User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Theorem of Feel

  1. #21
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    But still, I have this idea of Fi as the system that goes with feeling. There's the affective part--the emotion of the moment--and there's the background judgment part that develops over time--"this X is good because I felt good about it before, and dang it, I feel good about it now too!" kinda thing.

    Perhaps I'm mixing up Fi with Fi+(all the other functions processing).

  2. #22
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    But still, I have this idea of Fi as the system that goes with feeling. There's the affective part--the emotion of the moment--and there's the background judgment part that develops over time--"this X is good because I felt good about it before, and dang it, I feel good about it now too!" kinda thing.

    Perhaps I'm mixing up Fi with Fi+(all the other functions processing).
    Yes, Fi is a system, but there is nothing about the way this function works that will make it a coherent system. In other words, there are reasons for why Fi does what it does, yet, you cannot use such reasons to construct a coherent system of reasoning. Unlike Thinking it does not pay much attention to consistency of thought, there is nothing stopping Fi from having a system reminiscent of this.

    Theorem 1: If X then Y.
    Theorem 2: It is not the case that (If X then Y)


    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I'd just like to stop you right there and let you know that it's a scientific fact that human beings don't have "instincts."

    My gift, to you, as an F dom.


    Are you telling us that humans do not have urges that compel them to eat or sleep? What are they, computers now? Fascinating scientific fact this is.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #23
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    So what is the subtext here? What does SW hope to gain from all of this posturing? What is the seed of insecurity that drives such a person? Surely it is not truth, because he's already answered his 'query' in a different thread, so there must (logically) be a different reason for the existence of this one. That reason can only come from an emotional context, because that is at the base of all such self-aggrandizement.

    I think he needs a good friend.

  4. #24
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Yass, indeed. But the nifty thing about symbolic logic is it gives us the concept of "a rule of inference". In symbolic logic these devices are separable from the semantics of the system. Two actual systems that evaluate completely different things can still have the same form of inference at work. (Not that I'm saying Ti and Fi do have the same rule of inference, but it'd be freaky cool if in fact they did, huh!)
    I don't think we really disagree. Thinking and Feeling DO have the same rule of inference at work, namely deduction.

  5. #25
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    But still, I have this idea of Fi as the system that goes with feeling. There's the affective part--the emotion of the moment--and there's the background judgment part that develops over time--"this X is good because I felt good about it before, and dang it, I feel good about it now too!" kinda thing.

    Perhaps I'm mixing up Fi with Fi+(all the other functions processing).
    First-crap I forgot I am not Fi dom, soi I could totally have this all screwed up. (But I have lots of other letters if those help...)

    Ah, okay, I get what you are saying. Fi develops general rules based upon past Fi systematic explorations to minimize unhappiness. The actual process of exploration could take time/energy, so it works off previously solved, historically productive solutions (rules) to identify the best solution for the problem at hand. Except they are fuzzy wuzzy.

    For example, a rule- Killing is wrong. Based upon the interactions I have had with killing in the past it doesnt usually decrease unhappiness.

    So for Ti Ti has rules that are concrete factual data points or logical rules like a + B=c and such? It isnt routine that A + B will suddenly equal something else like D. So Ti works really well for very concrete, discrete situations. But what happens when A +B suddenyl does equal D?

    Then Ti has to go back through and reinvestigate and identify, test, and reevaulate the rule to identify the error.

    However for my Fi derived rule of dont kill people, it is very flexible to change that rule on the fly given new fuzzier information, especiallly if it leads to unhappiness in the enviornment. Like an ax murderer at my door for example.

    Is Fi a cognitive shortcut developed to deal with the fuzzy problems? (dumb fuzzy humans)

  6. #26
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ne-Monster
    Fi develops general rules based upon past Fi systematic explorations to minimize unhappiness.
    Fi isn't necessarily Utilitarian. It's more like having an instinctive reaction about what is and isn't in accord with your true nature. It's hard to put into words, but basically that means being in tune with what is healthy, what is right, and what leads to personal growth. You can develop a conscious set of rules out of this mindset, but I think that most of us keep it at the level of an instinctive reaction or maybe adopt a ready-made framework like religion.

    No, Modus Tollens is distinct from Modus Ponens.
    Right, in the sense that one method starts with B to get to A and the other works in the reverse direction. They operate on the same underlying principle, though, which is that a certain cause necessitates a certain effect, and vice versa.

    So your suggestion is that Modus Feel inheres within all theorems of Logic, even Modus Ponens.

    For instance, If A then B. A, therefore B. I have a feeling or a conviction that this is a true conclusion, therefore I am using Modus Feel. No, this is not what Modus Feel is. Modus Feel does not consist in merely involving feelings in your reasoning process, as this is what we all as human beings do inevitably. Modus Feel uses Feeling as not just one criterion for justification, but the only. Modus Ponens does not include Modus Feel because it consistently obeys the rules of its system of derivation and does not rely exclusively on Feelings to support the conclusion it propounds.
    No, you missed my point. My point is that your choice to adopt a certain framework is arbitrary. You follow your convictions when you choose that framework, not any set of impersonal rules; and that's what Modus Feel is.

    Exactly, contradictions are put in a separate category. The fact that they are put in a separate category shows that these contradictions are NOT part of our logic system, in other words they are in a category OTHER than the category of our logic system.
    When you sort out a contradiction, what happens? You take the negative and positive values that tried to co-exist, so to speak, and then you put one of those values in the negative (false) category that coexists with and defines the positive (true) category. It's not as if you throw the error into some kind of black hole and forget it ever existed: the error becomes the dark that defines the light, just as the light defines the dark.

    A system is merely a combination of rules. All rules must be consistent with each other, if they are not, the system is self-contradictory.
    Not really. Any true contradiction within a system's rules constitutes the formation of two separate systems. For example, if you try to create a system where there is a rule A and a rule not A, what you really have is a pair of slightly different systems that you're shuffling between.

    Namely, his feelings are indicative of the truth and the feelings of those who disagree with him do not.
    How is that a problem? His feelings are a separate entity from the feelings of other people. It's only when the same entity is said to hold two opposing values that a contradiction exists.

    The bottom line is, if you have contradictory rules, you will fall short of the truth as your system of logic will not allow you to deduce anything successfully. However, as you say, it may still be good despite this. It may help you grow as a person. That is the main question of my discussion, is Modus Feel, or a contradictory system of logic useful to us even if it is completely useless in the regard of acquisition of the truth.
    Your "mystic" (code word for Feeler) doesn't even truly use Modus Feel. It's obvious that what he gives weight to is his own feelings, not feelings in general. If not that, he likely believes that those who disagree with him are being disingenuous and ignoring their true convictions. In either case, no contradiction is involved. And that brings me to the point: the point is that your portrait is a ridiculous caricature that few if any people actually practice. If someone believes that what everyone feels is true is in fact true, then that person either believes that everyone has the same feelings--unlikely--or that person doesn't exist since contradictory beliefs are by definition beliefs that you can't harbor at the same time.

    They don't have to be non-arbitrary, they just have to be consistent.
    Why? All of this talk about how things have to be and what is "desirable" smacks of the very Modus you condemn. You seem to be saying that the only lines of reasoning that should be allowed are the ones that you happen to like.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  7. #27
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Right, in the sense that one method starts with B to get to A and the other works in the reverse direction. They operate on the same underlying principle, though, which is that a certain cause necessitates a certain effect, and vice versa..
    The reversal of the process is not possible in all cases.

    Consider this.

    Modus Ponens

    If A then B,

    A

    Therefore B.

    The reversal of this is the following if A then B.

    B.

    Therefore A.

    This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.



    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    No, you missed my point. My point is that your choice to adopt a certain framework is arbitrary. You follow your convictions when you choose that framework, not any set of impersonal rules; and that's what Modus Feel is...

    That is true, but this is not what Modus Feel is. Modus Feel is an arbitrary use of whatever rules are adopted.




    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Not really. Any true contradiction within a system's rules constitutes the formation of two separate systems. For example, if you try to create a system where there is a rule A and a rule not A, what you really have is a pair of slightly different systems that you're shuffling between. ...
    When we are making a system of Logic we are concerned only with one system. If you are doing Classical Logic, you are not going to be concerned with anything that is used in the Non-Standard logic that is used to build computers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    How is that a problem? His feelings are a separate entity from the feelings of other people. It's only when the same entity is said to hold two opposing values that a contradiction exists. ...
    The entity is the same, namely feeling. He doesn't say that only his feelings lead to the truth, he says that Feeling is what leads to the truth, hence a feeling of anyone. The entity holds opposite values because in one case Feeling does lead to the truth and in the other it does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Your "mystic" (code word for Feeler) doesn't even truly use Modus Feel....
    I never said that the mystic and the Feeler have an identical definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    It's obvious that what he gives weight to is his own feelings, not feelings in general.....
    That is not true, some political or religious leaders maintain that others can become their disciples if they do as they do. For example, many religious leaders had a very detailed discussion about what one must do to become a prophet of theirs. They mentioned that they must experience a certain feeling in order to legitimately claim that they are prophets. Very often when they do claim to have the exact same feeling as their leaders their leaders deny that they are prophets.

    For the very least this is how the Mystic in my OP behaves. However, if he maintains that only his own feelings lead to the truth then there is no contradiction involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    If not that, he likely believes that those who disagree with him are being disingenuous and ignoring their true convictions. In either case, no contradiction is involved.
    Only if he maintains that it is not the case that feelings in general lead to the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    And that brings me to the point: the point is that your portrait is a ridiculous caricature that few if any people actually practice. If someone believes that what everyone feels is true is in fact true, then that person either believes that everyone has the same feelings--unlikely--or that person doesn't exist since contradictory beliefs are by definition beliefs that you can't harbor at the same time. .
    The point is the mystic in question says that you must have a certain kind of a feeling to claim to be a prophet or to have knowledge. When others claim to have this feeling, he denies that they are knowledgeable. Thats one thing he does in my story. The other thing he does is simply refuse to explain his views and just says he has a feeling that he has knowledge. In that case he inadvertently makes a claim that a 'feeling' in general leads to the truth.

    In any case, whether this persona describes many people or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it describes the concept of modus feel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Why? All of this talk about how things have to be and what is "desirable" smacks of the very Modus you condemn. You seem to be saying that the only lines of reasoning that should be allowed are the ones that you happen to like.
    I did not condemn modus Feel. I only maintained that it is an unreliable guide to the truth. Whether it is desirable in other regards is what I am trying to figure out now. That is the whole point of this thread.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #28
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    It may be and it may not be. It is true that Evolution conditioned us to develop certain instincts to adjust to our environment and ultimately survive. However, we must keep in mind that the instincts that we have now were those that our ancestors needed in order to survive in their environment, they may not serve us well in ours.

    In one sentence, I impugn the claim that just because we have certain instincts, it is necessarily the case that they serve us well because evolution led us to have them.
    totally true. However. all of us evolved under the same pressure more or less. So to work alongside of the rest of society, to change them, interact with them, convince them and so on, you must recogize those instincts and recognize how each will work with and against you in the projects/tasks that wish to accomplish.

    During evolution we have to assume they were beneficial. The argument has be taken for each instinct/behavior-is it still beneficial? It's a line by line evaluation. In spite or our airplanes, vaccines, and space ships we are but a step away from our ancestors 20,000 years ago cognitively and socially. Unitl we change dramatically as a species, those establish rules likely still work quite well.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I never mentioned that there is a problem with all instinctual thought, just with instincts being the sole item of justification for our conclusion. Using logic properly by virtue of instincts is not the same as using instincts in a whimsical fashion. Bottom line is, as long as your reasoning remains consistent it can be justified by a non-Feel theorem, whether such reasoning derived from instincts or not is irrelevant.

    We cannot control our unconscious thought easily. My suggestion is that we separate the Modus Feel from other rules of logical derivation.

    I think I have confused two issues. The concept of Modus feel-the conclusion is correct in spite of having no premises. The other concept would be a feel/fuzzy approach to the problem-the conclusion is right and here are some really intuitive, fuzzy, ill defined premises based upon Fi/Fe style rules.

    From your perspective as the two the same? Do you have to be able to cognitively follow/understand my premises in order to recognize the validity of the conclusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Perhaps this is where Modus Feel is useful. Very few people who have made the decision to devote their lives to making others happy have done so by logical reasoning. They have arrived there by following their instincts. Such instincts likely were deceiving these people into believing that they are good by nature, or that they can really be helped and so on.
    ohh that stings a bit. It says empathy and caring are pure instinctual responses like eating. Yet that reduces Fi/Fe then from being judging functions. Rather than making judgements, rationally, they are just responding to stimuli? So they are not built to solve a problem step by step with defined premises like Ti?

    Yet I'd say depending upon the nature of the problem they will do a much better, quicker job of solving it then a slower Ti which has to connect the dots in a logical fashion. They are not pure dot to dot logic on the surface, but are they still based upon a system of rules-rules, premises which may not be understandable/observable to you... ? That would make them not instincts but rather different ways of rationlizing.

    The neatest thing to watch about a Ti dominant, is how slow the thought process can actually be at times. I work with two brilliant INTPs who will sit for several seconds before speaking the next sentance. I would argue Ti is energetically inefficient for many problems encountered in society due first to the speed and energy involved in the solution and second the fact that it may not cope well with the fuzzies. However every answer they ever give me will be exact and accurate, well thought out. They are utterly brilliant.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    That is true and this was the point you made in your first paragraph. My question is, is it desirable for us to persuade people to go against their nature and try to reason in a deductively valid fashion as much as possible?

    We certainly could inspire people to make choices this way as frequently as possible, but is it worth it?
    Does it provide the best solution for the problem at hand? That is the question I think that has to be answered. I think it is problem dependent.

  9. #29
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I did not condemn modus Feel. I only maintained that it is an unreliable guide to the truth. Whether it is desirable in other regards is what I am trying to figure out now. That is the whole point of this thread.
    How do you define truth in the context of fuzzy, messy, people laden problems?

  10. #30
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Bro, you need to lay off Schopenhauer.

    I'll echo what I said in your earlier thread that dealt with this topic. This type of thinking ought not to be encouraged.

    My thesis is that humans are essentially rational, with the capacity for meaning.

    If something is clear to reason, then the only way to fail to believe that which is clear to reason is to fail to use reason, but if a rational being fails to use reason, then that being is acting in a manner that is contrary to its nature, and for a being to act contrary to its nature is to say that that being is harming itself.

Similar Threads

  1. Origin of Feeling
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-30-2013, 04:59 AM
  2. [INTJ] INTJs, do you gain more pleasure out of feelings or thoughts?
    By DigitalMethod in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 06:09 AM
  3. The importance of feelings?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 05:51 PM
  4. Avoidance of Feelings = Ignorance of Facts? What Does that say About Ts?
    By Mempy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-17-2008, 09:33 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Essence of Feeling
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-20-2008, 05:20 PM

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