Limits of Thinking

[FreeChile]

For those who believe this to be the case, the world is in a tragic state. It is corrupted and possibly beyond repair.

It is therefore not particularly difficult to identify the problems of the world, to project our own meaning on them, and to suggest solutions.

However, the solutions we provide never seem to work—at least not for long. So we end up going back to where we began.

What is at the root of this vicious cycle and is there a way we can escape it? Is this a topic for critical thinking, or even for thinking? Or have we simply reached the limits of thinking when we tackle something like this?

If we have in fact reached the limits, is there a way we can know that we have so we can realize it and ultimately stop thinking and perhaps give something else a chance?

 

[drkitten]

If we have in fact reached the limits, is there a way we can know that we have so we can realize it and ultimately stop thinking and perhaps give something else a chance?

What else besides "thinking" would you suggest would have a chance of solving the world's problems?

For that matter, what else besides "thinking" do you suggest that would not have an immediate expected effect of making the world's problems much, much worse?

"Thinking" may not be a fast solution to the world's problems -- but it appears to be the only proposal on the table that stands even a slim chance of being a slow solution.

 

[Phil]

For those who believe this to be the case, the world is in a tragic state. . .

For those who believe what to be the case?

It is therefore not particularly difficult to identify the problems of the world, to project our own meaning on them, and to suggest solutions.

However, the solutions we provide never seem to work—at least not for long. So we end up going back to where we began.

You might want to be more specific. can think of a few solutions that worked, and are still working. Technological advances and vaccines come to mind.

What is at the root of this vicious cycle and is there a way we can escape it? Is this a topic for critical thinking, or even for thinking? Or have we simply reached the limits of thinking when we tackle something like this?

Something like what?

If we have in fact reached the limits, is there a way we can know that we have so we can realize it and ultimately stop thinking and perhaps give something else a chance?

There may be, but I'd have to know what you're talking about before I could even speculate.

Did I miss something?

 

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

What else besides "thinking" would you suggest would have a chance of solving the world's problems?

For that matter, what else besides "thinking" do you suggest that would not have an immediate expected effect of making the world's problems much, much worse?

I tried to choose my words carefully before posting. Hope I did OK. Please note that I said that the world is "possibly beyond repair."

The only answer I have to your questions is, "I don't know." And because I don't know, I have no suggestion. I learned this kind of response from my older son who is 3 years old. I received this very firm reply from him one time I asked him where he came from? I had never heard such certainty in anyone's voice before.

"Thinking" may not be a fast solution to the world's problems -- but it appears to be the only proposal on the table that stands even a slim chance of being a slow solution.

Thinking does not seem to get us out of the cycle I've outlined. So how could it be a solution, either fast or slow?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Thinking does not seem to get us out of the cycle I've outlined.

Unproven.

I could equally argue that failure to think is what keeps us in the cycle (for example, polio was almost eradicated until a bunch of religious wackos 'failed to think' about what they were doing to world health).

First demonstrate that the cycle you refer to exists. Then demonstrate that sustained thinking is incapable of getting us out of this hypothetical cycle. THEN we'll discuss alternatives to thinking.

 

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Unproven.

Please note, again, that I am trying to choose my words. I have said "does not seem". But I'll take you up on it anyway.

Also, the intent of my original post was not to suggest that you should stop thinking. I simply communicated a problem and posed it for critical analysis. I am not defending any position here. I hope you have not taken this as an attack on critical thinkers.

I could equally argue that failure to think is what keeps us in the cycle (for example, polio was almost eradicated until a bunch of religious wackos 'failed to think' about what they were doing to world health).

Not possible. Every step in the cycle requires thinking. The moment you identify something as a problem, you are thinking. Also, giving meaning to problems, requires thinking. Likewise, coming up with solutions requires thinking.

Do you mean "failure to think" or failure to think in a particular way (like reasonably or critically)? I think you mean the latter. If I misinterpreted you, please clarify me. The problem I see with the former is that "failure to think" may not be possible as long as you and I live.

On the Polio example, who that hell thought up the idea of taking a dump in the water in the first place? According to Wickipedia, Polio is categorized as a desease of civilization. I don't know how many iterations through the cycle there may be between the wackos who poluted the water initially and the "religious wackos" you mention here. Is this a cycle worth considering? Why or why not?

(FreeChile Edit) Also, these wachos do think. They also think critically the same way you and I think critically--according to their means. They may just not think in a way that you reason or judge to be acceptable. Also, I would compare these wackos to the wachos who polute the rivers.

First demonstrate that the cycle you refer to exists. Then demonstrate that sustained thinking is incapable of getting us out of this hypothetical cycle. THEN we'll discuss alternatives to thinking.

First, what do you mean by exists?

This cycle right now exists in the same way that the sciencific method exists. Also, in the same way that critical thinking exists. As ideas. If the cycle I presented does not exist or needs to be revised, please point it out and I will correct it.

Now let me express the problem I see right now. All ideas seem to rest heavily on one think: our ability to know. Take for instance the scientific method. It depends on our ability to carry out experiements and make observations. If such a think is not possible in certain cases, then we have no way of using the scientific method to solve that particular problem.

The same may be the case with the cycle I began with. Also, the same may be the case with critical thinking and thinking itself. This is where my question takes me. If such limit is the case, then what is this limit? Can we see eat? Analyze it? Sense it? So that when we see it, we can stop and simply say, "OK there it is. Give up now." Because then, there would be no other choice but to give up and let it be.

 

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

For those who believe what to be the case?

Those who believe that the world is in a tragic state. I assume there are some people who don't even care about the state the world: the drunk in the corner, the child, some nuts, etc.

You might want to be more specific. can think of a few solutions that worked, and are still working. Technological advances and vaccines come to mind.

Every major technological advance I can think of has brought its share of positive and negative effects. Also many have addressed problems created by previous technologies that failed us. Can you provide us examples of some of these technologies?

Something like what?

The something is the inquiry into the limits of thinking. Can we come to know that we have reached the limit--a threshold at which point it is better to stop?

There may be, but I'd have to know what you're talking about before I could even speculate.

Learning theories, intelligence, creativity, personaility, deep space, are some words that come to me now. Perhaps we can explore some of this in the course of this thread.

Did I miss something?

You've all done quite well. Thank you.

 

[Jyera]

...snipe...If we have in fact reached the limits, is there a way we can know that we have so we can realize it and ultimately stop thinking and perhaps give something else a chance?

Based on my observation, there should be lots of support for the fact that... "We are a species which owe it's success to being intelligent, to be able to think better. "

As such, it would be suicidal for us to stop thinking.

A lot of sub-standard thinking is good enough as long as it gives us an overall evolutionary advantage. I mean, how many of us need to have the great capacity to think like Albert Einstien, to ensure the survival of our species? Not many.

I would think there are "good" alternatives to thinking.

The ants do not think but yet is more populous than human on earth. We cannot eliminate them all.
The rats are relatively dumb compared to humans, but they hide on our ships to get to another continent.
Goldfish survives and succeed based on vanity.

To talk about giving something else a chance... Perhaps you may want to discard being a "thinker" and be very "faithful".
Then you may stop thinking and surrender your lives to me.

Would you? I don't think so.

 

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Originally posted by Jyera

Based on my observation, there should be lots of support for the fact that... "We are a species which owe it's success to being intelligent, to be able to think better. "

Please tell us what you mean by success and what you mean by intelligence. If by intelligence we mean the ability to arrive at a goal or objective, then there would be intelligence in ruthlessness and violence. If by intelligence we mean a transcendental intelligence, like God, then there would be intelligence in the activities of the mystics and fundamentalists. If by intelligence you mean learning and adaptation, then you have proven below that some animals are more intelligent than humans. When people talk about intelligence and thinking together, they usually imply a connection between those two.

In the case of the critical thinker, intelligence may be more associated with reasoning. Is this what you mean by intelligence? If so, would it then be a form of thinking? Or are you suggesting that our ability to think is a result of our intelligence?

As such, it would be suicidal for us to stop thinking.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that we need to stop thinking. What I am inquiring is on the limits of thought. In any case, in what way do you find it suicidal to stop thinking, in the personal sense or in terms of the human species? In the personal sense, I would note that children are less suicidal than adults. I am quite sure you would say this does not prove anything. If you do want to make this comment, please don’t just leave it there, elaborate. Now, in the collective sense, I would ask what makes you think we cannot survive? I guess your statement follows from the previous. So we will reanalyze it when you respond to those questions. But would we be less fit, in the evolutionary sense, if we put thinking in its place, if there were in fact a place for it?

A lot of sub-standard thinking is good enough as long as it gives us an overall evolutionary advantage. I mean, how many of us need to have the great capacity to think like Albert Einstein, to ensure the survival of our species? Not many.

It is interesting that you seem to think that our survival rests on individuals like Einstein. Weren’t these the same people that led to the creation of the atomic bomb? But putting that aside, the idea of us being able to do anything to have an evolutionary advantage does not fly with me. Evolution as we understand it is a law of nature (survival-of-the-fittest). Let me illustrate. A number of years ago, I used to run (jog). When you begin to train after a period of inactivity, you notice that you can’t think at all when you are running. This may be because your body is simply concerned with your survival and not your thinking. In this sense, thinking interferes with survival and it is discarded. In a collective sense, think about natural disasters like the Tsunami earthquake, it seems that nature is in no way concerned with our ability to think. The earthquake took the lives of anything, regardless. Some animals survived and some humans survived and those humans who survived did so not necessarily because they were better thinkers. I would say that in some cases, thinking may have helped, and that in others, it may have harmed the chances of survival. What I am saying is that there seems to be a place for thinking. What is that place?

I would think there are "good" alternatives to thinking.
The ants do not think but yet is more populous than human on earth. We cannot eliminate them all.
The rats are relatively dumb compared to humans, but they hide on our ships to get to another continent.
Goldfish survives and succeed based on vanity.

To talk about giving something else a chance... Perhaps you may want to discard being a "thinker" and be very "faithful".
Then you may stop thinking and surrender your lives to me.

Would you? I don't think so.

Why would I surrender my life to anyone who has already surrendered his? Please don’t misinterpret this to be a backlash. I will explain. You seem to think there is something intrinsically different between the critical thinker and the faithful. You are both believers; your Gods are different, but you serve them well. Critical thinkers believe in the things they can sense. Whereas, the faithful believe in the things they can’t. Some of the problems we face stem from thinking that they’re different. In some ways you are. But in this fundamental sense they’re not. If a critical thinker weren’t a critical thinker, he would be a faithful or some other kind of believer. You probably already know all this and you simply don’t remember it from time to time.

 

[seayakin]

It appears you are stating (or at least offering a supposition) that the world is in some disastrous state which implies that it is worse off than it has ever been. This is an unproven premise. At the same time, you are connecting a cause to this state which is "thinking" which is undefined and unconnected.

Can you elaborate?

 

[FreeChile]

It appears you are stating (or at least offering a supposition) that the world is in some disastrous state which implies that it is worse off than it has ever been.

No. My opening statement for the thread starts by saying “For those who believe this to be the case.” Some details about the world now from before are different, that's all. For instance, our ability to destroy ourselves using nuclear and biological weapons, as opposed to bombing each other or clobbering each other to death.

This is an unproven premise.

See above reply.

At the same time, you are connecting a cause to this state which is "thinking" which is undefined and unconnected.

The meaning we have given to the word thinking is not the main question here. If you feel this is important for this discussion, perhaps we can discuss this. There is actually another thread, initiated by Jyera, that treats this definition. The name of the thread is “What is thinking”.

Here we have spoken of multiple things: problem solving cycles, critical thinking, thinking, and the limits of thinking.

Can you elaborate?

Please let me know if there is anything else you would like me to clarify.

 

[Phil]

I hate to get all pedantic, but it seems others, like me, are somewhat confused about exactly what it is you'd like to discuss in this thread.

Your opening post:

For those who believe this to be the case, the world is in a tragic state. It is corrupted and possibly beyond repair.

It is therefore not particularly difficult to identify the problems of the world, to project our own meaning on them, and to suggest solutions.

However, the solutions we provide never seem to work—at least not for long. So we end up going back to where we began.

What is at the root of this vicious cycle and is there a way we can escape it? Is this a topic for critical thinking, or even for thinking? Or have we simply reached the limits of thinking when we tackle something like this?

If we have in fact reached the limits, is there a way we can know that we have so we can realize it and ultimately stop thinking and perhaps give something else a chance?

Are you taking the stance of the "those who believe this to be the case" people?

If so, that is fine, but to proceed with your questions as stated, you have to first establish that the vicious cycle you mentioned exists. Otherwise, the discussion is moot.

Until you establish that the cycle exists, asking, "What is at the root of this vicious cycle and is there a way we can escape it?" holds the same merit as asking, "What is the desire of Mount Rushmore, and is there a way to see it in Washington's eyes?".

Perhaps you might dispense with the "vicious cycle" element altogether, and restate the opening post to something like:

What are the limits of thinking?

Is there a point at which thinking becomes counter-productive, or even detrimental?

Is there an alternative method other than thinking that we might deploy instead?

If so, what are the circumstances under which we should deploy the alternative method?

And . . .

Are we even capable of recognizing those circumstances as requiring a shift in method?

Just a suggestion. Sorry if this is out of line.

 

[Jyera]

Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Hi FreeChile,

My last post was based on the context of Human as a Species.

As such, when I mentioned success, I meant success as a species. To have more humans on earth than other species. Or to have a better chance to propagate the human genes in this world.

I do associate intelligence closely with thinking.
But let me rephrase to exclude intelligence.

ie. "We are a species which owe it's success to being able to think better than other species. "
I think this is a the common presumption by many people.

It should also be clear to you that I meant to say ...

"As such, it would be suicidal for us (as a species) to stop thinking."

To elaborate, without our ability to out-think other species,
we might be doomed as a species. We have neither bigger muscle, nor sharper teeth nor claws.

The implication of this, to us individual humans, is that it is our responsibility to think and think and think, even if it is not easy.
I argue that we need to do lots of thinking, for the sake of the survival of our species.

 

[Jyera]

Re: Re: Re: Limits of Thinking

Why would I surrender my life to anyone who has already surrendered his? Please don’t misinterpret this to be a backlash. I will explain. You seem to think there is something intrinsically different between the critical thinker and the faithful. You are both believers; your Gods are different, but you serve them well. Critical thinkers believe in the things they can sense. Whereas, the faithful believe in the things they can’t. Some of the problems we face stem from thinking that they’re different. In some ways you are. But in this fundamental sense they’re not. If a critical thinker weren’t a critical thinker, he would be a faithful or some other kind of believer. You probably already know all this and you simply don’t remember it from time to time.

I understand what you said, and do not interpret as a backlash.

Consider this exploring this question...
brought up by someone in the JREF forum.

"When does knowledge becomes a belief?"

You can find my response on this somewhere in the forum.
But I'm interested to see if you arrive at the same conclusion as me.

 

[FreeChile]

Before I respond to the last few replies, I would like to expand on one of my initial statements.

"It is therefore not particularly difficult to identify the problems of the world, to project our own meaning on them, and to suggest solutions."

I had been reading a libertarian article on-line for content and opinion and felt the author to be making a lot of sense--until he opened his mouth. What I mean by this, is that he was quite successful in pointing out the problems just like I am in this thread and most people on this site. But the moment we provide solutions, we inevitably cause other problems (side effects), and then it is time for someone else to realize these new problems.

This phenomenon does not seem to be restricted to libertarians--it just happened to be what I was reading when I realized this. I see myself and others in this cycle all the time, both individually and collectively.

This is why you see me here quite hesitant to open my mouth in the sense I've illustrated here. Yet, even this effort (not opening my mouth), does not help in freeing me. This is partially why I call the cycle "vicious". Any effort on my part continues to be trapped in the cycle. This is also where I question my ability to think myself out of the cycle--hence the implied limit on thinking.

Would this be sufficient proof of the existence of a cycle?

 

[seayakin]

Before I respond to the last few replies, I would like to expand on one of my initial statements.

"It is therefore not particularly difficult to identify the problems of the world, to project our own meaning on them, and to suggest solutions."

I had been reading a libertarian article on-line for content and opinion and felt the author to be making a lot of sense--until he opened his mouth. What I mean by this, is that he was quite successful in pointing out the problems just like I am in this thread and most people on this site. But the moment we provide solutions, we inevitably cause other problems (side effects), and then it is time for someone else to realize these new problems.

This phenomenon does not seem to be restricted to libertarians--it just happened to be what I was reading when I realized this. I see myself and others in this cycle all the time, both individually and collectively.

This is why you see me here quite hesitant to open my mouth in the sense I've illustrated here. Yet, even this effort (not opening my mouth), does not help in freeing me. This is partially why I call the cycle "vicious". Any effort on my part continues to be trapped in the cycle. This is also where I question my ability to think myself out of the cycle--hence the implied limit on thinking.

Would this be sufficient proof of the existence of a cycle?

This makes more sense to me given your previous statements. It is my sense that as a rule there is no complete solution to any problem. Therefore, any solution to a problem will always create new problems.

Cost benefit analysis is based on this. The energy game is probably highly indicative of this problem. We use firewood which provides heat and other forms of energy but it creates soot and particulate pollution. It does create enough energy to support industrial society so we convert to coal. Coal is perhaps dirtier but it produces a greater amount of energy. We use nuclear energy because it does not produce the air pollution and promises greater amount of energy but produces nuclear waste.

I would suggest that no solution is without cost. The real question is, do the costs outweigh the benefits. I would similarly argue that thinking is one type of solution and does the costs outweigh the benefits. (The alternative solution to species survival might be considered instinct.)

 

[FreeChile]

This makes more sense to me given your previous statements. It is my sense that as a rule there is no complete solution to any problem. Therefore, any solution to a problem will always create new problems.

Cost benefit analysis is based on this. The energy game is probably highly indicative of this problem. We use firewood which provides heat and other forms of energy but it creates soot and particulate pollution. It does create enough energy to support industrial society so we convert to coal. Coal is perhaps dirtier but it produces a greater amount of energy. We use nuclear energy because it does not produce the air pollution and promises greater amount of energy but produces nuclear waste.

I would suggest that no solution is without cost. The real question is, do the costs outweigh the benefits. I would similarly argue that thinking is one type of solution and does the costs outweigh the benefits. (The alternative solution to species survival might be considered instinct.)

Isn’t saying “costs and benefits” just another way of saying “problems and solutions”?

The first problem I notice is that what represents a cost is quite subjective--especially when we consider beliefs. What is cost to some is benefit to others. This also applies to problems and solutions.

How about the tendency to do things regardless of cost, the irrationality inherent in us? When this happens, we say that the individual is not really a critical thinker anymore. But isn’t the person a thinker, not understanding his beliefs, or protecting his beliefs as I’ve mentioned before?

Also, are these questions really important? Someone suggested here before that things may not actually change. Does this imply that there may be some conservation laws in the solution-problem structure? Or is the structure simply destructive in nature.

I don’t mean to refer to dualistic issues, but I can’t help but notice that this sort of blurs the line between solution and problem, which is why I also ask if there may be a conservation law. You can no longer say “Here’s a solution”; instead, you need to say, “Here’s a solution with problems.”

 

[drkitten]

Isn’t saying “costs and benefits” just another way of saying “problems and solutions”?

Not at all.

Costs and benefits are both inherent in any proposed solution (including as a special degenerate case the "null solution" of not doing anything at all).

The "cost" of a solution isn't the same as a "problem" with the solution, although if the cost is unacceptably high, that may create another problem in need of solution. But the "cost" is
simply an acknowledgement that if you do one thing, it may prevent you from doing something else.

 

[FreeChile]

This makes more sense to me given your previous statements. It is my sense that as a rule there is no complete solution to any problem. Therefore, any solution to a problem will always create new problems.

Cost benefit analysis is based on this. The energy game is probably highly indicative of this problem. We use firewood which provides heat and other forms of energy but it creates soot and particulate pollution. It does create enough energy to support industrial society so we convert to coal. Coal is perhaps dirtier but it produces a greater amount of energy. We use nuclear energy because it does not produce the air pollution and promises greater amount of energy but produces nuclear waste.

I would suggest that no solution is without cost. The real question is, do the costs outweigh the benefits. I would similarly argue that thinking is one type of solution and does the costs outweigh the benefits. (The alternative solution to species survival might be considered instinct.)

Sorry for not noticing the following earlier.

Correct me if necessary. But you seem to be saying that the decision to think, to solve a problem, instead of not thinking (or using instincts), for instance, could be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. How could this be? Firstly, analysis requires thinking. It may have some mechanical parts to it (like collecting data), but ultimately, it requires reasoning and interpretation, at the least. Also, wouldn’t you need to think about the problem to know if you should think about the problem? The only place where I see this being the slightest possible is if the problem were a duplicate of, or very similar to, a past problem. In which case you would simply be employing an already established solution, perhaps with refinement; and yet you would need to determine that the two problems were similar. Establishing this would again require thinking.

The logical problem here is that thinking is not a type of solution, as you argued. One of the reasons we think is to try to solve problems. So the solution comes from thinking. Thinking creates the problem and the solution. Neither the problem, nor the solution act on thinking.

 

[seayakin]

Sorry for not noticing the following earlier.

Correct me if necessary. But you seem to be saying that the decision to think, to solve a problem, instead of not thinking (or using instincts), for instance, could be subjected to cost-benefit analysis.

How could this be? Firstly, analysis requires thinking. It may have some mechanical parts to it (like collecting data), but ultimately, it requires reasoning and interpretation, at the least. Also, wouldn’t you need to think about the problem to know if you should think about the problem? The only place where I see this being the slightest possible is if the problem were a duplicate of, or very similar to, a past problem. In which case you would simply be employing an already established solution, perhaps with refinement; and yet you would need to determine that the two problems were similar. Establishing this would again require thinking.

Of course, this kind of analysis would have to be done by a third party. Beacuse, as you say, if you begin an analysis you begin to think and are no longer acting on instinct. I would define instinct as preprogrammed behavior or behavior that is a specific required response to a given stimuli. Whereas, thinking implies there is a set of solutions wherein one can to select. (Of course, determinists argue this is not possible but would require a different thread.)

The logical problem here is that thinking is not a type of solution, as you argued. One of the reasons we think is to try to solve problems. So the solution comes from thinking. Thinking creates the problem and the solution. Neither the problem, nor the solution act on thinking.

I would argue it is an overall solution to lifes challenges. Someone can go through life without thinking simply meeting there immediate needs. Isn't there a saying the unexamined life is not worth examining. Therefore, thinking in the generic sense can be applied as solution that defines a pattern of behavior for dealing with life's problems. However, I would agree that thinking is not a solution to a specific problem. For instance, I want children (and lets say i'm 17). I have a number of choices, I can act virtually on instinct and knocku p some girl. I can think about it which would involve identifying further problems like how I would support this children (assuming I intended to that) and developing multiple solutions or plans that this chain of events would created once I successfully procreated. This might be identified as a subset of thinking if you identify thinking in a hierarchy such as

-Thinking
--Data gathering
--Analysis
--Testing
--etc.