Reply To: Model 2: The P Systems (Draft)

Index Forums Cognitive Functions Model 2: The P Systems (Draft) Reply To: Model 2: The P Systems (Draft)

  • Type: TiSe
  • Development: llll
  • Attitude: Directive

Hmm, I’m sure I’ll post more on this later, but what I noticed is that they sounded similar based on the context. I think a frame of reference is missing with these definitions, since it seems you take the pov of the functions themselves, even though you start off with a subject when giving examples (“Skipping off work” as an abstract dimensional plane (from the subject pov, otherwise how do we know). What I mean is you and me can be sitting right next to each other in fixed locations and be in multiple dimensions at once (you are thinking about getting dinner later and I am thinking of the dinner I ate yesterday). Given we are both intuitive I am just going to assume that in between thinking about dinner (future or past) we also spontaneously think of other things, (I remember that show I used to watch and stopped watching, before getting back to thinking a bout the dinner I had yesterday, and then switching to oh dinner, how did the idea of “dinner” start, have we always had dinner and picture an ancient man slowly formulating the action of “dinner”). Meanwhile, you also switch to other things while thinking of  dinner, you want pizza, which reminds you of cheese, wich makes you think whether one can measure the elasticity of cheese and then whether somehow abstractly you can measure the plasticity of brain development in an elastic way and so on).

We are both in a fixed location (sitting next to each other )traversing multiple dimensions (in our minds), but you talk as if we are supposed to take the pov of the functions only(in some abstract sense). So my Se fixed location actuality is where in this space? Is it in reality, sitting next to you or is it with the ancient man formulating the idea of “dinner” as I visualize him leading through a flurry of images of years/centuries to my dinner from the yesterday?

And where are your fixed planes? Is it the park where we are sitting, or the abstract future plane where you eat pizza, or the void plane in which you think of cheese, then elasticity, then brain plasticity, then the possible connection between both? Or is each successive thought a plane in itself?

” Plane and location kind of melt away and lose their definition and so does fixed and infinite when you compare them in a possible example with people and their “infinite” minds that traverse beyond this fixed reality, physical plane/location, and Se, I thought, needs this fixed reality plane to make it what makes it differ from Ne.

I like your idea of multi-dimensionality, I thought about something similar a while ago and to shows the difference in our perception axis, I rather though of measuring it in one dimension as units of “experience” (as that is how I experience it, that is why I wanted the Ni vortical model to have more unity and wholeness in it’s structure). With moments becoming episodes. And everything blends together, the “infinite” and the “finite”. (And I can see this is what you are trying define/grasp by the vortical model and the Se actual location and Ni non-local boundless/infinite plane)

This is what I wrote down in my notes months ago:

“Parameters and the frame of reference, the lens from which we measure and perceive and discover things. Quantum physics breaks up conventional and mundane logic and enters the realm of intuition and creative logic.
Frame of reference for a life, for a subjective unite of experience (aka an episode). A chapter and so on. A memory is quantized in our minds. Feelings are attractive and reactive. There is pain and pleasure. Negative and positive and transmutation. The boundaries are not exact as physical ones, but there is still a boundary that can be quantized (electron cloud). Probability, the boundary is “about here and there.” Measuring an experience is more fluid because of it’s richness and depth, but patterns can still arise. Awareness and consciousness is our starting point of I and us, but the unconscious is before that, we are unconscious before we are conscious and that is why we barely remember very early child memories, that means its primary and the basis of our lives and it’s direction and the origins of the beyond, of the mystery.

Frame of reference is a subjective point done in calculations which already proves a kind of subjectivity inherent in the fabric of the universe and a literal/concrete perception/transformation of difference from a different point (Einstein).”

Basically, I thought of creating a formal psycho-existential phenomenology that could measure units of experience in one dimension (the “I” consciousness, frame or reference and dimension) that we already have natural demarcations for: as a moment, episode, all the way to lifetime. This is very simple, but I thought it made up for it by being able to find patterns across multiple people’s experience to find the essence, the mean, across many similar ones. That means that if they talk about how they were thinking of getting pizza in the future, that is still in the same dimension, not a separate one.

But obviously, these are separate purposes, since we are trying to roughly map the psyche and its cognitive processes and derive an approximate formal language to describe their differences of operation. However, I still think it starts at the subject level and with this physical reality, not in a purely functional/abstract level. (In what location/plane are emotions btw?)

I think I should mention that I also get confused because we are working at three different levels of interpretation.

  1. There is what is actually going on in the brain and its processes, which are barely as neat or as cohesive as we explain them. Brain processes are done at various areas of the brain, so that means the processes of  Pi and Pe are scattered among different areas and processes of the brain.
  2. Then there is the firsthand experience of our mind and its processes and how we perceive the mechanisms that are happening there. (Which is were CT and Jung and other typologies  operate from, in accumulated synthesized information of this sort of interpretation)
  3. Then there is these computational, theoretical models that try to unify the two interpretations in a logically coherent way.

And you go an extra step into even unifying modern physics with it 😆 lol which is cool, but it makes it hard to understand where is your focus.

“Focus, Neo. Focus your Ti.”   ….    Just a tad to what is essential and necessary.


© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval


The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.