Model 2: The P Systems
September 25, 2020

Home Forums Model 2 Discussions Model 2: The P Systems

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23980
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hello,
    This writeup is a rough draft of the P Systems, in the new CTA context. This sources mostly from this article on Objects.
    The J System and P System are in some ways radically different ways of approaching the world. The best way to think of the P System is as information-contingent. The P System is a system of informational navigation, and is closely linked to things such as volumetric space, time, location and sensory properties -- although it is neither of those things in itself. It utilizes these things, but the P System is at root a way of conceptualizing & managing informational units (objects) in a spatiotemporal way. However, spatiotemporality does not properly capture what the P System deals with. Spatiotemporal location is what the P System handles at any one moment, but not on the whole.

    Human Perception - Multi-Dimensionality

    To describe this better, I have to elaborate on the concept of multi-dimensionality. And no, this is not related to dimensionality in Socionics in any way. In the way I'm modeling it with regard to CT, dimensionality is a matter of Perceptual processing, as the P processes are those concerned with spatiotemporal information planes (Pi) and quantitative information (Pe) found within that space. Dimensions are landscapes (Pi) that we find ourselves at, at a given real-time (Pe):

    There is, of course, the visible, persistent world around us 'now', and this is one dimension (or spatiotemporal plane). But there are worlds that we inhabited yesterday, last week or last month. These can be geographic in nature (i.e. walls/floors/hallways) or they can be abstract. The capacity to model abstract dimensional spaces is one of the things that sets our consciousness apart as humans. "Further away" and "closer towards" are also experienced as salient locators in relation to abstract ideas such as "getting a promotion," which are not strictly geographic locations. Pi models planes or dimensions (landscapes) but these are not only geometric 3D spaces, they are narrative-landscapes. The examples I gave in the above link are:

    • "[Sitting at the park], [bonding with your SO]" - (geographic), (abstract)
    • "[Skipping out on work]" - (abstract)
    • "[Being a block away from work]" - (geographic)

    And while each one of these can be graphically three-dimensional, they can also be collapsed down to one dimension each, in terms of our narrative "context." At each moment in time we are within countless dimensions, if we consider a dimension some phenomenological arena/space that can be modeled with forward and backward movements, according to narrative structures. Here are just a few one-dimensional examples:

    The beginning comes before the end. In one dimension, the sun rises first, then it's hot, and then the sun goes down and it's nighttime. In another dimension, getting hired comes first, doing good work for a few months comes next, and getting a promotion comes later. In another narrative (Pi) dimension, dating comes first, spending quality time together comes next, getting engaged comes later and then marriage.
    We are [somewhere] along these and countless other dimensional spaces at any point in time. Strong Pi use leads to an awareness of where we are positioned (i.e. "coordinate"), in relation to these dimensions/narratives, at a given point in time. Forgetting you left the cake in the oven and burning it is an example of actually getting (non-physically) "lost" in the spatiotemporal landscape/dimension of "cooking a cake" as a narrative. Unconscious or low Pi usage causes us to dis-locate, or lose our coordinate (Pi) across these narrative dimensions. Pe's refresh factor can cause this negligence to our coordinates. But again notice the loss of coordinate is non-physical, it's the loss of perception (P) of our temporal contextualizing (Pi) in an abstract dimensional plane ("cooking").

    S & N

    Now, before I can get into the meat of things, I have to explain S & N in abstract terms. I'm not yet referring to any function, but to an attribute of functions. As I recently wrote here, S deals with a finality to informational boundaries. S is a quantizing process that acknowledges the natural limits of the dataset at hand, whether that dataset is abstract or concrete in nature. This is non-idealistic and it's not motivated by J-'s desire to describe perfect objects. Instead, it's simply the acknowledgement of where the data is, starts and ends. I described this as "particle-like", because a particle has a fixed position/location:

    The opposite process, N, is wave-like and is dispersed and (in relation to S) hazy/fuzzy. There are no clear limits to the object, because it is an association dispersed across spatio-temporality. You can think of this as gravity, and the way that, technically speaking, gravity has infinite range. This object-form is tricky because, like superposition, it has not collapsed anywhere so it's hard to pin down. Mathematically you can think of N as a 'range', and S as a fixed amount.

    Ne/Si

    Having taken that detour, we come back around to multi-dimensionality. I'd like to begin with Ne, by quoting something I told @janie on Discord:

    you can think of N as a wave-like or a continuous, dispersed (non-localized) object boundary. things fizz away and so the boundary is hazy. this is what allows Ne to riff across so many disparate datasets and still generate objects that cut across layers. but it's hard to pin down and it's wiggly

    We can think of this like the following diagram:

    ^ Here we don't see a coordinate, but a range (the dotted blob) cutting across four dimensional layers. For simplicity's sake I'm modeling these 'dimensional' layers as stacks across the Y axis, but in reality it'd be impossible to model this correctly since each dimension is not necessarily geometric.
    Now, lets try to use an example to bring this metaphor home. Suppose we had an image of a person's face-- and Ne says "that guy looks like-- if Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts had a baby, and he was raised in Tom Hank's Castaway island all his life."
    We can think of this [object] (corresponding to the image) as cutting across dimensional layers, associatively. And although it was collapsed into three details in this example, it's not necessarily the only way to collapse it. The Ne user may then say -- "or, he looks like human-form Shrek's son." The frame-shifting can continue. In reality, the object Ne is looking at is none of the possible collapse points, but in a way it's all of them too. This leads to conceptual ambiguity. Since nothing definite is ever necessarily meant, these objects are in some way all imaginary. Ne cuts across dimensions, being dispersed in a superposition across them, having no fixed location.
    However, I'm leaving out an important detail here: the collapsing into quantized forms. When something is said, it's actually said by referencing fixed datasets (Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, etc) found in the dimensional layers themselves. In the case of the Ne-Si axis, objects are continuous, wave-like and hazy, but the dimensional layers they traverse are themselves fixed (S). So you can think of the Ne-Si oscillation as having definite dimensions, but indefinite object ranges within them.
    Si-Ne: The dimensions are fixed in their local parameters, but your current location is a superposition across them.

    Se/Ni

    The opposite is true for Se-Ni.
    Se-Ni: The current location is fixed in its parameters, but the dimensions are continuous, or non-local. Even though I am exactly where I am right now, I am in multiple dimensions at once, "exactly" there, in each one.

    Here, we see the inverse, where the location is known, but the context is associative. The 'bleeding'-across is in the dimensions themselves. The object doesn't cut across the dimensions, the dimensions converge on the actual object. The diagram above is also pretty much the same one at the bottom of this V post here.
    (For Ni-Se there is one ontology to objects, but that ontology is hyper-planar. This is opposed to Ne-Si where objects having multiple ontologies, depending on the plane we collapse into. Both axes have finitude and infinitude, but the two are swapped between position and plane. Infinite Positions + Fixed Planes, or Fixed Positions + Infinite Planes)

    Terms

    To give these differences technical terms:

    • Ne -- Positional Potentiality
    • Si -- Dimensional Locality
    • Se -- Positional Actuality
    • Ni -- Dimensional Non-Locality

    The word Non-Locality (Ni) is in contrast to Locality (Si), since both deal with placement. Locality implies definite, fixed landscape placement, and Non-Locality doesn't mean it lacks placement, but the placement is a superposition and not tied down to one plane. The coordinate-structure of Ne-Si has fixed Locality (Si) and unfixed Potentiality (Ne). The coordinate-structure of Se-Ni has unfixed Non-Locality (Ni) and fixed Actuality (Se).

    P.S.

    a. This doesn't go at all into the matter of how this creates the compound functions, to cover the 'territory' of the unavailable processes. That will be a whole other behemoth.
    b. I must again emphasize this is all a very early draft. Writing this thread itself feels like a haze. I'm sure there are bound to be some issues with my logic here, until it's fully ironed out. But there are wonderful minds on this forum and if I've learned anything it's that I cannot underestimate what you may come to see that I don't see, without feedback.
    So, thank you to anyone who made it this far in the post. Looking forward to your thoughts.

    • This topic was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.
    #24781
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Importing from Discord:

    hackphobia: "i had an idea the other day that consciousness is a some kind of backward-in-time telepathy that your future self is experiencing in multiple time lines but get collapsed in a single now
    if that makes sense"

    i said something basically identical to this in the recent in Model 2's P Systems thread, pertaining to V
    V-, as a temporal contextualizer, is spatiotemporal trans-locality.
    which converges on V+, as actuality -- as the 'now' moment of this spatiotemporal trans-locality.
    trans-locality in this case would be like an entanglement (to borrow a physics term) of a particle across temporal context, so multiple-timelines, or multi-dimensionality -- and yet, it's 'one' thing. like a particle [V+] existing in 12 dimensions, but still being the same particle. except since some of these dimensions are temporal (past/future) it also crosses those, while being the same particle.
    //
    oppositely, M+ would be more like a superposition, where each position is equally 'real', and 'bifurcation' happens in a similar way as some of the multiverse theories, which describe infinitely diverging timelines from the superposition of particles at every nanosecond.
    in this case, actual planes (M-, as 'locality') are independently existent, but M+'s superposition generates an infinite potentiality of more actual planes.

    #25831
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Haven’t read this all the way through yet, but this mirrors some aspects of quantum mechanics/field theory.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)
    “The more localized the position-space wavefunction, the more likely the particle is to be found with the position coordinates in that region, and correspondingly the momentum-space wavefunction is less localized so the possible momentum components the particle could have are more widespread.
    Conversely, the more localized the momentum-space wavefunction, the more likely the particle is to be found with those values of momentum components in that region, and correspondingly the less localized the position-space wavefunction, so the position coordinates the particle could occupy are more widespread.”

    #25833
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    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.
     

    #25834
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • 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!)

    #25850
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    While on the topic, I want to bring up one of the more intangible results/outcomes of this idea.
    (I may break this off into its own thread later!)
    Semantic Dimensions
    As stated above, the hallmark of human intelligence is the capacity for indefinite abstraction. But I believe our abstract systems 'grow out' of a physically-contingent origin, through isomorphism. It is easiest to see this happen when you imagine a visual environment, like doing a memory recall of a previous house you lived in.
    However, it is much more challenging to do this with non-graphical/visual information. For example with purely semantic information. It's rather unintuitive but I'll try to explain and hopefully it makes sense. This is a data visualization of a word association web:

    I believe our semantic labels ("words") are arranged in dimensional planes as well, but they are non-visual dimensional planes. I think the P system is, deep down, not just graphic in nature (i.e. the eye isn't the only organ here) but moreso a general structure for information storage and navigation. So in a way it's like a hard-drive, and the information on it can be visual, or auditory, or anything else.
    Given that, imagine "trying to find a word" in your head. Lets say you want to remember a synonym for a word... but it's "on the tip of your tongue", and you remember that it's a little bit like cloudy and foggy, but there's another words there that you wanna use (spoiler, it's "musty" but you don't know that yet). This diagram shows what that situation may look like if we were to imagine this predicament in a graphical way, even though it's non-graphic in nature:

    Your P+ is somewhere around foggy and cloudy, and is navigating outward to adjacent information. Strangely, you "sense" that the word is there --- but this is a very strange sensation, isn't it? When we "know" there is a word adjacent to cloudy or foggy, we're not talking about spatial adjacency are we? We're talking about conceptual adjacency. But nonetheless you might do this for a while, as you try to find that synonym:

    (^P-  memory recall)
    And then after a few seconds, as your navigational plane is explored fully, it encounters the answer, and you find it:

     
    "Ah! it's musty!" you say out loud. You don't know how it is that the word came to you, and you weren't visualizing anything when you were pausing to think. YET... it was necessary for you to take this hiatus from the world to process and to find the word you're looking for. And more incredibly, you had a general intuition that if you kept doing this, you'd actually find it. It's not immediately obvious that this is a sane thing to do. This is all very strange if you're not thinking about how information may be encoded. But I believe it makes sense in light of this thread's idea.
    Each of us has a semantic "plane" like this, alongside all sorts of other planes. Carl Jung's exercise of word association essentially amounts to an intentional investigation of this semantic plane, and what it looks like in a subject, what is connected to what, etc. And he used this to get some insights into what the shape of a patient's pains and complexes might be.
     

    #25854
    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Is this a similar process to the kind of casual background brainstorming we do in daily life? For example, if you think to yourself, "what do I want for dinner?" Is this an actual generative process of figuring out what to eat, or is there a list of things we know we have in the cupboard that we explore and splice together into a meal? I suppose this is different for everyone and just one example, but I guess the overall question is this - when we have a large (or infinite) range of choices between equally viable options for something, is it a P+ process that "finds" the one to do, or is a J process involved too in order to find the "right" one?
    Also sidenote, could that kind of mind-palace example you described be used in CT interviews to guide someone into using their P processes? Instead of asking general questions, an interviewer could ask an interviewee to preform specific mental tasks like guiding us through their childhood home, or describing what their favorite band is and why, or describing what kind of person they think they are!

    #25855
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Is this an actual generative process of figuring out what to eat, or is there a list of things we know we have in the cupboard that we explore and splice together into a meal?


    @alice
    - Good questions! The way I understand it, every moment of our lives is a generative act. We are re-wiring our brains every millisecond and, like a flowing river that's always changing, we never have the exact same thought twice. Indeed, even remembering a memory alters that memory, because it's recalled, revised, and then re-shelved differently. The same would be true for fixing up a meal. Whenever we re-visit an object, we have to re-generate it anew from our current-mind-state.
    For example, when we brainstorm what to have for dinner, the leftover pasta in the fridge is not the same object it was yesterday. When it's brought into consciousness anew, its properties are different. Now it might be re-generated in our minds as  "one-day-old-pasta", which is less appealing. Or it might "crunchy-or-soggy pasta-that-lacks-salt" or whatever was wrong/right with it. How an object appears in our consciousness is also dependent on things like our mood, and whatever changes we may have gone through in one day. So for example, if you saw a movie last night that made you feel grateful to be alive, then when you re-generate the pasta object, its properties may be more appealing due to your overall psychic gratitude. We're dynamic, evolving beings. 🙂

    when we have a large (or infinite) range of choices between equally viable options for something, is it a P+ process that “finds” the one to do, or is a J process involved too in order to find the “right” one?

    Hmm. I would say lots of things are involved here. P+ may be the finder, and J- is the identifier or qualifier. Together, P+ and J- find information and label it. As for what "choice" to "do", that takes J+ procedural processing. J+ will decide on what to do, since doing is its thing.
    But actually.. that's not entirely right either. Choice in general is only partly cortical, and it's also greatly limbic. So while J+/J- are involved in classifying reality and choosing actions, the driving passion behind them is often something more visceral from the emotional register. You can think of the emotional register as giving the mission or passion, and J+ 'chooses' the most pragmatic path towards that mission or passion. Wonder if that makes sense?
    We choose twice, once when our bodies decide what we desire, and then once again when our minds find a rational avenue to move vectors towards it, and then we make the move to do so.

    #25859
    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @auburn

    "We’re dynamic, evolving beings. 🙂 "

    I like this 🙂
    Thank you! Very excited by model 2. It's depth so far allows for a lot of nuance, and I'm excited to be able to delve into that nuance with even higher level discussion. It's really interesting to be able to have multiple levels of complexity within the same theory, there's a richness that comes from that which feels satisfying to discover.

    #25864
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    np! and yes, model 2 will allow us to talk about mental processing in far more detailed manner, and actually get into cognition proper. things like space, time, memory, concept-formation, imagination, etc. all these are necessary to discuss in a theory of the mind, or in a real cognitive typology.
    lately i've been feeling the contrast between how low-res old models are/were, and how non-cognitive they really are. barring perhaps some versions of socionics (but even then..) most theories are high-level behavioral, not really cognitive, because they don't address how thoughts work, how they're formed and so forth.
    oh, i might write more about this on a different thread.
     

    #30015
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    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.

    Ok this makes sense, the logic is sound because P+ and P- are general (without the signifiers of S or N) and the basic premise is that P+ is exploration and P- is stored information that can be recalled and the formula here is something like P+ ("Prehistoric Times")= P- ("Prehistoric Times"). Where P+ and P- is a function like F(x).  However, I feel like we have to qualify some things here, because if a fresh P+ explored prehistoric times, it wouldn't got to their P- at first. If we take P+ and P- as an oscillation pair, where the strength and pull of one polarity over another can be measured, a lack of P- ("Prehistoric Times") would make the P+ or the Pi- leading person go P+ into gathering information on Prehistoric Times, whether by reading, or watching a movie or visiting ancient sites. In this case P+("Prehistoric Times")  does not equal P- ("Prehistoric Times"), but we are assuming P- has already information here after P+ has had some exploration of available information outside (I think here is where the physical plane in relation to the geometry of this matters, "inside/outside", introversion/extroversion and the response of the functions mainly to a physical plane . However, if things are to make sense, it seems there is a difference, because why would P+ go to P- for exploring/gathering new information. Exploration and recall is different, recall seems to be a product of an oscillation polarity where the strength of P- is higher than P+ and P+ is therefore of lower strength, lower level just used to recall information already explored.  Not that someone can't switch modes, I've already seen that to be possible, randomly going between more polar strength in P+ or more polar strength in P- for certain lengths of time, but going back to my more native state of P- always.  Anyways, I know this is meant to address planes in our heads and P+ nudging P- to recall details/information for a construction of a plane that models "Prehistoric Times" and your logic is sound here and the notation makes sense.

    Addendum: To properly make a math for P+ and P-, a math that uses ellipsis (for oscillation and strength of polarity would be needed) and for the "weight" of information in P-, because a P- lead person, even though their P- reservoir is low or because of it, they would use their P+ function until P- full enough to their libidinal/neurochemical limits, until then again ready to reach the polar oscillation P+ for new information to store/refresh.

     

    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.

    Ok, here is where I think Model 2 computational logic breaks down. So the general function of P+ and P- makes sense, exploration and information storage, respectively. But obviously we know it doesn't stop there and we have the added difference of Ne/Si  or Se/Ni or M+/M- and V+/V- that qualify P+/P-. I feel like there was a jump here to the results without explaining the computational process that leads to the outcomes of a qualitative difference between the model of "Prehistoric Times" in our heads (I know you had the comparison of a cavemen having dinner, but for simplicity sake let's stick to "prehistoric times" as what is being modeled [by P+(x)=P-(x)] and say a caveman eating dinner in a cave is an example of what we both "outputted" from our minds from that process {Obviously I already said that this equation wouldn't make sense, P+ would search and explore information, but let's say instead of equal sign, we would have a notation that would say that P- is in primary strength and polarity which would make P+ search function go straight to recall with P- } ) .  Ok, so by the end of the output we have a qualitative difference with our cavemen eating dinner in a cave. According to you, your model would be made up of local discrete things from your experience, rocks from where you live and characters you've seen movies of. Mine would be a motif and unconscious holistic aggregation of all things I've experienced and encountered relating to cavemen/burly men and caves etc. However, you also add that theses would "look" different, I assume because of how they look overall in our minds:

    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).

    So the qualitative difference is larger. What I got from this is that yours would be more "cartoonie" and mine more "reaslistic." Yours representing M Ne/Si and mine representing V Se/Ni. So my question is where in the computation would these qualitative differences that are outputted be explained, how is it explained in the process? That M+ is "fantastical," that that is it's "quality" I feel is not explained by computation or by the model dynamics. I have also seen the Crudes, for example, but somehow I wouldn't use it in my model even though wouldn't it be part of the holistic unconscious aggregate of all instances of cavemen and caves I have experienced with P+? What if I watched only animated movies my whole life, but still went outside and saw normal rocks and men, what kind of Ni aggregate would that output?  I still think I would get a more "realistic" output of a model because of Se's or V+ qualities of "realism."

    Cheers,

    Sorry I took long to reply @auburn

     

     

    #30016
    Lapis Lazuli
    Participant
    • Type: Unknown
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    Below I've quoted chapter 42, "The Whiteness of the Whale", from Moby~Dick.  I've long considered this to be the best example of Jungian Ne in the written English language that I'm aware of (though in the service of Ji), but that evaluation was made prior to my awareness of Cognitive Type, and I would be curious if @Auburn and others see it as exemplifying Ne in CT as well (and also what J function(s) may be tying the perceptions together).  If so, it would also be helpful to see how the Model 2 definitions of Ne/Si are illustrated in the mind of Herman Melville here.

    Spoiler

     

    What the white whale was to Ahab, has been hinted; what, at times, he was to me, as yet remains unsaid.

    Aside from those more obvious considerations touching Moby Dick, which could not but occasionally awaken in any man’s soul some alarm, there was another thought, or rather vague, nameless horror concerning him, which at times by its intensity completely overpowered all the rest; and yet so mystical and well nigh ineffable was it, that I almost despair of putting it in a comprehensible form. It was the whiteness of the whale that above all things appalled me. But how can I hope to explain myself here; and yet, in some dim, random way, explain myself I must, else all these chapters might be naught.

    Though in many natural objects, whiteness refiningly enhances beauty, as if imparting some special virtue of its own, as in marbles, japonicas, and pearls; and though various nations have in some way recognised a certain royal preeminence in this hue; even the barbaric, grand old kings of Pegu placing the title “Lord of the White Elephants” above all their other magniloquent ascriptions of dominion; and the modern kings of Siam unfurling the same snow-white quadruped in the royal standard; and the Hanoverian flag bearing the one figure of a snow-white charger; and the great Austrian Empire, Caesarian, heir to overlording Rome, having for the imperial color the same imperial hue; and though this pre-eminence in it applies to the human race itself, giving the white man ideal mastership over every dusky tribe; and though, besides, all this, whiteness has been even made significant of gladness, for among the Romans a white stone marked a joyful day; and though in other mortal sympathies and symbolizings, this same hue is made the emblem of many touching, noble things- the innocence of brides, the benignity of age; though among the Red Men of America the giving of the white belt of wampum was the deepest pledge of honor; though in many climes, whiteness typifies the majesty of Justice in the ermine of the Judge, and contributes to the daily state of kings and queens drawn by milk-white steeds; though even in the higher mysteries of the most august religions it has been made the symbol of the divine spotlessness and power; by the Persian fire worshippers, the white forked flame being held the holiest on the altar; and in the Greek mythologies, Great Jove himself being made incarnate in a snow-white bull; and though to the noble Iroquois, the midwinter sacrifice of the sacred White Dog was by far the holiest festival of their theology, that spotless, faithful creature being held the purest envoy they could send to the Great Spirit with the annual tidings of their own fidelity; and though directly from the Latin word for white, all Christian priests derive the name of one part of their sacred vesture, the alb or tunic, worn beneath the cassock; and though among the holy pomps of the Romish faith, white is specially employed in the celebration of the Passion of our Lord; though in the Vision of St. John, white robes are given to the redeemed, and the four-and-twenty elders stand clothed in white before the great-white throne, and the Holy One that sitteth there white like wool; yet for all these accumulated associations, with whatever is sweet, and honorable, and sublime, there yet lurks an elusive something in the innermost idea of this hue, which strikes more of panic to the soul than that redness which affrights in blood.

    This elusive quality it is, which causes the thought of whiteness, when divorced from more kindly associations, and coupled with any object terrible in itself, to heighten that terror to the furthest bounds. Witness the white bear of the poles, and the white shark of the tropics; what but their smooth, flaky whiteness makes them the transcendent horrors they are? That ghastly whiteness it is which imparts such an abhorrent mildness, even more loathsome than terrific, to the dumb gloating of their aspect. So that not the fierce-fanged tiger in his heraldic coat can so stagger courage as the white-shrouded bear or shark.

    With reference to the Polar bear, it may possibly be urged by him who would fain go still deeper into this matter, that it is not the whiteness, separately regarded, which heightens the intolerable hideousness of that brute; for, analysed, that heightened hideousness, it might be said, only rises from the circumstance, that the irresponsible ferociousness of the creature stands invested in the fleece of celestial innocence and love; and hence, by bringing together two such opposite emotions in our minds, the Polar bear frightens us with so unnatural a contrast. But even assuming all this to be true; yet, were it not for the whiteness, you would not have that intensified terror.

    As for the white shark, the white gliding ghostliness of repose in that creature, when beheld in his ordinary moods, strangely tallies with the same quality in the Polar quadruped. This peculiarity is most vividly hit by the French in the name they bestow upon that fish. The Romish mass for the dead begins with “Requiem eternam” (eternal rest), whence Requiem denominating the mass itself, and any other funeral music. Now, in allusion to the white, silent stillness of death in this shark, and the mild deadliness of his habits, the French call him Requin.

    Bethink thee of the albatross, whence come those clouds of spiritual wonderment and pale dread, in which that white phantom sails in all imaginations? Not Coleridge first threw that spell; but God’s great, unflattering laureate, Nature.

    I remember the first albatross I ever saw. It was during a prolonged gale, in waters hard upon the Antarctic seas. From my forenoon watch below, I ascended to the overclouded deck; and there, dashed upon the main hatches, I saw a regal, feathery thing of unspotted whiteness, and with a hooked, Roman bill sublime. At intervals, it arched forth its vast archangel wings, as if to embrace some holy ark. Wondrous flutterings and throbbings shook it. Though bodily unharmed, it uttered cries, as some king’s ghost in supernatural distress. Through its inexpressible, strange eyes, methought I peeped to secrets which took hold of God. As Abraham before the angels, I bowed myself; the white thing was so white, its wings so wide, and in those for ever exiled waters, I had lost the miserable warping memories of traditions and of towns. Long I gazed at that prodigy of plumage. I cannot tell, can only hint, the things that darted through me then. But at last I awoke; and turning, asked a sailor what bird was this. A goney, he replied. Goney! never had heard that name before; is it conceivable that this glorious thing is utterly unknown to men ashore! never! But some time after, I learned that goney was some seaman’s name for albatross. So that by no possibility could Coleridge’s wild Rhyme have had aught to do with those mystical impressions which were mine, when I saw that bird upon our deck. For neither had I then read the Rhyme, nor knew the bird to be an albatross. Yet, in saying this, I do but indirectly burnish a little brighter the noble merit of the poem and the poet.

    I assert, then, that in the wondrous bodily whiteness of the bird chiefly lurks the secret of the spell; a truth the more evinced in this, that by a solecism of terms there are birds called grey albatrosses; and these I have frequently seen, but never with such emotions as when I beheld the Antarctic fowl.

    But how had the mystic thing been caught? Whisper it not, and I will tell; with a treacherous hook and line, as the fowl floated on the sea. At last the Captain made a postman of it; tying a lettered, leathern tally round its neck, with the ship’s time and place; and then letting it escape. But I doubt not, that leathern tally, meant for man, was taken off in Heaven, when the white fowl flew to join the wing-folding, the invoking, and adoring cherubim!

    Most famous in our Western annals and Indian traditions is that of the White Steed of the Prairies; a magnificent milk-white charger, large-eyed, small-headed, bluff-chested, and with the dignity of a thousand monarchs in his lofty, overscorning carriage. He was the elected Xerxes of vast herds of wild horses, whose pastures in those days were only fenced by the Rocky Mountains and the Alleghanies. At their flaming head he westward trooped it like that chosen star which every evening leads on the hosts of light. The flashing cascade of his mane, the curving comet of his tail, invested him with housings more resplendent than gold and silver-beaters could have furnished him. A most imperial and archangelical apparition of that unfallen, western world, which to the eyes of the old trappers and hunters revived the glories of those primeval times when Adam walked majestic as a god, bluff-browed and fearless as this mighty steed. Whether marching amid his aides and marshals in the van of countless cohorts that endlessly streamed it over the plains, like an Ohio; or whether with his circumambient subjects browsing all around at the horizon, the White Steed gallopingly reviewed them with warm nostrils reddening through his cool milkiness; in whatever aspect he presented himself, always to the bravest Indians he was the object of trembling reverence and awe. Nor can it be questioned from what stands on legendary record of this noble horse, that it was his spiritual whiteness chiefly, which so clothed him with divineness; and that this divineness had that in it which, though commanding worship, at the same time enforced a certain nameless terror.

    But there are other instances where this whiteness loses all that accessory and strange glory which invests it in the White Steed and Albatross.

    What is it that in the Albino man so peculiarly repels and often shocks the eye, as that sometimes he is loathed by his own kith and kin! It is that whiteness which invests him, a thing expressed by the name he bears. The Albino is as well made as other men- has no substantive deformity- and yet this mere aspect of all-pervading whiteness makes him more strangely hideous than the ugliest abortion. Why should this be so?

    Nor, in quite other aspects, does Nature in her least palpable but not the less malicious agencies, fail to enlist among her forces this crowning attribute of the terrible. From its snowy aspect, the gauntleted ghost of the Southern Seas has been denominated the White Squall. Nor, in some historic instances, has the art of human malice omitted so potent an auxiliary. How wildly it heightens the effect of that passage in Froissart, when, masked in the snowy symbol of their faction, the desperate White Hoods of Ghent murder their bailiff in the market-place!

    Nor, in some things, does the common, hereditary experience of all mankind fail to bear witness to the supernaturalism of this hue. It cannot well be doubted, that the one visible quality in the aspect of the dead which most appals the gazer, is the marble pallor lingering there; as if indeed that pallor were as much like the badge of consternation in the other world, as of mortal trepidation here. And from that pallor of the dead, we borrow the expressive hue of the shroud in which we wrap them. Nor even in our superstitions do we fail to throw the same snowy mantle round our phantoms; all ghosts rising in a milk-white fog- Yea, while these terrors seize us, let us add, that even the king of terrors, when personified by the evangelist, rides on his pallid horse.

    Therefore, in his other moods, symbolize whatever grand or gracious thing he will by whiteness, no man can deny that in its profoundest idealized significance it calls up a peculiar apparition to the soul.

    But though without dissent this point be fixed, how is mortal man to account for it? To analyze it, would seem impossible. Can we, then, by the citation of some of those instances wherein this thing of whiteness- though for the time either wholly or in great part stripped of all direct associations calculated to import to it aught fearful, but nevertheless, is found to exert over us the same sorcery, however modified;- can we thus hope to light upon some chance clue to conduct us to the hidden cause we seek?

    Let us try. But in a matter like this, subtlety appeals to subtlety, and without imagination no man can follow another into these halls. And though, doubtless, some at least of the imaginative impressions about to be presented may have been shared by most men, yet few perhaps were entirely conscious of them at the time, and therefore may not be able to recall them now.

    Why to the man of untutored ideality, who happens to be but loosely acquainted with the peculiar character of the day, does the bare mention of Whitsuntide marshal in the fancy such long, dreary, speechless processions of slow-pacing pilgrims, down-cast and hooded with new-fallen snow? Or to the unread, unsophisticated Protestant of the Middle American States, why does the passing mention of a White Friar or a White Nun, evoke such an eyeless statue in the soul?

    Or what is there apart from the traditions of dungeoned warriors and kings (which will not wholly account for it) that makes the White Tower of London tell so much more strongly on the imagination of an untravelled American, than those other storied structures, its neighbors- the Byward Tower, or even the Bloody? And those sublimer towers, the White Mountains of New Hampshire, whence, in peculiar moods, comes that gigantic ghostliness over the soul at the bare mention of that name, while the thought of Virginia’s Blue Ridge is full of a soft, dewy, distant dreaminess? Or why, irrespective of all latitudes and longitudes, does the name of the White Sea exert such a spectralness over the fancy, while that of the Yellow Sea lulls us with mortal thoughts of long lacquered mild afternoons on the waves, followed by the gaudiest and yet sleepiest of sunsets? Or, to choose a wholly unsubstantial instance, purely addressed to the fancy, why, in reading the old fairy tales of Central Europe, does “the tall pale man” of the Hartz forests, whose changeless pallor unrustlingly glides through the green of the groves- why is this phantom more terrible than all the whooping imps of the Blocksburg?

    Nor is it, altogether, the remembrance of her cathedral-toppling earthquakes; nor the stampedoes of her frantic seas; nor the tearlessness of and skies that never rain; nor the sight of her wide field of leaning spires, wrenched cope-stones, and crosses all adroop (like canted yards of anchored fleets); and her suburban avenues of house-walls lying over upon each other, as a tossed pack of cards;- it is not these things alone which make tearless Lima, the strangest, saddest city thou can’st see. For Lima has taken the white veil; and there is a higher horror in this whiteness of her woe. Old as Pizarro, this whiteness keeps her ruins for ever new; admits not the cheerful greenness of complete decay; spreads over her broken ramparts the rigid pallor of an apoplexy that fixes its own distortions.

    I know that, to the common apprehension, this phenomenon of whiteness is not confessed to be the prime agent in exaggerating the terror of objects otherwise terrible; nor to the unimaginative mind is there aught of terror in those appearances whose awfulness to another mind almost solely consists in this one phenomenon, especially when exhibited under any form at all approaching to muteness or universality. What I mean by these two statements may perhaps be respectively elucidated by the following examples.

    First: The mariner, when drawing nigh the coasts of foreign lands, if by night he hear the roar of breakers, starts to vigilance, and feels just enough of trepidation to sharpen all his faculties; but under precisely similar circumstances, let him be called from his hammock to view his ship sailing through a midnight sea of milky whiteness- as if from encircling headlands shoals of combed white bears were swimming round him, then he feels a silent, superstitious dread; the shrouded phantom of the whitened waters is horrible to him as a real ghost; in vain the lead assures him he is still off soundings; heart and helm they both go down; he never rests till blue water is under him again. Yet where is the mariner who will tell thee, “Sir, it was not so much the fear of striking hidden rocks, as the fear of that hideous whiteness that so stirred me?”

    Second: To the native Indian of Peru, the continual sight of the snowhowdahed Andes conveys naught of dread, except, perhaps, in the mere fancying of the eternal frosted desolateness reigning at such vast altitudes, and the natural conceit of what a fearfulness it would be to lose oneself in such inhuman solitude. Much the same is it with the backwoodsman of the West, who with comparative indifference views an unbounded prairie sheeted with driven snow, no shadow of tree or twig to break the fixed trance of whiteness. Not so the sailor, beholding the scenery of the Antarctic seas; where at times, by some infernal trick of legerdemain in the powers of frost and air, he, shivering and half shipwrecked, instead of rainbows speaking hope and solace to his misery, views what seems a boundless churchyard grinning upon him with its lean ice monuments and splintered crosses.

    But thou sayest, methinks that white-lead chapter about whiteness is but a white flag hung out from a craven soul; thou surrenderest to a hypo, Ishmael.

    Tell me, why this strong young colt, foaled in some peaceful valley of Vermont, far removed from all beasts of prey- why is it that upon the sunniest day, if you but shake a fresh buffalo robe behind him, so that he cannot even see it, but only smells its wild animal muskiness- why will he start, snort, and with bursting eyes paw the ground in phrensies of affright? There is no remembrance in him of any gorings of wild creatures in his green northern home, so that the strange muskiness he smells cannot recall to him anything associated with the experience of former perils; for what knows he, this New England colt, of the black bisons of distant Oregon?

    No; but here thou beholdest even in a dumb brute, the instinct of the knowledge of the demonism in the world. Though thousands of miles from Oregon, still when he smells that savage musk, the rending, goring bison herds are as present as to the deserted wild foal of the prairies, which this instant they may be trampling into dust.

    Thus, then, the muffled rollings of a milky sea; the bleak rustlings of the festooned frosts of mountains; the desolate shiftings of the windrowed snows of prairies; all these, to Ishmael, are as the shaking of that buffalo robe to the frightened colt!

    Though neither knows where lie the nameless things of which the mystic sign gives forth such hints; yet with me, as with the colt, somewhere those things must exist. Though in many of its aspects this visible world seems formed in love, the invisible spheres were formed in fright.

    But not yet have we solved the incantation of this whiteness, and learned why it appeals with such power to the soul; and more strange and far more portentous- why, as we have seen, it is at once the most meaning symbol of spiritual things, nay, the very veil of the Christian’s Deity; and yet should be as it is, the intensifying agent in things the most appalling to mankind.

    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way? Or is it, that as in essence whiteness is not so much a color as the visible absence of color; and at the same time the concrete of all colors; is it for these reasons that there is such a dumb blankness, full of meaning, in a wide landscape of snows- a colorless, all-color of atheism from which we shrink? And when we consider that other theory of the natural philosophers, that all other earthly hues- every stately or lovely emblazoning- the sweet tinges of sunset skies and woods; yea, and the gilded velvets of butterflies, and the butterfly cheeks of young girls; all these are but subtile deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without; so that all deified Nature absolutely paints like the harlot, whose allurements cover nothing but the charnel-house within; and when we proceed further, and consider that the mystical cosmetic which produces every one of her hues, the great principle of light, for ever remains white or colorless in itself, and if operating without medium upon matter, would touch all objects, even tulips and roses, with its own blank tinge- pondering all this, the palsied universe lies before us a leper; and like wilful travellers in Lapland, who refuse to wear colored and coloring glasses upon their eyes, so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?

     

    https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/42/moby-dick/702/chapter-42-the-whiteness-of-the-whale/

    [collapse]
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by Lapis Lazuli.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by Lapis Lazuli.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by Auburn.
    #30095
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @adriancorrea Heya. If I understand your root question, you're asking where in the math of V and M does the difference, which leads to "cartoony" versus "realistic" outputs, emerge? Like, what parts of the code cause this qualitative difference?

    First I just gotta make a quick disclaimer and say that cartoony would fit more of Ne>Si, but Si>Ne might be "realistic" too, at least within the contexts it knows for sure. The non-realism of Ne-Si comes about from its modularity. When simulating a scenario not seen before, it joins together modules of known facts (Si), to make a whole. (the math for this is approximated here https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=M+ and here https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=M- but these require explanation). But if I had to summarize it, it'd be like this:

    M:

    • If (situation has no exact match in precedent), then do:
      • Stitch together a match by taking the most adjacent modules from precedent, which can do so as a whole
    • end if

    V:

    • If (situation has no exact match in precedent), then do:
      • Create an intersectional area, where the trendlines (isomorphisms) related to this context, all converge
    • endif

    ~~~

    So to explain this, with M, a missing area (i.e. we've never seen a cavemen in prehistoric times, so it's a factual "unknown"), is synthesized by taking adjacent areas and filling in detail by borrowing from them in a copy-paste fashion. Something like this:

    ^ As is being discussed in this thread, this is a combination of Si->Ne (IN) at work. But it's still a patchwork composite, in the end. Oppositely, with V, the analogous example would be to fill in the missing area with structural/isomorphic patterns not necessarily adjacent to the gap, but persistent across all datasets. We can liken this to:

    ^ Here I've shown the gap, and a few isomorphic trendlines that may be intersecting it. Some with very big cycles, some with small cycles. The Ni-Se user would fill in the gap by using these trendlines, and what one would expect the trendline to add to the scenario, given its "timing" within its cycle, and its position within its cycle. Each trendline adds a little something, and the net convergence of these trendlines becomes the "picture."

    Now, which is more right? It's hard to say. From the point of view of Si, these trendlines may add erroneous data to the gap because they're extrapolating from data way out in left-field (these black circles span far out into other areas not related to the immediate context). So Si may feel "my representation is the most faithful to the original context, and makes the least amount of extrapolations". Oppositely, Ni may feel that Si's representation, while filling in details faithfully related to its surroundings, fails to see how the immediate surroundings of the gap are not the only thing happening in that area, and trans-local information is also affecting the local space. So Ni is inserting in trans-local information into the local space, and feels this better represents a wider truth.

    That is the best I can do for now, in terms of explaining the types of operations the two are performing when it comes to imagining a missing gap in knowledge. I don't have exact math for you atm, but in either case it'd be too complicated for this thread, and I'd need the help of an experienced programmer to help me codify this faithfully. But I do believe the concept of these different approaches to information are distinct. 🙂 Hope this answers your question.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy