Could a Tulpa block the sun?

[Oguigi]

* In-order To attempt this action your IQ must be lower than 60*

[Kiahdaj]

* In-order To attempt this action your IQ must be lower than 60*

 

I'm game, then.

 

I'll let you know how it turns out.

[Virgil]

The tulpa can block the sun so you don't perceive it, yes. But that's the problem. You see, if you don't perceive it then your brain won't know to constrict your pupils in order to stop all that light from entering. If your pupils don't do that, well...

Imagine the pain of looking directly into the sun, times five.

 

The tulpa could also block the pain.

 

I wonder if they can also block retinal damage.

 

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillary_light_reflex:

The pupillary reflex pathway begins with the photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, which convey information to the optic nerve (via the optic disc). The optic nerve connects to the pretectal nucleus of the upper midbrain, bypassing the lateral geniculate nucleus and the primary visual cortex.

 

I thought we already agreed that tulpa can't change neural functions on that level.

It's a reflex retained in sleep and even unconsciousness.

---

 

it is possible

as long as it is possible

 

I think that in logic, that statement would be called a tautology.

Yeah, I know...

 

Anyway, this is an excellent research idea. People with fully imposed tulpas should stare directly into the sun on a bright summer day and report results.

---

derpedit: missing quote

[Slime]

I do not think so because you would have to be very tall and big to block the sun out

But if they were big enough maybe things would get a bit darker for you

[Oguigi]

Nice to see you back Virgil you kinda took a mini-vacation.

[Kiahdaj]

 

The tulpa could also block the pain.

 

I wonder if they can also block retinal damage.

 

 

 

 

I honestly doubt any average tulpa could block out pain that is THAT immense.

 

And no, of course they can't do anything about the retinal damage.

You'd go blind nearly instantly.

[Virgil]

And no, of course they can't do anything about the retinal damage.

That was a joke.

 

You'd go blind nearly instantly.

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure. I used to gaze at the sun fairly frequently when I was little, yet I can still see... Sort of.

You're probably thinking of

.

[Phi]

 

The tulpa could also block the pain.

 

I wonder if they can also block retinal damage.

 

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillary_light_reflex:

The pupillary reflex pathway begins with the photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, which convey information to the optic nerve (via the optic disc). The optic nerve connects to the pretectal nucleus of the upper midbrain, bypassing the lateral geniculate nucleus and the primary visual cortex.

 

It's a reflex retained in sleep and even unconsciousness.

---

 

I think that in logic, that statement would be called a tautology.

Yeah, I know...

 

Anyway, this is an excellent research idea. People with fully imposed tulpas should stare directly into the sun on a bright summer day and report results.

---

derpedit: missing quote

 

I think you are seriously overestimating what a hallucination can actually do.

[justanotherguest]

Deeply (the term is debatable, but lets stick to it since researchers used it) hypnotized subjects have very limited pupillary light reflex. Yes, they have almost zero reaction to light. It is possible to achieve anesthesia and control reflexes like swallowing with training(which is impossible for most of us without proper training). Sure reflexes can remain active even in sleep or when unconscious. But nature didn't create humans as learning geniuses (just think how many years human remains in child state before becoming adult) for nothing. Humans have great ability to overcome their nature by conscious effort. I am more interested in what exactly you have to do, to impose tulpa to such degree.

[Virgil]

[align=justify]

That's an interesting point.

I tried to imply that the hallucination itself wouldn't be the cause for the absence of the mentioned reflex. Visual hallucinations are produced in the visual cortex, and the mechanisms controlling the eyes reside in the pretectal area. Therefore, hallucinations most likely can't be the direct cause.

I assume the diminution of the mentioned reflex during hypnosis might work like REM sleep atonia. Sleep atonia is chiefly induced by releasing glycine onto motor neurons in the anterior horn, inhibiting them and suppressing even spinal reflexes. This is accomplished by autonomic mechanisms, which are little influenced by higher brain functions. It's reasonable to assume hypnosis might work similarly in this regard, and the reflex pathway is disabled by means of neuromodulation. The problems with neuromodulation are that it can't act very fast and can't affect parts of a system selectively, but rather affects the whole system, so it would be rather impractical to use this mechanism for that purpose.

On the other hand, if the hypnotised subject reacted to the hypnotist's saying, "Imagine intense light shining into your eyes" by constricting their pupils, that would be damn amazing.

I don't have enough knowledge about these effects of hypnosis. Hell, I could be wrong, and it would be absolutely awe-inspiring if it should be discovered that tulpas could in fact do all this. For all I know, some of the pretectal nuclei and the visual cortex might communicate with each other on some level. Furthermore, accommodation, controlled by one of the nuclei, can be also be overridden consciously like breathing, except that voluntary breathing isn't learned. Also, note that there are more pathways controlling the iris, and that it could even be possible to counteract the constriction by activating the antagonist muscle, the iris dilator. I remember having read somewhere that it's impossible to activate both the agonist and antagonist, but that's utter bull. Or was it contract? Hmm, that would make sense, but it's obvious.

 

Incidentally, smooth pursuit, experiments with focusing and the optical reflex have been on my list of research suggestions, but it's impossible to measure and record the former two properly. And the optical reflex isn't an involuntary reflex at all. You can with ease consciously suppress it and let the approaching object hit your cornea.

 

As for the swallow reflex, I'm not even sure what it is. I've always thought it's the peristaltic movement of the esophagus, which is actuated by the medulla, so it certainly is involuntary. The initiation of swallowing, however, can be both voluntary and involuntary. My internet connection is crappy at the moment, and I'm not really interested in this, so I don't feel like exploring swallowing further. If I'm wrong, correct me, please.

[/align]

 

I think you are seriously overestimating what a hallucination can actually do.

 

Let us be thankful then that tulpas are more than mere hallucinations.