The One and the Many: Qualia and Quanta

[Waddlesworth]

Throughout the course of history there has been a tendency to subdivide human behaviors into distinct groups based upon their qualitative(qualia) and quantitative(quanta) aspects. The arts, the humanities, religion, in essence, seem to fall into the qualitative category (P), whereas the sciences, syntax, and mathematics appear to fall into the quantitative category (J).

bare with me on this...

These fields each break down into sub fields which can be further broken down on this quantitative and qualitative basis.

a good example of a more Qualitative field, which uses quantitative systems as a means to support it is ethnography, whereas ethnology, its mirror, is a quantitative field which uses theory(qualitative) to develop its structure.

So one can say that these two fields depend upon *NT*, but the ethnographical side can be attributed to *NTp, whereas the ethnological side might be more *NTj.
***I mean this in describing the field, not as describing the people who work in the field. The field may be dominated by a certain type, but the presence of other types in the field may very well by the primary catalyst for change and evolution in any field.

The field both schools of thought lie under is "Anthropology"- a science. science is quantitative, so it falls under the T(quanta) sub-group, of the J(quanta) nature of things.

so, to get through with this

P-Qualia(physical reality) J-Quanta(abstract system)

N- Qualia S-Quanta T-Quanta F-Qualia


One can probably break down extraversion and introversion in the same manner, introversion being more condensed(quanta), oriented within, forming patterns, extraversion being more prolific(qualia), forming associations.

so, what i am getting at is this, and im not an expert so this isn't going to be perfect but I will try to make is as balanced as I can.

As far as research goes it appears that the mind is divided into two hemispheres, the left being responsible for a quantitative side of things, such as mathematics etc... while the right brain is more oriented towards the qualitative aspects such as spacial awareness and associative properties. These two hemispheres have located in them sensory and motor cortexes as well as auditory and visual areas.

Obviously, if one region is more powerful than the other its influence will be more noticeable in the organisms behavior. A person with a very well developed Frontal lobe, for instance, will probably be more able to reason abstractly and think ahead(J), whereas a person with a more developed temporal lobe(if im not mistaken, which i might be) might have a stronger capacity at undertanding the spacial aspects of phenomenon(P).

Does this mean that our sociotype might be defined by the structure of the brain? that is, the size and development of the different regions- or is it defined by some other unknown mechanism, almost like an internal compass that gets fixed in a particular position sometime during development so that information received by the senses is prioritized in a set systematic order?

It would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks of this.

but basically, what im getting at is this. Is there some sort of hidden system in nature which strives to create a higher consciousness through organizing matter based upon a dualistic approach. For example, if you took out any region of the brain the brain would not perceive information adaquately. Spacial awareness relies mostly on the qualia, but it needs the key points, the quanta, as pillars, whereas any system, to mean anything, needs to have the qualia to shoot through the space between known facts for the system to be comprehensible.

if nature has a set process in which it build consciousness than surely we are partaking in its pursuit(we are of nature, so we are a part of it)
look at binary code, atomic theory, wave particle duality, class conflict, near eastern philosophy, runes, you name it. All of these theories and techniques for understanding reality have to do with the quantitative and qualitative dichotomies.

is socionics the next breakthrough in human thought? the "physics of consciousness", or is it all just a parlor trick?

Im just plotting some coincidences and parallels- what do you people think?

[CuriousSoul]

Obviously, if one region is more powerful than the other its influence will be more noticeable in the organisms behavior. A person with a very well developed Frontal lobe, for instance, will probably be more able to reason abstractly and think ahead(J), whereas a person with a more developed temporal lobe(if im not mistaken, which i might be) might have a stronger capacity at undertanding the spacial aspects of phenomenon(P).

Does this mean that our sociotype might be defined by the structure of the brain? that is, the size and development of the different regions- or is it defined by some other unknown mechanism, almost like an internal compass that gets fixed in a particular position sometime during development so that information received by the senses is prioritized in a set systematic order?

It would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks of this.?

I would be tentatively in favor of the "internal compass" or "switchboard model" of human consciousness or "information metabolism". There seems to be research that could lend support to the theories of socionics, perhaps the brains of different sociotypes are wired differently and information passes through the various lobes of the brain in a different order:

If we look at what happens physiologically, everything we absorb is passed first through a kind of switchboard called the thalamus, located at the base of the brain. That information is then routed automatically to different sections of the brain. At first, the information goes through the brain's emotion-arousal systems for evaluation, to determine whether the information is perceived as benign or a threat. That evaluation involves a number of feedback loops originating in long-term memory. If we perceive the incoming information as threatening, we automatically engage in a series of reactions (which sometimes remain unconscious) to help us process the information.

In other words, our brains have to decide whether to keep or toss all incoming information. When unconscious emotional arousal reaches a certain point, it becomes a conscious feeling. That means there is some conscious control in subsequent related cognitive processes. Emotion thus activates attention, our focusing system, which locates the danger or opportunity and provides useful information about it.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...54/ai_67590800

but basically, what im getting at is this. Is there some sort of hidden system in nature which strives to create a higher consciousness through organizing matter based upon a dualistic approach. For example, if you took out any region of the brain the brain would not perceive information adaquately. Spacial awareness relies mostly on the qualia, but it needs the key points, the quanta, as pillars, whereas any system, to mean anything, needs to have the qualia to shoot through the space between known facts for the system to be comprehensible.

if nature has a set process in which it build consciousness than surely we are partaking in its pursuit(we are of nature, so we are a part of it)
look at binary code, atomic theory, wave particle duality, class conflict, near eastern philosophy, runes, you name it. All of these theories and techniques for understanding reality have to do with the quantitative and qualitative dichotomies.

is socionics the next breakthrough in human thought? the "physics of consciousness", or is it all just a parlor trick?

Im just plotting some coincidences and parallels- what do you people think?

I think your theories are perhaps still a bit too vague to evaluate critically. It sounds quite interesting but in my opinion it helps to think more along the lines of falsifiability:

These factors combined to make Popper take falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations, either because, as in the case of Marxism, it has been modified solely to accommodate such observations, or because, as in the case of psychoanalytic theories, it is consistent with all possible observations, is unscientific. For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Now I know this may sound like an awfully unrealistic demand, but there is so much philosophical speculation that is so detached from any emprical observations that it seems to make philosophy often rather frustrating for the empirically oriented. I find it helps to clarify my own thinking to always try to think of the practical implications of even the most esoteric philosophical speculations and try to relate them to my everyday experiences.

[MysticSonic]

Then what do you make of the intuitive factor of the human psyche? Is not inuition an abstract process rather then the processing of the physical reality?

[metaiwan]

From Jung's definition and neuroscience's new 'discovery of a sixth sense', I believe they described intuition as "a process which combines unconscious and conscious information, then signals the brain". In Socionics, this get a bit more complex, since intuition is in several different places in the psyche, but always in both the conscious and unconscious.