# Thread: Only one function can be in control of consciousness at a time

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

3. Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
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. Hm, as is every attempt to describe something after it's already been described well once.

5. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
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.

6. Originally Posted by Jaguar
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.

7. Only one function can be in control of consciousness at a time
Things don't get interesting until you start mixing the colors dude....

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

9. 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. Originally Posted by Mystic Tater
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...