to that effect is going to happen. I look forward to it very much.
@Beckett If a brain scan shows no difference between a person having a tulpa and pretending to do so, that would strongly indicate that having a tulpa is pretense.
[I think you could split your focus sufficiently as a singlet to parallel process(subjective version) But it would take a lot of work. With tulpas it's easy.]
1
