Perceiving versus Judging

Intuition—registering mental objects as continuous and non-discrete
  • treating mental objects as lacking a definite informational boundary
  • giving a dispersed and unspecific perimeter to a concept or idea
  • registering objects as wave-like
  • modeling ideas as existing in a superposition, rather than a specific position
  • perceiving objects as having a hazy, gradated self-extension or influence
  • having multi-meaning, rather than single-meaning
Sensing—registering mental objects as discontinuous and discrete
  • being cognizant of the informational starts and ends of objects
  • treating a concept or idea as a localized dataset
  • registering objects as particle-like
  • modeling mental objects as specific with finite ranges
  • having a sharp and focused description of a concept or idea, without ambiguity
  • handling variables as definite amounts or quantities; single-meaning
Paradoxically, very much alike, yet very much different from one another.

Of course, all paradoxes can be resolved as they are the poles of a singular truth.

Cheers,
Ian
 
aeon said:
Intuition—registering mental objects as continuous and non-discrete
  • treating mental objects as lacking a definite informational boundary
  • giving a dispersed and unspecific perimeter to a concept or idea
  • registering objects as wave-like
  • modeling ideas as existing in a superposition, rather than a specific position
  • perceiving objects as having a hazy, gradated self-extension or influence
  • having multi-meaning, rather than single-meaning
Sensing—registering mental objects as discontinuous and discrete
  • being cognizant of the informational starts and ends of objects
  • treating a concept or idea as a localized dataset
  • registering objects as particle-like
  • modeling mental objects as specific with finite ranges
  • having a sharp and focused description of a concept or idea, without ambiguity
  • handling variables as definite amounts or quantities; single-meaning
Click to expand...

Intuition is like total system state analog non-linear with feed-forward and recursion flow with built-in PID control.

Sensing is like discrete digital quantization with AND, OR, NOR, and XOR gates, accumulators, and bipolar flip-flop junctions.

edit: N is quantum mechanics, S is general relativity. :)

Cheers,
Ian
 
Last edited:
aeon said:
Intuition is like total system state analog non-linear with feed-forward and recursion flow with built-in PID control.

Sensing is like discrete digital quantization with AND, OR, NOR, and XOR gates, accumulators, and bipolar flip-flop junctions.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
So intuition is an analog synth and sensing is a digital synth? Lol

I think Si is data and subjective experiences. Ni is the analysis of data and pattern recognition along with future predictions based on this. Si struggles to predict the future because it can only join dots of data. It is lost in the details.
 
It seems to me that the definition of the functions in Big 5 is a bit confusing. Not in the sense of being incorrect but in the sense that they are different conceptually to the Jungian definitions. That leads to semantic difficulties. There is a more subtle problem of this sort between Jung’s own definition of the functions and the way that has been reconstructed by the MBTI creators. The same words used to define the functions also have a lot of different meanings colloquially too, and this adds to the semantic problem. For example I often use the word ‘feeling’ in the sense of starting to gain insight into something.

Rather than these things all competing with each other for what is fundamental truth, they are all different conceptual systems for expressing the same underlying truth in some of its aspects. They all have strengths and weaknesses and we can choose which of them to apply in line with this - as long as we make it clear which of these we are using. To give an analogy, it’s a bit like choosing which coordinate system to use in mathematics. You do far better expressing navigational issues in spherical polar coordinates than Cartesian ones because they fit the shape of the earth like a glove. Both systems describe the same underlying reality though - the earth’s surface.

I actually prefer Jung’s original conceptual framework myself, but that’s a matter of taste rather than rejection of the others. The original idea is that there are four functions. Each one can be applied either subjectively or objectively and that determines the way they are manifest in each of us, but the functions themselves are not changed by this.

I think that understanding it more fully comes from having some feel for Jung’s overall psychology of the unconscious. I believe that he first started developing his typology in response to his patients in therapy. He needed access to their unconscious minds and he found this differed according to type. His motive in developing his typology started off as a way of identifying his patients’ inferior functions, which he found were the gateways he was seeking to their hidden minds. It seems that his model succeeded in this based on his empirical experience in his therapeutic practice.
 
Last edited:
N perceives the interrelationship and total state value of interference-pattern wave quanta from which a deduction can be made.

This is true of Ni and Ne...Ni in the subjective, Ne in the objective.

S perceives the apprehension of individual discrete objects existing as nested holons in a recognized pattern from which an induction can be made.

This is true of Se and Si...Se in the objective, Si in the subjective.

Cheers,
Ian
 
David Nelson said:
That’s all I need to read.
Click to expand...
In other words, you didn't see what you wanted to see and immediately decided to fill in the rest with comforting assumptions to protect your narrative. But no, it's the Fi users who refuse anything that doesn't feel good.

Of course it's inherently a critique of MBTI, there would be no need to make a new model otherwise. CT is probably the most in-depth cognitive model to date, it doesn't deny F, it has nothing to do with propagating Big 5 except for the fact that it acknowledges the existence of both essential traits and fluctuating traits. Ren has also made several reviews of it on his blog and channel. Of course, you would know all this if you spent at least as much effort understanding it as you do in making self-aggrandizing or snide comments about anything that diverges from your immaculate INFJ conception.

This is what happens when your entire self-worth and security is teetering on idealized mental constructs.
 
aeon said:
Paradoxically, very much alike, yet very much different from one another.

Of course, all paradoxes can be resolved as they are the poles of a singular truth.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the heart of Jungian perspective, as well as his predecessors like William Blake. If you're looking for a timeless truth, look for something that contradicts itself.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
In other words, you didn't see what you wanted to see and immediately decided to fill in the rest with comforting assumptions to protect your narrative. But no, it's the Fi users who refuse anything that doesn't feel good.

Of course it's inherently a critique of MBTI, there would be no need to make a new model otherwise. CT is probably the most in-depth cognitive model to date, it doesn't deny F, it has nothing to do with propagating Big 5 except for the fact that it acknowledges the existence of both essential traits and fluctuating traits. Ren has also made several reviews of it on his blog and channel. Of course, you would know all this if you spent at least as much effort understanding it as you do in making self-aggrandizing or snide comments about anything that diverges from your immaculate INFJ conception.

This is what happens when your entire self-worth and security is teetering on idealized mental constructs.
Click to expand...
I may have at least partly deserved this. So I’ll take it on the chin and move on.
 
aeon said:
Intuition—registering mental objects as continuous and non-discrete
  • treating mental objects as lacking a definite informational boundary
  • giving a dispersed and unspecific perimeter to a concept or idea
  • registering objects as wave-like
  • modeling ideas as existing in a superposition, rather than a specific position
  • perceiving objects as having a hazy, gradated self-extension or influence
  • having multi-meaning, rather than single-meaning
Sensing—registering mental objects as discontinuous and discrete
  • being cognizant of the informational starts and ends of objects
  • treating a concept or idea as a localized dataset
  • registering objects as particle-like
  • modeling mental objects as specific with finite ranges
  • having a sharp and focused description of a concept or idea, without ambiguity
  • handling variables as definite amounts or quantities; single-meaning
Paradoxically, very much alike, yet very much different from one another.

Of course, all paradoxes can be resolved as they are the poles of a singular truth.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
I love this concept of a superposition as it applies to intuition. Where things are hazy and undetermined. This reminds me of the work done by Penrose and Hameroff on the theory of quantum consciousness. I never thought about how this could apply to intuition but it makes perfect sense. If the mind is operating incredibly fast in a space that is undetermined then it only makes sense that this is the only way unconscious thoughts could be tied to correct unknowable decisions. If the choices were merely random guesses then intuition would have no value and it would have been abandon as a survival mechanism long ago.

Again, things I've been thinking about and the answer comes to me from an avenue that seemed completely obscure. I shouldn't be surprised because this seems to happen to me regularly and I've started to simply think of it as serendipitous.

Thanks for pointing me in this direction Ian.
 
aeon said:
N perceives the interrelationship and total state value of interference-pattern wave quanta from which a deduction can be made.

This is true of Ni and Ne...Ni in the subjective, Ne in the objective.

S perceives the apprehension of individual discrete objects existing as nested holons in a recognized pattern from which an induction can be made.

This is true of Se and Si...Se in the objective, Si in the subjective.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
I can see how you get to the subjective and objective from Ni and Ne respectively; however, I'm struggling to understand how you make the jump to quantum mechanics.

Would you please explain this statement to me? "N perceives the interrelationship and total state value of interference-pattern wave quanta from which a deduction can be made."

I understand interference patterns but I don't understand how these are actually derived from intuitive functions. I can certainly make a connection when it comes to Penrose and Hammeroff but their work doesn't specifically call out intuition - at least not that I've been able to find. I also read some statements coming from their work that suggests a non-local origin for consciousness. (citation: https://philarchive.org/rec/HERNOT-10)
 
TomasM said:
I'm struggling to understand how you make the jump to quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...
I use it only as a metaphor. How very N! ☺️

In this post, I think the language I used has loose parallels to the quantum and classical.

Cheers,
Ian
 
aeon said:
I use it only as a metaphor. How very N! ☺️

In this post, I think the language I used has loose parallels to the quantum and classical.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
Ok, I love it as a metaphor but I also like it as a probable solution - though very out of reach at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top