User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you believe the functions are (pointing to something) real?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • I believe the functions are very real...

    9 23.08%
  • I believe the functions are pointing to something real, but I'm not sure whether they are real...

    11 28.21%
  • I believe the functions may be pointing to something real, and they may be real themselves...

    7 17.95%
  • I believe the functions may be pointing to something real, but they aren't real themselves...

    16 41.03%
  • I believe the functions are totally bogus, and aren't pointing to anything real at all...

    4 10.26%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 48

  1. #31
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    As we continue to develop technology to bring the world into our own homes and, soon thereafter, into our own heads, solipsism will become a very relevant concept.

  2. #32
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    As we continue to develop technology to bring the world into our own homes and, soon thereafter, into our own heads, solipsism will become a very relevant concept.
    I agree that outgrowths and realizations from solipsistic thought can be very worthwhile, a la Baudrillard's hyperreality (which I believe you are pointing to), et al.

    /derail

  3. #33
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    ooh, but i disagree. a minute is just more universally agreed upon, while purple is more nebulous, simply by the nature of a minute being more easily measurable. i think there are certain spectrum wavelengths which coincide with purple, but we're not all familiar with them because we don't carry around spectroscopes like we do watches, and we haven't all agreed on a certain number at which purple stops being purple, while the entire idea of a minute is based on when it stops being a minute - minutes are a more practical concept than colors because we use them for more precise things. as a web designer i work in hex colors, which are very much like minutes with specified numbers correlating to specific tones.

    i really think all we can argue is that either everything is real, or everything is of questionable reality. i think it's very, very hard to delineate between them. because, after all, what's going to be your ruler for reality?

    i think that's where we just need to ditch the idea of delineating reality and go with what works in the practical world. do the functions work? seemingly, for a lot of us. if they don't, let's ditch them. we can individually ditch them, too, but of course we can't pretend like others don't hold them to be reality. ultimately this is how we treat our "facts" to a large extent, too. the world was flat until the equations stopped working. then we were forced to change our perceptions.

    whether it's good or not... i dunno. i think there's a balance to be struck between skepticism and practicality.
    This is so delightfully the way I think about the world

    I take the knowingly flawed, abstract thing, use it in its blurry form to get some sort of answer, which works okay until I get more information that I can use to update my models to be more close to reality....however it's like a race to a finish line that I will never reach as they will never be perfect...because reality is too complex.

    I sometimes work really hard to segment and analyze the world into little pieces for fun, but all knowing the while that the world blurs the pieces back together again in a united whole way. It's like I am playing a joke on myself and it makes me giggle.

    I suspect it is TeSi trying to serious while NeFi just thinks it is quite funny as it sees past the boxed simplicity into the complexity of the individual. My boxes all blur together!

    Functions? I'd speculate what we have named as functions likely have a biological correlate-not a specific part of the brain but perhaps a pattern of usage that we are predisposed to, a concerted pattern. A lot of behaviors, motives and thought patterns seem to reduce to the functions as a reasonable first approximation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    (sorry about harsh treatment, it's nothing personal; you know I like you; I just don't tolerate solipsism, and I wouldn't want to see you fall prey to it.)
    Says the guy with Se in fourth place. To be honest, there are some days the world doesnt feel real...

    Just the other day I was like...Oooooo, wouldnt it but cool to take your brain and put it in a cool space ship and zoom around the galaxy exploring???? Se fail.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I agree that outgrowths and realizations from solipsistic thought can be very worthwhile, a la Baudrillard's hyperreality (which I believe you are pointing to), et al.

    /derail
    No, that is not what I was thinking about, but we can leave it at that - for the sake of this very unretarded thread.

  5. #35
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    hah, hyperreality. awesome idea but gives me a headache.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    But at some point you have to get beyond mere relativism, and you have to start looking at things on a sliding scale of reality.

    It's not either/or, it's how much on a scale of 0-100.

    That's my point.

    Where on that scale you want to start calling something real: well, like purple, that's up to you.

    But let's be willing to throw our stake somewhere, and not just get all wishy-wishy and call everything the same.

    Oh, and for the record: I love "I Huckabees".
    i haven't seen i huckabees! obviously i really need to now.

    but hah, okay. i think ultimately we can still break it all down, but for the sake of practicality, okay.

    i'll give the functions a 30% and what they point to a 95%. the functions are much less real than what they point to if only because their existence (as an idea, a conglomeration of processes in our mammalian brains) requires another few more steps away from whatever the tiniest unit of energy is than the chemical processes that they represent. they're father removed from the "ultimate" reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach
    *divides by zero*
    cheater.

  6. #36
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    i'll give the functions a 30% and what they point to a 95%.
    that's what i like to see!

    throw down that gauntlet!

  7. #37
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    abstract, but real (we are geared towards thinking only what is concrete is real!)
    Hard to know how to even vote on this.
    Yes.

  8. #38
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    If I take the functions to mean a natural inclination towards valuing certain kinds of information or methods of judgement then sure I think they're real.

    If however I take the functions to mean some kind of special convoluted skill set (bordering superpower) that enables groups of people to do things that others can't (and just so happens to boost my ego and make me feel superior), then no I don't think they're real.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  9. #39
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Sooooo... I was reading up for my masters in philosophy, with a thesis in abstract objects when I decided to bum around for a while on forums. I get here and I see the exact topic I was procrastinating on. Geez guys, give me a break .

    Ok anyways, David Lewis has given us a few ways we can distinct concrete things from abstract ones. Note that we are not supposed to accept all of them, these are just suggestions that we may choose to endorse. I think it's safer to make this distinction first, then decide whether abstract objects exist. These are his methods:

    1. The way of example - We just give examples of what are paradigmatically concrete and abstract. Numbers are abstract for example and tables are not. There's nothing more to the distinction than this

    2. The way of negation - Abstract objects do not have certain properties that a concrete has. The most common ones are that abstract objects are [I]acausal[/ I] and non-spatiotemporal. Given that abstract objects are supposed to be so different from concrete ones, many philosophers think this distinction is reasonable.

    3. The way of abstraction - abstract objects are somehow abstracted from concrete ones by taking away specificity. For example, we may see a beautiful women and from there, we abstract the general property of beauty. I do think this view has a natural anti-abstract-objects bias.

    There's also the way of conflation, but I think that's just a sibling to the way of example tbh. Personally, I think option 1 may be the most accurate, but it says nothing for us analytically. It doesn't say anything about why they are abstract and so doesn't do much for us. Option 3 I think is biased, and it also categorizes some paradigmatically abstract objects into concrete ones. I think the most reasonable option is the 2nd one.

    Now, I don't actually agree with the acausal principle, in fact, my entire thesis is to attack what I think is a ridiculous premise. However, for our purposes here, I don't think it matters. If we look at functions as mental states, I do believe we have to look at the science involved, that is, there must be some specific chemicals or areas of the brain that react specifically for these functions. In that case, I think its obvious that the functions are causal and spatiotemporal, which means that functions are concrete (enough anyways). It may be that there isn't some singular process/chemical etc. for each function and that they are just combinations of certain brain processes that have a strong correlation with each other, but I think that's fine. As long as there's something unifying each function (such as the correlations I talked about), I don't really see anything too problematic.

    Sorry dudes, major rant. :P
    Chimera of Filth

    A gruesome beast with dripping flesh
    Clings to me as a sick fixture
    My throbbing heart it gnawed apart
    It stalks and hunts me through mirrors

  10. #40
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    The functions are merely an extremely simplified description of whatever is actually going on. And in a lot of cases, they blur reality more than clearing it up.

    Overall, the jury is out on their usefulness.

Similar Threads

  1. How Do You Define the Functions?
    By Savage Idealist in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-12-2012, 12:29 AM
  2. How do you pronounce the functions?
    By IZthe411 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-19-2010, 06:58 AM
  3. How much do you believe you are an ther type?
    By Lexlike in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-19-2008, 04:51 PM
  4. What direction do you see the USA going in, and where would you like it to go?
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 01:09 AM
  5. What ideas do you believe are innate?
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 09:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO