User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 112

  1. #61
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Well, every particle known both is something, has effects on some other things and is effected by some other things. That thing that they are is the physical aspect of it, and the effects on/from them are not physical properties, but(dunno if this relational thing you said is referring to this) is the effect that the physical properties have when interfering with properties of other physical structure. I dont think that consciousness is a physical thing in itself but comes out of physical reactions, so its a cause of physical properties of certain type of neurons not a physical thing in itself. Basically if you take one neuron from the area where for example working memory is formed, its not conscious by itself. But if you add impulses to it that have a specific representation to it and let it send impulses to other neurons which also know what some specific impulse stands for and build a big construct out of these and also add different types of neurons from other areas and get things like conscious decision making to it and let those neurons effect back to working memory and other areas that send signals to working memory, you get a construct that works like consciousness.

    I really dont think that quantum physics is required for consciousness, except ofc keeping the physical structures working from which consciousness arises, but the idea which some people have that consciousness is a property of quantum physics is pretty far off imo.
    This is pretty much how I think of it; although I think quantum physics can do a good job of helping provide an explanation. And now that you put it this way, I'm thinking monists have it backwards in a way; the intrinsic properties are physical and the relational properties are mental. But each contains the other in a way...interesting stuff. I may write a paper on it.

  2. #62
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I've read books about the practice and found out that it takes years to gain proficiency at it. Also, it sounds like it would be very hard on my knees which hurt bad enough as it is. It also conflicts with the Western view that people don't get enough exercise in their daily lives.
    Well you don't have to be in a certain position to meditate, and you can do it for like 5 minutes at a time. And then exercise. Or better yet, exercise and then meditate for about 5 minutes afterward while you're cooling down, preferably while listening to music. That's how I like to do it. Exercising gets you peacefully out of your head, and then meditation further does the trick. If you get good at that you can start doing it while sitting in a chair or lying in bed for just a few minutes at a time, and trying to detach yourself from thought, just letting them flow through your head. Like what you do before you go to sleep, but ideally you won't while meditating. The insight comes when the thoughts which flow through your head become more and more unconscious and intuitive, like a waking dream. Then you use your Ti to make ingenious deductions from them Also if you create a foundational feeling of inner peace, that influences your thoughts toward wisdom.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Well you don't have to be in a certain position to meditate, and you can do it for like 5 minutes at a time. And then exercise. Or better yet, exercise and then meditate for about 5 minutes afterward while you're cooling down, preferably while listening to music. That's how I like to do it. Exercising gets you peacefully out of your head, and then meditation further does the trick. If you get good at that you can start doing it while sitting in a chair or lying in bed for just a few minutes at a time, and trying to detach yourself from thought, just letting them flow through your head. Like what you do before you go to sleep, but ideally you won't while meditating. The insight comes when the thoughts which flow through your head become more and more unconscious and intuitive, like a waking dream. Then you use your Ti to make ingenious deductions from them Also if you create a foundational feeling of inner peace, that influences your thoughts toward wisdom.
    I've had certain limited success with that. I'm not anti-meditation, I'm anti-sitting-around-all-day-in-a-diaper-staring-at-a-candle-flame-and-killing-your-knees-in-the-process.

    While meditating in my 20s, I learned my purpose in life. While meditating in my 30s, I made myself forget pain.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #64
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    If left to themselves in meditation for a very long time, do you think an INTP and an INFP would arrive at a similar conclusion of the existence of god? Or do you think both personalities would veer off in completely different directions? In the end, does logic hold any difference over emotion?

    I think religiosity is a trait that any type can have. There are tons of examples of INTP theologians, or theologians who have relied upon Ti to create proofs of the existence of God. Aquinas is an example that comes to mind immediately. I think that Ti is going to approach faith with the same probing curiosity with which they explore any other subject, going deeper and deeper into the nature of the universe until they come to a point where they either arrive at some satisfactory conclusion about it.

    My guess would be that an Fi-dom is more likely to approach God from an ethical than material standpoint. If Ti is likely to look for God in the search for a prime mover, then Fi is searching for moral order as exemplified by the Kantian perspective. Fi is searching for some basis for their own innate sense of right and wrong, and a justification for their sense of ethical normativity more universal than their own personal feelings and direct experience. An Fi-user has a feeling they know to be correct, and then is going to use Te to find the grounds and consequence for that. They can, of course, find something inherent in the action itself, and have no need for God. But if they're inclined towards it, an Fi user is more likely to intuit directly that God exists, and then reason backwards from that point to determine what it means if God doesn't and whether we're better off because of it. Blaise Pascal of the famed Pascal's Wager exemplifies this kind of logic when he argued that the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing".

    Are the conclusions of modern thinkers with the backing of math and science any less sophisticated than that of nomads?
    I think this is an interesting question. I'm not certain whether reasoning about the existence of God is as compelling to examine as the moral codes that are particular to individual cultures, and those that transcend culture. Isolated tribes living in remote regions can have moral lives as complex as those of highly advanced Western societies, even if the values comprising those moralities differ. People try to explain their world, their place in the world, and how to live well in it to the best of their ability. Logic is transcendent: a careful and analytical mind in the most isolated parts of Amazonia ought to be able to reach the similar conclusions with the same set of assumptions as a philosopher at Cambridge, even if the Cambridge philosopher might reach that conclusion more readily because she has the benefit of formalized convention at her disposal. A less critical mind is going to come to equally unsophisticated conclusions, as evidenced by the shit ton of mindless Fundies living in some of the most technologically advanced societies on the planet.*

    I personally am an Fi-user and am of two minds about God. I believe that the inherent good of certain actions makes them objectively better without the need to reference any external source of virtue. There is no moral necessity for God, in other words. At the same time, I feel equally strongly that I have a soul, and that soul connects me to something greater than myself. I don't why I feel this way, don't have anything credible to support it, but know it to be the case. As an Fi-user, I also don't feel like it has to make sense to anybody but myself, because it's such a personal thing. It's why I continue to identify myself as Catholic even though I think a lot of Catholicism is make believe. I want to honor that part of myself that's mine but not entirely me with ways and rituals that make cultural sense to me.

    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  5. #65
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I've had certain limited success with that. I'm not anti-meditation, I'm anti-sitting-around-all-day-in-a-diaper-staring-at-a-candle-flame-and-killing-your-knees-in-the-process.

    While meditating in my 20s, I learned my purpose in life. While meditating in my 30s, I made myself forget pain.
    Ok. I don't think anyone's advocating pointlessly doing whatever it is you're opposed to. But that's great you had success with it.

  6. #66
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    My guess would be that an Fi-dom is more likely to approach God from an ethical than material standpoint. If Ti is likely to look for God in the search for a prime mover, then Fi is searching for moral order as exemplified by the Kantian perspective. Fi is searching for some basis for their own innate sense of right and wrong, and a justification for their sense of ethical normativity more universal than their own personal feelings and direct experience. An Fi-user has a feeling they know to be correct, and then is going to use Te to find the grounds and consequence for that. They can, of course, find something inherent in the action itself, and have no need for God. But if they're inclined towards it, an Fi user is more likely to intuit directly that God exists, and then reason backwards from that point to determine what it means if God doesn't and whether we're better off because of it. Blaise Pascal of the famed Pascal's Wager exemplifies this kind of logic when he argued that the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing".
    Hmmm, I think you're half right.

    The thing is Pascal's Wager, or any sort of reasoning like that, is meaningless to me when it comes to something like religion. Logic won't make me believe in god, nor does it convince me not to. I just don't believe - it's not even a choice. I've given up trying to prove, defend or rationalise that view because I feel like it's ridiculous to try to - I don't see it as any more valid than the views of a believer, because it's purely incidental. I also think it's just as pointless to use logical reasoning to 'prove' that god does exist*. Some beliefs are simply based on intuition, and logic won't have much effect on it. No one can prove it for sure either way. I think logical reasoning is meaningless in such cases, because it's neither revealing or particularly useful. (I'm firmly in the agnostic atheist category BTW)

    In fact you could argue that all beliefs are simply intuitive, and people use Ti or Te to convince themselves and others of it's accuracy. I read an article on psychology suggesting that this may in fact be the case.

    *although, I think believers should have some counter-arguments in stock for the logical problems of their religious belief, so at least it's not totally contradictory. It has to at least make some sense.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  7. #67
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Well, I kind of disagree with this, because you operate under the assumption that the truth you have arrived at is something which they too should value, despite you seeming to come from an atheist point of view. It doesn't mean they are not critical towards their faith but their critical thinking or what they critically ask themselves are not the kind of questions you are interested in. You reject the idea of their faith entirely, they must still accept certain tenets in order to believe.

    I honestly fail to see why one conclusion must ultimately be better than the other. If believing in Buddha gives them meaning in life who are you to question this meaning that they found as meaningless?
    It's interesting that the Buddhists response was similar to your response.

    The Buddhists presumed I had a truth to sell like themselves. When in fact I was using the Socratic method to question truth.

    The Buddhists presumed I was selling a truth like themselves and even asked me what truth I was selling. They thought I was a tout for another religion, or as you do, a tout for atheism. Neither of which are true.

    It was plain that critical thinking was foreign to them.

    And critical thinking was foreign to them because it was foreign.

    For critical thinking is part of Western culture; critical thinking is not part of Eastern culture.

    So for Buddhists, critical thinking is part of a foreign culture: Western culture.

  8. #68
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    It's interesting that the Buddhists response was similar to your response.

    The Buddhists presumed I had a truth to sell like themselves. When in fact I was using the Socratic method to question truth.

    The Buddhists presumed I was selling a truth like themselves and even asked me what truth I was selling. They thought I was a tout for another religion, or as you do, a tout for atheism. Neither of which are true.

    It was plain that critical thinking was foreign to them.

    And critical thinking was foreign to them because it was foreign.

    For critical thinking is part of Western culture; critical thinking is not part of Eastern culture.

    So for Buddhists, critical thinking is part of a foreign culture: Western culture.
    Well, what questions DID you ask them?

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  9. #69
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Hmmm, I think you're half right.

    The thing is Pascal's Wager, or any sort of reasoning like that, is meaningless to me when it comes to something like religion. Logic won't make me believe in god, nor does it convince me not to. I just don't believe - it's not even a choice. I've given up trying to prove, defend or rationalise that view because I feel like it's ridiculous to try to - I don't see it as any more valid than the views of a believer, because it's purely incidental. I also think it's just as pointless to use logical reasoning to 'prove' that god does exist*. Some beliefs are simply based on intuition, and logic won't have much effect on it. No one can prove it for sure either way. I think logical reasoning is meaningless in such cases, because it's neither revealing or particularly useful. (I'm firmly in the agnostic atheist category BTW)
    I believe that I did mention that my guess was that an Fi-user was most likely to use an intuitive shortcut when it came to faith, and even pointed out that that is what I do myself even with Fi in the inferior position. My discussion of Fi reasoning was more directed towards what Fi reasoning would look like should they opt for a rationale beyond their own innate sense of knowing.

    In fact you could argue that all beliefs are simply intuitive, and people use Ti or Te to convince themselves and others of it's accuracy. I read an article on psychology suggesting that this may in fact be the case.
    I thought that this was an interesting point because I found even as I was thinking through my post, it was much easier for me to conceptualize Ti reasoning without reference to Fe, than Fi reasoning without pulling in Te. As mentioned in my discussion of my own faith, I have an uneasiness in my own my between being fairly intuitive, and needing to anchor that intuition in logic. It's not always easy for me to let go and give what I know to be the right answer even if it generally turns out to be the correct one most of the time.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  10. #70
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I didnt meant that all religions says that. But just out of curiosity, which ones doesent?
    All of them which aren't Abrahamic. There are only 3 Abrahamic religions. In fact, Judaism actually espouses something more like purgatory and less like the Christian idea of hell.

    I actually don't even believe that the Christian heaven and hell were meant to be literal places; like most Eastern thought, I think that "heaven" is just like nirvana or samsara, in that the consciousness continues to exist, but is united to the divine or merged with other living forms. Hell is actually just the way they used to burn bodies to dispose of them instead of burying; I think this is why some Christians refuse to be cremated, which in my opinion is supremely silly, because the warning was not against burning the dead body, but that your consciousness would not be united with God.

    Some religions believe the consciousness can be aligned with God before death, and that suffering, maya, hell all of that is simply the conscious choice to be separate from the divine consciousness.

    To each their own, though. If people believe they are literally going to a physical place where they will eternally feel like they are being burned alive, or will float around on clouds and be bored when they die then...ok.

Similar Threads

  1. Belief in self in the face of adversity vs belief in feedback
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-03-2017, 09:27 PM
  2. [Ti] Difference between Ne and Ti for the NTPs out there
    By Dreamer in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 02:21 PM
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-16-2013, 05:53 PM
  4. Is Dark Metal the root of evil in the axis of Fi ?
    By entropie in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-27-2010, 07:51 AM
  5. Replies: 110
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 12:49 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