Tulpa possession of non-human, mind controlled prosthetic limbs.

[Guest Anonymous]

Exactly what it says on the tin, folks. A while back, I saw a documentary about amputees using new technology to move sections of limbs that they couldn't ordinarily control (like someone missing everything past the elbow controlling individual fingers) using their minds and electrodes attached to affected areas. I've been thinking about the subject recently, and had to wonder, are these attachments limited to looking like human body parts?

 

Which further made me think, what if a tulpa was possessing their host while using one of the machines? Would it still work? And what if the emulated limb wasn't a human limb, but rather something based on the tulpa's form? Could someone with an amputated stump of a shoulder somehow make use of a prosthetic tentacle/pony leg/other unhuman extremity?

[Lacquer]

Well, a tulpa possessing a person is kind of like the tulpa is using a virtual machine, where the virtual machine is the body and the tulpa is the raw code. It says move, and the brain figures out how to adapt to that command and what to send down the nerves. Same with a human using their own body.

 

As with other things like tentacles? They could be used if the host could use them, but it would be very hard to learn to use them, because the brain doesn't have a hard wired system for moving the new limb like it does for arms and legs, which it has had for millions of years.

[Chupi]

Last I heard, what the experimenters were doing was have a person repeatedly imagine moving a body part while attached to an EEG. They measured brain activity patterns of the movements compared to background noise, etc. Then they use software that recognizes those patterns and activates the prosthetic when they happen.

 

This would work about as well with a tail or tentacle as with a leg, provided the person can imagine having one and moving it around decently well -- something that's not hard to pick up. It should also work for a tulpa, since them doing stuff should create similarly recognizable activity patterns.

[Sands]

I don't see why not if it works for the host. I'd like to hear why you think they couldn't.

[waffles]

On EEG-based systems, like those that are (mostly) used currently for these kind of things the machine matches what is actually a fairly arbitrary pattern to a certain thought: you think 'up' and the machine sees a certain pattern, and registers the pattern as 'up'. I suppose the machine would need recalibration for a tulpa, since readings during possession probably wouldn't be the same.

 

If, however, in the future synthetic limbs were to receive signals from nervous impulses, on that limb or spinal cord, I suppose that would work just as well. The limb (intact) will ultimately receive the same signals regardless of who is controlling, and thus would probably work the same with a tulpa.