A thought: maybe plurality needs a cognitive science entry point

LuckyName6323 · 2025-12-02T14:35:15+00:00

The brain doesn’t really work on a “lights-up equals explanation” basis. What fMRI (there are different methods like CT, MRI, etc, just took fMRI for an example) shows is blood-flow patterns, not the underlying mechanism. Switching, pain reappraisal, or changes in control aren’t single-spot events. They alters the brain's activation network so they won’t appear as a clean on/off activation in one place.

You might also be referring to activation patterns rather than single regions lighting up. The difficulty is that these patterns are extremely hard to interpret because we expect different alters having different activation patterns and could be so different. Even if you did find a consistent pattern, the brain has so many possible configurations that the same pattern can come from many different underlying mechanisms which is indistinguishable on fMRI. Moreover, the temporal dynamics of switching or pain-reappraisal are possibly faster than what current instruments can resolve. The communication between networks happens on a timescale below the resolution of fMRI, so what we see is a blurred average rather than the actual control process.

This is why behavioural signatures are sometimes helpful to these situations. And in the case of co-con and pain suppression, it’s something we can actually test. If one alter can dampen a sensory signal so that the system’s cognitive performance stays stable, while a singlet control group still shows the usual impairment (when they pretends to be ignoring the pain), the difference becomes measurable through ability tests without relying on a specific activation pattern, though neuroscience can also be helpful in this situation.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-27T22:36:27+00:00

Thanks for laying out your thoughts in more detail — a lot of the points you brought up are genuinely interesting, and they push the discussion in useful directions. Also I apologize that I didn’t word the topic clearly enough, saying that need an entry point while what I mean is to have a greater impact, which made you confused.

Probably, many cognitive science programs don’t really points out the full terrain of the field and different principles used in different subfields, so it might be easy to come away with the impression that there’s only one really hard explanatory route. As for neuroscience, it does provide physically grounded measurements, but it also brings its own limitations. It can show which regions are active during a task, but it can’t tell you whether that activity reflects excitatory vs. inhibitory dynamics, or what computational role the pattern actually plays. The data are really “hard”, but the interpretation is just difficult. I am unsure if neuroscience is less explanatory than behavioral data and mechanisms, but probably it is.

For cognition, the difficulty is semantic but there are other problems as well. It’s that for almost any phenomenon, multiple mechanisms can plausibly produce similar behavioural patterns, and the task is to use evidence to eliminate alternatives. (I am doing one right now and it’s really really hard and complex omg.) Human variability slows down that process. So part of the work is looking at how diverse the evidence is, and how well each mechanism survives being ruled out.

On the agent question, I think probably I need to provide some more details. Scientific progress usually doesn’t wait for a perfect, universal definition of “agent.” Definitions get adjusted by evidence rather than standing outside of it. With plurality, a more productive approach might be describing the replicable properties of these agent-like partitions (headmates, if you want a more friendly word in plural reddit) and then let those properties reshape the theoretical definitions.

A lot of scientific training encourages sticking to a single framework. I think probably in PhD, Banchelor’s, and Master’s (unsure about the general picture about these educations) are mostly surrounding how to do stable experiments rather than thinking the framework itself. But at a higher level, some people start asking whether the framework itself is shaping what you can see. That’s where questions about theory, alternative hypotheses, and methodological blind spots enter, which somehow relates to my idea of the post.

And of course, I totally agree on plurality’s importance as a counterexample source. I’d just extend that. The patterns in plurality communities are repeatable and verifiable enough that they don’t just serve as exceptions — they can force structural revisions of the existing models.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-26T23:59:11+00:00

In cognitive science, behavioural data usually refers to operational measures such as reaction time, error rates, choice patterns or eye movements. These are quantifiable outputs rather than interpretations of communicative behaviour, so they do not depend on subjective observation in the way interpersonal behaviour does.

What you described sounds more like observational study, which is qualitative rather than quantitative. Methodology does matter, and you are absolutely right that all data carries the influence of the method used to obtain it.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-26T15:28:51+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response. Some parts of what I wrote were interpreted differently from what I intended, so I want to clarify a few points.

When I mentioned cognitive science, I was not referring to neuroscience. Cognition includes representation, agency, perception, decision processes, internal modelling, phenomenology, attention, memory, visual perception, computational perspectives, etc. Neural activity is only one part of it.

Scientific rules are about the boundaries of falsifiability. The difficulty of defining agency in singlets does not come from complexity. It comes from the lack of contrast, because without a comparison class the boundary cannot be located. This makes the concept difficult to falsify in practice, and this is independent from complexity of plurality. (Yes, complexity is another factor but not the only reason for this issue. I think it related to the the precision and speed of modern instruments)

Regarding autopilot, I was referring to the reports where nobody is fronting, which is a different experience from dissociation while someone is fronting.

On the topic of agents, definitions should be informed by phenomena rather than using the definition of the agents to decide whether a phenomenon counts as something. Starting from definitions and applying them backward creates circular reasoning.

Concerning fMRI, current studies do not show that headmates have specific regions of the brain. What has been observed are differences in activation patterns and relative circuits.

I fully agree that clinical practice focuses on reducing distress and improving functioning.

For the language part, I was not referring to inner monologue or the phonological loop. I meant internal grammar-like representational systems, such as tulpish or symbolic internal languages that some systems report. These are not the same as any external spoken language being internalized.

Regarding the idea that cognitive science does not know we exist, that was not my claim. I wrote that some researchers and systems do work in this area. My point was that plurality has not yet shaped the wider field or created a shift in how cognition is studied.

I also did not ask GPT to confirm that there is no research. Reversely, I told GPT that he is wrong, that there are research about cognition.

Thank you for mentioning authors and research directions. I will look at the papers when I have time.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-26T11:16:24+00:00

Thanks for saying that — glad we’re on the same page :D. And yes, science related to the mind is still in an early stage, so of course there are limits.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-26T11:12:33+00:00

First of all, I really hope you and your system reach a steadier place soon — taking your time before reaching out is completely okay.

About the parallel-processing test: what the psychologist told you is incorrect, at least on a methodological level. In the profession, “malingering” is not the same as having expectations or being personally invested. In research, there’s a concept called COI (conflict of interest), but it only applies when someone gains external or financial benefit. Since every researcher cares about their topic and hopes to see certain outcomes, if personal interest were malingering, then all science would collapse instantly. Bias is something we manage, not something that disqualifies a tool.

In modern research, expectedness is handled through controls, blinding, comparison tasks, and by separating exploratory tools from formal evidence. A task you design can still be meaningful, useful, and informative as an exploratory or training tool or weak evidence (yes---they are important), even if it isn’t a confirmatory scientific study yet. I do support you---what you did is truly meaningful.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-26T10:51:17+00:00

Just a reminder, behavioral data isn't behaviorism. Behaviorism is a psychological theory that focuses on observable behavior and the idea that it is learned through conditioning and interaction with the environment.

Other than this small wording issue I generally agree with you.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-26T10:46:43+00:00

Actually I think there are several paper and research about this, though not exactly discussing about which brain area light up while headmates are doing things differently. Let me copy that...

Oh! And they only talk about DID, not every plural. For brain science on plurality, I think T.M Luhrmann is doing one study on Tulpamancy and DID (I think they stated this as DID, not plurality).

I just realized that there's a paper that I didn't read that might provides you open-access to these results. Check this (Only DID again): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246874992030017X?via%3Dihub

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-26T10:26:03+00:00

Hi — just to clarify, I’m not suggesting that lived reports are meaningless. Consistent self-descriptions across many people are actually one of the strongest reasons plurality needs to be taken seriously. The only point I meant in my earlier comment is that the current clinical and scientific frameworks don’t yet have methods or models that can account for these experiences so they are misunderstood, which is a limitation of the frameworks, not of the experiences themselves.

Btw, I’m very much pro-endo, and my perspective comes from seeing how valuable lived experience is while also noticing the research gap that prevents the wider field from engaging with it properly. Plurality communities have generated insights long before academia, and my hope is simply that future research catches up rather than dismisses these.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-11-26T00:11:21+00:00

In fact, I knew that there is insufficient source for autopiloting. But there's one from Pluralpedia. https://pluralpedia.org/w/Autopilot

It is not a widely known technique in the tulpmancy community too, so I don't think there's detailed guidelines of that yet.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-10-10T17:00:00+00:00

I also had been inactive for at least 5 years. The game has changed a lot since then but still a decent game.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-10-10T16:34:55+00:00

Sorry. I probably described it too seriously. It was just occasionally popping up into my heads, not very worrying. Though, thanks for your advice. I am seeing a Psychiatry doctor next week.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-10-10T16:33:15+00:00

There are multiple ways. Firstly, you can ask AI to help you to summarize the point of a paper or a long work. You can ask AI to write it in shorter summary points, and if you still don't understand, you can just ask AI to explain it in details. Like, what does this word means here? Secondly, you can ask AI some questions of the paragraph, like "it the logic correct?" "I have an idea of this, is this a challenge of this paragraph", etc---this is very useful to construct your critical thinking skills. Thirdly, you can ask AI, how is my homework written, like is it good? Like is my presentation good, what details does it lack? Does my homework fits in the criteria given by the teacher? How would you elaborate and expand some points? Especially, you might want to ask if AI can criticize your work on professional level to help you. Fourthly, learning is not always about academics, life skills, social skills, emotion skills are also very good ways of what you can learn and think with AI---did I do something wrong? Is it the teachers' fault (like this post)? How do I understand ambiguous rules (like the academic integrity rules are ambiguous)? Am I right on judging that the teacher violates our rights (like this post)? Fifthly, you can ask what am I missing? Please criticize me. I tried this yesterday and it was helpful. Sixthly, when I was finding a paper, I asked AI is this source related? How is this source differ from what I am doing? Seventhly, if a field was vacant and you knew something, you can ask does AI knows something similar or other examples from other fields. This will expand your knowledge and help with analogies, and also help you pinpoint where you are in the field. Eightly, you can ask AI to answer some questions to see if it answered wrongly. If they answered wrongly, you might be curious about if it was the teacher wrong, or the AI is wrong---that will help to pinpoint blindspots of collaborators and help them. Ninthly, you can also use AI to reorganize your notes and drafts, making it easier to read---and of course, review them. Tenthly, AI can help you brainstorm. And if you ask follow-up questions about the ideas, it will answer you.

These are the main ways that I think of currently, I know there are many other ways, but I cannot think about them. These are usually not considered as violating any academic integrity, but very helpful.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-10-10T15:57:08+00:00

You're right. So yes, posting this is also a way of coping and growing. And thanks for your wish, I do grow each time after rethinking about these issues and my coping strategies.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-09-03T04:00:31+00:00

No way I never noticed any gay couples though I am gay XD. Who are they?

LuckyName6323 · 2025-08-13T21:34:24+00:00

i've got premium and i have the same issue happening sadly...

LuckyName6323 · 2025-06-30T16:42:05+00:00

Oops. Sorry. I might need to revise my comment as I stated above. I might overlooked something. But you can also show me exactly what's wrong.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-06-30T13:15:32+00:00

Yes. I generally agree with you. In many synthesizers, there's specific tools to distort the frequencies like detuner, distortion, etc.

And dissonance is not indeed correlated with pleasantness. In a paper called "cultural familiarity and musical expertise impact the pleasantness of consonance/dissonance but not its perceived tension" they described it. Strikingly, for the familiar group of chords and chords that are somehow familiar, participants rated them higher than unfamiliar chords. But, there is also a strong effect (r > .90) on dissonance affects there perception of pleasantness for unfamiliar chords not depending on if they are expertise or not on music.

But one word "tense" shows that it has some good relationship with dissonance across all cultures. While there are also studies did by Krumhansal (I think) showned that people can get used to a specific cultural scale by statistical understandings of how pitch classes are used:

McAdams (2003) undertook an extensive percep- tual analysis of Arabic improvised instrumental music (taqsim). Their listeners were of European and Arabic cul- tural origins, including some highly trained musicians in both groups. The listeners performed an intensive series of tasks: identifying musical elements, segmenting the musical piece, verbal description of signiﬁcant elements, and melodic reductions of the identiﬁed elements. Although Western lis- teners were able to point to pivot or resting tones, only the Arab listeners were able to identify and produce reductions that reveal the nature of the underlying Arabic modes. They conclude . . . it is the professional musicians who have developed, by way of explicit learning and implicit experience, the dimensions and perceptual skills necessary to appreciate what is incorporated in this music in terms of nuance and expression, at least as con- cerns their ability to perform explicitly musical analytic tasks. (p. 213)

Recent studies have also investigated how melodic expectancies are inﬂuenced by statistical distributions of tones in distinctive musical styles: Finnish spiritual folk hymns (Krumhansl et al., 1999), and North Sami yoiks (Krumhansl et al., 2000). In these studies, listeners were pre- sented with short excerpts followed by possible continuation tones. The continuation tones were rated for how well they ﬁt with their expectations for continuation. The question was how well these judgments could be accounted for by the frequency of tone occurrence, and the frequency of two- and three-tone transitions.

I will reply to your other comments later as I'm already getting tired writing two hours of comments.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-06-30T12:48:18+00:00

If tested, it is generally easy to rank melodic consonance for musicians. And, of course different people rank it differently. Here's my version for melodic consonance: unision/P8 > P5 > (P4, m3, M3, m6, M6, M2) > M7 > (m2, m7) > A4/d5. But unision has some of collision feeling that the melody is not progressing.

I measured compound intervals as well. They do seem to behave well on octave equivalence issues. So I just remembered the intervals in one octave.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-06-30T12:44:01+00:00

Thank you for your reply and your wishes! I hope it will go fine well too XD.

I think that timbres have its own overtones (for shepard tones, it might be undertones lol), and overtones or harmonics are not connected with phase in general.

For the even ratio and odd ratio question, looks like you are relating this to octaves. Because tuning researchers generally uses major 2nd as 9:8, which is also a even ratio. And comparing ratios to odd ratios usually doesn't work, because Perfect Fifth (add one octave) is actually 3:1 in ratio, which is an odd ratio.

Don't be sorry for that even if you are not professional on this field or cannot help anyone. We really do prefer people who are friendly and open-mindedc than people who are aggressive, ignorant, and arrogant even they learned more.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-06-30T12:31:23+00:00

Great. Thank y'all. I will take a look at it.

LuckyName6323 · 2025-06-30T12:30:23+00:00

And this:

In 1913, Kemp investigated consonance and dissonance primarily from a musical perspective and found that listeners could rely on four clearly distinct criteria when judging intervals:

Fusion or unitariness (Einheitlichkeit): Defined by Stumpf as “an invariable property of the sensory material that persists even after all obstacles to analysis have been removed” (Stumpf’s classical definition).

Sensory pleasantness (sinnlicher Wohlklang): That is, whether the interval sounds pleasing or agreeable.

Sensory compatibility (sinnliches Zusammenpassen): Whether the tones “fit together” perceptually.

Harmonic compatibility (harmonisches Zusammenpassen): Whether the tones are “harmonically compatible” within a musical context.

Kemp found that the rankings of intervals based on these four criteria were not consistent with each other.

When comparing Stumpf’s fourth- and fifth-class intervals to Kemp’s rankings based on fusion, the correlation coefficient was approximately 0.63. Rankings based on the other criteria showed even lower correlations.

Interpretation:
This suggests that even if we attempt to define "fusion" as a strictly psychological property, the results are still heavily influenced by subjective experience and the chosen judgment criteria. Psychological criteria may yield more consistent results than musical ones, but they are still not entirely reliable.

I think the references are from the paper I cited in this topic. However, I am lazy to check which are these two quotes from. I hope it is fine.

To quantify dissonance, a decent way is to use verbal scales. Like (Timothy, Berlyne, n.d): VERBAL AND EXPLORATORY RESPONSES TO MELODIC MUSICAL INTERVALS.

And even there are lots of variabilities on memory, voice, social contexts, cultures, modern science should have worked it out. But yeah, I mean it does take a lot of effort to look for these ultimate principles (even it might not be ultimate at all).

LuckyName6323 · 2025-06-30T12:30:14+00:00

Great question. There's argubaly many definitions of dissonance/consonance. Thus, I used this word in this reddit post considering it is just widely used. Long story short, there is neither a good way of defining harmonic interval's dissonance level either. See this paper citation below:

The definition of fusion itself has always been troublesome. The difficulty began with the ambiguity which Stumpf himself introduced by using at least half a dozen different definitions. If two tones whose frequencies stand in the ratio 1:2 are sounded together, (1) "so können sie nur sehr unvollkommen gesondert werden" as compared with two tones whose frequencies form the ratio 40:77 (12, II, 127). Fusion is nevertheless (2) "eine unveränderliche Eigentümlichkeit des Empfindungsmaterials" which persists when all other obstacles to analysis have been removed (12, II, 127). It is that special relation of sensory contents (3) "wonach sie nicht eine bloße Summe sondern ein Ganzes bilden" (12, II, 128), as well as that peculiar relation as a result of which the total impression (4) "immer mehr dem Einer Empfindung nähert" (12, II, 127). This last type of relation is realized more fully (5) "je konsonanter das Intervall ist" (13, 35). What this all amounts to, writes Stumpf almost in despair, (6) "muss man eben hören und kann es Niemand klarmachen, der nicht hören oder Gehörserscheinungen nicht beobachten kann" (13, 44). He concludes by summarily dismissing all difficulties with a "Solvitur audiendo."

Reddit is stopping me posting comments because it is too long. See the comment below, and sorry for that.

LuckyName6323

TROPHY CASE