longbow

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About longbow

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • Sex
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I experience the same sort of thing. Tulpish and other forms of non-vocalized thought can be pushed around in my mind regardless of where the focus of the front is. I am not sure how how many different "channels" of tulpish my brain can support as I only have two tulpas. However, it does not follow the rules of the "singular shared resource" that the mindvoice has. I would say that the latter would be more realistically achievable than the former. However, I believe that the way you are approaching this is still from a modern mindset, and doesn't really get to the heart of what the "old day" tulpamancers were doing. Back in the 2011-2013 times there was no discussion about the limits of multitasking in the human brain. There was no discussion about how much certain parts of the brain could do what. There were very little citations to cognitive psychology, or discussion about it in general. Instead, the old tulpamancers simply treated their tulpa as a separate consciousness and forced. They did not think about what they were doing with their brain as they did it. They simply noticed the results as they came naturally. If I were to train people to parallel process, I would go about it differently. My theory would be to work from the ground up. Just as people start visualizing with simple forms and flashes of images, I believe that one should focus on the basics of parallel processing in their simplest form first. They should focus on the achievable and build upwards from there as they gain competence. However, this presents a bit of a problem as I do not know what the most basic form of "parallel processing" is. There are many things that I think could fit under the umbrella term of parallel processing, however this is a highly debatable subject and I am not sure where the majority of tulpamancers stand on it. So, I will present a few ideas for what I think could be the most simple form of parallel processing, and then people can discuss them: The simplest form of parallel processing is for the tulpa and host to feel different emotions simultaneously. For example, the tulpa and the host are paying attention to the front, and the host clicks on a scary image. The host reacts with horror and the tulpa reacts with delight. Two separate entities individually processing their emotions at the same time. The simplest form of parallel processing is for the tulpa and host to have non-vocalized thoughts that affect the mind as a whole simultaneously. This would be similar to the idea of "multiple channels of tulpish" described above. The host puts out non-mindvoice thoughts and the tulpa puts out non-mindvoice thoughts that are different at the same time. Both thoughts are felt by both parties and they affect the mind as a whole. The simplest form of parallel processing is to do somewhat complex tasks simultaneously, but only for a split second. For example, the person in front is having a conversation with another person in the physical world. The person in the wonderland splits a chair in half. The person in front knows the chair was split as it is cut, and can see the memory of it being cut in good detail. The person in back did this while the person in front was speaking. The person in front, when visualizing the chair later, sees it clearly as two halves.
  2. Personally, I think those claims were blown a bit out of proportion. The original experiences about switching and going into wonderland were most likely not completely vivid and lifelike. Some people may have made the claim that they can be completely vivid and lifelike, but it may have just been them extrapolating what they thought the perceived limit was. As in, they should have said: "I have not achieved it, but if you practice enough it can be completely vivid and lifelike." When I first heard of this concept, I interpreted it differently than how Lumi has. I interpreted it as going into a semi-lucid dream-like state. Kind of like dozing in a half-sleep state after you've already slept for 12 hours, or when you have fever dreams while trying to sleep off a flu. Not a vivid experience by any means, and no intense thinking going on. This is similar to what I experience in terms of "parallel processing." At least, if I'm understanding it correctly. My tulpas experience the wonderland at varying levels of intensity when I'm focused on other things. Sometimes this is none at all, and they are effectively dormant. However, sometimes this can be quite a lot if I am focused on mundane, repetitive tasks. If the focus is required in the front for a mentally taxing job, then the wonderland effectively is put on hold. However, this does not always mean my tulpa's awareness fades and they go dormant. They can still be aware of things going on, such as my thoughts and their own unconscious emotions and feelings. They can choose to be aware of the front. However, usually they usually keep their awareness pointed towards the wonderland until partial focus can return to it. Sort of like putting a bookmark in a story. Extended periods of time focused on a mentally demanding task will effectively "remove" the bookmark and my tulpas can become dormant. If my day goes smoothly and if my tulpas so choose, then the entire day can be a seemless, continuous flow of both the physical world and the wonderland, in the partial 50/50 division. However, realistically this does not happen due to the complexities of the modern world. Once again this is just my experience. I am not saying that this is the best anyone could hope for, or the upper limit or anything like that.
  3. As a tulpamancer from the "old days" I felt obligated to chime in here. I agreed with these two points especially: I can confirm that I have experienced things that the modern tulpamancy community would describe as parallel processing. However, this is not parallel processing in the strictest definition. Regardless, it still fell under the umbrella term and was labeled as "confabulation." Instead of working towards a better definition of my subjective experiences, or the experiences of other tulpamancers that can "parallel process", the modern community has instead decided to instead highlight the psychological impossibility of multitasking and make the assumption that it somehow extends to all things that fit the umbrella term of "parallel processing." At first I believed that this may simply due to a lack of personal experience, and that newer tulpamancers in the community would one day continue progressing and reach a state where they would regularly experience things that fall into the definition of "parallel processing." However, as the months have gone by my assumptions were proven incorrect. As I was reading over this thread and the subsequent thread on imagistic vs. doctrinal concepts in tulpa creation, I have come to accept the hypothesis that differences in forcing techniques and have resulted in tulpas that lack some of the attributes once prized and highly sought after. This in turn has made it seem that such attributes are outside the realm of what a tulpa can possess. I remember struggling to push my mind as far as I could to view my tulpa as separate from me. I remember the hours and hours I spent every day trying to visualize, to impose, and to immerse myself deeply in a wonderland. I remember all the times I experimented, took risks and tried to test what is already known. Yet when I look at the modern community, I can no longer say with certainty that the same firey passion exists in the hearts of my peers. For me, tulpamancy was something I dove into head first, not caring if it destroyed me. My outlook was much like this quote from Charles Bukowski: Yes, I was very much in the "imagistic" mode and now most people are in the "doctrinal" mode. Not much thought is given to guides today except for increasingly more efficient ways to "speedrun vocality". This is done with good faith in the interest of expanding the community and showing people the benefits of tulpamancy as soon as possible, but it does seem to create a vicious cycle of expecting less and less from what a tulpa "should be". So what happens next? Will these guides continue to get more and more streamlined and efficient, and subsequently create tulpas with more and more pared down attributes? Will the ability to impose a tulpa be seen as ridiculous and impossible soon? The ability to switch? The ability for a tulpa to feel an emotion? Honestly, I am not sure. I want to believe that this trend will one day swing back around and that the emphasis be placed on exploration and pushing limits. To me, the most sensible place to start would be the testing and exploration of parallel processing. I feel that the truth of parallel processing falls somewhere in the middle between the strictest definition and the least strict. I want to know what exactly this is, and how most people can achieve this. I am open to discussing my own experiences and what I believe is realistic with parallel processing. I am also interested in trying out the dichotic listening experiment Pleeb outlines in his OP. Hopefully this thread will continue, and so will further discussion.
  4. I was surprised to see Incognito being discussed in this thread. I read the book a few years ago and I thought it was really great for explaining tulpamancy-related things from a neuroscientific perspective. I didn't think anyone else here had read it though. I felt that it would be appropriate to break out the discussion of the book into its own thread, so I did it: https://community.tulpa.info/topic/15725-david-eaglemans-book-incognito-and-how-it-relates-to-tulpas/
  5. This is a discussion thread for "Incognito: Secret Lives of the Brain" and how it relates to tulpas and the mind as a whole. Incognito was written by neuroscientist and author David Eagleman. It was published in 2011, was on multiple best-sellers lists and was named "Best Science Book of 2011" by Amazon. Personally, I found it to be very well researched and incredibly insightful, but don't take my word for it. Please get a copy and judge for yourself. You can easily find it in libraries, bookstores and online. To start the discussion, I'd like to bring up one of the main thesis points of the book. Eagleman puts forth the idea that the consciousness is a very small portion of the total activity in the brain. The conscious mind is mostly unaware of the activity going on as a whole, and it exerts influence on the rest of the processes in the brain indirectly rather than directly. In the first chapter he explains how the consciousness essentially just "reads the headlines" when getting information from the rest of the brain: In chapter 3 he gives a great example for how automatic, subconscious thought processes will do the correct thing without our consciousness being aware of them. Later on in chapter 3, he describes the role of the consciousness in relation rest of the brain and its underlying processes. He does this with an example of the consciousness being the CEO, and the rest of the brain being the company. In other words, the consciousness directs and influences the subconscious processes to train them, which then become autonomous over time. The consciousness only needs to step in during certain cases that the training did not cover. So if we are to accept this hypothesis about the brain and it's structure, what does it mean for tulpamancy? I believe that Eagleman's work is highly congruent to the ideas in the tulpamancy community. For example, instead of there being one consciousness as the CEO, why can there not also be two consciousnesses running things as partners? As the consciousness is relatively small compared to the rest of the mind, there would be enough room and "processing power" in the brain to support it. Different CEOs could get different "headlines" about activity and information in the brain, leading to different ideas, opinions and beliefs being held by the tulpa and host. A company can switch who's in charge, and therefore possession and switching would work by the CEO stepping down momentarily for another to take his/her place. The ideas presented in Incognito might also be used to explain things like imposition and parallel processing. What do you think? Do Eagleman's ideas provide a compelling explanation of how tulpamancy might work from a neuroscience perspective? Why or why not? Do you have any other examples or quotes from the book that you'd like to discuss? Post them here!
  6. I have a few things I'd like to say in regards to the ongoing discussion about parallel processing. First, the definition of the term. I know Luminesce said this isn't the thread to discuss its definition, but I have to get a concrete definition down for the rest of my post. Parallel processing (in the ways I've seen it described) usually refers to a host and a tulpa, or two tulpas, both performing separate mental tasks that both require: A. Concentration and focus B. Complex use of a specialized mental skill Here are some examples of this definition of parallel processing: 1. Person A is solving algebra problems on paper in the physical world while person B is writing an essay in the wonderland. 2. Person A is possessing one hand and writing down a word while person B is possessing the other hand and writing down a different word. 3. Person A is cooking a five-course meal in the physical world while Person B is redecorating the wonderland house top-to-bottom with all new furniture and decorations. When the term is used like this, it makes me thing of two CPU cores running different threads. This is probably how the term "parallel processing" got its origin: as a computer science term haphazardly applied to neurology. However, the brain is not a computer, and I can see how people can be skeptical that things like this would be possible. It seems "superhuman" and "metaphysical." Already in this thread there's talk of the supertaskers who are extremely good at multitasking, and how rare it is, etc. For this post I'd like to step away from that definition. Let's consider a different kind of parallel processing that does not focus on tasks that require concentration or complex use of a specialized mental skill. Instead, let's say that we have a form of parallel processing that fits the following critera: 1. The task performed has been practiced a good deal where it is nearly automatic to do. 2. If #1 does not apply, then the task is expressive, creative and free-flowing. It does not have an intended "result" but is just an expression of the person performing the task. Examples for this kind of parallel processing would be the following: 1. The host types to a friend through a chat program (not an intense discussion, just expressing feelings and chit-chatting). Meanwhile, the tulpa is dancing to music that the host and tulpa are both listening to. The tulpa's movements are seen by the host in their mind's eye while the host is typing. 2. The host is playing a song on a piano that they have already practiced many times before. Meanwhile, the tulpa is singing to the host and making up their own lyrics to the song. 3. A host is playing a video game that they have played a lot before, and the tulpa is talking with them and commentating on the gameplay, trying to make them laugh. Now, is parallel processing, when defined in this way, possible? I sincerely believe that it is. I have experienced situations similar to the examples described above, and I have met many people who have reported very similar things. I don't think it's really out of the ordinary, either. When people describe these things they don't say "oh, I just had the most amazing parallel processing experience." Instead they just say, "yeah I did this while they did that." Nevertheless, it does fit under the umbrella term of parallel processing. So, if you want to practice parallel processing, maybe you should try leaning towards this new definition instead of the old one. Try to make sure that the tasks are either: 1. Tasks that you've done enough times where they're basically automatic 2. A task that is expressive, creative and comes naturally like dancing, singing, painting, chatting, etc. And then just try doing the tasks at the same time. If you have trouble, then do the tasks individually enough times so that they become more natural, and then doing them simultaneously will be less of a problem.
  7. Hello again everyone. First, I'd like to say thank you very much for putting in the time and effort to review my guide. I know that it's a tedious and boring process, especially with a guide this long. So thank you, I genuinely do appreciate the criticism. That being said, I knew going in that this guide would most likely not be accepted. My focus was on innovation. To create something that broke norms in the hopes of improvement. A natural part of this is failure, and where I have failed, your criticisms have brought this to light. This is the reason I submitted the guide, so again, thank you. However, another natural part of innovation is simply being misunderstood. I feel like this happened quite a few times, so allow me to clarify some things: You are making a distinction between tulpas and humans when there is none. You are correct. To me and you there is no significant distinction. We tulpas and hosts have grown to understand this through our own experiences and reasoning. However, the guide is intended for people who have not experienced tulpas, and therefore have not fully grasped this concept. I used "human" instead of "host" in the introduction in order to explain things in a way that a newcomer might better relate to. That's all. This was not intended to draw a significant distinction between tulpas and hosts, and I doubt that a novice tulpamancer would hold onto this belief for very long. Once they have a tulpa that demonstrates consciousness comprable to their own, they would have no reason to do so. There is too much fluff in the guide that doesn't relate to tulpamancy. This was a stylistic choice that I made. Some people might not like a lot of the long introductions to sections and that's fine. The main reasons for this was that I wanted to release it as an audio guide. For audio guides, especially when released on YouTube, I feel that they become more listenable if there's some flavor added in. If it was all dry information, then it would be a bit harder to sit through. Another reason for this was that I tried to evoke experiences that the listener may have already had to help them relate to the material better. The guide rambles on too much with explanations. I agree that there are many places where things could be condensed and streamlined. However, when I wrote this guide I made a conscious effort to err on the side of too much explanation rather than too little. Remember that this is a guide intended for people who are entirely new to the concepts and idea presented. Sometimes if you explain things only once it doesn't really stick in people's heads, so explaining it a few times in different ways helps to get them to understand it better. To tulpamancers who already understand the concepts already, this is tedious, but to newcomers it might be just the thing they needed to hear/read. Tulpas go dormant/inactive when they are not being paid attention to. They do not go to the wonderland. Many tulpamancers report that a tulpa can exist and interact with a wonderland on their own without the host's attention. Does this mean they always do it? No. Most of the time I feel that tulpas do go inactive/dormant when they are left alone. However, I do believe that they can do so, and in the early stages of development this can be encouraged if possible. I could argue about what this means, about parallel processing and all that. But I won't do that here. Instead, I'll just pose a thought. If a tulpa and host both believe that the tulpa is existing in a wonderland when they are not given attention, when in fact they are actually dormant, does this present some danger or harm to them? I don't see how it could. In the end, the tulpa and host will believe what is true for their subjective experience. What I say in my guide is what I believe to be true through my own experiences and the second-hand experiences of others. It is no more or less valid than your own. Creating a tulpa by validating an intrusive thought is dangerous and leads to uncapped system growth. On the contrary, I feel that it would actually help inhibit unexpected system growth. In my guide, I explain how to test an "intrusive thought" for signs of conscious behavior. I then explain how they can decide to continue interaction with the entity or dismiss it. Through this, I explain more or less how the process of developing the intrusive thought into consciousness occurs. The tulpamancer knows how the process happens. Consider instead a host that created a tulpa through more traditional methods. When they experience an intrusive thought that seems to exhibit conscious behavior, they have no way of knowing what's going on. They would naturally be curious and continue to give the thought more and more attention until it develops to the point of becoming a tulpa. If they knew they were doing this, it could have been avoided. However, they did not have this knowledge until it's already happening. Tulpas cannot form without forcing them, suggesting that they can form from intrusive thoughts is incorrect. This means that accidental tulpas, or tulpas that have come about from creative writing are not valid. I do not agree with this. Accidental tulpas and walk-ins exist and have been reported by many people. You could perhaps argue that these tulpas come about because they were performing forcing exercises without knowing, and this is something that really gets to the very heart of why I decided to create this guide. In my guide, I am trying to get novice tulpamancers to perform forcing exercises without really knowing that they doing something considered "forcing". They are encouraged to narrate, listen for responses and give attention to a forming tulpa without being explicitly told that it's considered forcing. The guide is deceptive. I don't think it's fair to call it deceptive. I merely put forth suggestions that are intended to help invoke a mindset beneficial for tulpa creation. In section 7 I put a lot of suggestions into the head of the listener/reader. The big one is "your tulpa is already there." This isn't a lie, as I do genuinely believe that at this point their tulpa should already somewhat developed either consciously or subconsciously. The suggestions are there to help spur them along past that point of getting their first good response. I don't believe they would be harmful as they are already almost 2 hours into the guide at this point. If they did not want a tulpa they would have stopped a long time ago.
  8. Thank you Indigo and Apollo. I appreciate the open, honest criticism. I'd like to respond to some of the points you both made, but I think I'll wait until the rest of the GAT members respond. That way if there's a common trend in the criticisms I can address them in one go. Also, I have fixed the two typos you have found in the transcripts. Nothing else with the guide was changed, of course.
  9. Hi again. I got the backup videos uploaded as well. I had to split up the last video (section 8) into two parts to get Dailymotion to accept it. Here they are: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7nchmu
  10. I've got the transcriptions uploaded now. Apologies that it took a few days. I made a lot of on-the-fly changes when recording that I did not update in my scripts, so I had to listen to everything and edit the scripts to make sure they're consistent with the videos. Here are the links: Introduction https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RZ26qlmXKO7Huc-7fXbBZh4raI4okDosJw0EORVHC8s Overview https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dUEZn3DVVdpR7kyZT2V2lOtIDMYKOzyatlipzJLIKYc Section 1: Sitting with your Thoughts https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zmtVgIhlT1VYnOdNv1NzJP2K-CBNLRBi0IFvn9_wzS8. Section 2: Meditation https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DzljaVrZVKtKGUF9q1_QTUuCSL5mns7P-h-99h_fmao Section 3: Visualization https://drive.google.com/open?id=10WSDBIKWj5FRabk54gsq021P9u-Ud4Pfa3Wp7pr2HuY Section 4: Auralization https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qbu_YK5oLMCx2wHcDIFctx0gK9xTPV5xMgmM7l7SOFk Section 5: Wonderland Scenes https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OmPb_r76uELr28HtA0FPNbUoQVz0f6QajEqDHD_cNDQ Section 6: Immersive Wonderlands https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H0yfVh77YT2hhGbugEADAYwicOarLkyRd8YLAkqg_W4 Section 7: Finding a Proto-Tulpa https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d74_4O_ecBzrgd80XSFcTpXnNa7MhYusS-aME2fexfk Section 8: Tulpa Development https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aPzAbUkkGW0ZPeojYMufAjfTbYTmDQ7ajLfXSkxcqfc I have also updated the original post with the transcripts, and I am working on uploading the backup videos to Dailymotion. They have a limit on how much you can upload at a time, so it's taking a while.
  11. Sorry, I was not aware transcripts were required. The writing is intended to be listened to as spoken-word, so I wouldn't say it translates to text very well. However, I'll get those transcripts uploaded.
  12. Hello, I would like to submit my full-length video guide for approval. This guide is intended to be a complete guide to all basic tulpamancy skills as well as a guide to developing a tulpa. The video series spans 10 videos and (hopefully) encapsulates all the required knowledge and training one needs to be successful when developing a tulpa. This guide has a different structure than other guides as I place an emphasis on learning skills such as meditation, visualization, and wonderland creation before getting into tulpa development. The philosophy behind this decision is to encourage the tulpamancer gain competency in these mental skills so that they are better prepared when it comes time to develop and interact with with a young, forming tulpa. Another reason for this structure is that is allows the tulpa development process to be more centered on "finding" a tulpa while immersed in their wonderland as opposed to "forcing" the tulpa into existence. I feel that this can be a more natural process for beginners that struggle with doubts or lack of confidence in their abilities. It allows the tulpamancer to let the tulpa form their personality, form and voice on their own as opposed to being chosen from them from the start. To be clear: it is not my intention to imply this method is superior or more effective than more traditional methods; it's merely a method that I prefer using. I feel that there are others that might also prefer using the methods described in this guide. I have two tulpas, one of which was created through more traditional forcing techniques, and one of which was created through the method in this guide. For more details about this, please view Overview and Section 7. Below is the link to the playlist with all of the videos in it. (If you would like all videos separately linked, please let me know and I'll edit) Thank you for your time and consideration. Video Transcriptions: Introduction https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RZ26qlmXKO7Huc-7fXbBZh4raI4okDosJw0EORVHC8s Overview https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dUEZn3DVVdpR7kyZT2V2lOtIDMYKOzyatlipzJLIKYc Section 1: Sitting with your Thoughts https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zmtVgIhlT1VYnOdNv1NzJP2K-CBNLRBi0IFvn9_wzS8. Section 2: Meditation https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DzljaVrZVKtKGUF9q1_QTUuCSL5mns7P-h-99h_fmao Section 3: Visualization https://drive.google.com/open?id=10WSDBIKWj5FRabk54gsq021P9u-Ud4Pfa3Wp7pr2HuY Section 4: Auralization https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qbu_YK5oLMCx2wHcDIFctx0gK9xTPV5xMgmM7l7SOFk Section 5: Wonderland Scenes https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OmPb_r76uELr28HtA0FPNbUoQVz0f6QajEqDHD_cNDQ Section 6: Immersive Wonderlands https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H0yfVh77YT2hhGbugEADAYwicOarLkyRd8YLAkqg_W4 Section 7: Finding a Proto-Tulpa https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d74_4O_ecBzrgd80XSFcTpXnNa7MhYusS-aME2fexfk Section 8: Tulpa Development https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aPzAbUkkGW0ZPeojYMufAjfTbYTmDQ7ajLfXSkxcqfc
  13. Hey all, sorry about the 2 month long hiatus. We've got a new video up if you wanna check it out: Yeah, we'd definitely be interested. Check your PMs.
  14. Thank you, we appreciate it! We don't currently have any plans on calling guests, sorry. Perhaps in future episodes. Apologies for the delay, we've been busy (and somewhat lazy). We've recorded a new episode that will be up tonight. It's on accidental tulpas.
  15. Thank you for listening! Sounds like you're doing some narration, which is good, keep it up! Thanks, we appreciate the feedback. We're planning on doing a series of podcasts about the different aspects of forcing, as well as talking about wonderlands, servitors, accidentals, different tulpa-like phenomenon and even our own history with tulpas. Thank you, that's nice of you to say. We haven't posted them on the tulpa subreddit yet, but we've shared the link in other tulpa communities we participate in. Thank you, that's very nice! We plan on releasing episodes at least once or twice a week, but we have no strict schedule planned as of yet. Also, if anyone has any questions they'd like answered by us, please post them here and we'll do our best to answer them!