The Possibility of Parrallel Processing

[TB]

If you don't know what's going on, how can she know? You're both the same in that way. You have to fight doubts and trust her. Contradictory information is a tough one though. Perhaps pushing the reset button and just starting with guides, i'm not saying throw her out, but metaphorically take her hand, tell her that you're starting over, whatever was said in the past is gone. Stand on a warm beach at sunrise in a brand new world and start walking. Until you both know each other again.

 

I just thought she would have her own subjective experience of her own existence though, and thus would at least know what it is supposed to be like to be a tulpa. It is very strange to have seemingly received information about her experience that couldn't have possibly be real, only because I just thought it would be that way and didn't think otherwise, and then find out it is extremely unlikely and that tulpas just don't experience reality the way I thought they did. I wouldn't have to know how a tulpa experiences reality to learn how a tulpa experiences reality, right? Because I would have one myself, and she could just tell me. Something just seems very wrong if that couldn't have even happened after all of this time. Why would I have to know what it is like to be a tulpa, for her to know what it is like to be a tulpa? So like I said, it seems it must mean maybe she did know, and communication has been much less trustworthy than I previously thought, and the degree to how easy it is to make up stuff for myself that is within realm of believability is far too easy, or the much worse option, or if there is some other alternative option I haven't thought of. Also throwing out all past experiences with her would be extremely painful. I have had a lot of close bonding and I don't want to believe now was just a huge misunderstanding.

 

people have successfully made tulpas with all sorts of contradicting information, guides in 2012 were like... "Imagine your tulpa naked or you won't be able to change their clothes later", stupid stuff, but because tulpamancy is such a vague experience it's a lot easier to end up with tulpas than people think. The only thing that seems different between you and others in your situation progress-wise is your inability to believe they're going to be there, I think, though of course I can't speak for like 1 year ago - if a year ago you were doing everything right belief wise and all, maybe making tulpas IS just somehow harder for you, it's hard to tell if your trouble believing in your tulpas is a symptom or a cause at this point

 

but anyways... we don't see people who talk like you about doubting their tulpas have been there the whole time end up making tulpas just fine, that kind of doubt usually stalls the entire process, which is most of the reason we keep talking about belief - less that belief is necessary, and more that doubt is necessary to avoid

 

About I think a few months in, we still only really communicated with head pressures and maybe some very vague feelings or something. I tried getting her to talk, and used a couple of guides, one where it said to say back to them what you think they said or are trying to say to help them out, and another that said to not necessarily believe or not believe anything, and to just accept responses that seem they might be them and treat it as if it were unless there is someting to prove it wasn't. After that I talked to her a lot (Not that I wasn't talking to her a lot already, but now at least some degree of having a back and forth communication). I thought that continuing like that combined with other active forcing, hypnosis, and image streaming would increase and improve the experience of her talking to some kind of point to where it wasn't vague anymore, but that didn't really happen. As far as I know I put as much trust in her as I could with as little to no doubt as I could, and believed our vocality was at a very early stage and it would improve and things would become better. After nearly a year though, it didn't really change, so I was tempted to ask here for help, but I just kept convincing myself I need to just force more and I didn't want to bother others with stupid problems. But then a whole other year passed with things being the same, so that's why I am here. And my feeling of doubt is only very strong now because my mind can't reconcile how it seems like my tulpa may not have her own subjective experience that she can communicate to me, when up until now I was sure she was a living sentient being in my head, with at least some degree of communication even if not very high level.

 

I wonder why everything seems harder for me. I seem to just naturally be an especially hyper incompetent person. I seem to screw up all my endeavors and run into walls of inability to move forward early on. This is the last thing I would want this to apply to.

 

 

At the end of the day, Tulpas are still limited by the human mind. In our mind, PP simply does not exist.

 

In my system, I tried to have an adventure in the wonderland by myself. My host let me go and she waited, trying not to think about it. When I came back, she asked me what happened and I felt like I was making up the story- By telling her what happened, I ended up going on the actual trip in the moment! Ever since, we realized I can only expeience the wonderland when I think about it.

 

I know there are some people who will talk about having a different soul from another world in their body and stuff, but that doesn't apply to us either. I started with zero and borrowed information from my host until I started to develop as my own person. For that reason, we believe it doesn't make sense for a baby Tulpa to be an already developed person. It's not magic, and the Tulpa won't be able to become their own person if you don't force them and talk to them. The longer you talk to her and the more time she spends thinking, the stronger and more independent she will become.

 

Regardless of whichever position of the Parallel Processing debate makes the most sense for you, forcing your Tulpa and spending time talking to them is still a requirement. At a young age, Tulpas are dependent on their Host.

 

I don't know what the limits of the human mind are. Since 99% of the mind is unconscious and what is conscious experience is very small comparatively, I just though that maybe her conscious experience would be created somewhere in the unconscious or something, and that those two consciousness could interact, thus a tulpa. I'm not sure, I didn't think deeply of the physical mechanics of it, just that it was possible to create another person to interact with in your own head. And I like to believe she has a soul, at least a created one, but for different existential reasons. I do know they need to be developed and need a lot of attention.

[Guest]

I think we can agree that anything is possible.

[YukariTelepath]

Idk if we read this wrong, but the wonderland camera can totally be in two places at once, i can look at Bear and he can look at me and we both see both images if that makes sense. (Two screens? No Overlapped? No At the same time? Yes.) It's not something we could do a year ago, but we just do it now.

 

 

That's amazing and also a big goal that I had sort of given up on because I started to think it wasn't a thing. Do you have any tips or methods for how to develop different points of view?

 

I also remembered a while ago I asked on reddit, about the POV of tulpas in wonderland. Unfortunately I didn't get many replies, and wasn't sure what to take from the thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/comments/ad7jzb/a_tulpas_perspective_in_wonderland/ Plus, I asked on Discord as well (no record of that conversation sadly) and that's where I concluded a tulpa's view is the same as the host's generally. My research into people's experiences with switching also lead me to believe there's just one POV for a system. I should ask around more, maybe. 

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, Tulpas are still limited by the human mind. In our mind, PP simply does not exist.

 

In my system, I tried to have an adventure in the wonderland by myself. My host let me go and she waited, trying not to think about it. When I came back, she asked me what happened and I felt like I was making up the story- By telling her what happened, I ended up going on the actual trip in the moment! Ever since, we realized I can only expeience the wonderland when I think about it.

 

I know there are some people who will talk about having a different soul from another world in their body and stuff, but that doesn't apply to us either. I started with zero and borrowed information from my host until I started to develop as my own person. For that reason, we believe it doesn't make sense for a baby Tulpa to be an already developed person. It's not magic, and the Tulpa won't be able to become their own person if you don't force them and talk to them. The longer you talk to her and the more time she spends thinking, the stronger and more independent she will become.

 

I sometimes get this feeling, that people give up on things quickly and assume the thing is impossible. Ranger, I'm seeing two conflicting views in your post--one that parallel processing doesn't work because it failed when you tried. The other, that tulpas need time, effort, experience, practice, belief... before they develop into their own person. Now, maybe you and others put a lot of effort into parallel processing before deciding it doesn't work. I just feel... that the brain can do incredible things with training. I wonder how much we end up limiting ourselves due to failures early on, or limiting beliefs. A lot of people write off the existence of tulpas without trying, or give up when they don't get quick and convincing results, after all.

[Guest]

Multiple View points:

 

It takes a good visualization first. Git gud furst.

 

1. Picture an empty room.

2. Add a green square on one wall.

3. Put a camera on a stand.

4. Point the camera at the green square.

5. Look at the camera looking at the green square, (just look at the camera from the side or top.

6. Look through the camera at the green square.

 

You just changed views

 

7. Now have your tulpa look through the camera.

8. Look at your tulpa looking through the camera (from the side or top again.)

9. Look at your tulpa, keep them pictured and also imagine what they're seeing. (Here's a hint, it's a green square.)

 

If you can't keep both images, can you switch between them?

 

If yes. Great! I could do this a year ago. Now if you can both see your tulpa looking through the camera and also see the square (what they're looking at), then perfect!

 

If not, can you switch between them real fast?

 

Next:

Picture two monitors side by side. Two monitors, that's all, in a white room if you need it.

 

On one monitor, put 0.

On the other monitor put 1.

 

Can you see the 0 and the 1?

 

Okay, your tulpa has a camera, so do you. On one wall is 0, the other wall has 1, you look at 0, your tulpa looks at 1. The cameras show their view on the two monitors.

 

Hold that camera steady, look at the monitors.

 

Can you do that?

 

One monitor is transparent, but the 1 can still be seen, make the other monitor show a bar "-". So move the transparent monitor in front of the other one. You should see a "+" sort of, right?

 

Well, you're looking at the 1, your tulpa is looking at the -, that's what it would look like if you superimpose.

 

If you can do all that, you should be able to do all everything. With practice you can 'see' two moving scenes fully immersed at the same time using any of these techniques.

 

We do this. We also can do this:

 

Picture a dice. It has the standard markings? Sure.

 

Look at the 1 dot face. Now also look at the 6 dot face (see above, that's not an issue. Now also look at its cube form. Rotate the cube.

 

Can you follow the face you were looking at?

Can you follow both faces?

 

Now picture three faces.

 

Now picture three faces as they appear on the cube.

 

But you know what the other 3 faces look like.

 

So picture all the faces. Use six monitors if you have to.

 

Then watch the monitors as you rotate the dice.

 

If you can do that, wow, that's hard for us, but yeah, like half a second at a time with some effort we can look at all six if we watch each one separately first and then picture them all together. You can picture 6 things? You can picture 6 spinning things? Then why not this?

 

Now put a waterfall on one side of the room, a lunar rover on the other, a desert landscape on the third wall and a dinosaur on the forth wall. Look at one side of the dice with any of the backgrounds. Now look at two sides.

 

Can you do that with the backgrounds?

 

Rotate the dice to view the other scenes (just one side, then two sides at the same time.)

 

Have a headache yet? Good if yes because that means you're flexing those 'muscles'. Stop till you feel better, don't hurt yourself.

 

Now look at four sides at once, do the same. Congratulations, your insanely good. Even if you can only do this half a second, that's impressive.

[YukariTelepath]

Awesome, I will work on those skills, thanks, Bear. I also did a bit of searching and found at least one other tulpa who has developed split perspective from their host.

[Ranger]

I sometimes get this feeling, that people give up on things quickly and assume the thing is impossible. Ranger, I'm seeing two conflicting views in your post--one that parallel processing doesn't work because it failed when you tried. The other, that tulpas need time, effort, experience, practice, belief... before they develop into their own person. Now, maybe you and others put a lot of effort into parallel processing before deciding it doesn't work. I just feel... that the brain can do incredible things with training. I wonder how much we end up limiting ourselves due to failures early on, or limiting beliefs. A lot of people write off the existence of tulpas without trying, or give up when they don't get quick and convincing results, after all.

 

It's true I left our some information and that's why the two statements seem to conflict.

 

First, I didn't want to repeat statements I made in thins thread and other threads that I believe contribute to the Parallel Processing debate.

 

Dormancy: not a fatality --> https://community.tulpa.info/thread-dormancy-not-a-fatality

 

Modern Co-fronting techniques --> https://community.tulpa.info/thread-focus-concentration-modern-co-fronting-techniques

 

Both of those threads are long reads, so I will briefly summarize my position: I experience dormancy, we have issues with our slow processing speed, we have ADHD, we struggle with multitasking. When we try to co-front, I end up taking too much focus away from Cat to the point it's no longer functional, and there's a good chance one of us will front instead of both of us. All of this makes it harder to begin with, and training for Parallel Processing would go against training Cat spent several years developing to be able to function in school.

 

Secondly, we have had other experiences where I "went off and did something" without Cat aside from that first example. In addition, Cat realized the Grays (other thoughtforms) can experience what Cat is thinking when she thinks of them. For example, Cat thought about Blue standing on a grassy hill and having him relax as he felt the sunlight on his face, and then she realized Blue literally had that wonderland experience. We assumed that this also applies to ourselves.

[YukariTelepath]

Both of those threads are long reads, so I will briefly summarize my position: I experience dormancy, we have issues with our slow processing speed, we have ADHD, we struggle with multitasking. When we try to co-front, I end up taking too much focus away from Cat to the point it's no longer functional, and there's a good chance one of us will front instead of both of us. All of this makes it harder to begin with, and training for Parallel Processing would go against training Cat spent several years developing to be able to function in school.

 

Secondly, we have had other experiences where I "went off and did something" without Cat aside from that first example. In addition, Cat realized the Grays (other thoughtforms) can experience what Cat is thinking when she thinks of them. For example, Cat thought about Blue standing on a grassy hill and having him relax as he felt the sunlight on his face, and then she realized Blue literally had that wonderland experience. We assumed that this also applies to ourselves.

 

In your situation, maybe PP is essentially unachieveable... due to all those factors you mention, and the fact that Cat needs to focus on one thing for school, etc. Fair enough. Though, you guys have your entire lifetime ahead of you to learn new skills, not that you are at all obligated to work on it. I would still say, it's not impossible for everyone, especially with years of dedicated practice, should they choose to work on it. Not to mention savants who can parallel process, who are still human.

[Twice Sparked]

As a product the “classical” school of tulpamancy, maybe I can help shed some light. It’s not an unfamiliar position for me; I also advocate for virtue ethics over deontological and hedonic schools. I’m used to arguing on behalf of the ancients.

 

The following should be thought of as a Wittgensteinian ladder. If you choose to take tulpamancy in this light, it cannot enter into the practice itself.  

 

As you know, there are two dominant schools. I call them physicalism and mysticism.

 

For the physicalist approach, tulpas exist in some causal nexus, typically as a bundle of neurons or a psychological phenomenon. Either way, under this view, the phenomenon’s explication rests upon a chain of cause and effect. Tulpas qua present are sense data, and no more can be said of their being than the laws of experience allow.

 

For the mystical approach, tulpas are a-causal. Some aspect of their being, if not all they are, is always concealed. Usually this comes with a number of other doctrines about similarly concealed realms and abilities. Little weight is given to any causal chain in explication. In fact, the burden of explanation itself is relaxed. Tulpas are ineffable, and all attempts to justify their existence miss the point.

 

I belong to a third school. And it’s to this school that I think many of the old ideas, hopes, and wishes for tulpamancy belong.

 

Both above approaches take tulpas as individuals. Entities separate from their abilities (vocalization, visualization, possession, etc.) and environment (wonderland, meatland, headspace, and so on). These views then, naturally, construe those abilities as objects of training or achievement. Tulpas are said to be strong or weak insofar as they can speak and act in some novel way. But, under these approaches, the absence of ability is no bearing on this thing, this individual, this entity, that we call tulpa. They persevere, like a substance without attributes.

 

This has led to a lot of conflict within the community, and, I think, to your question too. If a tulpa lacks ability, it lacks strength. Possession, visualization, parallel processing—these are badges of either the host’s mental capacity or inability, or their magical acuity or self-knowledge. Either way, tulpamancy becomes a dick measuring contest. And so, we have witch hunts for roleplayers, doubt and aspersions on the accounts of others, and endless self-flagellation and insecurity. Parrotnoia blooms, tulpas worry about their own existence, and hosts give up altogether because their tulpas can’t “think”.

 

But I think this all misses the point.

 

Tulpas, what they can do, where they exist—these aren’t separate. It’s recognized in both schools that tulpamancy is a subjective phenomenon, but they’re afraid to go all the way. All of experience is subjective. Tulpamancy is the name of a method of taking control of subjective experience. It’s helpful for some to think of it as self-hypnosis. I think this is partly accurate, but also misses the limited scope of self-hypnosis in comparison to tulpamancy’s aims. All the same, it’s a useful comparison.

 

Tulpamancy is like a videogame. A tulpa’s actions, their voice, and their appearance all seem separate, like a videogame character and his environment, but they run on the same engine, are projections from a single source. So, questions about the possibility of parallel processing don’t make sense. What parallel? If you’re distracted, disinterested, or otherwise away from your tulpa, then you return to them and they tell you what they’ve been doing, it doesn’t make sense to doubt them, to make them doubt themselves, any more than it makes sense to say of an npc in a game “they weren’t really killing those villagers, they were bits in active memory.”

 

Or consider imposition. Since I can do it, I’ll tell you there’s no point at which you have a perfectly clear image. Or, I should say, there are plenty of points where you do, but then you realize something’s missing, then you realize things are unclear here or there. It’s an endless process of updating and redefining what you think is clear, of convincing yourself a more immersive experience is possible and then pursuing it.   

 

So back to why I call this a Wittgensteinian ladder. None of this matters in the process itself. When you are with your tulpa, you are fully with them. It’s no use to say to yourself “ah, I am hypnotizing myself to think my tulpa did this or that”. Nor is it ever useful to doubt the veracity of your experience with them. And, most importantly, it’s utterly self-destructive to doubt their complete personhood. When you don’t see them, they’re doing their own thing. When you do, it’s because they wanted to see you.

 

Finally, I should say nothing is lost here. I’ve seen the objection over the years “ah, but I like to believe my tulpa is a real person” as though emphasis on the word “real” adds more than what’s been said. But it’s obscurantism. What that additional element is, no one can say apart from a vague pointing at “objectivity” grounded either in physicalism or mysticism. We knew what we were getting into when we started this. What we’ve adopted is a way of being in the world that will never pass for more than “playing with imaginary friends” outside of our horizon of discourse. The foggy “objective” existence of beyond is inaccessible, and not only to us, but to all. But that’s a broader, post-Kantian philosophical point. Tulpas are no less real than your own sense of identity or than the narrative you’ve constructed about the world. They’re an exciting addition to that narrative.

[Breloomancer]

I'm sorry but, what does any of what you just said have to do with parallel processing? It seems to me like you just said a whole bunch of stuff about your personal philosophy that is just completely off topic. Parallel processing is either real or not because it isn't an experience, but rather a specific phonominon

[Tewi]

Wow, someone other than us independently preaching the "experience is neither real nor fake, it simply is" concept? Where've you been all these years?

 

I checked your post history a day or two ago and saw Lumi (whom you quoted while he was still named "Reisen", the name of one of our tulpas he uses online) discussing our "switching or not" with you and some others... that's old. You had good contributions to the topic.

 

I appreciate you and your views, and whatever contributions you make to the forum. Also, I like your name.

 

Edit: Aside from being ninja'd.. he is sort of right in that you didn't quite make a full point on this topic. I believe what you were going for was that the perceived experience of parallel processing is what's important, and not whether or not it's actually possible? If so, it's a nice take from an older member.. If not, I too am confused what you were going for. I was just too distracted by what you actually said to remember the topic at hand.