Lia's Chart/Road Towards Imposition.

[Goldsmith]

 

Lia described this chart to me as what she learned about the way information is exchanged in the brain. Any imposed tuppers who want to make a comment on it please feel free to do so.

[Winter]

How exactly did Lia come to these conclusions? Are these just her subjective perceptions, or her opinion on objective reality?

[412]

well , it looks right to me. kinda how i imagined the whole thing to work as well

[Chupi]

How exactly did Lia come to these conclusions? Are these just her subjective perceptions, or her opinion on objective reality?

 

She went and examined his sensory streams for a few days, trying to trace them as far as she could. (from IRC drama of a couple days ago)

[mouse_]

This makes perfect sense. Everyone's aware that an imposed tulpa can block your line of sight, correct? That probably means that the connection between the conscious mind and the real world (decoder) has been severed or ignored (or else you could see through them), and you're looking at the world through the subconscious's lens (after the edits).

 

I've just got one question for Lia: Is Goldsmith's connection to the decoder the only thing that distinguishes you from him?

 

Or is his connection to the mental world weaker as well? I'm wondering if his connection to the mental world could be developed into all-out living there like you do.

[Chupi]

This makes perfect sense. Everyone's aware that an imposed tulpa can block your line of sight, correct? That probably means that the connection between the conscious mind and the real world (decoder) has been severed or ignored (or else you could see through them), and you're looking at the world through the subconscious's lens (after the edits).

 

I'd think this would introduce delays or slightly change the overall appearance of vision, which nobody has reported. I suspect things are being injected late in the decoder, or in the line from it to the conscious. That or the ignore-and-use-subconscious thing is being applied only selectively, in parts where the tulpa or imposed objects lie.

 

Irish reports being able to force his tulpae transparent if he needs to see through them and they won't move. This means he still has conscious control over which input he's seeing. So at least for him it's quite possibly just a question of becoming very used to paying attention to the input from the subconscious over the decoder, which is the opposite of what normal people do.

[Aviar]

This makes perfect sense. Everyone's aware that an imposed tulpa can block your line of sight, correct? That probably means that the connection between the conscious mind and the real world (decoder) has been severed or ignored (or else you could see through them), and you're looking at the world through the subconscious's lens (after the edits).

 

I've just got one question for Lia: Is Goldsmith's connection to the decoder the only thing that distinguishes you from him?

 

Or is his connection to the mental world weaker as well? I'm wondering if his connection to the mental world could be developed into all-out living there like you do.

 

Block your line of sight? You mean see it? All that means is that you have altered the sensory information through some internal process. I've discussed vizualizations with others, and it is an understood process (hallucinations and pseudohallucinations). Nothing is being 'severed' or even really ignored, you are altering your perceptions mentally through what is akin to imagination. It is also not looking through the subconcious's lens (assuming subconcious here is a synonym for Unconcious), otherwise you would not see anything that makes sense.

 

To explain Irish's 'phenomenon' the concious can override Unconcious responses or alterations if they person conciouslly can identify and acknowledge them.

 

Furthermore, memories are stored within a Preconcious. If memories were what we could access from the subconcious interpretation of decoded signals, it would make no sense. The subconcious works on feelings, desires and tend to be interpreted in a highly symbological form (the standard dream, for example, is generally considered to be a concious interpretation of subconcious desires, feelings and trauma). If you are trying to explain why we remember certain things and not others in a long term basis, yes, then the subconcious may come into play, as the amount of emotional impact becomes a factor.

[mouse_]

Block your line of sight? You mean see it? All that means is that you have altered the sensory information through some internal process. I've discussed vizualizations with others, and it is an understood process (hallucinations and pseudohallucinations). Nothing is being 'severed' or even really ignored, you are altering your perceptions mentally through what is akin to imagination. It is also not looking through the subconcious's lens (assuming subconcious here is a synonym for Unconcious), otherwise you would not see anything that makes sense.

 

I wouldn't think the sensory information itself has been altered, nor that 'you' are the one doing it. Otherwise it would take conscious effort (using 'you' to denote the conscious - not sure about ownership of unconscious or preconscious) . And if you can't see behind your tulpa, then (assuming the chart is accurate -- the conscious receives raw decodings) it's pretty safe to say that the decoder -> conscious data stream is being at least partly (but probably not completely - thanks Chupi) ignored.

 

sorry about parenthesis.

 

To explain Irish's 'phenomenon' the concious can override Unconcious responses or alterations if they person conciouslly can identify and acknowledge them.

 

True - but perhaps the alterations are always there, we just have to learn to stop overriding them. Personal anecdote - I'm messing around with imposition to break the monotony. I can never see them while I'm imposing, but if I look back on the memory of that moment they are always there as clearly as the rest of the memory. I'd like to hear other's experiences with this as well to make sure I'm not just making stuff up. I'm convinced that I'm suppressing them automatically, but the memories show what was happening on the subconscious's end at the time. Assuming, again, the chart is right.

 

Furthermore, memories are stored within a Preconcious. If memories were what we could access from the subconcious interpretation of decoded signals, it would make no sense. The subconcious works on feelings, desires and tend to be interpreted in a highly symbological form (the standard dream, for example, is generally considered to be a concious interpretation of subconcious desires, feelings and trauma). If you are trying to explain why we remember certain things and not others in a long term basis, yes, then the subconcious may come into play, as the amount of emotional impact becomes a factor.

 

Preconscious is a bit outdated. I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but perhaps your 'Preconscious' is just a shallower area of the subconscious? Our understanding of the subconscious is really bad, anyway, and referring to Freud probably isn't our best bet.

 

Besides, Jung's psychology is based off of experiences like this. I believe it lends some credibility to Lia...

[Aviar]

 

I wouldn't think the sensory information itself has been altered, nor that 'you' are the one doing it. Otherwise it would take conscious effort (using 'you' to denote the conscious - not sure about ownership of unconscious or preconscious) . And if you can't see behind your tulpa, then (assuming the chart is accurate -- the conscious receives raw decodings) it's pretty safe to say that the decoder -> conscious data stream is being at least partly (but probably not completely - thanks Chupi) ignored.

 

sorry about parenthesis.

 

 

True - but perhaps the alterations are always there, we just have to learn to stop overriding them. Personal anecdote - I'm messing around with imposition to break the monotony. I can never see them while I'm imposing, but if I look back on the memory of that moment they are always there as clearly as the rest of the memory. I'd like to hear other's experiences with this as well to make sure I'm not just making stuff up. I'm convinced that I'm suppressing them automatically, but the memories show what was happening on the subconscious's end at the time. Assuming, again, the chart is right.

 

 

Preconscious is a bit outdated. I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but perhaps your 'Preconscious' is just a shallower area of the subconscious? Our understanding of the subconscious is really bad, anyway, and referring to Freud probably isn't our best bet.

 

Besides, Jung's psychology is based off of experiences like this. I believe it lends some credibility to Lia...

First of all, 'you' are the Unconcious, Preconcious and Subconcious (in standard Freudian model). A person breathes without concious effort, and can even react to information without concous effort (instinctual or through conditioning), does that mean that is not you doing it? As to ignoring a part of the data stream, one still recieves all the 'data' from the stream. From there, one processes what one wants from it (usually what one is paying attention to) and discards the rest (I don't believe people are walking memory banks that can store perfect copies of everything they have ever sensed).

 

As to the alteration, it depends what you mean alterations. Yes, the subconcious constantly influences your thoughts and actions, but the Concious hardly ever realizes it (when was the last time you stopped to think why you may like ). If you allow me to give you a completely uneducated and unresearched hypothesis on what you are experiencing, I would guess it is simply because you have problems with external signals. Closing your eyes allows you to focus on only the necessary details and facets.

 

Finally, the subconcious does not exist, at least not in psychology (it is too ambiguous). Also, what does the possibility of him having him had experience with tulpae do for his credibility?

[mouse_]

First of all, 'you' are the Unconcious, Preconcious and Subconcious (in standard Freudian model). A person breathes without concious effort, and can even react to information without concous effort (instinctual or through conditioning), does that mean that is not you doing it?

Short answer? Yes. That is not you.

 

Long answer: You are the conscious mind. You are a product of the subconscious mind (from here on out I use this term to mean 'everything underneath that is not self-aware') that does not need to, and doesn't always, exist. The subconscious is there first. You are created later. There are examples of humans that have managed to survive to adolescence without gaining self-awareness:

 

A final characteristic shared by the feral children was that they seemed somehow to lack memory and self-awareness. As the detailed accounts of Bonnaterre, Itard and Singh make clear, the thoughts of Victor and the wolf-girls were limited to the world of the here and now. They could make simple associations and learn to recognise familiar people and situations. But they seemed unable to reflect on the past or the future, or to have any insight into their own plight.

 

There is also another theory floating around that suggests that until about 3000 years ago, nobody was conscious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

 

The reason I'm telling you this is that the argument can go no further on Freudian theories. You do not have a subconscious. If anything, the subconscious has you.

 

As to ignoring a part of the data stream, one still recieves all the 'data' from the stream. From there, one processes what one wants from it (usually what one is paying attention to) and discards the rest (I don't believe people are walking memory banks that can store perfect copies of everything they have ever sensed).

 

agree

 

As to the alteration, it depends what you mean alterations. Yes, the subconcious constantly influences your thoughts and actions, but the Concious hardly ever realizes it (when was the last time you stopped to think why you may like ). If you allow me to give you a completely uneducated and unresearched hypothesis on what you are experiencing, I would guess it is simply because you have problems with external signals. Closing your eyes allows you to focus on only the necessary details and facets.

 

Eh...might not be on the same page here. W/e

 

Finally, the subconcious does not exist, at least not in psychology (it is too ambiguous). Also, what does the possibility of him having him had experience with tulpae do for his credibility?

My bad on terminology, but it's the popular thing around here. I brought up Jung because a lot of modern psychology is founded on tulpa-like experiences -- I believe we should take Lia's observations (with their similarity to Jung's), at the very least, more seriously than Freud of all people.

 

But...I'm off topic and I'm gonna stop, at least until Lia is able to answer my questions from earlier :)