|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2014 10:41:03 GMT -5
I think that everything that is perceived is thought. Have you never gone to the movies and watched scene after scene without thinking?.. often, people recall perceptions with internal dialogue.thought, and some recall the imagery without the internal dialogue.. You're defining words differently. And also, there is a difference between a visual perception and an image the mind creates. One is perception, one is thinking. lolly, don't you see a difference between a perception and a "thought"? When there is a specific distinction, it's better to use a different word to make the distinction. See? Einstein thought in images, especially his thinking in physics. He was the master of the thought experiment. He developed the Special Theory of Relativity to a great extent by >imagining< what it would be like to ride-on a beam of light. And then he put his developed theory into the language of mathematics. And then he gave a verbal description of the images, the theory. We can use different languages to communicate information. When you want to communicate with anyone, you must have a common language, define words in the same way and thus pass the same meaning from one mind to another.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 27, 2014 10:43:31 GMT -5
As another way of considering this issue, what about plants or one-celled animals? Do they think? From my perspective they do not think, because they have no higher-level brain functions, but they are directly aware of their environment. Humans have that same kind of direct awareness and ability to respond to their environment without needing to engage the intellect, so when they respond that way, thinking, as I define it, is unnecessary. I like that very much, but I have to ask about the plants not having a big old brain but they have 'mind' if they can be 'mindful' of the sun etc., so what the heck is it that makes their 'minds' functional? And ours? To ask a dumb question: Do we need a brain to be mind-ful? Is it the brain and nervous system that makes us able to think? I'm fairly certain this has been discussed, but perhaps the first time I've thought of it this way.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2014 10:54:32 GMT -5
As another way of considering this issue, what about plants or one-celled animals? Do they think? From my perspective they do not think, because they have no higher-level brain functions, but they are directly aware of their environment. Humans have that same kind of direct awareness and ability to respond to their environment without needing to engage the intellect, so when they respond that way, thinking, as I define it, is unnecessary. I like that very much, but I have to ask about the plants not having a big old brain but they have 'mind' if they can be 'mindful' of the sun etc., so what the heck is it that makes their 'minds' functional? And ours? To ask a dumb question: Do we need a brain to be mind-ful? Is it the brain and nervous system that makes us able to think? I'm fairly certain this has been discussed, but perhaps the first time I've thought of it this way. A couple of weeks ago there was an article in New Scientist about plants, it was the cover article. I skimmed it. Scientists are becoming more and more amazed at just how intelligent plants are.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 10:55:09 GMT -5
As another way of considering this issue, what about plants or one-celled animals? Do they think? From my perspective they do not think, because they have no higher-level brain functions, but they are directly aware of their environment. Humans have that same kind of direct awareness and ability to respond to their environment without needing to engage the intellect, so when they respond that way, thinking, as I define it, is unnecessary. I like that very much, but I have to ask about the plants not having a big old brain but they have 'mind' if they can be 'mindful' of the sun etc., so what the heck is it that makes their 'minds' functional? And ours? To ask a dumb question: Do we need a brain to be mind-ful? Is it the brain and nervous system that makes us able to think? I'm fairly certain this has been discussed, but perhaps the first time I've thought of it this way. Silver: I would not use the word "mindful" or "mind" in relation to plants or one-celled animals. From my POV the word "mind" should only be associated with the intellect and the ability to create and project images, ideas, or symbols internally via a brain. Again, from my POV a frontal cortex is what gives humans and a few of the "smarter" animals the ability to think. FWIW crows are probably the smartest animals on the planet other than humans. There is one species of crow from a South Pacific island that can visualize multiple sequential actions necessary to get food. A few apes, elephants, whales, and dolphins also demonstrate what scientists generally regard as abstract thought.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 27, 2014 10:58:58 GMT -5
As I see it, you can not watch a movie, TV, read words from a book or even what I am writing now without thinking. These things become the source of your thinking for a time. Many people, in hopes of finding relief from their own mental noise enjoy turning their minds over to other peoples thoughts, i.e. the dialog of movies (someone thought it up, no?), music, song, books, internet forums etc as an escape from their own incessant internal dialog that they can't shut off, or stand to be alone with. In this they find a bit of relief in the externally structured focus of the thinking, and the forgetfulness of their problems, but none of this is freedom from thinking thoughts as I see it. JLY: You probably define thinking similarly to Silver, Gopal, and others. Or, it may be that you equate thinking with knowing. From my POV there is intellectual knowing (episteme), which I call "thinking" and there is direct body knowing (gnosis) which I do not consider thinking. The first requires internal language and engagement of the frontal cortex and the second does not. When I read words in a book or watch a movie, I rarely think about what's being experienced in terms of mental language or even mental images; there is direct understanding/knowing (gnosis), and I think this was Tzu's point. For me, thinking is a secondary overlay of direct perception and direct experience, so if there is mental silence, there is no thinking in the way that I use that term. If there is mental silence, then everything is direct--direct understanding, direct sensory perception, direct knowing, etc. My wife, son and daughter-in-law and I watched a riskay(sp?) hypnosis act in a smaller but grand theater not long ago. Peeps were made to do some pretty outrageous things on stage and the audience was completely absorbed in the riotousness of the show. I never forget the feeling of my butt on the chair or the room I was in. Mostly I was taking in the whole scene, audience as well as onstage peeps and the room we were in in a kind of detached observer mode. I found the "whole" scene, stage hypnotist, the hypnotised peeps, the audience, people coming and going, the decor, the sounds and smells (mostly beer and perfumes wafting by) etc to be quite entertaining, and a fun exercise in present moment awareness in such intensity, whereas the audience seemed to have no awareness of themselves or anything at all but the outlandish antics being played out on the stage. It i s possible to enjoy most anything and not get lost in it. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 11:00:46 GMT -5
I like that very much, but I have to ask about the plants not having a big old brain but they have 'mind' if they can be 'mindful' of the sun etc., so what the heck is it that makes their 'minds' functional? And ours? To ask a dumb question: Do we need a brain to be mind-ful? Is it the brain and nervous system that makes us able to think? I'm fairly certain this has been discussed, but perhaps the first time I've thought of it this way. A couple of weeks ago there was an article in New Scientist about plants, it was the cover article. I skimmed it. Scientists are becoming more and more amazed at just how intelligent plants are. Ha ha! Yes, the universe is highly intelligent. Many years ago, I remember being surprised at how quickly tiny pole bean plants "found" the poles (and started climbing them) after I stuck them in the ground beside them. At that time I remember wondering, "How in the world do these plants find the poles without a brain?" Ha ha. Only after a CC experience 10 years later did I realize that the whole cosmos is intelligent and that the arbitrary distinction between "dumb matter" and "smart matter" was a big misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 27, 2014 11:07:00 GMT -5
A couple of weeks ago there was an article in New Scientist about plants, it was the cover article. I skimmed it. Scientists are becoming more and more amazed at just how intelligent plants are. Ha ha! Yes, the universe is highly intelligent. Many years ago, I remember being surprised at how quickly tiny pole bean plants "found" the poles (and started climbing them) after I stuck them in the ground beside them. At that time I remember wondering, "How in the world do these plants find the poles without a brain?" Ha ha. Only after a CC experience 10 years later did I realize that the whole cosmos is intelligent and that the arbitrary distinction between "dumb matter" and "smart matter" was a big misunderstanding. Cool post....but I have to ask yet another dumb question - if it's so smart then why all the insane wars, violence, and so on? What's happening there? All that stuff is stupid as he!!. What went wrong? It would appear our lawns are smarter than a lot of us are.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 11:11:31 GMT -5
JLY: You probably define thinking similarly to Silver, Gopal, and others. Or, it may be that you equate thinking with knowing. From my POV there is intellectual knowing (episteme), which I call "thinking" and there is direct body knowing (gnosis) which I do not consider thinking. The first requires internal language and engagement of the frontal cortex and the second does not. When I read words in a book or watch a movie, I rarely think about what's being experienced in terms of mental language or even mental images; there is direct understanding/knowing (gnosis), and I think this was Tzu's point. For me, thinking is a secondary overlay of direct perception and direct experience, so if there is mental silence, there is no thinking in the way that I use that term. If there is mental silence, then everything is direct--direct understanding, direct sensory perception, direct knowing, etc. My wife, son and daughter-in-law and I watched a riskay(sp?) hypnosis act in a smaller but grand theater not long ago. Peeps were made to do some pretty outrageous things on stage and the audience was completely absorbed in the riotousness of the show. I never forget the feeling of my butt on the chair or the room I was in. Mostly I was taking in the whole scene, audience as well as onstage peeps and the room we were in in a kind of detached observer mode. I found the "whole" scene, stage hypnotist, the hypnotised peeps, the audience, people coming and going, the decor, the sounds and smells (mostly beer and perfumes wafting by) etc to be quite entertaining, and a fun exercise in present moment awareness in such intensity, whereas the audience seemed to have no awareness of themselves or anything at all but the outlandish antics being played out on the stage. It i s possible to enjoy most anything and not get lost in it. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I understand, but what I think you've described here is "taking one step back" and seeing the entire field of what's happening rather than something specific within the field. Usually this involves a kind of psychological separation, with the observer observing what's going on without getting overly involved. What happens if someone then takes ONE MORE STEP back? What then?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 27, 2014 11:20:50 GMT -5
As another way of considering this issue, what about plants or one-celled animals? Do they think? From my perspective they do not think, because they have no higher-level brain functions, but they are directly aware of their environment. Humans have that same kind of direct awareness and ability to respond to their environment without needing to engage the intellect, so when they respond that way, thinking, as I define it, is unnecessary. I don't know if they think or not, if they do it's not likely in the same format as humans do.. which is why your following commentary seems at odds with the one above:
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 11:23:05 GMT -5
Ha ha! Yes, the universe is highly intelligent. Many years ago, I remember being surprised at how quickly tiny pole bean plants "found" the poles (and started climbing them) after I stuck them in the ground beside them. At that time I remember wondering, "How in the world do these plants find the poles without a brain?" Ha ha. Only after a CC experience 10 years later did I realize that the whole cosmos is intelligent and that the arbitrary distinction between "dumb matter" and "smart matter" was a big misunderstanding. Cool post....but I have to ask yet another dumb question - if it's so smart then why all the insane wars, violence, and so on? What's happening there? All that stuff is stupid as he!!. What went wrong? It would appear our lawns are smarter than a lot of us are. Nothing ever goes wrong, but the intellect is both a blessing and a curse, and humans haven't yet wised up, collectively, and become substantially free from the mind. As Tolle often says, "The world is mad," but he means this in a general way because he is pointing to the fact that most humans are ignorant and do not know who they are or what's going on at a deeper level than the concensus trance and its associated conditioning. Another way of looking at human life is that it is a logical and intelligent unfolding of "what is." Given our evolutionary history, why would you expect anything different than what you see happening? If you gave up all opinions and ideas ABOUT the world, what then? How would you feel if you didn't have ideas about what's good or bad and your mind remained silent?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 11:25:53 GMT -5
As another way of considering this issue, what about plants or one-celled animals? Do they think? From my perspective they do not think, because they have no higher-level brain functions, but they are directly aware of their environment. Humans have that same kind of direct awareness and ability to respond to their environment without needing to engage the intellect, so when they respond that way, thinking, as I define it, is unnecessary. I don't know if they think or not, if they do it's not likely in the same format as humans do.. which is why your following commentary seems at odds with the one above: Well, I don't regard intelligence and thinking as the same thing. The universe is intelligent whether it thinks or doesn't think, so I guess I don't see anything at odds between the two commentaries.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2014 11:26:13 GMT -5
As I see it, you can not watch a movie, TV, read words from a book or even what I am writing now without thinking. These things become the source of your thinking for a time. Many people, in hopes of finding relief from their own mental noise enjoy turning their minds over to other peoples thoughts, i.e. the dialog of movies (someone thought it up, no?), music, song, books, internet forums etc as an escape from their own incessant internal dialog that they can't shut off, or stand to be alone with. In this they find a bit of relief in the externally structured focus of the thinking, and the forgetfulness of their problems, but none of this is freedom from thinking thoughts as I see it. JLY: You probably define thinking similarly to Silver, Gopal, and others. Or, it may be that you equate thinking with knowing. From my POV there is intellectual knowing (episteme), which I call "thinking" and there is direct body knowing (gnosis) which I do not consider thinking. The first requires internal language and engagement of the frontal cortex and the second does not. When I read words in a book or watch a movie, I rarely think about what's being experienced in terms of mental language or even mental images; there is direct understanding/knowing (gnosis), and I think this was Tzu's point. For me, thinking is a secondary overlay of direct perception and direct experience, so if there is mental silence, there is no thinking in the way that I use that term. If there is mental silence, then everything is direct--direct understanding, direct sensory perception, direct knowing, etc. Everybody, again, it comes down to defining the terms used. Would you call unconscious mental processing, thinking? I wouldn't. If you watch a movie, you can be totally absorbed in-to the movie and as Tzu and zd have pointed out, you can do it with no interior verbal commentary. Now, does this mean the brain isn't doing anything? Of course not. The brain is cognating, IOW, cognition is going on unconsciously. If you're watching a Spanish film and you don't speak Spanish, you're probably missing half of the film. But, normal film, your brain understands the language, the brain remembers what's happening from scene to scene or the story wouldn't make sense. I guess we don't have a good word for what's happening here, so some of us are calling it thinking. I can agree with zd that the same thing can happen while reading a book, but the case is slightly harder to make, but only because.......it's sort of hard to say you aren't thinking while ATST you're perceiving words which one uses for thinking. However, one can cognitively comprehend what's read in the same manner one can cognitively comprehend a film, without the internal verbal commentary. It's unconscious cognitive processing. I understand why zd wouldn't call that thinking.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 27, 2014 11:29:49 GMT -5
Have you never gone to the movies and watched scene after scene without thinking?.. often, people recall perceptions with internal dialogue.thought, and some recall the imagery without the internal dialogue.. You're defining words differently. And also, there is a difference between a visual perception and an image the mind creates. One is perception, one is thinking. lolly, don't you see a difference between a perception and a "thought"? When there is a specific distinction, it's better to use a different word to make the distinction. See? Einstein thought in images, especially his thinking in physics. He was the master of the thought experiment. He developed the Special Theory of Relativity to a great extent by >imagining< what it would be like to ride-on a beam of light. And then he put his developed theory into the language of mathematics. And then he gave a verbal description of the images, the theory. We can use different languages to communicate information. When you want to communicate with anyone, you must have a common language, define words in the same way and thus pass the same meaning from one mind to another. Hi SDP: you might be right.. when i use the words 'thinking' or 'thought', i an referring to a doing, an intentional construction of internal dialogue or imagery.. sensory (not limited to 5 classic) input that plays on the mind's movie screen without intervention of intention is information received without 'thought'.. that could include insight, intuition, Cosmic Consciousness Experiences, etc...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 27, 2014 11:30:41 GMT -5
I don't know if they think or not, if they do it's not likely in the same format as humans do.. which is why your following commentary seems at odds with the one above: Well, I don't regard intelligence and thinking as the same thing. The universe is intelligent whether it thinks or doesn't think, so I guess I don't see anything at odds between the two commentaries. That is strangely an almost completely satisfying answer...I think it's funny that my whole life, I've been so fascinated by the brain and the mind. Which is very funny.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 27, 2014 11:35:39 GMT -5
I don't know if they think or not, if they do it's not likely in the same format as humans do.. which is why your following commentary seems at odds with the one above: Well, I don't regard intelligence and thinking as the same thing. The universe is intelligent whether it thinks or doesn't think, so I guess I don't see anything at odds between the two commentaries. Hi ZD: i don't regard them as the same, either.. i sense that thinking is evidence of intelligence, and admit being a little surprised that you would discount certain classes of intelligence from the possibility of 'thinking', because it doesn't conform to your personal experience of thinking..
|
|