User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Block logic

  1. #11
    Senior Member avolkiteshvara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    YaYa
    Posts
    895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkingAboutIt View Post
    That is why I did not give an example.
    Mmmm.........I'm not afraid of being wrong in any argument; I actually hope to get different view points from others. But when these bungholes offer one sentence refutation without addressing the main subject they're attempting to criticize without revealing weaknesses. And in that attempt to hedge their exposure they should how weak their position really is.


    So fuck it man. Give an example. Explore. Discuss. Be wrong.

  2. #12
    Senior Member ThinkingAboutIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    I have NO idea if this is going to even come close to this (and don't criticize these thoughts, I was just BS'ing around earlier today,) but I had a discussion...mostly with myself while my cousin was in the room about the nature of the universe and this very interesting entropy chart thingy that I saw on the forum.

    MY Block thought pattern:
    Hrm... The universe is technically flat...Does that mean we are technically three-dimensional beings living in a two-dimensional space? [My cousin interjected that we weren't and compared it to paper.] But then, it's really a matter of perspective, and that if we really think about it, the eye only projects 2d images, but the brain adds depth to it.
    A high entropied state can be the equivalent of this coaster. I could break it, and it could be a representative of the big bang..............Time could continue for a freakishly long time until the low entropied state becomes that of a high entropied state, because the physics of space are different than that on the earth. Explosions keep on expanding and there's nothing to slow it down. Stars explode and scatter everywhere and become extremely condensed...Could that be a representative of the universe, that at one time, the universe as we know it was whole and then fragmented in a low entropied state, but over time, high entropy could return because the space between the fragments have become so great, it's just like the universe at the very beginning all over again. I could smash this coaster and while it would have low entropy, over a period of time, it would return to the earth due to things like the weather, so in space, gravity could act as the same kind of thing. Maybe then, space and the universe are cyclical. It explodes, and over eons, the fragments condense and explode all over again. Matter would continue to be created this way from the ever-increasing amount of potential energy...or as Hawking and other scientists have theorized, black holes could take matter out and transfer them to other dimensions or something like that. Therefore, time is a property relevant only to states of low entropy, because in a state of high entropy, time cannot be observed because there's no way to distinguish between "events," whereas in low entropy, it's distinguishable due to the relative position of one object progressing from one point to another and that the universe has the potential to move from periods of high entropy to low entropy and back again.


    Sorry if that makes no sense whatsoever, and don't take it to be anything other than BS.

    EDIT: To clarify that block of text, I was merely pondering how Time is a product of entropy. For example, if the universe were devoid of everything except for an orange and you were a disembodied eye watching the orange, there is no way to accurately judge time, or if "time" is even occurring because you have no reference point, kind of like how time is supposed to stop in a black hole. However, if the orange was suddenly cut into eight parts and the parts started drifting away from the center of where the orange was, "time" would begin as a reference point between the parts of the orange in comparison to when the orange was whole...I just had to make that process work in my head with the task of trying to see how the orange could fit back together again in my mind. I don't expect the crazy jumping from idea to idea to help anyone else see how it could fit...Because in a logical step pattern all of those seemingly have very little correlation to each other or anything at all.
    I bet you like Ludwig Boltzmann
    Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

  3. #13
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Never heard of 'em. =D

    EDIT: INTERESTING. Within perpetual bigness, there is perpetual smallness. Within perpetual chaos is perpetual order.

    Makes sense!
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  4. #14
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by avolkiteshvara View Post

    The difference appears to be dynamic vs. linear thought process.
    This is a highly questionable statement. It does not follow that just because one thinks in bigger chunks that one is thinking in a non-linear way. What is critical in this assessment is the level of abstraction. Take for instance a history textbook that covers the 20th century. In effect, it will be much more broad in scope than a text that deals specifically with the 1930s. The narratives may be consistent, but the level of abstraction is what varies. The former case is much broader than the latter, yet not necessarily less linear in terms of the reasoning, coherence, and so forth. In fact, in many ways there is a lot of evidence for the opposite thesis. Namely, that coherence and linearity are enhanced by a higher level of abstraction which is linked to the block-thinking orientation. In summary, while on a micro-level it may appear as though the step thinker is more linear, if one steps back-as global historians do-there could be a much broader linear theme at work. It would be correct to point out that my interpretation is based on a specific definition of block-thinking, wherein block-thinking can occur within the confines of linearity. Perhaps the best way to describe it, which is honestly the way I think about it, is through a mathematical analogy with sets. In effect, a cluster of ideas is housed in a set. The set is what we might otherwise call a concept. And when I communicate I typically communicate in sets (concepts) in a linear way. If one inquires into the nature of a particular set, then I elaborate on a lower level of abstraction-perhaps citing on the ground examples and logical reasoning to the support validity of the set (concept).

  5. #15
    Senior Member avolkiteshvara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    YaYa
    Posts
    895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    This is a highly questionable statement. It does not follow that just because one thinks in bigger chunks that one is thinking in a non-linear way. What is critical in this assessment is the level of abstraction. Take for instance a history textbook that covers the 20th century. In effect, it will be much more broad in scope than a text that deals specifically with the 1930s. The narratives may be consistent, but the level of abstraction is what varies. The former case is much broader than the latter, yet not necessarily less linear in terms of the reasoning, coherence, and so forth. In fact, in many ways there is a lot of evidence for the opposite thesis. Namely, that coherence and linearity are enhanced by a higher level of abstraction which is linked to the block-thinking orientation. In summary, while on a micro-level it may appear as though the step thinker is more linear, if one steps back-as global historians do-there could be a much broader linear theme at work. It would be correct to point out that my interpretation is based on a specific definition of block-thinking, wherein block-thinking can occur within the confines of linearity. Perhaps the best way to describe it, which is honestly the way I think about it, is through a mathematical analogy with sets. In effect, a cluster of ideas is housed in a set. The set is what we might otherwise call a concept. And when I communicate I typically communicate in sets (concepts) in a linear way. If one inquires into the nature of a particular set, then I elaborate on a lower level of abstraction-perhaps citing on the ground examples and logical reasoning to the support validity of the set (concept).
    I wasn't citing block or step as one more superior than the other. Just illustrating a different thought process and trying to understand the concept.

    But yeah I thought about that. Even within the block or "set" there is a sort of linearity. Mmmmm now I'm thinking about "I Heart Huckabees". This makes me think that this concept was either discovered out of pomposity or I don't have a clue what Block Logic is(the 2nd entirely possible).

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    XNTJ
    Posts
    145

    Default

    I try to daydream outcomes and alter reality into fitting with them. While I
    realize reality is reality and I have to work with what I have, picturing how it
    would look if it were to be reality is my motivator when it comes to putting
    logic into action. I guess that's what seperates ENTJs from parts of the rest
    of the world because even though we are sound thinkers, we are also movers
    and shakers. It is hard to have our ambitions and enthusiasms damped by
    'wait and sees,' 'i don't knows,' or 'dadadadada didn't work for that person.'
    While 'real' people can make different choices and control urges to use ideas
    to get power, it does make you see how powerful people like Eva Peron really
    were because people worshipped her drive, charisma and the image of a utop-
    ia she gave them, some feared her because of her drive and motives behind
    the utopia she wanted to turn argentina into. and elphaba thropp from wicked
    using her logic and catching onto the wizard not being so wonderful ended up
    being feared. funny how logic is such a basic way of thinking but in a few fic-
    tional cases or real cases in history it has ended up turning into grandure.

  7. #17
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by avolkiteshvara View Post
    First block is eating, second block is working, third block driving.
    Yes, but it's poorly written. There should be some sort of connection between sentences that hints at the common topic.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  8. #18
    Senior Member run's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    :run
    Posts
    466

    Default

    I get what you mean - cross sectioning information in different ways. Instead of eating-working-driving, you could organize the sentences in other ways.

    Yes, I look for multiple ways to organize information.

  9. #19
    Senior Member ThinkingAboutIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Yes, but it's poorly written. There should be some sort of connection between sentences that hints at the common topic.
    But it encompasses the essence of block logic. Blank was also dead on to bring in entrophy as I also see it inclusive of thermodynamics law.

    I am not here to teach it, just testing a theory
    Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

  10. #20
    Senior Member ThinkingAboutIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    Never heard of 'em. =D

    EDIT: INTERESTING. Within perpetual bigness, there is perpetual smallness. Within perpetual chaos is perpetual order.

    Makes sense!
    Yes it does make sense...and my initial theory was proven correct that INTP's would be the ones to 'see it' right away - even without a complete picture, even when it wasn't completely 'understood'

    P.S. The quote is great!
    Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Similar Threads

  1. The World's Hardest Logic Puzzle
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 12:37 AM
  2. Faith vs. Logic
    By Night in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 08-12-2009, 09:54 PM
  3. Alternative logic systems versus sociopathic traits.
    By Park in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-22-2007, 04:56 PM
  4. MBTI Centeral Blocked ... Partially
    By Nighthawk in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-07-2007, 02:46 PM
  5. Commonly abused logical Fallacies..
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 05:54 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