Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 74

Thread: Typing other animals and social mammals aside from humans

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Typing other animals and social mammals aside from humans

    The subject is pretty self explanitory, but I would like to bring to the table information about typing animals. Because animals live and cope in the same environment as us, they most likely have similar cognitive functions. I personally have two cats and observe interesting correlations between their outward behavior, their relation to me, their abilities, and the people they remeind me of in terms of the feeling i get around them. Cat x is a male cat and seems to be very good at figuring out mechanical problems, such as opening doors and such, me is also introverted and avoid people. When staring at him, he will try to ease his tension by making an inqiry type of sound implying (whats up? why are you staring at me?) and he will continue to observe me staring in an uncomfortable way. He is also graceful and remembers his environment visually. When he steps over an object with his front paw, he will step over it with his hind paw as well without having to look. So he most likely has a very good extraverted spatial sense. I am assuming he is ISTj. My other cat, a female, is very bad at figuring out mechanics, is clumsy, runs into objects. she has very good emotional abilities and can manipulate alot better than cat x, using sound. It is as if she sings. she also loves people, is very energetic and is not gentle. She is much better at controlling her emotions and will continue to purr, even if being scolded. She seems to be ENFJ. I also feel as if her primary function affects my suggestive function. We also make intimate eye contact which is different from th eother cat. It definitly reminds me of ENFJ's. Now that I am developing feelings I can better correlate the feelings I get about my relations with others. Before you judge my claims.... remember I am not using pure logic, to observe and define my observations. There are relational ethics and intuition involved as well. So if you do not believe my statements, it is because you ar eunable to replicate my subjective obervations, due to a lacking of specific functions that I used, or subject animals. But you can also look at it this way... evolution rarely skips a step, and if all animals are less evolved (in terms of intelligence) versions of humans, then they must have begun to form personality differences in order to create a desire to socialize for the benefit fo the entire group.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    671
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's w0w. i've read it last night on two joints and I was going to scream. typing animals..

    it's not irony

  3. #3
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When you look at typing as being a sort of qualitative nomenclature i don't see such an idea as being so far fetched. It can be done you just have to transmute the system. (which you probably already covered)

    I think that they type of nomenclature socionics uses is fundamental so it doesn't seem THAT far fetched.

    I've tried it. But then the animal starts humping my leg and i think "damn, its really an ESFp!"

    just kidding.

    neato idea

  4. #4
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's impossible to type animals, most especially with the consideration that their neurological system is so different from our own. I would find it hard to believe that any animal other then perhaps chimps and dolphins could ever think in terms that would even remotely resemble a symbolic cognitive thought pattern of any sort; in other words, there are no inuitive animals.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If animals dont have logic, how can they deal with matter, how can cats open doors, how can dogs dig holes under fences? if they dont have ethics, then how can they deal with emotional exchange, relations, how can they express anger by hissing, how can they know when we scold them? if they dont have sensing, how can they spatially reason to catch a rabit, how can they remember that sit means that they have to bend their hind legs, how can they know if something tastes good base don smell? if they dont have intuition, how can they differentiate if its their owner that pulled into the drive way or their neighbor, how can they stay angry at certain people, how can they worry about us taking them to the vet when they have only seent he cage taken out? Animals are a in-between point between humans and single celled organisms. They have brains and they are evolving to be social. Monkeys are not the only social animal. If anything dolphins are much more different than we are, as opposed to cats and dogs. Dolphins have perceptions that we do not even have, and they can sleep half brain at a time. Logic is needed to deal with matter, Feelings - energy, Sensing - Space, and Intuition - Time. Without these animals cannot form a high level society where there is a flow of information. I have observed in fact animals learning from other animals through example and through emotion. Chimps of course have these perceptions because we were once them, and evolution doesnt take huge leaps like that. Like I said some cats are gracefull and remember their environment visually (as seen when they step over objects without looking at them), and some cats are clumsy but are better at seeing corse of events. Some are better at solving puzzles and some better at controlling their owners with beautiful acoustic tones, which resemble those of emotional humans (emotional tones seem to be universal. in fact every human culture and even some animals smile to show happiness and frown to show frustration.) You need to do observations before you can disagree because this is something that is only seen inductively, and can't just be reasoned out. Also consider the fact stated before, that evolution of social systems doesnt jump far.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  6. #6
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I appologize, I was completely oblivious to the fact that you specified this discussion on SOCIAL MAMMALS. In any case, you presume the validity of the functions and that functions act in the same manner in animals that they do in ourselves. As such, you cannot assume a model-a approach to the situation, as many of the social animals don't have a sense of self. Also, we don't even know if the functions exist in humans the way we percieve them to, so why bother trying to extend these abitrary abilities to animals?

    You also forget that instincts play a large part in most mammalian-neurological structure. You have a cats brain which is largely pre-defined before birth, and then you have the primate's brain, or even a cetacean's or Elephant's brain, which takes a signifcant amount of time during which they "learn" specific things, which is arguably an instinct in itself, completely seperate from the jungian functions which merely describe percieved manners in which the human mind operates. You're giving animals FAR too much credit; even if they do have the abilities, some are so markedly primitive that is hard to label them and appopriate definitions to these labels that are similar to our own; similarly, some are so much more defined then our own, such as extraverted sensing, that it would be ignorant to classify it as such.

    In conclusion, the animal mind is far too enigmatic to simply reduce it down to an information-metabolism only system.

    EDIT: Considering my last statement, that seems to be silly as I don't believe any of you believe our own mind to be limited soley to one's information-metabolism; what I should have said was that it is silly to assume that the information-metabolism exists in animals the same way it does in us.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If a higher being were to observe humans, they would too think we act on instict, especially sinc eour relations are predictable. They would see us as a simple chemical reaction where duals combine, then form quadras and the socion as our latice foir information flow. Our idea of a sense of self comes from our instinctual desire to define things including ourselves. We think we are concious and have free will and this makes us think we stand out from lower animals. Lets say socionics isnt yet defined enough, and lets discard the model A, we still as humans have the same traits as cats and dogs, in terms of how we interact. We are just more advanced, in the same thing. This is similar to the example of how people think animals see in blakc and white rather than color like we do.... i think its silly to say that... because lets say a higher being than us, able to see from RF to alpha particles was to test our vision, they would also then assume that we see in black and white, becauyse we cant see the diff between IR and UV. This is not the case. Animals probably dont even know what blakc and white is, they see a continuous section of the spectrum as we do. Ours is just wider. Same thing with brains. Ours is just more advanced. Would it be possible for any other social system to exists? (non-insect, and where information flows)
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  8. #8
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You completely missed my point. All I'm saying is, is that we can't apply the information-metabolism model to animals confidently, that's ALL.

    Also, instincts are sorts of things that cannot be manipulated to change and cannot accept new information---the human mind on the otherhand operates in such a way that instincts combine to form non-instinctual connections. THEY ARE INSTINCTS, I'm not some egotistical hominid who gloats in his superiority; it isn't a relative matter.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Our basic needs are our insticts, we just have a much more complex way of meeting those needs. We think we are concious, of what we do, but how can we be if everything we do involves meeting those needs, and we dont even realize it. If we ingore our needs, our body will punish us. If we murder, we might go insane or show guilt, so other in society can see what we did. Our body cares more about protecting society than ourselves. We are just a small components, like a skin cell in your body. Eventually we might become a giant concious creature. And then that creature will form with other like it to become another larger version...Everything in nature seems recursive. But back to conciousness. We cannot be any more concious than lower animals if we consist of the same basic particals. there is no such thing as consciousness; only complex behavior. We don't even fully understand our own. a rake is an example or a simple organism with a self defense mechanism. You step on it, and it slams u in the nose. Is it conscious? maybe, if it was a bunch of rakes set up to feed back their own behavior into the system. if a computer told you it was concious would you believe it? as far as information metabolism goes for animals, think of it this way... what happens when a cat is attacked by other cats, it probably builds up mistrust and anger for other cats, it will then take out its anger on other cats, these other cats will too become angry. this is already a sign of information flow. A flow of emotions.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  10. #10
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Defense mechanism? What are you talking about? Rakes aren't conscious simply because there is no directive instrument; in other words, they have no brain.

    Also, we must differentiate between the reactive capacity of all organisms and the self-awareness of humans; I am speaking solely of the latter. The more flexible the mind, and the greater amount of influx of information which can be stored for new behaviour, the greater amount of "consciousness" and the greater amount of "self-awareness" an individual has. Most animals are NOT self-aware---they show no signs of knowing who they are or what they are; without that influx of information that can be used to mold behavior, an animal is completely left with the knowledge he is born with---and since the self-awareness requires an enormous amount of this ability, it doesn't seem possible, for say, a mole to be self-aware. I will assert that humans are only self-aware some of the times; those times being the moments where the brain is engaging in the attempt to sate needs through reasoning; animals merely have responses that are stored, a "trial and error" system of learning.

    Also, I love how you keep missing my point: the nature of the information metabolism within an animal could be COMPLETELY different from our own, thus it is silly to assume that we can "type" them in the same manner.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not missing the point... I'm just saying that animals can percieve space, time, matter and energy, thats why i find it self evident that if they were to communicate, thats what they would be communicating, and nothing more. You said that humans have a brain and a rake doesn't. What is a brain? its just a bundle of nerves set up as neural networks. We can simulate neural netwroks on computers (less complex ones of course). And they can LEARN too using back propagation or other methods of training. Cats and dogs can learn as well. They can also assocuate feelings with thing, and can actually weigh fear with desire. They can go for the food, but they remember that it shocked them. They can conciously ingore the hunger in order to avoid pain. This is reasoning. This is overriding instinct (sorta, but not really, because primary directive is to not die which is still instinct). Animals are just not as smart, thats all. Them and us have the same needs. We just have a higher level of similar abilities to accomplish the same thing. You said animals dont show any signs of being self aware. How are they supposed to? They cannot speak to you. Isn't the fact that they evade death enough proof that they know they exist? We evade death too, but we take more things into account before deciding. We might consider society as well on a larger and more complex scale. We might have to write software and crunch numbers, to do a project, the project is for your job, the job is for money, the money is to eat, and have status, and those are instincts. Animals go about it in a more simple way, hunger implies searching for food or hunting. We evolved past that, to planting things, to trade, to having food sent to us UPS. there is really no difference.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  12. #12
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    JUST TELL ME, do you agree that we cannot appropriate abitrary psychic systems to animals without first getting sufficient data on how they think?

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, I dont agree. Science is not the only way to find things out. Our perceptions are primary, then science is used to sum up and verbalize what we observe, in order to prove things to others in a universal manner. F people seem to treat animals as if they are simple versions of humans. So I will go with their perceptions before I put logic into it. Also I believe Matter, Energy, Space and Time are general enough for describing animal perceptions because it doesnt go into detail on how a brain works. Only what their brain has to be able to do to stay alive in a 4D environment, where there is Energy and Matter (which are essentially the same thing in a different state as E = M*C^2 describes). Any communication would involve sharing the previous information. There would be no reason for it to be any other way.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  14. #14
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, do you honestly believe that the ego, super-ego, super-id, and id block exist in the same manner in animals as they do in us?

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no proof it exists in humans, except that we percieve that our two primary functions are very important and define who we are. Because then what else can we be? We better stand for what we are good at, otherwise we admit that there no purpose for our existance, and that a violation of the instinct for survival. We must have a purpose and we must live, that instict keeps us progressing. I don't believe in ego or super ego. I believe in a continuous system where all abilities are a gradient and have a gradient of importance to us. Socionics just breaks it down into binary terms so we can easily solve problems in a rounded-off manner. Personality is analog not digital.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  16. #16
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wait, what? Did you just say it doesn't exist in the same manner, or that it must? If you meant the latter, then I must say that I don't see any evidence of an "I am this and that" within animals that they defend; they just ARE. Also, the model-a doesn't represent a system of "gradiance" in which the further back one goes within the system the less importance we place upon it. In fact, do we not place more value upon the hidden agenda then anything else?

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think there can be such cases where a person is literally in between two hidden agendas. All model A shows is the arangement in for an extreme personality. Here is an example... say you have an INTj and INTp. One's hidden agenda is to be healthy, the others to love... There could be a type that is between INTj and INTp. What would their model-A look like? you owuld have to choose, one arangement or the other. So I think it is best to look at it in terms of gradient. If you can morph images of peopels faces from one to the other, I'm sure socionics models can be designed the same way, making the model A more of a multidimensional graph (or other type of data representation) than a chart. As far as a sense or me, or I. That doesn't exist. We only discus it as if it does, because we are disigned in such a way that we have a concept of a center of conciousness (which is why we can't suddenly be someone else). If we change anything about our brain, then we just become a different person with the same memories (which is why people change over time). Every minute that passes, you become a different I and me, with a plethora of old memories that collect. If you loose your memories, you become a totally new I in your mind's eye. Have you heard of the guy who had a rod shot through his head because of an explosion? he became a totally different person. Does he still have a me/I? of course. but he isnt who he was. a computer also has a sense of me or I. a unique serial number or hardware ID (thats how windows knows what computer its sitting on.) It really means nothing. You are just aware of the location that your processing occurs in.

    Edit: Try writting an image recognition program, then take the webcam and aim it at the computer itself. The computer will respond with "object detected: computer, serial number xxxxxxx, gray, a device used to....". It could analyze itself, as long as it has a programmed reason to, or its reasoning abilities are complex enough for it to, or if it sees benefit in self actualization.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  18. #18
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But, if it's any different then how it is now, it's not the model-a, it's something else. How can it be the a-model and then not be at the same time?

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The same way pulse code modulation can sound like live music.

    Edit: model A isn't real. people are. thats why F people in general don't like the idea of typing others.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  20. #20
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So all that arguing about how the model-a couldn't be applied to animals is useless as the model-a isn't real? That entire discussion was pointless? You confuse me.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Each reply lead to something else. I wasn't keeping track of the topic and was on the defensive and replied only to what you questioned from the last post.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  22. #22
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, let me get this straight. You believe we can come to conclusions about something without first thoroughly testing it even when the testing is possible, and you also believe that the model-a can be applied to animals in the same manner it is applied to humans even though you don't believe it exists? I'm sensing some uncoordination within your thought process. Slow down and explain to me these contradictions. We're only getting more questions when the aim of the discussion is to obtain answers where the extra questions are irrelevant to the previous.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok here it goes...

    "You believe we can come to conclusions about something without first thoroughly testing it even when the testing is possible"

    Yes, my logic of correlation and intuition of potentials allow me to do this. How did einstein figure out special reletivity? In his head! Then he proved it with math.

    "and you also believe that the model-a can be applied to animals in the same manner it is applied to humans"

    Not model-a, because I am not confident in model-a enough yet. Cognitive functions and their order (at least the first two), yes.

    "even though you don't believe it exists?"
    It exists as a rough model of a more complex and analog reality. The model doesnt actually exist in real life, it is only a model. The bohr model worked too, but it didn't represent reality as well as the later models.

    "I'm sensing some uncoordination within your thought process."
    We are just on different wave lengths and expect each other to accept certain things as common sense. Like how an Se person tries to paint a picture in my head for 5 minutes and then realizes that im pissed off because i cant do that.

    "Slow down and explain to me these contradictions."
    Done.

    "We're only getting more questions when the aim of the discussion is to obtain answers where the extra questions are irrelevant to the previous."
    f(x) = f(x-1) * 2

    There.

    Edit: I have a question for you as well. How is it that dogs take revenge on their owners by crapping on the bed, after the owner changes something in the house that the dog doesn't approve of? Could it be holding grudges? That would seem like a high order process.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  24. #24
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Yes, my logic of correlation and intuition of potentials allow me to do this. How did einstein figure out special reletivity? In his head! Then he proved it with math. "

    But we must first prove it is true with tests in order to be sure of its validity--humans are remarkable in how often they blunder in such processes.

    "Not model-a, because I am not confident in model-a enough yet. Cognitive functions and their order (at least the first two), yes. "

    Then I agree with you.

    "It exists as a rough model of a more complex and analog reality. The model doesnt actually exist in real life, it is only a model. The bohr model worked too, but it didn't represent reality as well as the later models. "

    Of course, and like the bohr model, that's why it shouldn't be applied: an innacurate model of something yields on innacurate results. But, you already agree with me on the notion that it shouldn't be applied, so it doesn't matter.

    "We are just on different wave lengths and expect each other to accept certain things as common sense. Like how an Se person tries to paint a picture in my head for 5 minutes and then realizes that im pissed off because i cant do that. "

    Well said. But, I thought it was Si people who had this uncanny ability, no Se people.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se and Si can do it. One does it externally and the other internally. Se visualizes where things are around him. Si visualizes things inside their head and projects it into their visual. Also take a look at my edit on my last post.

    Another thing... take a look an a dogs legs and paws. They resemble our own. They even have thumbs, that aren't yet practical in their stage of evolution. And their hind legs ar elike ours too except the proportions are different and they walk on their "toes" if their legs are analogous to ours. If animals are so similar externally where functionality is key, there must be internal similarities as well, and there are, look at their vital systems.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  26. #26
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Where you see similarities, I see disimilarities. They have hinge joints(I believe) for their hind limbs, nor do they have sexual relations based on pleasure. They have PAWS not FINGERS, nor do they have TOES. These seem to be DISIMILARITIES to me, not similarities

    Also, you cannot prove that the act was done out of revenge, nor do you even attempt to account for all the instances of animal cruelty induced upon an animal which did not result in such a passive tactic, which normally signifies abstract processing..

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What about my other question?

    Also their paws are similar to hands and feet, they have small stubs instea dof fingers and a thumb as well that isnt fully developed. The proportions are off however. Dogs dont have sex for just pleasure? Then why do they hump my leg and leave a mess on the floor if not neutered? Lets not go off topic though with that. We will once again end up with a recursive debate.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  28. #28
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You haven't researched this topic at all, have you?

    And I'm sorry, all I see similar in their paws is the amount of "paw" stubs they have, but beyond they, they seem entirely different from our feet and hands.

    I addressed the other question in an edit.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I tend to project upon my animals. They, however, do not like the warmth of the projector or me painting them white.

  30. #30
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that what is happening between MysticSonic and Slava is just a sorta inter-quadra galactic conflict- which is cool.

    Slava, in the alpha quadra, is more "possibility" oriented, whereas MysticSonic is working within the means of the systems we already have(Gamma). A good Socionics thing is going on.

  31. #31
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "This depends on if you define direction as a by-product of non-personal interactions (as I believe Slava is doing) or as a result of "personhood" (which I do) I think MysticSonic needs to clarify if he means drives are a result of something akin to chemical reactions or something other. "

    I believe consciousness is defined as a mechanism set up in such a way that it reacts, and retains certain information and thus recalls it when needed; in other words, as Pedro stated(?), the complex interaction of chemicals which recall the prints of situation which has in it certain aspects of that situation, and allow for this printing: a rake has no means through which he could do this, no means in which he it can recall particular events although they may be imprinted in such a way that is not able to be recalled

    "He was never devaluating the model A completely just saying it is incomplete. "

    But how do you go about applying a model which you percieve to be incomplete? It doesn't make any sense to me.

    "But we must first prove it is true with tests in order to be sure of its validity--humans are remarkable in how often they blunder in such processes."

    I wrote that, just to clarify; although I'm pretty sure you knew this, I just wanted to say that so others would not be confused.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "slava wrote:
    if you do not believe my statements, it is because you ar eunable to replicate my subjective obervations, due to a lacking of specific functions that I used, or subject animals.

    That's not a fair arguement we can't respond because so matter what we say you can repeat the statement and dismantle out observations ad hoc."

    --- You can ask me to translate my perception into another one that you feel comfortable recieving information in, before telling me I'm wrong. Just like if you speak to a spanish person, you should not assume they are stupid if they seem to be speaking jibberish.



    "Mayhaps you are blowing this at least a bit out of proportion because of your hidden agenda?"

    --- To be healthy?


    "Slava wrote:
    Is it conscious? maybe, if it was a bunch of rakes set up to feed back their own behavior into the system."

    MysticSonic wrote:
    Rakes aren't conscious simply because there is no directive instrument; in other words, they have no brain.

    This depends on if you define direction as a by-product of non-personal interactions (as I believe Slava is doing) or as a result of "personhood" (which I do) I think MysticSonic needs to clarify if he means drives are a result of something akin to chemical reactions or something other."

    --- Rakes are an analog to the more complex neurons in the brain.



    "Slava wrote:
    No, I dont agree. Science is not the only way to find things out. Our perceptions are primary, then science is used to sum up and verbalize what we observe, in order to prove things to others in a universal manner.

    A very P thing to say I for one absolutely refuse to believe anything I take in via the senses. Or at least I try if you follow."



    --- We use computer systems to process data so we can graph it and look for trends, why is using my Extraverted Intuition any different than using a computer to look for trends? Remember, your mind is a powerful tool with useful perceptions. A result of evolution, which is much more perfect and seamless than any modern man-made systems.


    "Slava wrote:
    F people seem to treat animals as if they are simple versions of humans. So I will go with their perceptions before I put logic into it.

    Indeed I have been doing something similar with Introverted Intution and all the other functions with very limited success as the more definitions you apply the less you can say. Also, Godels incompleteness theorum has been hampering me."

    --- All I was saying is that some people are better at certain things than others. It is best to trust (maybe even test for consistency) their "god-given" perceptions and find a way to logically define them.



    "Slava wrote:
    We better stand for what we are good at, otherwise we admit that there no purpose for our existance, and that a violation of the instinct for survival.

    If we stand for arbitrary values we still stand for nothing and are still in danger of violating our "survival" instinct. Also, if all values are arbitrary you cannot presume a survival instinct."

    --- We don't stand for arbitrary values, we stand for values associated with our strengths (ego). I hapen to value intelligence, creativity, non-conformity, and lately am starting to value relational ethics, but i don't care about common sense, or navigating my environment without tripping over flat ground. Why do you think these are my values? If we don;t stand up for these values, we accept that we are useless. Not a mentally healthy thing to do.



    "MysticSonic wrote:
    So all that arguing about how the model-a couldn't be applied to animals is useless as the model-a isn't real?

    He was never devaluating the model A completely just saying it is incomplete."

    --- It needs to be a multidimensional scale.



    "MysticSonic wrote:
    I'm sensing some uncoordination within your thought process. Slow down and explain to me these contradictions.

    I get the same reaction when I use my Extraverted Intution without justifying the observations. He is not saying contradictory things just things that are in seperate frames of reference. IE if you have a B plane of reference and an A frame of reference and they never interact then they cannot conflict. That's not exactly what Slava is saying but it can give you an idea. Damn P types Very Happy"



    --- "uncoordination" means you were not following my perceptions, then converting this inability into my personal blunder, rather than asking me to convert or clarify in a desired format.



    "Slava wrote:
    But we must first prove it is true with tests in order to be sure of its validity--humans are remarkable in how often they blunder in such processes.

    This is a fascinating view of the ENTP-INTJ inherent contradiction. What is valuable the perception or the reality behind the perception?"

    --- The person who actually wrote that doesnt seem ENTP or INTJ, while I am INTJ. Is that statement bias by who you thought wrote that?


    EDIT: I appologize if I sound like I have a twig in my ass.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    545
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In my opinion it's possible to type animals. Sure animals have instints but for example my 2 cats. One is grey(girl) the other is black and white(boy).

    To describe there behavior.
    Grey cat

    Think is boss of our family. :wink:
    Walks like a girl and in a way of a famous girl.
    When it want's something she demands it or go up to you.
    Show's you the way/where she want's to be petted.
    Fights when getting nails clipped.
    Likes toys that make noise also laser beam toys too .
    Like plants and treats it as her garden.
    Don't like to play rough.
    Tattle's on her brother or us somethimes.
    Hate being out side if her brother cat also including us are outside she yells untill we go in or distract her.
    Hate strangers cat.
    Visitors come
    she smells,sit, lick on the visitor but won't let them touch her until few days later.


    Black and white cat

    Hug like a teddy bear.
    Likes to sleep with us.
    People cat.
    Like other cats unless there males.
    Follower of the grey cat. Until it comes to food .
    Puts on the show for the visitors at times.
    Likes to be outside.
    have to make it hard to brush him.
    Walks sloppy I say.
    Few comparisons like that I say. I haven't study what there personality yet.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taz
    In my opinion it's possible to type animals. Sure animals have instints but for example my 2 cats. One is grey(girl) the other is black and white(boy).
    OK, the grey one is an ENFJ and the B&W one... ISFP?

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When typing them you should observe them for a long time in person and use Ne to match them with traits of people.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  37. #37
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol, something about this just made me crack up. just the last 3 posts. oh man, i love you people.

  38. #38
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that my cat, Munchie, is an ENTj. :wink:
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I bet it doesn't let you hold it then . One time I tried picking up a cat that was giving me ESTJ vibes, and it like gently bit my hand and indicated that i should not be doing naything to it. When I first met the cat he was at chest level to me, came up and put his paw on my chest. The owner had never seen her cat act this way before. We had a spiritual connection . It sinteresting how the relation still felt the same, even though his primitive business logic could easily be emulated by my correlation logic (my second function).
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    545
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's funny how you can tell a difference behavior in fish. Like I can tell the difference between my two betta fish behavior. One don't like me one doesn't mind me .

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •