Tulpas in relation to neuroscience - Lecture summary

[SkyeWint]

Hello, everybody!

 

If you're on the IRC, you may have seen me with the username of SkyeWint (just like on here. I like keeping things simple). I support science, rational discussion, speculation (as long as we remain aware that it's speculation), and learning. I love asking and answering questions, or just having discussion in general, so feel free to send me a message or two or eight. ^_^

Feel free to talk to me as Skye. My tulpa is Winter, and since she isn't overly talkative, it's unlikely you'll see her saying much.

 

In any case, this thread is a summary of Pleeb's lecture on tulpas and how they relate to neuroscience. If you prefer google docs, feel free to click this and read it on google. Now, without further ado, I'll end my greeting and introduction, and get to the point of this thread.

 

[align=right]Topics: Basic neuroscience.

How a mind develops/creating a tulpa

Tulpa vs Host Mind

How to kill a mind[/align]

Tulpa?

-The sciencey version.

Note: This is speculation, albeit speculation with quite a bit of reasoning behind it.

Note 2: For the purposes of this article, a “mind” is a consciousness and the subconscious processes associated with the specific consciousness. Processes and parts of the network which can be shared between tulpa and host are not going to be considered part of the independent ‘mind’.

Note 3: This is a summary of the lecture Pleeb recorded (http://goo.gl/mEhVcO), along with a bit of my own thought on the matter.

Note 4: As operational definitions, a ‘host’ is the mind with the most control over the body (the one ‘hosting’), and ‘tulpas’ are minds with lesser or no control over the body.

 

1. Basic neuroscience. What is a mind?

On a purely physical level, the mind is a result of neural connections and hormones within the brain (and body if you want to be technical). This will be referred to as the ‘neural network’. As Pleeb quoted from Asgardian: The brain is one gigantic network with more active units than stars in our goddamn galaxy and enough connections to reach every one of it with three turns. In this neural network, connections are constantly forming, changing, and decaying.

Two examples of this would be practicing writing with one’s left hand as opposed to the right and typing on a Dvorak keyboard (http://goo.gl/25iC) as opposed to a normal Qwerty keyboard. In the first example, the left side of the brain controls writing with the right hand. When a person learns to write with their left hand as opposed to the right, new neural connections must form in the right side of the brain to accommodate this. Initially, it is very difficult because the connections for controlling the left hand in the same way as the right hand do not exist yet. If the person does not write with their right hand for a long period of time, the neural connections for doing so may decay. In the second example, the connections are changing rather than being overwritten because both hands are being used, and the same reflexes are simply altering. If a person continues typing with a Qwerty keyboard in addition to learning the Dvorak keyboard, new connections would form.

You may have noticed in the first example that the left and right sides of the brain were separated. This is because the brain has two hemispheres. The right hemisphere controls the left side of the body, and the left hemisphere controls the right side of the body. They furthermore process information in different ways. The left hemisphere processes data logically in sequential order, much more like a computer. It only processes one thing at a time, and that is what it is used to. The right hemisphere is far more ‘creative’, and processes data more abstractly. It can process multiple things at a time, not just one. The difference between the hemispheres is why learning to use the left hand to write does not overwrite the connections that assist the right hand in writing.

 

2. Mental development/How to create a tulpa?/Host vs Tulpa

So how does this apply to a tulpa? As discussed in section 1, a mind is a neural network made up of countless neural connections. A tulpa is essentially a second mind, though there is some overlap. To create a tulpa is to create a second neural network in much of a similar way that your own mind formed.

When a baby is born, they are not fully aware, independent, or intelligent. There has been much research documenting how their mind progresses, how they become more and more aware of themselves and the world. This is because the brain is making connections and forming the neural network that makes your mind. A child is essentially being ‘forced’ by their parents and their surroundings in a solely external way. A tulpa develops faster because it not only has external stimulation, but internal stimulation and interaction as well. Furthermore, the tulpa can access some the original mind’s network to an extent, using them to develop faster as well. In development, it is important to remember that some parts of the network can be shared – some examples of these would be memories of language, muscle memory, and memories allowing them to identify objects.

Both tulpa and host are minds. Both tulpa and host are connected on an integral mental level. The difference between tulpa and host is that one existed first – it is more firmly rooted, it has stronger control over the body that it has used for a longer time, and it took longer to develop.

 

3. How to kill a mind?

As also discussed in section 1, it is possible for neural connections to decay. Therefore, in order for a mind to die, the entire neural network needs to decay. This is possible, though it would take an extremely long time and could be delayed for other reasons. In order for a neural connection to decay, it needs to not be used. In the case of a mind, this means no stimulation whatsoever, including self-stimulation. In the beginning phase of tulpa creation, this can happen if the host stops giving the tulpa attention. However, once a tulpa gains a fair amount of independence, the tulpa can stimulate itself and keep their own mind from decaying fully. Multiple tulpas can further stimulate each other, and keep themselves from decaying.

 

In a similar vein, this is why tulpas can become ‘lazy’ if they do not receive much interaction for some time. This is why it’s almost always a good idea to say hello to a person’s tulpa and not just them. Board games are another good way of ‘reactivating’ a tulpa or simply increasing their strength of mind.

 

To return to the topic of decay, there are several examples of how it can happen. First of all, regarding Koomer and Oguigi. Koomer created Oguigi as a tulpa, and were attempting to permanently switch. Oguigi had fully accessed the body, but Koomer was stuck in the body. Eventually, Koomer was incapable of controlling his own body, while still being stuck. Second, involving Tess, Kat, and Shard. To quote directly from the lecture:

20:31 <~Pleeb> When Tess came into existance, there were two minds in there, previously. Kat and Shard. Both minds were in 'stasis', of a sort.

20:32 <~Pleeb> During a time of about two years, Tess acknowledegd Shard as still being there,

alive and in stasis. Even know she wasn't having any conscious experineces,

that gave the stimulus needed to keep those networks alive, at least prevented

them from decaying.

20:32 <~Pleeb> Kat on the other hand, was acknoledeged as being dead; gone, removed. That mind

had no stimulus from itslef, and no stimulus from any of the other minds going

to it.

20:33 <~Pleeb> Kat, as a mind, decayed, in the literal sense. And Kat, as a mind, is

nonrecoverable.

 

This is an example of a full decay. It is extremely unlikely to happen, and should not be done deliberately, as doing so is essentially deconstructing a significant portion of the brain – to say nothing of the moral reasons.

 

 

tl;dr for the super-lazies: Your mind is made up of neural connections in the brain which form a neural network. A tulpa is a mind just like yours. Forming a tulpa is similar to developing a skill - forced creation of neural connections through practice and interaction. Both tulpa and host are "forced" at some point during their life in that they receive interaction from the environment. Tulpas likely develop faster because there is more direct interaction and they have access to a neural network that is already formed. If a neural connection is not used for a long time, it will decay. In this way, minds (tulpas and hosts) can 'decay' and 'die'. However, this would take an extremely long time and would not be possible for an external source as long as the mind is self-stimulating - so independent tulpas and hosts cannot 'die' in mind alone unless they literally stop thinking entirely.

 

 

Hopefully this is explained well enough, I did my best! ^_^ Remember, since this is just a summary of the lecture, the lecture has more content. Similarly, since the tl;dr version is a summary of a summary, it only has the raw basics and no examples or full explanations. Don't be a super-lazy. Please. :<

[waffles]

This is a pretty decent summary, although your tldr is tldr in itself.

 

2. Mental development/How to create a tulpa?/Host vs Tulpa

So how does this apply to a tulpa? As discussed in section 1, a mind is a neural network made up of countless neural connections. A tulpa is essentially a second mind, though there is some overlap. To create a tulpa is to create a second neural network in much of a similar way that your own mind formed.

 

Let's talk about this. Firstly, that comparison is not fully apt. While it explains later development quite well, it fails entirely to explain the very beginnings of a tulpa. I'm not sure on this point but a baby's mind is functional but immature at the point of birth - i.e. when stimulation begins. Their mind develops in utero along with the brain itself. So their mind is stimulated by its own processing of stimuli, and without the initial existence of something that can do this, this cannot take place.

 

So the question is where the initial structure of a tulpa comes from. Let's look at language, whereby in learning a language you develop a network for it. In this case the structure is started off by your conscious thought about speaking this language - you have to consciously think about translating and saying things. With practice this becomes more unconscious - i.e. you learn it. So the structure is started off by you performing its function for it consciously, in effect.

 

But the creation process has no equivalent for the conscious part; at least, no universal one: this model shows parroting (when you consider carefully what the tulpa would say personality-wise) to be a stimulus here, but far from everybody has done this. Personality might also do this somewhat, as you consider how your tulpa thinks and sometimes how they would respond to certain situations, but that's not as clear-cut and again not universal. Really, the only common factor is paying attention to your tulpa in some way or another, usually by continuously talking to them. This is not thinking for them. This is, as far as I'm aware, the greatest flaw in using this model to describe tulpas right now.

 

 

I can speculate a bit, though. It's commonly said that expectation that your tulpa will respond helps them to respond faster (note that belief that they are sentient leads to the same thing), and this is by now fairly undisputed I suppose. There are two differing explanations for this as I see it:

firstly that there are essentially latent voices in your head that you would hear if you only listened, and that you tap into these before you solidify something into a tulpa as we usually have them;

secondly that expectation stimulates neural development.

 

The second one is relevant here. It might be because by expecting that they will respond you drive your brain (or unconscious or whatever) to create a response, or work towards one somehow, and this stimulates development. That really is just a guess.

 

 

---

 

 

About what's below that, I'm disinclined to comment on extreme cases just because they tend to go everywhere, but this

20:32 <~Pleeb> During a time of about two years, Tess acknowledegd Shard as still being there,

alive and in stasis. Even know she wasn't having any conscious experineces,

that gave the stimulus needed to keep those networks alive, at least prevented

them from decaying.

is pretty similar to what I was talking about above.

 

Also in the actual log, Asguardian says something funky about sleep

Sleep is a physical necessity, so as you sleep, the tulpa doesn't need to.

which isn't entirely accurate. Tulpas usually don't need sleep but sleep is very much a mental process. That's said right after Pleeb says something else about tulpa memories

[..] I've found that tulpae can sleep, dream, and sometimes have their own long term memory, resulting.

which, assuming that these conclusions were reached solely on tulpas recounting experiences, is unreliable because tulpas' memories can be and are fabricated (to say nothing of host influence and so on). To put it simply, drawing conclusions on the existence or lack of arbitrary memories alone is a bad idea, and this should be applied to what goes on there subsequently.

[SkyeWint]

Hello!

 

This is a pretty decent summary, although your tldr is tldr in itself.

Heh. It's a heck of a lot shorter than the entire article, which is a heck of a lot shorter than the lecture. Maybe I should have put a warning label on the whole thing.

 

Let's talk about this. Firstly, that comparison is not fully apt. While it explains later development quite well, it fails entirely to explain the very beginnings of a tulpa. I'm not sure on this point but a baby's mind is functional but immature at the point of birth - i.e. when stimulation begins. Their mind develops in utero along with the brain itself. So their mind is stimulated by its own processing of stimuli, and without the initial existence of something that can do this, this cannot take place.

Yes, let's talk about this. A baby's brain is functional upon birth, yes. But is the MIND functional? Remember how I had defined a 'mind' at the beginning of the article. Unfortunately, I don't believe that it's possible to determine whether the independent mind is "functional but immature" at the point of birth. Sensory processing obviously is, but sensation and the processing of such is not perception - perception is specific to the independent mind. (also on a less important note, I think that stimulation begins as soon as the brain and body are capable of receiving sensory information - which would be before birth, and obviously a fair time after conception)

 

So the question is where the initial structure of a tulpa comes from. -snip-

Parroting would be *a* stimulus, as would personality forcing. This does not mean that they are the only forms of stimulus. I believe that the initial structure of a tulpa can stem from the shared processes in the brain, similar to how the first (host) mind developed. This is based on what I had previously said, of course, so you could sum up my response as follows:

I think that the shared mental processes develop before birth/stimulation, but the independent mental processes defining an independent mind develop due to stimulation from the environment as well as eventual self-stimulation.

 

There are other examples about this in the lecture which help point this out, though I didn't think they were good enough to include in the summary. One that was particularly popular among people who were checking over the summary was the "feral child" example.

 

I can speculate a bit, though. -snip-

secondly that expectation stimulates neural development.

 

The second one is relevant here. It might be because by expecting that they will respond you drive your brain (or unconscious or whatever) to create a response, or work towards one somehow, and this stimulates development. That really is just a guess.

Well, I must say that I disagree with the first (though I remain open to the possibility). The second is interesting, and based on what I know about how the brain/mind work, I would not be surprised at all if it were true. You could almost call it "subconscious parroting", but I'd rather not as it could raise parrotnoia to absurd levels. And that would be really, really annoying.

 

Also in the actual log, Asguardian says something funky about sleep -snip-

In the summary, I'm summarizing the main logical points so that it can be put into one coherent article that doesn't require excessive amounts of reading. I quoted a few pieces of text mainly because I couldn't think of how to summarize it or because it was a good example. Also because quoting can show that it is actually from the lecture, I suppose. :D

 

Thanks for the response!

[waffles]

Heh. It's a heck of a lot shorter than the entire article, which is a heck of a lot shorter than the lecture. Maybe I should have put a warning label on the whole thing.

The whole thing isn't inordinately long, so I just think that the tldr could be shorter. It doesn't matter though.

 

A baby's brain is functional upon birth, yes. But is the MIND functional?

Most studies show high-level conscious thought to begin around four or five months into development, as far as I'm aware. However, from as soon as they are born they are awake, respond at least reflexively to stimuli, and can learn/recognise faces. Relevant to the discussion, the neural groundwork for processing sensory input consciously is already there, as it is clear that from the moment they are born they do process input in part; this is what would start off development of consciousness.

 

 

I think that stimulation begins as soon as the brain and body are capable of receiving sensory information - which would be before birth, and obviously a fair time after conception

Since the baby is not awake until when (or immediately before) it is born, it's hard to imagine much simulation going on.

 

 

I believe that the initial structure of a tulpa can stem from the shared processes in the brain, similar to how the first (host) mind developed.

What exactly are these 'shared processes'? You might be right in part - the part which I agree with being the first part of your sentence, and through no coincidence sort of what I've previously suggested here and elsewhere. The criterion for these processes is simulation of conscious thought, presumably; I'd name a few candidates then as mechanisms for empathy (i.e. trying to understand how other people think) and the mechanisms for, e.g., who you see in dreams (these might be the same or similar as empathetic mechanisms, or in effect the 'latent head voices').

But such mechanisms do not exist in newborn babies; they lack empathy and do not dream.

 

 

You could almost call it "subconscious parroting", but I'd rather not as it could raise parrotnoia to absurd levels. And that would be really, really annoying.

l think the term is a bit silly in itself, but that doesn't matter. There are more apt applications if someone really wants to use it.

 

 

In the summary, I'm summarizing the main logical points so that it can be put into one coherent article that doesn't require excessive amounts of reading.

This seems like a good place to discuss the discussion itself too (I have done so already but not publicly so that's no good).

[SkyeWint]

Most studies show high-level conscious thought to begin around four or five months into development, as far as I'm aware. However, from as soon as they are born they are awake, respond at least reflexively to stimuli, and can learn/recognise faces. Relevant to the discussion, the neural groundwork for processing sensory input consciously is already there, as it is clear that from the moment they are born they do process input in part; this is what would start off development of consciousness.

Two points here. First, "high-level conscious thought" is a bit of an ambiguous term. Second, the section I bolded is something I would not consider to be part of the independent mind. If that's what you mean as the 'neural groundwork for processing sensory input consciously', then there's no issue. I'm assuming that it's not what you mean, however - and in that case I'm going to have to disagree until "high-level conscious thought" is defined.

 

Since the baby is not awake until when (or immediately before) it is born, it's hard to imagine much simulation going on.

Never said there was much, just that stimulation exists.

 

What exactly are these 'shared processes'? You might be right in part - the part which I agree with being the first part of your sentence, and through no coincidence sort of what I've previously suggested here and elsewhere. The criterion for these processes is simulation of conscious thought, presumably; I'd name a few candidates then as mechanisms for empathy (i.e. trying to understand how other people think) and the mechanisms for, e.g., who you see in dreams (these might be the same or similar as empathetic mechanisms, or in effect the 'latent head voices').

But such mechanisms do not exist in newborn babies; they lack empathy and do not dream.

Some examples of shared processes would be the brain's automatic processing of raw sensory information (such as flipping the image our eyes receive), muscle memory (though this *can* take some work), and - in at the very least a vast majority of cases - conceptual memory (such as the concepts of flowers, gravity, or language).

 

Also, just as somewhat of a side note: This theory might interest you if you haven't read about it, particularly regarding the initial formation of tulpas.

 

This seems like a good place to discuss the discussion itself too (I have done so already but not publicly so that's no good).

Understandable. :)

[waffles]

the section I bolded is something I would not consider to be part of the independent mind. If that's what you mean as the 'neural groundwork for processing sensory input consciously', then there's no issue.

Yeah, basically. I was trying to say that sensory information is processed past the basic level (the situation of the outside world is inferred from it, patterns are identified and remembered), and therefore that the basis for conscious processing is pre-existing.

 

"high-level conscious thought"

Well, let's say self-awareness, or conscious reflection.

 

Never said there was much, just that stimulation exists.

It might well, but I wouldn't think it to be significant compared with what they get after birth.

 

Some examples of shared processes would be the brain's automatic processing of raw sensory information (such as flipping the image our eyes receive), muscle memory (though this *can* take some work), and - in at the very least a vast majority of cases - conceptual memory (such as the concepts of flowers, gravity, or language).

Well, I'm not sure. I can't really see how these processes fit the bill of

simulation of conscious thought

which is the obvious property that would give rise to tulpas. I see what you mean by the comparison to babies, but I don't think that the starting conditions are similar enough; I'm sure you disagree.

 

This theory

I wrote that.

[SkyeWint]

Well, I'm not sure. I can't really see how these processes fit the bill of simulation of conscious thought which is the obvious property that would give rise to tulpas. I see what you mean by the comparison to babies, but I don't think that the starting conditions are similar enough; I'm sure you disagree.

I disagree that the starting conditions aren't similar enough, but I do see your point.

 

I wrote that.

Oh, the irony.

[waffles]

I disagree that the starting conditions aren't similar enough, but I do see your point.

Well, let's define the relevant conditions for each.

 

Babies

• Constant sensory input
  
• Pre-existing function as a precursor to conscious thought - the 'neural groundwork for processing sensory input consciously' that I mentioned earlier
  
• Sensory input is necessarily processed by the precursor
  

 

Tulpas

• Constant internal attention
  
• Internal expectation of response
  
• [potentially] Structure simulating conscious thought
  

 

In short, what we have supposed to be the origin of consciousness in babies does not apply to tulpas; they are stimulated by actual sensory input.