[universalis]

I view Fi / Fe in terms of more rudimentary animal brain stuff. To me it appears as though its just animalistic impulses. Like even my impulse to learn for example is just a crude chemical response like taking a drug.

A drug-like infusion when I get the "aha" moment when a concept is internalised. This is why I have not much respect for it. Is it on the same level as the other cognitives? If so is it only useful for human-human relations? What other purpose is there for it.

It also clashes with my machine/robot model of the neocortex brain.

I value your wisdom oh INTJ hive.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Noehelia]

In your introduction topic you claimed that you are being empathetic to those that you value. How do you think you do that?

[Seppuku Savant]

Are you secretly Bluewing from MBTI forum? He's been ranting about why feelings are x. It's caused quite a ruckus. Not only that, but the fellow rationals aren't agreeing. Even when he posted the question on some other forum.

[Minerva]

Originally Posted by mattosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I view Fi / Fe in terms of more rudimentary animal brain stuff. To me it appears as though its just animalistic impulses. Like even my impulse to learn for example is just a crude chemical response like taking a drug. A drug-like infusion when I get the "aha" moment when a concept is internalised. This is why I have not much respect for it. Is it on the same level as the other cognitives? If so is it only useful for human-human relations? What other purpose is there for it. It also clashes with my machine/robot model of the neocortex brain. I value your wisdom oh INTJ hive. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In reply to your question... Yes.

The last time I checked, humans were part of the animal kingdom. Besides, part of being human is having feelings, no matter how deeply buried yours may be. Sorry to dissapoint you...

I would expect your model to clash. After all, a robot or a machine is not a fitting model for a human for the simple fact that it has no emotion.

[universalis]

	Originally Posted by Noehelia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In your introduction topic you claimed that you are being empathetic to those that you value. How do you think you do that?

Good point. I still have Fi. I'm just extrapolating into the future. Are humans the be all and end all? Is F really needed. I'm not denying I have it. Apologies if I lead you to believe that.

[True Rune]

Is anything really needed? E or I? N or S? I imagine in a robot world it'd be STJ only.

[universalis]

STJ is following the designer blueprint. Maybe we still compete but we have a goal to exist. I think feelings are less and less important for the continued existence of entities. Ni / Ne is still a more powerful cognitive in competing and allow the adaptability to the entropy that exists. I see an STJ becoming redundant in a chaotic universe.

[Noehelia]

Mattosphere you seem to proceed in your life with excitement, passion of finding something more, get the satisfaction that you accomplish something. If you were deprived of these what would make you going?

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by Noehelia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Mattosphere you seem to proceed in your life with excitement, passion of finding something more, get the satisfaction that you accomplish something. If you were deprived of these what would make you going?

His logic; by being aware of the need to improve himself or be damned in the midst of mock Darwinian system. But of course, he wouldn't be driven to the top without some sort of emotions. Emotions are the main source of my inspiration. I love nature; therefore I will contribute to preserve it and hopefully one day see it flourish again. I love success, therefore I try to beat the system and get to the top.

[ssrprotege]

	Originally Posted by mattosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I view Fi / Fe in terms of more rudimentary animal brain stuff. To me it appears as though its just animalistic impulses. Like even my impulse to learn for example is just a crude chemical response like taking a drug.

This sounds dangerous. Why do you deny part of yourself?

[universalis]

	Originally Posted by Noehelia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Mattosphere you seem to proceed in your life with excitement, passion of finding something more, get the satisfaction that you accomplish something. If you were deprived of these what would make you going?

That is a question I have tried to answer my whole life. All I can say now is that the purpose would be to exist and reproduce. Pretty much like it is now
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Viruses don't have feelings. They exist. And they multiply.

You "like" passions etc, but have you ever wondered why you "like" it? Would it really be "bad" without it? Surely just different. Why does the concept of non-humanness scare people, or loosing identity and becoming a part of a collective mind?

This also begs the question why wouldn't I want to embrace Fi? I actually do. But I become more useful to my goals if Fi is beaten into submission. Currently my Fi and Te are locked in a courtship dance, constantly switching the lead with each other.

[Mozzes]

Originally Posted by mattosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is a question I have tried to answer my whole life. All I can say now is that the purpose would be to exist and reproduce. Pretty much like it is now To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Viruses don't have feelings. They exist. And they multiply. You "like" passions etc, but have you ever wondered why you "like" it? Would it really be "bad" without it? Surely just different. Why does the concept of non-humanness scare people, or loosing identity and becoming a part of a collective mind?

I'm not sure that the average person is really much different from a virus - they just exist and reproduce.

For whatever reason self-recognition and individualism appear to be an intrinsic quality of humanity. The same with emotionality. I think if you took any of that away you'd have something less than human. Would that be good or bad or just different? I think a lot of it depends on if those qualities are even separable from the idea we call "intelligence".

Many researchers in artificial intelligence think that self-recognition, the concept of "I" separate from the masses, is a fundamental property of what we call intelligence; that they're inseparable. The idea of a "collective mind" or collective intelligence may be an oxymoron. Furthermore, with the concept of "I" emerges statements like, "I want", "I need" and often tacitly though more importantly, "I value". When choosing to use rational thought in a non-axiomatic system wouldn't "I value rational thought" be an underlying idea and would that imply an emotional underpinning? Is some amount of emotional content necessary with the occurrence of individuation? Can rational thought be used to prove it's own value? It's own consistency? Especially considering that even formal systems, such as logic and mathematics, are fraught with paradox that great minds have been trying to exorcise for hundreds of years.

[Noehelia]

A parenthesis: I am a weird INFP. I am quite passionless, I always had problems of feeling emotions and I do not have this so called "rich inner life" that INFP's are supposed to have. I have passion only for exploring new ideas, being creative, everything that has to do with thinking. In fact until I was 18 I could not understand many feelings like happiness, love, jealousy, being romantic and stuff like that, I had never felt them and I thought that people are exaggerating, they are just illusions. All I was doing is constantly analyzing everything but I was feeling dissatisfied with that, I thought that I must miss something that other people seem to have. Since then I have tried to let loose of myself a little bit more. I am satisfied with what I am feeling now, it's not something excessive so I do not fear that I will lose control. Maybe I shouldn't call myself INFP but I have a very high Fi in terms that I always try to understand myself, what is underlying in my every thought or feeling, I also try to understand others, the world, I am very empathetic and I like being creative.

As for this topic: Viruses do not have thinking also. They are even more primitive than mammals, they are just programmed to do something and survive. Do you think that they are even aware of themselves? of their existence? do they need a purpose in order to continue to live? do they care if they evolve?

You have answered yourself why people are scared of the concept of non-humanness, they are afraid that they will lose their identity, their perception of their being, what makes them worth living. And yes, it is bad for me because I have experienced almost lack of feelings and it wasn't so satisfactory for me.

The problem I see with your idea is this. You seem that you want to deny our ability of feeling because you have attached to it the notion that it is inferior as it is an earlier stage of development of living creatures. I am sure that you are aware of the theory that instincts were developed first, then emotions, then thinking. If we do not have instincts can we survive? If we try to cross the street and a car is coming onto us can we solely rely on thinking in order to avoid it? Why not just accept that our instincts and emotions and thinking our encompassed in human nature, they work in synergy and the later developed can not just function without the earlier stages if we want to call ourselves living creatures.Instincts alone can function, instincts with emotions too, instincts with emotion and thinking as well, but not emotions alone or thinking alone.
Maybe in the future there will be another developed stage.

Why a robot is so appealing to you? We program a robot. If we tried to build a robot that can exist by itself, learn without the need of programming and survive alone in the world how would we program it? Wouldn't we try to replicate the functions of instincts and emotions so it can rely on itself, be creative, have the will to live?

[True Rune]

And the robot's dream is to become a robot?

	Originally Posted by mattosphere
	This also begs the question why wouldn't I want to embrace Fi? I actually do. But I become more useful to my goals if Fi is beaten into submission. Currently my Fi and Te are locked in a courtship dance, constantly switching the lead with each other.

It would be interesting to know how this manifests. I'd say what I identify as my Fi has exploded since I've become a young adult, but usually it doesn't interfere with making decisions.. It works on the inside.

[athenian200]

Originally Posted by mattosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I view Fi / Fe in terms of more rudimentary animal brain stuff. To me it appears as though its just animalistic impulses. Like even my impulse to learn for example is just a crude chemical response like taking a drug. A drug-like infusion when I get the "aha" moment when a concept is internalised. This is why I have not much respect for it. Is it on the same level as the other cognitives? If so is it only useful for human-human relations? What other purpose is there for it. It also clashes with my machine/robot model of the neocortex brain. I value your wisdom oh INTJ hive. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think instincts/impulses are separate from F and exist for everyone. Feeling, for me, is a way of consciously becoming aware of and dealing with other people's motivations and needs. This can be very important in human to human interaction. I would agree that it isn't useful for dealing with reality aside from how it relates to people, but the thing is that since we usually deal with people, and are affected by how things relate to us as well as how they really are (although we should strive to be aware of the difference), that Feeling serves a purpose for us. It's basically an awareness of what events and people are in relation to us, rather than in relation to themselves or to reality.

Here's the point... logic is not motivated by itself. It is, as you said, a robot/machine, meaning it can only be motivated by the will of another, rather than itself. At the very least, logic need be motivated by curiosity or a goal. A goal can only be set by emotion on some level. In purely logical terms, no outcome is more desirable than any other outcome. Logic tells you the nature of each outcome, and how to reach one, but it doesn't tell you if you want that out come, or why you want it. Logic has no "why," only a "how."

Emotion is somewhat arbitrary, but something has to be arbitrary in order to motivate us to continue existing and seeking for something. Curiosity, the need for a purpose, the need for justice, the need to survive, the need for consistency, the need for respect, could all be arbitrary in themselves, honestly. But if we didn't have arbitrary needs, there would be nothing to motivate us towards anything. I can't even say it would be worse, because there would be no standard for things to be worse or better by, but everything would simply be or not be a particular way, without judgment.

Everything a person does, often even when they are using logic, can be used to gain a tentative awareness of what could be motivating them, and how this motivation affects them.

Does that make sense?

[universalis]

Thanks for the responses guys, some interesting stuff. I also feel maybe I'm not explaining myself as well as I could. I am a pragmatist at heart not a logical theoretician. My Ni tells me feelings developed because they became useful to survivability.

So by gazing/extrapolating into the future and we can speculate whether they (feelings) will become redundant again as we evolve more. Or maybe just the good feelings will remain. IE hate/jealousy/ etc will become redundant as they become less useful. That is actually my ideal come to think of it!

I'm also thinking along the lines of the movie A.I. anyone seen it?





mattosphere added to this post, 3 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Athenia2000 and Noehelia I sort of get the gist of what you guys are saying as "machines need a purpose/soul" which can appear as sort of paradox. You see I see us as all machines anyway, with an emotion chip built in. Lets get rid of the "bad" emotions.

Have you read "The age of spiritual machines?" by Kurzweil? I haven't but I reckon he is an INTJ as well.





mattosphere added to this post, 10 minutes and 3 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Ishida To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And the robot's dream is to become a robot? It would be interesting to know how this manifests. I'd say what I identify as my Fi has exploded since I've become a young adult, but usually it doesn't interfere with making decisions.. It works on the inside.

Sure, I'll throw a little Fi out there by giving some background and motives. Basically I was very shy in my teen years and just fell in love with computing machines since I was 5. I love how useful and efficient they are. I have a childlike bond with them
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

So anyway in my 20's I came out of the shell, partied hard, worked hard and now I enjoy people. Even the SF's I can enjoy in small doses because I can derive value from them as interesting specimans. I'm actually the inverse of perhaps many younger INTJ's here in that I'm far more charismatic and outgoing in real life (I could be wrong - just an Ni guess!). I came on the forums though looking for deep NT conversation, because I crave that as well. I don't really see much point bonding with "usernames" on the internet
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[JasonM]

Feelings are simply not cognitive. But that doesn't mean that they aren't important. There are people who are schizophrenic or who have brain damage to the prefrontal cortex who lose all emotion. Believe me, it's not pretty. Typically, they have no motivation, get no pleasure from anything, and lose every emotion they have. Because they have no passion for anything, they might, for example, spend the day looking at the wall.

What this goes to show that emotion, although not cognitive, is an important ingredient in success. If you want to do anything successfully, there has to be some amount of emotion attached to it. The other important factor is talent or skill. The more passion for and the more skill you have in doing any activity, the more likely you will be successful at it.

[Realpra]

If you design an AI you would want it to serve you right? Do the right things and stuff?
You do that by calibrating its reward/motivational system (read feelings) to the goals you want it to adhire to serve humans ect..
So yes its a cognitive function deciding your direction in life, even if you choose to follow pure logic your good/bad outcomes and definitions will be based on this core system.

Its the human laws:
0. A human must ensure the future survival of its kind. (derived)
1. A human must spread its genes through reproduction. May not conflict with higher laws.
2. A human must survive. May not conflict with higher laws.

You can check this by asking people on the street "no children or death?" or "You die or everybody dies?".

So yes feelings are a cognitive function and important.

[universalis]

Yeah this resonates with me!

[JasonM]

Another thing I should mention is that you should look into Socionics and its description of the INTp (Socionics INTps are different from MBTI INTPs). I looked at your profile, and I see that you are a CEO in IT. INTps are the most frequently found Socionics type in the computer industry. Another feature of INTps is that they consider feelings to be "harmful." They place very little value on them. Take a look at this INTp profile and see if it fits you:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Now, the question is this: do feelings really have little value, or is that simply what you believe because you are inclined to see things this way? For example, as an INTj (with least valued Se - Se = aggressiveness), I view aggressiveness as "animalistic." Again, is it really that primitive, or is it only primitive to me because it's a subconsciously primitive function in me.

[universalis]

Since I first started this thread I've updated and stance on feelings. For the record, I am a happy, outgoing, pragmatic optimist. Cynical (as in the link to the INTp) I am not. Also socionics feels "dirty" to me. Prefer MBTI.

I think the only feelings worthwhile are the "good" ones. Thus I think all "bad" feelings are "harmful". Eg fear, doubt, hatred, vengence etc. I do not partake in those. They seem to be a waste of energy.

I liked realpra's human laws and see most of the "warrior" type stuff, eg aggression as unnecessary in future society.

[Stopharian]

Might I interject here.

Feelings(emotions) and Feeling, the cognitive process, are not the same thing at all.

Feeling is a rational process by which people make judgments using rules based upon human interactions versus people who make thinking judgements using rules based upon inanimate objects and laws of nature.

Regardless of whether or not you use feeling to make judgements, you still have feelings(emotions). We all do.