Pleeb

On modern tulpa creation techniques and parallel processing

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 8/7/2020 at 11:10 PM, Luminesce said:

You are not "combining" the entire collective activity of your tulpas existing in the wonderland with the entire collective activity of existing in the front and your day to day life as "a single process".

You don't know what I'm doing actually. Also the notion of 'single process' is completely arbitrary as a set of processes in parallel or serial can be considered one process experientially. That's entirely subjective.

 

Quote

don't actually know what they're experiencing.

And my attempts to explain it to a skeptical or outwardly hostile community have been abysmal. Plus, I don't feel like I have to justify myself, and I don't need corroboration.

 

I have discussed these topics with interested systems and recieved positive feedback in their use of these concepts. One of which is in regard to second position that EweEff claimed helped his system. Second position is relevant to parallel processing. There is a continuous presence and thought string superimposed onto your own continuous experience. There's no fast switching or consious effort needed once you understand the 'process'. Same could be said about co-fronting because they're also related. If it's not 100% continuous, that's fair, it's not necessarily pulse width modulated either. Though the brain functions can be modeled as descrete processes, the experience is continuous. Are we arguing that because a V8 fires discrete cylinders that the experience of driving force must be fast switching? There is no perception of fast switching in these parallel process experiences.

 

I originally said fast switching as a means to explain, but confabulation activists continue to apply that label to every explaination until the entirity of advanced mind consiousness is merely confabulation. I no longer give that explanation any credibility whatsoever, it's grossly overused and misappropriated in my opinion anyway.

 

Quote

Exceptional cases - Whenever I say this, I'm more or less referring to the incredibly rare humans who can really truly "parallel process" in the strictest definition.

 

Here's my issue as well. Yes 'confabulation' is being appropriated here, prove me wrong, and so was 'parallel processing' back in the day if we are to give them any credit whatsoever--BTW, if we don't believe them either, then OP is moot.

 

No one can claim to have parallel processing under the strictest definition presented in this community. It's a fools argument given the near unanimous pushback. If we can get past that, and admit we are taking the term out of the context for which it was originally appropriated, then real progress can be made; we've been arguing semantics for years. The way it was described back in the day obviously does not presume the strictest definition.

 

If you can agree that confabulation is non-medical (non-disease) in this community, there is no reason you can't also agree that PP's strictest definition shouldn't be used in this context. Until we get past that, these threads will never make progress.

 

Here's the analogy: I get it, your tulpa can't turn off your Xbox, so let's move on to what can be done then.

 

Do you want progress on this or are we giving up because it's obviously impossible and everyone is lying? That's been my point from the beginning of this discussion on parallel processing.

 

Edited by Ranger
Took out unnecessary formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To be clear, I wasn't saying your experience couldn't be as you state it, just that the "combining two tasks into one" concept is not the explanation. Like, it just isn't. Occam's razor tends to cut out explanations that are universes away from making sense, you know? Even just you being a rare human and through-and-through parallel processing in the strict sense is more likely, lol. Also, don't blame our community for not accepting true "Exceptional cases" - did you read the article I linked?

Quote

Bob Milne is one of the best ragtime piano players in the world, and a preternaturally talented musician -- he can play technically challenging pieces of music on demand while carrying on a conversation and cracking jokes. But according to Penn State neuroscientist Kerstin Betterman, our brains just aren't wired to do that. So she decided to investigate Bob's brain, and when she did, she discovered that Bob has an even more amazing ability... one that we can hardly believe, and science can't explain.

Their words, not ours :V

 

Oh and no, I'm not going to let the definition of parallel processing change. If the experience is creating memories on the spot and just believing they happened retroactively, that's not okay to call parallel processing in any way shape or form. If the experience is seeding experiences unconsciously over time, that's more than likely not parallel processing (but would definitely be aided by it). If it's ~that but more consistent through the means of multitasking, ie rapidly switching back and forth between tasks seamlessly to create the illusion of concurrent experience, then that is multitasking, not parallel processing. And that would actually be an incredibly impressive skill that sounds absolutely novel and just as hard if not harder to learn than switching and imposition - I'd love to see it be the case, but I don't think anyone experiencing "parallel processing" has naturally offered that as an explanation yet, so it doesn't seem very likely. And of course, it could always be something else no one has thought of yet, that may or may not fall under the term "parallel processing".

 

I'd actually accept the multitasking method still being called parallel processing as a descriptive term/skill name, as long as when newbies saw that term the multitasking explanation was not far away. Also, old "parallel processing" claims WERE the "true parallel processing" kind. People claimed they could switch out into the wonderland and have vivid, lifelike wonderlanding experiences while their tulpa continued doing normal, possibly focus-requiring tasks in the body. My best explanation/assumption for the people who weren't completely BS'ing/utterly misinterpreting their experiences is that they were literally just wonderlanding while the body (or tulpa, though I usually credit the body not the fronter here) did more or less autopilot tasks. I can wonderland while showering, for example, let alone walking or eating or something. And my tulpas could be switched during that time, but as I said, we don't really credit the fronter with "being fully conscious" while the body autopilots stuff, though they still get credit as being fronting. So I could technically say I was "experiencing the wonderland with full focus while my tulpa was fronting and doing other things", but the actual experience going on is... lackluster, to say the least.

 

Anyways, as noble as enabling belief in things so that they can be experienced is, our goal is still more or less to be able to explain how to have these experiences to people, often by giving explanations on how they work/how they can happen. Citing "believing in it" as a method is just as unhelpful for parallel processing as it is for creating a tulpa, or learning imposition. It's not even technically wrong, but it sure isn't helpful as standalone advice/explanation. Believe me, I constantly want to just tell people "Just believe it'll be the case and it will become the case", but I have to put more effort into guiding them than that.

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
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2020 at 9:08 AM, Luminesce said:

If the experience is creating memories on the spot and just believing they happened retroactively, that's not okay to call parallel processing in any way shape or form.

 

WRITTEN BY BEAR

 

How has this somehow been conflated to be the answer to presumed parallel processing? Personally I dismissed it as even a possible explanation and we apparently have to dismiss it in further discussion because you have so vehemently denied it as a reasonable explanation here. That's good!

 

Quote

Oh and no, I'm not going to let the definition of parallel processing change.

 

Are you then denying the original claims? If so, we're done right? It's an impossible argument if we intend to prove the strictest definition. OP proposed PP as a possibility to allow the experiences that have occurred and continue to occur. If we're saying that whatever it is they did wasn't parallel processing, then I suppose we should stop arguing it. It was "something else processing" (SEP). The experience exists, it likely defies being labled Parallel Processing, then let's decouple the experience from the impossibility that all the individuals who have experienced it are idiot savants or exceedingly exceptional. This isn't going to help the community to presume Reguilian Tulpas are the new normal. Then if we want to improve the quality of life for tulpas, would you want to allow the exploration of SEP in order to bring modern tulpamancy back to the supposedly higher quality it was in the past? Let's explore!

 


 

Quote

If the experience is seeding experiences unconsciously over time, that's more than likely not parallel processing.

I just explained that it was a proposed way to explain it, but it's not the experience I have, so again, good that you discredit it.

 

 

Quote

then that is multitasking

I don't know what it is, you don't know what it is, this is therefore conjecture, but it is constructive in that we can rule it out if we feel this explanation doesn't fit. Would it fit something more useful then, say SEP as defined above?

 

Quote

illusion

So is everything tulpamantic an 'illision'? This if we want to teach tulpamancers new techniques, should we start be calling them illusions? Is switching an illusion? Is posession an illusion? Is mindvoice an illusion? Imposition sure seems like an illusion. I don't like the word in any context, here, but I'm asking if you want to consider this all illusion? Then anything illusionary isn't real, so what about tulpamancy is 'not an illusion' i.e. real in your opinion?

 

Quote

claims WERE the "true parallel processing"

If PP is impossible to all but exceptional individuals, and all those who claimed it weren't bonified exceptional, then you have to assume they meant something else; SEP(tm). If we can ask them, let's do. In lieu I'll answer as I have done, yes, if you put 100% into wonderland, all that's left up front is body OS regardless of who is piloting. I claim 50/50% experience is possible (or any split percentage) and that's how I keep wonderland open. My visualization is no different if I'm switched in or not, if it's 50%, it feels just as good as if it's 100%, I can still drive, walk, run, do tasks, some of which are momentarily complex. Can I go 50% and take a timed math test? Probably, but my performance won't be 100% time wise unless I'm just walking or doing less complex tasks in wonderland.

 

Imagine you have two worlds, it's no different than reading a book and washing the dishes. If your book was positioned comfortably, washing the dishes takes nothing away from reading the book as long as you know where your hands are. If you momentarily need to concentrate on the dishes, you momentarily stop reading. Switch them, wash dishes in wonderland while reading. Or just remember washing the dishes real time, same level of effort. I say I can, I have, and I do have both worlds simultaneously and it doesn't matter which world has the more concentration intensive task. Try reading irl and writing poetry in wonderland. It's possible, granted neither task will be 100%. No one would do this, it's not fun or useful other than if you had a reading and poetry assignment both due. Don't make it unnecessarily difficult, just do them serially.

 

What is the experience? Not fast switching, not fast multitasking, I'm horrible at multitasking in one world, both worlds are like separate channels, one task per world is easier than two tasks in one world. I tap my head IRL, rub my belly in wonderland, easy peasy. It's trivial by comparison to doing both IRL. So you can't apply parallel processing perfectly to this scenario because you have developed those 'parallel worlds' like the original guides illuded to. Ngl, it's visualization intensive and you probably won't do this if your visualization sucks. You'd need to exercise that first, as the original guides also suggested. Lo and behold we discovered something novel here today. We're not trying to do something nearly impossibly difficult. 

 

Quote

Citing "believing in it" as a method is just as unhelpful for parallel processing as it is for creating a tulpa

I fully agree. As I said, I'm not saying this is belief based, it's work based, it's experience based through training. We start with 100% and split it between two worlds, and by working in both worlds, you are able to improve the experience to the point that it feels more like 200%. This vastly improves the quality of life of your systemmates.

 

If I understand what OP was saying it suggests more work, more visualization, more SEP training.

Edited by Ranger
The editor was glitchy like mad. It wouldn't let me copy paste or switch at the end. (SheShe) Removed unnecessary formatting (Ranger)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, reguile said:

[Bear] Yes, but do you want the front page to say, tulpa.info.illusion?

 

Per my discussion with @Luminesce, I hereby rescind my assertion that I parallel process. I believe I do what the old tulpamancers did, SEP, which they called PP and meant PP, but may have actually not actually been fully up to par with the strictest definition. If they did, my hat's off to them. I am bested. However, it doesn't take anything away from what we do as a system. My systemmates are fullfilled, happy, loved and loving, and have zero complaints. We are free to enjoy each other's company, and are all joyful. I contend moreso than I could have been without them. As it is meant to be. What more should we strive for than an enriching and beautiful life?

Edited by SheShe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2020 at 11:33 AM, SheShe said:

WRITTEN BY BEAR

 

How has this somehow been conflated to be the answer to presumed parallel processing?

 

An answer, I proposed at least three or four and left room for more

 

On 8/8/2020 at 11:33 AM, SheShe said:

Are you then denying the original claims? If so, we're done right? It's an impossible argument if we intend to prove the strictest definition.

  

Not denying so much as trying to explain, differently than they did. And even if I said so - the rest of your post went on to explain (pretty well) how exactly ~true parallel processing is how you explain the experience happening in your system. I mean, it seems to go back and forth across the border of the "Different parts of your brain" explanation and the "I can literally think in two places at once" explanation. If you don't believe you're doing the latter, you should put all your stock in the "Different parts of your brain" explanation.

 

If I can learn to reassess what of many different keys to press and for how long on every single (some-fraction) beat of a song in K-Shoot Mania(link again because it's so lost in a sea of post), then it stands to reason the multitasking muscle in your brain can be trained extensively - there's no reason not to believe some "using different parts of your brain" muscle couldn't be trained too. There's a natural "limit" to that concept normally, sure you can walk while talking while interacting with your phone, but could you also add on counting, while imposing/visualizing your tulpa, while ...? Probably, with enough practice or talent. If that's at least a big part of how you explain your experience, then we've finally got a reasonable basis for explaining it, or at least starting to if that's only part of it.

 

Uh, totally unrelated, I just realized I forgot to mention the "combining multiple tasks into one" aspect of me playing K-Shoot - it's not just me doing one action then another really fast, obviously, as I frequently have to hit "White note + orange note(hold) + red laser left(hold)" at the exact same time. While the multitasking is going on between every nth beat, the act of combining many tasks into one through practice is at play extensively too. Sorry that was like, literally off topic, but it would've bothered me not to mention it.

 

Anyways, aside from the creating unnecessary arguments earlier in your post, I think the rest of it is all good and actually productive. I feel like you hadn't necessarily tried to explain what exactly you experience, recently at least.

Edited by Ranger
Removed unnecessary formatting

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

I don't want to put stock in conjecture. I prefer not to 'explain' it actually. So you're going to have to personally explain it however you feel is best. I tried to put stock in explaintions in the past and they're used as fodder against my beliefs and experiences. When you label it, you name your enemy. I'm not here to defend myself, I'm here to find something we can agree on that Isn't immediately labled Bearisian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If the biggest example system in question won't describe their experiences then that topic is going nowhere. Might as well go back to exploring our existing ideas then, about hard work creating more interesting experiences, some (like lack of "inactive" states for tulpas) not even seemingly available to many systems who haven't been putting in that work.

 

I'm also personally interested in exploring both the developments of the "seamless rapid task-switching mental muscle in the brain" and the "utilizing different parts of the brain such as visualization/wonderland immersion + physical activity +..." skills. I think either one (or both) could be trained to eventually give a parallel processing-like experience. And, to the extent that multitasking is considered "doing multiple things at once", that experience could then be called "parallel processing" because of what it is in effect. Multitasking is technically only doing one thing at a time, and that "parallel processing" wouldn't be using the exact same part of the brain to do two conflicting things at the same time, either - but the relative, practical effect of multitasking is considered to be effectively "at the same time", so the relative, practical effect of either/both of those skills being effectively equivalent to parallel processing should be too. 

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
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Luminesce said:

If the biggest example system in question won't describe their experiences then that topic is going nowhere. Might as well go back to exploring our existing ideas then, about hard work creating more interesting experiences, some (like lack of "inactive" states for tulpas) not even seemingly available to many systems who haven't been putting in that work.

 

This is why I found learning parallel processing to be frustrating, and in some ways more frustrating than learning switching. At least with switching, systems that could switch but didn't know how often tried to explain it. People grew tired of my mindset towards how switching worked and me asking questions they thought were stupid, but at the end of the day I figured it out. However, I needed people to explain to me so I could eventually put all of the puzzle pieces I needed together. I also think I added quite a bit to the switching discussion once I became a switching system because the people I disagreed with I still disagreed with and I still prefer possession over switching, something most switching systems call redundant or pointless. I bet if I can learn parallel processing, I can not only provide more evidence it's real, I can work to show people that you don't need one specific mindset or special genetic advantages to achieve it.

 

Not every system can teach parallel processing, and not every system is the right system to teach it to any given system. That doesn't mean you can't give feedback and ideas that may be the puzzle pieces they need for later.

 

My only concern is if I do everything I can to honestly try to make parallel processing work and I still don't get anywhere, then me closing it off and deciding once and for all it's not real when it actually is will be very damaging for the future of parallel processing. I plan on publishing more in the future and I'm well aware I am capable of being a big influence on newer tulpamancers. Even veterans who thought parallel processing was real in the past have come and changed their minds after talking to other tulpamancers, and that happened recently. I'm planning on writing a switching guide, and if parallel processing is not real, the only thing on wonderland switching will be a couple paragraphs explaining why it's not real and the lack of people who claim to achieve it dwindling in numbers, suggesting it was just an outdated view that faded away. Just like hour counts themselves.

Edited by Ranger

I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff.

My other headmates have their own account now.

Temporary Log | Switching LogcBox | Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Luminesce

 

Yes, people should only remove their constraints and self defeating attitudes and experience it themselves after their own hard work. Obviously we're available to help out if we can.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said there.

Edited by Bear
Got ninja'd

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.