Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 19:16:40 GMT
I came across a video, where a psychology professor theorizes about some of the various MBTI types and compares the collective relates communication between the various types differently. The xNTx's communication he compares to a circuit board, the xNFx's communication to a wave, and then further reduces a third category into two sub-categories, xSxP's communication as atoms & xSxJ's communication as parts of a machine.
Below the video I saw a comment which elaborates on holographic theory, matter as information, in the context of the video which I thought was quite interesting. Feel free to disregard the video, the holographic theory but I thought one of the comments was definitely worth sharing. The bottom portion is all quoted from a comment on the above video.
* * * * * * * * *
Imagine that the world is not constructed of matter or energy, as such. For lack of a better word, let's call the substance of the world "information". Let us add that this information is not distributed around the universe in 3 dimensions, but rather it exists on a 2D surface that surrounds the entire thing. For each incredibly small unit of area measured in 1 square Planck length (1×10**-34 m) there is 1 bit. With a sphere is about 13.7 billion light-years in diameter, that's a lot of bits.
Now I'm not making any of this up. Check out the holographic theory for yourself. Perfectly good non-flaky physics so far. These bits are also non-local, which is to say that some of the bits that make up you and your perception might be billions of light-years apart, in effect. You are being computed out of this, as are we all.
Anyway, there's a theory that's consistent with current thinking in physics.
Now comes an interesting philosophical question of identity. For example, to Descartes' cogito, who is perceiving what? Dr Mike hypothesizes a sort of Jungian, Buddhist, Berkekian One Mind with distinguishable internal elements here.
Given the vast scale of this system, such that it could comprise all consciousness ever on this planet and any other one with life, the functional part that comprises man is likely to be a small fraction of the whole.
Einstein once said that what is so incomprehensible about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Perhaps the truth is that we perceive only that fraction of the vast whole that we can comprehend and the rest is illusive.
Back to Dr Mike's theory. Suppose that he is exactly right and human perception, including NT rationality and NF emotion plays out not precisely within man and yet not precisely outside of man either. Let us say that given that there can be no well-defined boundary to the locale of information, there is no way to talk about inside or outside either; that is, collective and personal are invalid distinctions.
Another aspect of these more modern physical theories is the role of physical law. Instead of defining the causal flow of events ordered neatly along a sequential path of time, physical law defines what is computable. Anything that is not disallowed by physical law will happen; any feasible event is a real event.
And I am not making any of this up. Really. I am not.
In the connection model that Dr Mike suggests for NTs, a complete "packet" of information moves between functional elements of rational processing. This packet of information presumably is consistent with some sort of syntax, a grammar in terms of which rational thought can process its content. For example, we expect to find that a predicate calculus could represent the packet's structure.
For Dr Mike's alternative model of NF collective perception, it seems to be to be the case that intensity is a better concept than rationality. Instead of a predicate calculus for the syntax of NTs, we would find an "intensity calculus" in terms of which the mix of emotions could be accurately described.
We might then find an NT scientist, operating within the context of his comfortable syntax, concluding that since all events are ordered along a causal flow of time (a Kantian synthetic a priori) therefore we can trace back time to a beginning; a Big Bang. The world would award such thinking with a grand prize, not recognizing that they had just confirmed their own syntax.
An NF scientist might instead consider the intensities of various simultaneous events and propose a theory of synchronicities and teleology (see Jung and de Chardin), not recognizing that they had simply confirmed their own syntax.
The broader "truth" may be that the band of perceptions that are comprehensible to humanity are those that slide into a syntax that an NT NF SP or SJ can grok. Yet the universe in all its splendor may just include much that is incomprehensible to man, to us they would be the syntactic forms of insanity.
In this view, the Einstein's comprehensible universe tends to the tautology of Kant's synthetic a priori and is simply the null claim that man can perceive what man can perceive. Perhaps there are strange beings constructed of dark matter standing in front of us, and either we do not perceive them or those of us who do are escorted screaming off to Bedlam.
