• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

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

G

Ginkgo

Guest
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.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

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

Ginkgo

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

To be honest, not really. :wink:

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.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

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

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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...

:shrug:

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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
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..
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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...
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The only confusion is what you are creating.
The "only" confusion? so there's no confusion in this whole "how many can we use at a time" question?

Didn't you yourself say:
My brain does not work like 1+1+1=3 or ABCDEFG.
I read anywhere from 5-10 books at a time, I never start a book at the beginning, and I flip out when anyone says to me, "Now, Jag, one thing at a time."

Obviously, this whole "gears" view of of the functions is leading to confusion. What I'm saying is one way of trying to clear it up, and you seemed to advocate the Mental Muscles concept of Team Technology, and that would be another way of looking at it.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
The "only" confusion? so there's no confusion in this whole "how many can we use at a time" question?

Obviously, this whole "gears" view of of the functions is leading to confusion. What I'm saying is one way of trying to clear it up, and you seemed to advocate the Mental Muscles concept of Team Technology, and that would be another way of looking at it.


Eric, I'll cut to the chase: As many times as you now use the word, "perspectives," around the forum, you are beginning to remind me of Victor who repeatedly uses the words, "trance" and "cognitive dissonance." Just because you don't approve of the word "process" doesn't mean everyone in the entire forum has to change the word to one you think is better. God forbid, you start in with that "worldview" nonsense. Lenore attempted that with her "J/P worldview." So what silliness should we subscribe to now? A Dom FA "worldview," and a J/P "worldview?" How about a "gallbladder worldview" or a "pancreatic worldview"?

Furthermore, I don't advocate any "mental muscle concept." What I suggest is that people realize just how easy it is to have highly individualized development and there are no absolutes. Clearly, that flies in the face of your other pet theory which is Beebe, and his witchy-demon-senex-paint-by-number-tuna-in-a-can method.

X is my senex/witch
Y is my trickster/ dickster
Z is my porno queen/playboy bunny

By the way, considering there are no two human brains alike, to think you can answer the question of what number of X can be in control of a person's consciousness is nothing more than unchecked hubris. What may be true for one, may not be true for another. People can have wildly different levels of consciousness.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
hmmm..

I would say at first you use the functions in isolation-taking turns. However each judging function will be evaluating info brought to it by a perceiving function....

Thus I could have NeFi or FiSi sort of tag teaming a problem.

It could also be that I use, Ne-Fi explore a problem, then Fi-Si to reflect back into the past, then Ne-Fi to reconsider all future options-each would have about a ten second window.... For me it really feels like looking forward them looking backwards and seems very very obvious.

Now something really strange starts to happen with the two middle functions for me-Fi and Te. Many problems require one or the other. Some problems require them to take turns.

A few problems-those that make me feel very confident and very ENFP-those problems require the two judging functions to be working in united concert-almost unified, interwoven, combined into a more complex judging function. At that point the two are no longer taking turns-they are working at the same time.

Jung talked about the transcendent function. I think this combination of functions was what he meant by that term.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I didn't read anything but I'm sure my ideas are original anyways.

Here's my construction:

There are two functions.
1. Perceiving
2. Judging

Can you do both at once?

Yes. You can breath while talking. You can pay attention to driving while thinking. You can Se while Ti'ng.

The real question: Do you have to?

Reality requires that we have many processes in our body functioning at the same time, therefore the same must be true in the brain as well. Multi-Processing is essential to survival. We're not germs anymore.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Eric, I'll cut to the chase: As many times as you now use the word, "perspectives," around the forum, you are beginning to remind me of Victor who repeatedly uses the words, "trance" and "cognitive dissonance."
Difference is; he was using those to dismiss typology (or at least MBTI) altogether. I'm trying to help clarify it.

Just because you don't approve of the word "process" doesn't mean everyone in the entire forum has to change the word to one you think is better.
Where in the world did you get that from? I have NEVER put down the term "process". I have been advising against thinking of them as like "gears" that we shift, or skills that we "use", or strictly as behaviors. That is what is confusing people, when they think of what function they should be "using", or when, now.
You seem to be the one who thinks terminology or concepts should dissapear because you simply don't approve of them, and I don't remember you ever articulating exactly why you thought they were no good. So you seemed to be more in the league with Victor.

God forbid, you start in with that "worldview" nonsense. Lenore attempted that with her "J/P worldview." So what silliness should we subscribe to now? A Dom FA "worldview," and a J/P "worldview?" How about a "gallbladder worldview" or a "pancreatic worldview"?
Yes, "world-view" is another similar alternative, and I do use it occasionally.
Precisely the point: the functions are not concrete THINGS like a gallbladder or a pancreas. That's why the term doesn't make sense with those things, (but we can speak of "using" them, which causes misunderstanding for abstract concepts like the functions!)
Furthermore, I don't advocate any "mental muscle concept."
Well, that was the site you linked to, so I figured that was an explanation you approved of.
What I suggest is that people realize just how easy it is to have highly individualized development and there are no absolutes. Clearly, that flies in the face of your other pet theory which is Beebe, and his witchy-demon-senex-paint-by-number-tuna-in-a-can method.

X is my senex/witch
Y is my trickster/ dickster
Z is my porno queen/playboy bunny
You're not understanding the concept. The functions aren't the archetypes. Sometimes we speak of them that way (shorthanding), but this is another area where the concept of "perspectives" is very useful. The archetypes are connected with complexes in the psyche that are separate from the functions. Yet it's these complexes that take the associated functions as their perspective, which we then see situations through.

It's not absolute. Maybe I used to make it sound like that earlier on, and that was partly from not fully understanding it, and then coming under the influence of a person who often manipulates the concepts to force people into certain types. This is basically what Solitary was calling "folk typology". Hence, an INTP should almost never be seen "using" Fi through outward expressions of emotion, "valuing", "liking" things, etc; else they are either in "demon" mode, or they're mistyped. This is what turned me against this whole notion of "using" functions (as if they were skills sets) in the first place when I found an alternative way of expressing these things, and I have since found more of Beebe's direct teachings, and then got some of Lenore's view to balance it out.
By the way, considering there are no two human brains alike, to think you can answer the question of what number of X can be in control of a person's consciousness is nothing more than unchecked hubris. What may be true for one, may not be true for another. People can have wildly different levels of consciousness.

Well, I never claimed to answer that question. My whole point here was that such a question is basically moot.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Difference is; he was using those to dismiss typology (or at least MBTI) altogether. I'm trying to help clarify it.

Changing the nomenclature in every book ever written on the topic will clarify nothing. We already have all of the following being used by different authors, to represent the same thing:

Function Attitudes
Jungian Processes
Jungian Functions
Cognitive processes
Mental processes

Take your pick.

Where in the world did you get that from? I have NEVER put down the term "process".

Do you recall this exchange?

Jaguar said:
The mental processes are not "perspectives," Eric. That's your own pet word. Just because you think it's a good idea to rename the cat a "dog," doesn't make the cat a dog.

Eric B said:
It's actually Sim's term, and it made perfect sense.
Else, what do you say the "processes" are? Tools we "use"? Behaviors, or actions like "memory"?

Look familiar?

Definition of a process by Linda V. Berens:
Processes are the activities the system engages in as it functions in day-to-day life and as it grows, adapts, and changes. They are best described using verbs that indicate actions. Processes are dynamic and changing. We can't examine processes directly. To understand them we must look at the behaviors to see evidence of the processes. When trying to describe a process we have to take into account movement over time. Processes are moment-to-moment and repeat in different sequences.

No single process operates in isolation.

Source: Dynamics of personality type: understanding and applying Jung's cognitive processes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ca...&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

You seem to be the one who thinks terminology or concepts should dissapear because you simply don't approve of them, and I don't remember you ever articulating exactly why you thought they were no good. So you seemed to be more in the league with Victor.

What are you talking about, Eric? I own every book ever written on the processes and I approve of the way the authors have described them. I always have. It is you and Sim who thought you'd be cute and say, "Oh, no! Let's rename them all something else." Frankly, you and Sim remind me of Victor.

You and Sim:

Perspective!
Perspective!

Victor:

MBTI trance!
MBTI trance!
You're not understanding the concept.

I've known Beebe's work for years.
Just know some of us are not Beebe fans, and let's move on.
I do not enjoy going over the same material, ad nauseam.
Hence, an INTP should almost never be seen "using" Fi

So rather than entertain the possibility Beebe's work is crap, or the possibility that an INTP can use Fi without being "demonic," your only solution was to play a name-changing game. All I can tell you is this:

Read my sig line.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
What are you talking about, Eric? I own every book ever written on the processes and I approve of the way the authors have described them. I always have. It is you and Sim who thought you'd be cute and say, "Oh, no! Let's rename them all something else."

Wasn't it Lenore who came up with the "perspectives" terminology?
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
*whatever, as usual in real life, ignores the rest of the thread after scanning it*

I'd think that it's more like painting with pottery glaze... it takes more than one glaze to make a beautiful finish, even if it appears to be one cohesive unit- like when I was reading about the finishing process on one lovely glazed bowl in the asian exhibit of the art museum. It was well over one thousand years old, but the glaze on it had a certain depth and luminous quality to it... the product of multiple layers of several different glazes, and the end product looked like one fantastic coat. I use a Se/Fe combination rather frequently... and Ti is always sitting in the background processing away on the data- observing. I can't ever fully shut off one and enjoy any other no matter how hard I try to. My personality has welded to one cohesive unit... it's not a fucking stop light on a rapid changing cycle :doh:
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
I'd think that it's more like painting with pottery glaze... it takes more than one glaze to make a beautiful finish, even if it appears to be one cohesive unit- like when I was reading about the finishing process on one lovely glazed bowl in the asian exhibit of the art museum. It was well over one thousand years old, but the glaze on it had a certain depth and luminous quality to it... the product of multiple layers of several different glazes, and the end product looked like one fantastic coat. I use a Se/Fe combination rather frequently... and Ti is always sitting in the background processing away on the data- observing. I can't ever fully shut off one and enjoy any other no matter how hard I try to. My personality has welded to one cohesive unit... it's not a fucking stop light on a rapid changing cycle

I like the fact that you used an artistic analogy. Some time ago, I had a PM with a pal and I used a symphony orchestra as my analogy. I suggested that ALL the FA's were playing simultaneously with the volume of the instruments rising and falling from our consciousness, but still playing all the while. Just because we hear the violins and horns peaking, doesn't mean the piano isn't playing in the background.

Like yourself, I don't much care for having a rigid picture of how we operate. To me, the brain flows with ease. It doesn't stop at toll booths to yell, "Hey baby, punch my card so I can head to the next stop!"
 
Top