Bear's Advanced Tulpamancy for Beginners and Parallel Processing Like Activity

[Guest]

I just want to cross reference the cross post on Reddit, you can see unique information in the comments there as well.

 

 

[Guest]

PPL#2 Related post.

 

[Edit: It was not as related as when I first read it. So I removed it]

 

Here's the second Reddit link.

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Bear

[Guest]

On 4/26/2019 at 10:02 PM, Twice Sparked said:

I think it's a bad question with a lot of fallacious assumptions about what we're doing, at least under the school I follow. But others go in different directions. I'm indifferent toward the metaphysics of tulpamancy generally, except in those areas where what people think they can accomplish is stifled.

 

PPL#3 - Advanced Visualization Techniques

 

I want to quote Twice Sparked here out of time and out of context because in this thread we're about not trying to defend the impossibility that is parallel processing, but instead share parallel processing-like experiences and techniques. We don't want to get stifled by terminology or fall into arguments about semantics.

 

I went over a lot of topics is PPL#1 and PPL#2 which if anyone should bring up anywhere we can delve deeper there. 

 

This one will resurrect my visualization techniques I spoke about a year and a half ago. Though some have said I must have hyperphantasia but the more I read about those who have it, the more I don't think I do. I have experienced where the memories of visualizations are indistinguishable from fact, but not the experience itself. 

 

It's about immersion and concentration rather than perfect realism for me. Dream-like realism is achieved in altered states like hypnagogic and hypnopompic, but without that it is more about dissociation from material visualization and immersion into imagined or fabricated (even if autonomous) visualization.

 

Multiple Viewpoints:

Generally improving visualization is a good first step, that takes practice. Why would you practice? Because you inherently like it. If visualization ever becomes a chore greater than the joy you get out of it, then there are better things to do with your time. Though this helps when reading and picturing a scene or just in simulating what you might do in many different scenarios from video games to design and art, you actually have to put the work in and it depends strongly of if you want to do the work or not in my opinion.

 

Here's a procedure you can try and see if you can do it. It doesn't matter how realistic it is or if it's satisfying or not. 

 

First Exercise: Changing Views

 

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 many times.

 

7. Now picture your headmate next to the camera.

8. Have them look through the camera and look at them looking through the camera from the side or top again.

9. Now keep looking at your headmate, 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 in April 2018 when I started tulpamancy. Now if you can both see your tulpa looking through the camera and also see the square (what they're looking at), then perfect! You're ahead of where I was.

 

If not, can you switch between them easily?

 

Second Exercise: Superposition

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

 

2. On one monitor, put 0.

On the other monitor put 1.

 

Can you see the 0 and the 1 when looking at both monitors?

 

3. Now imagine your headmate has a camera, and so do you. On one wall is 0, the other wall has 1, you point the camera at 0, your headmate points theirs at 1. The cameras show their view on the two monitors.

 

4. Hold that camera steady, look at the monitors. You should still see 0 and 1.

 

5. Now make one monitor transparent, but the 1 can still be seen.

 

6. Have your headmate point their camera at the 1, but rotate the camera 90 degrees to make the other monitor show like a bar "-".

 

7. Now move the transparent monitor in front of the other one. You should see a "+" sort of, right?

 

8. You're looking at the 1, your tulpa is looking at the 1 sideways, a + is what it would look like if you superimpose the two.

 

9. If you can do all that, you should be able to do everything related to two views simultaneously.

 

With practice you can 'see' two moving scenes fully immersed at the same time using any of these techniques.

 

I can do this now, but it took many months of practice.

 

Third Exercise: Simultaneity

1. Picture a dice. It has the standard markings, just black dots on a white cube.

 

2. Look at the 1 dot face.

 

3. Now also look at the 6 dot face.

 

4. Now also look at its cube form.

 

5. Rotate the cube and try to follow the face you were last looking at, say the six dot face.

 

6. Now say the one dot and the six dot are adjacent, follow both faces as the cube rotates. 

 

Don't be discouraged if you can't do this yet, it can be tricky and will take practice. If you can then continue. You might look at an actual dice and rotate it if you simply can't picture it.

 

7. Now picture three faces in an isometric view; picture the three faces as they appear on the cube.

 

8. You know what the other three faces look like, so try to rotate the cube so you see them instead. 

 

9. Set up six monitors each with a different face of a dice.

 

10. Watch the monitors as you rotate the dice, the pictures should slowly change to increment their respective face to their adjacent face. Perfect logic here doesn't apply, just increment each one down one, and the one dot becomes six.

 

If you can do that, wow, that's hard for me, but half a second at a time with some effort I can look at all six. If I watch each one separately first and then picture them all together, that's easier.

 

11. If you can picture 6 monitors, you can picture six different things on those monitors, then try spinning the things.

 

Exercise Four: All At Once

1. Picture yourself standing in a blank room. 

 

2. Picture a waterfall on one side of the room, a lunar rover on the next, a desert landscape on the third wall and a dinosaur on the forth wall.

 

3. While staying mindful of the other walls, animate the wall you're looking at.

 

4. Position your view to see two walls and try to animate both scenes side by side.

 

5. Animate all the walls and rotate yourself to view the other scenes (just one side, then two sides at the same time, back to one, then two etc.)

 

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

 

6. Now try to imagine all four scenes at once.

 

7. Animate them.

 

8. Spin.

 

Congratulations, if you can do that, your insanely good. Even if you can only do this half a second, that's impressive.

 

I can do this now. When I first wrote this in April 2019, I couldn't.

 

The main point to this exercise is in showing you that if you practice something akin to these parallel processing like techniques, you will eventually be able to convincingly do them. The only explanation I have is that I've been practicing a long time, years even, and I enjoy it. Don't stifle the possibilities simply because you can't do it right now.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Bear

[theholodoc]

Thanks Bear:   I can do all of those exercises. Caveat: none of the images hold their form for very long, even if animated. It seems to me that it is the instability that interferes with my practice. While I can see about whatever I want to, the visions are fleeting, transitory. So are my tulpas. (that was even the case when I was switching with N'sonowa while she drove my car on our long treks out to see a sick friend, giving Flora and I some of our best times together in wonderland. We would stay in contact, but the imagery would shift.) This has bothered me for a while and I am stuck with it. If you, or anyone has a suggestion I would like to try it. Otherwise, as the sage says: This too will pass.

Thanks again, Dr. Bob

[Guest]

I wish I could find where I read this, but it said something like visualization naturally lasts 500 milliseconds. So if you are managing a continuous stream it's more like stringing these bursts together ir changing them twice a second. So you get a glimpse, then try to hold onto it. I used to notice exactly what you said I would say January 2019 timeframe.

[Guest]

PPL #4 Self-forcing and The Bear System Theory of Plurality

 

How is it that a headmate can interupt me when in deep concentration or the flow state? 

 

I prescribe to a multiple independant consciousness theory of tulpamancy and it has been proven to me when my headmates and I synergize over something.

 

The net output is proportional to the number of headmates working on the product. It amazed me when I first discovered this. 

Though the conscious mind is singular and personal, most of the heavy lifting occurs in the subconscious mind. My assertion is, beyond your personality filter everyone exists in parallel. The ability of one of your headmates to express themselves comes from the shared subconscious mind, to me it's absolutely vast and remarkable there, trivially capable of feats of seemingly pure genius. 

 

What you express is just an echo of where you actually expressed it. This is the lag between understanding and realization of understanding. Choice and it's consious acceptance.

 

Flow is powerful, it makes even extricating work pass by with ease and compresses time. I believe a lot of this time compression is due to the work actually being done subconsciously and you're only experiencing the effort and effects. Like machine language processing vs screen images.

 

We experience it when we draw, and when I do calculations or deep thought. My headmates help even then, the lines between us are blurred in the subconscious but still independent and descrete, because we are able to constructively help each other independently. I believe based on experience then that the sum of the parts is greater than 1. 

 

I have noticed a marked improvement across the board, not just in art and brainstorming ideas (creativity), but also in objective output. I feel like this could be tested, but you'd need a singlet tested and then again after they have a mature system.

 

So what current makes the most sense to me is, yes, there is one personal consciousness for the sake of objective experience and expression; however, this is in itself only personal and subjective. Your headmates have their own, and though they're often enough in sync to believe that there is only one, behind the scenes they're parallel, equivalent and independent.

 

What do you think?

 

Cross reference.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Bear

[Guest]

I just wanted to cross reference this because it got a lot of hits on Reddit.

 

 

[Guest]

Wonderland Mechanics (PPL#5)

 

We've been thinking a lot lately about wonderland mechanics and exactly what or how we control, what we don't seem to control, and who is controlling what?

 

Also, why are our experiences of wonderland slightly different, as in, during conversation afterwards, we might discover different things from the same 'experience' that one or more of us didn't catch the first time.

 

Function:

 

Early on, it was pretty clear that the fronter does all the imagining; however, that clarity has muddied over time and I don't believe that anymore. Just like any singlet knows that all the thoughts in their head are theirs, right? That doesn't fit as well as the following model: we all experience for ourselves. Even that is missing something, because there is seemingly only one construct, but I'm not perceiving everyone and everything at once all the time though.

 

How is this possible then? Following the multiple independent consiousness theory of PPL#4, I feel that wonderland is a construct of the BodyOS, maintained and controlled by the subconscious mind. We all effect it from the conscious/subconscious interface in very lightweight ways. Such as, if I want to run in wonderland, the following things occur for the sake of immersion:

 

- my avatar is rendered depending on POV and visualization model [PAVM] (discrete or all-at-once logic)

- scenery is rendered, as in location, mindvault like items that aren't forgotten, room, ambience, temperature, and light leveld

- other actors are rendered depending on PAVM

 

At the very minimum it's like throwing a thought, "run". Do I visualize everything else? From my point of view no. I witness and experience everything else just like IRL.

 

So then how would fronter effect wonderland rendering? By moving or interacting with wonderland. But how do they do that?

 

There was a time when I had to concentrate to make this happen, but like with any repetitive and trainable activity, I believe BodyOS does all that now.

 

I can't even come up with a scenario where I have to expend much effort to visualize anymore. If I run off across the field and look to my left, and I see the foot of the mountain hills, and beyond that, the coast. Look to my right and way in the distance, detached from the mountains, is Mt. Fugi. We've been there many times in our wonderlanding and I didn't have to think about it, it was just there, right where it's supposed to be. Right where I conjured it over two years ago. (It follows the concepts of mind vault and object permanence). I didn't have to remember it or think it up on the spot, it is just there, the subconscious knows it's there better than I do.

 

So then what about the other actors, my headmates, flora, fauna and NPC's?

 

If I walk back to the city, there are cars and people, any one of which I can investigate and interview. I can stop them, I can control most of them however I want; but if I don't, so how are they controlled? Autonomously.

 

So clearly I'm not (my avatar isn't) autonomous right? Aren't I directing the movement just like IRL. Everything else is outside of my consious awareness of control, but actually I am also mostly autonomous. Like IRL, I'm not controlling how I walk, like breathing, that's autonomous. So all I'm doing is throwing a thought, "walk to the city" and then watch as everything unfolds. I may be confirming as I walk that yes, I am walking and yes, I want to go to the city as I pass any number of distractions thrown my way, but like IRL, for the most part, we give a command, "walk to the city" and follow through mostly autonomously.

 

As for my headmates, how are they being controlled? The most logical notion to me is that they're controlling themselves. They do things, often things I don't expect them to do, like when Ashley steals kisses or if Misha jumps into my arms with a big hug to say hi, or even SheShe's demure, bashful smile and wave, or tip-toe streching peck on my cheek. 

 

Are they visualizing themselves? No they couldn't be, because there only seems to be one rendering engine and it feels the same no matter what position we're in (other than way back). Instead what makes the most sense to me is that we're all giving lightweight input into our own avatars and everything else is outside of our conscious awareness; things are rendered and controlled, just like IRL.

 

Mindspace vs Realspace (IRL)

 

The major difference between IRL and mindspace is the lack of constraints. I can float or fly, I can change form at will, I can blip a building out of existence or change it on a whim. This doesn't break immersion for me, and if I did something, there are consequences that I expect and some that I didn't. This supposes learning can happen in wonderland.

 

Demonstration:

 

For instance, let's go to the 40th floor and make a balcony on a whim, then step out. Instantly I feel a breeze, I smell fresh sea air, I hear seagulls, and a hawk just purched on the railing to say hi. Some fictitious jet is flying high in the sky among interesting looking clouds and the view of Mt. Fugi and the coastal mountains is breathtaking. 

 

So I jump. 

 

I feel the rush of air, but I'm not falling very fast or accelerating as fast as I would IRL. I could fall and experience weightlessness indefinitely here.

 

I can sprout wings and catch the air, land softly or fly away. Interestingly enough, once I did sprout wings, gravity set in as the deceleration occurred. I could feel the weight of my body as my wings lift me against the rushing air. A few beats later and I'm soaring and gliding over town a hundred feet up.(30m). There's Ashley, I guess she decided to join me.

 

Mechanics:

 

I simply think, "I do this" and it happens. All the visualization and motion and fields of view, sounds, feels, smells, tastes just happen as a result, and it's the same for my headmates. They're feeling and seeing and tasting and smelling, commenting and laughing all on their own. I'm not consciously involved in their control or consequences. They don't seem to know mine either.

 

When we talk about it later, their memories of events are not the same as mine. I can access theirs, they can access mine, but I have default access to mine only, and they theirs. We don't have to think about it or "on the spot" make anything up.

 

Read carefully:

Me: I nearly struck an Eagle.

Ashley: Oh? I missed that, where were they?

 

Why would she ask that? Wouldn't she just know by shared consciousness? The difference here is, she has her own default version of experiences for our mini flight, it's set by default in her experience and therefore helps form her rekoning and speech. I would have to think to access her version of things, as she would mine.

 

We have discovered that we don't have the same exact memories. There is no confabulation or on-the-spot generation required. Nothing is generated consiously during offhanded conversation.

 

So even if I chose to render her POV and mine, I'm still focused on mine, and might miss something she caught.

 

Conclusion

 

1. We don't consiously control the autonomy or rendering of wonderland. It's a subconscious entity that is only presented to us to experience as we interact with it.

 

2. We have separate experience streams, tieing back to the theory of parallel independent plurality of PPL#4.

 

Given these two interesting points of realization, the immersion of mindspace is not so different than IRL, therefore the mechanisms of how we experience them are similar to the point that one can replace the other in memory and experience.

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Bear