An alternative view on information aspects

[Rebelondeck]

@Petter,

We seem to be discussing semantics. What I mean by self-contained is an isolated information entity as opposed to something that is stable in the moment. N is information that connects entities; N is context but a context could be an entity. N is the linkage between entities and also the sum of linkages. When one recognizes an object, we are discussing the result of I/O processing and not simply N as a standalone input. I don't think N is a function although it can colour a function........

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

@Petter,
We seem to be discussing semantics. What I mean by self-contained is an isolated information entity as opposed to something that is stable in the moment. N is information that connects entities; N is context but a context could be an entity. N is the linkage between entities and also the sum of linkages.
a.k.a. I/O

I don't think it is semantics. Your view seems to be entirely different.

I don't think there is information that connects entities. For example, you are watching an actual elephant and suddenly you see an inner image of a poacher. Your brain makes the connection, but there is no information between the elephant and the poacher.

Yes, Ni (function, i.e. processing) sees the context and Ni is also the context (aspect). However, if you only consider the poacher then it is Si. So there are two different memories; elephant+poacher and (details of the) poacher.

When one recognizes an object, we are discussing the result of I/O processing and not simply N as a standalone input.

Okay, so you think N is involved when you are recognizing an object, right? N is only about new/hidden contexts in my view.

I don't think N is a function although it can colour a function........

What do you mean by this?

[Rebelondeck]

.........I don't think there is information that connects entities.........but there is no information between the elephant and the poacher..........

Okay, so you think N is involved when you are recognizing an object, right?

N is only about new/hidden contexts in my view.

What do you mean by this?

I'm referring to how information is constructed; you seem to be focusing at a macro level - the results of information processing. There has to be information between entities or we'd be operating on white noise. One's brain with all its sensors create information that only one person uses. Everyone looking at the same object creates different information.

N is theoretical - the sum of the linkages that input processes generate; however, input without rationalization is not recognition. Recognition is the connection of two entities, one of which is residing in your memory and the other in your input register. Both have to go through a CPU for recognition to occur.

N is more fundamental than new/hidden contexts......

N colors input processes in that one has a bias toward the linkages more than the entities of information at any level of granularity; however, linkages and entities can only be separated in theory not in reality.

For more insight into my thinking on information processing, I would suggest reading more on artificial intelligence such as voice and facial recognition programs, if you haven't already done so. It is an engineering approach and at a micro level.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

I'm referring to how information is constructed; you seem to be focusing at a macro level - the results of information processing.

Yes. This thread is about information aspects. You are referring to the functions.

SSS: "Element is that which is processed by the psyche (part of the information flow.) Function is that which processes (apparatus of the psyche) information."

There has to be information between entities or we'd be operating on white noise.

But those entities are information as well. There cannot be infinitely many information entities.

N is more fundamental than new/hidden contexts......

No, you have a different perspective, that's all.

[Rebelondeck]

............ You are referring to the functions.........

.........There cannot be infinitely many information entities..........

.....you have a different perspective..........

N and S symbolize orientation differences toward the same information which affects the order of information processing - information cannot be separated from rationalization in a dynamic control system. To use a crude example, two balls are connected by a string; the balls and string each by themselves can form three entities or them combined can form one entity. N's first inclination may be toward how such a configuration would function ignoring the details of the entities as opposed to S first focusing on its physical details then moving to function; the former is top down and the latter is bottom up.

infinite entities: I suggest that you are looking the wrong way: relativism can be infinite; its a matter of perception......

I agree that we have been talking apples and oranges - and perhaps not that productive for either of us. However, I did appreciate your responses and found them interesting.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

I agree that we have been talking apples and oranges - and perhaps not that productive for either of us. However, I did appreciate your responses and found them interesting.....

Well, it is not that simple. Our goal is to match eight information aspects with eight cognitive processes, so we need to consider both. How do we describe/define a cognitive process? There are (at least) three ways. We can describe the effects of a process (Te dominant types like to organize etc.), we can describe our experiences of a process (i.e. a phenomenological approach...this is my method) and we can try to define a process (which is your method).

The problem with Socionics is that it focused too much on defining the information aspects, and too little on matching aspects with cognitive processes.

N colors input processes in that one has a bias toward the linkages more than the entities of information at any level of granularity; however, linkages and entities can only be separated in theory not in reality.
N and S symbolize orientation differences toward the same information which affects the order of information processing - information cannot be separated from rationalization in a dynamic control system.
To use a crude example, two balls are connected by a string; the balls and string each by themselves can form three entities or them combined can form one entity. N's first inclination may be toward how such a configuration would function ignoring the details of the entities as opposed to S first focusing on its physical details then moving to function; the former is top down and the latter is bottom up.

Okay, so you are saying that N is more than the linkage. But what exactly do you mean by "ignoring the details of the entities" in this example?

N is theoretical - the sum of the linkages that input processes generate; however, input without rationalization is not recognition. Recognition is the connection of two entities, one of which is residing in your memory and the other in your input register. Both have to go through a CPU for recognition to occur.

Does N connect the two entities (i.e. information in memory and input register) in your view?

[Rebelondeck]

.........eight information aspects with eight cognitive processes........

The problem with Socionics is that it focused too much on defining the information aspects, and too little on matching aspects with cognitive processes.

....."ignoring the details of the entities"......Does N connect the two entities........

ref. line 1 Overall, there are really only two controlling processes: input and output, where rationalization is part of and integral to the latter. Type reflects an operating system, on which all the apps are based. The resulting influences of this controlling kernel are what Socionics has observed. However, Socionics has yet to discover its "string theory".

ref. line 2 I do not expect much more from a classification system based on early 20th century thinking. One cannot define an operating system from informational aspects; Socionics is only a behavioural classification system. The classification information would likely be valid when verifying the true system. However, most seem content wallowing in their information elements, which is likely sufficient for some applications.....

rf. line 3 Top-down (N, which is relativistic in the general sense) is a perspective of the exact same information that bottom-up processor (S) would see. Does one look out upon a forest or a bunch of trees. How does a type absorb information for processing? As INTj, I see integrated systems or vistas but I have to force myself to focus on the constituent parts or detail; ISTjs would likely have to force themselves to focus at a system level but they'd let no detail escape. S and N are ways of limiting information because the brain cannot process it all. N is the sum, connection and or integration of entities - the system perspective........

a.k.a. I/O