Only one function can be in control of consciousness at a time

[highlander]

What does everyone think about this statement?

"Only one function can be in control of consciousness at any single point in time"

For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.

 

[Psychdigg]

I agree. We are a time-share. We can switch back and forth quite rapidly though.

 

[Halla74]

Hey Highlander.

My default answer to this is as follows.

I think all functions are on at all times.

It's just a matter of which one's we choose to use in signifcant part to process our thoughts, feelings, and actions.

In an organization of people, one person is in charge.

In the human mind, all of our cognitive processes are firing off as best they know how, and trying to influence our being. Some are just damn good at it compared to others in each of us, hence our cognitive preferences, and out MBTI types.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

 

[Psychdigg]

“Every holistic activity of the organism has a tendency
to be the only one present at a given time and to exclude
all other acts. The organism cannot combine simultaneously
two or three holistic activities.”

Anokhin, P.K. (1965), In: Russian monographs on brain and behavior no. 3. Orienting reflex and exploratory behavior. Ed. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington.

Capacities are available at all times. But when you are using one capacity it is foreground and the others are by necessity in the background.

 

[highlander]

Hey Highlander.

My default answer to this is as follows.

I think all functions are on at all times.

It's just a matter of which one's we choose to use in signifcant part to process our thoughts, feelings, and actions.

In an organization of people, one person is in charge.

In the human mind, all of our cognitive processes are firing off as best they know how, and trying to influence our being. Some are just damn good at it compared to others in each of us, hence our cognitive preferences, and out MBTI types.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

Could be. My analogy is that our brains are like a computer and cognitive functions are like processes with inputs and outputs. Do we have a single-threaded or multi-threaded operating system? My intuition says multi-threading seems more logical but with respect to functions, at least I can't be introverted intuiting the same time as I'm extraverted thinking or introverted feeling - at least consciously. My brain seems to work in a somewhat single threaded way. Maybe you can do multiple things at the same time but only one function can be conscious at a time. In either case, I think the switching can occur rapidly back and forth between functions. That is the theory I have made up anyway.

Some of the question is whether or not we have more than these 8 cognitive processes. There must be people who study the human brain who have a view on these things. We need some kind of neuro-scientist on here.

 

[Amargith]

I think one takes the pilot seat, yes, but I do also believe that the others are helping with navigation, checking the systems etc. I know that when I get really high on my Ne-ing, I lose track of other peoples feelings and general mood. I hate it, it's like flying blind. But thats' what happens when I truly go for pattern seeking and knowledge gathering. However, if I reign that in just a *little bit*, I can check to see how they're feeling what kinda people they are as well as I can instantly bounce off the info I gather on *them* off of my Fi. Way better system.

I do however find that it's harder to have TeFi work in tandem like that..that one seems to be one or the other. TeSi however works...'how did I do that again? Damn..I don't remember..if I start like this, it makes sense that...ahhh right, that's how we did it!'

FiSi works grand as well..nostalgic trip down memory lane is an awesome blissfull feel and a reassessment of my past emotions to use better in the future.

NeTe works brilliantly as well, but I only do that when working alone as I become way too abrasive for others to be around. Also, Te can only keep up for a little while with Ne, before losing control.

Again, I think one is the pilot, but you always have a co-pilot or rather..I think you should, to keep the other in check and make for a balanced reaction to the situation.

 

[Amethyst]

No.
For the most part, you use both N/S along with T/F, depending on your function preference or type. They work together hand in hand for the most part, but then you have opposing N/S or T/F, which debate with each other. Say I'm using Ti to think out a plan Ne has concocted on enslaving humanity...a developed Fe would stop me(or would try to...) by saying that I shouldn't do that, since it wouldn't really be acceptable of myself and that I should work hard for what I want instead of enslaving others.
They all work together in some way or another, some just have more influence than others.

 

[wolfy]

What does everyone think about this statement?

"Only one function can be in control of consciousness at any single point in time"

For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.

I've seen the functions drawn as a compass with the dominant orientation at top. You'd think that your ego orientation would remain stable. And that you'd use the auxiliary functions to support with and through your main orientation.

So awareness and focus would change but there would always be the main orientation of you as a person.

If the main conscious function did in fact change, wouldn't that in turn change your dominant orientation?

I don't feel you can say functions cause actions. I think that behaviours can be representative of functions. Because awareness causes people to focus and behave in certain ways.

This is a bit of a tangent but I am pretty sure I can introvert and talk at the same time. Just ask my wife, she catches me doing that.

 

[ragashree]

What does everyone think about this statement?

"Only one function can be in control of consciousness at any single point in time"

For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.

Reminds me of that thread Wildcat started recently on "What is Now?". Seriously, I think you're going to have trouble pinning down what constitutes a "single point in time" precisely enough to make this proposition meaningful. Or is it going to be reliant on a speculative circular definition? : "A single point in time is postulated to be that period during which only one, and only one, cognitive function is in operation."

You see the problem here?

 

[Aleksei]

What does everyone think about this statement?

"Only one function can be in control of consciousness at any single point in time"

For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.

I think that most likely a minimum of two functions are used on any thought process; that is, one perceiving function (input), and one judging function (output), but likely only one is used at a time. Your ideas on the matter seem about right.

 

[EcK]

For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.

Maybe you're just bad at using your brain.
Ever thought of that ?

 

[highlander]

Maybe you're just bad at using your brain.
Ever thought of that ?

Crap. Maybe that's the problem. Some ENFPs I know seem to be able to do like 5 things at once.

 

[skylights]

Crap. Maybe that's the problem. Some ENFPs I know seem to be able to do like 5 things at once.

yeah, but we'd be about 10 times more efficient if we just stuck to one. have you ever seen an ENFP actually dedicated to one task? when i hit my critical stress point i pretty much turn into ENTJ on a rampage

I think one takes the pilot seat, yes, but I do also believe that the others are helping with navigation, checking the systems etc. I know that when I get really high on my Ne-ing, I lose track of other peoples feelings and general mood. I hate it, it's like flying blind.

this. good airplane metaphor

i think they shift around pretty continually, but Ne as the pilot gets the most attention. Fi as the copilot supports Ne but also pokes her when she's being oblivious. Te radios back to the tower lol. whereas Ti and Fe chill in the back goofing off and making paper airplanes...

 

[Totenkindly]

“Every holistic activity of the organism has a tendency
to be the only one present at a given time and to exclude
all other acts. The organism cannot combine simultaneously
two or three holistic activities.”

Anokhin, P.K. (1965), In: Russian monographs on brain and behavior no. 3. Orienting reflex and exploratory behavior. Ed. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington.

Capacities are available at all times. But when you are using one capacity it is foreground and the others are by necessity in the background.

That doesn't sound much different to me than the reality that computers create multiple program threads when you run more than one thing at once, that the resources are then switched back and forth among a very high rate of speed.

Yes, so the chip is processing only one command at a time, in the technical sense. So I suppose your statement is technically true. it is doing just one thing at a time.

But in the experienced sense, for all intents and purposes, the computer is multitasking and it is experienced as it all happening simultaneously.

Which is more useful here -- the technical truth, or the conscious experieneced truth? Consciousness = awareness. How do we experience awareness?

 

[INTP]

i think only one is working at the time and that they work in loops and the loop stops when you figure something out. when you look inside the loop functions work separately, but when you look outside the loop all functions work together in the same loop. one loop being one thing that came into your mind and other things related to it. maybe N works as a connector on combining different loops into one and this way figuring out patterns and big picture? and stronger functions giving out better answers so that thing you try to figure out, and this is why you figure out things more easily from your stronger function perspective? and when you try to figure out something where your strong functions wont help, the loop continies longer, draining your energy and causing you to think about it longer

as ridiculous as it sounds i have been able to separate the functions inside one loop after smoking alot weed.

 

[highlander]

But in the experienced sense, for all intents and purposes, the computer is multitasking and it is experienced as it all happening simultaneously.

Which is more useful here -- the technical truth, or the conscious experieneced truth? Consciousness = awareness. How do we experience awareness?

I think the conscious experienced truth is more useful. It all hinges on how fast you can switch back and forth. Or, if this is viewed as a compass, can the needle be between two at any given point in time (vs. 3 or more appearing to operate close to the same time), that's significant too.

Which reminds me - I looked at my computer last night and found 80 processes running. How on earth are that many actually needed? It's a PC.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

The name Highlander brings a phrase to my mind - "There can be only one"

 

[Jaguar]

Crap. Maybe that's the problem. Some ENFPs I know seem to be able to do like 5 things at once.

And you know for a fact they are ENFPs because . . . ?

My brain does not work like 1+1+1=3 or ABCDEFG.
I read anywhere from 5-10 books at a time, I never start a book at the beginning, and I flip out when anyone says to me, "Now, Jag, one thing at a time."

There are no two human brains exactly alike. How yours works is probably opposite my own.
To even think that only one function would be in consciousness at a time is laughable to someone like me.
But that doesn't mean my brain is "better" than your brain. It just means we're different. The world would be boring if everyone's brain operated the same way.

Many psychologists talk about functions switching back and forth in a nanosecond as well as the ability for intuitives to "turn off" their intuition temporarily, to SEE what is in front of them. I don't think you give the brain enough credit for what it can really do.

 

[highlander]

And you know for a fact they are ENFPs because . . . ?

Because I know them extremely well. There is always a slight possibility that I'm wrong but don't think so.

My brain does not work like 1+1+1=3 or ABCDEFG.
I read anywhere from 5-10 books at a time, I never start a book at the beginning, and I flip out when anyone says to me, "Now, Jag, one thing at a time."

There are no two human brains exactly alike. How yours works is probably opposite my own.
To even think that only one function would be in consciousness at a time is laughable to someone like me.
But that doesn't mean my brain is "better" than your brain. It just means we're different. The world would be boring if everyone's brain operated the same way.

Many psychologists talk about functions switching back and forth in a nanosecond as well as the ability for intuitives to "turn off" their intuition temporarily, to SEE what is in front of them. I don't think you give the brain enough credit for what it can really do.

Fair points.

I tend to be reading several books a the same time too. I do like to start at the beginning and go to the end but the temptation is often too great and I skip around. An example is when I was reading Psychological Types. It's like when you're supposed to eat peas before desert. Since I hate peas, sometimes, I just eat the desert first. Then the meat. The peas go uneaten. Though I did read that entire book (peas can be good for you).

So, back to the point of the thread. The idea is not something I came up. It came out of Thompson's and Haas/Hunziker's writings. It was an interesting concept that seemed logical and therefore worth discussing.

On a personal level, it does take me time to build up a level of concentration on something. Once I'm into something, I can focus on it for a long time. There might be little breaks but if the break is too long, I have ramp up time to build up the level of concentration again. I don't think most people are like this. And I definitely seem to be able to do only one thing well at a time.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Gender differences could also play a role.