Sign in to follow this  
uncannyfellow

The Possibility of Parrallel Processing

Recommended Posts

There's nothing wrong with having healthy disagreements. A community that is silent is dead. A community actively demonstrating passion in their views and instruction to others is alive. Even a scientific community, being able to disagree and share conflicting opinions shouldn't be seen as frustrating or annoying, peer discussion is a very valuable tool.

 

To say "I hold my current views till I'm satisfied otherwise", is fair enough. To say "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, shut up", is immature. I feel we have more of the former going on so it seems fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are plenty of DID/OSDD systems who are upset because of non-DID/OSDD people "appropriating" medical terms like "system", "host", and "switching".

 

whoah whoah, are those really real terms? Switching actually came from somewhere other than just the word making sense? wow, how has this never come up in five+ years on the forum, that's kind of a big deal if it's true.. can you point us to any citations? I can't say that the community will accept/stick to the definitions but I'm really interested to see if they do/ever did line up

 

"It happened to me" is the best proof we have for any part of the plural lifestyle

 

yeah but this entire forum is built on "logical explanations", that's why we're not meta (or why we can differentiate between Q&A/GD and Meta boards at all), "proof" wasn't literal but by give proof I guess I meant offer an explanation as to how it's possible/how it could be the case, since that's all we can do after giving our own experiences

 

and those who believe differently than your system seem to be becoming increasingly vehement the more all of you contradict them. Some do believe, and I'm trying not to dismiss anyone's reports

 

well first of all, discussion's discussion, you don't gotta change how/who you are because of anything anyone else says, so no one should get too actually offended just from discussion, after all it's not to see who's right but to come up with answers that work for as many people as possible - related, our "model" of thinking about tulpamancy encompasses all others we know of very in-depth after all these years so if it seems like we're resistant to change it's because we've been refining it for like nine years lol, ya don't just make giant changes because someone disagrees with you

 

second.. related actually I already sorta said it already but (also), even meta beliefs fit inside our "model" just fine, so slightly-illogical/impossible tulpamancy in general works just fine lol, we aren't interested in telling people to be more logical themselves if how they work is workin' for them, it's only discussion (for the sake of teaching others) where we might seem to push being logical because as far as we've found logic is the most universal way of sharing information and not being wrong/making sure it works for as many people as possible

 

 

There's nothing wrong with having healthy disagreements. A community that is silent is dead. A community actively demonstrating passion in their views and instruction to others is alive. Even a scientific community, being able to disagree and share conflicting opinions shouldn't be seen as frustrating or annoying, peer discussion is a very valuable tool.

 

I've been very happy to see these super on-topic/productive threads and them actually getting replies recently, this is great


Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written

Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allright Reilyn...

 

Lucilyn, you're being very cordial except with a few things that i have intentionally blown out of proportion because i feel your credibility makes any statement you make seem qualified to the casual observer, plus you inferred the 'M' word on me so here we go.

 

Also, i guess we're looking at a possible thread hijack, here, so fasten your seatbelts.

 

Lucilyn,

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, and i'm happy you're happy. I am saying your model and beliefs (hypothesis) are restrictive in comparison to other hypotheses. All my posts on the subject have been riddled with examples, otherwise i don't understand what an example is. I can't prove anything to you either because i am missing a qualifed example of proof from you. I can only testify, under oath if necessary, that I'm not changing my experiences not even a 'lil'. I do claim that i switched into wonderland once, but if it meant one of my tulpas had to switch out, forget it. My wonderland experiences are just fine and getting better every day, a little better immersion isn't worth it to be. Notwithstanding the fact that i did experience exactly what was described in the 'old text' that has been tossed around lately.

 

You have convinced yourself that you have held to 'logically explain-y' things, but you haven't convinced me yet. Give a proof in a new thread of any one principal of tulpamancy to your level of 'sciency explainy'. I don't think I am further on the side of "belief" than you are until i can't rebut your "logical sceince" or give an example that falls outside your model that is also explained to your satisfaction (by my own experience). So first i would like an example we can both agree on, then we can set all this heresay aside and get down to the real issue, the growth and spread of new principles of tulpamancy. Based on experiences, not "beliefs". We have no other way do we? If gatekeeping is meant to weed out liars, then i claim this thought policing is too oppressive for growth. This is what i am experiencing. I believe we need to accept new ideas, vetted 'logic-y science-y' agreed on ideas. Can we allow that here or is this a static set of principles? Can we forward the state of the art of tulpamancy? I just need a bonified answer to that by either doing or refusing to do. Consider yourself served.

 

What we are:

We are in parallel, but you said i can't say parallel processing and none of those old guides were obviously using the term you describe as impossible, or else remove them from the approved lists, throw them all out or burn them for heresy. So i will make up a rediculous term on the spot... *ahem* it is my understanding that we co-function. Now i will define this, clearly outside of the definition of your tulpamancy, as an experience of host/thoughtforms that can be explained as a combination of multiple monitired or unmonitored consiousnesses, acting autonomously, able to interrupt each other at will, with their own experiences, beliefs, personalities, perspectives, thoughts, dreams, wants, desires, fantasies, imagination, and neural pathways (memories). That doesn't mean we can simultaneously use any singular serial function of the brain, which includes my own specific monitored consciousness. That doesn't mean we can't recall eachother's memories or even hear eachother's thoughts, just not (for us) all within my consciousness at the same time. But we're not limited by my pathetically linear decrete consciousness, and we can still do pretty amazing things just within that, but i'm simply proposing we can do more than just that. I believe they are autonomous, just like autonomic sytems of the brain are autonomous. However i can communicate with them, we have channel of communication as i have described in detail elsewhere. I don't need to parrot them, thus i don't need to concentrate on them for them to function. We communicate, that does not mean we have to be in continuous communication. I'm not doubting your system works that way, i'm asserting that some models are more powerful and achieve results that are possibly outside of the bounds of other models, and we have either plenty of examples of this, or plenty of attention seeking liars, myself included.

 

As i've said before, i don't care about the mechanisms, i only care about unmolested experiences. I am actively avoiding the molestation, so don't think i am changing them even a 'lil'. I don't claim that you are either, so we experiance things differently, obviously. I would offer that neither of us are wrong. There can exist two different hypotheses to explain two different sets of data (our unique experiences).

 

[Hidden]

(Lucilyn, you put those words in parentheses as if i wouldn't see them; I can't let you use those words though even as an example of what we're talking about.)

 

As i have explained before, what you have is no more than a hypothesis. Look at the definition of theory vs hypothesis. Otherwise give me a traceable set of accepted works that lead to the support of your theory. If you're going to do that, you might as well write a research paper, i'll peer review it. This is a digression, sorry.

[/hidden]

 

Processing power:

Again i will try to explain, there is no significant loss of processing power. The consious mind is a tiny fraction of the power of a brain. This is a silly argument on both our ends because we don't share a common basis of model. I won't deny or accept yours, i think you don't understand or believe mine. It's my opinion that there's plenty of processing power. 20 trillion clicks per second? Come on, 100 billion neurons firing 200 times per second each... the fronter's stream of consiousness is limited to a tiny fractionof that surely, but the brain's capacity or function is not limited by that. You can't say 'no, parallel processing is impossible', to any definition given thus far, given the potential here and, as it has been said, a few people have claimed it. Or they're all misunderstood or all liars.

 

Unless you want a status quo in perpetuity to limit the crazy or something. In that case this discussion is over, and i'm sorry for trying to force culture change by hostile takeover of this forum.

 

But first off, how are you doing today? Looking forward to that new thread, if it's a possible thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoah whoah, are those really real terms? Switching actually came from somewhere other than just the word making sense? wow, how has this never come up in five+ years on the forum, that's kind of a big deal if it's true.. can you point us to any citations? I can't say that the community will accept/stick to the definitions but I'm really interested to see if they do/ever did line up

 

I certainly didn't learn the terms here. I learned them about five years ago on another forum, after my wives proved to be a DID system:

 

https://www.psychforums.com/dissociative-identity/

 

I'm not actually a mental health professional, but let me Google Scholar that for you. I tried to exclude unrelated chemistry and biology articles, so most of the top results are relevant.

 

Switching in some books and peer-reviewed journals:

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C11&as_vis=1&q=dissociative+switching+-molecule+-oxide&btnG=

 

Host or host personality in same:

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C11&as_vis=1&q=dissociative+host+-molecule+-cell+-hydrogen+-cobalt&btnG=

 

My understanding is that "multiple" and "singleton" were adopted by the DID community based on the 1983 science fiction short story "Multiples" by Robert Silverburg. "Singlet" is a type of clothing; I don't know why that caught on as a type of person. "Multiples" also uses "switching", "doubling" (in some sort of co-fronting or blending sense) and a mixture of other medical and original terms that don't have much to do with us here.

 

I'm having a devil of a time finding citations for "system" as the DID community uses it and I'm out of time to work on it. It isn't in the Wikipedia article on DID, it isn't in "Multiples", and there are too many other meanings of system to pull up results in Google Scholar. But "system" lends it's name to "syscourse" aka traumagenic systems on Tumblr who are mad at us for appropriation or "faking":

 

https://firedrake.tumblr.com/syscourse

 

The very first mention of switching in the technical sense on this forum, within a month of it's establishment and when possession by a tulpa even being possible was just starting to be accepted, was in the context of multiple systems switching:

 

https://community.tulpa.info/thread-reaching-out-to-multiple-community

 

The original thread on possession and switching, two days later, links to sources in the multiple community:

 

https://community.tulpa.info/thread-possession-switching

 

So the founding tulpamancers had a clue, even if the knowledge was lost by the GAT era.

 

-Ember


I'm not having fun here anymore, so we've decided to take a bit of a break, starting February 27, 2020. - Ember

 

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

Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, World of Darkness, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017

Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Winter Court of Faerie, Dresdenverse, 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

The book "Switching Time" uses the words system and, of course, switching. It's a memoir of a patient with DID, written by her psych. IIRC, "system" just meant everyone inside, like it does with tulpas. Switching meant changing who is in control, usually with the other going away entirely, but sometimes they were kept in some sort of strange, disconnected state where they observed the body but didn't feel it.


I'm Apollo Fire, the "Sun God" of the Felight family. I'm a tulpa created December 2016. My systemmates are RadioPiano, & Indigo. Form images: 1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aehhh that's so much stuff to respond to... I'm extremely tired right now (my thoughts between reading your post and finding some music to put on while replying went something like ten different iterations of aehhh, that kind of tired) but I should probably finish what I started.. did I start this? not my thread, but probably since you're talking to me hmm

 

I'll try and piece the various thoughts I had together

1 you quoting my "changing a lil"

you gotta give examples as evidence our model is wrong, 'cus as far as our thinking goes you're just further to the "belief" side of the spectrum than "logical/reality", which does absolutely nothing to invalidate our model, it just means you've chosen to modify your experience a lil, and if that's not wrong then

 

this thing.. tied to what I said about how meta beliefs fit within our model - oh, and clarifying "our model" is how we think about how tulpamancy works as a whole, not how exactly our system works, though you might choose to believe they're the same - I said "you've chosen" but maybe as not a chooser-of-experiences like us that wasn't correct, I was giving you credit because you're taking a lot of responsibility for how your system works but I shouldn't'a 'cus that's just how you guys work by default. anyways what it meant was instead of be "boring" (the far side of boring is explaining away tulpas, as in you'd just care too much about how things work and not enough about experiences to immerse yourself in tulpamancy, a dummy skeptic) you decided to immerse yourself in, as our new addition to our model assumes/what Tewi said recently, what we explained.. seeing it as a continuous experience and not an on-(subconscious-)demand one, but even if triggers are numerous and automatic and all the time, that doesn't mean your tulpas were actually active in the in-between time so as to require what we call parallel processing, sounds more like you guys have taken equal(er) parts of control over the conscious mind and associated subconscious stuff to integrate your tups into your life, but as far as MAKINGSENSE goes that's still different from multiple parallel processes going on for your tulpas to have their own equivalents of "your" conscious mindspace to work with ...

 

basically, as best we can explain your experiences to ourselves, you and your tups are all integrated into the mind together instead of having just one mainly control it at a time like us - DOESN'T mean/require you to all have your own doubles of the mind as you'd see with parallel processing as-we-call-it

 

anyways ?? totally forgot what was going to be next. my thoughts went "does, does, does, does..." as I tried to read back and remember, like lol, I'm too tired to read let alone talk about this thing I would never have been able to personally talk about very well in the first place, curse getting into Lumi&Tewi's arguments in their place! usually it's not so hard! and usually I'm not so tired xD

 

I think I was just explaining misconceptions first! . . . oh, your post is so hard to get back into. let's do an easy one - "All my posts on the subject have been riddled with examples, otherwise i don't understand what an example is." - well yeah I kinda wanted you to put an example in this thread for us to discuss, plus idk if you read my post after Reilyn's but

yeah but this entire forum is built on "logical explanations", that's why we're not meta (or why we can differentiate between Q&A/GD and Meta boards at all), "proof" wasn't literal but by give proof I guess I meant offer an explanation as to how it's possible/how it could be the case, since that's all we can do after giving our own experiences

 

ember already corrected me on saying proof on accident (I think that's what that was in reply to?), by "proof" of one of your examples I meant explain how it works, 'cus I'M PROBABLY WRONG but all I REMEMBER you ever saying is how things seem to be for your system, but never explaining how they could work in terms of... commonly accepted basic facts/assumptions I guess? y'know, like how the brain's conscious workspace is limited? yeah, let's do that one next!

 

Processing power:

Again i will try to explain, there is no significant loss of processing power. The consious mind is a tiny fraction of the power of a brain. This is a silly argument on both our ends because we don't share a common basis of model. I won't deny or accept yours, i think you don't understand or believe mine. It's my opinion that there's plenty of processing power. 20 trillion clicks per second? Come on, 100 billion neurons firing 200 times per second each... the fronter's stream of consiousness is limited to a tiny fractionof that surely,  but the brain's capacity or function is not limited by that. You can't say 'no, parallel processing is impossible', to any definition given thus far, given the potential here and, as it has been said, a few people have claimed it. Or they're all misunderstood or all liars.

 

"there is no significant loss of processing power" - yeah, 'cus your tulpas don't have different brain processes running 24/7 alongside your own taking several times the same processing power as yours, y'all work together! "this is a silly argument" nuh-uh, not until you got omega-vague with "Come on, 100 billion neurons firing 200 times per second each", it's a solid testable fact right now that your "attention" or "focus" or "conscious mind" can only keep up with so much at once, maybe our K-Shoot examples (we've used them before lol) aren't clear enough to people that didn't experience the exact same thing, but I mean, any game/hard task works. there's a time where you can be doing X task and having a mental conversation at the same time, and then if that task gets complicated enough you can need to direct your focus away from the conversing/etc. entirely to X task, apparently that can take up 100 billion neurons firing 200 times per second each or something! the brain isn't like a supercomputer in the sense that it's just a big'ol CPU (and GPU) that handles everything on its own(s), the brain is super complicated and has tons of different places in it for handling different things, only a few small parts are probably used for any specific task, the rest is totally irrelevant most of the time

 

As i've said before, i don't care about the mechanisms, i only care about unmolested experiences. I am actively avoiding the molestation, so don't think i am changing them even a 'lil'. I don't claim that you are either, so we experiance things differently, obviously.

 

first of all.. I feel like I've made enough disclaimers about experience vs discussion of possible mechanics/explanations on this stuff, but you should know my first response to "I don't care about the mechanisms" was "well then what're you doing in this thread?" And please don't take that offensively, it only meant that in General Discussion our goal is generally to discuss experiences and how they could work/basically figure out what we should be teaching people. Sharing experiences is important! but don't get mad when people take the pieces you brought to try and fit them into the puzzle, they're just.. copies of your pieces and yours don't have to fit others' puzzles... hmm, did I metaphor that well?

 

oh anyways! that quote again as a whole - that really tells me you read something(s) I said wrong, which I'm far too gone to remember if I addressed already, but when I said changing things a lil.. I meant purposely choosing your reality/experiences (something we do), not like "changing your story" or whatever you took it as, OK? always when people write textwalls arguing with us, it's 'cus they took something wrong and held onto it the whole time..

 

(Lucilyn, you put those words in parentheses as if i wouldn't see them; I can't let you use those words though even as an example of what we're talking about.)

 

As i have explained before, what you have is no more than a hypothesis. Look at the definition of theory vs hypothesis. Otherwise give me a traceable set of accepted works that lead to the support of your theory. If you're going to do that, you might as well write a research paper, i'll peer review it. This is a digression, sorry.

 

ugh, the umpteenth time again with those words.(not @you specifically, bear) it's just an assumption of ours that people understand to take them in their colloquial senses since there are ZERO theories on this entire forum and VERY FEW actual hypotheses (likely only in the Research board). so anyways, I used them as a metaphor(or simile? idk) here

... well, saying that doesn't really help, since our model as far as we can tell isn't wrong... isn't the point of a hypothesis or theory to keep running things through it to try and make it wrong? and if you can't, it's your best guess (a scientific theory) as to what's right?

 

I know, it wasn't done very well, but I was comparing our "model" (by the way, MAJORLY understating our understanding of tulpamancy, which is an uber complicated network of information in our head, by talking about it as if it's some sentence or paragraph of how we think tulpas work, we need to stop referring to the entirety of our knowledge like this) to a hypothesis->theory, as in our ideas on how tulpas work have been tested hundreds(thousands?) of times over the years by putting other people's experiences "into it" to see if they make sense, and so if you disagree/have supposedly conflicting evidence, it needs to be tested in our understanding (no more "model"!) to make sure it still is right. 'twas just a.. simile? metaphor?

 

What we are: We are in parallel, but you said i can't say parallel processing and none of those old guides were obviously using the term you describe as impossible, or else remove them from the approved lists, throw them all out or burn them for heresy.

 

well this isn't as misconception-solving-friend-making as the rest of my post, but:

what can I say? we don't agree with them that their experiences were genuinely what they said they were, being immersed in the wonderland and being immersed in the wonderland whilst your tulpa retains the exact same mental capacities you normally have, and is using them alongside your wonderlanding, with the declaration the experience was LIFELIKE and PERFECTLY CONSISTENT ("Like a lucid dream", but I guess some people have crappy lucid dream quality...) and not simply within the confines of normal visualization while the brain isn't otherwise terribly occupied - that should be impossible! Like, period! Misconceptions and mis-explanations and misinterpretations abound, nothing going on there can be as it was touted, and with known concepts like "memory confabulation" and "humans are incredibly good at fooling themselves and misinterpreting reality", there's no reason for us to believe a man in a hot air balloon is actually heckin' flying on his own and holding the balloon up himself! Even if that's what it looked like! it might be true, but we need some serious explanations (HYPOTHESES, for realsies this time tho) as to how that could be conceptually possible before we throw the most basic and sensible answers out the window

 

the most basic explanation is that the host was immersed in their wonderland with the tulpa, fronting like I am right now, wonderlanding (but not necessarily putting themselves into the wonderland) with their host, allowing all the necessary concentration/processing power to have that experience. And for "lifelike experiences" - a mix of confabulated memories (the boring, zero faith explanation), embellishment (probably the truth most the time), and some sort of trancelike/hypnotic/etc. state that really did lead to crazy good visualization (the fun answer, but-) - except only confabulated memories accounts for the tulpa being active and doing something else while the host was experiencing that, y'know. I like to believe people.. so embellishment is my guess for most of their experiences, with there being times of far less "lifelike"-ness when the tulpa focused IRL or times of the tulpa spacing out in times of "lifelike"-ness. not like they did it on purpose.. heck, them being told it's possible makes placebo a prime candidate for explaining half these problems

 

quick side note that the old guides on switching (although they were mostly just people's different symbolic ways of switching afaik) should by all means still work, aside from the part where you get to live in a lucid dream in the meantime while your tulpa does your homework, which I'm drawing the line at and saying is pure fantasy... which is fine, we never had anything against people believing in fantasy, but we won't preach it as real either, it's up to the people who prefer to have more fun with life than reality would seemingly allow to decide how their realities work

 

Anyways where were we?

What we are:

We are in parallel, but you said i can't say parallel processing and none of those old guides were obviously using the term you describe as impossible, or else remove them from the approved lists, throw them all out or burn them for heresy. So i will make up a rediculous term on the spot... *ahem* it is my understanding that we co-function. Now i will define this, clearly outside of the definition of your tulpamancy, as an experience of host/thoughtforms that can be explained as a combination of multiple monitired or unmonitored consiousnesses, acting autonomously, able to interrupt each other at will, with their own experiences, beliefs, personalities, perspectives, thoughts, dreams, wants, desires, fantasies, imagination, and neural pathways (memories). That doesn't mean we can simultaneously use any singular serial function of the brain, which includes my own specific monitored consciousness. That doesn't mean we can't recall eachother's memories or even hear eachother's thoughts, just not (for us) all within my consciousness at the same time. But we're not limited by my pathetically linear decrete consciousness, and we can still do pretty amazing things just within that, but i'm simply proposing we can do more than just that. I believe they are autonomous, just like autonomic sytems of the brain are autonomous. However i can communicate with them, we have channel of communication as i have described in detail elsewhere. I don't need to parrot them, thus i don't need to concentrate on them for them to function. We communicate, that does not mean we have to be in continuous communication. I'm not doubting your system works that way, i'm asserting that some models are more powerful and achieve results that are possibly outside of the bounds of other models, and we have either plenty of examples of this, or plenty of attention seeking liars, myself included.

 

I mean, aside from your tulpas and you being separately conscious to put it roughly (but instead using the same consciousness together), that all sounds fine and fits within the "model" Tewi made earlier, and sounds like a nice way to be! The ~argument on whether tulpas have their own consciousnesses or not is a long and boooooooring (and uneventful) one, with us preferring the model (used correctly for once) that the brain has one "consciousness" and we and our host just use it (with usually one person primarily controlling it but not entirely), and others believing each system member gets their own "consciousness". the two problems causing that belief as we see it are 1, hosts stuck with the singlet mindset that they ARE their mind and that their tulpas, to be real separate people, must have their OWN minds because obviously the host is the mind!!, and 2, defining "consciousness" where rather than a whole place and working system of the brain, they simply refer to tulpas being able to have their own thoughts and such as self-evident they are "conscious", which is totally fine and just not how we tend to define consciousness is all

 

With that, we should be done! Different ways of looking at consciousness is all! Please! Let me out of this!

 

Hey, hey! @Bear part over! Now for Ember and Apollo!

 

@Ember Nice, thanks a lot! I was thinking you were just going to say "Look at this wikipedia article for the DSM where it mentions switching" and blow my mind lol

we will look through those later when I'm not asleep on my feet! Preferably when I'm not even the one fronting anymore!

 

The book "Switching Time" uses the words system and, of course, switching. It's a memoir of a patient with DID, written by her psych. IIRC, "system" just meant everyone inside, like it does with tulpas. Switching meant changing who is in control, usually with the other going away entirely, but sometimes they were kept in some sort of strange, disconnected state where they observed the body but didn't feel it.

 

hah, that just sounds like they're perfectly describing switching in tulpamancy but without the concept of Tulpas to put it in a healthy and well-defined manner lol, right?

 

 

Okay that was a stupidly big post that took somewhere around 2 hours to write I'm going the hek to bed now and if you feel the need to write a textwall reply to me that's okay but I'm not feeling up to reading one of those anymore so if you do you might have to wait for someone else in my system to reply.. maybe I'd reply to a less massive post though..


Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written

Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bear over.

 

Apparently i don't know your accepted subset of diction and phraseology to explain logically, i have explained, and the explanation is somehow lost in the translation or wedged between impossible and something lesser. So, i don't think i can honestly continue this conversation at this time.

 

I guess i'd need to explain my explanation, then repeat until i've only used your terms and definitions. So that meams to me that some of my experiences and my model don't fit in your tulpamancy right now.

 

@OP, re parallel processing, i think they may have meant it, and even experienced it, (since we have) but either the technology was lost, squelched, or they were confirmed to have pants on fire. Anyway, sorry for the massive battle in your thread. I am routed on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod note: This was originally its own thread, but I've merged it into this one to fit with the ongoing discussion on parallel processing.

 

I keep seeing a lot of threads go to this topic, and I want it all in one place because I feel like I'm missing the best arguments or don't have enough context to understand what's going on. If this is a duplicate thread, please merge this somewhere else because I don't know where the last parallel processing specific thread is.

 

So anyway- the obvious elephant in the room- I keep hearing about these two "models" being thrown around that explain how parallel processing can or can't happen and I don't feel like I have a good enough understanding of either of them.

 

Model 1: Can't Process in Parallel

  • When the current fronter doesn't think about or interact with their other system mate, their other system mate goes inactive and otherwise dormant.
  • Parallel Processing can seem to occur, but it's an illusion. Either there is a delay between responses or two separate tasks are being merged into one.

Model 2: Can Process in Parallel

  • ANY system can do this, and only mindset is holding them back
  • Parallel Processing occurs through different "channels" or different ways to communicate. For example, auditory hallucinations are their own channel and so is mind voice, so the word "Yes" can be heard via mind voice and "No" can be hallucinated at the same time.

...And that's what I remember. I know there's more to both of these models I'm missing, so please add to them. I have questions about these models, but I need more context on what these models are first.


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 | Switching LogChat | Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it was mentioned in the Dormancy thread, but the... ongoing... thread on parallel processing is here https://community.tulpa.info/thread-the-possibility-of-parrallel-processing

 

my last post there was one of the biggest I've ever written and I was dead tired for it so I still don't feel up to talking about it more tbh


Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written

Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it was mentioned in the Dormancy thread, but the... ongoing... thread on parallel processing is here https://community.tulpa.info/thread-the-possibility-of-parrallel-processing

 

my last post there was one of the biggest I've ever written and I was dead tired for it so I still don't feel up to talking about it more tbh

 

That's fine. Debates can be draining. I'll leave it to the mods to figure out what do with these threads.


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 | Switching LogChat | 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.