Subjective/Objective Input Differences Across Types <split>

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Sure, sure, understand that, will let that slide.

But, um, isn't all *input* necessarily objective?

I don't know what the hell erm is talking about, to be honest. I also have trouble answering that question because it's hard to say where the division between input and "my mind" is.

On the one hand, yeah, input is colorless and featureless. Like computer bits, it's just information or events. On the other hand, all that information has to pass into my mind in order to be recognized, and in that process, gets "tagged" and colored with all sorts of crazy shit -- interpretations, identifications, valuations, stories, memories, etc. MBTI is the classic example. Someone starts talking and you label their words and behavior as give them all sorts of crazy meaning. Shit, I'd even argue that words themselves are featureless, but we assign them meaning automatically and subconsciously. Zen koans try to draw people's attention to that fact.

Monk: Does a dog have Buddha nature?
Joshu: MU! (no)

[SillySapienne]

Someone please help me understand what the hell "subjective input" is/means?!?!?

[SillySapienne]

I don't know what the hell erm is talking about, to be honest. I also have trouble answering that question because it's hard to say where the division between input and "my mind" is.

On the one hand, yeah, input is colorless and featureless. Like computer bits, it's just information or events. On the other hand, all that information has to pass into my mind in order to be recognized, and in that process, gets "tagged" and colored with all sorts of crazy shit -- interpretations, identifications, valuations, stories, memories, etc. MBTI is the classic example. Someone starts talking and you label their words and behavior as give them all sorts of crazy meaning. Shit, I'd even argue that words themselves are featureless, but we assign them meaning automatically and subconsciously. Zen koans try to draw people's attention to that fact.

Monk: Does a dog have Buddha nature?
Joshu: MU! (no)

Precisely!!!

Through thinking, feeling and being, we "subjectify" objective "stuff".

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Precisely!!!

Through thinking, feeling and being, we "subjectify" objective "stuff".

Being...hm. Not so sure. Just perceiving things (being) doesn't involve build ideas about those things or relying on past ideas and labels. But thinking and feeling for sure. I call it all Thinking with a capital T. Others would call it producing mental formations.

[SillySapienne]

Being...hm. Not so sure. Just perceiving things (being) doesn't involve build ideas about those things or relying on past ideas and labels. But thinking and feeling for sure. I call it all Thinking with a capital T. Others would call it producing mental formations.

You are a smarty pants, I was unsure about the being aspect as well, I should of said, "human existing" as it is impossible for us to *not* subjectively process information.

[SillySapienne]

Being...hm. Not so sure. Just perceiving things (being) doesn't involve build ideas about those things or relying on past ideas and labels. But thinking and feeling for sure. I call it all Thinking with a capital T. Others would call it producing mental formations.

Have you done any recent research on perception?!?!?

It is pretty trippy dude, our perception is constantly changing, playing tricks on us, even "fixing" stuff for us.

Our moods and our physiological states alter/affect our perceptions as well.

Perception itself, too, is subjective.

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Have you done any recent research on perception?!?!?

It is pretty trippy dude, our perception is constantly changing, playing tricks on us, even "fixing" stuff for us.

Our moods and our physiological states alter/affect our perceptions as well.

Perception itself, too, is subjective.

Maybe sensation would have been a more accurate word to use. I haven't researched it enough to say I really know about it, but I studied it a bit in college. I'd agree that perception influences data and makes it subjective.

Also, I'm going to split this conversation into a new thread on objective/subjective input.

[SillySapienne]

I still want someone to try to explain what "subjective" input would be.

[erm]

I think Jennifer was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the feeling functions are related to emotion because of values. The feeling function evaluates its input in terms of values. Values *are* values precisely because of the emotion that they produce. Therefore the feeling function is permanently related to emotion even though it is not responsible for raw emotion.

So if an F functions cause emotions, what do T functions cause? Where does a T get their motivation to act if an F gets it from emotions? Assuming F's act on their values because of these emotions produced.

If an F has a value to help people find the truth and corrects people because of this, what does a T have when they correct someone?

I still want someone to try to explain what "subjective" input would be.

I'll try.

If I shot you in the kneecap, the objective input is that you were shot in the kneecap. The subjective input is everything you feel because you were shot in the kneecap. The objective input is what everyone knows, the subjective input only you know.

[SillySapienne]

If I shot you in the kneecap, the objective input is that you were shot in the kneecap. The subjective input is everything you feel because you were shot in the kneecap. The objective input is what everyone knows, the subjective input only you know.

"The objective input is what everyone knows"?!?!?!?!

That's, like, the most subjective seemingly "objective" statement I've ever heard/read.