INTP's and how we fit in Evolution - “To understand is to perceive patterns”. Isaiah Berlin

[DIALECTIC]

Hello !




Following this thread / post:
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=388986#post388986

...in which i elaborated what i have been thinking (too much) about lately, i wish to start a new thread, more specific about evolution in general and how as intuitives and INTPs we fit right in its process...

Evolution is neither an infinite linear process (ie: COMPULSIVE linear DOING; from Cause to Effect), nor a finite circular process (ie: OBSESSIVE circular / reflective thinking; in which the end becomes its own cause), but a synthesis of both, symbolized by a SPIRAL: holistic / spiral thinking !

“To understand is to perceive patterns”. Isaiah Berlin

Now, as INTPs we are pattern recognizers, that's what we do best, because we love doing it. We don't create patterns, patterns are always there (to be unveiled and exploited, or not) !

Now let's say an existing pattern is the subjective thesis in a larger system, then whoever / whatever recognizes / recalls it as such is therefore its objective antithesis.
Finally, the synthesis (thru the mediating objective antithesis) is the (re)integration of the said pattern into a larger (more evolved) pattern.

As INTP's, we do not create any pattern as such, we simply incarnate the MIDDLE TERM, therefore we are MEDIATORS, "measuring" information.
We do not create the system, we reveal / disclose the already existing system, and as objective observers /arbitrators, we point out the system's capacities ("the positive") as well as potential flaws ("the negative") to exploit / transcend.

WE COLLECT (information) TO RECOLLECT !!


Any thoughts / add-on's ?

 

[TimeAsylums]

http://www.socionics.com/prof/entp2.htm
Just replace entp with intp

Although ENTps are widely acclaimed for their originality, there are two sides to this coin. Just as ENFps, ENTps are very curious and process a lot of information, similar to a gold digger washing out the soil looking for gold. And ENTps know where the "gold" is. They are often well aware of some new and unusual discoveries. Such information is usually available to everyone who is interested enough to look for it, but not many people are that bothered. ENTps ideas are often based on these discoveries and for someone who didn't know that these findings are already in existence, ENTps ideas may look very radical and original.

Their true originality is in their ability for lateral combinatory thinking. ENTps are mostly interested in improvements, modernizations and innovations of something that already exists and is well known. James Dyson gave birth to a cyclone action vacuum cleaner. The cyclone effect is based on physics and has been known for centuries. Applying this effect to the household vacuum cleaner was an act of lateral thinking. Did Dyson invent something radical? He just made a better vacuum cleaner. In retrospect, it would probably be fair to say that ENTps are better classified as inventive-modernizers.

Yes, Ti/Ne (w/ Si) is fun.


Ne searchin for dem pattern recognition yo

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Any thoughts / add-on's ?

Monkeywrench time.

I want to propose this differentiation: Antithesis is the realm of the ENTP; Synthesis is that of the INTP.

Who the hell's in charge of Thesis???? (xSFJs? [same coggie fxns] If so then what's the opposite of synthesis...) Let's play with this a bit, shall we?

 

[Cognisant]

I can relate to both being an INTP and a ENTP.

Evolution for instance is the combination of variation and optimisation (two seemingly opposing forces) to create an environment in which objective orientated complexity emerges, however it is limited, emergent complexity is constrained by the amount of variation can occur without undoing the processes of optimisation and there's simply some mechanisms that only work as part of a greater whole, for example we will never evolve biological firearms (even if we could grow bullets internally) because the mechanisms are too abstract, they either work or they don't, the only way such a thing could evolve would be if it was the direct result of a single mutation and that is EXTREMELY unlikely.

I digress, point is I do the whole INTP analysis thing, but it's usually a precursor to the ENTP drive to find uses for things, I'm not simply happy to have figured out ow evolution works, I want to know how it works so I can improve upon it or replace it somehow with some more effective process.

For example an AI with a variation/optimisation algorithm will be able to learn but it won't be able to learn very quickly or recognise more abstract details, such things require other more nuanced mechanisms.

 

[DIALECTIC]

I want to propose this differentiation: Antithesis is the realm of the ENTP; Synthesis is that of the INTP.

NO, i think Synthesis is the realm of Ni; pure intuition.

- Sensors get stuck in compulsive thesis (the immediate), they can't adapt to change so they keep repeating the same habits (yet expect different outcomes).

- Ne users get suck in obsessive antithesis (the mediation or negation).

- Ni users generate synthesis (the mediate).

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

NO, i think Synthesis is the realm of Ni; pure intuition.

- Sensors get stuck in compulsive thesis (immediate).
- Ne users get suck in obsessive antithesis (mediation or negation).
- Ni users generate synthesis (mediate).

How do you get away with lumping Si and Se doms into Thesis? I could see Si as thesis, but not Se.

I'd expect all 8 types to coalesce in a manner similar to a double version of a methane molecule, bifurcated by the Ne/Ni division. Whatcha think?

If anything, using your current Ni-synthesis setup, Ne should the opposite of synthesis. Perhaps Si takes up Thesis and Se Antithesis...

 

[DIALECTIC]

I could see Si as thesis, but not Se.

Why not ?

I'd expect all 8 types to coalesce in a manner similar to a double version of a methane molecule, bifurcated by the Ne/Ni division. Whatcha think?

Not sure what you mean, my knoweldge about chemistry / molecular physic sadly is equal to zero... Could you elaborate ?

If anything, using your current Ni-synthesis setup, Ne should the opposite of synthesis. Perhaps Si takes up Thesis and Se Antithesis...

Ni, to me clearly is a sublation: Ni both analyzes (deconstructs) and synthetizes (constructs) at the same time, hence it REconstructs.

To me, Sensors are "primitive" synthesizers...


Such a triadic system is also reminescent of Spinoza's 3 Kinds of Knoweldge:

1 - IMAGINATION
2 - INTELLECTION
3 - INTUITION ("the intellectual love of God")

 

[DIALECTIC]

How do you get away with lumping Si and Se doms into Thesis? I could see Si as thesis, but not Se.

I'd expect all 8 types to coalesce in a manner similar to a double version of a methane molecule, bifurcated by the Ne/Ni division. Whatcha think?

If anything, using your current Ni-synthesis setup, Ne should the opposite of synthesis. Perhaps Si takes up Thesis and Se Antithesis...

Actually, i did contradict myself: i have been thinking about what i / you said since yesterday and i came up with this...


- INTPs are Ne users yes and therefore we do love generating ideas (for ENTPs to pick up on them much better than us however), BUT what we do best is analysis as our Ne is secondary, therefore subject to excess / errors.


- What we do do best is analyzing the PAST in order to improve THE PRESENT, which in turn will improve the FUTURE. We analyse what is known / fixed: we go to the roots / cause of any problem, ie from EFFECT to CAUSE !
We are not that good at coming up with direct ideas to improve the future... That's the role of primary Ne and Ni users...


- Thru our analytical power / reflective thinking (Ti + Si), we are the mediatory antithesis (negation), between the thetic REPETITION of the PAST and the synthetic OVERCOMING of it.


- We live in the present / the potential, therefore we theorize the past ("what could / might have been"); and theorize an idealistic future ("what could be").


- We incarnate the power of negation and as such "Negators" (mediators), we deconstruct the old system by identifying / revealing its capacities and its incapacities and prepare it for the new system to emerge (the mission of Ne + Ni) from its ashes.
We are the "gravediggers" of the Past !


- We are obsessed in our use of Ti (analyzes / deconstructs / systemizes) + Si (introspects).


- We are compulsed to use Ne (search for / generate / gather ideas) + Fe (expresses those ideas for others to benefit from them).


- I guess we could be called the "missing link of evolution", being stuck in between the Past and the Future...

What do you think ?

 

[HsinHsin]

Actually, i did contradict myself: i have been thinking about what i / you said since yesterday and i came up with this...


- INTPs are Ne users yes and therefore we do love generating ideas (for ENTPs to pick up on them much better than us however), BUT what we do best is analysis as our Ne is secondary, therefore subject to excess / errors.


- What we do do best is analyzing the PAST in order to improve THE PRESENT, which in turn will improve the FUTURE. We analyse what is known / fixed: we go to the roots / cause of any problem, ie from EFFECT to CAUSE !
We are not that good at coming up with direct ideas to improve the future... That's the role of primary Ne and Ni users...


- Thru our analytical power / reflective thinking (Ti + Si), we are the mediatory antithesis (negation), between the thetic REPETITION of the PAST and the synthetic OVERCOMING of it.


- We live in the present / the potential, therefore we theorize the past ("what could / might have been"); and theorize an idealistic future ("what could be").


- We incarnate the power of negation and as such "Negators" (mediators), we deconstruct the old system by identifying / revealing its capacities and its incapacities and prepare it for the new system to emerge (the mission of Ne + Ni) from its ashes.
We are the "gravediggers" of the Past !


- We are obsessed in our use of Ti (analyzes / deconstructs / systemizes) + Si (introspects).


- We are compulsed to use Ne (search for / generate / gather ideas) + Fe (expresses those ideas for others to benefit from them).


- I guess we could be called the "missing link of evolution", being stuck in between the Past and the Future...

What do you think ?

I think it's great.
A lot of work though.

 

[scorpiomover]

The sensor way is to react to the physical stimuli around you. This is also the way of evolution. Organisms evolve by reacting and thus adapting to the physical stimuli around them. Most of the time, it's the most efficient way to deal with things. However, occasionally, that same pathway recurs on itself, and then one just gets an ever continual circle, that makes things worse and worse. Some organisms in some species had the rare and usually detrimental mutation, that they would be adapted to continually look for the point beyond. It was detrimental to them. But for the species, it meant that in such vicious circles, they would be the one to move beyond the pattern. Once they showed everyone else a way out of the vicious circle, the Sensors would follow suit, and so would free the species to continue.

In previous ages, life was a lot harsher. We didn't have millions of gadgets that cossetted us and protected us. Lots of people died, from all sorts of causes. So in those times, any thinker who could understand things better, and so could use that understanding to minimise risk, and was willing to share his knowledge, and could explain it to everyone else, without automatically alienating them and putting them off, was a godsend. Such people were cherished. If you could also ensure that their precious efforts weren't wasted, by using deeper understanding to maximise effectiveness, and again politely and respectfully shared that info with others, then you would ensure that people's efforts would yield positive benefits. Such a person would change society from chaos to reliability, from scrabbling in the Earth for food, to plenty of food being available for everyone in your country.

Now? We have gadgets. No need for INTPs all that much anymore.

 

[HsinHsin]

...Now? We have gadgets. No need for INTPs all that much anymore.

Interesting.

Are you familiar with the concept of synchronicity or meaningful coincidence? Do you think it has anything to do with anything? Is there a way to prove that such concept exists in reality?

 

[WALKYRIA]

Now? We have gadgets. No need for INTPs all that much anymore.

This rings true, we INTP's seem useless when around intelligent J-types who comes to plenty of conclusions.

 

[scorpiomover]

Interesting.

Are you familiar with the concept of synchronicity or meaningful coincidence?

Yes. It's a pattern that keeps coming up.

Is there a way to prove that such concept exists in reality?

Yes. It keeps coming up in my life, that when I mention an idea was invented by someone, that someone else mentions that he heard it invented by someone else, who lived around the same time, but in entirely different part of the world, at a time when they would be very unlikely to have been in communication with each other. One example of many is that calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz simultaneously. There were so many other examples, that I just went ahead and accepted it as a reality.

Do you think it has anything to do with anything?

Yes, because it's so common, that if scientists were to test for it, it would probably have to become a theory. Jung suggested that we all share a collective unconscious, that, in some way or another, by all being part of the universe, we're also part of a larger collection of cells that is this universe. If one of our cognitive cells has an idea, it's open to be shared with all the rest. In the same way, if one of the cognitive cells of the universe has an idea, it could be also available to be shared with the rest.

This violates the basic principle of localisation, that data must be transferred through physical particles in close proximity to each other, like a chain, in order to be transmitted from location to location.

However, if we think about why we think that this happens at all, it's because we perceive that data can transfer between 2 particles in proximity, i.e. close to each other. But what is "close"? What we think of as next to each other, might be only 1 cm apart. In terms of an electron, which has a radius of 2.8 x 10^-15 m, 1 cm is the same distance as 1.7 trillion electrons all lined up right next to each other. So in reality, localisation is merely as observation on the human scale, that things that, relative to their size, are trillions of times apart, react as if data from one ws transferred directly to each other, but not at a larger distance. Doesn't make sense. But we know that it happens.

It even happens with quantum entanglement that when 2 quantum particles have their data linked, are separated many miles apart, and one is changed, the other is changed as well.

However, we know from Cauchy's Residue Theorem, that the effects of an entire system cancel each other out, except for the few singularities in the system. Put another way, information in any system acts like a wave in an ocean. The rocks (singularities) determine how the data flows. But the rocks in the system are different for different types of data.

If you're sending sound, the rocks would be those things that don't allow sound to pass through it transparently, which would include brick walls. If you're sending radio waves, the rocks would be those things that don't allow radio waves to pass through it transparently, which would include metal, but not brick walls. Depends on the types of data you're sending and what might block them.

Certain types of data, the data types that we're conscious of, would transfer as we are used to seeing them transfer. Other types of data, such as that which the subconscious picks up on but not the conscious, could transfer in an entirely different way, and the things that would serve as blocks to our conscious data transmissions, may not be a barrier to them.

All depends on the structures of the waves and the structures of what they have to pass through, as to how they would traverse that space, and even at what speed.

 

[HsinHsin]

Thank you for the most explicit explanation.

Then is it possible that human beings use (the process of) synchronicity to communicate effectively, and if possible, to ensure our chance of survival?
Or am I just being practical?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

We are the human dodos, that's where we fit into the evolutionary process.