information elements vs. information aspects
Information elements are mental processes. They are "the psychic modules that perceive, process, and produce corresponding information aspects".
Information aspects are properties of reality that exist independent from psyche. These aspects of reality are, however, defined by the fact that humans perceive and process specific types information from a given situation or thing. (This is why the description of information elements says that they produce corresponding information aspects.)
This gets into the chicken and the egg and the tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, but the simplest way to look at it for the purposes of communicating effectively is that information elements refer to mental processes and information aspects are aspects of reality that are in that moment being discussed/understood separately from mental processes or and independent of a particular human's perspective.
Interestingly, information aspects can also exist independently from other information aspects, but information elements cannot work independently of each other.
For example, if there's a car driving down the road, the outward/apparent activity is Te and the state is Se. As an information aspect, the Se of the car would be it's color and whatnot. However, as an information element, there's no way to see only Te in that situation because you have to see the Se aspects at the same time in order to know that there's even a car there. (This is why I prefer to talk about information aspects... once you start talking about examples or less abstract descriptions of an information element, it's difficult if not impossible to keep it separate from other information elements.)
Examples may follow.
Re: information elements vs. information aspects
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
Information elements are mental processes. They are "the psychic modules that perceive, process, and produce corresponding information aspects".
Information aspects are properties of reality that exist independent from psyche. These aspects of reality are, however, defined by the fact that humans perceive and process specific types information from a given situation or thing. (This is why the description of information elements says that they produce corresponding information aspects.)
This gets into the chicken and the egg and the tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, but the simplest way to look at it for the purposes of communicating effectively is that information elements refer to mental processes and information aspects are aspects of reality that are in that moment being discussed/understood separately from mental processes or and independent of a particular human's perspective.
Interestingly, information aspects can also exist independently from other information aspects, but information elements cannot work independently of each other.
For example, if there's a car driving down the road, the outward/apparent activity is Te and the state is Se. As an information aspect, the Se of the car would be it's color and whatnot. However, as an information element, there's no way to see only Te in that situation because you have to see the Se aspects at the same time in order to know that there's even a car there. (This is why I prefer to talk about information aspects... once you start talking about examples or less abstract descriptions of an information element, it's difficult if not impossible to keep it separate from other information elements.)
Examples may follow.
This is interesting. I do wonder though if we can say that the information aspects, which are differentiable from each other, are really independent of the psyche. Do you mean in the context that information aspects can be analytically separated due to the properties perceived of them by the subject? I mean, if they must be processed through the psyche (the information elements), how do they become independent of that psyche which processes them? I take care to note that you raise the problem this causes, but I'm not sure it has been addressed fully. However, maybe if we work our way through the questions, we might find ourselves closer to what it is you're saying.
For example, I think a better analogy than the tree falling without anyone to hear it would be whether or not someone's perception (by this I mean the acting of the information elements), upon experiencing a tree fall, exists independently of the psyche that processed it (specifically once that perception has produced informational aspects). I'm not sure this is really the case. It may very well be (and really I struggle to think of any alternative way) that the information elements process something that is independent of the mind, which then can be analyzed and divided into categories sharing certain properties of reality (IAs). However, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the external world is objectively characterized by these streams of information. It does in the sense that you perceive 'something' (it doesn't spring out of a void or anything), but maybe a more accurate conception of it would be that the human psyche is psychologically suited to perceive and interpret information in precisely this kind of way. Maybe as a set of inborn categories?
In fact, portions (but not all) of these information elements might be present in different psychologies (for example, the perception of animals generally or, more particularly, a bat which relies on sonar or even insects). If the independency thesis is correct, then with the advent of new life forms (evolution through time), we have the introduction of novel aspects of reality being perceived and produced by the psyche. Furthermore, if these are to exist independently of the mind apprehending them, then we are talking existence in a material way (the converse of immaterial existence being far more problematic) which is difficult for me to imagine. That would also open up empirical methods of testing for them (while noting the incompleteness of the sciences as they stand currently). Anyway, these are just some thoughts and perhaps I'm taking what you said differently than you intended (I may be overemphasizing the 'independent existence' part, for example), but I would be very curious to hear more, Joy.
Re: information elements vs. information aspects
Quote:
Originally Posted by munenori2
This is interesting. I do wonder though if we can say that the information aspects, which are differentiable from each other, are really independent of the psyche. Do you mean in the context that information aspects can be analytically separated due to the properties perceived of them by the subject? I mean, if they must be processed through the psyche (the information elements), how do they become independent of that psyche which processes them? I take care to note that you raise the problem this causes, but I'm not sure it has been addressed fully. However, maybe if we work our way through the questions, we might find ourselves closer to what it is you're saying.
It's all about context. It's about limiting the ways in which we think of information elements to take the human out of it (even though the only reason information is divided into certain aspects is because we have done so through our perception/perspective of reality) so that it can be explained and discussed without dragging other information elements into it (because humans never use one at a time).
So basically, the idea is to LIMIT the possible ways a situation could be construed. :P
Quote:
For example, I think a better analogy than the tree falling without anyone to hear it would be whether or not someone's perception (by this I mean the acting of the information elements), upon experiencing a tree fall, exists independently of the psyche that processed it (specifically once that perception has produced informational aspects). I'm not sure this is really the case.
eh?
That's pretty much the same...
If a tree falls in the forest and no one/nothing is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The vibrations sent our due to the tree falling is the same whether there are any ear drums in the vicinity or not. The only reason, however, that it's considered "sound" is because there exist ear drums with which to hear it.
The same applies to elements vs. aspects. There are probably unlimited aspects of reality, but there are only 8 which humans can perceive/process according to the theory of Socionics. Because it's the human brain/psyche that originally set the definition of each of the information elements, the things which each of those information elements derives it's data from is 8 specific aspects of reality. Because we need a way to differentiate between those aspects and the information elements themselves, we call them "information aspects". It's for the sake of clarity in communication to make effectiveness possible.
Quote:
It may very well be (and really I struggle to think of any alternative way) that the information elements process something that is independent of the mind, which then can be analyzed and divided into categories sharing certain properties of reality (IAs). However, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the external world is objectively characterized by these streams of information. It does in the sense that you perceive 'something' (it doesn't spring out of a void or anything), but maybe a more accurate conception of it would be that the human psyche is psychologically suited to perceive and interpret information in precisely this kind of way. Maybe as a set of inborn categories?
Wow, you take Adderall, too? I didn't know that! :lol:
Seriously though... I think you're talking about the thing that I was just talking about too? I'm not really sure... And I don't know what IAs are?
Quote:
In fact, portions (but not all) of these information elements might be present in different psychologies (for example, the perception of animals generally or, more particularly, a bat which relies on sonar or even insects).
Absolutely. Don't know about the animal example... cause I generally think of humans in different eras, cultures, states of health, etc. when I'm talking about different psychiologies and psychological/sociological theories... but I definitely agree. There is truly nothing new under the sun. The same ideas are presented in different ways throughout the course of time and from different perspectives. Some people feel the need to generate some sort of group mentality for whatever reason, and thus religions are born. But now I'm getting off topic.
Quote:
If the independency thesis is correct
The what?
Quote:
then with the advent of new life forms (evolution through time), we have the introduction of novel aspects of reality being perceived and produced by the psyche.
So... reality is the result of thought processes? If that's what you're talking about, I call this the law of attraction, and yes I believe that it's correct.
Quote:
Furthermore, if these are to exist independently of the mind apprehending them
If this was a typo... lol
If this wasn't a typo... LOL
Quote:
then we are talking existence in a material way (the converse of immaterial existence being far more problematic) which is difficult for me to imagine. That would also open up empirical methods of testing for them (while noting the incompleteness of the sciences as they stand currently).
Well according to the theory, you're probably talking about internal vs. external (that is, N/F vs. S/T), so it's if you're NF it's understandable that what you said (if I understood you correctly) would be difficult to make sense of. Rest assured, the "external" is made up of only half of the aspects of reality, according to Socionics.
I think you may have strayed a bit far from the concept I intended to communicate when I explained information aspects in this thread... but it's all good.
Quote:
Anyway, these are just some thoughts and perhaps I'm taking what you said differently than you intended (I may be overemphasizing the 'independent existence' part, for example), but I would be very curious to hear more, Joy.
My general impression is that Ne (and possibly Si) types will more often than not find the distinction between information aspects and elements pointless because they have an aversion to remaining within the context of a given thing/conversation/point/idea. :P
(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. :D)
Re: information elements vs. information aspects
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. :D)
:8*
Re: information elements vs. information aspects
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. :D)
:8*
Re: information elements vs. information aspects
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticSonic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. :D)
:8*
Re: information elements vs. information aspects
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticSonic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. :D)
:8*