Sign in to follow this  
uncannyfellow

The Possibility of Parrallel Processing

Recommended Posts

You may actually have hit on something new. There are some references to oxygen deprivation (bad, unhelpful) in the forum archives, but I don't see any to oxygen supplementation. It could be difficult to obtain affordable, quality, convenient, non-prescription oxygen, but recreational oxygen and oxygen concentrators are available if anyone wants to experiment and tell us about it.

 

It seems odd that more atmospheric oxygen would help when I maintain 98-100% SpO2 whatever I do, but perhaps those whose cognition is helped by it aren't able to stay that high unassisted. But our personal experiences and our inability to deduce a mechanism doesn't overrule the several studies of cognition versus oxygen level. It's possible that cognition improves from greater oxygen availability even if the brain isn't consuming more oxygen. Or even if the blood isn't absorbing more oxygen, because it's already saturated. The actual cause goes beyond what pure "wear the the tubes and take the tests" studies can show.

 

Kindly do not engage in saturating yourself with oxygen, especially molecular (pure) oxygen till you have studied fully the concept of "Oxygen Toxicity" and "hyperoxia", which it causes. You risk hyperventilation, seizures, cell damage, lung damage, loss of consciousness and potential brain damage. You do you but know the risks first and probably don't engage in such a thing alone or unsupervised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

While the dangers of low-dose oxygen administration of 30 - 40 % under normal pressure can be considered minimal for a healthy person, it's not really feasible and far too expensive. Most recreational oxygenation stuff is overpriced snake oil and don't even think about mixing chemicals to release oxygen on your own!

 

The most interesting aspect of the paper posted was that there seem to be varying effects of O2 administration on different mental tasks as noted in the intro. But the study itself was done with only 20 students who did the calculations twice with both 21% and 40% O2 1h later. Not exactly the ideal setup. It does however show that administering 40% O2 increased average blood saturation by about 1% which is significant and that students seem to deliver less terrible math results under the highest blood saturation levels.

 

Well, what does all of this mean for forcing?

Ido's simple and free advice:

Don't waste money on gimmicks and make sure you have proper ventilation for fresh clean air with low CO2 levels instead. That's even more important than O2, your cognitive function will suffer considerably at 1000+ ppm CO2 which can frequently occur indoors with bad ventilation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892924/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548274/

 

Yet two more 20-participant studies for the poor. I wish they'd up such experiments to at least a 100 for more solid statistics. That's absolutely feasible

 

 

A good breathing technique and physical exercise to increase your cardio-respiratory function will also help you much more than artificially raised O2 levels. Plus it costs nothing and improves your overall health.


Super Girls don't cry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an 02 RX. Insufficient data to say how exactly it effects me as far as parallel processing goes.

 

I use it for cluster headaches and it helps. Are my headaches cause by overclocking my wetware? I don't know. I have tracked some correlation between headaches/fatigue and cofronting and/or lots of switching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More processing power is a bold, if welcome, claim and not one Jade would have been able to provide documentation on, true or not.

 

Which video? I don't see where parallel processing got its own:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20180118155200/https://www.youtube.com/user/ExtraExtrapie/videos

 

It was day 4 of two weeks to switch, I think?

 

The most interesting aspect of the paper posted was that there seem to be varying effects of O2 administration on different mental tasks as noted in the intro. But the study itself was done with only 20 students who did the calculations twice with both 21% and 40% O2 1h later. Not exactly the ideal setup. It does however show that administering 40% O2 increased average blood saturation by about 1% which is significant and that students seem to deliver less terrible math results under the highest blood saturation levels.

 

I picked that study because math problems seemed the most relevant to our purposes, but it's not hard to find studies showing that increasing oxygen bolsters memory and reaction times, and that these effects hold for old people (as most of these studies rely on college students). I haven't even looked at the research on how brain oxygen causes/can cure certain disorders. A sample size of 20 is bad for a lone study, but the effect is so well-established it doesn't bother me. If you're really super skeptical, I could look for a meta-analysis/literature review, though that feels like a waste of time.

 

Preword: Let's pause and think a moment in the name of constructive cooperation before we continue.

 

Premise:

Some verbiage connotations are not constructive, experiential interpretation is a personal matter (belief system model) not exclusionary such that you must be special to avhieve it, and underlying it all, dividing attention and separation of attentions are two different things.

 

Verbiage:

Statements that presume that if you can parallel process, then certainly you can do two separate math problems at the same time, or read a book while writing poetry; it seem overly restrictive.

 

Parallel processing has taken on a very harsh and substantially impossible set of connotations such that it becomes arguably silly and any previous use of the words negates the credibility of previous documentation authors. I am arguing that the interpretation of the meaning or connotation has possibly changed, so this debate thus far is akin to saying parallel processing is possible like a world ending asteroid is possible, rather than, in what ways could it be possible? (Which is what i'm trying to do, but maybe i'm wrong in my agenda?)

 

Perhaps it comes down to arbitrary semantics. I guess we're having fun, right? Isn't this conversation fun? Oh god. Which is why it's offensive to me that previous documentation is defaced and debaced and those authors are called out as heritics, conflabulators and liars based on changes in current thinking. (Models)

 

It seems unconstructive to detract from the possibility by arguing short unsupported devil's advocate style quips, or to argue the experientially exclusionary nature of a connotatively impossible notion, and double down on that by discrediting the community knowledge and history.

 

I'm genuinely confused here. The first quote seems to suggest that the old usage of parallel processing is wrong, whereas the second quote seems to suggest it's right. If you think we misunderstand how the old tulpamancers used the phrase parallel processing, feel free to explain why you think that.

 

My rebuttal to the last point:

why i believe oxygen isn't a limiting factor :3

 

1. Given when I'm concentrating really hard, my heart rate barely fluctuates if at all.

2. I can become light headed and even pass out from standing up too fast, blood has left the brain starved to sustain consciousness, yet thinking really hard for a long time doesn't do anything noticeable. I'm never to the point of passing out from math or deep thought.

3. Oxygen is directly used by the consumption of calories, yet the consumption of calories by the brain remains substantially stable, even when concentrating hard over long periods.

 

Difficult cognitive tasks increase mental caloric intake by only as much as 5%.

 

33% of the brains useage seems to be just housekeeping and minimal firing to keep the brain alive.

 

Though exercising a brain can increase energy used by 3x, the actual amount of total calories used in a day is only affected by about 10-20% over the whole day as compared to doing no cognitive tasking.

 

Where kickboxing may use 10 cal/min, the brain, with its comparatively superior blood supply, only used about 1.5 cal/min when thinking hard.

 

Which perhapse supposes, if you're not getting hypoxia symptoms, you're not at the limit of your brain's blood supply and oxygen intake.

 

"any local increases in energy consumption are tiny compared with the brain's gluttonous baseline intake"

 

To shore this up with personal experience, at the end of the day, my systemmates always seem to be at their weakest, while in the morning, they're loud and clear. Many times i've worried about them the night before and felt relieved in the morning as they seem revived.

 

I have a job where i'm asked to concentrate most of the day, and i often take mental breaks--Now we can see why we need them. Still the capacity is there to such a degree (and useage so comparably cheap) that it may be very difficult to tell the difference between having no headmates and 3, yet still have the possibility of them being active thinkers (and imaginers) in addition to yourself.

 

I'm not presuming they're all at the same level as the active fronter all day, (all doing their own complex concentrated thoughts continously) and especially not that we're all performing calculus on different problems simultaneously. I am proposing that they all have independent access, and that access does not necessarily require active forcing.

 

Yes, researchers are quite baffled by the fact that the brain's oxygen intake hardly seems to fluctuate at all. It's not unreasonable to conclude that "conscious thought" doesn't take up much energy. Yet, the research I cited suggests that artificially increasing oxygen intake does affect cognitive power. The conclusion I draw from this is that the brain takes in as much oxygen as it *could* need, not as much oxygen as it *does* need. Hence, researchers can make you better at a variety of cognitive tasks just by giving you more oxygen.

 

Alternatively, perhaps cognition used doesn't vary as much as we think it does. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm inside a noisy brain that never seems to stop thinking. Indeed, my host seems to have a harder time clearing his head than letting his thoughts run wild. Perhaps concentration doesn't actually require more "power" (something one of the articles you linked to suggested).

 

1. Misha comming up with a different solution to a math problem while mentally disconnected from me (she was right, i was wrong my the way).

 

2. Their ability to interrupt me during concentrative tasks.

 

3. Their involvement and separate memories from their perspective in my dreams.

 

4. Normal conversation with regard to difficult subjects, i.e. how do they have an 'instant' well thought out answer to a difficult problem while I am coming to a sometimes different conclusion. I'd like to think i could come up to two different well thought out conclusions to the same problem concurrently, yet that isn't the case in my belief system, honestly that feels like parallel processing if i could do that alone, whereas a different person thinking from a different perspective in my mind shouldn't be excluded from comming up with a different perspective, using different neural pathways and structures concurrently.

 

What is their contribution to a normal conversation if they don't seem to need time to 'think share'?

 

Playing the game of devil's advocate with myself seems to need time to think objectively about both sides, while for them it feels quantitatively less.

 

1) Well, was it a hard math problem? Your own phrasing sounds like it happened once, which, even if I believe that it happened exactly as you say it did, and that this math problem was at the limit of your ability, is hardly convincing.

 

2) Intrusive thoughts also happen during concentrative tasks. It would be a far bigger deal if your tulpas did math during concentrative tasks.

 

3) Their involvement in dreams doesn't seem any stranger than non-plurals having a conversation with a character in a dream. Memory confabulation is well-established in the psychological literature, though perhaps you're not aware of how fast it can occur: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_phi_phenomenon

 

Not only do people see the dot where it isn't, but people think the dot changes color before it changes color. Rapid memory confabulation is the best answer I can come up with for this.

 

4) I'll admit, this has perplexed me in the past as well; Kanade-chan seems ready to comment on a variety of topics, despite showing no outward signs of thinking about them up until she's asked about them. So, I asked hostie host where he was when he first realized that Daniel Dennett's essay Quining Qualia conflates the imperfection of memory with the imperfection of self-awareness. I used this moment because he had asked me what I thought about that topic at the time. Our memories differ. He thinks he was in one place, I think he was in another. Hostie host, who has (obnoxiously) spent his entire life fronting, can't accurately answer such a question. You could ask your tulpas when they thought about certain topics, and they might say they were in wonderland. But so what? I don't trust *anyone* to accurately answer that question, not just tulpas. Yes, Kanade-chan never *looks* like she's thinking about these things, but that's just the persona she puts forth. I'm sure she cares a lot more about the trolley problem than she lets on.


I live in a castle and have two tulpas, Kanade-chan and Uncannyfellow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was day 4 of two weeks to switch, I think?

 

 

Found it a couple of days ago, thanks, and was already planning to talk about it. The first couple of minutes defines exactly what Jade meant by parallel processing. Since it isn't on YouTube and is extremely germane to this thread, I'll quote from it:

 

Since I first discovered tulpas, there has been one aspect of the experience that has fascinated me to no end. The notion that the identities you create gain their own cognition, that without you losing any of your own brainpower, another thinking agent can coexist in your mind, essentially increasing your overall processing abilities.

 

I created Aury out of a desire for a companion. But, phenomenologically speaking, the feeling that I had, in the process, enhanced my thinking ability, has always rooted itself in my heart and my ego.

 

Welcome back to "2 Weeks to Switch".

 

Last week, we combined humanistic psychology and personality forcing to create consistent and clear identities for both the host and the tulpa. Today, we'll be focusing on making those two identities completely separate, with enough of their own dedicated cognition to run independently and simultaneously.

 

Switching is only successful when you have two identities that can maintain consciousness and sensory separation. If you haven't trained your mind to maintain two perspectives, the switch may be too strenuous and cause one of the parties to lose consciousness. And if the two parties haven't fully separated their senses, the host may not be able to fully remove themselves from the body.

 

These two situations can be avoided through the mastery of parallel processing. Parallel processing is a state of multiple consciousnesses performing cognitive tasks simultaneously. All tulpas have some amount of parallel processing ability. If your tulpa is able to speak and move on their own, they have some amount of parallel processing ability. But this is just a fraction of their potential. Through practice, a tulpa can get to the point where they can not only stay conscious without your attention, but think about and solve complex issues without you even being aware of them. Here are a few techniques that can help you work towards this...

 

The video includes a chart:

 

Scale of Parallel Processing Ability:

(Personal Observations, Nothing Remotely Certain)

 

Low ability

 

No signs of sentience

Ability to observe and perceive

Movement, Early speech

Fully vocal and autonomous

Able to form complex arguments, Comprehend philosophy

Mental math

Ascend beyond host

 

High ability

 

"Enough to switch and sustain 2 perspectives" is assigned a range in the vicinity of "Able to form complex arguments" and "Mental math".

 

I don't think Jade makes a strong case for parallelism here. All three of us can think on an equal advanced level, and just as advanced while co-conscious as not, but not better than I could before plurality, not at the same time, and not without the co-conscious partner being aware of all the details. And we can switch while maintaining co-consciousness even using serial processing.

 

Note that I'm not accusing Jade of failing to attain parallel processing, just of not making a strong case for it.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_phi_phenomenon

 

Not only do people see the dot where it isn't, but people think the dot changes color before it changes color. Rapid memory confabulation is the best answer I can come up with for this.

 

 

Confabulation can happen any time you reach for a memory. But having experienced a version of the color phi phenomenon in ordinary life, I don't think memory is involved in it, just perception. There is a fraction of a second delay between light hitting the retina and light being perceived by the conscious mind. In that time, the visual cortex is busy trying to make sense of incoming signals and rather than being perfectly literal, will tidy up "objective reality" to "make more sense", creating transition frames after the sequence ended but before allowing you to perceive the end of the sequence.

 

-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

 

I'm genuinely confused here. The first quote seems to suggest that the old usage of parallel processing is wrong, whereas the second quote seems to suggest it's right. If you think we misunderstand how the old tulpamancers used the phrase parallel processing, feel free to explain why you think that.

 

I meant that it seems the current useage of the tern is harsh, not that the original useage was wrong. If you're suggesting that the original useage and the current connotation is one and the same, then yes, what i said is confusing. I didn't think so, but i might be wrong. In that case i find their statements more intriguing and it strengthens my resolve to get to where they were rather than to deny their experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I ever meant to imply that I can't tell difference between my mind voice and noise. It's that I can't tell difference between my tulpa's mindvoice and noise, if noise means everything else that goes on in the mind.

 

My mindvoice seems to just sound a bit different than my real one, I'm not sure why but I guess it doesn't matter too much. I also sometimes think in soundbytes of other voices or audio, I guess some weird quirk or something. But it just shows me that thoughts from one specific source can come in many forms, and so can noise, including in the form of my tulpa's voice, even if it isn't her. The only reason I can differentiate my voice from noise is because I was there to make it and there is a strong sense of being the doer in those situations. There isn't really a similar mechanism to differentiate hers from noise, other than me just seeing that contents and context and deciding it is something she might say, and maybe some tulpish. But I have strong sense she can't communicate a lot of things to me due to various unknown reasons, and what she does is easy to get mixed up.

 

I'm sorry! I misunderstood you.

 

Distinguishing the difference between noise and your Tulpa's mindvoice is going to take time and practice. As she develops, her mindvoice will also become louder and stronger. 

 

I plan to just keep typing my conversations with her and see what changes from doing that. I also really hope it helps with figuring out the issue about the existential questions I had earlier, as it is really painful to be stuck with those anomalies, like my tulpa potentially telling me she does something that is considered to not be possible. Like how is that reconciled? I can only just try to not think about it, but it makes it harder.

It feels very unreliable to ask her personal questions about the nature of her experience, and it disturbs me greatly, because it feels like a case of oh, I don't know the answer myself so for some reason she cannot know or generate it either, even though that doesn't make sense if she is her own person with her own experience seperate from mine. Though a lot of fear clearly asking such questions too... Just hard to ask things that feel like it could debunk her existence due to inconsistent answers that just break down the whole idea of her actually being there... And do they really not experience being their own form? If I look at them in my mind and they are looking back at me, they don't see me? If I try to ask them, I just hear from them that they do, but if that is impossible, I don't know what that means.

 

Ah... I see.

 

When she thinks, you will hear her thought process. That's 100% normal. At first, it may feel like you thinking, but overtime she will separate from you and those thoughts will feel more and more like a different person's.

 

Lots of inconsistency is normal in a really young Tulpa, and some Hosts even fear a lack of variety! Again, this will stabilize over time.

 

Being in my form in the wonderland is not like you being in the body in real life. The form doesn't have real senses, so I can't touch, see, hear, taste, or smell anything. The only way I can recreate the senses in the wonderland is to imagine them. For example, I can't literally feel my shirt if I touch it in the wonderland, so instead I use memories of what a soft shirts feel like, and I can recreate the sense that I'm touching a shirt.

 

Also, you share a wonderland "mind camera" with your Tulpa, so everything you see when you picture the wonderland she can see. She cannot picture you with her own eyes in the wonderland because her form isn't wired directly to the brain, and neither is your form. Having both her and you see different things at the same time would be parallel processing, which is impossible.


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

Ah... I see.

 

When she thinks, you will hear her thought process. That's 100% normal. At first, it may feel like you thinking, but overtime she will separate from you and those thoughts will feel more and more like a different person's.

 

Lots of inconsistency is normal in a really young Tulpa, and some Hosts even fear a lack of variety! Again, this will stabilize over time.

 

Being in my form in the wonderland is not like you being in the body in real life. The form doesn't have real senses, so I can't touch, see, hear, taste, or smell anything. The only way I can recreate the senses in the wonderland is to imagine them. For example, I can't literally feel my shirt if I touch it in the wonderland, so instead I use memories of what a soft shirts feel like, and I can recreate the sense that I'm touching a shirt.

 

Also, you share a wonderland "mind camera" with your Tulpa, so everything you see when you picture the wonderland she can see. She cannot picture you with her own eyes in the wonderland because her form isn't wired directly to the brain, and neither is your form. Having both her and you see different things at the same time would be parallel processing, which is impossible.

 

Oh... I didn't know that was supposed to be impossible. I thought I've heard of other people doing it or practicing it, or I don't understand what it is. Well this is all confusing. I don't understand how inconsistencies can happen. If she is her own real subjective experience, how can she be wrong about it? Or is it always a case of me being wrong about her and what she would have said? It feels weird going so long with particular knowledge or assumptions only to realize it is apparently a lie. It is things like this that make me doubt or feel uncomfortable with whether she is vocal at all or not again, or if she is there or not. Or maybe I've just messed something up. It is painfully confusing and I don't know how to accurately express myself. I just keep feeling like I don't know what is going on at all anymore.

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.