Transigent wrote:
Welcome to the pinnacle of nerdyness...
..oh, and you put this in the wrong forum too...
...oh, and you can't type computers because they don't follow the same biological rules that we do, and those biological rules are what makes type...
Agreed. Unless Data was programmed to follow the same rules a biological human would. I'm sure A.I. imitates human life, but I believe the rules in a whole would be altered.
I could have put it in "what's my type," but I felt that this topic would lead to a discussion of more general issues besides merely typing a person (that you don't even consider a person). As I had pointed out, in a story, particularly in one like Star Trek, the characters represent characteristics of actual people, whether or not they're considered people in the story. I mean, it could have been a talking carrot; it still symbolizes qualities of people.
But on to the more important point: Nothing in Jung's arguments is really biologically-based; he didn't come up with the ideas based on neuroscience. So there's reason to think that type theory relates to the structure of reality, although the specific implementation in humans probably has peculiarities of it's own.
That said, considering how to program a hominoid, such as Data, presents a perfect opportunity to see how hard it is to get away from these concepts, if you really want your robot to function at a high level. Of course, our notion of intelligence is based on our own experience of it; and Data clearly represents the branch of AI that seeks to achieve it's goals through imitating people to a large degree. Nevertheless, I think that just from the basis of creating something that survives and performs useful tasks, you'd need to deal with things approximating the functions.
Naturally, you need some way for the your program to handle the various kinds of logic and reasoning, that would appear to be like Ti and Te. And you'd be very limited if all you had were a formal system of a simple sort. I think to efficiently handle the limitations of formal systems, you'd need something approaching N. Although I'm not that knowledgeable about AI research, I believe a lot of the high-level discussion in the field is about how you'd create something that would be sort of like N.
The ability to process concrete data and related it to the other "functions" would clearly be important...so you have S.
Of all the functions, the necessity of F for a robot would be the most difficult to understand; naturally, that's why it seems lacking in Data, at least on the surface. But I don't think you can get away from this one either; even simplistic programs are intended to interface well with people and reflect at least a person's feeling of how to do so.
A robot without any sense of F would also have a hard time coming up with goals; it might work to do our bidding, but to be truly independent, you'd need F too.
Anyhow, once you have T, you really have a kind of F on the flip side; it's just not so apparent.
Star Trek characters
or
, so I would guess an INT type. The question is INTp or INTj. My first guess would be
, except that he doesn't fit the Robespierre image of what an INTj would be like at all. Robespierre was a very strong kind of personality who pushed his way forward and killed those who didn't agree with him. Data wouldn't hurt a fly and seems not to have any agenda; he sort of goes with the flow. Does that mean he's dominant
? Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
. Is the idea kind of like my compound type idea, where, if you try to assign a type, the person's functions functions 7&8 are so strong that you can't tell if they're really 7&8 or 1&2?
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Why're you so hateful to the T-man? It's not like he's a threat to any of you and your way of thinking...is he?
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
) and Spock is ISTj logical subtype.
