How does Pi make its map of reality?

Thank you Zweilous for engaging.

Interesting. I guess I'm seeing a distinction between two aspects here that I wasn't seeing before and that I think has made Pi conceptually difficult to grasp, for me. On one hand, you have the map/picture/reference card that you mention and on the other you have the mechanism by which it is created.

For example, you say "...as more notes come in that relate to each other"...You see, there is already a step here that is easy to bypass in talking of Pi: the conclusion or assumption that there is a relationship. Without this, you cannot create the reference card. This is what I was calling the line that circumscribes a certain mass of data to make it meaningful in relation to each other in my other thread. Perhaps my analogies are poor.

But what I mean is that it is a sorting mechanism but is also not judgment. There is something active in it. It is not just the passive picture of life: that picture is itself the product of an active mechanism that created it.

Actually, Pi seems to be the other side of judgment. While judgment works from Aristotle's basic law of non-contradiction (at least Thinking does): this and not that or this therefore not that...this other way of sorting works the other way around: this AND this AND this. I see it like the lady in a factory who must handpick from a pile the good fruit that needs to be put in the machine for more processing. OK, that is a bit confusing because she's picking the desired fruit and leaving out the bad which seems like judging. But she has a concept of what kind of fruit is desired from her employer's instructions and she is deliberately looking for the fruit that matches this concept.

This is what I mean when I ask about Pi being empty. What mechanism creates this perception of relatedness in the data? There must be a set of instructions right from the start built into Pi that tells it how to relate data. A form of algorithm of relations forming the very structure of PI itself, entirely separate from any data. Either that or PI starts with in-built pictures right from the start. Perhaps these are what Jung called archetypes. Maps of life already built into the human psyche from the beginning.

EDIT: Oops! I just noticed you actually started saying the same thing: built on older Pi maps.   If so, then I can understand Pi as the tendency to trust these maps or to treat them as foundational. Pi is the assumption that this underlying picture is an accurate representation of reality (that it is a map!) or even more the assumption that the picture IS the reality...the picture and life are one. But this would mean that Pi (the assumption) is a separate thing from the picture. Again, I think I'm talking about the archetypes... But if so, then I don't see how Pi could be different from Ji. In fact, this tendency to trust the in-built underlying maps seems like introversion itself. 

EDIT 2: OK. I am having epiphanies, so please bear with me. Introversion trusts inward content over external content. This means there is a minimum content at the beginning. I guess this minimum content is the archetypes??? We are never truly empty. 

oh my gosh, this started small but grew and grew into a beast. <.< i'm so sorry i don't have the time to structure these thoughts properly right now, but i hope this is useful! i've been in-and-out with other obligations lately but didn't wanna leave your great questions hangin'

i agree fully with zwelious, but to some of the finer points...


Yes, I know just what you mean.
I think the exact answer to this Pi question lies in neuroscience. For example, as a baby you see a visual image from your optic nerve and you see mom in front of you wearing a red dress. Two seconds later, mom is to your right side, still wearing a red dress but now she's smiling.

Something in our brain concludes that this frame (to use a camera metaphor) and the next frame have the same content (mom) and the content just moved across the screen. The red pixels that were to the left are the same ones that are now to the right. Presently, we have software that can track faces moving across footage, and they do it by pixel comparison algorithms.


What that algorithm consists of in the human brain specifically would be very hard to say. But my guess is that it has several thresholds and similarity and dissimilarity. For example, one shade of red is more similar to another shade. If the room suddenly goes dim because one light was turned off, the baby may still see the mother and everything else, but just at a lower brightness. After this happens a few times, the association is made that lighting differences don't change the substance matter of the environment.

And we've essentially entered the realm of computer science/A.I.:

if(previous_whole_photo_brightness = 80% similar to current_whole_photo_brightness) {
is_same_environment;
}

The brain uses neural networks to simulate 'chains' this way. So new "modules" are created like the above, based on appropriate experiences. Then when a neuron fires over here, it also fires adjacent neurons and essentially the 'deduction' happens automatically as a result of a neural firing chain.

The brain has to be efficient with its processing in order for us to think at the speed that we do. So tons of our processing is actually embedded into the architecture of our neurons, so that bio-electric currents can simply run through the point of least resistance. Or so I understand..

In a really cool study...
Some scientists have actually mapped blood flow to neural activity when certain objects are seen, and use that to reverse engineer what they think someone is looking at, when their blood flow in their brain looks a certain way. Basically, an image (a bird, a face, etc) triggers a cascade of neural activity that brings to our mind the concept "bird".



Err.. getting back on point.

When we get into the nitty-gritty of it, in truth even Perception can be called a "deductive" process -- as it concludes basic parallels in shape/color/sound exist or don't exist. But it's an automatic one that is very old. We've developed our optical sense perception ever since before we were land born animals, and it works impulsively by measuring substances for similarity/dissimilarity and then the instinctual/emotional core executes a response (fight/flight) for self preservation.

Now that we have the neocortex (where I believe the cognitive functions manifest), the lower brain(s) are the more automatic responses we have -- while our more "deliberate" judgments (Fe/Fi/Te/Ti) are that of the neocortex which we experience in more sophisticated ways as our own consciousness -- or "private mental dialogue/film".

I really am not a neuroscientist, so my understanding of this could be quite off... I really hope to test these things and collab with other researchers to find out.



In short I would say that the precise mechanism which distinguishes similarity from dissimilarity and makes initial parallels at the most granular level possible, takes place in the oldest parts of our brain; when we had the initial formation of the occipital lobe and even a bit before then. That toolset has been refined via aeons of natural selection to weigh things via thresholds and properly track environmental objects by shape/color/etc. I don't know what exactly those thresholds are but if our modern software can already recreate associative effects of this magnitude, I suspect the specifics of it are within our understanding and we generally know what basic considerations it'd have to account for, like color, shape, etc.


Ni, Si, Ne, Se come in after that initial visual processing is done (which also involves some additional visual processing tricks the brain uses). Ni and Si are responsible for forming, from this raw information, a schema structure.


Different from the occipital lobe on its own, ....what the cognitive functions do is create "consciousness", which is our own experience of self-reflective self-awareness. Pi and Pe absorb the information per-processed by the occipital lobe and give us a mental awareness of both the outer situation we're in and how it relates to previous situations on the broadest scale we can imagine (world-view). This requires a much higher level of abstraction than what the lobes themselves do on their own. Which is why Dr.Nardi seems to suggest that perception involves the whole brain, in a sort of exercise of holistic synthesis.

But we start this schema structure as babies as well. But as babies we seem to behave much like cats or dogs still because our schemas haven't become complex enough to conceptualize things like money, society, death, philosophy, etc. As babies we're about as intelligent as higher mammals. Eventually, however, our Pi and Pe can take us further than other mammals ever go. Once we have the basic physical objects of reality stored into a neural network (and schema) we start to exercise that correlative process with the sub-units that exist.

So now, instead of correlating one frame to the previous frame, we correlate bigger clusters of perception together. We juxtapose things like affection with hearts and flowers, or success with A+ report cards. Before then, Pi really isn't distinguishable from the basic activity of other animals in information paralleling.

Thank you very much. That was quite a handful but it helps! I hope I'm getting it. So PE, even SE, is not direct perception but is itself a few times abstracted from the raw immediate perception of the environment. Even animal perception is abstracted but to a lower level. PE already gives the data some kind of meaning even if not to the level of Pi which arranges or sorts the PE data into even more abstracted meanings.

At least I am finally confident I know what Pi is. And it makes sense. We would never have any kind of past-future orientation without Pi because Pi is what gives us a consistent sense of reality, even while PE helps us navigate the here and now. Put in "mystical" terms, I think PE is more likely to see the world as one, the here and now, the external environment and self. But Pi is more likely to see time as one, or to see reality as timeless. So this means that Pi is both my savior and my bully, depending...lol! It gives me perspective (peace) or horror (fears from the past/about the future). Either way, I'm a little more sure now that I don't lead with PE. PE only wrecks havoc to my PI plans. I use PE a lot, but I do it to feed my consistent sense reality....I think. 

Thanks.

I agree. And to start, I would suggest that if Pi is higher than Pe, then being disconnected from it will feel very unpleasant. Regaining it feels deliciously peaceful, content, relaxed, like breathing, relief. Decisions feel rooted, no fear involved. When Pi is higher, life is seen at a distance. Life is not really "close". That sounds weird to put it that way but the events of life are not close to "me" from this perspective I'm describing as Pi.

I think when Pe flips the "order" and the self sinks into it and starts to see reality from it rather than through Pi, then there is crisis.

Pe with all the 'present opportunities' that it prompts a person with higher Pi to take, feels thrilling or scary but never deeply-rooted/sure. There is a certain energy to it that you can call excitement but is, IMO, ultimately unpleasant. Compared with the deep satisfaction of breathing and relaxing into a distant view of life, it can never be preferred.

Then the more it goes on without the person's higher Pi regaining the lead or taking the "eye" out from the middle of Pe and back out into the distant view of Pi, the more likely it will go from excitement/a little fear, to downright chaotic and horrific, leaving someone ultimately paralyzed by indecision and/or fear. At its worst, no choices feel clear. All are equally terrifying and hopeful at once. It is IMPOSSIBLE to move forward. The experience is: Life is now very "close" and you are in the middle of the events, as opposed to viewing them at a safe distant. Events are flying about, close to you, and it feels terrifying. Suddenly YOU are in charge of these "events"

When Pi is regained, it's like two different universes. The chaotic experience is now a distant bad memory even if experienced just a short while ago. It's very removed from "me" and "far away". Life is all in perspective and you relax. No need to hurry. No pressure to do this, that and the other RIGHT NOW. Everything will happen when it's time and this feels very obvious.

Of course this is from episodes that must be very unhealthy considering the distress they cause. But I do think they help make clear to one (to me in any case) that my fundamental preference is for not participating "directly" in life and feeling very much out of depth if made to.

From perhaps a more healthy perspective, I think for me, Pe is pleasant when there is a clear sense of direction. This direction often emerges from initial chaos, however, to make sense out it. If dropped into a new situation. I will appear rather dim-witted. With immersion, meaning will arise and then deep confidence. Peace is: Knowing that I know the subject/terrain whatever. Horror is the opposite. I guess this is why they call Pi a map!

Ok, I'm about to grow this monster into a titan!   Please bear with me folks!

I realize from the considerations from Erifrail's explanation that I have totally mischaracterized all other non-Pi functions, especially in my other thread, probably in what may look derogatory from another perspective. I shall be reposting this particular post over there. 

Here's something I'm realizing about PI: it is the shallowest of the functions. Not meant as an insult as I am more and more sure that Pi takes up a really big space in my psyche but hopefully you'll see what I'm trying to say below.

I had treated PE as the raw data and therefore ended up concluding that meaning comes from PI. In fact that is all wrong.

All 8 functions give us "meaning" 8 different ways. They are the difference between human consciousness and animal consciousness. All 8, including SE. In fact, judgment gives a very "sharp" sense of meaning in its own way, very unlike perception.

I never thought of SE as an abstraction before! Sure, I've read that but somehow still ended up thinking of SE as the 5 senses. Ridiculous, of course, but you may think something is ridiculous conceptually and not realize that you still hold to it. That's what is called a bias: wrong information we are unaware we hold.

But of course SE is an abstraction. SE users don't just see red, and round, or even that red, round object. They see this ball that is this red colour. We all do...But they see many meaningful details about the particular object all at once. I think they are drawn to objects "for their own sake", They don't try to impose concepts onto the reality beyond what is necessary. They know this object not these types of objects. In other words, they don't let our apriori assumptions about "these types of objects" cloud what is known about this exact particular object I'm apprehending right now. Hence, it's known "for its own sake", not for purposes of amalgamation of other concepts. They are better at distinguishing what is true right now or about this object from what we "fill in" from our synthesized experiences from the past or from judgment and to prioritize what is true about this object over what is presumed true about it.

NE knows the similarities for their own sake, not allowing the amalgamations of prior concepts known from before blur the similarities that are there. Which I guess is why people think they are crazy! Their connections are not hidden from view by the whole set of assumptions or concepts amalgamated from all our experiences. Like SE which sees the object clearly, NE sees similarities between the objects clearly. They don't have to make sense to US...they just are! It's not the Ne's fault that something about a ball is like something about a song. It just is!

So back to PI: I  think PI is the shallowest because it is the MOST abstracted from the raw data. It has lost the most content of all the perception functions. It necessarily does this, I guess, in order to make its maps because these maps are supposed to be databases of all perceptions ever perceived as far as economically possible. But it can't do that without dumping as much content as possible. Breadth over depth. This shallow quality of its perceptions is what allows it to recombine them in big sets of meaning. By attempting to apprehend reality all at once, it must drop a lot of rich details in order to see as far and wide...as much as possible.

Funny because PE is often described as breadth and not depth. But I now think it is totally opposite! PE is closest to the object. It is therefore richer in content, therefore has great depth. PI is furthest removed, with as little detail as possible but casting a wide net of meaning over all that is known in the psyche. Lots of connections but very little content. 

Wow...this is quite humbling to realize! Introversion is not necessarily depth. PI is not necessarily better at seeing reality (quite the opposite). Introversion means seeing reality through a whole lot of inbuilt biases. PI means seeing objects through a very big web of constructed reality. Which may mean totally distorting reality as much as it may provide insights into otherwise non-obvious mechanisms.