A small Tulpa is easier to Vizualize?

[hakase]

Unless you are constantly comparing your visualization of a tulpa to a very high-poly 3D model, then with enough practice you would be able to get as much detail as you want. From what I understand, when the brain lacks specific information about sensory input, but has vague information regarding what you expect the sensory input to be, then it will automatically fill in the blanks with information that makes sense to itself. It's why you can hear voices in white noise or see faces in tv static. The brain is constantly looking for patterns and will often mistake nonsense for sense.

 

A short experiment, skip this paragraph if you'd like: Try visualizing a piece of fabric a few feet in front of you, and then imagine yourself zooming in on it for as far as you can. When I do this I can, in my mind's eye, see the fabric, and then the individual weaves making up the fabric, and then the stranded threads within that fabric, and then it skips to stranded carbon nanotubes, which is what my brain immediately assumed to be at the highest zoom level. Examination of such a thought experiment is very interesting, at least for me. My brain was unclear on what was between the thread level and the carbon fiber level, so I couldn't see it. It was also unclear of how exactly the transition from carbon nanotubes to the atomic level would appear, so the visualization stopped at nanotubes. The most interesting things about this particular visualization are, however, that I automatically assumed that the fabric was made of stranded threads, and that, of course, fabric is not made of carbon nanotubes.

 

Same deal with visualization of tulpas. It is very easy to see as much detail as you want, because your brain will automatically fill in whatever gaps exist as long as they are not too substantial. Perfect visualization of an object which perfectly matches its partner in reality, however, would take quite a while. As far as I'm concerned though, "imperfect" visualization (very fast, innacurate, plausibly realistic) of any object is far superior to "perfect" visualization (very slow, very accurate, perfectly realistic) because the "realism" of the visualization isn't even necessary.

 

---

 

...because I can fit it as a whole in my mind's eye...

 

What an odd concept. As you thought, I'm pretty sure the limitations are just in your head. Maybe if you practice some it might help to get rid of them?

[Lula]

Personally I find a smaller tulpa easier to visualize, no matter the level of detail.

[Sands]

I can agree with smaller things being easier to at least impose if nothing else, for me personally. I find it easier if I can fit the entire thing in my field of vision. Roswell's taller than me so it can be pretty weird at times, but sometimes I just try seeing small shit around me and hey, sometimes I do. One of these days I hallucinated my cat and I was confused when I saw him elsewhere.

 

I've noticed that I've spent so much time touching Roswell, even the smallest details kinda are in my memory because I felt them. Even if I can't see Roswell solid often, it's still funny how detailed everything is, down to his skin's texture and pores and stuff. Forcing in dark areas without detail of course is easier, but even then, a smaller thing is easier to actually see there than a big thing. I guess it could have many reasons like perspective or double checking if they are actually being the right size or something, which should be easier to do with something that you can see completely than one whose legs are obstructed by something, either and object or your own limited vision. Dunno.

[Tulpony]

Well, between Pix (cat sized pony) and Cordy (chimera thing the size of me), Pix is easier to visualize, though I suspect this is mostly because she's simpler. As for imposition, Pix is still easier since it's easier to find places for a small tulpa to stand and keep her whole body in sight.

[corvus]

I'd imagine it'd be harder to visualize a larger tulpa. I always notice that when Luna is face-to-face with me closely my visualization skills "slow down".

 

I feel like a computer at times...

[schettinoman]

thanks everyone for your responses, I have not achieved a general conclusion yet, which is fine since in the end, most of the answers are like some of the other concepts that tuppers have, and that is that usually depends on the person.

 

Is interesting how some people usually relates size with level of detail, even though I assumed that the level of detail was a secondary aspect when it comes to size, most of you used perception, shapeshifting tulpas and even imposing dolls to explain your point of view on the topic.

 

Also, I will try to keep in mind some of the stuff you guys said to incrase my experience with vizualization, as you probably can already tell im new in this whole tulpa experience, so thanks again for the advice.

[Dog]

http://cdn2.vtourist.com/4/4210806-The_giant_cube_Vienna.jpg

vs

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq8n8tKm4a1qd9jv3.jpg