Of course they don't exist, but do not tell the believers; it may cause psychosis.Originally Posted by entelecheia
Of course they don't exist, but do not tell the believers; it may cause psychosis.
But Santa is real. I have seen plenty of them.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Tchhhhh. Of course they do. I've seen them all in architecture with my own eyes. What you see simply IS, that's a hard fact.
^^^You can't tell me thatis not an actual thing now, square up
Look, business logic:
much??
even came falling from the sky. Aliens support Socionics, how cool is that.
If that's not enough evidence I can't help you smh
Exist in what form? How can they not exist?
This is definitely true for most people, who care more about socializing than the theory.
If you're talking about immediate, real-life benefit, sure, but that makes it no different from other intellectual pursuits like math. In the long run socionics may tell us something very useful.Once basic theory is learned, there's no real need from a socionics perspective to keep re-discussing it.
It becomes an avenue for intellectualism rather than any benefits the theory might hold (and there's one or two, but let's not get carried away.)
Is the finger not real too?
The finger is a tool. Who cares if it's real? It's an approximation.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I may have misunderstood you.
Are IEs the finger or the moon?
Those are geometric shapes, not IEs. Do we have to have shapes tattooed on us to have IEs now? Nothanksbye
Tchhhhh. Of course they do. I've seen them all in architecture with my own eyes. What you see simply IS, that's a hard fact.
^^^You can't tell me that
Look, business logic:
If that's not enough evidence I can't help you smh
The finger. The Moon is reality. IEs are a concept used to inform people about people.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Existence applied to IAs or IEs is a bit of a non-sequitur, because they are mappings or representative nodes, not causal phenomena. But they also don't imply coherent structure imo.
Do the roads on a map exist?
They exist in Platos idea world theory kind of existing.
Non-essentialism is more interesting. If you go by Heraclitus you can have both though.
All that is transitory is but
Yes. I can draw a map. The real question is, can you travel the roads on a map?
no
I feel like this relates to perceiving axis. what is most real is a feature of what our cognitive framework prioritizes
They are concepts describing real phenomena, yes. Now that you know the system, what you going to do about it?
Please everybody stop talking about concepts. Everything is a concept, we know that. Thank you.
IEs are real, as psychic processes, and Socioincs shows it.
I can by introspection identify Si as my base function. But I can also see this same function appearing in other people in all positions. Si-role, Si-polr, Si-suggestive etc.
But not only that, I see this with all other functions.
You can double check everything by observing how IEs appear in different types/positions, how they interact with other elements in relationships etc.
If one would only read Jung and nothing else, then it would be more difficult. He describes the base type of consciousness. But Socionics even puts the keys in your hands by mapping all combinations of IE and position, and the only thing you have to do is to check this for yourself in real life and by introspection. But it takes some work, no doubt.
How much more proof of IEs does one really need.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
doubitng thomas comes to mind, "i won't believe until I can feel the holes in his hands with my own fingers"
I found Heraclitus fascinating. He talk about everything are in opposite forces which reminded me of Newton. The bow with the string, without the string the bow wood would be straight but with to much force on the string the wood with split. That everything is in conflict.Non-essentialism is more interesting. If you go by Heraclitus you can have both though.
All that is transitory is but
That fits in great with socionics - Fe vs Fi, Te vs Ti, .... the eternal conflicts
All organisms orient themselves in the world by creating systems, humans just verbalize and 'trace' them. I think Socionics functions as any other system we create, being the finger which points. This conceptualizing of the world doesn't just belong to humans, i think. Dogs, for example, will build and refine their systems as they come in contact with the world.
I'll answer that if you can tell me if mathematics is an intrinsic feature of the universe or only a way our minds understand the universe ;D
Mathematics is a human construct that can be applied to the universe to make predictions. There are parts of mathematics which do not describe the universe, and parts of the universe which cannot be described by math. But mathematics has some applicability in describing parts of the universe.
I think the contrary argument is that the universe is intrinsically mathematical from the property of space itself. Science has been a dialogue between mathematical models and empirical tests. Especially when you get into calc physics, it is crazy what you can do with derivatives, integrals and differential equations. I'm of the mind the mathematics is a language describing the "real" math in the universe, but I really don't know.
If IME elements are not "real", then that means they are just the phenomenal appearance of an unknowable universe (this mirrors you view of math). This is like how our perception of color is limited by our 3 cones. If they are "real", then that means the universe is fundamentally about information (this mirrors my view of math).
The only way to test either case is from super-human insight, which is impossible, which is why it is an open question. It would be much easier to test Model A, than the existence of Information.
saying the world is inherently mathematical is just a form of theism
Not so impossible as you might think
I think that is exactly Christopher Langan's point with his Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe.
Wouldn't you agree that the nature of the proof is on the individual level, not the scientific?Not so impossible as you might think
The proof is on the intuitive level (while still being completely mathematical). It means presenting a mathematical model that matches up with the intuitive concepts of socionics and allows for answering questions about the theory in a rigorous way that was not previously accessible.
Last edited by Exodus; 04-06-2018 at 12:54 AM.
@thehotelambush & @Adam Strange, lol, this is the difference of opinion I was talking about. If you can come to a consensus, I can tell you for sure how real the information elements are
I mainly disagree with how he said that math describes "part of the universe." This isn't true...it describes the whole universe but in a generalized way, i.e. it doesn't necessarily encompass all information about the universe (since math is the domain of Ti and there is also Fe, Fi etc.). (And it doesn't rely on any kind of consensus, it's just the truth.)@thehotelambush & @Adam Strange, lol, this is the difference of opinion I was talking about. If you can come to a consensus, I can tell you for sure how real the information elements are
I assume you are asking whether the universe is fundamentally built out of math or whether math is just an invention which is applied to parts of the universe to predict certain things.
I would assume that if the universe were built out of math, then math could predict every feature of the universe. (I might be wrong here; Godel had something to say about the limits of systems to be self-consistent.) But lets assume that for the moment.
The idea that the universe is built from mathematics is a reductionist viewpoint. Reductionism attempts to figure out what things are made of. The universe does seem to obey information laws at its lowest, simplest levels. Many of the features of black holes were predicted entirely by comparing them to bits of information. But that does not mean that the universe is built from math. It may merely mean that when a system is simple enough, it operates similarly to other simple systems.
There is another way of looking at the universe, and that is from an emergent standpoint. Emergence asks where the complexity comes from. Where do the properties of systems come from? Quantum mechanics may be able to predict the behavior of electrons around a nucleus, but what does the theory say about an aggregate of water molecules being wet, or iron being hard? At what point does the property of a bunch of atoms go from an amorphous group of individual atoms to being a steel bar with a crystal lattice? Where is the "wet" in a water molecule?
Some properties of matter, like superconductivity or the freezing of water to ice, arise from phase changes in the material. Where is the math that predicts this? Why does water, as a loose collection of atoms, suddenly freeze? Some properties emerge from we don't know where. The universe is operating on a level which we really don't understand.
Furthermore, we impose our own interpretation on the universe, creating things which aren't really there. Your example of color illustrates my point. Our eyes see color by three cones, each sensitive to a different range of wavelengths. The cones react to the electromagnetic radiation they detect and interpret it as color. The radiation itself does not have color. We arbitrarily assign color to the sensations. We even create colors which have no correspondence to the electromagnetic spectrum. There is no wavelength called Pink. We superimpose our interpretation of what we see onto the universe, but math is completely silent about how we interpret colors and why some properties of elementary particles are emergent.
I think that many of the parts of the universe can be modeled fairly accurately by mathematical constructs, but I don't believe the universe is made of math. I have no idea what it is made of, though.
I actually suspect that it isn't "made" of anything. Rather, it's an agreement. And I don't know what I mean by that.
@Adam Strange mathematical analysis of the universe is not necessarily reductionist, it can just as easily be holistic ("emergent" is something different since it still assumes an atomistic perspective). This is exactly the kind of math that is present in socionics.
Godels Incompleteness Theorem states that any self-consistent system can be either true or false, but there's no way of knowing without actually testing against reality.
But I think the problem of Socionics is more than just testability. It's just relabling of things. It says that logic is Ti, and so therefore math is Ti. But that's just another way of saying that math is logic. So what if Ti is logic? It's what you do with those words that count. Not much is put into "work" with Socionics, because it just stops there with "This is Ti" - and so? Is it finding anything new? Is it explaining how something works?
No it doesn't, that has nothing to do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.
It doesn't stop there, it tells us that Ti complements Fe, and conflicts with Te and Fi, etc.But I think the problem of Socionics is more than just testability. It's just relabling of things. It says that logic is Ti, and so therefore math is Ti. But that's just another way of saying that math is logic. So what if Ti is logic? It's what you do with those words that count. Not much is put into "work" with Socionics, because it just stops there with "This is Ti" - and so? Is it finding anything new? Is it explaining how something works?
The main opposing is on levels: T vs F, S vs N. Optimum is when they are equal.That fits in great with socionics - Fe vs Fi, Te vs Ti, .... the eternal conflicts
...It has everything to do with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The Incompleteness Theorem says that you can never prove any consistent system to be either true or false, they are "undecidable". So the only way to "prove" (of course there is no real such thing) something is to actually test it out in reality and see how it would respond. It also says that for every proofs out there, there exists an equal amount of proofs that would invalidate those proofs.
the theorem is more about how the more you zoom in and gain accuracy on that front you lose resolution on context
No it doesn't say that. It's false over-interpretation of Godel first theorem. Godel never said that nor mentioned in his proofs.
Last edited by falsehope; 03-22-2018 at 03:52 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
