Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Chemistry Elements to work on New Model.

  1. #1
    Philotheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Isolated, room.
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Chemistry Elements to work on New Model.

    Not sure if this really is worth it for having an advanced version of obsolete Socionics Model that isn't against the other Model. And since I've figured out on how the exchange of information works on IME, (you can take a look at here to see it) I've decided to make a lot of research, in which, probably take a lot of time since I'd have to re-define everything to fit in the general understanding of Socionics according to the picture that I currently have, and those would be used to create a new model based on Atoms and Nukes... yep.
    Nothingness in which thereof contains a thing

  2. #2
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    337 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What is the model you’re talking about? You’re inventing it?
    Views and clicks make these grow.

  3. #3
    twiggewed, dewusional, entitwed, snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    Kawen IEI Sx4w3 461
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CyRiTzu View Post
    Not sure if this really is worth it for having an advanced version of obsolete Socionics Model that isn't against the other Model. And since I've figured out on how the exchange of information works on IME, (you can take a look at here to see it) I've decided to make a lot of research, in which, probably take a lot of time since I'd have to re-define everything to fit in the general understanding of Socionics according to the picture that I currently have, and those would be used to create a new model based on Atoms and Nukes... yep.
    u better have a good idea for what u are doing. relating and translating it to chemistry sounds intriguing especially as it relates to how I perceive things in general. any definition u can translate into another one to still carry the same meaning. this needs to be done for information condesnation in the terms used. if not done things can get too complicated/unecesarily demanding for the calculations. like solving a math problem there are better and worse solutions. people find patterns formulas and relationships to make things easier to keep track of and take out a lot of possibilities for errors.

    i dont see much of a purpose for any model besides the original jungian model. other models may give way for more specific typification of someone but u can split subtypes forever until u start defining each very particular individual as a subtype where a "type" is a general label that goes past its purpose to give indication at that point.
    yet i dont want to discourage u if u have something valuable in mind.

    perception goes to analysis and then back to memory where it is refered to as perception? analysis is also a percpetion of things in the perception. thats laso comparing perceptions to other perceptions. a thought is as much a perception. B is primary A is secondary. that picture is when all is going well.
    muscle function, cranial plates posture, personality, cognition and mental illness


    i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.



  4. #4
    Philotheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Isolated, room.
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    What is the model you’re talking about? You’re inventing it?
    Well, maybe yes or no. I don't know yet, but let's see.
    Nothingness in which thereof contains a thing

  5. #5
    Baqer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    ILE-De
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CyRiTzu View Post
    Not sure if this really is worth it for having an advanced version of obsolete Socionics Model that isn't against the other Model. And since I've figured out on how the exchange of information works on IME, (you can take a look at here to see it) I've decided to make a lot of research, in which, probably take a lot of time since I'd have to re-define everything to fit in the general understanding of Socionics according to the picture that I currently have, and those would be used to create a new model based on Atoms and Nukes... yep.
    Creating a model based on another seemingly unrelated one seems like a bit of a bad idea. You can use different concepts which you think are similar between them, but trying to rip it piece for piece isn't going to lead to accurate predictions.

  6. #6
    Philotheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Isolated, room.
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baqer View Post
    Creating a model based on another seemingly unrelated one seems like a bit of a bad idea. You can use different concepts which you think are similar between them, but trying to rip it piece for piece isn't going to lead to accurate predictions.
    Well, what would be your opinion for that? I wonder, but since I've posted once and it was about atomic definitions of IME, it probably makes sense.
    I even have used it to explain how Fe would get along with Ni better than Si, in which Nickel and Silicon by the periodic table.

    I typically have some things to experiment before doing something so hopefully, I know what I'd be going for.
    Nothingness in which thereof contains a thing

  7. #7
    Philotheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Isolated, room.
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VewyScawwyNawcissist View Post
    u better have a good idea for what u are doing. relating and translating it to chemistry sounds intriguing especially as it relates to how I perceive things in general. any definition u can translate into another one to still carry the same meaning. this needs to be done for information condesnation in the terms used. if not done things can get too complicated/unecesarily demanding for the calculations. like solving a math problem there are better and worse solutions. people find patterns formulas and relationships to make things easier to keep track of and take out a lot of possibilities for errors.
    I hope so.

    i dont see much of a purpose for any model besides the original jungian model. other models may give way for more specific typification of someone but u can split subtypes forever until u start defining each very particular individual as a subtype where a "type" is a general label that goes past its purpose to give indication at that point.
    Don't you mean Model J? And also, that actually makes sense but as to me, I could use something to create something of course.

    yet i dont want to discourage u if u have something valuable in mind.

    perception goes to analysis and then back to memory where it is refered to as perception? analysis is also a percpetion of things in the perception. thats laso comparing perceptions to other perceptions. a thought is as much a perception. B is primary A is secondary. that picture is when all is going well.
    Yes, but causation of perception is p, while causation of judgment is j. And it depends on what you mean by "A thought" though, simply to say that the informational metabolism of elements would have this kind of exchange to move into an information from another information back and forth to gain the most reliable data as well. In which, it means that isn't just one, but two elements work simultaneously to exchange information around each other, in which would be processed by the base as the decision maker.

    Markov's chain explained visually

    The Structure and Elements of Socionics Model A by Victor Gulenko

    Nothingness in which thereof contains a thing

  8. #8
    twiggewed, dewusional, entitwed, snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    Kawen IEI Sx4w3 461
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    those elements by themselves are mechanisms. mechanisms are information structures and metabolize information in of themselves. as they are information structures/complexes it means that they as elements working to exchange information are information that exchanges information. Information is like water so it can have infinite amount of information elements that interchange between each other. One information implies every other information. Two elements as the two main functions serve to the define the rest. If u only use one function as a element then u would have 8 types instead of 16. I say this bc a “thought” can be that kind of information. It always needs to travel through some kind of filtration to be “perceived”innitially in the first place. Defining the second function is a differentiation that splits into LII and LSI subtypes of Ti and it gives more specific differences that define the two.


    What defines a decision maker? What makes it so that decision is decided? When there are no more possibilities being perceived or too many to analyse? what makes it be too many? nvm there must be cognitive limitations at which point u cant think anymore.



    causation of perception is p, while causation of judgment is j


    I don’t understand what’s the difference between J and P. What makes it so that when Ni Je perceives things is different from Ji Ne reasoning principles/constructing systems?

    muscle function, cranial plates posture, personality, cognition and mental illness


    i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.



  9. #9
    Philotheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Isolated, room.
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VewyScawwyNawcissist View Post

    those elements by themselves are mechanisms. mechanisms are information structures and metabolize information in of themselves. as they are information structures/complexes it means that they as elements working to exchange information are information that exchanges information. Information is like water so it can have infinite amount of information elements that interchange between each other. One information implies every other information. Two elements as the two main functions serve to the define the rest. If u only use one function as a element then u would have 8 types instead of 16. I say this bc a “thought” can be that kind of information. It always needs to travel through some kind of filtration to be “perceived” innitially in the first place. Defining the second function is a differentiation that splits into LII and LSI subtypes of Ti and it gives more specific differences that define the two.
    Not exactly like a water but I got what you meant here

    What defines a decision maker? What makes it so that decision is decided? When there are no more possibilities being perceived or too many to analyse? what makes it be too many? nvm there must be cognitive limitations at which point u cant think anymore.
    Base/Lead as the main voice of the system. The process of each element is the continuation of each ego block and at last but not least, functional model. I'd say that the problem of "having too many data" would be compensated by the reactive and private elements in the ID block. And then, I don't think that the cognitive limitation is that absolute as well, as it depends on capability of each person to absorb the information. Also, the dimensionality aspect, despite being considered as useless to some, I could see how it's that relevant... and maybe it's time to consider that after the Time (4D), there will be Space (5D), something that I consider as the realm of Demonstrative function.

    Quote Originally Posted by VewyScawwyNawcissist View Post
    I don’t understand what’s the difference between J and P. What makes it so that when Ni Je perceives things is different from Ji Ne reasoning principles/constructing systems?
    Hmmmm, probably you should consider this at one point. Irrational types would perceive things directly, not trying to filter the information first, hence Rational types has either an external or internal priori to be defined as a part of their judgment. So, it's rather about what do you prefer more in perceiving situation? Accepting it directly to change your opinion later (Irrational) or contemplating it first then accept it (Rational)? Do you tend to perceive (p) or judge (j) a situation first according to the causation of reasoning?
    However, there are nuances that can be contemplated later on due to variables.

    As for Ji-Ne vs Ni-Je, I believe it's quite clear, especially by Dichotomies and Cognition style.
    LII: Holographical-Panoramic (Global Overview)
    ILI: Dialectical-Algorithmic (Contradicting Thesis)
    IEI: Vortical-Synergetic (Chaotic Opportunism)
    EII: Casual-Deterministic (Determined Cause)

    And by this, we could see that the Introverted base that is rational has a clarity over the relation of ethics or logics around them, while the irrational type doesn't, so they either use the rational creative element either as a tool to express themselves or elaborate their irrationality.
    Last edited by Philotheist; 11-01-2021 at 10:10 AM. Reason: OCD
    Nothingness in which thereof contains a thing

  10. #10
    twiggewed, dewusional, entitwed, snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    Kawen IEI Sx4w3 461
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i dont comprehend causaility. for example an event in the future can cause an event in the past that leads to it, example the reality of a cooked steak caused the past of it being cooked. i make no difference between perception and judgement as everything u perceive is defined by how ur mind understands (judges?) it. for example, when u solve a novel problem and the solution comes to you, is it a perception, or a thought. did complex interplay of atoms and inert forcecs of the unieverse cause/manifest ur existenmce, or did ur existence cause/manifest itself through the complex interplay of inert forces of the universe. with timelines of th efuture and the past, is there a general pattern of how things happen and will happen, that u can alter some things but at the same time have certain events/qualities of events be a given inevitable? inert forces are the obvious example, but at the same time it could be a certain person dies in a certain period of time. its hard for me to explain because i dont understand what my mind once did, but the future and the past are not how ppl think they are.

    every part of the mental model has to be reasoned with other parts. when i perceive something its through the filter of previous perceptions and analysis, hence its analyzed already, but at the same time im also analyzing it in the moment, trying to make associations and definitions, while there are ones already there, vaguely, which also fluctuates.
    @Philotheist
    muscle function, cranial plates posture, personality, cognition and mental illness


    i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.



  11. #11
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    12,946
    Mentioned
    1297 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VewyScawwyNawcissist View Post
    i dont comprehend causaility. for example an event in the future can cause an event in the past that leads to it, example the reality of a cooked steak caused the past of it being cooked. i make no difference between perception and judgement as everything u perceive is defined by how ur mind understands (judges?) it. for example, when u solve a novel problem and the solution comes to you, is it a perception, or a thought. did complex interplay of atoms and inert forcecs of the unieverse cause/manifest ur existenmce, or did ur existence cause/manifest itself through the complex interplay of inert forces of the universe. with timelines of th efuture and the past, is there a general pattern of how things happen and will happen, that u can alter some things but at the same time have certain events/qualities of events be a given inevitable? inert forces are the obvious example, but at the same time it could be a certain person dies in a certain period of time. its hard for me to explain because i dont understand what my mind once did, but the future and the past are not how ppl think they are.

    every part of the mental model has to be reasoned with other parts. when i perceive something its through the filter of previous perceptions and analysis, hence its analyzed already, but at the same time im also analyzing it in the moment, trying to make associations and definitions, while there are ones already there, vaguely, which also fluctuates.
    @Philotheist

    I do not believe that the future causes the past. Quantum experiments which are said to show this (the delayed choice experiment) do not actually show this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U

    Just because you can imagine something, that does not make it feasible.

    In the latest models of the universe, researchers tried to build a universe from dynamic triangles, and the universes kept collapsing. Only by introducing Causality (CDT) were they able to get the thing to exist in a way that remotely resembles our universe.

    Section 2.2: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...aOsl5lVY5TfIqJ

  12. #12
    twiggewed, dewusional, entitwed, snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    Kawen IEI Sx4w3 461
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I do not believe that the future causes the past. Quantum experiments which are said to show this (the delayed choice experiment) do not actually show this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U

    Just because you can imagine something, that does not make it feasible.

    In the latest models of the universe, researchers tried to build a universe from dynamic triangles, and the universes kept collapsing. Only by introducing Causality (CDT) were they able to get the thing to exist in a way that remotely resembles our universe.

    Section 2.2: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...aOsl5lVY5TfIqJ
    muscle function pressuring the brain differently allows for different cognitive abilites. u are supposed to have all of them including Te Ni which i have experienced to be about things like this. my undertstanding is too vague now so i have to rely on u making sense of what my brain can fart out. causality beyond the commoner conceptualization is interrelatedness/Ni ripple/butterfly effect. there are holes in imagination like some people cant imagine movement or cecrtain movements, certain objects, certain properties of objects like spatial positions, colors, textures, spatial positions of colors and textures absolutely every single aspect of conception that's available or not to u. in that sense what u can imagine is not feasible (hole/realistic). the brain is a projector, an actor and a mirror for the universe and the primordial will, what u imagine may not be feasible bc of its flaws but in a sense u are only capable of imagining feasible things. causality would be structure/measurement itself. the mind is a measuring tool. u are supposed to enact the primordial will through conceiving things and thus making them feasible. when u "realize" something as in "understand" u also bring it to reality as in practical reality, at the same time its something that came beyond it. an ILI/LIE told me about scientists discovering a vacuum in the brain that's like a wormhole? as energy/movement is teleportation and thats how ur mind works.
    Only by introducing Causality (CDT) were they able to get the thing to exist in a way that remotely resembles our universe.
    this also sounds a bit like conforming to personal bias. meaning make a model of the universe that resemebles OUR but its OUR understanding > our bias. my point is there might be something beyond that's also beyond our understanding (measurement/conception), if u cant conceptualize it > its not feasible. here we bring the manifestation and Ni Fe spiritual shit where the mind creates reality. i feel sick struggling to understand the video yet its fun.

    the mind is the measurement that aligns imagination (prim will) with reality (structure), union of opposites

    reality as a measurement is an illusion caused by separation from one whole so that uare able to experience the limits in which u exist that define ur reality. universe looping on itself and repetition > pattern.

    its like F is clashing with T in my mind. comprehension of 4 dimensions fluctuates, invisible perspective > personality switch and so cognitive pattern to grasp concepts as pressented but im trying to unite them together because both are lacking.

    causality is flow implying directionality. the current holds things together and gets them moving?
    Last edited by VewyScawwyNawcissist; 11-02-2021 at 11:41 AM.
    muscle function, cranial plates posture, personality, cognition and mental illness


    i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •