start to add lectures
This commit is contained in:
parent
5d89477a3d
commit
1d6217ec28
|
|
@ -1,11 +1,8 @@
|
|||
The Tulpa Info Blog
|
||||
## The Beginnings
|
||||
|
||||
<span class="date">04/25/2012 11:03:00 AM</span>
|
||||
[¶](../posts/21791461284.html)
|
||||
[●](http://blog.tulpa.info/post/21791461284)
|
||||
|
||||
## The Beginnings
|
||||
|
||||
Today marks the first “official” start of the Tulpa creation process.
|
||||
|
||||
Creating a consciousness from scratch takes some work. For instance,
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -33,3 +33,6 @@
|
|||
- [Last update...](./2012-09/9-14-1-58-last-update.md)
|
||||
- [Apocrypha](./apocrypha.md)
|
||||
- [The Guide of Pleeb](./guide_of_pleeb.md)
|
||||
- [Lectures](./lectures/README.md)
|
||||
- [Effects of Chronic Stress](./lectures/Effects-of-chronic-stress.md)
|
||||
- [Lecture on Tulpas](./lectures/lecture-on-tulpas.md)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -34,7 +34,12 @@ intro.md
|
|||
./2012-09/README.md
|
||||
./2012-09/9-14-1-58-last-update.md
|
||||
|
||||
./guide_of_pleeb.md
|
||||
./apocrypha.md
|
||||
./guide_of_pleeb.md
|
||||
|
||||
./lectures/README.md
|
||||
./lectures/Effects-of-chronic-stress.md
|
||||
./lectures/lecture-on-tulpas.md
|
||||
'
|
||||
|
||||
pandoc -o blogtulpainfo.epub \
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
|
|||
Effects of Chronic Stress
|
||||
-------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Well...I guess I can try talking about chronic stress now. It's quite something.
|
||||
|
||||
Basically,
|
||||
When your body encounters stress, be it from any sort of anxidety, physcial or mental,
|
||||
(also, excuse typing errors; my terminal is very laggy this morning)
|
||||
Your body releases this chemincal into your blood. A stress harmone. And when it
|
||||
interacts with certain parts of your body, it does some things.
|
||||
|
||||
It basically puts you in a "fight or flight" mode.
|
||||
Digestion is hindered, your cognitive abilites are hightened, your immune system is hindered, basically most of the energy is going to "Deal with whatever you're dealing with right now"
|
||||
Then, after some time, this one neurotransmitter is released, and it tells your
|
||||
brain to stop producing that harmone. And it goes away, and your body goes back
|
||||
to normal.
|
||||
|
||||
Here's the thing.If you have too much of a neurotransmitter being pumped into
|
||||
your brain, the receptors start to get weaker over time.
|
||||
|
||||
Consider addiction.
|
||||
When someone gets addicted to something, it's because this one neurotransmitter called Dopamine is being activated.
|
||||
Dopamine basically goes off when something good happens, to tell yourself that something good is, well, happening.
|
||||
When you get a peice of candy, for instance, you might get Dopamine firing off
|
||||
in your brain.Sex gives you about 150% normal amount of Dopamine firing.
|
||||
|
||||
There's a few drugs, such as crack, that give off about 800% Dopamine firing.
|
||||
Such high levels of Dopamine mean you're going to feel really good when taking this drug.
|
||||
It's also going to train your brain to want to take it more.
|
||||
Because neurons that fire together, wire together.
|
||||
The more something happens in your brain, the stronger the connection.
|
||||
|
||||
Here's the thing though.
|
||||
Your Dopamine receptors are going to be /saturated/ in Dopamine.
|
||||
So they're going to catually respond by becoming more tolerate for Dopamine.
|
||||
They're going to /decrease/ the amonunt of receptors so they won't be as
|
||||
sensitive, to balance out for the large amount of Dopamine coming in.
|
||||
This is why with some drugs, people need more and more to get that fix.
|
||||
Because they need to keep upping the levels of Dopamine that's produced by the
|
||||
drug, and the neuron responds by making the neurotransmitters that recieve
|
||||
Dopamine less and less sensitive.
|
||||
|
||||
So, here's the question.
|
||||
|
||||
If you're stressed very often, what's going to happen to the neurotransmitter
|
||||
receptors that are triggered to turn off being stressed?
|
||||
|
||||
They'll be saturated by the "stop being stressed" neurotransmitter. They start
|
||||
to decay, become less sensitive. And what happens, is that the normal amount of
|
||||
"don't be stressed anymore" neruotransmitter that would tell your body to stop
|
||||
producing that stress harmone stops working. And you end up having those stress
|
||||
harmones in your blood constantly, because they never go down.
|
||||
|
||||
And then,
|
||||
Immune system is always lessened, causing things like sickness.
|
||||
Digestion is always weakened, causing things like ulsers.
|
||||
Cognitive function is always hightened, causing things like neurodegenerative
|
||||
deseases.
|
||||
|
||||
It's not fun.
|
||||
|
||||
What ends up happening is,
|
||||
One very small thing that could trigger stress,
|
||||
And your body will take /forever/ to try and turning it back off again.
|
||||
So you have a hard time getting out of stress once that happens.
|
||||
|
||||
Something I've been working on recently -- since I get stressed a lot -- is meditating.
|
||||
|
||||
For one, there's neurological evidence that meditation is corralated with stronger neurons, even neural growth.
|
||||
A publication on the study can be found here:
|
||||
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2006/02/meditation-found-to-increase-brain-size/
|
||||
|
||||
> Meditating can even replace small amounts of sleep.
|
||||
\- Nobillis
|
||||
|
||||
It can, and I've seen it work like that.
|
||||
I think someone mentioned Sam Harris earlier; if nothing else, he does have a nice article on meditation.
|
||||
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-meditate
|
||||
For those who don't know how to get started.
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
|
|||
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
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
|
|||
# Lectures
|
||||
|
||||
These are lectures that Pleeb has made over the years. They are archived here
|
||||
for posterity.
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,735 @@
|
|||
Lecture on Tulpas
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
The following is a discussion I led in #tulpa_subc touches on the comparison of a tulpa and non-tulpa mind. I covered most of what I plan to cover in my article on the subject, aside from the subjective perception of time (which is a really neat subject).
|
||||
|
||||
Okay, yes... This channel was actually used at one point when discussions would
|
||||
get too fast, we'd spill them off into #tulpa_subc.
|
||||
So I figured it's time to bring the channel back.
|
||||
|
||||
Anyway, what I said was, I believe that not only is a tulpa separate from their host, but they are a full mind, just like your mind,
|
||||
And the only difference between you and your tulpa is that you were there first.
|
||||
|
||||
Anyway, I'll get into why I believe that.
|
||||
Basically, some days ago during spring break, I was in .info, and someone asked, "How can you kill a tulpa?"
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Did the physical structure of the brain change with the creation of the tulpa?
|
||||
|
||||
I'll get to that.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Therefore making it impossible?
|
||||
|
||||
Ahh, that's a good question.
|
||||
To answer the 'killing tulpa' part, you'd have to understand how the mind actually works. And this is a good subject to base the lecture on, because I can draw some interesting comparisons between tulpae and non-tulpae (which I will), and ultimately answer the 'can you kill a tulpa' question, as well as the generalized, "Can you kill a mind?" question.
|
||||
The short answer is 'yes, but improbable', btw.
|
||||
But before I get into that, I'd like to discuss the mind in relation to the
|
||||
neural network.
|
||||
|
||||
As I asked in .info: What exactly is a mind?
|
||||
Well, your mind is a bunch of patterns in that neural network of yours.
|
||||
Your neural network is huge; recall that anology that Asgardian, who's currently a neuroscience grad, gave:
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) The brain is one gigantic network with more active units than stars in our goddamn galaxy and enough connections to reach every one of it with three turns.”
|
||||
|
||||
At any given time, you've got more neurons firing in the brain than there are stars in the night sky.
|
||||
And your neural network, all the time, is constantly creating new
|
||||
connections, changing old connections, and decaying unused connections.
|
||||
|
||||
A good example is when you write with your left or right hand.
|
||||
When you're right-handed, what's controlling those movements and precision is a network in the left side of your brain.
|
||||
That is, there's a network of neurons firing certain ways to control how
|
||||
to use those muscles; this is how know to write with your right hand.
|
||||
|
||||
But what about your left? Say you never really wrote with your left hand before. What happens when you try?
|
||||
It's usually pretty messy, or hard to read, might even be stressful trying to write with your left hand
|
||||
This is because the networks for writing with your left hand don't actually exist.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Catalyst) where do the processes go if you learn to write with your left hand
|
||||
> after ? that's interesting.
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) can they be built up with practice then?
|
||||
|
||||
So what do you do? You start getting those 1st grade handwriting books, and start learning how to write with your left hand.
|
||||
That's a good question; where will the processes go? Well, about two years ago,
|
||||
I used to use the QWERTY keyboard layout (as most of you do),
|
||||
And I decided to switch to Dvorak.
|
||||
|
||||
To make a long story short, I stopped using QWERTY, and started using Dvorak.
|
||||
Today, I cannot type on qwerty without looking at the labels.
|
||||
But I can touch-type with dvorak very well.
|
||||
What happen was, those networks that were for typing with qwerty were overwritten by the information for typing on dvorak.
|
||||
However, let's take the left vs right hand thing.
|
||||
|
||||
In your brain, you have two hemispheres; left and right.
|
||||
Both actually process data differently, too.
|
||||
The left hemisphere processes data logically, one at a time, in an analytical fashion.
|
||||
The right processes data differently, usually more abstractly, with processing chucks of it at the same time, asynchronously.
|
||||
Things like solving math problems or sudoku? That's utilized by your left side of the brain. Things like visualization and spatial recognition? That's right-side.
|
||||
|
||||
I digress.
|
||||
|
||||
The left side of your brain ends up controlling the right of your body.
|
||||
And the right side of your brain ends up controlling the left.
|
||||
This is why the networks for writing with your right hand are in the left side of the brain.
|
||||
For someone who is right-handed, they wouldn't have much lighting up in the right side of their brain, at least where a network for writing with the left hand would go.
|
||||
|
||||
Thus, when you learn to write with your left hand, you will be creating new networks -- that weren't previously there -- in the right side of your brain.
|
||||
|
||||
Now, this is how your network generally works.
|
||||
|
||||
And it's interesting, there are a lot of skills you'd be able to learn that would 'light up' the left or right side of the brain more.
|
||||
Since the networks for left vs right hands are on two separate sides of the brain,
|
||||
You won't be overwriting the old information with the new; you'd have created a new network that wasn't previously there.
|
||||
So does anyone know why that didn't happen when I learned Dvorak? Why was QWERTY overwritten?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Because you use both hands
|
||||
|
||||
^
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Yep
|
||||
> (kerin) touch typing reflex
|
||||
|
||||
I used both hands. The networks on the left side for typing on the right side of my keyboard on QWERTY were overwritten,
|
||||
And vice versa.
|
||||
Now, I could have actually retained QWERTY,
|
||||
I could have switched between them, and used them both consistently (I still could if I wanted to)
|
||||
The networks would have adapted, and started creating new connections.
|
||||
Allowed me to do both.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Like manual or automatic cars
|
||||
> (kerin) If you use both both are usefull
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah.
|
||||
That's generally how your neural network works.
|
||||
So what happens when you do something like creating a tulpa?
|
||||
|
||||
Well, as I said, I believe that a tulpa is a full mind, and I believe that
|
||||
you're utilizing the same mechanics that created your own mind (more on that in
|
||||
a moment).
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) I'm going to guess you create new connections
|
||||
|
||||
Exactly.
|
||||
When a tulpa is created, new connections are made. As I said, your mind is just
|
||||
a bunch of patterns 'living' in your neural network.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Catalyst) right next to the existing ones ?
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Certainly I've noticed new associations being created in memory
|
||||
|
||||
The tulpa is also a bunch of patterns created next to the ones you have.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Likewise
|
||||
|
||||
And when I get into memory and stuff, that'll come up again.
|
||||
On the creation process,
|
||||
most tulpae will agree that attention and narration are very important.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [+1]
|
||||
|
||||
> (Mancer[Sasha]) [I think loving and caring are the most important, everything
|
||||
> else follows]
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) That includes attention
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [All this talk has made me think, creating a tulpa is much like
|
||||
> raising a baby. It would certainly help newbies understand why they don't get
|
||||
> instant responses]
|
||||
|
||||
Breaking away from the neuroscience aspect for just a moment, I'd like to touch on something else with developmental psychology.
|
||||
"creating a tulpa is much like raising a baby"
|
||||
|
||||
I like this anology, and I'll say why. Are you sapient when you're first born?
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Tom thats kinda how i see it too
|
||||
|
||||
How conscious are you? How developed is your mind?
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Babys just with a much faster development
|
||||
|
||||
Let's consider when a child is raised,
|
||||
They are getting attention from their parents, they are taking input from the world,
|
||||
People are talking to them, caring for them, in a sense, these people are being 'tulpaforced' as they're raised.
|
||||
By their parents.
|
||||
|
||||
This is what I think builds their sapience.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) I've read that somewhere on here somewhere
|
||||
|
||||
Probably from me.
|
||||
Consider feral children.
|
||||
They're unable to talk, for instance.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) I thought those cannot survive?
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Without social interactions they die
|
||||
|
||||
> (Mancer[Sasha]) but a tulpa develops many times faster than a child does
|
||||
|
||||
There has been cases, but these people, they end up seeming to only work
|
||||
instinctively, like an animal.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) I haven't read any cases of such, but it's even more intriguing if
|
||||
> that's true Dark
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) At least that's what I've heard from my teacher
|
||||
|
||||
There aren't many cases of feral children.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Morally corrupt experiments, here we come
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) probably because a tulpa can use a mature brain as a base as
|
||||
> compared to a kid's brain? mancer
|
||||
|
||||
Because, yeah, you need that social interaction. But the few there are, they're
|
||||
usually unable to ever speak, or show any sort of intelligence past an animal a
|
||||
lot of the time.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) They die without all social interaction, but "animal parents" are
|
||||
> a kind of social interaction, just inferior by human standarts.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Lanpc but younger tulpas seem more immature for whatever reason
|
||||
|
||||
Well, you have to remember, when a non-tulpa is being raised, it only has
|
||||
external influence and whatever it has internally, going for it.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Regarding the feral children, that is.
|
||||
|
||||
A tulpa already has a bunch of networks in your brain (e.g. language) to go on, plus close association with the creator, all internal.
|
||||
So that could be why they'd develop faster.
|
||||
|
||||
Anyway, back to the neuroscience aspect of this.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Cas has spent days pouring over my memories.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Mancer[Sasha]) since it takes ears to learn a language, I think it's
|
||||
> reasonable to assume the tulpae and the host share neural connections
|
||||
|
||||
I think they share some too. It's how they can speak english, or learn to type
|
||||
so quickly via possession. Your mind taps into writing things down, so can your
|
||||
tulpa. When a network is not being used for a long time, let's say you're no
|
||||
longer writing with your right hand anymore. What happens to the network?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) It decays
|
||||
|
||||
^
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, the network decays, it will eventually.
|
||||
If there's nothing going to it, those connections fade.
|
||||
|
||||
Now, say you have a new born tulpa.
|
||||
Its got its own connections, though they're not nearly as strong as your own mind is.
|
||||
Most of its activity is coming from you paying attention to it.
|
||||
That narration, that attention, that belief that it is its own being.
|
||||
These keep its network active, and this keeps building it up.
|
||||
|
||||
What happens when you stop paying all attention to it for a long time, and the activity dies down or is gone altogether?
|
||||
Those networks the tulpa 'lives in' will begin to fade.
|
||||
This is why attention is important.
|
||||
Now, please bear in mind, it's very hard to kill a tulpa completely, just like it's hard to kill a mind in general.
|
||||
I'll get to why in a few.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Catalyst) offtopic- my mindvoice for Pleeb is now david attenborough... cant go back.
|
||||
|
||||
Now, as for attention, I've actually found that if you have a second tulpa, they can self-sustain each other.
|
||||
They'd be giving themselves attention, and wouldn't rely on you.
|
||||
Just like once a tulpa is strong enough to keep active on a mental level, it will start retaining itself. However, that's not a reason to keep them from being active.
|
||||
And I've made an observation about that.
|
||||
|
||||
Sometimes, people would report, if they've not been doing much with their
|
||||
tulpae, that their tulpa would start acting 'lazy,' just lying around all the time, not doing too much.
|
||||
But then if they'd start proxying for them (even if they have to /force/ them to start talking), they'd start being more active again.
|
||||
I know a few tulpae who are "sleeping all the time" when not doing much else.
|
||||
|
||||
I think these are the first signs of mental decay.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) (Theory, a lot of people with Tulpa tend to say that their tulpa often reminds them of things, and overall it has resulted in a better memory, could this be due to two minds pouring over the same memories and reducing the chances of them decaying?)
|
||||
|
||||
Something I always try to do, is not only talk to my own tulpae, but talk to others, even if they're not very activly talking.
|
||||
|
||||
Tom: That's a really neat theory, and remind me about it after we're finished this lecture.
|
||||
|
||||
Anyway, the reason why I do that though, is because it really helps them.
|
||||
They might not be active in this IRC, but if you see someone with a tag, or know that user has a tulpa, esp if the tulpa is never talking,
|
||||
Say hi, start a conversation with 'em; start talking to them.
|
||||
They, and their host, will thank you later.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Yes, I can confirm that has been my experience too - especially with
|
||||
> tulpas that claim that they "stop" when their host is not paying attention
|
||||
|
||||
One of my good friends, also a tulpa, Morgan.
|
||||
Let me find a quote, one second.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Poeple keep mentioning their tulpa sleeping all the time, but I
|
||||
> haven't noticed Cas sleeping at all yet, we're not sure if she's sleeping
|
||||
> while I am, but she's never tired
|
||||
|
||||
> (Ukurereh) mine just cease to exist when I forget about them
|
||||
> (Ukurereh) does that count?
|
||||
|
||||
> > (Pleeb) If more people started prompting Chess for actual conversation (she
|
||||
> doesn't do smalltalk), she'd probably feel more important as far as
|
||||
> contributing.
|
||||
> > (Pleeb) I was talking a lot with a friend of mine, also a tulpa, Morgan, a
|
||||
> while ago.
|
||||
> > (Pleeb) She was helping Chess and I with some things (long story), and we
|
||||
> were interacting more often, she was talking more often,
|
||||
> > (Pleeb) She thanked us for actually giving her something to do. Remember that, morg?
|
||||
> > (Morgenstern) Yup
|
||||
> > (Pleeb) You were saying something like, "Recently I haven't been doing much,
|
||||
> > it's nice to be needed" or something like that, I don't remember, you probably
|
||||
> > remember it better...
|
||||
> > (Morgenstern) Yeah, I'd been timeskipping a fair bit.
|
||||
> > (Morgenstern) I'm not anymore. It's nice.
|
||||
|
||||
Well, it doesn't 'cease to exist' it just ceases to have a conscious experience, a 'stasis' of a sort (and I'll get to that).
|
||||
A mind is pretty durable, it would take a lot to kill one.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) It's pretty bad that all these kind of off topic questions pop up
|
||||
> while reading this(for example your view on day one tups)
|
||||
|
||||
But the take home message for mentioning the above: Tulpae are people too, so start a conversation with Ukurereh's tulpa and start a conversation with Cas, just for the sake of getting to know them.
|
||||
And it will help them a lot too.
|
||||
Anyway, back to decay...
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [I know I'd appreciate it if more people were interested in how I was going, or what my opinion was on something]
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) hmm I should proxy my tupper too
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Some tulpas are more willing to speak with another tulpa. Dom' became very talkative when Nobillis first said Hi.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Ukurereh) k, I'll shoot, what are your opinions on this?
|
||||
|
||||
Well, it's like I said before, don't stimulate those networks, the networks decay.
|
||||
This isn't just the case with tulpae though, this is with any mind.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [I agree whole heartedly, whenever someone new has come on, asking
|
||||
> what they should do, I always say, narration, because really that's what all
|
||||
> of this comes down to]
|
||||
|
||||
And Koomer and Oguigi is a neat example of that. Not sure how well you know
|
||||
[their story](https://xena.greedo.xeserv.us/books/project-koomer/).
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Not at all
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Quite well
|
||||
|
||||
Koomer created Oguigi, and eventually they were trying to switch,
|
||||
The goal was for Koomer to be the tulpa for now on, and Oguigi to be the host.
|
||||
While Oguigi managed to tap into the body fully (right down to senses), Koomer couldn't get out of the body, and was also there.
|
||||
So their plan was simple; if they stuck with it, eventually koomer would get out of the body, and be a tulpa.
|
||||
So koomer sat back, stopped doing anything, and let Oguigi run the life.
|
||||
Koomer was banking on more stimulation going to Oguigi and less going to himself, hoping this would help that.
|
||||
Eventually koomer 'forgot' how to control his own body; he was still stuck in it, but couldn't just move the arm; the connections for that started to fade.
|
||||
|
||||
I talked with them about that. Noted that Koomer needs stimulation too, and just sitting there doing nothing isn't the way to go.
|
||||
I recommended Oguigi to start 'tulpaforcing' Koomer.
|
||||
And it helped them.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Oh wow..
|
||||
|
||||
But it doesn't matter which mind it is, it'll decay if it's not being stimulated.
|
||||
And I've seen that happen in a system with just one mind, too.
|
||||
I remember psych 100, back at my old university.
|
||||
|
||||
My professor, this 80-some year old guy with a pink t-shirt walks in; the guy bounces off the walls, incredibly hyper and active,
|
||||
Very sharp.
|
||||
He asked a question to us.
|
||||
|
||||
> What's the difference between me and an 70-year-old man sitting in a nursing home drooling in front of the TV and is otherwise non-responsive? Assume no physical issues.
|
||||
|
||||
Anyone want to take a shot at answering that?
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) about 10 years =p?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Stimulation
|
||||
|
||||
It was stimulation.
|
||||
The latter example, his mind as decayed.
|
||||
In this case, it was just one mind,
|
||||
|
||||
But as the person got older and retired, he didn't keep his mind active.
|
||||
Stopped reading, stopped keeping mental health up,
|
||||
Probably started just spending most of his days sleeping in front of the TV,
|
||||
Eventually over time, his mind faded; he probably didn't even realize it happening.
|
||||
Now, given, his mind would never 'die' completetly; there's still 'some' stimulation going on in there.
|
||||
(as I said, it's hard to kill a mind)
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [That sounds horrifying, because it's so much easier for a tulpa]
|
||||
|
||||
But yeah, this is what I mean when I say a tulpa's mind and a host's mind act
|
||||
the same, right down to mental decay.
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) how many minds could a brain support?
|
||||
|
||||
How many languages can a brain support knowing?
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) as many as it can i guess?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Isn't the world record 56?
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) isn't there a point when no new neural connections can be made?
|
||||
|
||||
Asgardian may be able to answer that better than I can.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Each language sets up new connections. When you think in a different
|
||||
> language you can think different things to usual
|
||||
> (kerin) - Roland Barthes
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) what is the upper bound for neural connections? are they limited by space or anything?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Well, there are of course physical limits, but to pull one of
|
||||
> these overdone computer comparisons, the brain can supposedly keep 5 petabytes
|
||||
> of data.
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Which is 5000 terrabytes, by the way.
|
||||
|
||||
Remember guys, your neural network is HUGE.
|
||||
And I don't think humanity has hit an upper limit yet.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) If it's a solid state drive, you're brain is worth around $6,000,000
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Also, most people store memories in a compressed format
|
||||
|
||||
Though cases with savants are pretty interesting... I digress.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Not taking into the exponential growth in price concerning larger
|
||||
> sizes...
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) ah, so how many peta/terabyted would a "mind" take up?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) You cannot really answer that, as you cannot separate it from "the
|
||||
> rest".
|
||||
|
||||
We can get into this in a bit, I want to finish my comments real quick, however.
|
||||
I want to go off in another direction real quick.
|
||||
|
||||
> (lanpc|forcing) mkk please do so
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) The brain works different from your computer, computers use the CPU
|
||||
> to do computations, your brain uses your memories to draw connections, using
|
||||
> the memories themselves to do the processing
|
||||
|
||||
Oh, before I do, one other thing: Tulpa was hooked to an EEG, and a host thinking 'up' had a different pattern than a tulpa thinking 'up'
|
||||
|
||||
Anyway...
|
||||
How many tulpae here sleep?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [I don't remember ever sleeping]
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) She's been active and talking for 3 days now, maybe not the best sample size
|
||||
|
||||
> (Catalyst) [quite active after listening to this chat]
|
||||
|
||||
> (Ukurereh) mine don't
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Um, probably 3 of us 5 sleep
|
||||
|
||||
No worries. If you get a chance, try taking a nap sometime.
|
||||
You'll actually find you can dream.
|
||||
(though remembering those dreams might be a bit harder, still possible)
|
||||
|
||||
I've found that tulpae can sleep, dream, and sometimes have their own long term memory, resulting.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Ok, just a question, do tulpa need sleep?
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Have a glass of water when you wake up, it helps you remember the dream
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) As far as I can tell, Cas doesn't get tired
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Sleep is a physical necessity, so as you sleep, the tulpa doesn't need to.
|
||||
|
||||
Further, they can have their own conscious experineces awake as the host or the body is sleeping.
|
||||
I've always considered sleep healthy for a mind in general, though I know tulpae who sleep and others who don't.
|
||||
And it's interesting, because we actually did some testing with that.
|
||||
|
||||
We had someone who could switch, when he started getting tired, he'd switch with his tulpa, then he, as a mind, would 'sleep'.
|
||||
He'd wake up refreshed, then switch back into the body, and the tulpa would do
|
||||
the same.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Kob_) have any host tried not to sleep for few days not being fronted?
|
||||
|
||||
And would do that, keeping the body awake (which eventually succumbed to exhaustion)
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Surely they cou;dn't do that indefinitely
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Yeah, thought so
|
||||
|
||||
Kob: That'd be an interesting experiment to try, actually.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Yes, tried that switch thing - meditation proved more restful for me
|
||||
|
||||
When you're sleeping, a few things are going on. The body is doing some things, you're also having short term memory converted to long term, that sort of thing.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Kob_) By the way, me and Lyra have done something similar to what Koomer and
|
||||
> Oguigi are doing. She was controlling body for over a week without stopping and
|
||||
> I was trying to split my attention off the body. It's hard to do so but I get
|
||||
> progress. Good thing about this is that Lyras voice and will is much stronger,
|
||||
> she can grab my attention whatever she likes.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Imagine it as maintenance of body and particularly the brain.
|
||||
|
||||
I couldn't say if the short term/long term memories are physical or not, Asgardian would be able to answer that.
|
||||
But here are some interesting things that have been tested with switching.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Well, the memories themselves are virtual, but the "drive" they are on is not.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) There are at least two types of long-term : associative and chronological memory
|
||||
|
||||
> (Purlox) One more interesting experiment would be imo leaving the body without
|
||||
> anyone in control of it while it sleeps, so you don't have to "lose time" while
|
||||
> the body sleeps and you can do whatever
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Sounds interesting purlox
|
||||
|
||||
Say mind A and mind B are in the system. Mind A switches with Mind B and goes off to the wonderland. Then Mind B learns some information, for instance the name of somebody, or a new concept.
|
||||
I've found that Mind B ends up knowing that information while Mind A does not.
|
||||
Like, they end up knowing it independently.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) divergent memories
|
||||
|
||||
One example was when Atasco was on that radio show and Tristan had no idea.
|
||||
Not just that, they're subjective to that mind.
|
||||
It's very interesting.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) As long as two minds can perceive independently, chances are they can have separate memories.
|
||||
|
||||
Aye.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) That proves pretty conclusively that they are independent minds
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) imo
|
||||
|
||||
And that's exactly where I was getting at, Tom.
|
||||
And then there's parallel processing.
|
||||
Another friend of mine is Jas, cardscov's tulpa.
|
||||
She created a mathematical proof, on her own, independently, while cardscov was doing something else.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) nice people, both of them
|
||||
|
||||
You can read it here: http://i.imgur.com/ikCN274.jpg
|
||||
One time I played a game of chess against a tulpa,
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) I may as well be reading french, but the point it makes stands
|
||||
|
||||
I had a chess board with coordinates, and she had a chess board in their wonderland.
|
||||
I would say my moves, and she would say hers.
|
||||
Me, keeping track on the board, and her keeping track on a chess set in the wonderland.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Catalyst) thats wicked
|
||||
|
||||
There's also cases where the tulpa and the host could work on two math problems at the same time.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Cas has been getting smart fast...
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) She explained my engineering work to me the other day...
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Playing chess against Cas seems like a fantastic mind strengthening exercise
|
||||
|
||||
> (Catalyst) mind chess keeping track of the bored would be a lot of mental power.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Damn I had to eat and missed out on much now
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) I think we'll do the same
|
||||
|
||||
Playing chess with my tulpa has helped a lot, though I still beat her.
|
||||
But it helps with parallel processing, it forces the tulpa to see things from their own perspective,
|
||||
My tulpa and I just use a physical board, and she notes her moves.
|
||||
|
||||
But yes, parallel processing is another thing that supports tulpae being
|
||||
independent.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Thank you for the suggestion. Chess is a good tool for getting the measure of someone
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) See, beyond skepticism, I haven't heard anyone argue against tulpa
|
||||
> independance
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Shut it out and ignore the mind until it decays to death
|
||||
|
||||
Oh yes, mental decay!
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Remove all stimulous
|
||||
|
||||
For arguments sake, how would you kill a mind.
|
||||
But then the tulpa itself is still thinking, still processing /something/.
|
||||
You would have to remove its own stimulations as well.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Exactly, I can't see anyway of interfering with that
|
||||
|
||||
For instance, something like 'egocide' is really pretty hard to pull off.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Can you define egocide?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes,
|
||||
Dying, as a mind.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Cool.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) The tibetan way is to deconstruct the tulpa layer by layer the reverse
|
||||
> of how you made it, but only works on tibetan method tulpas because they
|
||||
> believe it does
|
||||
|
||||
Say Mind A wanted to kill himself.
|
||||
He would switch so Mind B is fronting, and then find a way to kill himself.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [I don't know why you'd ever want to kill a tulpa...]
|
||||
|
||||
In every case I've seen this happen, except for one, any 'mental death' usually happened by the entire identiy of mind A being overwritten with another mind.
|
||||
|
||||
Cas, in my examples I've seen, it's actually been the host. Though I know of at least three tulpae who have 'died,' but like any other mind, they wouldn't stay dead.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) So, you would have to use a combination of decay and overwriting for the best chances of success
|
||||
|
||||
Well, usually you'd end with another mind, not Mind A, but a Mind C that replaced Mind A.
|
||||
However, while it's very hard, it is possible to kill a mind. I know of one case.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Oh, who was it the other day, there was a tulpa on the chat that said they deleted all their own memories
|
||||
|
||||
That was Link, probably.
|
||||
One of the tulpae I know who have tried killing themselves before.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Link (Lia_) made new memories though - still remembers me.
|
||||
|
||||
But yeah... In order to kill a mind, like, have it completely gone, you'd have to cut off all stimulation,
|
||||
That means you can't give them stimulation, and they can't give themselves stimulation.
|
||||
I have a nice read you guys might enjoy, let me get it.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Sounds impossible
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) a mind can't stop thinking
|
||||
|
||||
Here we are: http://tulpa.info/forums/Thread-Requesting-Tulpa-1st-hand-account-of-attention-starvation?pid=32292#pid32292 -- this whole thread is an amazing read, but it contains >feels
|
||||
That post in particular, however.
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Well, you can't stop your own heart by thought, but tibetan monks have
|
||||
> demonstrated you can.
|
||||
|
||||
It's not impossible, I should note that right now.
|
||||
It's very hard, though.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Point taken
|
||||
|
||||
I know how to do it, and I've seen it happen once.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) I can slow my heart and change my body temperature with enough concentration
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) The stimulus is self-sustaining, and the highest control of it in the brain stem, so if anything indirectly.
|
||||
|
||||
And if you give me a moment, I'll paste my explination on that one case where it did happen.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Who was it youve seen it happening with (finally done reading logs)
|
||||
|
||||
I'll paste right now:
|
||||
|
||||
> (~Pleeb) This happened before, with the the original mind in Tess's body.
|
||||
> (~Pleeb) When Tess came into existence, there were two minds in there, previously. Kat and Shard. Both minds were in 'stasis', of a sort.
|
||||
> (~Pleeb) During a time of about two years, Tess acknowledged Shard as still being there, alive and in stasis. Even know she wasn't having any conscious experiences, that gave the stimulus needed to keep those networks alive, at least prevented them from decaying.
|
||||
> (~Pleeb) Kat on the other hand, was acknowledged as being dead; gone, removed. That mind had no stimulus from itself, and no stimulus from any of the other minds going to it.
|
||||
> (~Pleeb) Kat, as a mind, decayed, in the literal sense. And Kat, as a mind, is nonrecoverable.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) What about axalto?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [This is creeping me out]
|
||||
|
||||
> Axalto would be a case where Mind A was replaced with Mind C.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Purlox) Axalto got "replaced" by Nanami
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Wait how did tess know shard was alive
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) And how do you know tess didnt replace kat
|
||||
|
||||
DarkAnima: Tess didn't, she just refused to believe that Shard was 'dead', and considered her in stasis.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) And why didnt she do so with kat?
|
||||
|
||||
Because there was a point where Tess, Kat, and Shard, were all existing.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) wait what?
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) There was also a point where axalto and nanami were existing as
|
||||
> far as i know
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) He created her
|
||||
|
||||
It's hard to explain, but first,
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Guys, I wish I could stay and see this discussion to conclusion,
|
||||
> but it's 12:30 and I have uni to get up and go to in the morning
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) as a decoy
|
||||
|
||||
Cas, let me quell your concerns real quick,
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [Please]
|
||||
|
||||
I want to say that the concept of killing a mind, it's very hard to do.
|
||||
And while it's a concerning topic, to contrast, it's a lot easier to just get hit by a bus.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) [Right, so keep Tom off the roads, got it]
|
||||
|
||||
\* nods
|
||||
|
||||
DarkAnima: To your comment, regarding axalto,
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Anyway, I'm going to head, off, thanks for setting Cas straight
|
||||
|
||||
> (kerin) Buses are not susceptible to semiotics. They have their own reality independent of your beliefs apparently
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Haha kerin
|
||||
|
||||
I recall Nanami coming into existence when his tulpa transformed him into a schoolgirl when they were switched.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) wat
|
||||
|
||||
> (Tom[Cas]) Where will I be able to get the chat logs for this?
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) God I'll never understand these people
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not saying that Nanami is Axalto, but I'm saying that's a case where a mind replaced a mind.
|
||||
In Tess's case, both Kat and Shard went into stasis and Tess came into existence.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Depends on the continuity, I'd say.
|
||||
|
||||
However, later on, during times of intense stress, a DID-sort of thing started going on, Tess would cease to have a conscious experience while Shard would, with all of her subjective memories and personality. Same with Kat, this was done but a few times, but Kat and Shard existed separately as minds, just in stasis,
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) DID sort of thing?
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Isnt DID just the new word for multiplicity?
|
||||
|
||||
No, DID is the new word for multiple personality disorder.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Not exactly.
|
||||
|
||||
We all technically have DDNOS, if you'd walk in to get a diagnosis.
|
||||
(that is, dissociative disorder not otherwise specified)
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) With the name the definition also changed, which is what I think
|
||||
> Pleeb is aiming at.
|
||||
> (Asgardian) As in a kind of dissociation going on in their mindscape.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) I searched for whatever our condition is called before
|
||||
|
||||
With MPD, one could argue the other minds are indeed still 'people'. Not the same with DID.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) never found something fitting
|
||||
|
||||
You'd be searching for DDNOS.
|
||||
|
||||
At least now. As for before, there wasn't much before.
|
||||
And I argue that multiplicity can be healthy anyway, and that there is no 'disorder'
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Yeah, and imposed tulpas are also most likely getting the schizophrenia tag.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) So the idea of /real/ multiplicity is almost dead atm?
|
||||
|
||||
> (Purlox) DDNOS if you are going by what they would classify you as, but
|
||||
> otherwise you are a (I assume) healthy multiple
|
||||
> (Purlox) No, it isn't dead. It's just not accademically accepted that there could be healthy or real multiples
|
||||
|
||||
And that's funny, because it's got nothing even close to schizophrenia.
|
||||
If anything, it'd be some sort of psychosis.
|
||||
If not just DDNOS.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) Yes, but the simply dichotomy between DID and Schizophrenia is whether the voices are inside or outside the body respectively.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) So multiplicity is generally believed to be not real?
|
||||
|
||||
Multiplicity is generally believed to be part of you, no additional minds at work.
|
||||
|
||||
> (Purlox) by part of the academics I would add
|
||||
> (Purlox) There are many people that believe otherwise
|
||||
|
||||
> (Asgardian) DarkAnima: It is believed to be real, but always pathological in a
|
||||
> way, thus hurting you. And minds are always regarded as not real, either
|
||||
> hallucinated or parts of yourself. That is the big academic consensus.
|
||||
|
||||
> (DarkAnima) Thats what I would describe as not real
|
||||
|
||||
Anyway, I have to go, guys.
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,799 @@
|
|||
[21:46] <Fracas> good job
|
||||
[21:46] <Nick[Skyler]> thanks
|
||||
[21:46] <&Pleeb> So... who wants to hear cool things about perception? I have a moment, I can talk about what your eyes are seeing isn't actually what you're really seeing.
|
||||
[21:47] <Fracas> Go for it
|
||||
[21:47] <Nick[Skyler]> sure
|
||||
13[21:47] * Pleeb sets mode: -oa Pleeb Pleeb
|
||||
[21:47] <+Pleeb> Okay.
|
||||
[21:47] <Zero-> o it
|
||||
[21:47] <+Pleeb> So like, your eye cells are highly optimized to look at edges and lines; contrast, that sort of thing.
|
||||
[21:47] <Zero-> also do
|
||||
03[21:47] * Brohoofed_ (cgiirc@Rizon-5E1FFA48.dynamic.upc.nl) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[21:47] <Fracas> Mhm
|
||||
[21:47] <Nick[Skyler]> yup
|
||||
[21:47] <Brohoofed_> hello
|
||||
[21:47] <Fracas> Hi
|
||||
[21:48] <Nick[Skyler]> mine are not but they do the job
|
||||
[21:48] <+Pleeb> But what's interesting, is that they found, your eyes aren't just responding to light. They had all the cells in the eye get flooded with red light,
|
||||
[21:48] <Nick[Skyler]> mm
|
||||
[21:48] <+Pleeb> And instead of the cells sending back information when the light hit them, as most would expect, they actually all just stopped sending information.
|
||||
[21:48] <Fracas> That's true with any constant uniform light source tho
|
||||
[21:48] <Fracas> Or lack thereof
|
||||
[21:48] <+Pleeb> It's why when you cover you eyes with the ping pong balls, everything turns a foggy gray and you start to halucunate.
|
||||
[21:49] <Nick[Skyler]> wow
|
||||
[21:49] <Fracas> Ping pong balls aren't good for that tho.
|
||||
[21:49] <+Pleeb> The thing is, the eye cells are literally only responding to areas where the color changes; lines and edges.
|
||||
[21:49] <Nick[Skyler]> is this something you could do to help visualisation?
|
||||
[21:49] <Fracas> yes
|
||||
[21:49] <Fracas> And yes
|
||||
[21:49] <+Pleeb> It's not just uniform light over the whole eye, it's uniform light on more than one cell.
|
||||
[21:49] <+Pleeb> So here's the thing,
|
||||
[21:49] <+Pleeb> When you're staring at say, a green square on a white background,
|
||||
[21:50] <+Pleeb> The only cells in your eye that are actually "turned on" are the ones that are looking at the edges of the green and white.
|
||||
[21:50] <Fracas> Now that is interesting.
|
||||
[21:50] <+Pleeb> That line, with the border of the square, is the only thing actually sending information to your brain.
|
||||
[21:50] <Nick[Skyler]> huh
|
||||
[21:50] <+Pleeb> However, your brain takes an educated guess that what's in the middle, is green (since the edges are green).
|
||||
[21:50] <Fracas> So your eye just fills in the square based on the edges?
|
||||
[21:50] <+Pleeb> So it just fills the rest in with green, to your perception.
|
||||
[21:51] <Fracas> Neat.
|
||||
[21:51] <Nick[Skyler]> cool
|
||||
[21:51] <Fracas> Where did you find this out?
|
||||
[21:51] <+Pleeb> Well, your brain does, yeah. The eyes itself, the only cells even turned on, and the ones on the edges
|
||||
[21:51] <Nick[Skyler]> except i don't see in color
|
||||
[21:51] <Fracas> You're full colorblind?
|
||||
[21:51] <+Pleeb> I learned it from being psych major ^^;
|
||||
[21:51] <Fracas> Like bw
|
||||
[21:51] <Nick[Skyler]> some think i am but i disagree
|
||||
06[21:51] * +Pleeb is taking neuroscience and perception coureses
|
||||
[21:52] <Fracas> Pleeb that is fantastic
|
||||
[21:52] <+Pleeb> Anyways...
|
||||
[21:52] <+Pleeb> If you think about it, it makes sense.
|
||||
[21:52] <Nick[Skyler]> yeah
|
||||
[21:52] <Fracas> Yup
|
||||
[21:52] <+Pleeb> If your eyes are sending all the information from /everything/ that you see,
|
||||
[21:52] <+Pleeb> It's a lot of information going to your brain.
|
||||
[21:52] <+Pleeb> Which is already processing a lot.
|
||||
[21:52] <Celestial> holy shit, that is some heavy optimization right there
|
||||
[21:52] <Fracas> ^
|
||||
[21:53] <Nick[Skyler]> yup
|
||||
[21:53] <+Pleeb> So your eyes are pretty good at turning some things off. So as I stare at this IRC client, for instance,
|
||||
[21:53] <+Pleeb> Which has white text and a black background,
|
||||
[21:53] <Celestial> so we're basically hallucinating 95% of anything we see at any given time?
|
||||
[21:53] <+Pleeb> The cells that fall along the black background are simply turned off.
|
||||
[21:53] <+Pleeb> We are.
|
||||
[21:53] <+Pleeb> But the thing is, we usually get it right.
|
||||
[21:53] <Celestial> that is SO awesome
|
||||
[21:53] <+Pleeb> Except, not alawys.
|
||||
[21:53] <Fracas> I wouldn't pick that high a number
|
||||
[21:53] <Fracas> But still fascinating
|
||||
[21:53] <+Pleeb> It's not that high, but the concept,you know what I mean.
|
||||
08[21:53] * %Scylla (~AEZ@Rizon-1C3ACC2F.direct-adsl.nl) Quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
|
||||
[21:53] <Fracas> Yeah
|
||||
[21:54] <+Pleeb> (I guess it depends on what you're looking at)
|
||||
[21:54] <+Pleeb> But, we did something in class,
|
||||
[21:54] <Fracas> That's true.
|
||||
[21:54] <+Pleeb> Had a huge green circle,
|
||||
[21:54] <+Pleeb> With a red granient in the middle. It had no defined edges, just sort of bled into the green circle.
|
||||
[21:54] <+Pleeb> And after staring at it for a moment, the red disappeared.
|
||||
[21:54] <Fracas> Oh man
|
||||
[21:54] <Fracas> So your brain overrode the gradient?
|
||||
[21:54] <+Pleeb> Because your eyes couldn't pick up the edge of the red, and your brain just filled it in with green.
|
||||
[21:54] <Fracas> Christ
|
||||
[21:55] <Celestial> oh man I GET IT now, that thing with the black gradient dot
|
||||
[21:55] <+Pleeb> It's pretty interesting stuff; perception, that is.
|
||||
[21:55] <Fracas> Absolutely
|
||||
[21:55] <+Pleeb> And that's just eye itself.
|
||||
[21:55] <Celestial> holy pogojumping Christ
|
||||
[21:55] <+Pleeb> I'm not even getting to the primary visual cortex.
|
||||
[21:55] <Fracas> Thank you for sharing this, damn
|
||||
[21:55] <+Pleeb> See, after the information leaves your eye, it gets sent to the back of your brain, where your primary visual cortex processess things.
|
||||
[21:56] <+Pleeb> A huge chunk of your brain is dedicated just to processing vision.
|
||||
[21:56] <Celestial> no wonder
|
||||
[21:56] <+Pleeb> And it needs to be; you're not just taking an image of what you see and sending it to you,
|
||||
[21:56] <+Pleeb> You're doing obect recognition.
|
||||
[21:56] <+Pleeb> You're doing color recognition.
|
||||
[21:56] <+Pleeb> You're perceieving depth from a 2d surface, which is very extraordnary.
|
||||
03[21:56] * Scylla (~AEZ@Rizon-1C3ACC2F.direct-adsl.nl) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[21:57] <Fracas> Especially when things are moving fast
|
||||
[21:57] <+Pleeb> Take object recognition, for instance.
|
||||
[21:57] <+Pleeb> When you look at a cup,
|
||||
[21:57] <+Pleeb> Your brain is actually computing the cup, and sending it to your perception as to what it is.
|
||||
[21:57] <Fracas> Mhm
|
||||
[21:57] <+Pleeb> For instance, there was this one person, she had a stroke, and the part of her brain that recognized objects got messed up.
|
||||
[21:57] <+Pleeb> And when she looked at a cup, she couldn't understand what it was.
|
||||
[21:57] <+Pleeb> She'd be like, "I see this thing, but I can't percieve it."
|
||||
13[21:57] * ChanServ sets mode: +h Scylla
|
||||
[21:58] <Fracas> That's mildly horrific
|
||||
[21:58] <+Pleeb> You ask her to draw it, she'd draw a high resolution image of the cup.
|
||||
[21:58] <+Pleeb> She could see it perfectly, she just couldn't recognize what it was.
|
||||
[21:58] <+Pleeb> However, if you told her, "Pour yourself a cup of tea."
|
||||
[21:58] <+Pleeb> She would reach out, pour the cup of tea, and reach out by the handle, and drink from it.
|
||||
[21:58] <+Pleeb> Because the part of her brain that computed "reaching for an object" wasn't damaged.
|
||||
[21:58] <Fracas> But not realize why she chose to pour into the cup?
|
||||
[21:58] <+Pleeb> Even know the part that computer "seeing the object" was.
|
||||
[21:58] <Celestial> so basically she was just cut out from the recognition center, even if it was still functioning
|
||||
08[21:58] * Itaryum (cgiirc@Rizon-F711E4BB.range86-154.btcentralplus.com) Quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
|
||||
[21:59] <Fracas> Sounds like it
|
||||
[21:59] <+Pleeb> Yeah... It's pretty interesting.
|
||||
[21:59] <Fracas> Indeed.
|
||||
[21:59] <+Pleeb> The brain goes through a lot to recognize an object.
|
||||
[21:59] <Celestial> by ye gods it is
|
||||
[21:59] <+Pleeb> Say I hold up a cell phone, and you recognize it as a cell phone.
|
||||
[21:59] <+Pleeb> Say I hold up the cellphone later, from a different angel.
|
||||
[21:59] <+Pleeb> You know what it is.
|
||||
[21:59] <Fracas> heh
|
||||
[21:59] <+Pleeb> Yet, you've never seen that angle before.
|
||||
[21:59] <Fracas> But your brain creates it
|
||||
[22:00] <+Pleeb> Because your brain has a way of storing a 3d represntation of it, yeah.p
|
||||
08[22:00] * Lanx (~Mibbit@5036F4FA.AF584867.15C13012.IP) Quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
|
||||
[22:00] <+Pleeb> They have a pretty good idea how it probably works. It seems that there are these template components in the brain, and it pretty much constructs the object based on its components.
|
||||
[22:00] <+Pleeb> As well, it's storing in memory every angle of the object you ever see.
|
||||
[22:00] <Celestial> oh yeah, we surely visualize a lot more than we think we do
|
||||
[22:00] <+Pleeb> So it can make its best educated guess.
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> But then, there's something else. Faces.
|
||||
[22:01] <Fracas> Ah
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> When someone sees a car go by,
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> They think, "Car"
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> People identify houses, even different types, as "house"
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> When you see a face, you don't do that.
|
||||
[22:01] <Fracas> But with a face they pair it to a specific person, right? Rather than "human"
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> You don't think, "Person"
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> Mhm.
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> You think "so-and-so"
|
||||
[22:01] <+Pleeb> Meanwhile, you see faces in everything.
|
||||
[22:01] <Celestial> any artist can tell you that faces can dramatically by the smallest details
|
||||
[22:02] <+Pleeb> You can see a basket of fruit that looks like a face.
|
||||
[22:02] <Celestial> dramatically change*
|
||||
06[22:02] * +Pleeb nods
|
||||
[22:02] <Celestial> face recognition is very, very heavy and dense
|
||||
[22:02] <+Pleeb> http://static5.depositphotos.com/1003736/470/i/950/depositphotos_4709588-Fruit-Face.jpg for instance
|
||||
[22:02] <+Pleeb> A lot of times, you might end up seeing "face" before you see "banana, grapes, oranges, and pair"
|
||||
[22:02] <Fracas> Funny how we do that, yeah
|
||||
[22:02] <+Pleeb> If you identified faces the same way you'd identify other objects,
|
||||
[22:02] <+Pleeb> This wouldn't be happening.
|
||||
[22:03] <+Pleeb> You would be seeing that by its components, not by the structure of a face.
|
||||
[22:03] <Fracas> I guess we have to see it as a face though, since we rely so much on facial recognition
|
||||
[22:03] <+Pleeb> I'm trying to find this one image, it really shows something quite interesting with recognizing faces.
|
||||
[22:04] <+Pleeb> Uploading images now.
|
||||
[22:05] <Fracas> Sweet, thanks.
|
||||
[22:06] <+Pleeb> https://i.imgur.com/9t3kkyc.png
|
||||
[22:06] <+Pleeb> Who here doesn't see a face in there?
|
||||
[22:06] <+Pleeb> It kind of jumps right out at me.
|
||||
[22:06] <Brohoofed_> everyone does
|
||||
[22:06] <Brohoofed_> i think
|
||||
[22:06] <Fracas> Yeah
|
||||
[22:07] <Fracas> Well, not everyone
|
||||
[22:07] <+Pleeb> Some people don't, and there's a reason why.
|
||||
[22:07] <Brohoofed_> it's a phenomenom
|
||||
[22:07] <+Pleeb> But most people do.
|
||||
[22:07] <+Pleeb> But the thing is,
|
||||
[22:07] <+Pleeb> A computer will have a very hard time recognizing a face, in htat.
|
||||
[22:07] <+Pleeb> It's just some brances.
|
||||
[22:07] <Nick[Skyler]> why is this
|
||||
[22:07] <Fracas> a computer doesn't necessarily have the models a brain does
|
||||
[22:07] <Brohoofed_> i think there's a name for that
|
||||
[22:07] <+Pleeb> https://i.imgur.com/BqPeZTD.png
|
||||
[22:07] <+Pleeb> There's two more examples.
|
||||
[22:07] <Celestial> ofc there's a name for that, they have a name for everythjng
|
||||
[22:07] <+Pleeb> You see a face, with these images.
|
||||
[22:08] <+Pleeb> But take a look behind the 'face' and their' just fruits, or animals.
|
||||
[22:08] <Fracas> Yup
|
||||
[22:08] <Nick[Skyler]> so where are we going with this information?
|
||||
[22:08] <+Pleeb> It's because your brain seems to be processing faces differently than other objects.
|
||||
[22:08] <Brohoofed_> is there a name for your mouth burning slightly after eating any food?
|
||||
[22:08] <Brohoofed_> i think there is
|
||||
[22:08] <Brohoofed_> i have it
|
||||
[22:08] <Fracas> I bet a computer wouldn't have as much of a problem if it had millions of reference images as well
|
||||
[22:08] <Brohoofed_> it's annoyinh
|
||||
[22:08] <Fracas> Which some do
|
||||
[22:09] <+Pleeb> That's the thing. When you identify a face, it really seems like you're percieving the entire face as a whole.
|
||||
[22:09] <+Pleeb> And this is what they found.
|
||||
[22:09] <+Pleeb> There are neurons in your brain that, they only respond when something is in your visual field; certain objects.
|
||||
[22:09] <Fracas> That makes sense.
|
||||
[22:09] <Nick[Skyler]> yup
|
||||
[22:10] <+Pleeb> For instance, there's neurons that would only fire when there's a body (even headless body) in your visual field.
|
||||
[22:10] <Fracas> Mhm
|
||||
[22:10] <Nick[Skyler]> ok
|
||||
[22:10] <+Pleeb> There are others that respond to a hand, or to some other objects,
|
||||
[22:10] <Celestial> that sounds obvious
|
||||
[22:10] <+Pleeb> And then, they found some that respond to faces.
|
||||
[22:10] <+Pleeb> But not just some,
|
||||
[22:10] <Fracas> A ton
|
||||
[22:10] <Fracas> ?
|
||||
[22:10] <+Pleeb> There seems to be an entire section of your brain dedicated to processing faces.
|
||||
03[22:10] * NamelessTraveler (~AndChat26@Rizon-4A543B96.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[22:10] <Fracas> That's a lot then.
|
||||
[22:10] <Fracas> Welp
|
||||
[22:10] <+Pleeb> It's called the fusiform face area.
|
||||
[22:10] <Celestial> oh yeah, face recognition is a very big deal
|
||||
[22:10] <+Pleeb> Also known as the FFA.
|
||||
[22:10] <+Pleeb> And here's what's interesting.
|
||||
[22:10] <Nick[Skyler]> why wouldn't there be, it makes sense given our social nature
|
||||
[22:10] <Fracas> Indeed
|
||||
[22:11] <+Pleeb> If there's someone who has damage to their FFA,
|
||||
[22:11] <+Pleeb> They will not be able to percieve faces,
|
||||
[22:11] <Nick[Skyler]> wonder what that would be like
|
||||
[22:11] <Fracas> As expected I guess. Still sucks tho
|
||||
[22:11] <+Pleeb> And while they could see things, incrluding faces, fine, they can't percieve them.
|
||||
[22:11] <+Pleeb> So they won't be able to tell the difference between their own children.
|
||||
[22:11] <Nick[Skyler]> like me :)
|
||||
[22:11] <+Pleeb> (unless they're judging by other charactistits, e.g. hight, clothes, etc)
|
||||
[22:11] <Nick[Skyler]> kidding
|
||||
[22:12] <+Pleeb> There are actually people who don't even realize it, either.p
|
||||
[22:12] <Fracas> Or the difference between their spouses face and a stranger. But they can use other cues, yeah
|
||||
[22:12] <Celestial> ever read "The Man who mistook his wife for a hat"?
|
||||
[22:12] <+Pleeb> I have not.
|
||||
[22:12] <+Pleeb> But, for instance,
|
||||
[22:12] <Celestial> it's a very enlightening series of stories of psychological problems
|
||||
[22:12] <+Pleeb> Say there's a person who has always had trouble with remembering names.
|
||||
[22:12] <Nick[Skyler]> heh like me
|
||||
[22:12] <+Pleeb> Ended up finding out that his FFA was underdevolped.
|
||||
[22:13] <Fracas> Hm
|
||||
[22:13] <Brohoofed_> this is too science for me
|
||||
[22:13] <Celestial> >in _subc
|
||||
[22:13] <Nick[Skyler]> never tested for it, wouldn't be surprised though
|
||||
[22:13] <Celestial> >complaining about too much science
|
||||
[22:13] <Fracas> Take it slow, it'll be ok
|
||||
[22:13] <+Pleeb> Hey, this is my home room!
|
||||
[22:13] <Brohoofed_> but i'm stupid.
|
||||
[22:13] <Fracas> Hahaha
|
||||
[22:13] <+Pleeb> You'll totally find me ranting in here often.
|
||||
[22:13] <Fracas> Good
|
||||
[22:13] <Fracas> I like this a lot.
|
||||
[22:13] <Nick[Skyler]> yup
|
||||
[22:14] <+Pleeb> So, now the question is,
|
||||
[22:14] <+Pleeb> Why does the FFA work like that?
|
||||
[22:14] <Fracas> Because we tie names to faces
|
||||
[22:14] <Celestial> why as in, why the focus on faces?
|
||||
[22:14] <Fracas> So if you lost one part the other would be affected
|
||||
[22:14] <+Pleeb> Well,
|
||||
[22:14] <+Pleeb> People need to recognize faces.
|
||||
[22:14] <+Pleeb> It's pretty important.
|
||||
[22:14] <+Pleeb> you determine person, even species, by face.
|
||||
[22:14] <Celestial> ok, so we're cleat on that
|
||||
[22:15] <Celestial> clear*
|
||||
[22:15] <+Pleeb> (with othe animals, for instance, etc)
|
||||
[22:15] <Fracas> Yes
|
||||
[22:15] <Nick[Skyler]> uh huh
|
||||
[22:15] <+Pleeb> The thing is, we've became experts at identifying faces.
|
||||
[22:15] <+Pleeb> So we're not just identiying them by components, we're trained to pick them out from everything.
|
||||
[22:15] <Fracas> Yup
|
||||
[22:15] <+Pleeb> So they did this expariment, to find out a bit more about this.
|
||||
[22:15] <Fracas> Oh boy
|
||||
[22:15] <+Pleeb> Because, consider people who are bird watchers.
|
||||
[22:16] <Fracas> Facial recognition of birds(?)
|
||||
[22:16] <+Pleeb> These people are actually experts at identifying birds,
|
||||
[22:16] <+Pleeb> And when they see a bird,
|
||||
[22:16] <+Pleeb> They don't just think, "bird"
|
||||
[22:16] <Fracas> heh
|
||||
[22:16] <+Pleeb> They are able to distingush small characteristics between the birds.
|
||||
[22:16] <Brohoofed_> you make a point
|
||||
[22:16] <Celestial> can you imagine though, there guys shouting BIRD and taking a photo as fast as they can to the fleeing avian
|
||||
[22:16] <+Pleeb> So they did this expariment. They created a novel class of objects called "greebles"
|
||||
[22:17] <Fracas> Once again, makes sense. Still interesting to hear about though.
|
||||
[22:17] <Nick[Skyler]> so what about someone who is visually impaired, would the FFA be under developed slightly?
|
||||
[22:17] <+Pleeb> They look like this: http://www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/gauthier/FoG/4Greebs.jpg
|
||||
[22:17] <Celestial> use or lose it Nick
|
||||
[22:17] <Nick[Skyler]> hmm
|
||||
[22:17] <+Pleeb> Oh, I have some neat things to say about vision and devolpmeent,
|
||||
[22:17] <+Pleeb> I'll get to that in a sec, if you'd like.
|
||||
[22:17] <Nick[Skyler]> pleas do
|
||||
[22:17] <+Pleeb> But,
|
||||
[22:17] <Fracas> Finish with the greebles first
|
||||
[22:17] <Nick[Skyler]> yes
|
||||
[22:18] <+Pleeb> They pretty much trained people for months to become 'experts' in identifying greebles.
|
||||
[22:18] <Celestial> well, intelligence itself is the ability to differentiate
|
||||
[22:18] <+Pleeb> So first, they did a brain scan on the people before they took up this training,
|
||||
[22:18] <Celestial> so most likely when you take on a subject you learn to identify its nuances
|
||||
[22:19] <Nick[Skyler]> good before and after
|
||||
[22:19] <+Pleeb> And scanned what was lighting up when they were identiying faces, and identifying greebles.
|
||||
[22:19] <+Pleeb> Before, with faces, the FFA lit up.
|
||||
[22:19] <+Pleeb> Before, with greebles, nothing much was lighting up.
|
||||
[22:19] <+Pleeb> After, with faces, FFA still lit up,
|
||||
[22:19] <+Pleeb> After, with greebles, FFA /also/ lit up.
|
||||
[22:19] <Nick[Skyler]> interesting
|
||||
[22:19] <Celestial> aah, so the FFA is just a "I'm scanning for this" pattern that can be borrowed for different types of things?
|
||||
[22:20] <+Pleeb> I got a pic, one sec.
|
||||
[22:20] <Nick[Skyler]> so when you visualise your tulpa's face does the ffa light up?
|
||||
[22:20] <Celestial> it sounds like a logical conclusion
|
||||
[22:20] <+Pleeb> https://i.imgur.com/PUK7GF1.png
|
||||
03[22:20] * JDBar (cgiirc@tulpacalypse.2013) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[22:20] <Celestial> the brain does not differentiate between imagining and seeing
|
||||
[22:20] <+Pleeb> Nick: I"d like to find that out.
|
||||
[22:20] <+Pleeb> And yeah, it doesn't seem to differentiate.
|
||||
[22:20] <Fracas> Nick, I think it's just for large classes, but perhaps
|
||||
[22:21] <+Pleeb> Pick any memory you have from when you were doing something in wonderland, even if it was in your mind's eye.
|
||||
[22:21] <Fracas> Like a general species versus one particular unique face
|
||||
[22:21] <+Pleeb> It will come up in your memories as it was just as happening like if you were there outside your mind's eye.
|
||||
[22:21] <Nick[Skyler]> hmm
|
||||
[22:21] <+Pleeb> And I can get into that later, too, esp with things like switching and lucid dreams, and learning a skill, devolping things, and what not.
|
||||
[22:22] <+Pleeb> I know a tulpa who trained to fight, did martial arts, and all this other stuff, in the wonderland,
|
||||
[22:22] <+Pleeb> Then switched wiht the host, and sparred me in a fight (we met up IRL),
|
||||
[22:22] <+Pleeb> And the tulpa kicked my ass.
|
||||
[22:22] <Celestial> fuck yea
|
||||
[22:22] <+Pleeb> While the host wasn't a very good fighter.
|
||||
[22:22] <Nick[Skyler]> wow
|
||||
[22:22] <Celestial> oh yeah, I've heard of tennis players training their technique in Lucid dreams
|
||||
[22:22] <JDBar> That's how I get better at gloving. I practice in my head more than I practice more in real life.
|
||||
[22:22] <+Pleeb> It works, too, and there have been stuides about that.
|
||||
[22:22] <Fracas> I guess that makes sense, even if I don't want it to.
|
||||
[22:23] <Celestial> also, that's what Micheal Jordan did
|
||||
[22:23] <Nick[Skyler]> wow
|
||||
[22:23] <Celestial> before each match he would visualize what he'd fo
|
||||
[22:23] <Celestial> do*
|
||||
[22:23] <+Pleeb> I can explain why it makes sense, if you want.
|
||||
[22:23] <Fracas> That would be nice.
|
||||
[22:23] <Nick[Skyler]> yeah
|
||||
[22:23] <+Pleeb> There's a few parts of training your body for something.
|
||||
[22:23] <+Pleeb> Mind and body.
|
||||
08[22:23] * Brohoofed_ (cgiirc@Rizon-5E1FFA48.dynamic.upc.nl) Quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
|
||||
[22:23] <JDBar> Also is tulpa.info down? MySQL error?
|
||||
[22:23] <+Pleeb> Take muscles mass vs usable strength.
|
||||
[22:23] <Fracas> For now it is
|
||||
[22:23] <Fracas> And ok
|
||||
[22:24] <Celestial> muscle memory is just that, a memory, so if you train that memory by other means you can still use it for physical acts
|
||||
[22:24] <+Pleeb> You can have really big muscles, but not be very 'strong'
|
||||
[22:24] <+Pleeb> That is, there could be someone with bigger muscles, and lose arm wresting to someone with smaller muscles.
|
||||
[22:24] <Nick[Skyler]> hmm
|
||||
[22:24] <+Pleeb> And you can read this on every fitness blog discussing body lifting.
|
||||
[22:24] <Nick[Skyler]> wow
|
||||
[22:24] <+Pleeb> And how to train for mass vs strength, and all that.
|
||||
[22:24] <Fracas> Yup
|
||||
[22:24] <Nick[Skyler]> interesting
|
||||
[22:25] <+Pleeb> But, the usuable strength, is your ability to mentally contract those muscles.
|
||||
[22:25] <Fracas> heh
|
||||
[22:25] <+Pleeb> That is, your brain's ability to utilize them.
|
||||
[22:25] <+Pleeb> And a lot of it is mental.
|
||||
[22:25] <Nick[Skyler]> hmmm
|
||||
[22:25] <+Pleeb> So here's the thing.
|
||||
[22:25] <Fracas> And because it's mental, the mental landscape of a wonderland can be used to train it(?)
|
||||
[22:25] <+Pleeb> When you're say, training to fight.
|
||||
[22:26] <+Pleeb> When you're doing a drill, you're building up your muscles, and your body's ability to do those drills,
|
||||
[22:26] <+Pleeb> But you're also forming the connections in your brain to do it.
|
||||
[22:26] <+Pleeb> When you're, say, in a lucid dream,
|
||||
[22:26] <+Pleeb> Your brain is active. It's functioning in a smiliar state as if you were awake.
|
||||
[22:26] <+Pleeb> As far as your conscious awareness goes.
|
||||
[22:27] <+Pleeb> And it's because once you go lucid, the parts of your brain that handle that sorto f thing, for lack of a better term, "come online"
|
||||
[22:27] <Fracas> I've always been intrigued by lucid dreaming, even more so now.
|
||||
[22:27] <+Pleeb> It's why the moment you become lucid, you end up having your memory back of the waking world, and whatnot.
|
||||
[22:27] <+Pleeb> I went to an academic confrence a few years ago, someone was doing a presentation on lucid dreaming.
|
||||
[22:27] <+Pleeb> It was very interesting.
|
||||
[22:28] <+Pleeb> Anyways,
|
||||
[22:28] <Celestial> I bet it was
|
||||
[22:28] <Fracas> I'll bet
|
||||
[22:28] <Nick[Skyler]> never tried lucid dreaming
|
||||
[22:28] <Celestial> you're missing out Nick
|
||||
[22:28] <+Pleeb> When you're lucid dreaming, and you're practcing, say, doing a drill,
|
||||
[22:28] <Fracas> Perhaps you should attempt to get into it
|
||||
[22:28] <+Pleeb> You end up still forming those same connectionsi n the brain that you would have if you did it while awake.
|
||||
[22:28] <+Pleeb> So yeah, you can totally practice things in a lucid dream.
|
||||
[22:29] <+Pleeb> But, here's the thing.
|
||||
[22:29] <+Pleeb> When you're doing that, you're practicing from a mental standpoint.
|
||||
[22:29] <+Pleeb> What about your physcial body's tolerance?
|
||||
[22:29] <Fracas> heh.
|
||||
[22:29] <+Pleeb> When I sparred this tulpa, who was switched, the host's body couldn't hold out very long.
|
||||
[22:29] <Celestial> that one's plenty larger than we give it credit for, so no biggie
|
||||
[22:29] <+Pleeb> And I actually tried it with Chess, she's sparred a friend of mine using the body before.
|
||||
[22:29] <Fracas> Makes sense.
|
||||
[22:29] <+Pleeb> And while she was able to just keep going and going and going,
|
||||
[22:29] <+Pleeb> The body was overheating.
|
||||
[22:29] <+Pleeb> Like, literally overheating.
|
||||
[22:29] <Fracas> shit son
|
||||
[22:29] <Nick[Skyler]> wow
|
||||
[22:30] <Fracas> Sucks
|
||||
[22:30] <+Pleeb> So, let's talk about that primary visual cortex!
|
||||
[22:30] <Fracas> Yes, let's
|
||||
[22:30] <Nick[Skyler]> slightly off topic, pleeb how many wpm can you type?
|
||||
[22:30] <+Pleeb> Uhh....
|
||||
[22:30] <+Pleeb> 100+, last time I checked.
|
||||
[22:31] <Fracas> Nice.
|
||||
[22:31] <+Pleeb> My job is transcribing interviews.
|
||||
[22:31] <+Pleeb> For a sociology professor.
|
||||
[22:31] <Fracas> Well then that makes sense
|
||||
[22:31] <Celestial> hah
|
||||
[22:31] <Nick[Skyler]> yeah
|
||||
[22:31] <Celestial> dvorak or qwerty?
|
||||
[22:31] <+Pleeb> Dvorak.
|
||||
[22:31] <Celestial> masterrace
|
||||
[22:31] <+Pleeb> x3
|
||||
[22:31] <+Pleeb> But yeah, back to sight,
|
||||
[22:31] <Nick[Skyler]> yes
|
||||
[22:31] <+Pleeb> Images come in your eyes, and fall on your retaina.
|
||||
[22:32] <+Pleeb> It's a literal image.
|
||||
[22:32] <Fracas> Mhm
|
||||
[22:32] <+Pleeb> As well as other things, such as color and light information, is recorded.
|
||||
[22:32] <+Pleeb> (color recognition is a very amazing concept, esp color constancy and light constancy)
|
||||
[22:32] <+Pleeb> (but I don't have nearly enough time to discuss it)
|
||||
[22:32] <Fracas> :P
|
||||
[22:32] <Celestial> first time I saw that chessboard with the deceiving greys, it blew my mind
|
||||
[22:33] <+Pleeb> That information is sent to the back of your brain, through different neural connections.
|
||||
[22:33] <+Pleeb> Yeah, the chessobard with decieveing greys; that's light constancy.
|
||||
[22:33] <+Pleeb> But anyways
|
||||
[22:33] <+Pleeb> It actually keeps the left and the right eye seperated.
|
||||
[22:33] <+Pleeb> At least through most of the data processing.
|
||||
[22:33] <+Pleeb> Like, the left and right eye, they go to oppisite sides of the brain.
|
||||
[22:33] <Fracas> That makes sense, actually.
|
||||
[22:34] <Celestial> it needs to since 3D comes likely after obj recognition and all that
|
||||
[22:34] <+Pleeb> And even when they run through your primary visual cortex, they're still seperate.
|
||||
[22:34] <+Pleeb> Yeah, they get handled later, for depth perception... which is another mindblowing subject, which I can't get into right now ;_;
|
||||
[22:34] <+Pleeb> But, as far as when they develope,
|
||||
[22:34] <Celestial> that's ok, you're being plenty awesome for today
|
||||
[22:34] <Fracas> Perhaps another time, I'd absolutely be willing to listen.
|
||||
[22:34] <+Pleeb> Regarding imparents,
|
||||
[22:34] <+Pleeb> imparaments*
|
||||
[22:35] <+Pleeb> However the heck you spell it
|
||||
[22:35] <+Pleeb> (sorry, dysgrapic ^^;)
|
||||
[22:35] <Fracas> impairment
|
||||
[22:35] <+Pleeb> Yeah, that's it.
|
||||
[22:35] <Celestial> imapirments
|
||||
[22:35] <Celestial> FUUU
|
||||
[22:35] <Nick[Skyler]> yes?
|
||||
[22:35] <+Pleeb> As far as the % of your cortext that utilizes left and right eyes,
|
||||
[22:35] <+Pleeb> They found that it's 50% of your visual cortex processess the left eye, and 50% processess the right.
|
||||
[22:36] <+Pleeb> Makes sense, right?
|
||||
[22:36] <Fracas> Sure
|
||||
[22:36] <Nick[Skyler]> yeah
|
||||
[22:36] <Reguile> discussion?
|
||||
[22:36] <Celestial> I suppose a lazy eye happens when THAT doesn't happen
|
||||
[22:36] <+Pleeb> Have you guys ever heard of lazyeye?
|
||||
[22:36] <+Pleeb> Ah, yeah.
|
||||
[22:36] <Celestial> HAH
|
||||
[22:36] <Fracas> lol
|
||||
[22:36] <+Pleeb> My mother has it.
|
||||
[22:36] <Nick[Skyler]> yeah
|
||||
[22:36] <Fracas> My father has that
|
||||
[22:36] <+Pleeb> Her eye drifts over.
|
||||
[22:36] <Nick[Skyler]> yup
|
||||
[22:36] <Reguile> that has to do with weak eye muscles doesn't it?
|
||||
[22:36] <+Pleeb> People attribute it to a weak eye muscle, but that's not why.
|
||||
[22:37] <Celestial> pfft, it has to do with the dominace of info from one eye
|
||||
[22:37] <Nick[Skyler]> really?
|
||||
[22:37] <+Pleeb> It's because, for some reason, your brain decides it's going to pay more attention to one eye then the other.
|
||||
[22:37] <+Pleeb> When your brain is devolping,
|
||||
[22:37] <Celestial> since otherwise you'd be straing to keep them functioning equally
|
||||
[22:37] <Celestial> straning*
|
||||
[22:37] <+Pleeb> It builds all of these complex networks.
|
||||
[22:37] <Fracas> So the eye isn't "lazy", but rather neglected
|
||||
[22:37] <+Pleeb> In this case, it might be that your left eye is being utilized more than the right.
|
||||
[22:37] <Celestial> yep
|
||||
[22:37] <Fracas> huh
|
||||
[22:37] <Nick[Skyler]> poor lazy eye
|
||||
[22:37] <+Pleeb> They did this expairement with kittens,
|
||||
[22:38] <+Pleeb> They pretty much raised the kitten in complete darkness, so their eyes would never see anything.
|
||||
[22:38] <Nick[Skyler]> that sucks
|
||||
[22:38] <+Pleeb> When the kitten was an adult, they checked its primary visaul cortex, and it was empty.
|
||||
[22:38] <Fracas> Only for the kitters
|
||||
[22:38] <+Pleeb> There were no networks devopled in the brain.
|
||||
[22:38] <+Pleeb> For the eyes, at least.
|
||||
[22:38] <Nick[Skyler]> wow
|
||||
[22:38] <+Pleeb> No 50% left and 50% right, or any of that.
|
||||
[22:38] <+Pleeb> So then, they tried another expariment,
|
||||
[22:38] <Fracas> So the eyes functioned, but were ignored by the brain?
|
||||
[22:39] <+Pleeb> They had a kitten raised with only their left eye working.
|
||||
[22:39] <Nick[Skyler]> ^
|
||||
[22:39] <+Pleeb> Mhm.
|
||||
[22:39] <Fracas> Am I understanding that correctly?
|
||||
[22:39] <+Pleeb> Yes.
|
||||
[22:39] <Fracas> Ok
|
||||
[22:39] <+Pleeb> For the only left eye working,
|
||||
[22:39] <Celestial> when you don't have the patterns you don't recognize things
|
||||
[22:39] <Celestial> it's like the difference from a reader and a writer
|
||||
[22:39] <+Pleeb> I think they actually sewed the kitten's right eye shut.
|
||||
[22:39] <+Pleeb> Anyway, they found, when the kitten was an adult,
|
||||
[22:39] <Fracas> Welp
|
||||
[22:39] <Celestial> a writer sees all the little things, the style, the organization, a reader just immerses in the prose
|
||||
[22:40] <Nick[Skyler]> 100% left?
|
||||
[22:40] <+Pleeb> The primary visaul cortex was 100% utilizing the left eye.
|
||||
[22:40] <Nick[Skyler]> yes!
|
||||
[22:40] <+Pleeb> Indeed!
|
||||
[22:40] <+Pleeb> So you can pretty much figure out how lazy eye work.s
|
||||
[22:40] <Celestial> eeyup
|
||||
[22:40] <Nick[Skyler]> yeah that's interesting
|
||||
[22:40] <+Pleeb> And it's actually why they use that eye patch when a kid has lazy eye.
|
||||
[22:40] <Fracas> That's awesome.
|
||||
[22:40] <Nick[Skyler]> that makes sense
|
||||
[22:40] <Celestial> it forces the other eye to be used, yeah
|
||||
[22:40] <+Pleeb> Because if they cover up their 'good' eye with the eye pactch, the brain will compensate by adding more from the bad eye to the neural networks.
|
||||
[22:41] <+Pleeb> Getting them more equalized.
|
||||
[22:41] <Nick[Skyler]> how long does this take?
|
||||
[22:41] <+Pleeb> Oh, I don't know.
|
||||
[22:41] <Celestial> took a few weeks for me
|
||||
[22:41] <Nick[Skyler]> oh well
|
||||
[22:41] <+Pleeb> It's like I said this morinng.
|
||||
[22:41] <+Pleeb> Your brain is pretty plastic.
|
||||
[22:41] <Celestial> when I was about....10?
|
||||
[22:41] <+Pleeb> Esp when it's first devolping
|
||||
[22:41] <+Pleeb> (when you're a kid)
|
||||
[22:42] <+Pleeb> Yeah.
|
||||
[22:42] <+Pleeb> It's making tons and tons of networks, forming connections like there's no tomorrow.
|
||||
[22:42] <+Pleeb> Does that 'till you're like, 25 or something.
|
||||
[22:42] <Nick[Skyler]> so how plastic is it at age 16
|
||||
03[22:42] * Cold (~Cold@Cold.as.ice) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[22:42] <+Pleeb> You know, I might acutally be able to answer that.
|
||||
[22:42] <+Pleeb> Give me a moment, I might have written it down.
|
||||
[22:42] <Celestial> it keeps being very plastic until 25, statistically
|
||||
[22:42] <Celestial> or at least IIRC
|
||||
[22:42] <+Pleeb> There's actually a point where your brain starts killing off a ton of connections because it doesn't need them anymore.
|
||||
[22:43] <Celestial> the pruning phase, yeah, I forgot where that one is
|
||||
[22:43] <+Pleeb> Yeah.
|
||||
[22:43] <Nick[Skyler]> what does it get rid of?
|
||||
[22:43] <+Pleeb> Less efficient connections.
|
||||
[22:43] <+Pleeb> Basically, when you're a kid,
|
||||
[22:43] <+Pleeb> You have /a lot/ more connections in your brain,
|
||||
[22:44] <+Pleeb> But they're not as efficent.
|
||||
[22:44] <+Pleeb> As you age, it's making new connections and stuff, and evolving them into becoming more efficent.
|
||||
[22:44] <Celestial> erryone is a bootlegger ;p
|
||||
[22:44] <Fracas> hue
|
||||
[22:44] <Nick[Skyler]> so for things like motor control, its constantly upgrading those connections?
|
||||
[22:45] <Celestial> using their code to develop better code, so ofc you get to discard the old one at some point
|
||||
[22:45] <Nick[Skyler]> ok
|
||||
[22:45] <+Pleeb> Heh, I actually have a neat video that explains this stuff pretty well, for those who are interested.
|
||||
[22:45] <+Pleeb> Just don't pass it out.
|
||||
[22:45] <Fracas> Ok
|
||||
[22:45] <+Pleeb> (because it's from one of my neuroscience courses)
|
||||
[22:45] <Celestial> oh? how come? part of an ongoing project?
|
||||
[22:45] <Celestial> ah
|
||||
[22:46] <+Pleeb> http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MEDIA_1/mypsychlab/videoseries/E03_S04.html
|
||||
[22:46] <Fracas> lol
|
||||
[22:46] <+Pleeb> Save the link, since it's like, 7 minutes.
|
||||
[22:46] <+Pleeb> (I'm almost done ^^;)
|
||||
[22:46] <Celestial> online classes?
|
||||
[22:46] <Fracas> Awesome, thanks
|
||||
[22:46] <+Pleeb> Nah.
|
||||
[22:46] <+Pleeb> Not online,
|
||||
[22:46] <+Pleeb> Just a resource the professor sent out.
|
||||
[22:46] <Celestial> radical
|
||||
[22:46] <+Pleeb> Anyways,
|
||||
[22:46] <+Pleeb> Here's something neat.
|
||||
[22:47] <+Pleeb> There's something called blindsight.
|
||||
[22:47] <+Pleeb> Basically, consider how everything gets processed in the primary visual cortex.
|
||||
[22:47] <Celestial> inb4 D&D
|
||||
[22:47] <+Pleeb> Say someone has a stroke, and the primary visual cortex is damaged beyond repair.
|
||||
[22:47] <+Pleeb> So your eyes are working fine,
|
||||
[22:47] <+Pleeb> But they're just sending the information into your brain,
|
||||
[22:47] <+Pleeb> But the visual cortex simply doesn't work anymore.
|
||||
[22:47] <+Pleeb> Even know these people have eyes that can see, they're blind.
|
||||
[22:48] <+Pleeb> You ask them what they see, they answer that they see nothing.
|
||||
[22:48] <Celestial> it's like reading a text in an foreign language, hah
|
||||
[22:48] <+Pleeb> Because, well... the part of your brain that actually processess sight dosen't work.
|
||||
[22:48] <Celestial> you don't have the tools to interpret what you have
|
||||
[22:48] <+Pleeb> It's like if their eyes were closed.
|
||||
[22:48] <+Pleeb> They are blind.
|
||||
[22:48] <+Pleeb> But here's what's interesting.
|
||||
[22:49] <+Pleeb> Psycholgist found that, even know these people can't see anything, the information was still going into their brain... So there was an expariment done.
|
||||
[22:49] <+Pleeb> They got someone who had a non-working primary visual cortex.
|
||||
[22:49] <+Pleeb> And they told them, "We're going to sit you down in front of a screen, and an object is going to go across the screen. We want you to tell us which direction the object is going."
|
||||
[22:49] <+Pleeb> Their anwser was,
|
||||
[22:49] <+Pleeb> "I won't be able to. I'm blind."
|
||||
[22:49] <+Pleeb> So the researchers said, "Then just take a wild guess."
|
||||
[22:50] <+Pleeb> And they're like, "Yeah, sure."
|
||||
[22:50] <Fracas> I think I see where this is going.
|
||||
[22:50] <+Pleeb> Well, the person would be like, "Eh, I'm guessing left."
|
||||
[22:50] <+Pleeb> Haviung no idea which way, just taking a wild guess, since, you know, he didn't see anything....
|
||||
[22:50] <+Pleeb> ....and about 80% of the time, he was correct.
|
||||
[22:50] <+Pleeb> On the direction, and the color, even.
|
||||
[22:50] <Norkkom> hmm
|
||||
[22:50] <Celestial> did they get things like eyes tracking subconsciously the object?
|
||||
[22:50] <+Pleeb> Somehow, the information is getting into their subconscious.
|
||||
[22:50] <+Pleeb> They're not consciously aware of it, but it's in there.
|
||||
[22:50] <Norkkom> That doesn't seem like it should be possible of course, did they figure out why?
|
||||
[22:51] <+Pleeb> They even had people who had blindsight navigate obstical courses.
|
||||
[22:51] <+Pleeb> They would justn have a 'feeling' that there might be something in front of them.
|
||||
[22:51] <+Pleeb> So they'd move, and happen to be right.
|
||||
[22:51] <+Pleeb> They even exposed the person to a very scary/threatening face,
|
||||
03[22:51] * Nobillis (cgiirc@Rizon-71C0C3B7.dyn.iinet.net.au) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[22:51] <Celestial> Norkkom: I feel it's because the conscious is really a small part of the whole, and just because something doesn't reach it it doesn't mean it's not there
|
||||
[22:51] <+Pleeb> And the person started feeling scared, and had no idea why.
|
||||
[22:52] <Norkkom> You're probably right.
|
||||
[22:52] <Norkkom> Food for thought
|
||||
[22:52] <+Pleeb> Because he wasn't consciously aware of it, but the information somehow made it into the subconscious.
|
||||
[22:52] <Celestial> yep
|
||||
[22:52] <+Pleeb> You have a lot of things that don't work with the consciousness.
|
||||
[22:52] <+Pleeb> Most things with perception, actually.
|
||||
13[22:52] * ChanServ sets mode: +v Nobillis
|
||||
[22:52] <Celestial> it's like being hit with a hammer that you didn't see, you're gonna feel the pain but know not of the hammer
|
||||
[22:52] <+Pleeb> Here's something interesting.
|
||||
[22:52] <+Pleeb> And, actually,
|
||||
[22:52] <Norkkom> Interesting analogy.
|
||||
[22:52] <Norkkom> But yeah
|
||||
[22:52] <+Pleeb> Who was here when I was talking about images falling on your retainas?
|
||||
[22:53] <+Pleeb> With size?
|
||||
[22:53] <+Pleeb> Size constancy, specifically.
|
||||
[22:53] <Norkkom> I wasn't but I might have the logs
|
||||
[22:53] <Celestial> I want those logs FYI
|
||||
[22:53] <+Pleeb> Meh, I'll just say it again.
|
||||
[22:53] <+Pleeb> Since there's some background already discussed, it'll be easier for me to explain this time around.
|
||||
03[22:53] * MQQSE (~Antgirls.@Rizon-B3FB8A2D.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[22:53] <Norkkom> mkay
|
||||
[22:53] <Norkkom> Also hello Moose.
|
||||
[22:53] <Nick[Skyler]> pleeb thank you for the video it was very interesting indeed.
|
||||
[22:53] <+Pleeb> When you look at the world around you,
|
||||
03[22:53] * marador (cgiirc@Rizon-C77B2A58.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[22:54] <+Pleeb> Nick: Glad you thought so, it is pretty cool.
|
||||
[22:54] <+Pleeb> You know how an image of the world around you is burned on your retina?
|
||||
[22:54] <Nick[Skyler]> yeah
|
||||
[22:54] <+Pleeb> Like, you literally have cells where the image itself is saved on these cells.
|
||||
[22:54] <Norkkom> Sure.
|
||||
[22:55] <+Pleeb> (which later actually get stored on an array in your brain)
|
||||
[22:55] <+Pleeb> (it's how those glasses for blind people work; it renders an image on that array)
|
||||
[22:55] <+Pleeb> Anyways....
|
||||
[22:55] <Nick[Skyler]> cool
|
||||
[22:55] <+Pleeb> Say there's someone standing 10ft away from you.
|
||||
[22:55] <Celestial> that's how you get those color trick images work, right? by first impressing color on the retinas
|
||||
[22:55] <+Pleeb> That person is leaving an image on your retina.
|
||||
[22:55] <+Pleeb> Celestial: Exactly.
|
||||
[22:56] <+Pleeb> And actually, there's something really neat with that... but first,
|
||||
[22:56] <+Pleeb> What happens if this person that's 10ft away from you walks towards you, and is now 5ft away from you?
|
||||
[22:56] <+Pleeb> The image of this person on your retina is now twice the size as he was before.
|
||||
[22:56] <+Pleeb> Since he's half as close as he was before.
|
||||
[22:56] <Nick[Skyler]> ok
|
||||
[22:56] <+Pleeb> (you know, since things further away become bigger when they get closer to you)
|
||||
[22:57] <Norkkom> lol yes
|
||||
[22:57] <+Pleeb> But... this person isn't doubling in size, when this happens.
|
||||
[22:57] <Norkkom> Mhm.
|
||||
[22:57] <+Pleeb> He /should/, since he doubles in size on your retina, but not in the real world. He doesn't suddenly become a giant.
|
||||
[22:57] <+Pleeb> It's because your brain takes that object "person" and resizes it for your perception.
|
||||
[22:57] <Nick[Skyler]> ok?
|
||||
[22:57] <Celestial> aaah, the three people of the same graphical size on the sidewalk, an oldie but a goodie
|
||||
[22:57] <+Nobillis> you are only increasing the number of cells by 4 times from before
|
||||
[22:57] <Nick[Skyler]> where are you going with this?
|
||||
[22:58] <MQQSE> I... I didn't get an interesting video...
|
||||
[22:58] <MQQSE> ;-;
|
||||
13[22:58] * ChanServ sets mode: +o MQQSE
|
||||
[22:58] <+Pleeb> MQQSE: you'll have to get the pastebin, I've been covering some really neat things the past hour.
|
||||
[22:58] <Celestial> IT'S WRITTEN HERE, CLEAR AS CRYSTAL, YOU GET NOTHING, GOOD DAY SIR
|
||||
[22:58] <+Pleeb> I'm almost done, though.
|
||||
[22:59] <+Pleeb> Basically, the way your brain does this,
|
||||
[22:59] <+Pleeb> Is that it calculates how far away the object is from you.
|
||||
[22:59] <Nick[Skyler]> mqqse here it is http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MEDIA_1/mypsychlab/videoseries/E03_S04.html
|
||||
[22:59] <+Pleeb> And shrinks/grows the object, depending on the distance it thinks teh object is.
|
||||
[22:59] <+Pleeb> Your brain is really good at calculating distance, since you have two eyes, and depth perception abilities.
|
||||
[23:00] <Fracas> yup
|
||||
[23:00] <+Nobillis> Based on stereoscopy for two eyes, or focus distance for one eye (to calculate size)
|
||||
[23:00] <+Pleeb> Have you guys ever seen those rooms with forced perspective, where the people seem to get bigger and smaller?
|
||||
[23:00] <Celestial> and from that obv comes all the good tricks of making them look at something weird with one eye only, or in photos
|
||||
[23:00] <+Pleeb> Mhm, exactly, Celestial.
|
||||
[23:00] <Celestial> oh yeah, the forced perspective rooms are THE BEST
|
||||
[23:01] <Celestial> they're genuinely spooky when people get creative with them
|
||||
[23:01] <Nick[Skyler]> oh god
|
||||
[23:01] <Fracas> lol
|
||||
[23:01] <+Pleeb> It's because if you take one eye out, you no longer have depth. And then if you shape things a certain way to fool your brain into thinking the room is a certain shape when it's not,
|
||||
[23:01] <+Pleeb> You literally see people growing and shrinking.
|
||||
[23:01] <+Pleeb> Looking for a video.
|
||||
[23:02] <+Nobillis> The scene in the original Willie Wonka movie where they go down the hallway to the candy room (little tiny door with musical lock)
|
||||
[23:02] <+Pleeb> Nobillis: That's actually a good example.
|
||||
[23:03] <Celestial> or in Alice in Wonderland, when she looks at a long corridor that it's just a shrinking one with a tiny door at the end
|
||||
[23:03] <+Pleeb> Where i was getting to, with all of this,
|
||||
[23:03] <Fracas> Oh yeah
|
||||
[23:04] <Celestial> Who was here when I was talking about images falling on your retainas?
|
||||
[23:04] <Celestial> <+Pleeb> With size?
|
||||
[23:04] <Celestial> <+Pleeb> Size constancy, specifically.
|
||||
[23:04] <+Pleeb> You can even know for a fact about the size difference, and what your perception is doing.
|
||||
[23:04] <Celestial> something about this?
|
||||
[23:04] <+Pleeb> For instance, consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahcglOeNyoU
|
||||
[23:04] <Reguile> depth is really kind of a funny thing, and it's something I never really noticed untill I spent a few hours just kind of looking back and forth between one and two eyes
|
||||
[23:05] <+Pleeb> If your consciousness played a bigger role, you would be consciously aware that these people are not really that size, and you would be aware of how it works with the forced perspective,
|
||||
[23:05] <+Pleeb> And then the illusion would be broken.
|
||||
[23:05] <+Pleeb> But even when you see them shift sizes, your perception is still imposing that size on your consciousness.
|
||||
[23:05] <Nick[Skyler]> so how does any of this relate to tulpa? or is it required to?
|
||||
[23:06] <+Pleeb> Nick: Well, it's perception in general; it falls more under the 'mind-related' than 'advanced tulpa' at the moment.
|
||||
[23:06] <Reguile> i'd say tulpa have a lot to do with this sort of stuff
|
||||
[23:06] <+Pleeb> Though I think perception is pretty vital to a lot of this.
|
||||
[23:06] <+Pleeb> I keep getting ninja'd.
|
||||
[23:06] <Fracas> Regardless of whether it's tulpa related it's a good discussion to have.
|
||||
[23:06] <Nick[Skyler]> agreed
|
||||
[23:06] <Celestial> definitely
|
||||
[23:06] <+Pleeb> But basically,
|
||||
[23:07] <+Pleeb> Your brain sort of has a formula that it adheres to.
|
||||
[23:07] <marador> very interesting. I sorta /knew/ that stuff. But I didn't know the mechanics behind it.
|
||||
[23:08] <+Pleeb> Your brain pretty much works out that,
|
||||
[23:08] <+Pleeb> (trying to find a way to word this)
|
||||
[23:08] <+Pleeb> Okay. When an object is closer to you, we know that it's causing a bigger retinal image, even if the object is not really doubling in size.
|
||||
[23:08] <+Pleeb> So what your brain does, is, for objects that are getting closer to you, it has you percieve that object's size as being smaller.
|
||||
[23:09] <+Pleeb> So the overall perception of that object's size would be about constant.
|
||||
[23:09] <marador> someone in .info wants to talk to you when you get a second pleeb
|
||||
[23:09] <Celestial> get them here!
|
||||
[23:09] <marador> he says he cant switch channels
|
||||
[23:09] <+Pleeb> Yeah, I read the comment.
|
||||
[23:09] <marador> okay
|
||||
[23:09] <+Pleeb> I'll get to that, in a moment.
|
||||
[23:10] <+Pleeb> (I contacted the host regarding the SQL stuff)
|
||||
[23:10] <Fracas> Oh, sweet.
|
||||
[23:10] <+Pleeb> There's no database to actually connect to.
|
||||
[23:10] <Reguile> ahh, pleeb, I recently kind of half abandoned my minecraft server, because I started college
|
||||
[23:10] <+Pleeb> So nothing is really at risk atm ^^;
|
||||
[23:10] <Fracas> Well that's good :3
|
||||
[23:11] <+Nobillis> The same perception calculation is used in surveying to do aerial photography to pick up ground level for roadworks planning - but.sometimes trees cause the height calculation to go wrong (SMIGS)
|
||||
[23:11] <Celestial> hah
|
||||
[23:11] <Fracas> lol
|
||||
[23:11] <+Pleeb> Yeah.
|
||||
[23:11] <+Pleeb> Anyway, I have to wrap this up, so I will,
|
||||
[23:11] <+Pleeb> With the whole thing with size constancy.
|
||||
[23:11] <Fracas> Sounds good.
|
||||
[23:12] <+Pleeb> Basically, there are times when it indeed breaks down.
|
||||
[23:12] <+Pleeb> When you're on top of a building, for instance.
|
||||
[23:12] <+Pleeb> And you're looking down, and people "look like ants"
|
||||
[23:12] <+Pleeb> The reason that happens, is because your brain doesn't actually know how to take such vertical hight into account to apply size constancy.
|
||||
[23:12] <Fracas> huh.
|
||||
[23:12] <+Pleeb> It's really good with horizontal distance, but not so good with vertical.
|
||||
[23:13] <Celestial> tbh they never felt like real ants to me
|
||||
[23:13] <Celestial> I mean, yeah, they're small but they're still full-sized people down there and stuff
|
||||
[23:13] <+Pleeb> https://i.imgur.com/fU7m38E.png is a neat example of some things.
|
||||
[23:13] <+Pleeb> Which person is bigger, which is smaller?
|
||||
[23:13] <+Pleeb> They're both the same size.
|
||||
[23:13] <Celestial> classic
|
||||
[23:13] <+Pleeb> But your brain is percieving the one at the top as being bigger.
|
||||
[23:14] <marador> ive always liked optical illusions like that
|
||||
[23:14] <Fracas> they are cool.
|
||||
[23:14] <+Pleeb> And the reason why, is because your brain figures out, "Okay, the one on the bottom, even know he's the same size as the one on the top, the one on the top is further away, so that one must be bigger."
|
||||
[23:14] <+Pleeb> And then you percieve that person as being bigger.
|
||||
03[23:15] * Teryakywind|Molly (~the_fuzzy@I.Did.It.For.Teh.Lulz) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[23:15] <Fracas> yeah, heh
|
||||
[23:15] <Celestial> makes you think just how little of the actual image you percieve, and how much of your thoughts about it instead
|
||||
[23:15] <+Pleeb> What we actually did in class,
|
||||
[23:15] <+Pleeb> To actually test this,
|
||||
[23:15] <+Pleeb> We projected a really big green image on the wall.
|
||||
[23:15] <+Pleeb> And we stared at that green image for about a minute.
|
||||
[23:16] <+Pleeb> What happened was, that big green image burned into our retinas.
|
||||
[23:16] <+Pleeb> And then, we looked down at a peice of paper that was close to us.
|
||||
[23:16] <+Pleeb> And the afterimage, that was really big on the wall, was very tiny on the paper.
|
||||
[23:16] <+Pleeb> Even know it stayed the same size on our retina.
|
||||
[23:16] <Celestial> oh god I remember doing that
|
||||
[23:16] <Fracas> Oh, clever.
|
||||
[23:16] <+Pleeb> And you could actually move the paper close and further from you, and it would shrink and grow.
|
||||
[23:16] <Teryakywind|Molly> trippy
|
||||
[23:17] <+Pleeb> Because your brain is like, "Oh, now the image is x size, but further away, so it must be bigger."
|
||||
[23:17] <Celestial> it feels so weird to look at it and not being able to see it the same size
|
||||
[23:17] <+Pleeb> And I have one more.
|
||||
[23:17] <+Pleeb> The moon.
|
||||
[23:17] <Fracas> Oh?
|
||||
[23:17] <Celestial> when it goes on the horizon, it looks bigger, rught?
|
||||
[23:17] <+Pleeb> Guys, who here has seen the moon a little larger-than-normal when it's rising in teh early evening?
|
||||
[23:17] <+Pleeb> Mhm.
|
||||
[23:17] <+Pleeb> The moon looks bigger on the horizon, then it's smaller when it's up in the sky.
|
||||
[23:17] <Celestial> they way because you have more frames of reference near the ground
|
||||
[23:18] <+Pleeb> Mhm.
|
||||
[23:18] <Celestial> they say it's because*
|
||||
[23:18] <+Pleeb> If you stood there,
|
||||
[23:18] <Celestial> muh grammer
|
||||
[23:18] <+Pleeb> And took a picture of the moon when it's rising,
|
||||
[23:18] <Fracas> Shit, that makes sense.
|
||||
[23:18] <+Pleeb> Then, stayed in that position, and took a picture of it highi n the sky, when it's 'tiny'
|
||||
[23:18] <marador> too many mountains around here to ever see it on the horizon
|
||||
[23:18] <+Pleeb> And compare the photes,
|
||||
[23:18] <+Pleeb> hey are exactly the same size.
|
||||
[23:18] <+Pleeb> Even know it looks about 1.5 times bigger on the horizon.
|
||||
[23:18] <Celestial> well marador, any place where you have some ground features in your FoV also
|
||||
[23:18] <+Pleeb> And this is why:
|
||||
[23:18] <marador> well that didn't sound quite right, but you know what I meant
|
||||
[23:19] <+Pleeb> (and I'll posta pic)
|
||||
[23:19] <Celestial> because all the features you're comparing the moon to are much closer, right?
|
||||
[23:19] <Celestial> so you tend to interpret the moon as part of them and it looks bigger by comparison
|
||||
[23:20] <+Pleeb> First off, for some reason, and people don't know why, your perception seems to interperate the sky as a dome, with a flat heaven, like so: https://i.imgur.com/SbSkPv4.png
|
||||
[23:20] <+Pleeb> When you're looking into the horizon,
|
||||
[23:20] <Celestial> ooh yeah, also that
|
||||
07[23:20] * Teryakywind|Molly (~the_fuzzy@I.Did.It.For.Teh.Lulz) has left #tulpa_subc (Leaving)
|
||||
[23:20] <+Pleeb> You see the moon, but not just that, you have all those other depth queues.
|
||||
[23:20] <+Pleeb> You can tell that the moon is bloody far away.
|
||||
03[23:20] * ThunderClap (~syrinx@tear.down.the.wall) has joined #tulpa_subc
|
||||
[23:21] <+Pleeb> And among all the other references,
|
||||
[23:21] <+Pleeb> Your perception is able to properly give you a good representation of the moon, with its actual size.
|
||||
[23:21] <ThunderClap> I hate to interupt your discussion but how can you be so sure the website is secure, Pleeb?
|
||||
[23:22] <Celestial> prolly because he can see that he's disconnected the database from the site, so there's nothing to hack
|
||||
[23:22] <+Pleeb> ThunderClap: That error message is not exposing anything internal; it's not exposing any sql query statements, saying what things in the table are located, and that sort of thing.
|
||||
[23:23] <+Pleeb> The error message says that server can't be connectd to.
|
||||
[23:23] <+Pleeb> And the socket is a generic socket that most machines use.
|
||||
[23:23] <+Pleeb> There's nothing to be exposed.
|
||||
[23:24] <+Pleeb> I did open a support ticket with our shared hosting.
|
||||
[23:25] <+Pleeb> Anyway, I actually have to head off in a moment.
|
||||
[23:26] <Celestial> aw, small question before you go, how are you and Chess doing? got into any more paranormal activity as of late?
|
||||
[23:26] <Fracas> Ok, glad you could spare a moment to talk with us!
|
||||
[23:26] <Reguile> heh, magick
|
||||
[23:27] <+Nobillis> Thank you Pleeb.
|
||||
[23:27] <+Pleeb> Chess is doing fine, and there's things here and there, though no time to get into some big details on the subject.
|
||||
[23:27] <Celestial> alright :3 thanks for the talk, it was awesome!
|
||||
[23:27] <+Pleeb> No problem!
|
||||
[23:27] <marador> as always thanks for sharing pleeb
|
||||
[23:28] <+Pleeb> ThunderClap: Once I do havea ccess to the site agin, I'm going to find a way to replace that with a generic error message, regardless.
|
||||
[23:28] <+Pleeb> And yeah, glad you enjoyed it!
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue