1 of 2
1
Thinking. About Thinking About Thinking
Posted: 13 July 2012 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12

Perhaps it is impossible to think about thought itself.
Oh it appeats to the conceptual mind that it can ponder its own activity ; but that may be an illusion.
The synapses evolved to cross reference incoming data and synthesize it with previously acquired information
There is no reason to assume that they have access to their own inner workings.
Perhaps thinking about thinking is merely one more illusion.

[ Edited: 13 July 2012 06:46 PM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2817
Joined  2005-04-29
toombaru - 13 July 2012 03:15 PM

. . . Perhaps thinking about thinking is merely one more illusion.

Or you might be over-applying meaning to mere words. It helps to remember that all mental phenomena are made up of illusion in a certain way. The stuff of mind—all of it—is based in illusion. We need not fret excessively; rather, we can celebrate how effective the trick can be, can’t we?

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
nonverbal - 13 July 2012 07:08 PM
toombaru - 13 July 2012 03:15 PM

. . . Perhaps thinking about thinking is merely one more illusion.

Or you might be over-applying meaning to mere words. It helps to remember that all mental phenomena are made up of illusion in a certain way. The stuff of mind—all of it—is based in illusion. We need not fret excessively; rather, we can celebrate how effective the trick can be, can’t we?

Indeed we can.
It is marvelous that a sentient organism evolved to label and ponder its own perceived reality.
I am wondering how effective it is when objectified thinking tries to use the conceptual map to ponder itself.

 

[ Edited: 14 July 2012 10:10 AM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 09:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2817
Joined  2005-04-29

Under what conditions would it be more effective or less effective, do you think?

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
nonverbal - 14 July 2012 09:51 AM

Under what conditions would it be more effective or less effective, do you think?

 

I’m sure that this idea has been spoken of by the great thinkers but I have never seen it articulated.
The problem is that the conceptual overlay is the only tool to use in studying that which exists only as a labeled pseudo-reality.
Mind assigns names to its perceptions and in that process creates artificial entities that are mistaken for reality.
For the conceptual mind, there are such “things” as rivers, mountains and the New Your Yankees, when in truth there are no such entities.
When conceptual thought labels itself “mind” or “consciousness” it imagines that these exist as separate distinct entities.
When in fact they are mere descriptions of the brain’s perceptions.
There is no such thing as “mind”.
I am wondering how something whose existence is only conceptual can study itself.
The answer does not appear to be found within the conceptual arena….......
What’s a fella to do?

 

[ Edited: 14 July 2012 02:09 PM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2817
Joined  2005-04-29

It seems to be your frequent habit to assume a level of understanding or explanatory strength far beyond what words can be expected to live up to. Remember that throughout history, words have been coined to address not only then-current knowledge and understanding, but also then-current ignorance and superficiality of understanding. Go ahead and ascribe whatever subtlety that might suit your thinking style, but don’t expect to see any evidence of this understanding showing up in dictionaries or in authors’ usages. If a word can be found in common usage, then by default, that word makes sense to people with IQs far below average or mean.


In a sense, words prop up the functional intelligence of below-average intellects while simultaneously hindering the functional intelligence of people with high IQs. Anyway, that’s how I look at it. Don’t expect more than what is available from words, especially those that set out to label or describe mind and spirit which has historically been an area of study fixated on superstition.

 

 

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 07:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
nonverbal - 14 July 2012 06:39 PM

It seems to be your frequent habit to assume a level of understanding or explanatory strength far beyond what words can be expected to live up to. Remember that throughout history, words have been coined to address not only then-current knowledge and understanding, but also then-current ignorance and superficiality of understanding. Go ahead and ascribe whatever subtlety that might suit your thinking style, but don’t expect to see any evidence of this understanding showing up in dictionaries or in authors’ usages. If a word can be found in common usage, then by default, that word makes sense to people with IQs far below average or mean.


In a sense, words prop up the functional intelligence of below-average intellects while simultaneously hindering the functional intelligence of people with high IQs. Anyway, that’s how I look at it. Don’t expect more than what is available from words, especially those that set out to label or describe mind and spirit which has historically been an area of study fixated on superstition.

 


Your wonderfully sculpted words are accompanied by a rather profound sinking feeling.

 

[ Edited: 14 July 2012 08:56 PM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
toombaru - 14 July 2012 07:20 PM
nonverbal - 14 July 2012 06:39 PM

It seems to be your frequent habit to assume a level of understanding or explanatory strength far beyond what words can be expected to live up to. Remember that throughout history, words have been coined to address not only then-current knowledge and understanding, but also then-current ignorance and superficiality of understanding. Go ahead and ascribe whatever subtlety that might suit your thinking style, but don’t expect to see any evidence of this understanding showing up in dictionaries or in authors’ usages. If a word can be found in common usage, then by default, that word makes sense to people with IQs far below average or mean.


In a sense, words prop up the functional intelligence of below-average intellects while simultaneously hindering the functional intelligence of people with high IQs. Anyway, that’s how I look at it. Don’t expect more than what is available from words, especially those that set out to label or describe mind and spirit which has historically been an area of study fixated on superstition.

 


Your wonderfully sculpted words are accompanied by a rather profound sinking feeling.

 

You know there is nothing you can do with this understanding.
You can’t write a book about it and if you could, nobody would buy it.
Nobody is going to praise you for your knowledge.
You will never accumulate a band of loyal followers.
And to top that off, your friends and relatives will find excuses to avoid you.
(Shocked smiley face here)

 

 

[ Edited: 14 July 2012 08:57 PM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2012 12:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2012-06-27
toombaru - 14 July 2012 10:26 AM

For the conceptual mind, there are such “things” as rivers, mountains and the New Your Yankees, when in truth there are no such entities.

This is a great example of how someone can convince themselves that they know something when in fact they don’t.

Facts are there are many things that we can use to identify “things” outside of our perception of reality that are not reliant on that perception for their existence. They all come under the scientific method.

Seriously, you babble on as though you have an idea of what you talk about but reality is your posts are becoming a bore for this forum. I log on now every two weeks to see you sprouting the same rubbish. It’s getting old. Write a paper about it and see how it’s peer reviewed. wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2012 08:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
Geeseman - 25 July 2012 12:24 AM
toombaru - 14 July 2012 10:26 AM

For the conceptual mind, there are such “things” as rivers, mountains and the New Your Yankees, when in truth there are no such entities.

This is a great example of how someone can convince themselves that they know something when in fact they don’t.

Facts are there are many things that we can use to identify “things” outside of our perception of reality that are not reliant on that perception for their existence. They all come under the scientific method.

Seriously, you babble on as though you have an idea of what you talk about but reality is your posts are becoming a bore for this forum. I log on now every two weeks to see you sprouting the same rubbish. It’s getting old. Write a paper about it and see how it’s peer reviewed. wink

There appears to be a material reality to which the conceptual mind can apply its labels.
But in the attempt to objectify its own perceptions all relevance is lost.
Perhaps you could tell me exactly what separates a “hand” from an “arm”.
Is there a line around “Texas”?
What happens to a “lap” when a body stands up or a “fist” when a hand is opened?
When the mind applies labels to its imaginary reality, things get even more confusing.
What exactly is “love”, “luck” or “happiness”?


The sense of self is highly invested in its own conceptual overlay.
It is programmed to survive.
It can become irate when its entire pseudo-reality is questioned.
The angst you feel is quite normal.

I can understand if you are not inclined to answer, or even ponder, the above questions.

Its scary as hell to think that you never even existed and your entire reality and everything you think you know are no more substantial than a dream.

There is another way to perceive reality but can never be found by clinging to the consensus delusion.

Most personas dodder along in their confusion until the physical organism dies.

Perhaps that is “your” fate.
.......what ever fate is…...
grin

 

 

[ Edited: 25 July 2012 10:10 AM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2012 03:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2012-06-27
toombaru - 25 July 2012 08:56 AM
Geeseman - 25 July 2012 12:24 AM
toombaru - 14 July 2012 10:26 AM

For the conceptual mind, there are such “things” as rivers, mountains and the New Your Yankees, when in truth there are no such entities.

This is a great example of how someone can convince themselves that they know something when in fact they don’t.

Facts are there are many things that we can use to identify “things” outside of our perception of reality that are not reliant on that perception for their existence. They all come under the scientific method.

Seriously, you babble on as though you have an idea of what you talk about but reality is your posts are becoming a bore for this forum. I log on now every two weeks to see you sprouting the same rubbish. It’s getting old. Write a paper about it and see how it’s peer reviewed. wink

There appears to be a material reality to which the conceptual mind can apply its labels.
But in the attempt to objectify its own perceptions all relevance is lost.
Perhaps you could tell me exactly what separates a “hand” from an “arm”.
Is there a line around “Texas”?
What happens to a “lap” when a body stands up or a “fist” when a hand is opened?
When the mind applies labels to its imaginary reality, things get even more confusing.
What exactly is “love”, “luck” or “happiness”?


The sense of self is highly invested in its own conceptual overlay.
It is programmed to survive.
It can become irate when its entire pseudo-reality is questioned.
The angst you feel is quite normal.

I can understand if you are not inclined to answer, or even ponder, the above questions.

Its scary as hell to think that you never even existed and your entire reality and everything you think you know are no more substantial than a dream.

There is another way to perceive reality but can never be found by clinging to the consensus delusion.

Most personas dodder along in their confusion until the physical organism dies.

Perhaps that is “your” fate.
.......what ever fate is…...
grin

 

Wow. Can we have some moderators clean up this rubbish?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2012 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
Geeseman - 25 July 2012 03:06 PM
toombaru - 25 July 2012 08:56 AM
Geeseman - 25 July 2012 12:24 AM
toombaru - 14 July 2012 10:26 AM

For the conceptual mind, there are such “things” as rivers, mountains and the New Your Yankees, when in truth there are no such entities.

This is a great example of how someone can convince themselves that they know something when in fact they don’t.

Facts are there are many things that we can use to identify “things” outside of our perception of reality that are not reliant on that perception for their existence. They all come under the scientific method.

Seriously, you babble on as though you have an idea of what you talk about but reality is your posts are becoming a bore for this forum. I log on now every two weeks to see you sprouting the same rubbish. It’s getting old. Write a paper about it and see how it’s peer reviewed. wink

There appears to be a material reality to which the conceptual mind can apply its labels.
But in the attempt to objectify its own perceptions all relevance is lost.
Perhaps you could tell me exactly what separates a “hand” from an “arm”.
Is there a line around “Texas”?
What happens to a “lap” when a body stands up or a “fist” when a hand is opened?
When the mind applies labels to its imaginary reality, things get even more confusing.
What exactly is “love”, “luck” or “happiness”?


The sense of self is highly invested in its own conceptual overlay.
It is programmed to survive.
It can become irate when its entire pseudo-reality is questioned.
The angst you feel is quite normal.

I can understand if you are not inclined to answer, or even ponder, the above questions.

Its scary as hell to think that you never even existed and your entire reality and everything you think you know are no more substantial than a dream.

There is another way to perceive reality but can never be found by clinging to the consensus delusion.

Most personas dodder along in their confusion until the physical organism dies.

Perhaps that is “your” fate.
.......what ever fate is…...
grin

 

Wow. Can we have some moderators clean up this rubbish?

 

You are merely hoping that someone will intervene to help you bolster your illusion of personal autonomy.
If you believe that you are real and have free will simply don’t read or respond to what it written.

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2012-08-13
toombaru - 13 July 2012 03:15 PM

Perhaps it is impossible to think about thought itself.
Oh it appeats to the conceptual mind that it can ponder its own activity ; but that may be an illusion.
The synapses evolved to cross reference incoming data and synthesize it with previously acquired information
There is no reason to assume that they have access to their own inner workings.
Perhaps thinking about thinking is merely one more illusion.

Thinking and doing are both stimulated by situations we encounter by chance.

My response to your post was caused an encounter by chance, not choice.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

We can only reason on actualities, but not on possibilities. Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
rickoshay86 - 15 August 2012 02:32 PM
toombaru - 13 July 2012 03:15 PM

Perhaps it is impossible to think about thought itself.
Oh it appeats to the conceptual mind that it can ponder its own activity ; but that may be an illusion.
The synapses evolved to cross reference incoming data and synthesize it with previously acquired information
There is no reason to assume that they have access to their own inner workings.
Perhaps thinking about thinking is merely one more illusion.

Thinking and doing are both stimulated by situations we encounter by chance.

My response to your post was caused an encounter by chance, not choice.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The word “chance” is loaded with the assumption of the existence of “non-chance”.
It, like all of the speculations of the conceptual mind concerning it own reality, is meaningless.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 03:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2012-08-13
toombaru - 15 August 2012 03:32 PM
rickoshay86 - 15 August 2012 02:32 PM
toombaru - 13 July 2012 03:15 PM

Perhaps it is impossible to think about thought itself.
Oh it appeats to the conceptual mind that it can ponder its own activity ; but that may be an illusion.
The synapses evolved to cross reference incoming data and synthesize it with previously acquired information
There is no reason to assume that they have access to their own inner workings.
Perhaps thinking about thinking is merely one more illusion.

Thinking and doing are both stimulated by situations we encounter by chance.

My response to your post was caused an encounter by chance, not choice.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The word “chance” is loaded with the assumption of the existence of “non-chance”.
It, like all of the speculations of the conceptual mind concerning it own reality, is meaningless.

Non-chance doesn’t work either because it would mean a sure thing, and the existence of non-sure thing, and round and around we go.

Thanks, but I’ll stick with my chance, luck, good fortune, roll of the dice, rub of the green—definitely not pre-determination.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. Thomas Paine

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 06:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
rickoshay86 - 15 August 2012 03:51 PM
toombaru - 15 August 2012 03:32 PM
rickoshay86 - 15 August 2012 02:32 PM
toombaru - 13 July 2012 03:15 PM

Perhaps it is impossible to think about thought itself.
Oh it appeats to the conceptual mind that it can ponder its own activity ; but that may be an illusion.
The synapses evolved to cross reference incoming data and synthesize it with previously acquired information
There is no reason to assume that they have access to their own inner workings.
Perhaps thinking about thinking is merely one more illusion.

Thinking and doing are both stimulated by situations we encounter by chance.

My response to your post was caused an encounter by chance, not choice.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The word “chance” is loaded with the assumption of the existence of “non-chance”.
It, like all of the speculations of the conceptual mind concerning it own reality, is meaningless.

Non-chance doesn’t work either because it would mean a sure thing, and the existence of non-sure thing, and round and around we go.

Thanks, but I’ll stick with my chance, luck, good fortune, roll of the dice, rub of the green—definitely not pre-determination.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. Thomas Paine

 

 


Do you believe in luck?

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed