08-04-2015, 02:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2015, 02:24 AM by amatscintilla.)
(Sort of experimenting with the polling thing; should be interesting anyway. Maybe?)
I've been noodling this thought or "theory" over for a while now. I don't recall seeing it in any guides, so I thought I'd post it here and see what fellow tulpamancers thought.
When I sort of "created" Twiley, I never spent much time thinking about or concentrating on her personality. I sort of simply encompassed every way in which I viewed Twilight Sparkle from my experience and analysis of the show and encapsulated it into this idea of "Twilight Sparkle" which I assigned to the "area" in my mind where I had felt her presence. Basically, I just called that presence Twilight Sparkle and I think that was enough (for me). After all, if I have a well-defined term (Twilight Sparkle) and I assign that to an object, in effect that object inherits its properties (think inheritance if you know anything about object oriented programming).
I suppose that assignment was likely the first "knowledge dump" to my tulpa. From then on, everything she would have "learned" would have been via my narration. When we were able to communicate effectively together using "words," she would often ask questions you might imagine a child asking. It's sometimes frustrating to explain these concepts, because some of them are real simple. ("What is a president?" leads to an extended conversation profiling how the US government was formed and how it is composed). At first, I was tempted to try and simply "dump" the knowledge on her, much like how learning skills is portrayed in The Matrix or a Vulcan mind meld. I'm pretty sure I could pull this off; but, for some reason I couldn't quite fathom, I decided to just go the difficult route and explain it as I would to any other person. Luckily she wasn't a child, and is actually quite bright (obviously), so she's able to grasp much of the more esoteric stuff quite easily. (Discussions of astrophysics and quantum mechanics have been quite interesting to have, though most of the talking is on my side still with just questions from her.)
Today, as I drove to work talking to Twi (today's conversation was the history of currency), it occurred to me why it may be better to explain these things to her instead of doing a "mind meld." You see, in a brain dump, she's basically getting the same information already in my brain. I've already packaged and stored it, along with my biases and presuppositions and feelings. But by explaining to her these concepts as you would to anyone else, she is able to process the input herself and derive and apply her own biases, presuppositions, and feelings to the new data.
If that doesn't make sense, perhaps an analogy could help. If I were to just give her a picture of Moondancer, she would then have that picture and it would be a carbon copy. If, however, I were to describe the picture I had of Moondancer to her and ask her to draw it, it would inevitably differ (probably significantly) from the original. (Hmmm, not quite a perfect analogy. I will sometimes communicate with her using images, and I don't want to conflate that with this. Shucks. Guess I'll leave this here, it may help someone?)
It's these differences, though, in how she processes data that make her even more unique from myself and help keep her "dissociated" (for lack of a better term). Though my biases will obviously crop up in explanations to her, they will not be nearly as evident as they would be if I had merely copied the information over from my original.
I've not done any sort of "mind meld" since my initial assignment of the "essence" of "Twilight Sparkle" back in the beginning. So who knows, it may not even be possible. Plus the concept to me seems like it could be invasive, unless I had her permission.
Have any of you read of or thought of anything like this? How do you deal with knowledge transfer with your tulpa(s)? Am I looking into this way too deeply? (I tend to do the latter, being as I am an analyst by trade.)
I've been noodling this thought or "theory" over for a while now. I don't recall seeing it in any guides, so I thought I'd post it here and see what fellow tulpamancers thought.
When I sort of "created" Twiley, I never spent much time thinking about or concentrating on her personality. I sort of simply encompassed every way in which I viewed Twilight Sparkle from my experience and analysis of the show and encapsulated it into this idea of "Twilight Sparkle" which I assigned to the "area" in my mind where I had felt her presence. Basically, I just called that presence Twilight Sparkle and I think that was enough (for me). After all, if I have a well-defined term (Twilight Sparkle) and I assign that to an object, in effect that object inherits its properties (think inheritance if you know anything about object oriented programming).
I suppose that assignment was likely the first "knowledge dump" to my tulpa. From then on, everything she would have "learned" would have been via my narration. When we were able to communicate effectively together using "words," she would often ask questions you might imagine a child asking. It's sometimes frustrating to explain these concepts, because some of them are real simple. ("What is a president?" leads to an extended conversation profiling how the US government was formed and how it is composed). At first, I was tempted to try and simply "dump" the knowledge on her, much like how learning skills is portrayed in The Matrix or a Vulcan mind meld. I'm pretty sure I could pull this off; but, for some reason I couldn't quite fathom, I decided to just go the difficult route and explain it as I would to any other person. Luckily she wasn't a child, and is actually quite bright (obviously), so she's able to grasp much of the more esoteric stuff quite easily. (Discussions of astrophysics and quantum mechanics have been quite interesting to have, though most of the talking is on my side still with just questions from her.)
Today, as I drove to work talking to Twi (today's conversation was the history of currency), it occurred to me why it may be better to explain these things to her instead of doing a "mind meld." You see, in a brain dump, she's basically getting the same information already in my brain. I've already packaged and stored it, along with my biases and presuppositions and feelings. But by explaining to her these concepts as you would to anyone else, she is able to process the input herself and derive and apply her own biases, presuppositions, and feelings to the new data.
If that doesn't make sense, perhaps an analogy could help. If I were to just give her a picture of Moondancer, she would then have that picture and it would be a carbon copy. If, however, I were to describe the picture I had of Moondancer to her and ask her to draw it, it would inevitably differ (probably significantly) from the original. (Hmmm, not quite a perfect analogy. I will sometimes communicate with her using images, and I don't want to conflate that with this. Shucks. Guess I'll leave this here, it may help someone?)
It's these differences, though, in how she processes data that make her even more unique from myself and help keep her "dissociated" (for lack of a better term). Though my biases will obviously crop up in explanations to her, they will not be nearly as evident as they would be if I had merely copied the information over from my original.
I've not done any sort of "mind meld" since my initial assignment of the "essence" of "Twilight Sparkle" back in the beginning. So who knows, it may not even be possible. Plus the concept to me seems like it could be invasive, unless I had her permission.
Have any of you read of or thought of anything like this? How do you deal with knowledge transfer with your tulpa(s)? Am I looking into this way too deeply? (I tend to do the latter, being as I am an analyst by trade.)
----
[insert signature here]
[insert signature here]
![[Image: FdIKW.png]](http://i.imgur.com/FdIKW.png)