Rationals (NTs)

When someone misunderstands this thread and is mean will they-

  • A, claim all NTs are evil because of a single bad experience or

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • B, argue that NTs are the master race

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • C, inevitable joke answer: Xylophone

    Votes: 16 44.4%

  • D, use their unlimited power to edit this poll. Xx, Lady Palpatine

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
Ginny said:
That's the funniest thing I ever heard. I could show you how wrong the quoted statement is, using my knowledge of pragmatics, but if you want to chicken out, I'll accept your defeat.

And to be 100% clear, astrology has nothing to do with what I wrote.
#GameOver
Click to expand...

I just don't enjoy upsetting you and making you feel personally attacked with a simple logical argument. You are not in the mood to have a debate. I can sense your tension and I don't enjoy it.

If you'd like to see it as chickening out, you're free to. But we could also have this conversation another time, when you've calmed down.
 
Ren said:
I just don't enjoy upsetting you and making you feel personally attacked with a simple logical argument. You are not in the mood to have a debate. I can sense your tension and I don't enjoy it.

If you'd like to see it as chickening out, you're free to. But we could also have this conversation another time, when you've calmed down.
Click to expand...
:chuckle::lmao:
 
jkxx said:
To wind us back a bit, the introduction of astrology here when there was no need for it is purely "my fault."
Click to expand...

I've just realised something, @jkxx. In an earlier post here I said "I'll let you guys discuss astrology". I didn't mean that as a snide remark or anything - I was actually very sincere! And that's because for some reason I thought this was the astrology thread, not the Rationals thread. Sorry about that, especially if it led to some misunderstanding. I love your posts, including on astrology, and I think you're always super caring in your messages too. So please don't beat yourself up about any of this :) :kissingclosed:
 
hush said:
Why do I lol at "T" ppl so often

Maybe I just value balance too much.
Click to expand...

I understand (I think) why, but I'm sure "T" people feel the same way about poorly adapted "F" people.

This thread was set up by @Reason With Logic Filling and I guess he probably feels it was invaded by F types etc.

To his credit, he has been very patient about it. So "gently" I suggest its better to leave any astrology discussion, for that thread.
 
James said:
I understand (I think) why, but I'm sure "T" people feel the same way about poorly adapted "F" people.

This thread was set up by @Reason With Logic Filling and I guess he probably feels it was invaded by F types etc.

To his credit, he has been very patient about it. So "gently" I suggest its better to leave any astrology discussion, for that thread.
Click to expand...
This thread isn't for NTs it's about NTs... even though we've yet to discuss the topic :(
 
jkxx said:
@Lady Jolanda,

thank you for including the paper. I had read it years ago but other than taking it for granted (a mistake) then had forgotten the content.
Now let's look at what Sagan wrote.

This is where Sagan makes a critical error. And it is not a logical error either. The rational (conscious) mind is indeed the tool we must develop before we can reason, communicate, and understand the world around us. It is our first step toward complete undrestanding but it constitutes only half of the personality and it comes with one crippling flaw - it surveys information in the same way a camera captures images taken in the world. The image contains an exact replica of what has been 'scanned' in a state of rest... meanwhile the actual world is constantly in state of motion.

Thus what the rational mind misses is a whole dimension of the universe - motion (aka interaction) - which happens to be the process behind most members' here's intuition (N) function.

And with this realization we can rest knowing these "other" dimensions are indeed possible, at least in theory.



Indeed, except facts belong to the rational mind, again, and hence the same limitation applies.
Click to expand...
Hey @jkxx, thank you for posting this. Jkxx, unfortunately I don't know you as well as I'd like to, so I don't really know what kind of background you have in science.

We've come quite a long way since Carl Sagan's paper. (The basis of what he wrote of course still stands.) Sagan unfortunately passed away in 1996, and our science, technology and especially raw computing power has taken a quantum leap since then. Bring your mind back to around 1996. DVDs just hit the market. The top of the line home computing system was a 200 MHz Pentium. Deep Blue hadn't beaten Kasparov yet. Dolly the Sheep hadn't been cloned yet. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast) hadn't even been sequenced yet. Java, one of the most used and arguably most famous programming languages in the world, hadn't been released yet. Google Search didn't exist yet. Viagra hadn't even been invented yet! Most importantly, it was a world before Pokemon Red and Blue.

Now let's take a look at today's world, ~20 years later. Optical storage? Who still uses that? Save your data in the cloud. My home server is a Haswell-E Core i7 hexa-core running at 4.5GHz with 64 GB DDR4 memory. AlphaGo beat Ke Jie. DeepMind is a general purpose learning algorithm. We have cloned a primate species. But cloning is a bit outdated, now we have induced pluripotent stem cells. I'm not even going to attempt to list the amount of genomes that have been sequenced up to this day, also because then I'll have to update this post in the next hour lol, but feel free to look around at http://ensemblgenomes.org/info/genomes. Also, the data is publicly available. Quite a few of these genomes are even accompanied with a transcriptome and a proteome as well.

You're absolutely right that we survey information in the same way a camera captures images, the image an exact* replica of the world in a state of rest. (*That's the ideal, of course. There are always measuring errors.) And you're also absolutely right that the real world is in a state of motion.

However, in current day science, we can capture that same image in multiple resolutions, from multiple angles, in rapid intervals, put them in a time-line, and reconstruct the motion, and then with advanced algorithms and statistical inferences, extract the pattern; model the interaction.
Scientific inquiry, while still adhering to the scientific method of course ;), has evolved from Sagan's day.

Alternatively, we 'just' build a simulation. I wonder how Sagan would react to this beauty: https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2018/01/31/illustristng-universe-simulation/

Or even this little game you can mess around with at home: http://universesandbox.com/
Terraforming Mars is surprisingly hard. So many parameters to keep in mind.
Or perhaps you prefer playing with life rather than with the solar system? http://www.speciesgame.com/

Interaction is indeed the most difficult aspect to model, as well as the most computing intensive, and ultimately also the most frustrating. (I made the university server GRID crash trying to run a particularly nice interaction extraction analysis on my dataset. Oopsie. :sweatsmile:) But if you manage to do it? Magic. :sunglasses:

And the future? It really won't be long before we can do real-time monitoring and simultaneous processing of the real world, in motion.

I love science. :<3lightblue:
Signed, a slightly disgruntled scientist. ;)
 
Lady Jolanda said:
Hey @jkxx, thank you for posting this. Jkxx, unfortunately I don't know you as well as I'd like to, so I don't really know what kind of background you have in science.

We've come quite a long way since Carl Sagan's paper. (The basis of what he wrote of course still stands.) Sagan unfortunately passed away in 1996, and our science, technology and especially raw computing power has taken a quantum leap since then. Bring your mind back to around 1996. DVDs just hit the market. The top of the line home computing system was a 200 MHz Pentium. Deep Blue hadn't beaten Kasparov yet. Dolly the Sheep hadn't been cloned yet. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast) hadn't even been sequenced yet. Java, one of the most used and arguably most famous programming languages in the world, hadn't been released yet. Google Search didn't exist yet. Viagra hadn't even been invented yet! Most importantly, it was a world before Pokemon Red and Blue.

Now let's take a look at today's world, ~20 years later. Optical storage? Who still uses that? Save your data in the cloud. My home server is a Haswell-E Core i7 hexa-core running at 4.5GHz with 64 GB DDR4 memory. AlphaGo beat Ke Jie. DeepMind is a general purpose learning algorithm. We have cloned a primate species. But cloning is a bit outdated, now we have induced pluripotent stem cells. I'm not even going to attempt to list the amount of genomes that have been sequenced up to this day, also because then I'll have to update this post in the next hour lol, but feel free to look around at http://ensemblgenomes.org/info/genomes. Also, the data is publicly available. Quite a few of these genomes are even accompanied with a transcriptome and a proteome as well.

You're absolutely right that we survey information in the same way a camera captures images, the image an exact* replica of the world in a state of rest. (*That's the ideal, of course. There are always measuring errors.) And you're also absolutely right that the real world is in a state of motion.

However, in current day science, we can capture that same image in multiple resolutions, from multiple angles, in rapid intervals, put them in a time-line, and reconstruct the motion, and then with advanced algorithms and statistical inferences, extract the pattern; model the interaction.
Scientific inquiry, while still adhering to the scientific method of course ;), has evolved from Sagan's day.

Alternatively, we 'just' build a simulation. I wonder how Sagan would react to this beauty: https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2018/01/31/illustristng-universe-simulation/

Or even this little game you can mess around with at home: http://universesandbox.com/
Terraforming Mars is surprisingly hard. So many parameters to keep in mind.
Or perhaps you prefer playing with life rather than with the solar system? http://www.speciesgame.com/

Interaction is indeed the most difficult aspect to model, as well as the most computing intensive, and ultimately also the most frustrating. (I made the university server GRID crash trying to run a particularly nice interaction extraction analysis on my dataset. Oopsie. :sweatsmile:) But if you manage to do it? Magic. :sunglasses:

And the future? It really won't be long before we can do real-time monitoring and simultaneous processing of the real world, in motion.

I love science. :<3lightblue:
Signed, a slightly disgruntled scientist. ;)
Click to expand...
This little beauty of text makes me wish my teachers had been more passionate. :matrix: :research::loveyeyes:
 
Hi @LadyJolanda,

this is an incredibly cool post. And so much I can relate to from here. I have the universe sandbox in steam and sometimes fire it up to look at the whole thing go as a means of inspiration.

I think we are actually at a point where various disciplines are "coming together" with their understanding which is becoming more and more advanced and inclusive by the day. And that also really excites me. The genome stuff I'll have to look up since it is something that's been looked up in earlier years but not very deeply.

As far as science goes, I started out with a parent figure who was an electronics engineer - he had electronics parts and oscilloscopes all over the place and by 2-3 I was learning what the different parts were called and by 5 playing with transistors and diodes. It left an enduring interest in the field and semiconductor devices which is still a thing for me today - in fact there's an arduino and a nodeMCU kit sitting around here since I want to do some hands-on automation stuff. This was followed by being allowed to join my mother (a librarian) during some computer courses she attended around 1992 - we did not home computers at home at this time so I just soaked everything in taught there (286s with IDE HDDs and MS-DOS, not sure what version) and by 1997 I could get my own computer here in the US to play with on a day-to-day basis.

Basically I learned about the general workings of the computer then, followed by x86 assembly and viruses (polymorphic engines and self-modifying code at the time), C++, protected mode with the advent of Win95, then FreeBSD and Linux after being dissatisfied with Gates and Co's dictatorial software distribution model at the time. In 11th-12th grade we had a Cisco routing course as part of the classes available to students and I took it, probably one of the most enjoyable offered especially with the deep dive on routers and TCP/IP. As a matter of fact astro entered my life around this time too and there'll be an explanation in another thread on that subject - but it was a very "sciency" time generally.

I didn't have the ability to study much of this stuff academically so I'm self-taught on much of it - some more recent off-shoots include chemistry and psychopharmacology (which mentioned gene expression which is where I did a bit of research into your field), more serious studies of psychology, processor architecture & design, a bit of physics (hate the equations although I did make it to int. calculus) but love the way it actually works and a bunch of random technology stuff. Probably technology interests me just as much as astrology does if this makes sense.

This "build a simulation" bit reminded me of the movie "the 13th floor" which of course was related to the Matrix which came out around the same time. Interesting times when we do.

Edit: what do you think about this?
 
Last edited:
Ginny said:
Could you suggest a desired direction then?

My question when I read this was "What about NTs?", which isn't very revealing in terms of topics to discuss.
Click to expand...
Truthfully i'm not going to enforce any rules we could come up with so here are some guidelines for what I had in mind- but as @James pointed out I don't actually care if you stay on topic

1. NT stories/anecdotes
2. Questions for the NTs on the forum
3. Discussions on the NT/NF difference
4. A thread for NTs to just hang out

Once again though, I would add

5. Whatever anybody wants
 
Cool and I'm adding one for myself

6. I'll be keeping details about *cough* out of this thread in particular
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top