Model 2: The P Systems (Draft)

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

  • 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).

    I’ve added these terms to the following pages: LM, LV, DM, DV

    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 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    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.

    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.”

    Gnosis
    Participant
    • 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.

     

    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!)

    • 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.
    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.

     

    • 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.
    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!

    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.

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

    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.

     

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

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.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON