Sign in to follow this  
uncannyfellow

The Possibility of Parrallel Processing

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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]

 

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.

 

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

[/Quote]

 

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.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While reading about Vos talking about her parallel processing experiences on Discord, I feel like I had an "ah ha!" moment: What if basic parallel processing is... not an ability?

When I struggled with possession, one of the main things that irritated me was losing the front by feeling as if my words were being replaced with hers, and then Cat realizing she was back in control. That wasn't me fighting Cat in the greater sense, it was more like fighting a simulated version of her. Cat was inactive. Not paying attention, in a trance. However, I still lost the front to her, but she never tried to take it from me in the first place? It felt like Cat was in multiple places at once, and this was really frustrating for me.

 

This effect is similar to the Bear's body OS in some ways, but I will call it personality simulating here. The brain pulls up "personality data" of a headmate and reacts to outside stimulus or thoughts in the mind outside of the headmate's awareness. This happens to singlets too. If someone has a consistent opinion about something, such as loving BBQ chips, they may think "I love BBQ chips!" in reaction to seeing a bag at the store, but they are unaware they thought that in the first place. Another example is imagine a debate where someone hasn't had enough time to formulate their response, much less listen to the other person. As a result, they start to spew out their talking points to keep up with the quick pace, but they didn't require any complex thought to create those talking points, and they didn't rehearse the night before. After the debate, the person can't help but think someone shoved words into their mouth, but they know it was ultimately them standing there debating.

 

I believe personality simulating becomes easier to recognize simply by being plural. I and Cat have "I" labels to our thoughts that include things like mindvoice and presence. If a thought is spoken in Cat's voice, then it's assumed Cat is the culprit of that thought, or at least it came from Cat's opinions and beliefs, her mindset. Due to this separation, thoughts that are not mine stand out. So when I'm possessing the body and I hear Cat reacting to thoughts floating around in the mind, I realize "wait, I didn't say that" and get irritated.

 

What if we had a third headmate who was more active and fronted often, leading to the brain simulating them? Let's say I'm doing my own thing switched-in, taking up the mind's awareness by doing laundry. I'm well aware I'm doing laundry, but it's not a focus intensive task and my mind wanders. I think about stuff I usually think about, but I also occasionally let the mind drift to the subject of Cat and this other headmate. Let's say this triggers brain simulation and Cat gets simulated and so does this third headmate. (Note: Cat has heard me get simulated when she was switched-in.) If the thoughts in the mind change, Cat may start to react to the thoughts about the third headmate. The third headmate is aroused, so the brain simulates them responding back. It goes back and forth, and then I notice the thoughts only to realize I was missing out on a little side conversation I wasn't a part of. Could that be parallel processing?

If this is the case, I think that opens the door to lots of questions. Is this what asmask meant by simultaneity/internal narrator? Is this process exclusively unconscious, or have people developed this into something more? Does confabulation still apply?

I'm curious what you guys think.


I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love Hippos! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.

My other head-mates have their own account now.

Temporary Log | Chat | Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly you lost me in the paragraph about three headmates and I don't get how this relates to parallel processing at all (at what point was more than one system member thinking/working at the same time? the body's just on autopilot isn't it? and a back-and-forth conversation is already universally accomplished to begin with)

 

It seems more relevant to issues with identity and learning to switch, where re/affirming that you're the one in the front, thinking your own thoughts and all, is important (and either becomes unnecessary or unconscious/automatic with practice)

Edited by Luminesce

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personality simulation I know. When running a roleplaying game, I may have several important long-established NPCs in a scene, so I try to load all of their personalities into working memory at once so that they can all act as authentically as possible. It's a strain, but I can do three much better now than I could do two four years ago.

 

When thinking about our merges, it is very easy to think very vividly of what they might say if they were present. It is very easy to fall into simulating them accidentally if thinking about them.

 

We've spoken on several previous occasions about ingrained habits and beliefs feeling like the host or expressing attitudes like the host when the host is actually switched out and possibly dormant. That is more of an automated process, unlike the person-driven personality simulation in the previous two examples.

 

I can't relate to spewing out talking points without thinking them through. I learned very early in life to think carefully before I speak. I don't need to speak as much or as quickly as someone else if I invest every word with power.

 

Unlike thinking about a merge or character, thinking about a headmate doesn't result in a stream of thought that is like them but from me. Thinking about a headmate rouses the headmate, and then they may respond however they like without me having any influence over their thoughts or any ability to predict what they will do. As likely than not, they'll change the subject entirely if they weren't involved before.

 

Regarding asmask -- "inner narrator" just means a person's verbalized thought stream. (I think it's a terrible name for that.) Simultaneity includes activity that is entirely outside the perceptions of the fronter. So neither seems particularly relevant to fronter-driven personality simulation.

 

-Ember


Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]

Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017

Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

 

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 7:54 PM, Luminesce said:

Honestly you lost me in the paragraph about three headmates and I don't get how this relates to parallel processing at all (at what point was more than one system member thinking/working at the same time? the body's just on autopilot isn't it? and a back-and-forth conversation is already universally accomplished to begin with)

 

The idea was if this could be parallel processing, or at the very least confused for it. The point of the 3 headmates example was to illustrate a host picking up on little bits of their tulpa's conversation they were not fully aware of and then conclude they were parallel processing. This combined with confabulation could make a host believe they and their tulpas parallel process.

 

I also wondered if this was an important ingredient to lead to parallel process down the road. Here, a conversation can be performed unconsciously outside of the hosts's awareness. This meets the check mark for happening at the same time more or less, and it seems relatable to other people's claims.

 

The flaw is one process is conscious while the other ones are unconscious, and the latter is uncontrollable. I believe the goal of parallel processing is to have separate conscious entities speaking at once, not for an unconscious simulated side conversation to take place. The only thing this suggests is separation can occur.


I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love Hippos! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.

My other head-mates have their own account now.

Temporary Log | Chat | Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.