A Simple Definition of Ni That Works

[Desert Financial]

@Aramas, I'm starting to warm up to your definition in the sense that it focuses on the scope of the actual mechanism, rather than the content the mechanism produces. All things considered, the subtopic of "time" just seems like a red herring at this point.

I personally prefer Jung's definition, but that's just me.

It's introverted, so the objective factors are largely ignored for the sake of subjective factors. The cognitive process starts at the subject, leaves towards the object, and arrives at the subject again. Consequently, you could say that the subject has the first and final say in how information is interpreted. That's why when an ego type interprets information, the output looks like an inverse of the input. At most, the function synthesizes elements to form a comprehensive vision of the big picture. Visualized, that synthesis would look a lot like the picture @lavos posted. and serve each other. serves by feeding all the detailed information it needs to interpolate the big picture. Meanwhile, serves by imparting significance to the sea of sensory information that would otherwise be meaningless.

[Bertrand]

yes if by big picture you mean one that incorporates the time factor, then Ni is all about the big picture. its just silly to talk around time in this way


its like saying trigonometry is all about locating stuff, without mentioning triangles

[Desert Financial]

[Hays]

Ni in seeking form within the brain.
Have seen a better movie example but can’t remember where from.
Similar to what Lavos posted earlier in this thread but has more of a moving forward hopefully towards light.

[Desert Financial]

Hehe, I saw this and thought of Ni:

[Bertrand]

that's totally what its like

[Skepsis]

I have interpreted Ni to be the process of abstracting observable reality(people, places, things) into various essences, and then putting them together, like pieces of a puzzle, into a larger picture. This picture becomes an abstraction of the larger picture of observable reality, a representation, which can further be abstracted into various other essences and reassembled into something larger. This continues until the larger picture balances what is actually observable. It is a quest for knowledge and understanding. Tranquility usually results until the process begins again.

[hatchback176]

1) Must be a low-IQ LII if you somehow read Jung but skipped Kant
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi175/time.html

2) If I had to describe the relationship between and I would proceed along these lines {A, B, C, D}:
A1: Set's the foreground and interprets equipment using as-structure. Example: "Using my fist as weapon"
A2: Set's the background context and assigns final causes using 'in-order-to' structure. Example: "Punch in-order-to annihilate quarks, gluons, and d-brane strings from existence"

B1: Sends motor intentions and triggers motor strings. It accomplishes this with reflexive kinetic linking signalled by nervous system innervation patterns.
Muscle memory as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situated_cognition and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
B2: Lives in verbal memory. Kant proves it's not derived from sensibility. It can talk about purposive "Whys" where can only express procedural memory "Hows"

C1: can 'will' an instruction to happen or 'apply' a command.
C2: can only suggest and warn because words only command or instruct

D1: directs and mobilizes by being apt-to-respond to a relevancy of forces. It is "fully-involved" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideg...#Ready-to-hand
D2: is detached and observing which means it develops as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar. It's verbal theorization attempts to define the largest possible action context (context-free subjective time) then labels any change, appearance, transition, or movement with verbs giving them context-free final causes according to 'vocabulary size'. These signals stop action at with tranquility, the sense of completion, the cessation of desire, and quiescence. There is something called the Go/No-Go paradigm for behavioral experiments, is responsible for No-Go inhibitions.

All the visual bullshit people are adding only adds to the case that lives in verbal memory as a context-free grammar that can label or symbolize without regard to context. Or as Kant says "Finally, time is a condition of the application of the principle of contradiction. A thing can be both A and not-A if it is so at different times. So the principle only applies to a thing’s being A and not-A simultaneously"

[Skepsis]

Some surrealism is a good example of what an artist may try and convey about reality:

[squark]

I was thinking of lots of different kinds of associations. There are visual associations, auditory associations, verbal and linguistic associations, kinaesthetic associations, etc. Any sort of "this makes me think of that" arrangement is what I mean by Ni. Also, associations can go between different forms; that is, that you can have a sensory association that makes you think of an idea, or one idea can make you think of another idea. Make sure to note that I do not refer to the content of those associations in themselves as being Ni; the process underlying what makes those associations follow a certain pattern is what I refer to when I say Ni.

I was inclined to argue this at first, as all the field elements have to do with associations, but the bold cleared up what you meant specifically.

I see Ni as archetypal or pattern-searching in their associations, which as you mentioned later symbolism fits into well. I've brought up the Temple Grandin thread a few times because I found her thought process so fascinating. She lacked archetypal thinking in even a rudimentary form, which is a complete lack of even low-dimensional Ni imo - the example she gave to illustrate this was to ask everyone to think of a church. Most people have an idea of a general idea of "church" in their minds, maybe a white building with a steeple, some stained glass windows or some such, but it's a basic form representing churches in general as they know them. She can only think of specific churches that she has seen in real life. She sees them in great detail - photographic in form, but doesn't have an overarching idea of "church." There's no generic form of it. Same with anything else, no generic "dog" or "cat" only specific concrete ones that she has actually seen.

Creating a generic form or archetype in our minds is I think a low-dimensional use of Ni that nearly everyone does. Reading a book or watching a movie and noticing the foreshadowing and symbolism in it, seeing the use of patterns to create effects and make symbolic connections is imo a small step above that. Superstition, horoscopes, "magical thinking" (as in the anthropological/psychological use of that term rather than colloquial use) all come from patterns and archetypes and are present also in the lower dimensions of Ni. But when you get to 4-d use, all the functions incorporate time.

And for higher-dimensional Ni I tend to have a simplified view of Ni as "where will this lead." I see it as taking all the patterns and types and connections/associations and merging them into a flow which does in fact involve prediction as well, by having a sort of finger on the pulse of where the patterns come together and what tends to come next. All 4-D elements predict in their own way, Ni just gets the mystical label because it's the farthest removed from what we can actually see, the "most abstract" as you put it. 4D Ni people tend to ime not think of what they're doing as anything special, it's just what they do, like all other higher-dimensional functions. With Ni they "know things" because that's where the patterns lead, just like Si or Fi etc all "know things" regarding their specific domains.

[Aylen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing

Repetition is at the core of meaning, and it occurs in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_(memory)

There is all the room in the universe for leads to make coherent associations if they would simply organize themselves to use multiple levels of description. You have to stop being afraid of the complexity if you want to carry your insight forward.
http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/coa.html

As an lead I am certainly only experiencing tension with Aramas definition. People like Dario Nardi made it really simple to begin talking about brain activity and the thought processs in terms of the information elements. Aramas isn't even close https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJDESShlyo

I had not seen that video. Thanks. Another forum member posted this one awhile ago. I prefer Nardi to Gulenko.

[Aramas]

I have interpreted Ni to be the process of abstracting observable reality(people, places, things) into various essences, and then putting them together, like pieces of a puzzle, into a larger picture. This picture becomes an abstraction of the larger picture of observable reality, a representation, which can further be abstracted into various other essences and reassembled into something larger. This continues until the larger picture balances what is actually observable. It is a quest for knowledge and understanding. Tranquility usually results until the process begins again.

What's an essence?

[Skepsis]

What's an essence?

The core of what something really is.

[hatchback176]

The core of an essence IS what something really IS......that's retarded
No, an essence is an invariant within a specific scope or context. Maybe you remember 6th grade Algebra with dependent and independent variables.

[Skepsis]

I was inclined to argue this at first, as all the field elements have to do with associations, but the bold cleared up what you meant specifically.

I see Ni as archetypal or pattern-searching in their associations, which as you mentioned later symbolism fits into well. I've brought up the Temple Grandin thread a few times because I found her thought process so fascinating. She lacked archetypal thinking in even a rudimentary form, which is a complete lack of even low-dimensional Ni imo - the example she gave to illustrate this was to ask everyone to think of a church. Most people have an idea of a general idea of "church" in their minds, maybe a white building with a steeple, some stained glass windows or some such, but it's a basic form representing churches in general as they know them. She can only think of specific churches that she has seen in real life. She sees them in great detail - photographic in form, but doesn't have an overarching idea of "church." There's no generic form of it. Same with anything else, no generic "dog" or "cat" only specific concrete ones that she has actually seen.

Creating a generic form or archetype in our minds is I think a low-dimensional use of Ni that nearly everyone does. Reading a book or watching a movie and noticing the foreshadowing and symbolism in it, seeing the use of patterns to create effects and make symbolic connections is imo a small step above that. Superstition, horoscopes, "magical thinking" (as in the anthropological/psychological use of that term rather than colloquial use) all come from patterns and archetypes and are present also in the lower dimensions of Ni. But when you get to 4-d use, all the functions incorporate time.

And for higher-dimensional Ni I tend to have a simplified view of Ni as "where will this lead." I see it as taking all the patterns and types and connections/associations and merging them into a flow which does in fact involve prediction as well, by having a sort of finger on the pulse of where the patterns come together and what tends to come next. All 4-D elements predict in their own way, Ni just gets the mystical label because it's the farthest removed from what we can actually see, the "most abstract" as you put it. 4D Ni people tend to ime not think of what they're doing as anything special, it's just what they do, like all other higher-dimensional functions. With Ni they "know things" because that's where the patterns lead, just like Si or Fi etc all "know things" regarding their specific domains.

Predictions are just an expected outcome from a set number of variables. There are a limited number of ways it can play out and there are many that fail. Ni is the process and not the outcome. It also extends back into time. It is the neverending process of figuring out chains of causations. The past connects to the present, which will make the future.

It is quite deterministic.

[Bertrand]

The core of an essence IS what something really IS......that's retarded
No, an essence is an invariant within a specific scope or context. Maybe you remember 6th grade Algebra with dependent and independent variables.

woah woah woah, let's not potentially invoke the time factor when defining things. (in)variation would imply change or lackthereof across time and only the sith deal in Time

[hatchback176]

Predictions are just an expected outcome from a set number of variables. There are a limited number of ways it can play out and there are many that fail. Ni is the process and not the outcome. It also extends back into time. It is the neverending process of figuring out chains of causations. The past connects to the present, which will make the future.

It is quite deterministic.

1) Stop confusing process with sequence. Instruction, statement, sentence, command, time series, chronicle, etc. are much better descriptors.
a. lives in verbal imagination.
b. lives in verbal memory.

2) Prediction is not just expected outcome (memory = learning):

“Classic theories assume that predictive learning occurs whenever a stimulus is paired with a reward or punishment. However, more recent analyses of associative learning argue that simple temporal contiguity between a stimulus and a reinforcer is not sufficient for learning and that a discrepancy between the reinforcer that is predicted by a stimulus and the actual reinforcer is also required. This discrepancy can be characterized as a ‘prediction error’. Presentations of surprising or unpredicted reinforcers generate positive prediction errors, and thereby support learning, whereas omissions of predicted reinforcers generate negative prediction errors and lead to reduction or extinction of learned behaviour. Expected reinforcers do not generate prediction errors and therefore fail to support further learning even when the stimulus is consistently paired with the reinforcer. Modelling studies have shown that neuronal messages encoding prediction errors can act as explicit teaching signals for modifying the synaptic connections that underlie associative learning.”

3) is not working backwards in time, that is the job of and object classification

“For potential secondary reinforcers (such as the sight of a particular object or person) in primates, analysis generally proceeds to the level of invariant object representation before reward and punishment associations are learned . For vision, this level of processing is the inferior temporal visual cortical areas, where there are view-, size-, and position-invariant representations of objects and faces that are not affected by the reward or punishment association of visual stimuli.”

4) ILI sequences Class Probability and IEI sequences Case Probabilty
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Probability

[PrettySavage]

Hehe, I saw this and thought of Ni:

Holy shit, this is good. I was going to post a vs gif comparison, but this is a better representation of the former.

And for higher-dimensional Ni I tend to have a simplified view of Ni as "where will this lead." I see it as taking all the patterns and types and connections/associations and merging them into a flow which does in fact involve prediction as well, by having a sort of finger on the pulse of where the patterns come together and what tends to come next. All 4-D elements predict in their own way, Ni just gets the mystical label because it's the farthest removed from what we can actually see, the "most abstract" as you put it. 4D Ni people tend to ime not think of what they're doing as anything special, it's just what they do, like all other higher-dimensional functions. With Ni they "know things" because that's where the patterns lead, just like Si or Fi etc all "know things" regarding their specific domains.

I wish people who try to diminish any function power ad significance due to insecurity would get this. is the most victimized of all, talk about a case of sour grapes.

[Raver]

IMO, follows a course of events like a chain or sequence. It looks at the most likely scenario and it focuses on that. It ignores the rest even if they may hold water, since it is only interested in making a conclusion for the truth. So is more focused, but has potential for being wrong if there was an error made in the process.

Where as looks at all possible outcomes and weighs most of them equally until more information is gathered. As a result, it may never come to a conclusion due to being too open. is uncertain and is hesitant to draw conclusions, but it can discover hidden truths because of it. Also, there is a time aspect in terms of seeing how the future unfolds is better at it than because it behaves like time in a sense, focused as opposed to scattered.

looks at possible futures based on current patterns, while looks at the most likely future using the same method. They both have their strengths and weaknesses of course and each is more useful depending on the situation. thinks is too close minded and thinks is too naive. Both are correct and wrong depending on the situation as they are two sides of the same coin of intuition.

[Bertrand]

well uncertainty is misleading because both Ne and Ni can be uncertain but in different ways. Ne is uncertain in the sense that they dislike committing to a context because they see the myriad of ways they can reshuffle the associations. Ni is uncertain because although the associations are set, they see how they are susceptible to change over time. In other words, Ne is scattered, like you said, and dislikes being forced to decide between any given option in the moment. Ni decides but is aware of how that choice can transform over time and is uncertain as to what the outcome will be. Ni is "known unknowns" form of uncertainty, which they address via gambling and risk management, it comes off outwardly as self assured inasmuch as its hedged its bets and is confident its accounted for the unknown as best as it can. Ne is more uncertain up front, they live more in the present with all their options arrayed before them which they simply pick and choose as is useful. So rather then progressing in time intentionally it is a more about shifting context as necessary, rather than committing to one in order to traverse time decisively. it really comes down to judicious and decisive. keeping ones options open in order to remain flexible vs picking something and maximizing your chances of seeing it done as contemplated at the onset. at the end of the day they both implicate eachother to a certain degree, Ne will see how time may have validated one context over another, likewise Ni egos can undergo transformations that entail massive Ne shifts, its just which they prefer to rely on and trust

[Aramas]

The core of what something really is.

Can you give an example of one?

[Skepsis]

1) Stop confusing process with sequence. Instruction, statement, sentence, command, time series, chronicle, etc. are much better descriptors.
a. lives in verbal imagination.
b. lives in verbal memory.

2) Prediction is not just expected outcome (memory = learning):
3) is not working backwards in time, that is the job of and object classification
4) ILI sequences Class Probability and IEI sequences Case Probabilty
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Probability

Your first statement is likely false. Ni isn't restricted to verbal memory; it includes verbal imagination as well. Even if it were, that contradicts your idea that Ni doesn't work back in time. Ni includes intuition of time, which is past, present, and future. Intuition of time is one facet.

Ni is what your brain is doing with sensory information. It is a process because it is an information element. It combines sensory information together in a very subjective way. It also ignores sensory data to play with created mental images. It builds a world that may seem fictitious to sensing types. It plays with mental images it creates. It plays with time while it passes by.

It is not very unique, just different. It helps gives us our artists and scientists.

[Skepsis]

Can you give an example of one?

One common idea is the soul being the essence of a person, whether in belief or metaphorically.

[hatchback176]

So your brain melted on the Neuroscience quotes because you don't have the vocabulary then you tell me Verbal memory isn't unique when you lack verbal comprehension. You might want to rethink that, Einstein.

[Skepsis]

Your conclusions are erronious, leaps of logic here. I have only had time to address part so far Mr. Jump to Conclusions.

Where does your neuroscience quote derive from?

[at sirac son of sirac]

Somehow, 'simple definition of Ni' got lost somewhere.

[Aylen]

One common idea is the soul being the essence of a person, whether in belief or metaphorically.

Some days I feel like a Tralfamadorian essence visiting a human zoo.

and so it goes...

[hatchback176]

Logic begins with axioms. Axioms begin with comprehension, brainlet.

[Aylen]

[Tigerfadder]

I find that there is not really a simple explanation of Ni. Its not sensation but it is a perception element. It is how we receive information of our environment but not how things are soft or cold or pleasurable. At the core it is to experience causation.

[WinnieW]

I stumbled over following video:

[Bertrand]

I like that, I think what he's either knowing or unknowingly describing is Si/Ni in the context of Te creative. He's nailing SLI/ILI, but he goes on to sort of talk about himself as Ni ego (LIE) but later he changed his type to SLE. I don't think he ever really hits on Ni creative, or really gets down to the functions themselves, so much as talk about them in a specific (albeit unstated) context from a very Ti creative point of view [1], if you keep that in mind what he's saying is very accurate. When Ben later reads from Jung you get the more broad based actual Ni on Ni take on things


[1] in other words, he's talking about Ni/Si as it functions in a Te creative ego, but from his own perspective as a Ti creative. Thus the description is somewhat more narrow than what Ni actually is. But that's precisely what SLE tries to do which is reduce out everything viewed as unnecessary in order to provide concise examples and explanations for their dual, in a way that's expedient under the circumstances (Te demonstrative), which is what we see here. However he omitted or is unaware of quite a bit. I think he was correct in later recognizing self as SLE. What's interesting is both him and Trey started out typing themselves as LIE and Trey became IEI and Damon became SLE. I think ultimately this speaks to the archetypal lure of LIE in American society

[wacey]

Ian Donnelly:[voice over] Unlike all written human languages, their writing is semasiographic. It conveys meaning. It doesn’t represent sound. Perhaps they view our form of writing as a wasted opportunity, passing up a second communications channel.

---

Ian Donnelly: [voice over] We have our friends in Pakistan to thank for their study of how heptapods write, because unlike speech, a logogram is free of time. Like their ship or their bodies, their written language has no forward or backward direction. Linguists call this non-linear orthography, which raises the question, “Is this how they think?” Imagine you wanted to write a sentence using two hands, starting from either side. You would have to know each word you wanted to use, as well as how much space they would occupy. A heptapod can write a complex sentence in two seconds, effortlessly. It’s taken us a month to make the simplest reply. Next, expanding vocabulary. Louise thinks it could easily take another month to be ready for that.

---

[hatchback176]

The nature of daylight is better expressed from the perspective of the sun. Millions of nuclear explosions.

[Aramas]

@Aramas, I'm starting to warm up to your definition in the sense that it focuses on the scope of the actual mechanism, rather than the content the mechanism produces. All things considered, the subtopic of "time" just seems like a red herring at this point.

I personally prefer Jung's definition, but that's just me.

It's introverted, so the objective factors are largely ignored for the sake of subjective factors. The cognitive process starts at the subject, leaves towards the object, and arrives at the subject again. Consequently, you could say that the subject has the first and final say in how information is interpreted. That's why when an ego type interprets information, the output looks like an inverse of the input. At most, the function synthesizes elements to form a comprehensive vision of the big picture. Visualized, that synthesis would look a lot like the picture @lavos posted. and serve each other. serves by feeding all the detailed information it needs to interpolate the big picture. Meanwhile, serves by imparting significance to the sea of sensory information that would otherwise be meaningless.

Yeah. My basic idea was to look at a mechanism, a dynamic by which the information element functions. So far, all the other posts I've read that tried to define Ni were either static definitions or just sounded like bullshit to be honest, with a few exceptions in between. @Raver is one of those exceptions.

Part of the problem with the definitions I've seen is that they often contain words that themselves need defining. Maybe people think they are being complex or deep, but big abstract nouns left undefined tend to tell me that the person using them probably has no idea what he's talking about and is simply trying to look fancy to the other forum members. Some people just aren't very skeptical and don't ask questions like, "What's an essence?"

I've noticed that nobody had any problems understanding what my definition was. The problem is that people think I'm wrong. But then they challenge my definition with an incomprehensible and poorly written string of words, pretending that they are being profound and that I'm just too simple-minded to understand something as awe-inspiring as the holy Ni....

[squark]

My issue was with "associations" itself. All the field elements make associations, and none of the object elements do. Ne in other words does not make any associations, no connections between things. Any connections made with the products of Ne are made with a field element. Ni does make associations though and they differ from the kind made by Si, Ti and Fi. Si and Ni are both dynamic and all 4D functions have a time component, so the main difference imo is in the kind of associations/connections made. And the kind is imo what is most important to focus on.

I also think you made an error in calling all the introverted elements processes, because they're not. Ti and Fi are both static. Ti is not the process of thinking at all, it is static connections as is Fi.

But I do think that seeing time as more of a metaphor for Ni is useful, and recognizing that it (like Si) is a dynamic process is also a good point to bring up. I also agree that it is not anything mysterious, but it can look that way from the standpoint of those who don't think in Ni. Well-developed Ni looks mysterious to me, but I've had people comment that my Ti is "like magic" too so I think that all the elements can look that way from an outside observer's point of view.

[Aramas]

My issue was with "associations" itself. All the field elements make associations, and none of the object elements do. Ne in other words does not make any associations, no connections between things. Any connections made with the products of Ne are made with a field element. Ni does make associations though and they differ from the kind made by Si, Ti and Fi. Si and Ni are both dynamic and all 4D functions have a time component, so the main difference imo is in the kind of associations/connections made. And the kind is imo what is most important to focus on.

I also think you made an error in calling all the introverted elements processes, because they're not. Ti and Fi are both static. Ti is not the process of thinking at all, it is static connections as is Fi.

But I do think that seeing time as more of a metaphor for Ni is useful, and recognizing that it (like Si) is a dynamic process is also a good point to bring up. I also agree that it is not anything mysterious, but it can look that way from the standpoint of those who don't think in Ni. Well-developed Ni looks mysterious to me, but I've had people comment that my Ti is "like magic" too so I think that all the elements can look that way from an outside observer's point of view.

I figured my definition of Ni did focus on the kind of associations Ni specifically makes. That was the whole point of the first post. Ni doesn't focus on associations between feelings, or associations between things we regard as facts, etc. It's only about things that can be conceptualized. Yes, we can conceptualize a feeling, just like we can feel a concept, but then the feeling or concept becomes something different and inhabits a different kind of space in our minds. That's how the functions can access each other indirectly. It's also how the functions often seem so related that they are hard to tell apart individually. This idea of "elemental composition" is something I think the System Socionics folks would call translation from one element to another.

For example, let's say you have a feeling. You can conceptualize that feeling, and maybe a few others, and view the feelings from the perspective of concepts. Then you can have connections between them that are Ni-based. That's also how you can have Ni associations that act and operate on feeling. There is simply an extra step in the process where the feeling is first conceptualized. That's how you can have all the elements seen from the perspective of the others, and how any type can basically do any concrete task. (This is why it's unwise to take Socionics as job advice.)

Technically speaking, all the information elements are processes because they process information. But the introverted elements focus on the "how" of their extroverted counterparts as well as focusing on the connections between them. Just because an element is static or dynamic doesn't mean that a process doesn't exist for that element. You can have both static and dynamic "processes." Each element has to have a mechanism by which it operates, which makes it inherently something that is dynamic. Perhaps what it produces is not something that we regard as a dynamic thing, but it in itself must still be dynamic in order to actually function.

And yes, I'm glad someone can see that time is just a metaphor or analogy that's been used for Ni.

[Bertrand]

time is just a metaphor or analogy because all Ti is a metaphor or an analogy (sign vs thing) so inasmuch as you see time indirectly via Ti it seems like its a mere metaphor in the same way the country of Germany is unless you live there. the problem is you're telling the locals their country is not Deutschland and its just a metaphor so they should call it Germany because you understand it that way better. the bottom line is some signs capture things better and you can't just be willy nilly about it for the reason its all signs. there needs to be sufficient reason to adopt a new definition and cynicism toward all words is not good enough.. you're essentially aggressively invading in the guise of "helping" people better "understand" Ni, but its misplaced because 1) SLI can understand it just fine as time in a Ti sense, because of logic 2) its self serving what you're really doing is saying your own inability to understand merits redefinition and trying to play it off as good for everyone. 3) no one is actually helped by this because it degrades the concept so its self defeating no matter what. its a Ti construct, the Ti types know whats good for it better than you, which is why they created it. this is textbook reinventing the wheel

if you want to help think of creative ways to analogize how and why Ni can be thought of time, be a force for good

also the more you try to talk with squark about it the more it will become obvious you two understand things in totally different ways. Im actually interested to see this play out, I hope squark sticks to her fields/statics dichotomy because I feel like that will be the basis for a lot of misunderstanding between you two, but it will be ultimately be highly illustrative as to why your approach here cannot possibly be the best one

[hatchback176]

I also hope Squark sticks to their guns. Aramas doesn't understand yet that Information Elements represent differences in conscious awareness:

1) Ramsey's Maxim - When 2 philosophers disagree, then we should uncover some axiom that is accepted by both, and negate it. This generates a 3rd path which may be correct.

2) Isoneural Principle - Every parent knows that their children are completely different even when they have treated them identically. However, the common assumption of all philosophical schools of thought is that the human brain is absolutely uniform across individuals. I vote with the parents and negate this axiom.

3) The Information Elements are referencing the fact that individuals are not observing the same thing. That's why we find each other mutually incoherent.

4) A quick overview would look something like this:

George Berkeley is talking about subjective experience while Kant is talking about a transcendental faculty of judgement while Descartes is saying he can see both Berkeley's subject and Kant's objectivity while Wittgenstein is saying he can see everyone's language-games while George Herbert Mead is saying Extraversion is what creates Introversion while Heidegger is saying he can see hand-planning and hand-skills while Noam Chomsky did the same damn thing Kant did by talking about grammar and syntax having logical priority over Wittgenstein's language-games.

5) These philosophical positions are reconcilable as Information Elements or differing brain regions. Expecting an IEE to develop a formal theory of Boolean Logic, Linnaean Classification, Chomskian Grammar, Kantian Categories, Saunders Mac Lane Category Theory, etc. would be an exercise in futility until and unless you recognize what is truly native to a given conscious brain region.

6) When a lead talks about invariants, structure, geometry, statics, and spatial connections as the semantics of their native brain region then you should use it as an opportunity to inhabit the same Information Element without trying to invalidate their awareness. Oftentimes their approach can be picked up by other natives which means you're roboticizing living beings.

[Bertrand]

that's a brilliant recapitulation, bravo