I agree with this.
This contradicts what you said previously:?
You said that Feeling was responsible for receiving the information.
No, it does not. I maintained that Feeling is one function that perceives information. I did not state that it is the only one.
If you honestly cannot see the difference, then I'm not sure what to say. Consider this though: Is seeing an emotion? Touching your keyboard? The sound from your feet hitting the ground? The taste of your food and smell of your food? All physical pain is, is your sense of touch, but emphasized.
Not all sensations entail emotions directly. Getting pinched is one that does, seeing something is one that does not.
You previously stated that the majority of people heavily use their dominant functions to the point where they would look like like someone who only uses that function:However, you also state that both Feeling and Thinking are required for the most rudimentary of tasks:
Surely, I use my dominant Thinking function a lot, however much I use it though, I must use Feeling to some extent. (As Thinking without feeling is not possible.
Where is the contradiction. I state that we use all functions, yet we heavily rely on our dominant and rely little on our inferior. It would be a contradiction if I said that we do not rely on the inferior at all.
So the majority of people would be nearly non-functional?:
Explain how you derived this thesis.
What do you mean by "deeply"?
Significantly.
And if reworded, you get something like this:
The dog saw two paths, determined that it was true that the object is down one of those paths. When the dog went down path A and did not find the object, the dog determined that it was true that the object must be down path B.
Correct.
Plus (I assume) dogs do not Thinking or Feeling or other cognitive processes. Does this not show it is possible to apply logic without the use of Thinking?.
Why do you assume that?
It has a model. It is a logical model (logic is not solely the realm of Thinking). ?.
Why is that? You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.
In this model, information is connected together. Among the information connected together is the emotional reaction experienced to it. So when new information is received, it judges what kind of information it is, and then judges the emotional reaction previously experienced to this kind of information. This new information is then assimilated into the model.?.
How is it possible to construct such a model without using logic? Again, how could there be non-logical thinking?
It So essentially you are saying that the majority IFPs are either lying or mistaken..?.
I argue that IFPs do use logical analysis, just in a slightly different manner and with different information than Ts. ..?.
Okay, that is the conclusion. Where are your premises? There is only one way to reason. That is deductively validly. Whoever doesn't reason in this manner is simply making mistakes. That is the case with IFPs. (For reasons mentioned earlier)
You would say of course that that is Thinking in action, and not feeling. I then point to the dog example. The dog does not have Thinking, and yet is capable of making logical decisions. Thinking != logic...?.
The dog does have Thinking, just on a much more primitive level than we do.
First, why are you making up quotes of me?
Where am I doing that.
Second, what do you propose is a better way of understanding cognitive processes? Clearly personal introspection at best can only give you an idea of those cognitive processes that one posses.?
There needs to be a more rigorous analysis of the data collected in introspection than what you seem to have in mind.
Please define "inspired by the internal/external world"..?
Example of what is inspired by the external world.
X happened right in front of me. I was compelled by X to do Z.
Example of what is inspired by the internal world.
X happened in the external world, I thought about X, and have come up with the idea of Z based on my own thoughts and not circumstances.
So contemplation is not entirely the realm of Thinking.
I maintained that contemplation can be done by Feelers, yet I did not claim that contemplation is done by Feeling.