Questions about Model 2, Brains and Consciousness

Forum3 Forums Model 2 Discussions Questions about Model 2, Brains and Consciousness

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #26245
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    (mod note: split from https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/v-ni-computation/)
    Hi, Auburn.
    I have lack of understanding model 2 yet. I am working at model 1 still. But I read your new articles and some questions pops to my mind.
    Correct me if I am wrong but this looks to me as a try to explain act of perception itself (in this case visual perception) and we or our cognitive apparatus are take as robots with cameras that register incoming data and changing it into some internal representations. This might work for a robot I guess and I feel idea of mapping as something that somewhat relate to philosophical understanding of (introverted sensing) perception that we can find on Micheal Pierce channel.
    I am wondering how this hipothesis relate to modern findings on cognition? What dimention we are tring to explain here?
    I am refering here to perception as error-correcting mechanism or controlled hallucination or mind as prediction machine. I learn about this from  lectures in my native language. I may not have direct sources to this.
    A little is mentioned here:

    or Daniel Dennett also speak about this when talk about conciousness.
    The main idea is that we can't treat perception as camera becouse the mechanism is very different, we don't register picture but use senses as correction of our mind guesses.
    I wonder how you can relate to that.

    #26250
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Heya! (I moved this to its own thread, cuz it's a big enough topic to deserve a dedicated discussion, I hope that's okay.)
    Good questions. Lets see if I can answer a few or all.

    Correct me if I am wrong but this looks to me as a try to explain act of perception itself (in this case visual perception) and we or our cognitive apparatus are take as robots with cameras that register incoming data and changing it into some internal representations.

    So, regarding this one, CT is not concerned directly with the optic feed. Here is how CT is oriented in relation to the optic feed:

    ^ If you look to the top right corner, you'll see that there's a sequence here which goes External Reality --> Visual Processing --> P+ Information Gathering.
    This intermediary step (visual processing) happens before we even get to P+'s operations, and this is where the brain applies very old programs such as the shadow corrections we see which are responsible for optical illusions.

    Getting to P+

    To oversimplify it, the way I understand it is that the optic nerve, in itself, is similar to an RGB cable that has one "pixel" per cone. The nerve reaches the hypothalamus before anything else, where the raw image data undergoes its first round of processing, and scans for archaic dangers, like snakes, or positives like faces, using very simplistic and rapid analysis. Effectively, this can cause a hypothalamus response (an emotional response) to something which we haven't even "seen" in our mind's-eye yet.
    Next it then also routes to the visual cortex, where it undergoes processing which creates the "mind's eye", with the help of some optical "software" that we might as well equate with "firmware." These are things we have no conscious control over, for example, how our eyes adjust to lighting by compensating for shadows, focus/distance, or the 'tricks' we have which can also be shown to create those optical illusions mentioned above. I suspect things like object edge detection are part of this too.
    What this does is that the net visual processing involved in all of these areas prepare the data so that by the time we 'consciously' perceive it, it has already been parsed into the lowest form of objects (representations, yes). And this is what arrives at P+ and into short term memory.

    Here, the CTA focuses on object management at the next level of abstraction, using these pseudo-objects as the raw martial from which to superimpose abstract objects onto the visual data -- and then it mainly handles that "next-level" data, being now quite removed from the optic feed itself.
    So the guy in the video is right -- at this level, our mental processing can have reciprocal influence on the perception of the information. If we use memory recall like with that Brexit audio phrase, and we re-play the audio sound, the sensory information that reaches our Object Management gets reinterpreted, so that the net result is a mixture of the combined inputs from outside, and what we're adding to that input from inside. In the Brexit audio example, this would be P- echoing out a precedent, and altering the definition of theObject, so that it now 'becomes' the net combination of the sensory inputs + what was echoed out by our brains into it. When the pseudocode uses phrases like theObject = intersectingObject at the end of a processing loop, this is effectively the inside-out overriding/re-defining of sensory data with our interpretations, to where it is henceforth perceived as the interpretation.
    I hope that explains at least one of your questions!
    I know there's others, and I might get to them in a bit. But I'll post this for now.

    #26262
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Thank you Auburn. This cleared topic a little but I have to take a time to think about it. I know I want to bite more than I can chew but that's how my mind works. I am aware the topic is complicated.
    As I see you separate visual processing from object management. But does this indicate that after the visual processing the room is already fully scanned and functions only add meaning-holding resolusion, labels and instructions to already genereted mental model that represents the room?

    #26271
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    As I see you separate visual processing from object management. But does this indicate that after the visual processing the room is already fully scanned and functions only add meaning-holding resolusion, labels and instructions to already genereted mental model that represents the room?

    Yes, I think that more or less sums it up.
    What P+ does is it takes the results of the visual processing and forms (mental) objects out of it. Like so:

    ^ The yellow lines in the bottom image represent the quantifying of that abstract object and bringing it into short-term memory. This may or may not have verbal labels yet, but it at least has a re-cognition of their reality as a collage of objects, not just a visual scene or photo.
    You can imagine this process by imagining that as P+'s eyes scan the environment, these little yellow bounding boxes start popping over certain objects in the room. And this is different than having the visual feed visible in our mind. So there's a delay between when we "see" something entering our visual cortex, and when we "see" that the objects are there. The latter is the activity of object management.

    #26290
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Then, where in this diagram will we locate perceptual processes making: predictions and error-corections? Do they finish their work at the visual processing box?
    I understand mechanism of vision processing as counter-intuitive to common undertanding of our everyday experiences. And I don't know through which interpretation I can interpret diagram and pictures from above.
    Common thinking about it is that "I" is inner observer who look at the inner stage, and eventually concertrate on specific elements. This idea is based on (most propably false) assumtion that we "build" our perceptions with information we gather from enviroument as we strike to create representation close to 1:1 ralation to what can be seen from "objective observer point of view". We miss (and fill) the details and informations that is outside of our perceptual organs capabilities but in general what we see is what it is (we think so).
    [And this is similar to your description, as you said something comes to "field of vision"/"mind's eye" and next moment we bring quantified abstract objects to our shor-term memory aka we turn our attention to them and at last we "see" them or we can say we become aware of their existens as separate and meaning-holding objects. Of course your description can be conceptualize in different way, that's why I am asking if this is the case or not and you think about it in another more abstract way as some data-processing and use this pictures only as analogy to help us think about it. But this still generete an another questions.]
    I understand general idea of visual perception in this way:
    (Well, at this stage of our knowlegde we can't exlude the possibility of existance more than one mechanism of perception, that's why the first description may be actually correct to some degree but I will write about alternative explanation now).
    What we "see" in conciouss content of our minds is actually not what comes  as results of informations from outside which as a pixels are getted together and turned into field of vision but not yet fully scaned and analysed. Informations that comes from eyes are used only to correct or we could say control illusory content created by brain without any information from outside. In our mind pictures there is no information, we only think there is. If our mind don't search actively for something then it's not perceived.

    [ from https://youtu.be/oadgHhdgRkI ]
    This optical illusion is a result of that. It's not that we don't perceive boat on the middle of the picture as a little detail only. It's more like we are at the one moment only sure of one point which have size of a fingernail on the thumb when we we stretch our arm forward (and I know this from Dennett). We talk about our eyes fixations here.

    We could add to this information that receptors in our eyes are developed to be focused on capturing changes in the environment and not to record enviroment itself.
    Mechanism of this is very intreresting but complicated.

    Do you think that this mind predictions have something to do with N and error-correction with S maybe? It is very tempting to think in this way for me. Especially when we see experiments like we saw ealier where they code program to increse prediction power and to simulate the effects of overly strong perceptual predictions. This reminds me of classic Jung's descriptions of Ni where thoughts come as visual represantation in mind of a patients.

    #30332
    Peter
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Some food for thoughts. This fits my considerarions about P functions. This mechanism is exactly what I would like to associate with them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYL2Or_wM4c

    (I don't know why but yt video can't be embeded)

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by Peter.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by Peter.
    #31257
    Lucas
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Hello. Reading this topic, brings up some doubts in my mind.

    However, first I want to thank once again Auburn and everyone else is involded in the project for the project itself and for the opportunity that you are giving us to participate in the discussion.

    So, let's go to the doubts.

    P+ has to do objects management and Se actually manage objects, forming real mental objects from visual processing,  on the other hand Ne forms only caricature-like/intersected objects from visual processing. Then, because every human beings forms mental objects  independently of his/her type, how Ne forms mental objects ?

    If  instead Ne forms real mental objects too, then it has, at least partially,  the same function of Se, so there  could be an overlap between the two and, because we constantly form real mental objects , this would results to be a big overlap.

    If Ne come after a sort of real mental object already exists in the brain, then other doubts can follow, in my opinion.

    If a real mental object already exists before Ne activation, then :

    • it has to already exists in Se people, so what could be the Se function?
    • if doesn't exists a similar route in Se people,  then their brain should be considered differently wired.

    At this point, if my doubts are valuable to the CT theory aim, it would follow that Ne and Se could be reduced to one single Function.

    Thanks.

     

    #31267
    Lapis Lazuli
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unknown

    Your question seems quite similar to what I asked in this thread: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/ni-se-vs-ne-si-an-illustrated-analogy/#post-31195

    Auburn appeared to acknowledge that Ne has a "pass-through" mode in which literal objects can go straight to storage by Si without any distortions caused by Ne's creative processes.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by Lapis Lazuli.
    #31270
    Lucas
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Thank you Lapis. I already read that post, so my doubts,  thanks anyway .

    My doubt still exists. We consider Ne as a pass-through, then why Se people need Se in order to accomplish what Ne people can without the Se function?

    We are suppose to see their brains differently wired, to pretend that there is this difference and period or there is something else?

     

    #31276
    Lucas
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Hi all.

    As a SeFi Type, I have a consideration on the Se function, that could be translated to function module V+, and specifically on eyes toggles.

    When I'm toggling, I'm generally not scanning the environment,  instead I'm scanning my thoughts/memory.

    Maybe this is already known by you, however I hope you will appreciate.

    #31277
    Lapis Lazuli
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unknown

    I think the natural solution is to say that both Se and Ne have the same "pass-through" mode in which the "additional processing" that they do after object formation is turned off so that the objects can be immediately stored by Pi.

    With Ne, the "additional processing" that it does seems well defined: It makes associations between objects.  But what is the "additional processing" that Se does?  I don't recall seeing that defined very clearly.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by Lapis Lazuli.
    #31280
    Lucas
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Thank you Lapis. I agree with you, the natural solution could be what you've said on the pass-through, consequently it will raise other two legitimate questions:

    • What does the Se function do? That you've mentioned and that is similar to my doubt;
    • If objects are stored by Pi, then is Ni a function that is very near to Si? If so, what is its usefulness? Wouldn't be better to shrink to one function? If not so, then what does it do?

    Once again thanks for the reply .

    Have a nice day.

    #31282
    Jason Legion
    Participant
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    With Ne, the "additional processing" that it does seems well defined: It makes associations between objects.  But what is the "additional processing" that Se does?  I don't recall seeing that defined very clearly.

    What does the Se function do? That you've mentioned and that is similar to my doubt

    I would third this. I know that it should be some combination of Pe and narrowness/precision (just as Si has been described as the precisely-defined version of Pi), but that isn't enough to actually expand it into simulated experience.

    If objects are stored by Pi, then is Ni a function that is very near to Si? If so, what is its usefulness? Wouldn't be better to shrink to one function? If not so, then what does it do?

    Ni and Si are certainly close in that they are both Pi functions. But Pi also does processing on the stored information, which differs depending on its alignment. How this works isn't something I'm familiar with, but I have somewhat of an idea that other will hopefully correct further:

    With Si, prior experiences/knowledge are defined/clarified into modular 'frameworks' which can be used to process future experiences. For a made-up example (of how the overall framework is used), Ne groups together shape-data in a specific region of vision, which Si recognizes as matching the concept/grouping of a 'tree' and overlays that upon the experience (including its component frameworks, like 'branch' and 'leaves'). Then Ne notices that the visual system found motion/color-variation in a certain particular region of vision, and Si recognizes the combination of the movement and the 'tree' concept to be 'moving leaves' (a concept which, among other things, has an "opening" of sorts for what caused it). Ne can't find any visible causes for 'moving leaves', and Si has stored that the default cause is 'wind'. So you know that it's windy outside.

    With Ni, prior experiences/knowledge are combined/reduced into interrelated 'relations' which can then be used to process future experiences. For a made-up example (of how the overall tapestry is used), Se [does something] to get a sense of the distance and position of prominent environmental objects, which flows through an Ni instinct for object-shapes that guides Se's further exploration, which gives sufficient fidelity to see cylindrical objects with deviating rotated cylinders some ways up, which goes through object recognition (which is already primed by the general environment) and is connected with the 'tree' cluster, which then connects with the memory of the last few seconds (including motion in a particular part of the piece of the environment connected to 'tree' and a general lack of visible or intuited non-wind objects around the moving objects) to produce the result 'trees with wind'. So you know that it's windy outside.

     

    Again, I'm not really sure what Se does, which means my sense of Ni is still fuzzy as well. Should be pretty close, though!

    #31283
    Lucas
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Thanks Jason.  I'll take a closer look at your post as soon as possible.

    #31301
    Lucas
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    some combination of Pe and narrowness/precision (just as Si has been described as the precisely-defined version of Pi), but that isn't enough to actually expand it into simulated experience.

    I agree that this isn't enough to a simulated experience.

    Se [does something]

    Considering Si or Ni as you said, the point is this, it results an overlap of some functions work, as I understood them.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
bookcommentsgroupenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram