Johammadeezus on Information Elements (thread split)

[Olduvai]

Personal feelings are not an inherent property of an object. They are part of the relational field between a person and the object. Think of it as a bubble map. The person is a node. The object is a separate node. The link between them is the feelings towards the object. Hence Fi.

No, the "feelings" exist inside the person (or "object").

The other day, I was hanging out with an SLE friend who has three cats. I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it." My friend was silent for a second and then started talking about something completely unrelated. I think I hit his PoLR with that comment.

"Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".

[anndelise]

No, the "feelings" exist inside the person (or "object").

The other day, I was hanging out with an SLE friend who has three cats. I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it." My friend was silent for a second and then started talking about something completely unrelated. I think I hit his PoLR with that comment.

"Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".

The cat did not feel anything, neither pain nor pleasure until you created an emotional field between the cat and your actions. Iow, if you, another objeect, had not been petting the cat, then the cat would have not felt that pleasure/pain.

Feelings "existing inside a person/object" is related to "the involvement" aspect. Personal feelings are the experiences (involvement) which we give meaning to (implicit). But it requires something to trigger those feelings, whether an external object, a memory of an event, etc.

To simplify: Take a magnet and a nail. The magnet sits there and does its thing between its poles. The nail sits elsewhere, doing nothing. They are each individual objects, not influiencing each other, not creating a field together UNTIL you bring the two separate objects together at which point they create a magnetic field between them.

The magnet needed the nail to expand its field,
The cat needed your hands petting it to feel the pleasure/pain.

"Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".

Simplisticly:
Fe is the straight up emotion. The Ni/Si creates the fields for Fe.
Fi is the emotion in relation to something else.

[Olduvai]

The cat did not feel anything, neither pain nor pleasure until you created an emotional field between the cat and your actions. Iow, if you, another objeect, had not been petting the cat, then the cat would have not felt that pleasure/pain.

I pet the cat. I perceived that the cat "felt" a certain way about me petting it. In perceiving the way the cat felt, I detected an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

Feelings "existing inside a person/object" is related to "the involvement" aspect. Personal feelings are the experiences (involvement) which we give meaning to (implicit). But it requires something to trigger those feelings, whether an external object, a memory of an event, etc.

Here's the definition of "implicit":

a: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed

I understood the cat's feeling of "like" because it was behaving in a certain way; from the cat's actions, I deduced an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

[anndelise]

Yet the cat wasnt feeling pleasure/pain until you did somethign to trigger it.
And yes, i am sure you read the emotional orientation the cat was having to your actions, an emotional orientation that would not have happened if you weren't petting it. You even said yourself, you perceived the cat felt a certain way ABOUT you petting it.

You deduced an implicit and state property of an object's field in relation to your actions.



A field requires at least two objects.
An object does not require another object to be an object.

[Olduvai]

Yet the cat wasnt feeling pleasure/pain until you did somethign to trigger it.

So what? I'm still detecting an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

And yes, i am sure you read the emotional orientation the cat was having to your actions, an emotional orientation that would not have happened if you weren't petting it. You even said yourself, you perceived the cat felt a certain way ABOUT you petting it.

The point is that I perceived how the cat felt.

Cat = object
Feeling of like = static property
Indirect means of knowing = implicit

You deduced an implicit and state property of an object's field in relation to your actions.

"Objects" and "fields" are two separate things. Look:

In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass. The term macroscopic particle usually refers to particles much larger than atoms and molecules. These are usually abstracted as point-like particles, even though they have volumes, shapes, structures, etc. Examples of macroscopic particles would include dust, sand, pieces of debris during a car accident, or even objects as big as the stars of a galaxy.

A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The field creates a "condition in space" such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.

I basically said, "this cat likes these conditions", and in doing so I deduced a property about the "particle", not the "field".

[anndelise]

So what? I'm still detecting an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

The point is that I perceived how the cat felt.

Cat = object
Feeling of like = static property
Indirect means of knowing = implicit




"Objects" and "fields" are two separate things.

Wrong, cat is an object, yes, but the object wasn't what you were looking at, it was the object's relationship to another object that you were looking at.

The thing with implicit fields is that you cannot directly perceive the field. You know that there is a relationship betwen the two+ objects going on, but it cannot be explicitely seen. So you have to grab clues elsewise. Such as the cat's reactions to what is happening to it.

As I said...an object does not need another object to be an object. But a field requires two or more objects to exist.
The cat exists as is. But it's feelings of like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, etc towards you and/or towards your actions did not exist until you created the field.

[Olduvai]

Wrong, cat is an object, yes, but the object wasn't what you were looking at, it was the object's relationship to another object that you were looking at.

I said, "this cat feels a certain way". How am I talking about the conditions?