User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 109

  1. #41


    Are 1 and 2 ever in the same digit simultaneously? The counter may be rapid, but just because you see it as blurred doesn't mean that 1 and 2 ever converge. Numbers are the counter's thoughts. The continuation of elapsing time is the counter's behavior.

    If 1 and 2 ever converge, they make 3, which is neither 1 or 2.

  2. #42


    Bet you think my tree analogy is useful now, don't ya?! Hahaha.

  3. #43


    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    Bet you think my tree analogy is useful now, don't ya?! Hahaha.
    To be honest, not really.

    It seemed like a strained and convoluted effort to be original and profound. My analogy, on the other hand, highlights the nature of dichotomies. I didn't really want to ramble.

  4. #44


    Hm, as is every attempt to describe something after it's already been described well once.

  5. #45
    The Bat Man highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    6w5 sx/sp
    ILI Ni


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Well, firstly, I'd have to say that I think Jennifer's post is the most accurate and valuable in this thread.

    She pretty much nails the issue on the head: if multiple processes can switch from one to another at an extremely fast pace, then is the technical truth that only one process is running at any one moment in time, or the fact that this is more or less effectively like multiple processes running at the same time, the more important, relevant, and valuable truth?

    I, personally, take both for what they are, but would tend to side with the latter being the more relevant, important, and valuable of the two, at least in this discussion.

    Secondly, to add to the computer analogy (and, honestly, I know next to nothing about computer processing), I remember talking to an old friend of mine who is doing research at UCI on parallel processing, I believe. From my recollection (this conversation took place several years ago), this would be a break from how computers traditionally process information, and would allow more than one thing to be happening at any one time. I could be wrong, but this is what I gathered from that conversation... If I'm correct here, then couldn't the human brain be more like a parallel-processing computer than the computers we normally use? Once again, I don't know much about this topic, so I'm just throwing out a suggestion here.

    Thirdly, just looking at your presentation here, Highlander, I have to point out that there would seem to be a significant difference between "one function being in control of consciousness at any single point in time" and "not being able to use more than one function at any given time"... You could easily be using multiple functions at any one time, but only one of them might be "in control of consciousness" at any one time (putting the technical vs non-technical definition of using multiple functions at the same time aside).

    I, personally, think that, technical definition aside, we use multiple functions at the same time a lot of the time.

    We might make the distinction that it's more difficult to use introverted functions and extroverted functions at the same time (although, I think something akin to that is possible, as I believe my Ni and Te certainly work in conjunction with each other, and saying that they're working "at the same time" does not seem altogether unacceptable to me) than it is to use two (or more?) functions of the same attitude (extroverted vs. introverted) at the same time, or that it's less likely or more problematic an assertion that we use two perceiving or two judging functions at the same time (although, I think I do tend to try and balance objective, measurable Te-based rationales with Fi "just what feels right and syncs with my personal values" rationales, which could, in my opinion, be rightfully called "using the two at the same time"), but, given the examples I've given of my own cognitive processes, I think it's a bit overreaching and ludicrous to conclude that, technical definitions aside (and maybe those don't even matter, considering the possibilities presented by the parallel-computing example), we absolutely cannot use two functions at the same time...

    Agree with your points. I guess when I saw the statement, I wondered about parallel processing and the exact question you raise. Not sure how the brain works though. I don't believe I can think of more than one thing at a time - at any given moment - at least consciously. Having thought further about it after posting this thread, I've come to believe that we're flipping back and forth all the time as Jennifer states. So, like for an INTJ, many of the insights involve information that is perceived in the moment through an Se lens - so Se would be linked closely to Ni in some ways, for example (dominant and inferior). Using the dominant and auxiliary in tandem would appear to be obvious too. It would be interesting to consider the frequency with which we use the functions. Do we use our dominant 40% of the time, auxiliary 25% of the time, tertiary and others for the remainder? I'm wondering how that plays out and how much we flip back and forth. If we can tie the functions to specific areas of the brain (as maybe Nardi is doing?), this may be something that could be tested.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  6. #46
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    548 sp/sx


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Not this again. Fine. We have 8 "perspectives," and God forbid we have a convo without Lenore and her lasagna. Beam me up some ricotta, Scotty!
    Well, look at the confusion otherwise. You would rather see them as "shifting gears", then? Is that really better? So then, how do we "use" more than one at once, then?
    The point was not even about lasagna, and it's not even her site; just a fan of hers, and it makes an excellent point.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  7. #47
    Meat Tornado DiscoBiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    Only one function can be in control of consciousness at a time
    Things don't get interesting until you start mixing the colors dude....
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
    - Edmund Burke

    8w9 sx/so

  8. #48
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Well, look at the confusion otherwise.
    The only confusion is what you are creating.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2009


    I am certain I use more than one function at time.. and if not.. I sift through them so fast it seems that way to me.. I have a tendency to triple check everything. meaning what do I see? what do I think?, How does it make me feel? what lays underneath? and where is this going?

    It's all simultaneous..

  10. #50
    Let Go Of Your Team Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    My analogy, on the other hand, highlights the nature of dichotomies.
    Maybe I'm not understanding you well, but is your analogy highlighting the nature of dichotomies, or discreteness?

    My first run through, I definitely read it as discreteness...

    After reading your comment above, I went back to read it again, and I still read it more as highlighting discreteness...
    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

Similar Threads

  1. Is it better to master one skill or be a jack of all trades?
    By Destiny in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-03-2015, 06:08 PM
  2. The best thing you can be in life...
    By Illmatic in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 02:01 PM
  3. The Percieving and Judging aspect is the only thing that can be changed naturally?
    By Illmatic in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-02-2011, 05:47 AM
  4. If you can increase the strength of only one letter, which letter would it be?
    By yenom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 01-07-2010, 06:10 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