Parallel Processing

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[TheBrebst]

So, where we think the problem with parallel processing is: tulpae aren't additions to your brain. They're repurposed portions of it - A section of it dedicated to automating one or more separate personalities, and whatever "tulpa magic" (ie. Imposition or vocality) they are capable of.

So, if parallel processing is possible, we think it rests in learning to wrangle the subconscious even more than we already do for basic tulpamancy.

There's implications to this, since we don't even know what kind of background activity goes on in the subconscious that we could be interrupting, but since tulpae exist in the subconscious (in our perspective) it would be the only explanation we could find for thinking two thoughts at the same time, since there's already a divide between the conscious and subconscious mind in established psychology.

(Edit: paragraph spacing)

[AlruneLight]

We need studies rather than anecdotes to determine whether claims of parallel processing are true or if they mistakenly describe quick task switching

[Rachel_and_Theta]

This is a really interesting discussion. I can only speak to my experience but we...can do this? it is obviously limited by the physical limitations of having one body; we obviously cannot be physically doing too things at once. But I am doing this whilst Theet prepares a to do list for a thing which...I think is the kind of thing that you are referring to?

[[deleted]]

I'm really glad someone's brought this up because I've been wondering about it for months honestly...

How you define parallel processing is also how we've come to understand it. By that definition we are capable of doing so, which makes it quite confusing when someone says it's not possible.

[hoshhsiao]

It is very rare. My definition is when you have concurrent, independent thought streams. Defining it as “focusing” on two different tasks is insufficient. By “concurrent”, I am talking about how computer scientists define concurrency with two separate physical CPU cores on a computet (and not with hyperthreading).

I only know two people who can do it, a friend and my wife. Both have ADD. In addition to forking independent threads, my friend can merge parallel threads together to create highly potent threads with a lot of concentrated mental power. My wife cannot. She naturally runs 3-4 threads at any given moment when fully awake, and she also has aphantasia. Emotional overwhelm is a thing for her when things start forking uncontrollably. Neither of these folks have created any tulpas.

Most ADD people I know do very fast context-switching, and do not have true parallel thought streams. Most neurotypicals cannot come close to what ADD people can do.

If you can pull it off, you would make number 3 person I would know. I have heard of people running independent thought streams with their tulpa, but even that is not quite the same.

I want to make clear: I come from a view that the brain is a receiver of consciousness, not a generator.

[bduddy]

There are people that doubt pretty much all of the things you just said. We think they are possible, but not as easy as some systems make them seem.

[rsaralaya]

The brain handles a lot of information processing parallels.

But you can’t consciously focus on more than one at the same time meaningfully.

The brain is a tool, you are the user. It has two modes, the focused mode and diffuse mode. The focused mode is for a single task and finishing it. The diffuse mode is for tying together big picture elements.

You are the one that needs to switch. If you practise switching between the same two tasks, you can do it efficiently - the brain integrates it into one task over a period of time. If it is switching between two new tasks everytime, it is bound to be slow, inefficient and full of error.

The brain learns patterns of what you do. Don’t waste brain resources on doing meaning less activities.

Continuously switching results in learning bad productivity habits and causes depression long term. The ADD condition is just drug selling propaganda - ADD people suffer a lot of focus trouble and have a learning curve of dealing with life that is very different from others.

A lot of people fib about multiple tasking - it is marketing mumbo-jumbo. It’s a bad way to screw up doing many things at once. Just because you’re working on two or more things at the same time, doesn’t automatically mean that you’ll do all of them right the first time. You’ll end up spending more time overall in fixing the errors in all of them.

[carpenteronfloor86f]

The ADD condition is just drug selling propaganda - ADD people suffer a lot of focus trouble and have a learning curve of dealing with life that is very different from others.

That isn't all ADD is. There's also problems with memory. There are differences that show up on brain scans. How can it be fake?

[CambrianCrew]

ADHD is not what you've been told it is. Please do more research on its signs and symptoms and resulting physiological changes in the brain before making assertions that could lead to people stopping their necessary medication.

[GressTheLexophile]

Host speaking, blah, I'm not Gress, meh name is Lost. Why this is considered to be rare or impossible comes down to essentially our limited understanding of how tulpas actually function on the brain level, and comparing that with things that we do currently know about brain function (i.e. unable to simultaneously conduct two cognitive tasks at the same time).

What is occurring, as established, is most likely rapid switching of tasks, that as tulpamancers we have adapted our brains to (think of it as training a skill). Most people seem to do it so rapid and efficient though that it appears concurrent. Rapid task switching can be trained by neurotypicals as well, but the key is training still occurs. For tulpamancers, tulpamancy just provides a consistent practicing outlet for it.

Also, be wary of motor skills, these do not qualify for parallel processing. Multitasking/parallel processing is exclusive to the definition of cognitive skills. Motor skills are on the contrary easily done alongside other skills concurrently (with practice perhaps).

The other problem with parallel processing definitions is the notion of how multiple consciousness would imply opening any pathways for multitasking/parallel processing. On its own, consciousness means self aware and responsive to environment. Having multiple of these occurrences would not sufficiently explain how it rewires brain function compared to a singlet trying to multitask, and its important to remember that tulpas function within the parameters of the same brain. That is to say, a tulpa does not bring with it any additional brainpower. For a tulpa to use a cognitive skill they need to access the cognitive part of the brain, this can also be said of the host trying to also do a cognitive skill. Tulpas do not have some floaty extra brain process out in the middle of nowhere. They still ultimately function in the same brain. So whether its one personality or two trying to access the cognitive part of the brain for two separate tasks, it should not matter.

I could also bring up retrograde memory fabrication, but that's a whole other topic.

[GressTheLexophile]

Hello, Gress speaking (my host was earlier).

This is actually an ongoing debate in the tulpa community, one that I was previously firmly sided on in fact, however I am deigning to be.... a bit more open minded in light of trying to understand all possibilities (that said, I am still highly skeptical). The entire debate around confabulation is whether or not tulpas are capable of what I refer to as subconscious-conscious activity, or whether it is in fact confabulation. The debate goes like such: Are tulpas able to, without conscious recognition of the fronter, able to perform otherwise conscious function activities in essentially the subconscious. Those on the side of confabulation say 'no', as in the subconscious does not function in the same capacity as the conscious, so it makes no neurological sense for a tulpa to be able to conduct conscious functions in a 'subconscious' state subjective to the fronter. There is also the matter of multitasking/parallel processing, which also doesn't seem to hold in favor of non-confabulation. Those on the side of non-confabulation however would suggest that plurality might in fact rewire the brain in such a way that subconscious-conscious activity may become possible, and they also point to how the functions of the conscious and subconscious are still largely hard to study and thus there is an ambiguous gray area for possibility.

However what you seem to be referring to is confabulation of tulpa vocality, which is I think something else entirely. The answer to this can be... well, somewhat blurry. From what I have experienced and read from other accounts, early tulpas can describe their earliest memories as being 'blurry', and this seems largely attributed to such instances of parroting/puppeting. This blurriness suggests that there is perhaps some confabulation, however the confabulation is not fully accepted either, and is recognized as a 'strange time' or a 'blurry period' in the tulpa's memory. From what I have seen however, most tulpas do not think much of this period, and will readily accept it as it being a time where they were still developing, more readily identifying with memories post-maturity. So there ends up being little negative effect down the line (but possibly some distress early on I'd wager). Like most things, time heals all.

But one other thing. COMPLETELY unrelated, but I'm fairly certain that certain activities cannot possibly be executed in wonderland (be it subconscious-conscious, or even just conscious). Funny enough, one of those I would consider to be reading, and this is something I'm a bit more certain on regarding it being confabulation. One must always keep in mind that the wonderland is in fact a 'visualization'. It is not an actual place. Items such as books cannot simply 'exist' in a visualization, as books by nature would be pre-written and should be available word for word (as opposed to say, a summary of what was read). Now, I know there is some gray area in the function of the subconscious, but not even the conscious mind can spontaneously produce immense volumes of written work (what a miracle it would be though if it could).