One of the posts made in this thread got me thinking: do animals possess cognitive functions (or some semblance thereof)? To what degree?
It seems that both of my cats possess Se, as many of their mannerisms are quite similar to Se cues. However, is it possible for a cat to possess Ni or judgment functions? Do cats have the same range of functions/types as humans? And if not, then what about other animals, especially highly intelligent ones such as chimpanzees or dolphins? What does this say about the process by which types evolved?
These questions constantly plague my mind, and I wonder if anyone else is in the same predicament. Thanks in advance for any input!
Well, gorillas that have been taught sign language seem to have a similar kind of mind as humans but with less processing power. They tell jokes, express emotion, have some semblance of culture, etc.
And it's been my experience that animals have some form of typology, even if it isn't CT per se. While dogs and cats seem to have more of a sliding scale between calm and peppy (and aloof/aggressive when mistreated), primates, dolphins, orcas, elephants, and other intelligent animals appear to have some kind of temperament thing going on.
I don't know what causes it, or even if cognitive functions are at play, but you'll see strong chimps and goofy ones, and gentle ones, and pensive loner ones.
I wonder if what makes humans so successful and adaptable is that we have functions instead of instincts. We need food and sex and so forth, but we lack more complex drives like "fly to Canada during the summer" or "steal birds' eggs". People do have complex drives, but they appear to vary from person to person.
I would think that dogs have Fe if they have any functions at all. They're very socially intelligent and focused on acting to please/dominate others. I wouldn't say they had NeSi, they're poor associative learners. Maybe they're all Fe-leading with only a faint twinkling of Se and no Ni. FeFi and repressed SeNi? d:
"I wonder if what makes humans so successful and adaptable is that we have functions instead of instincts. We need food and sex and so forth, but we lack more complex drives like "fly to Canada during the summer" or "steal birds' eggs". People do have complex drives, but they appear to vary from person to person."
If I understand what you're saying, I don't think this is necessarily true. These "drives" are rather abstract, and I doubt animals would process them in the same way. That is, it wouldn't be "fly to Canada during the summer", but "it's getting warm, and I better fly up north", and it wouldn't be "steal bird's eggs", but "I'm hungry/it's time to eat, and I smell/see/whatever something which will do". Of course, this is still rather abstract but I think it communicates what's going on better. I think we can find similarities in humans, especially since we don't actually have to first process things abstractly to do them. Earlier it was raining, and I saw some people running towards their home. We could do this with just about anything, abstracting and simplifying (or showing reality better). (Also, regarding knowing if it's summer or not, I think there may some "biological clock" correlating some conditions (food, warmth, something else). If you have meals at certain times of day, eventually you'll be able to know the time of day without having to check of clock; maybe something similar is going on.)
"we're fumbling fools ignorant of ourselves" - Auburn "the depths of dark Fe can go beyond our deepest fears" - Commakaze
I know all that, I was making it simple because I had several very broad thoughts to cover. I'm referring to things that aren't conscious, particularly in "lower" animals. Think of salmon, or baby reptiles, who have very specific urges (like "I need to go to where I was born before I can reproduce" or "hello world, let me eat your insects") rather than the human instincts of eat, breathe, watch things, be like mom and dad, and cry when uncomfortable.
Whether or not humans have base instincts (we do) isn't really my point (if there even was one) so much as that humans tend to live very conscious lives full of cognitive processing and personal motivations. Lower animals like fish don't seem to have this, but chimps do, and there's a gradient between.
I'm thinking that the most primal pairings -has been there since reptile animals- are Se/Ni and Te/Fi. Ne/Si and Fe/Ti comes up later to aid the survival of most mammals (and birds?). In order, I'd imagine that'd be like...
1. Se/Ni --> the most primal, without a sense of self, just cellular organism evolving... Very instinctive and primal. 2. Te/Fi --> appeared since fishes, mollusks, amphibians, reptiles.. 3. Fe/Ti --> this is for social cooperation, I think it started since mammals. How did this happen? Idk, maybe our T/F make-up got mutated and turned into different dirrection (Fe-Ti) somehow.. You can also see bugs doing this kind of social cooperation, but they don't relate to our evolutionary path, yes? I'd say they have some similar mechanism as Fe/Ti, but evolved differently. 4. Ne/Si --> this starts to appear since apes? or big mammals? Seems like they start to find alternatives in dealing with the same object (the use of hands and language?).
I think it's possible that variation in oscillation pairings is just a matter of adjustment in the strength of N and S in Pe/Pi (in bigger sense of species, not necessarily of individual self). And I'm not saying that Ne/Si is the most advanced form of cognitive operation, if any, it's the newest born function, thus less developed. Se/Ni has gone through most of the eras, and still survive until now, so it makes sense to say they have advanced greater. Both are useful, that's why they still exist today.
Addition: In most cases, all organisms have Pe/Pi-Je/Ji mechanism. Which functions they use is only a matter of variation, and we wouldn't know it until we observe how they use it. But Pe/Pi-Je/Ji is almost like a law for any organism.