project-pleeb/src/lectures/Proving-tulpas-with-cognitive-psychology.md

12:27 <+Pleeb> 11:06 < bersinger> "proving tulpas" in order to just sate a congregation of "rationalists" is certainly not important, but attracting scientific attraction - that's something else <<
< this -- when I talk about proving tulpas with cognitive psychology, I plan on publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal, and I'll be doing it as I'm in grad school.
12:28 -!- Irssi: #tulpa: Total of 104 nicks [9 ops, 1 halfops, 11 voices, 83 normal]
12:29 -!- Anono [Anono@vmry-129-9-03-331.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #tulpa
12:30 -!- Anono [Anono@vmry-129-9-03-331.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:31 < cardscov> Pleeb, sounds reasonable
12:32 < sweshy> Good luck pleeb, challenging road that
12:32 -!- Alordex [Alordex@887-45-04-579.client.mchsi.com] has joined #tulpa
12:33 < cardscov> Don't need that much emphasis on proof for this kind of subject, but at least scientific attention would lead to more discovery
12:33 <+Pleeb> Well, I can turn a lot of heads via cognitive psychology, if I can show what I believe I can show, regarding parallel processing, and Attention.
12:34 <+Pleeb> In making the case that a tulpa is separate and independent from the host.
12:35 < Zero> >yfw you can also parallel process without a tulpa
12:36 < cardscov> But having two separate minds spearheading each process is a tad better than doing it alone
12:36 <+Pleeb> Zero: It's been tested time and time again, you cannot, for instance, shadow two different input streams at the same time.
12:36 < cardscov> Pleeb, how do you plan to show it?
12:36 < Zero> >your brain only has so much potential and effective multitasking is near impossible regardless of who many awarenesses are working on it
12:36 <+Pleeb> For instance, if you have two people standing in front of you, reading two different books at the same time that you've never heard of before,
12:37 <+Pleeb> You will not be able to consciously retain all the information from both of the books.
12:37 <+Pleeb> What will happen is, your attention will switch between them, or focus on the one you're putting conscious focus on listening.  Usually the other will "fade out".
12:37 < Zero> if you could do that with a tulpa i'd be impressed
12:37 < Zero> but
12:37 <+Pleeb> That's the idea.
12:37 < Zero> that'd require more skills than just having a tulpa
12:37 < Zero> for one
12:37 <+Pleeb> For instance, while both are not making it to your conscious awareness,
12:38 <+Pleeb> Both streams are indeed making it into your subc.
12:38 < Zero> you'd need a pretty impressive memory to remember all the details from even one book
12:38 <+Pleeb> Zero: Well, they have tested it before.  For instance, they told person to pay attention to the voice reading book A, then just tested their knowledge on book A and book B.
12:38 < Zero> >making it into your subc
12:38 <+Pleeb> Zero: I'll explain what I mean.
12:38 < Zero> you mean they're being recorded by your brain outside of your awareness
12:39 <+Pleeb> In a way, yes.
12:39 < Zero> the way you said it makes it sound like your subc is a storage depot
12:39 <+Pleeb> First, they thought there was a "filter" where only the stream you're paying attention to would make it into your head.
12:39 <+Pleeb> However, they did some interesting tests,
12:40 <+Pleeb> They had a person listening to two streams, and they were shadowing one.
12:40 <+Pleeb> By 'shadowing' I just mean repeating what they heard.
12:40 <+Pleeb> One stream would be like, "And he sat at the table and ate his car" and the other would be, "and he got in the driver's seat of his breakfast"
12:40 <+Pleeb> The former being stream A, the latter, stream B.
12:41 <+Pleeb> What would happen, was, the person would be speaking, "And he sat at the table and ate his breakfast-oh, I mean car-" and continued stream A.
12:41 -!- LSD [LDiabolo@ldiabolo.megan.chelsea] has left #tulpa []
12:41 <+Pleeb> Basically, he ended up switching to shadowing stream B in the middle, because it had a word that would make more sense if it was on stream A.
12:42 <+Pleeb> Though this is also seen with language; in reality, people are very bad at intepreting words.  Like, you can hear a word, and it's plain as day, but you will have no idea what it is 
unless you hae context.
12:42 < Zero> alright, so where's the news?
12:42 <+Pleeb> It's because of how babies seem to learn their language... but that's another story.
12:42 <+Pleeb> Anyway,
12:42 -!- LSD [LDiabolo@ldiabolo.megan.chelsea] has joined #tulpa
12:42 <+Pleeb> This shows that something from both streams are making it into your0 head and being processed, rather than just the thing you're paying attention to, is coming in.
12:42 <+Pleeb> Then, they did another study,


12:43 -!- Nick[Skyler] [kiwiirc@24.49.tm.wjn] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
12:43 <+Pleeb> They told the subjects, "You are going to hear a word, then we will give you a non-letheal electric shock."
12:43 <+Pleeb> (got to love the 60s, before ethics)
12:43 <+Pleeb> So someone would hear, for instance, "city" then get zapped.
12:43 <+Pleeb> Afterwards, they measured their stress levels when the people would hear the words again.
12:43 <+Pleeb> For instance, if they heard "city", their stress levels would go up a little bit.
12:44 <+Pleeb> Ofc, that's because their body was expecting a shock.
12:44 < Zero> you never mentioned they were measuring stress levels in the first place
12:44 < Zero> did they use a control group?
12:44 -!- Kikyo[Akagi] [AndChat264@166.181.tk.yt] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
12:44 -!- Frint [kiwiirc@035-492-94-12.dyn.centurytel.net] has joined #tulpa
12:44 <+Pleeb> I don't know; I can look up the study after this, if you'd like.  Though this phonamina has been seen countless times, in rats and people.
12:45 -!- tulpamancer|36314 [kiwiirc@24.49.tm.wjn] has joined #tulpa
12:45 <+Pleeb> It's all the brain associating actions with things.
12:45 -!- Kikyo[Akagi] [AndChat264@166.181.vm.rk] has joined #tulpa
12:45 < Zero> i don't doubt that's what happens, not saying that here
12:45 < Zero> but
12:45 <+Pleeb> For instance, if they'd say "light" the person wouldn't have his stress levels go up, if they'd say "city" there would be a slight spike in stress levels.
12:45 < Frint> Ah, well
12:45 < Zero> it'd be good to use for example a control group with phobias, and compare their stress levels to people who've been forced to fear a certain word
12:45 < Frint> I actually did a study like that for my psychology class
12:45 <+Pleeb> Though this did this with various words (I will find that study for you, if you'd like, and other studies showing similar things, if you require)
12:46 < Frint> It was slightly different, though.
12:46 < Zero> nah that's fine
12:46 < Zero> this is a pretty basic example of association
12:46 < Zero> also
12:46 <+Pleeb> I would expect they had a random enough group of words to prevent those sort of internal validities.
12:46 < Zero> i always thought babies learned speech by simply recognizing a sound
12:47 < Zero> and as you get older, you recognize the same sound in different dialects
12:47 < Frint> The theory was that the brain has connections with certain objects like for example; bed and sleep. That is what I used.
12:47 <+Pleeb> They did a really neat study on that, with babies; I can talk about thit in a sec, if you give me a moment.
12:47 <+Pleeb> But I'm getting sidetracked.
12:47 < Zero> [06:47:15] <Frint> The theory was that the brain has connections with certain objects like for example; bed and sleep. That is what I used.
12:47 < Zero> yeah this is association and it's how you basically learn everything
12:48 < Frint> I asked people who only entered bed for sleeping and people who stayed in bed throughout the day questions on their sleeping pattern and such.
12:48 <+Pleeb> Basically, my point is, they later had those people shadow audio streams.
12:48 < cardscov> If I may ask, what was the point of mentioning the stress level study when it comes to recognizing multiple streams of input?
12:48 < cardscov> Oh, you're getting there ^_^
12:48 <+Pleeb> For instance, they'd shadow stream A, which did not have the word "city" in it,
12:48 <+Pleeb> And meanwhile, stream B had the word "city"
12:48 < Frint> It ended with me stating that the brain most likely releases endorphans as you enter the bed itself because it's associated with sleep.
12:48 <+Pleeb> And at the point where stream B said "city," their stress levels went up.
12:49 <+Pleeb> And then, they'd ask them at the end, if they remember the word "city" being said in stream B, and they would say "no"
12:49 < Zero> did they have some sort of freudian slip as they-ok
12:49 < Frint> =I But I only got a B+ because my teacher said there were too many factors to draw a final conclusion like I did
12:49 < Frint> v_v
12:49 <+Pleeb> They weren't consciously aware of it being said; their body still reacted.


12:49 < Zero> Frint: Your teacher was right
12:49 <+Pleeb> But what's more interesting,
12:49 < Frint> Well, yeah.
12:49 < Zero> I was gonna yell at you but didn't want to interrupt
12:50 <+Pleeb> Was that their stress levels were raised if the stream they weren't listening to said something conceptually similar to "city" such as "town"
12:50 <+Pleeb> Which means there's some sort of processing going on, on both streams.
12:50 -!- rgf|Sarel[Yurnero] [chembirds@nd.a.lucario] has joined #tulpa
12:50 < Frint> I agreed with it, it makes sense. People who stay in bed don't use much energy in the first place so they most likely aren't that tired.
12:50 <+Pleeb> Even the stream that you're not even consciously giving attention to.
12:50 < Frint> People who only enter bed for sleep are probably more active.
12:50 <!SkyeWint> To play devil's advocate
12:51 <!SkyeWint> *Some* kind of processing doesn't mean processing on the level of what we do consciously
12:51 < Zero> Frint: It would only make sense that people who only get into bed to sleep release more melatonin upon getting in bed
12:51 <+Pleeb> SkyeWint: I agree with you.
12:51 <!SkyeWint> Ye.
12:51 <+Pleeb> I never said it did.  If it was processing on the level that it would consciously,
12:51 < Zero> You should've researched whether people who stay in bed throughout the day sleep worse than people who only go to bed for sleep
12:51 <!SkyeWint> That would be pretty darn impressive.
12:51 <+Pleeb> People would be consciously aware of both streams.
12:51 <+Pleeb> Wouldn't you agree?
12:51 < Frint> That's
12:51 <!SkyeWint> No.
12:51 < Frint> what I did
12:51 < Frint> =I
12:51 <+Pleeb> In this case, they're not consciously aware of both streams.
12:51 < Frint> =IIIIIIII
12:52 <!SkyeWint> Well
12:52 < Zero> Then how the HELL do you draw an endorphin conclusion
12:52 <!SkyeWint> Some people might, if they developed it
12:52 <+Pleeb> They might, but it's never been shown in a study.
12:52 <+Pleeb> Not one that I could find.
12:52 <!SkyeWint> Right.
12:52 < Frint> I asked lots of questions and I only had my class to ask.
12:52 <+Pleeb> At least regarding my consciously aware of both streams.
12:52 < Zero> ._.
12:52 <+Pleeb> And as far as cognitive psychology goes, and as far as my text book goes,
12:52 < Zero> Problem is
12:52 <+Pleeb> They're saying you cannot.
12:52 <!SkyeWint> Because there's no indication that it can do as much as conscious processing.
12:52 < Frint> And my class all stayed in bed throughout the day anyways
12:52 <!SkyeWint> If there were indication of that
12:52 < Frint> So I just drew the endorphan conclusion
12:52 <!SkyeWint> That's a HUGE support
12:53 < Zero> People often ask questions but don't know how to formulate questions properly, or how to deal with the answer
12:53 < Frint> Because it made sense
12:53 <+Pleeb> Whether they really cannot or not, is up for debate, but it's what's currently said in cognitive psychology.
12:53 <!SkyeWint> But as it is, I don't know if there's even enough research to draw a conclusion either way
12:53 <!SkyeWint> therefore, null hypothesis


12:53 <+Pleeb> This is where my idea comes in, though.
12:53 < Frint> So uh
12:53 <!SkyeWint> or occam's razor
12:53 < Frint> In the newbies.info
12:53 < Frint> They're talking about talking to your shadow
12:53 < Frint> =I
12:53 <@Scylla> Ugh.
12:53 <+Pleeb> And that's, if a host pays attention to stream A, and the tulpa pays attention to stream B,
12:54 <+Pleeb> And both are able to retain the information from their respective streams,
12:54 < Frint> It annoys me because I know reading that sort of thing kind of discourages the tulpa theory.
12:54 <+Pleeb> It will turn a lot of heads in cognitive psychology.
12:54 <+Pleeb> If nothing else, it will show that the books are wrong.
12:55 <+Pleeb> And this is pretty much how I intend to support the idea that a tulpa is an independient consciousness, using cognitive psychology.
12:55 <+Pleeb> (or break support for it, depending on how the study goes)
12:55 <!SkyeWint> That sounds like a good idea, Pleeb.
12:55 < Frint> Ah
12:55 <+Pleeb> Though the university is getting a nice fMRI next year, so I'll be doing some neuroscience-related research first; I'll save the tulpa stuff for my PhD.
12:56 <+Pleeb> (though people are saying what I want to do with the fRMI should be the phD-level stuff)
12:56 <+Pleeb> *shrugs*
12:56 -!- tulpa_55463 [Nightosphe@2.219.oux.ut] has joined #tulpa
12:56 < Zero> [06:53:50] <+Pleeb> And that's, if a host pays attention to stream A, and the tulpa pays attention to stream B,
12:56 -!- tulpa_55463 is now known as Kiki
12:56 < Zero> few issues here
12:57 < Zero> first of all, you would need a relatively large amount of hosts who claim their tulpas are parallel to be able to test this
12:57 < Zero> you would also need non-hosts as control subjects, just for the sake of the experiment
12:57 <+Pleeb> Zero: Obviously.
12:57 -!- Kiki is now known as Mew_and_Kiki
12:57 < Zero> also
12:57 <+Pleeb> Though, it wouldn't need to be a large amount of hosts.
12:57 < Zero> you would also need to run several control experiments on the host first
12:58 < Zero> and most importantly
12:58 <+Pleeb> Just something to be statistically significant.
12:58 < Zero> i think this should be a blind experiment, to some degree
12:58 < Zero> also
12:58 -!- Anono [Anono@vmry-129-9-03-331.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #tulpa
12:58 < Zero> reason i say large amount of hosts
12:58 <+Pleeb> Heck, the study that showed that the FFA was responsible for becoming an expert in respective object recognition only had 3 subjects.
12:58 < Zero> is that you have to account for tulpas who aren't as parallel as they think they are, hosts who think they have tulpas but don't, etc.
12:58 < Zero> this was an issue with JD's research
12:58 < Zero> he never even asked the people he tested whether their tulpas were parallel or not
12:59 < Zero> and i know of several hosts who claim their tulpas aren't even that independent did that test as well
12:59 < Zero> hence, inconclusive results
12:59 < Zero> you would FIRST need to test each host to know whether they can multitask at all
12:59 < cardscov> Right, the issue of parallel processing isn't quite black and white among hosts
12:59 -!- Anono is now known as tulpa_18408
12:59 < Zero> so only one test wouldn't suffice
13:00 < Zero> and only one person capable of it would be inconclusive, they could be a special case
13:00 <+Pleeb> All internal validity stuffs.
13:00 -!- tulpa_18408 [Anono@vmry-129-9-03-331.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:00 < Zero> we're talking about defining a norm here
13:00 < cardscov> you'd need to have a collection of hosts and tulpae that are capable of that sort of attention splitting
13:00 < Zero> and you'd need a way for testing it
13:00 <+Pleeb> Also, if the majority of tulpas are not parallel, then that would be "the norm"
13:00 < Zero> did you mean s/that/what?
13:01 -!- Anono [Anono@vmry-129-9-03-331.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #tulpa
13:01 < Zero> pleeb, i once had an idea of proving parallel processing but it'd require both parallel processing and the tulpa being reasonably adept at possession
13:01 -!- Eventide [IceChat7@589-012-112-515.dynamic.starweb.net.br] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
13:01 <+Pleeb> But obviously if I were to want to run this, the selection would be looking for tulpas who are capable of parallel processing, or even healthy multiples that claim to do the same.  B
ack in the early days, I knew of tulpas who could play chess, where they'd have the board in their wonderland and just tell the host the coords.
13:02 < Zero> basically the idea is to have the host read something out loud, while the tulpa blind touch-types something entirely different on a notepad
13:02 < Zero> but it'd have to be something whimsical, not recorded
13:02 < Zero> so the host would read a few pages from a book or something, while the tulpa types out a story
13:02 <+Pleeb> Though that was back in the day when tulpas would have hours and hours and hours invested into them; these days people would rush for sentience within the week and I'm not sure what 
else is being focused on.
13:03 < Zero> if the host read the pages while the tulpa typed out something entirely irrelevant to what the host was reading, that'd be goddamn impressive
13:03 -!- katsa [kiwiirc@07-22-263-385.client.mchsi.com] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
13:03 < Zero> also, all tulpas who can be in the wonderland while the host does something else are already multitasking to some degree
13:03 < cardscov> Pleeb, that's true
13:03 <+Pleeb> But yeah, one thing about peer-reviewed, a lot of those question you ask "Well, what baout this control group?" are usually asked by the peers.
13:04 < Zero> what
13:04 <+Pleeb> The journal entries won't be published otherwise.
13:04 < Zero> am i being ignored
13:04 <+Pleeb> Zero: You're not.  I'm reading what you're saying.
13:04 < Zero> ok
13:05 < cardscov> The sort of parallel processing required to simply exist in the wonderland and do stuff is some level, but not quite a high level of parallel processing unless there's plenty more
 capability there