Hello There, Guest! Register


The Possibility of Parrallel Processing
Angry Bear Offline
Spirit Bear
Patron

Posts: 1,600
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2018
Linked Accounts
 
RE: The Possibility of Parrallel Processing

My point is, let's discuss practical methods, not unfounded brain structure dynamics. The only useful resurch to us here is testimonial research. All that matters practically is the experience.

I do appreciate some talk of the brain if only to help people believe it, since believing is a very strong motivator to doing, but as Ember also pointed out, your statement was unnecessarily negative (and unfounded, yet stated as fact) without showing any research basis.

[The Bear System] - [Bear Chat] - [Chat] - [Visualization Practice] - [Draw] - [Art]
05-29-2019, 10:31 AM
Find Reply

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

Breloomancer Offline
No good trouble maker
Registered

Posts: 395
Threads: 7
Joined: Jun 2018
1 Attached Account
 
RE: The Possibility of Parrallel Processing

(05-29-2019, 04:12 AM)Ember.Vesper Wrote: I actually don't know that, Bre, though I admit my degrees are in physics, not neurology. I can't rule out the experiences of parallel processing reported on the forum being associated with reduced activity in the corpus callosum. I can't rule out controlled modulation of corpus callosum activity allowing for novel forms of parallel processing. But this has not reported in supertasker studies and supertaskers multitask with exceptionally high efficiency despite having a functioning corpus callosum.

I am aware of supertaskers, however supertaskers are not parallel processers because they can't process things in parallel. The result of parallel processing and supertasking may be very similar (doing two tasks simultaneously), supertaskers simply switch between two tasks without losing efficiency, while parallel processers would be able to actually do both tasks at the same time.
(Not in response to you, just in general) I am also aware that many people define parallel processing based on the experience rather than the mechanism, which is fine, but right here I am specifically talking about a mechanism that would allow for parallel processing, so that is a different argument entirely.

Quote:Not sure about that, either. Mathematical calculation is strongly associated with the left hemisphere. I'm not sure the right hemisphere would do very well with math on its own. It tends not to do well with language processing on its own. Only occasionally will the brain successfully duplicate a dedicated function of one hemisphere into the other, Kim Peek being a notable example. However, being split-brained congenitally, he had the advantage of access to greater neuroplasticity than adults.

Very interesting, I did not realize that math was in just one hemisphere. Though I used a bad example I think that my point still stands.

Angry.Bear Wrote:My point is, let's discuss practical methods, not unfounded brain structure dynamics. The only useful resurch to us here is testimonial research. All that matters practically is the experience.

I do appreciate some talk of the brain if only to help people believe it, since believing is a very strong motivator to doing, but as Ember also pointed out, your statement was unnecessarily negative (and unfounded, yet stated as fact) without showing any research basis.

This may not be a practical this to attempt right now, but just by putting it out here to descuss the idea will grow and may become more practical or may spark other, better ideas. Even if it doesn't it's still interesting to me. If you want to descuss practical things then do that, I'm quite content descussing theoretical things. Also, just because you have the agenda of making people believe in parallel processing doesn't mean that anyone else should, I certainly don't care about convincing people. If you want to point out specific parts that you think are overly negative or unfounded then I would appreciate that, but as it stands now your criticism is not very constructive

I have a tulpa named Miela (formerly known as Monika) who I love very much.


"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"
-Me
05-29-2019, 12:49 PM
Find Reply
Angry Bear Offline
Spirit Bear
Patron

Posts: 1,600
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2018
Linked Accounts
 
RE: The Possibility of Parrallel Processing

(05-29-2019, 12:49 PM)Breloomancer Wrote: If you want to descuss practical things then do that, I'm quite content descussing theoretical things.

That's what I did and yet we argued about it's validity or usefulness. I feel like we're attacking from two entirely different ends of the same battlefield and just a little disappointed that we can't coexist without flak exchange. I'll accept that shots are being fired in each other's direction, but that doesn't necessarily mean friendly fire does it?

Quote:Also, just because you have the agenda of making people believe in parallel processing doesn't mean that anyone else should.

Just because you have a belief that it's impossible doesn't mean others have to agree.

Quote:I certainly don't care about convincing people. If you want to point out specific parts that you think are overly negative or unfounded then I would appreciate that...

I thought so too.

Quote:...but as it stands now your criticism is not very constructive

Yes, I feel the same about yours, so let's not.

[The Bear System] - [Bear Chat] - [Chat] - [Visualization Practice] - [Draw] - [Art]
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2019, 01:36 PM by Angry Bear.)
05-29-2019, 01:35 PM
Find Reply
Breloomancer Offline
No good trouble maker
Registered

Posts: 395
Threads: 7
Joined: Jun 2018
1 Attached Account
 
RE: The Possibility of Parrallel Processing

(05-29-2019, 01:35 PM)Angry Bear Wrote: That's what I did and yet we argued about it's validity or usefulness. I feel like we're attacking from two entirely different ends of the same battlefield and just a little disappointed that we can't coexist without flak exchange. I'll accept that shots are being fired in each other's direction, but that doesn't necessarily mean friendly fire does it?

When you were arguing about how it could work theoretically I argued against your theory, not that we shouldn't be theorizing. I'm also disappointed that we have such a hard time meeting in the middle; I like agreeing with you, we just have such different views of the world.

Quote:Just because you have a belief that it's impossible doesn't mean others have to agree.

Exactly. I would like if we could come to a consensus on whether or not it works, but nobody must, and at this point I am not certain that convincing everyone that parallel processing didn't work would actually do any good for the world anyway.

Quote:Yes, I feel the same about yours, so let's not.

I'm not certain if you're referring to criticism that I've given to you about your theories or if you're referring to something else. I try my best to give constructive criticism, but if my criticism isn't that way, criticize my criticism so that I can improve. At this point I'm not even certain if we have the same idea of how a descussion is supposed to go. It feels like every time we but heads we always end up miscommunicating, dissagreeing, and leaving the conversion unsatisfied

I have a tulpa named Miela (formerly known as Monika) who I love very much.


"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"
-Me
05-29-2019, 02:11 PM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to


Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication