• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is thinking?

Jyera said:
I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

Now here's Wittgenstein's concept of a proposition in the context of thought. Does this help explain the statement "A thought is a proposition with a sense"?

4.001 The totality of propositions is language.
3.1 In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.
3.221 Objects can only be named. Signs are their representatives. I can only speak about them: I cannot put them into words. Propositions can only say how things are, not what they are.
3.3 Only propositions have sense; only in the nexus of a proposition does a name have meaning.
4.01 A proposition is a picture of reality. A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it.
4.022 Man possesses the ability to construct languages capable of expressing every sense, without having any idea how each word has meaning or what its meaning is--just as people speak without knowing how the individual sounds are produced. Everyday language is a part of the human organism and is no less complicated than it. It is not humanly possible to gather immediately from it what the logic of language is. Language disguises thought. So much so, that from the outward form of the clothing it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath it, because the outward form of the clothing is not designed to reveal the form of the body, but for entirely different purposes.
 
FreeChile said:
Now here's Wittgenstein's concept of a proposition in the context of thought. Does this help explain the statement "A thought is a proposition with a sense"?

4.001 The totality of propositions is language.
3.1 In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.
3.221 Objects can only be named. Signs are their representatives. I can only speak about them: I cannot put them into words. Propositions can only say how things are, not what they are.
3.3 Only propositions have sense; only in the nexus of a proposition does a name have meaning.
4.01 A proposition is a picture of reality. A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it.
4.022 Man possesses the ability to construct languages capable of expressing every sense, without having any idea how each word has meaning or what its meaning is--just as people speak without knowing how the individual sounds are produced. Everyday language is a part of the human organism and is no less complicated than it. It is not humanly possible to gather immediately from it what the logic of language is. Language disguises thought. So much so, that from the outward form of the clothing it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath it, because the outward form of the clothing is not designed to reveal the form of the body, but for entirely different purposes.
It appears to me that we are moving toward the qualia discussion of the old "unconsciousness" thread - a mere 14 pages long.
 
FreeChile said:
"A thought is a proposition with a sense."

-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
-- Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Hi FreeChile,

After reading your posts on ...
- Sense and Reference. ...
- Here's what Wittgenstein explains a sense to be. ...
- Now here's Wittgenstein's concept of a proposition in the context of thought. ...

I now understand the meaning of the sentence.

Thanks.
 
Jyera said:
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?
...snipe...
How will ... the statement,
"A thought is a proposition with a sense.", contribute to the above scenario?

(In my mind, the sentence translates to ...
"a thought is a picture reality with a meaning.")[SIZE]


I suppose the house that pops up in the mind is a thought?
Since it is a thought, I "thinked" (thought).

If I cannot stop the house from popping up, is it still a thought?
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, did I think?
 
Re: Re: What is thinking?

Jyera said:
How will ... the statement,
"A thought is a proposition with a sense.", contribute to the above scenario?

(In my mind, the sentence translates to ...
"a thought is a picture reality with a meaning.")


I suppose the house that pops up in the mind is a thought?
Since it is a thought, I "thinked" (thought).
Firstly, you would need to have the experience of a house in your "world", to use Wittgenstein's terminology. Without this experience, you would need to create the house based on the experiences you've had and/or input from the world outside. If noone is there to tell you what the object is, you may not even call it a house. You may not even give a name at all. Yet, it is possible for you to make use of the house as it would be related to other objects from its world. These relationships would be new experiences to you, just like the house would be a new experience to you.

With the experience of a house as a base, one thing you would tell yourself is "The object that I am looking at is a house." You may also tell yourself how the house sits in connection with other objects. For example, "the house has a front lawn."
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, is it still a thought?
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, did I think?
Yes. In both cases.
 
hammegk said:
You are beginning to understand ??? :D
Hey, I haven't reached 200 posts while you are over 4000. I think I am catching on relatively quickly.

On the other hand, if this is all so hopeless, what keeps bringing you back? ;)
 
Re: Re: Re: What is thinking?

I agree with what FreeChile mentioned in the last post.

Let me push it further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 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?
...snipe...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the above scenario....

(Q1) If the effect of the putting a word "house" in front of a baby's eyes caused some apparently "non-related" image/concept to be "pop-up". Did the baby think?

Answer : I suppose we would agree is, "Yes, the baby did think."

(Q2) What if no image pop-up. But a voice echoed "house" in the mind? Did you think?

(Q3) What if no image pop-up, no voice pop-up, but an urge to do something pop-up? Did you think?

(Q3a) Is an urge for action, prompted by external stimuli, a thought ?
 
JAK said:
It appears to me that we are moving toward the qualia discussion of the old "unconsciousness" thread - a mere 14 pages long.
JAK, I understand and noted some similarity.

However, I do hope that the Quality-Quantity ratio of this thread will be much better. It is up to us to make it happen.
 
Jyera said:
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, is it still a thought?
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, did I think?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in asking these two questions, your central concern appears to be "freedom of thought." Yet, you have not defined what you mean by "freedom of thought." The idea expressed in these sentences concerning this freedom is problematic. In stopping or not stopping the house from popping up, you are concerned with the process of thinking. This process works the same way for everyone. It is like the other functions of the body. Why should it be any special for you so as to give you freedom? So looking at thinking itself does not tell you much about freedom.

I would look at the opposite of things to see if they get you any closer. Look at "not thinking" and at "bondage." What are you not allowed to think? What is everyone else not allowed to think? People are not allowed to have the same thoughts as you. Also, they are not allowed to know what you are thinking just like you are not allowed to know what someone else is thinking. So we are bound to our own thoughts.
 
FreeChile said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in asking these two questions, your central concern appears to be "freedom of thought." Yet, you have not defined what you mean by "freedom of thought." The idea expressed in these sentences concerning this freedom is problematic. In stopping or not stopping the house from popping up, you are concerned with the process of thinking.
I agree up to here.
FreeChile said:
This process works the same way for everyone. It is like the other functions of the body. Why should it be any special for you so as to give you freedom? So looking at thinking itself does not tell you much about freedom.
In general, our minds think alike just like everywhere on the planet there is "weather" which works upon the same principles. But in specifics, none of us think alike. The weather in Anchorage, Alaska, is dramatically different from Mombai, India. Weather in the Gobi desert is different from weather in the Caribbean. Yet, the principles are the same in all of those places. Likewise, in the details, we all think differently.

I believe I understand what you are getting at, Free Chile, but it is not entirely clear.
FreeChile said:
I would look at the opposite of things to see if they get you any closer. Look at "not thinking" and at "bondage." What are you not allowed to think? What is everyone else not allowed to think? People are not allowed to have the same thoughts as you. Also, they are not allowed to know what you are thinking just like you are not allowed to know what someone else is thinking. So we are bound to our own thoughts.
Seemingly, we will never know the thoughts of others except in discourse and written word. We do not hear sounds nor see sights exactly as another. (This is most apparent with someone who is color blind or suffers a hearing loss.) Even if we stand side by side, the perspective changes. Further, one may focus on the door of a house while the other focuses upon the roof.

But FreeChile's main point is important. Are we to discuss "how thinking works" (such as Bernard J. Baars, In the Theater of Consciousness, or Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens), or are we to discuss "freedom of thought"? With the later, we will eventually fall back on the former for the very same reasons FreeChile presented. How you make "free" choices about the images in your mind are the direct result of your biochemical makeup and experiences (such as Gerald Edelson's Neural Darwinism and the classic "Nature VS Nurture" debate). Your choice of thoughts is the result of your inbred, natured, nurtured, "all of your life's experience" thinking.

Jyera, do you want to detour through "freedom of thought" land and other destinations, or do you want to go straight for the "end of the line" and neural processing - Baars' Global Workspace Theory (GWT), Powers' Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), Solomon's Opponent-Process Theory (OPT), and Masaro's Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception (FLMP)?
 
[quote:]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jyera

If I cannot stop the house from popping up, is it still a thought?
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, did I think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi FreeChile and JAK,

I have no intent to detour to "Freedom of Thought".

I simply meant to presume that the "popping up" is automatic, and involves no explicit attempt to create the image.

I also DO NOT want to emphasize the element of willfully trying to stop the the image of the house from popping up.

We could presume the popping up is almost immediate. So fast that we cannot even stop it.


Which does means that I can accept the following scenario (A) as equivalent:

(A) " If I flash the word "house" in front of you, and a picture of a doll pops up, did I think ? "

BUT NOT this ...

(B) "If I flash the word "house" in front of you, and you think of many stuff and finally tries to fix a mental image of a house in your mind?"
 
JAK said:
...snipe...
Jyera, do you want to detour through "freedom of thought" land and other destinations, or do you want to go straight for the "end of the line" and neural processing - Baars' Global Workspace Theory (GWT), Powers' Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), Solomon's Opponent-Process Theory (OPT), and Masaro's Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception (FLMP)?
I do not intend to step into "freedom of thought" land.

But I do not intend to avoid it just because it is problematic.

I would like to know the truth of how we think.
GWT, OPT, PCT and FLMP are fine for discussion.
I'm keen to know the theory but I hope they are simple and insightful. I would prefer to discuss those that have a strong clinical emperical evidence.
 
Jyera said:
I do not intend to step into "freedom of thought" land.

But I do not intend to avoid it just because it is problematic.

I would like to know the truth of how we think.
GWT, OPT, PCT and FLMP are fine for discussion.
I'm keen to know the theory but I hope they are simple and insightful. I would prefer to discuss those that have a strong clinical emperical evidence.

GWT, OPT, PCT, FLMP, etc. are insightful, but they are not simple.

In any case, to understand the ideas, it would be best to discard the notions of being human fraught with emotion and feelings.

The new perspective is that you are an energy system, as postulated by Elizabeth Duffy circa the 1930s-1940s. All subsequent interpretations are reduced into energy related terms (thermodynamics). Emotions are a manifestation of energy. If your emotions change, then the direction and/or magnitude of energy distribution within the brain/body changes. The same is true of thought. If your thoughts change, then the distribution of energy within the brain/body changes.

The ultimate purpose of these changes (energy redistributions) is to achieve homeostasis, as postulated by Walter Cannon in the 1920s. (In Perceptual Control Theory, this would be the "reference signal." The most likely site for this is the hypothalamus.) When homeostasis is disturbed, the brain redirects resources in an effort to restore homeostasis. "Thinking" is one of the evolved tools of the brain to help maintain and/or restore homeostasis from disturbances caused by the external environment.

Those who have the strongest empirical evidence wrote the theories (GWT, OPT, PCT, FLMP, etc.). The "umbrella" theories are Behavioral Investment Theory (BIT), by Dr. G. Henriques, and Theory of Emotive Energy (TEE), by J. Keeran, which are two variations on a theme - effective management of bodily resources.

Of key importance is recognizing thinking as not a self-contained object but as an evolved mechanism which supports the body as a whole. Essentially, the purpose of the brain is the management of bodily resources and their distribution to effect survival. The proof of effectiveness is, as Dr. G. would say, the return on investment (ROI). The better the ROI, the more effective the brain's contribution to life. I encapsulate Gregg's ROI idea with the phrase, "We feed success and starve failure." In other words, we direct our resources into behaviors which benefit us and remove resources from behaviors which prove detrimental to us.

Again, what we call "conscious thinking" is just a part of the brain's resource management systems. "Conscious thought" appears to focus on external factors affecting the brained creature. In particular, conscious thought is typically used to fabricate new behavior as well as to adjust old behavior in order to meet the needs of the immediate environment. As Freud said, "Thinking is rehearsal work." To that, I would add another important function - prioritizing and providing direction.

When life is working well, homeostasis returns, and we "feel good" - even euphoric. When problems arise, the brain starts rationing and redirecting energy resources which results in our "feeling bad." This constant ebb and flow (or even "roller-coaster") of feelings results from the ever-changing interactions we have with the environment.
 
I agree -- given naturalism as all there is -- we are maximum perceived benefit algorithms. The alphabet soups mentioned, and behaviorism/etal, all examine that concept in detail.

However, is all I/O in the 4 dimension space we inhabit? Or may I and/or O also be available in dimensions 5 on up? If the latter, I suspect that worldview, and objective idealism, would be equivalent. :)
 
hammegk said:
I agree -- given naturalism as all there is -- we are maximum perceived benefit algorithms. The alphabet soups mentioned, and behaviorism/etal, all examine that concept in detail.

However, is all I/O in the 4 dimension space we inhabit? Or may I and/or O also be available in dimensions 5 on up? If the latter, I suspect that worldview, and objective idealism, would be equivalent. :)
"Naturalism" is limited by our present body of knowledge and our technology. Other dimensions are theoretical, and technology is only grasping in those directions.

The universe must be integrated and systematic. To be otherwise would render a void due to lack of systematic processes and integration. With integration comes the ability to affect and interact. Given that other dimensions ("5 on up") exist, for any usefulness to occur, some means of systematic interaction must exist at some level. As our knowledge and technology grows, such other dimensions will likely be discovered (again, should they exist). And just as the explorers of "The New World" in the 15th and 16th centuries, we, too, may find "native inhabitants" of these new dimensions. We may even find ourselves.

Whatever exists beyond our present knowledge/technology could be amazing beyond our wildest dreams.

I encourage all not to limit those dreams.
 
Re: Re: Re: What is thinking?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FreeChile
"A thought is a proposition with a sense."

-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
-- Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Does what Wittgenstein's reference to as "proposition" limited to just "picture reality" ? Or does he allows "sound", "emotion"?
 
"What is thinking?", Leads to ... "How we think" and "Why we think".

On "Why we think",
There seems to be lots of consensus that the reason "why we think" is to ensure survival. I agree, but I would say that it is equally logical to simply assume that we can think for "NO apparent reason". Perhaps some of us "think" so as to send our species to doom (opposite of survival). Illogical it may sound, but I think it does happens.

"How we think"
I think "how we think" is more meaningful to pursue.

JAK, I 'm perhaps less knowledgeable about the various theory, but my impression of the various theory is that, they use "survival" as a very strong basis for "Why we think", to support their theory of "How we think".

But shouldn't it be the other way round?

ie. "This is how our brain have been built to think".
(Thus "how we think")
Since we seemed to be successful in surviving on planet earth, Therefore our brain and it's way of thinking is good for "survival".
So I may convienently state that the reason "why we think", is to ensure survival.

JAK,

I think many of the theory has it's merit.
However, more talk means more misintepretation.
I would think it is useful for us to expose their CORE MERIT in as simply as possible.

Can any of the theory be distilled down to it's essence, AND be turned into a repeatable experiment?

Eg. How to prove importance of homeostasis?
Does removal of hypothalamus, "proves" homeostasis, by showing that a person no longer seek to bring himself back to the state of "homeostasis"
 
Jyera said:
...
So I may convienently state that the reason "why we think", is to ensure survival.
...
I think many of the theory has it's merit.
However, more talk means more misintepretation.
...
I would think it is useful for us to expose their CORE MERIT in as simply as possible.

Can any of the theory be distilled down to it's essence, AND be turned into a repeatable experiment?
...
Eg. How to prove importance of homeostasis?
Does removal of hypothalamus, "proves" homeostasis, by showing that a person no longer seek to bring himself back to the state of "homeostasis."
First, without the hypothalamus, the brain is dead. It is the single most important part of the brain. Evolution has buried the hypothalamus deep in brain tissue, high on the brain stem, far from bone on all sides, packed by all other brain parts. Evolution protects it, by sheer location and packing, above all other parts of the brain. It is critical for life.

But let's return to your key point: "Can any of the theory be distilled down to it's essence, AND be turned into a repeatable experiment?" I believe so. But you, and the others, will have to help in the clarification.

BACKGROUND: We are immersed in dynamic and complex world which continues to evolve in complexity and dynamism. (Heraclitus, Schrodinger, Kauffman)

EVOLUTION: To survive, we must constantly adapt to the ever-changing environment. (Darwin/Spencer, Shrodinger, Kauffman, others)

LIFE: Life is an array of feelings running from bad to good, from misery to ecstacy. Life is dynamic, 3-D feelings. (Maslow, Plutchik, Johnston, Keeran)

LIFE & HOMEOSTASIS: Perfect homeostasis is the ultimate feeling of life. Ecstacy, a sense of fulfillment, and peace of mind are all close to homeostasis. (Sleeping may be the closest to homeostasis.) The further away you go from homeostasis, the more stress you endure, and the worse you feel. With stress, your body begins malfunctioning, and it eventually leads to destruction and death. (Cannon, and others)

PERSONAL CHALLENGE: Do you want to feel miserable or ecstatic? Whatever your feelings are now, do you want to keep them the same or feel even better? Or do you miss feeling bad? Do you want to feel more sickness and pain? Most people choose feeling good or even feeling better. (Aristotle, Maslow, and others)

THINKING: Thinking is plotting a course to your goal of feeling better or worse, success or failure, happiness or stress, life or death. This primarily includes prioritizing (choosing), planning (adapting), and modeling.

TYPES OF THINKING: Fundamentally, there are two: SEEK and AVOID (also called approach and avoidance). You plot and plan in order to gain something, achieve something. You SEEK it. Similarly, you plot and plan to avoid or destroy other things. (Skinner, Plutchick, McCelland, and many others)

So, "can any of the theory be distilled down to it's essence, AND be turned into a repeatable experiment?"

Let's try this: We constantly strive to feel as good as possible and avoid whatever makes us feel bad. (Aristotle, Darwin, Cannon, Maslow, Johnston, Henriques, Keeran, many others)

Technically, we seek homeostasis (a balanced state) and avoid thermodynamical equillibrium (a state of chaos). (Duffy, Schrodinger, Kauffman, Henriques, Keeran, others)
 
"can any of the theory be distilled down to it's essence, AND be turned into a repeatable experiment?"

Let me add that, for a scientific experiment to be useful as an evidence to a theory, it must have clear, unambigious, objective and predictable result.


Okay Let's try this:

"We constantly strive to feel as good as possible and avoid whatever makes us feel bad. (Aristotle, Darwin, Cannon, Maslow, Johnston, Henriques, Keeran, many others)"


Before looking at a Doable experiment. Lets look at the statement.

This statement while it sounds sensible isn't stripped down to it's undisputable essence. It also contains some ambigity.

(1) "constantly strives" is hard to prove and easily defeated.
There should be plenty of example of
"Constantly" ought to be removed.

(2) There exist people in society who do thing that makes them feel bad. This may be countered with explanation that making themselves feel bad might actually make them feel good.

(3) Which opens the issue of "feel good" and "feel bad" can be subjective. Subjective interpretation is not to be allowed as it makes the result of the experiment ambigious.

(4) We may argue that the "feel good" and "feel bad" has it's context based on survival. Then the statement should be
to strive to "survive" and avoid being eliminated.

(5) "We" can be individual or can be a whole "species".

The proposed theory/statement.
"An individual creature's brain works based on familiarity."


Which I think it is still relevant to the idea of
"homeostasis"; which is akin to "home state" "balanced, chosen, comfortable", in short familiar.
I would say "Seeking good", and "avoiding bad", are the symptoms exhibition of "homeostasis" .

Any comments before we talk about experiments?
And perhaps we could work the other way round.
Ie. think of a do-able experiment that can shows evidence of the theory.
 

Back
Top Bottom