What is thinking?

[Jyera]

What is thinking?

1. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes and a picture of a house pop up in your brain. Did you think?

2. Is recalling something from memory considered thinking?

3. Is imagining up a picture of a ficticious house thinking?

4. Recalling and Imagining a house,
which is a more TRUE form of thinking?

 

[apoger]

1: Yes
2: Yes
3: Yes
4: Neither


1> Cat
2> Comprehensive

Which is a more TRUE word? Neither. They are both words.

All thoughts are thoughts. They are equally thoughts.

May I ask what are you trying to express by calling the thought process "TRUE".
Are you suggesting that one is more complex than the other? Probably. But that does not make it more "True".
Are you suggesting that one form of thought is more "real", or closer to an objective reality?

Where are you going with this?

 

[Jyera]

Recalling, Analysing, imagining are all categorised as thinking by the dictionary.

One common quote "I thinkth therefore I am".
Suggests that thinking is associated with consciousness, being alive and also having free will. Whether this is accurate, is another matter. The point is having freewill and freedom of original thought is desired in general. At least desired by me.

I watched BBC series about "The Brain Story" hosted by Susan Greenfield. They questioned if we have freedom of thought.

We seems to be bound by our brains, which receives most of the input from external sources.

Something that is recalled from our mind, seems to me, a passive process. It is not original. We cannot control it, it depends on the input. We do not want to control it to preserve the integrity of an input for recollection. Eg. We see some picture of a house and retain it.
Although the input could be controlled by us. But most often than not, it is heavily influnence by external sources. Ads, TV, other's opinion, and bad or good personal experience not planned by us.

Therefore it seems that the saving grace to our freedom of thought lies in imagination. Where things can be "created".

But there is still a question whether a person (eg. new born baby) can imagine a ficticious house without knowledge what a house is or how it looked liked.

It seemed impossible to imagine a ficticious house, (not to recall a house), if the baby do not know what a house is and have not seen or heard about a house. Which implied that imagination can only happen with a foundation of recallable stuffs (images or thought. )

And the logic seems to imply the "contradictory" and unfavourable conclusion that we do not have freedom of thoughts and do not have freewill.

 

[Jyera]

1. On why I use TRUE.
If we just do recalling and do not imagine we'll be just like a robot or Zombie, we do not exists.
It give us no freedom.
TRUE think ought to give us freedom of thought and freewill.
If you could think of a a better word than TRUE.

2. On implying recalling as not thinking.
Sometimes in a simple chess game, where the young child simply mimic a move out of memory. ( the instructor made the silly opening move previously to test the child) And we gets comments like...

"Why do you make such a foolish chess move? I can capture if you move it there you. Why are'nt you thinking?"

Which implies thinking have to be more that just simple recalling.
And it seems "wrong" to retort that recalling is indeed thinking.

 

[JAK]

Originally posted by Jyera
...

Which implies thinking have to be more that just simple recalling.
And it seems "wrong" to retort that recalling is indeed thinking.

It may seem “wrong” to consider recalling as thinking, but you would be hard-pressed to separate it from thinking. (For more on recall, see O.G. Selfridge’s 1959 Pandemonium model or, more recently, Dominic Masaro’s Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception – FLMP.)

Nevertheless, recalling and imagination are quite different forms of thinking. The former is a “matching” process – matching sensory input to stored memory patterns. The latter is a constructive process of taking stored memory patterns and mixing/integrating them in new and unusual ways. For instance, you can take the image of a pencil sharpener and integrate it with the image of a cup of coffee. The slot where the pencil goes suddenly becomes the bowl to fill with coffee. Or you could attach a cup handle onto the pencil sharpener. Either way, something emerges which you may have never considered before.

Even so, the creative process I used is a learned technique. I happen to have a pencil sharpener nearby, and I just opened a Reader’s Digest randomly. By happenstance, I opened it to an advertisement showing a man in pajamas bending down to pick up a newspaper with one hand while holding a coffee cup with the other. I selected the coffee cup but could easily have selected his pajamas. In that case, I would have created little pajamas for my pencil sharpener. (Hey, this might turn into a cottage industry.)

The point is that even creativity has experience and knowledge tied into it. To try and separate the ultimate “free will” or “this is uniquely me” thinking from mundane thoughts is fraught with peril.

As you walk through life gathering thoughts and experiences – as well as adapting and creating – you are becoming a unique you, a unique thinker. In fact, part of your uniqueness stems from what you do with the images you fetch from memory – creativity and imagination.

Still ... what you do with those memories (the creative process) has a lot to do with your experiences with others and with the environment.

Why is it important for you to clarify this issue? Are you searching for uniqueness? Or something else?

 

[woodguard]

A computer can do all of these things, in one way or another.
But it is not thinking.

Want do you call the operator, the one who decides to do these things, the thinker?

Is thinking and processing data the same thing?

 

[JAK]

A computer can do all of these things, in one way or another.
But it is not thinking.

Want do you call the operator, the one who decides to do these things, the thinker?

Is thinking and processing data the same thing?

You are correct that "the one who decides" is critical and separates us from the computer. Basically, this is what humanist psychologists call "values" and proposed by Abraham Maslow almost half a century ago. It is also what Wilder Penfield uncovered in the late 1940s with his experiments with live and awake humans with their brains exposed. When he touched points on the cortex, the patients recalled a specific memory. Further, they recalled the emotion(s) tied to the experience in the memory.

It is by tying a "value" to a memory that allows us to make a decision through competing that memory with other memories. The memory/idea of highest "value" becomes dominant and controls behavior. This appears to occur in the nucleus reticulus thalami (nRt) - see Bernard J. Baars and James Newman.

Tying a dynamic, adjustable value to any piece memory is not presently available with computer technology. When it is, we may need to change our attitudes toward computers (or refer to them differently).

 

[Jyera]

Hi JAK,

Firstly thanks for your contribution.
But I would like to apologise for not replying soon.
I'm not trying to be rude by ignoring, but I'm really quite confused by myself about what to reply. Especially "Why is it important for you to clarify this issue?".

I do not know why is it important, but to put it simply, I have been constantly interested to know how the brain works and how we think. To know the truth about what is thinking appealed to me. And thus I think it is "important" to me.

After knowing the truth, I had to deal with the implication of the truth. Eg. Some info implied "no Freewill", while other "evidence/experience/logic" implied there is such thing as freewill. Thus it is confusing to me. And I suppose the lack of freewill unsettles me quite a bit. I suppose it is important for me to sort it out.

Thirdly it seemed to me there are some language/communication problem. Eg. what does thinking means to everyone? Different people have different meaning to "thinking". Some even implied recalling is not thinking. I suppose, it is important for me to settle the generic "language/communication" problem.

 

[Jyera]

A computer can do all of these things, in one way or another.
But it is not thinking.

Want do you call the operator, the one who decides to do these things, the thinker?

Is thinking and processing data the same thing?

A computer can "recall" a piece of information or data.
Since recalling is thinking, according to the dictionary definition, then the computer can think. But everyone else would mock such deduction.

A computer can do a logical thinking based on the logic provided by a programmer. Just as I'm able to do logical thinking if the same programmer taught me how to do it. I would declared I did some thinking. Then why do we not refer to the computer as thinking?

 

[JAK]

...
I'm really quite confused by myself about what to reply. Especially "Why is it important for you to clarify this issue?".

I do not know why is it important, but to put it simply, I have been constantly interested to know how the brain works and how we think. To know the truth about what is thinking appealed to me. And thus I think it is "important" to me.
...

I could produce significant theoretical and factual support about our need to learn and gain knowledge. But it is very general and does not speak to the specific yearnings of each individual. Just knowing and feeling that ".. it is 'important' to me" is reason enough to follow your sojourn. Much work has been done in the field, and I have encapsulated on my website what I consider many of the most compelling ideas of other researchers and theorists. Because the ideas integrate with each other, they satisfy the Coherence Theory of Truth, or at least they satisfy the spirit of it. If you are looking for a starting point, my website is one place to try.

A computer can "recall" a piece of information or data.
Since recalling is thinking, according to the dictionary definition, then the computer can think. But everyone else would mock such deduction.
...
Then why do we not refer to the computer as thinking?

Again, I believe the key difference is in "values." The computer, as a machine does not "want" or "not want." It has no feelings, no aspirations. It is only when feelings and aspirations are introduced into "thinking" do we uncover that special ability only living beings have. Computers do not feel "good" or "bad" - or anything for that matter. Only living beings feel, and it is an itegral part of our thinking.

 

[Jyera]

Hi Jak,

I read some articles from your site and found it quite informative.
http://www.theoryofmind.org

What do you intend to do with the knowledge?

 

[JAK]

Hi Jak,

I read some articles from your site and found it quite informative.
http://www.theoryofmind.org

What do you intend to do with the knowledge?

The whole theoretical approach points toward the incredible importance of creativity. Creativity is a foundation or a synonym for many terms: innovation, adaptation, problem solving, imagination, artistry. It is the means by which we see relationships and work with them either to enhance our feelings or to overcome obstacles and dangers. Here are a few reasons to enhance creativity:

Creativity is fun.
Creativity allows us to uniquely express ourselves.
Creativity helps us solve problems.
Creativity enhances communication (verbal or written).
Creativity facilitates social interactions.

Ultimately, I can show a hint or more of creativity in virtually everything we do - every moment of our lives. Of course, some actions are only vaguely creative while others are brilliantly creative. Unfortunately, our technological society has produced many, many, "robotic" jobs filled by humans ("Would you like to 'Biggie Size' your order?").

One day, I would love to help someone achieve a new level in robotics. I can provide theoretical assistance and facilitate any group. Even though I started my career as an assembler programmer supporting a "homegrown" mainframe executive, I am lacking in much "hardware" expertise required for robotics.

Anyway, as a result of the theoretical basis, I co-authored a creativity game over 15 years ago. It was a tool to enhance everyone's innate creativity, and it was well received. Unfortunately for me, no one seemed interested in why or how it worked. My partners likened it to inventing a jet airplane. Many people fly in jets every day, but few are interested in how the engines work. Similarly, people loved to play The Creativity Game, but no one cared why it was effective or how it worked. A downturn in the U.S. economy sent my partners and me back to our cushy IT jobs, and The Creativity Game went into hibernation.

 

[Jyera]

The Creativity Game

The Creativity Game you mentioned sounds interesting.

Is it a boardgame or Card game of computer game?

You mentioned creativity to enhance social interaction.
Does your game seeks to improve what people described as EQ?

 

[JAK]

Re: The Creativity Game

The Creativity Game you mentioned sounds interesting.

Is it a boardgame or Card game of computer game?

You mentioned creativity to enhance social interaction.
Does your game seeks to improve what people described as EQ?

It's a card game. Presently, I am rebuilding it as a web game which should be ready within about a month.

The use in social interaction has various aspects. As you play the game, you become adept at seeing more and more relationships. While in a conversation, you can see analogies as well as different viewpoints - including reasonable support for them. The benefit from this is that it tends to soften extreme viewpoints which helps people become more flexible in working relationships and social interactions. In fact, it strongly supports team efforts - especially for planning and problem solving. But the list of uses in social interaction (including humor) goes on and on.

EQ? The only term that comes to mind is "encephalization quotient" used to "guesstimate" the relative intelligence of animals and dinosaurs. Is that the EQ that you meant?

As for increasing a person's intelligence, no formal studies have been done, but anecdotal results suggest a marked improvement in problem-solving abilities. If EQ or IQ doesn't relate to solving problems, what good is it? The creativity game MAY enhance this ability. Plus, it's fun!

 

[Jyera]

By EQ. I meant "Emotional Quotient".

 

[JAK]

By EQ. I meant "Emotional Quotient".

Great lead! THANK YOU, Jyera!!

I'm unfamiliar with the work, but it looks like Mayer/Salovey are the focal point for this. I'll start catching up on their work.

In general, my work recognizes the critical element of emotions in any and all human interactions and thinking. But I have not formulated many techniques other than in creativity and philosophic directions for life.

Any other thoughts about EQ/EI?

 

[jmercer]

A computer can "recall" a piece of information or data.
Since recalling is thinking, according to the dictionary definition, then the computer can think. But everyone else would mock such deduction.

A computer can do a logical thinking based on the logic provided by a programmer. Just as I'm able to do logical thinking if the same programmer taught me how to do it. I would declared I did some thinking. Then why do we not refer to the computer as thinking?

I figured I'd address this single post since one of the few things I can claim to be is a "computer expert". And please don't take this as mocking - it's not. It's a technical explanation.

While a computer can recall information and/or data, it cannot interpret or assign significance to that data. So citing a computer's ability to retrieve information, data - even images - as "thinking" is clearly false.

When you say "house" and an image of a house appears in your mind, your mind assigns it a certain value, and often sub-values as well. This automatically happens as a part of the process of recalling the image. Many of these values (such as feelings if you're thinking of your home) are generated by the image, and are not "stored" somewhere in your mind.

A computer has no such automatic process for assigning value to something retrieved. If you tell a computer program (NOT a computer!) to retrieve "house", it will retrieve everything related to "house" by taking the binary string that equals the word "house", and mathematically comparing binary strings in the searchable elements of the data. Whenever it gets a match, it retrieves the object. The computer program assigns no intrinsic or emotional value to what it retrieves - in fact, even the value "house" is embedded in the data, and not in the computer itself.

Regarding programs - the same argument applies. A programmer writes a series of rules, which - again using binary comparisons and arithmetic operations - appears to assign values to data. However, this is an illusion - it's the programmer that has assigned value to the data when he or she devised the rules of the program.

So, while the process of recall in a computer resembles thinking in human beings, that's only because human beings crafted computers to provide the desired results. It's not because the computer itself "decides" what value to assign to any particular piece of data.

 

[drkitten]

I figured I'd address this single post since one of the few things I can claim to be is a "computer expert". And please don't take this as mocking - it's not. It's a technical explanation.

While a computer can recall information and/or data, it cannot interpret or assign significance to that data. So citing a computer's ability to retrieve information, data - even images - as "thinking" is clearly false.

[...]

So, while the process of recall in a computer resembles thinking in human beings, that's only because human beings crafted computers to provide the desired results. It's not because the computer itself "decides" what value to assign to any particular piece of data.

While true, there is a meta-issue that you're glossing over, which is the ability of computers to self-program; to decide "for themselves" what value to assign to a particular datum in accordance with a broader meta-program written by a human. This kind of self-modification is a key aspect of the various disciplines of artificial intelligence, machine learning, data mining, pattern recognition, and so forth.

A classic example of this is in the way that connectionist networks work -- the system is presented with a set of (in some cases unlabelled) data, and modifies itself, usually by adjusting a set of numeric "weights," in order to produce a "better" fit to the data. The results of such a calculation are typically very good, but they are specifically not the result of a human being hand-crafting computers (more accurately, programs) to provide the results. Instead, they come from humans hand-crafting programs to machine-craft programs to produce the results. There's also no reason to stop the meta-issues here; Nakisa, for example, has had quite good results with "genetic connectionism," where the network design itself was the output of yet another optimization program -- in other words, a human hand-crafted a program to craft a program to craft a program to get results. And there's still no reason to stop : lather, rinse, repeat.

There are, however, other examples -- one of my favorites is a computer program designed to look for interesting graph theory problems. Basically, it generates random conjectures of the form "[Graph property 1] >= [Graph property 1]," and generates graphs a random until it finds a counterexample. If no counterexample is found in a zillion random trials, it puts the conjecture into an automated theorem prover and tries to prove it. Obviously, a human had to design and write this program -- but that human may never have "thought" about the particular new theorem that the system finds.

The real trouble, though, is that this meta-problem mimics a lot of what we know about human intelligence as well. Humans obviously get most of their information by observation of the world, but they are also well-fit (by design or by evolution) to observe the world and to collect information. How is this different than a neural network that is designed to observe a problem space, to collect information about it, and then to respond?

 

[jmercer]

You make some good points, and I concede that some of these systems do some amazing things. But to keep things on an even-keel here, Artificial Intelligence does not exist at this time.

I'd like to also point out that you (very properly!) used the term "mimic" in regards to the behavior of neural nets, machine "learning", data mining, etc. Systems are flexible, and the combinations of rules and constraints placed on them can indeed allow them to perform life-like acts. But to think - to actually think - I believe would require artificial intelligence and self-awareness - not an emulation of it.

Even the Turing test wouldn't establish self-awareness... it would simply determine that some system had reached a state of sophistication that could fool a human into thinking he/she was in communication with another human.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but as I said - I don't think you can separate thinking from self-awareness.

 

[drkitten]

I'd like to also point out that you (very properly!) used the term "mimic" in regards to the behavior of neural nets, machine "learning", data mining, etc. Systems are flexible, and the combinations of rules and constraints placed on them can indeed allow them to perform life-like acts. But to think - to actually think - I believe would require artificial intelligence and self-awareness - not an emulation of it.

This is a legitimate, but unfortunately unsupported position. Especialy since psychologists cannot in any meaningful way define, discuss, or test for "self-awareness," this really isn't any different than someone insisting that intelligence is a function of the "soul" and since computers are "obviously" soul-less, they can never be intelligent no matter how human-like their behavior is.

This may be a limitation of the empirical paradigm; I can't test for the presence of a "soul," and any of the tests I can perform for the presence of "self-awareness" could be programmed into a sufficiently complex machine. Would it satisfy you if I built a robot that was demonstrably able to "recognize" its reflection in a mirror?