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: TiNe
  • Development: l--l
  • Attitude: Adaptive

Oh– very interesting musings!

I like this sort of discussion because I think it’s the sort of high-level conversations that we need to have in order to iron this out.

To answer your question about the dinner, I first have to explain my idea of conceptualization/abstraction, and go form there.

Perceptual Abstraction

The first premise I have here — (re: the action-abstraction hypothesis) — is that human beings take what was originally a physically oriented cognitive system, and then it gets abstracted. But the ways we think is isomorphic to that physicality in origin and essence. And I believe that as infants we probably first learn to exist in a physical plane. As we get more mentally mature, we nest more and more abstract planes atop each other.

This is why I find it important to first root all this in spatiotemporal reality, because I think abstraction is an extension of the idea of spatiotemoral reality. So, in a purely physical sense, the CTA tries to describe how we might go around exploring an environment (i.e. the P+ thread the little robot car). But full-grown adults like you and me exist in so many conceptual analogs that the definition of “exploration” changes.

Lets say for example I ask someone to think of what their previous house looked like. I ask them to guide me through the scenery, open the shelves, etc. I am essentially asking them to utilize P+ within a dimensional plane that is abstract. At the same time, they’re booting up a dimensional plane which takes P-. So this activity requires both lots of P+ and P-. It cannot be done without using both at the same time. (As a sidenote, I would also expect the vestigial activity of saccades/toggles to happen, as a result of P+ firing in a non-physical environment, but towards exploration nonetheless.)

So when we imagine ourselves in prehistoric times, exploring what the dinner of a caveman might have looked like, we’re utilizing P- to construct a dimensional plane, and P+ to navigate it. P- constructs the dimensional plane using precedent, recalling from what it knows environments to look like. Whatever textures of rocks it’s familiar with will be appended, etc. But then as we traverse this landscape, P+ is proactively asking for more objects, and P- is reactively creating more of that dimensional plane as we turn around or peek across a corner or stone. (In this sense, “proactive” and “reactive” are fitting terms for the two.) You can apply this to the construction of a dimensional plane called “tomorrow” as well. It’s not necessarily that there ‘are’ infinite planes in our heads, but that we can generate infinite number of planes based on the parameters we set, and the shape of our psyche at that moment.

V and M Differences

Okay, that explains my idea of how P creates abstract environments and navigates them more generally. Now, the difference between a V and M psyche, in this case, would be that the encoding differences in their memory — from a lifetime of contemplation — would make it so those differences also appear when they try to construct a new dimensional plane and then navigate it.

As an M type, the way I might imagine the scene of a cavemen having dinner may be done with more discrete planar information. For example, specifics. The rocks may look like rocks from my local hills. The cavemen might look like the Croods movie characters. Basically, little ‘chunks’ of memory would be called up to stitch together the scene using discrete planar data (M-). So it would be a bit like making a movie set using the parts from existing shows in the studio.

As a V type, I might expect that the construction of a cavemen scene having dinner may follow a more motif-oriented, less memetic and more thematic construction where the specifics of how the rocks look or how the cavemen look are less anecdotal and more universally holistic. So, his appearance may be the unconscious average you have of all the burly man-faces you’ve seen. The cave may be a synthesis of all the things you know about how caves work, etc. So your dimensional plane would be more “probabalistically” approximated, as a kind of mean of past experience. This makes it a continuous planar reality. Mine, on the other hand, is more prone to be discrete and made of tangible information.. OR.. it might be made of wild previously un-thought-of fantasies (M+), which are no less modular, and still not synthesized as the aggregates that your Ni would give you.

~ ~ ~

So, to be clear, the activity of brainstorming, thinking about today, yesterday, tomorrow, 10,000 years ago, etc — all that is available to us both, and by virtue of being revisers we’d both be prone to casual P+ exploration (conceptually) in general. But the encryption style of our information is where the difference would show.

Now, the difference I mentioned above may seem subtle overall, and it is. But it shows up when you scale it out. Lets say I wanted to make a movie out of my imagined caveman scene — I’d probably make something more of a caricature, it might be more hobbit-esque, due to how M works to mingle unhinged fantasy with hinged anecdotes. Oppositely, your artistic result might be more like Leonardo DiCaprio’s The Revenant, which mingles thematic dimensional planes with discrete navigation of those planes — leading to a fictional narrative which is nonetheless navigated linearly, and the landscape, while fictional, is not ‘fantastical’ in the Alice in Wonderland sense (which lacks dimensional coherence). It’d be probabalistically coherent, even if not anecdotally identical to anything you’ve seen before.

Phew! I hope that made sense.

(There was so much in your post that I had to focus on one strand. But maybe we can talk about your other points too!)

  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.

© 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.