Do cognitive functions exist in an universal law excluded from human character?

[jakopic]

On The Nature of Funtions​

Why every being uses "cognitive functions"
​

Humans differ in "intelligence" as it is called in general, some have weaker potential, some have stronger. Animals would be a further range apart, especially from us, but can still be considered intelligent, each further down the evolutionary scale with different attributes.

What we seem to have in common with animals is the experience of the surrounding and the influence it has on them(Pe and Ji in a primitive state). We must consider we are a social animal, so that means social animal can be "branched" and put into a separate group of species from the evolutionary branch. These animals have social intelligence they can use "mirror neurons", therefore Fe is a part of their behavior. It can either go in a positive way or a negative, it will either reject the energy or succumb to it.
But all of this combined still doesnt match the superiority of the human in social skill. Is it fair to call an animal to have Fe in comparison to a human, the human being at top of the branch, way above other animals?

The same kind of question was asked when science was on a move to prove evolution: Are we apes? Is it fair to call us apes even though we are much more superior to a gorillas in the majority of traits. The question still stands, how do we differ than gorillas and how are we related? Humans have attributes that define our cognitive functions. Gorilla must have a cognitive function that helps with social interactions within a group of gorillas. They have complex hierarchy systems that include greed, status, sex trades, etc.

What is keeping the functions from developing; maybe the deeply unconscious functions, or maybe the undeveloped ones? It could be the case they just lack some...

Either way most of the functions social animals that are using cognitive functions are in a much more primitive cognitive state in comparison to human as a social animal and intelligence included. BUT, if we are talking about some functions being carefully set apart from other functions, some animals might have a superiority in certain skill sets that they use to better adapt to their environment, their functions can be, in part, considered more developed and could be an addition to the human character as a mutation. <--- This is where I might be wrong.

Do cognitive functions exist in an universal law excluded from human character, OR is it merely an attribute we pin to the human soul?

 

[/DG/]

Do cognitive functions exist in an universal law excluded from human character, OR is it merely an attribute we pin to the human soul?

The cognitive functions are most certainly NOT any kind of law. I'm not sure how you came up with that idea. They haven't even been shown to actually exist.

 

[jakopic]

The cognitive functions are most certainly NOT any kind of law. I'm not sure how you came up with that idea. They haven't even been shown to actually exist.

Is there a way to "actually" measure the existence?

 

[/DG/]

Is there a way to "actually" measure the existence?

I'm not sure. Though if there's no way to measure anything or prove that it exists, what's the point of discussing it anyway? If I posit that there is an invisible, undetectable, microscopic unicorn in my house right now...what's the point in even arguing about it?

 

[Amargith]

I'd argue that a dog's Fe is far more developed than ours ever will be - if there is such a thing. Their survival *actually* depends on it. For that matter, I think elephants could probably teach us a thing or two on Fe, Fi and anything to do with social and empathetic development.
And you could argue that the great apes' Se is way better than ours ever will be (again) - this is true for many animals actually.

I'm sure i could find examples for each hypothetical function out there. The Ti-Fe axis of a raven or crow could arguably rival that of an entp, for instance.

As a species, we haven't left the toddler stage - where the world revolves around their ego. We're only now starting to adjust that attitude somewhat (the ridiculous controversy around the term plant neurology alone very much reflects that)

We seriously don't give other species nearly enough credit, imho.

As for intelligence - god, intelligence. Why is is that people are so obsessed with the size of our brain compared to animals. Seriously, it rivals the sizing of a certain other body part in obsession levels. Somehow, being more 'intelligent' makes one more superior, supposedly. Of course, when you get to define the parameters as to what is 'smart', and have a big brain tied to your ego, you're going to set the yard stick accordingly to your own strengths as a species, and no other species will measure up.

Ironically, I believe that - since we only NOW are willing to consider that other animals have a perspective and experience on this world worth considering, and actually are doing tests instead of assuming we're superior - they've had preliminary tests indicate that elephants may have us beat on emotional intelligence, for instance. And they're not the only species that are beating us at our own petty yard stick. We just didn't realise it til now.

/

 

[Little_Sticks]

The cognitive functions are most certainly NOT any kind of law. I'm not sure how you came up with that idea. They haven't even been shown to actually exist.

Theory of Forms

Oh they exist, just not tangibly.

Though if there's no way to measure anything or prove that it exists, what's the point of discussing it anyway? If I posit that there is an invisible, undetectable, microscopic unicorn in my house right now...what's the point in even arguing about it?

Because it's like language; it allows us to communicate, yet you can't measure or prove it exists. It's relative to who understands it and how, but it's still very useful. Wouldn't you say?

 

[EcK]

Socratic realm of the forms. Its our minds doing the categorization and then wanting to ascribe a human quality to the universe.
Happens with everything. Animism, religions, empathy toward cats etc

 

[EcK]

:


As for intelligence - god, intelligence. Why is is that people are so obsessed with the size of our brain compared to animals. Seriously, it rivals the sizing of a certain other body part in obsession levels. Somehow, being more 'intelligent' makes one more superior, supposedly. Of course, when you get to define the parameters as to what is 'smart', and have a big brain tied to your ego, you're going to set the yard stick accordingly to your own strengths as a species, and no other species will measure up.



/[/SPOILER]

I'm pretty sure its not the size of their brains most people are concerned with

 

[EcK]

Theory of Forms

Oh they exist, just not tangibly.



Because it's like language; it allows us to communicate, yet you can't measure or prove it exists. It's relative to who understands it and how, but it's still very useful. Wouldn't you say?

you cant prove language exist?
Are you smoking something?

By reading this sentence and your quoting the realm of the forms alone it is apparent you don't quite grasp that concept and its implications

 

[Amargith]

I'm pretty sure its not the size of their brains most people are concerned with

Perhaps not, but it's the thing they'll reference to feel superior over others, instead.

 

[EcK]

Perhaps not, but it's the thing they'll reference to feel superior over others, instead.

Well you could argue that it makes them superior to others if not otherwise disfunctional

 

[Amargith]

Well you could argue that it makes them superior to others if not otherwise disfunctional

Sure, you could; people have been doing it for centuries to justify their abuse and condescension of others - be it our own species or another.

Doesn't make it true or the actual yard stick that matters.

 

[EcK]

You could; people have been doing it for centuries to justify their abuse and condescension of others - be it our own species or another.

That wasn't my point sis. Also lots of the people thinking they are 'superior' in one aspect or another are not demonstratively so. They're just idiots. Most 'intellectuals' would fit that description (ie: reading something and parroting it without understanding it properly is not equal to being smart - that applies to most 'smart people' i've met).

But as to the ability to think for oneself and process information it is undeniably a core advantage of what made human beings successful as a species. Another advantage is our ability to work in groups, of course correlated with our intelligence. If you take that advantage away you're left with a naked ape. If you take intelligence away (relatively) and ability/willingness to work with others (language, empathy, social intelligence etc.) you often get criminals in our society. Combine high intelligence and big picture cooperative thinking and you often get people who are geniunely of service to the species. One exibits characteristics that are disruptive and parasitic, the other creates value for the group.

 

[jakopic]

[MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]

Do you dislike the discipline of ontology?

Do you believe that there is no non-material world?

 

[Amargith]

That wasn't my point sis. Also lots of the people thinking they are 'superior' in one aspect or another are not demonstratively so. They're just idiots. Most 'intellectuals' would fit that description (ie: reading something and parroting it without understanding it properly is not equal to being smart - that applies to most 'smart people' i've met).

But as to the ability to think for oneself and process information it is undeniably a core advantage of what made human beings successful as a species. Another advantage is our ability to work in groups, of course correlated with our intelligence. If you take that advantage away you're left with a naked ape. If you take intelligence away (relatively) and ability/willingness to work with others (language, empathy, social intelligence etc.) you often get criminals in our society. Combine high intelligence and big picture cooperative thinking and you often get people who are geniunely of service to the species. One exibits characteristics that are disruptive and parasitic, the other creates value for the group.

All true, bear, of course, but not unique to our species. Which was my original point. All these traits are likely found in all living things, and some things we are better at, while other things, they are better at (such the ant wrt organisation and working in unison, for instance). We're no doubt a piece of art, capable of both parasitic acts and greatness.

But we're hardly the only ones.

This attitude that we're somehow 'speshul' is slowly making way for the realisation that we might wanna stop looking in the mirror so much in the scientific community studying other species (though plants, for instance, very much still are treated in the same dismissive way - even by those that are specialised and fascinated by them). 50 years ago, it was assumed that animals didn't have emotions like us; that to think so was to anthropomorphise them. And any scientist who did so was ridiculed (hell, I got that very speech when I was doing my training as behaviorist). And the same assumptions were made about their intelligence - it is only recently that they've really started questioning en revising the tests they've used for those conclusions because they were so human-centric and biased in what they in fact considered intelligence.

Those results in turn are often used (and still are!) as justification for what we do to lab animals and cattle, for instance. Only recently have they actually been researching this and attempting to understand what it is like for other species instead of making grand assumptions that our cognitive abilities and emotional range are somehow only something we experience.

Anycase, Imma stop derailing the thread, I put that part of my soap box in a spoiler for a reason - I didn't meant for it to take the focus in this thread.

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]

Do you dislike the discipline of ontology?

Do you believe that there is no non-material world?

Do you have evidence for the non material

You are the one making the claim on the existence of non material stuff. Soo..

 

[jakopic]

Do you have evidence for the non material
You are the one making the claim on the existence of non material stuff. Soo..

It would be impossible for a monkey to understand how the computer works, even though it can learn to use a program on it. The mechanics behind human brain exist as a mathematical system of unconscious processes interacting with the conscious ones.

Although a person rules the world and understands it perfectly through science and observation, he can not observe his own unconscious processes. One can not look into, measure and explain ones own psyche in an empiric way.

 

[EcK]

It would be impossible for a monkey to understand how the computer works, even though it can learn to use a program on it. The mechanics behind human brain exist as a mathematical system of unconscious processes interacting with the conscious ones.

Although a person rules the world and understands it perfectly through science and observation, he can not observe his own unconscious processes. One can not look into, measure and explain ones own psyche in an empiric way.

That's adorable. But it doesn't make sense. The thoughts, unconscious brain etc etc. Are all physical objects. It doesn't matter that any one individual is not in-vivo aware of it

 

[jakopic]

That's adorable. But it doesn't make sense. The thoughts, unconscious brain etc etc. Are all physical objects. It doesn't matter that any one individual is not in-vivo aware of it

The brain works as a system that helps produce the being, we are interested in the being and its functioning system.

 

[chubber]

I don't think we are more special than animals. We have been breeding animals, sure, but we've also been breeding "humans". We've been meddling with nature ever since.

The real question is, can we assign cognitive functions to a tree?