|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 11:40:52 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. 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. Yes, exactly. That's why I often refer to speed readers who learn to look at a page and instantly understand the meaning of the entire page without any internal verbal commentary. They don't have to think, in the way that I use the term. They only have to look in order to instantly understand (in the same way that a sage looks at the world in silence and understands what's going on). I doubt that I would use the term "cognition" for what is happening unconsciously when looking at the world in mental silence because I'm not sure that that term accurately points to what's going on. I doubt that a plant cognizes anything because the word "cognition" is usually used to distinguish an intellectual process rather than the activity of direct perception and direct understanding.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 27, 2014 11:48:10 GMT -5
Two of the largest living organisms on earth are:
And:
I'll respectfully decline from assuming these organisms don't 'think'.. it's possible they watch us and think that 'we' don't think..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 11:49:09 GMT -5
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.. Hi Tzu: Sorry, but I didn't quite follow what you meant. I wasn't trying to discount anything; I was simply explaining how I use the words we've been discussing. I wasn't saying that anyone is wrong, and I think that SDP has pretty accurately stated the differences in the way each of us is using various words. From what you've written it appears that we use the word "think" in the same way. FWIW I only have my personal experiences and realizations, and accounts by others that seem valid or believable, to form a basis for anything I write.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2014 11:51:57 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. 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. Yeah, good explanation. I would say that when a movie is watched, or a book is read, there is an 'interpreting' happening, even if it is an 'interpreting' that has no verbal commentary and is happening 'unconsciously'. And yeah, it's all about the way the brain functions.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 27, 2014 11:52:46 GMT -5
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.. Hi Tzu: Sorry, but I didn't quite follow what you meant. I wasn't trying to discount anything; I was simply explaining how I use the words we've been discussing. I wasn't saying that anyone is wrong, and I think that SDP has pretty accurately stated the differences in the way each of us is using various words. From what you've written it appears that we use the word "think" in the same way. FWIW I only have my personal experiences and realizations, and accounts by others that seem valid or believable, to form a basis for anything I write. Understood and appreciated..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 11:58:35 GMT -5
Two of the largest living organisms on earth are: And: I'll respectfully decline from assuming these organisms don't 'think'.. it's possible they watch us and think that 'we' don't think.. I knew that aspens were one giant organism, but I had never heard of the honey fungus. Interesting. If they think, that's fine with me, but in the way that I use the word it seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2014 12:01:51 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. The pure and simple answer is ego. The way the whole human process has unfolded, the neocortex has evolved, basically to make cooperation easier. Symbolic representation as language formed so you could tell a fellow tribe member, you go get water, another, I need that rock, let's attack the buffalo on the right end of the herd. As they are facing each other, the one says to the other, is that my right or your right? But, anyway, ego probably formed as language formed. So a means of cooperation devolved into separation, ego vs ego, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion, city vs city, country vs country. The problem is ego. I want more stuff so I take your stuff. And my ideas are better than your ideas so I'm gonna make you think like me, I know it's better for you if you think like me, so I'm gonna kill you if you don't start thinking like me. (So from that the Catholic Church has the Inquisition, one example, and Islamic terrorists today, another example). Sadly, we have to form a cultural self, still, today, to be able to communicate with each other. But we don't have any control of what kind of ego/cultural self we get, because it's formed unconsciously from birth. And then most of us just accept who we are as ego, that's me, that's who-I-am. Except some of us realize that something isn't right, there is a better way to live, and we begin the spiritual search. And then some realize that what you do to another you are really doing to yourself. A deeper level of seeing.......ego loses power.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 12:06:24 GMT -5
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. The pure and simple answer is ego. The way the whole human process has unfolded, the neocortex has evolved, basically to make cooperation easier. Symbolic representation as language formed so you could tell a fellow tribe member, you go get water, another, I need that rock, let's attack the buffalo on the right end of the herd. As they are facing each other, the one says to the other, is that my right or your right? But, anyway, ego probably formed as language formed. So a means of cooperation devolved into separation, ego vs ego, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion, city vs city, country vs country. The problem is ego. I want more stuff so I take your stuff. And my ideas are better than your ideas so I'm gonna make you think like me, I know it's better for you if you think like me, so I'm gonna kill you if you don't start thinking like me. Sadly, we have to form a cultural self, still, today, to be able to communicate with each other. But we don't have any control of what kind of ego/cultural self we get, because it's formed unconsciously from birth. And then most of us just accept who we are as ego, that's me, that's who-I-am. Except some of us realize that something isn't right, there is a better way to live, and we begin the spiritual search. And then some realize that what you do to another you are really doing to yourself. A deeper level of seeing.......ego loses power. That's pretty good, SDP! Ha ha. I especially liked your line, ".....I'm going to kill you if you don't start thinking like me." Yep, that sums up a lot of the conflict in the world.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 27, 2014 12:08:13 GMT -5
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. The pure and simple answer is ego. The way the whole human process has unfolded, the neocortex has evolved, basically to make cooperation easier. Symbolic representation as language formed so you could tell a fellow tribe member, you go get water, another, I need that rock, let's attack the buffalo on the right end of the herd. As they are facing each other, the one says to the other, is that my right or your right? But, anyway, ego probably formed as language formed. So a means of cooperation devolved into separation, ego vs ego, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion, city vs city, country vs country. The problem is ego. I want more stuff so I take your stuff. And my ideas are better than your ideas so I'm gonna make you think like me, I know it's better for you if you think like me, so I'm gonna kill you if you don't start thinking like me. Sadly, we have to form a cultural self, still, today, to be able to communicate with each other. But we don't have any control of what kind of ego/cultural self we get, because it's formed unconsciously from birth. And then most of us just accept who we are as ego, that's me, that's who-I-am. Except some of us realize that something isn't right, there is a better way to live, and we begin the spiritual search. And then some realize that what you do to another you are really doing to yourself. A deeper level of seeing.......ego loses power. Nice!
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 27, 2014 12:09:43 GMT -5
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?Do you mean observing the observer observe? BTW, I get the looking/seeing/knowing with out thinking thing. Taking my dog out in the woods for a run just a while ago, I didn't have to think at all about stepping around muddy depressions in the ground, or lift the legs to step over tree limbs. Seeing was quite enough to get the body to take the evasive action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 12:11:58 GMT -5
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. The pure and simple answer is ego. The way the whole human process has unfolded, the neocortex has evolved, basically to make cooperation easier. Symbolic representation as language formed so you could tell a fellow tribe member, you go get water, another, I need that rock, let's attack the buffalo on the right end of the herd. As they are facing each other, the one says to the other, is that my right or your right? But, anyway, ego probably formed as language formed. So a means of cooperation devolved into separation, ego vs ego, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion, city vs city, country vs country. The problem is ego. I want more stuff so I take your stuff. And my ideas are better than your ideas so I'm gonna make you think like me, I know it's better for you if you think like me, so I'm gonna kill you if you don't start thinking like me. Sadly, we have to form a cultural self, still, today, to be able to communicate with each other. But we don't have any control of what kind of ego/cultural self we get, because it's formed unconsciously from birth. And then most of us just accept who we are as ego, that's me, that's who-I-am. Except some of us realize that something isn't right, there is a better way to live, and we begin the spiritual search. And then some realize that what you do to another you are really doing to yourself. A deeper level of seeing.......ego loses power. before language was invented, do you think cavemen had fears and desires? and 2) do you think a pole bean has any fears or desires?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2014 12:21:11 GMT -5
The pure and simple answer is ego. The way the whole human process has unfolded, the neocortex has evolved, basically to make cooperation easier. Symbolic representation as language formed so you could tell a fellow tribe member, you go get water, another, I need that rock, let's attack the buffalo on the right end of the herd. As they are facing each other, the one says to the other, is that my right or your right? But, anyway, ego probably formed as language formed. So a means of cooperation devolved into separation, ego vs ego, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion, city vs city, country vs country. The problem is ego. I want more stuff so I take your stuff. And my ideas are better than your ideas so I'm gonna make you think like me, I know it's better for you if you think like me, so I'm gonna kill you if you don't start thinking like me. Sadly, we have to form a cultural self, still, today, to be able to communicate with each other. But we don't have any control of what kind of ego/cultural self we get, because it's formed unconsciously from birth. And then most of us just accept who we are as ego, that's me, that's who-I-am. Except some of us realize that something isn't right, there is a better way to live, and we begin the spiritual search. And then some realize that what you do to another you are really doing to yourself. A deeper level of seeing.......ego loses power. That's pretty good, SDP! Ha ha. I especially liked your line, ".....I'm going to kill you if you don't start thinking like me." Yep, that sums up a lot of the conflict in the world. Hey...yea...thanks. Since you posted this I gave two examples, the Catholic Church Inquisition and Islamic terrorists. And in 1492 Spain gave Jews a choice, convert to Christianity or leave Spain. Many left, some only converted outwardly and secretly remained Jews. World politics is peculiar, basically one little ole ego against another......
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 27, 2014 12:22:46 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. PS: This is Tolle saying far better what I was trying to get at: "Many people find watching TV “relaxing.” Observe yourself closely and you will find that the longer the screen remains the focus of your attention, the more your thought activity becomes suspended, and for long periods you are watching the talk show, game show, sitcom, or even commercials with almost no thought being generated by your mind. Not only do you not remember your problems anymore, but you become temporarily free of yourself – and what could be more relaxing than that? So dos TV watching create inner space? Does it cause you to be present? Unfortunately, it does not. Although for long periods your mind may not be generating any thoughts, it has linked into the thought activity of the television show. It has linked up with the TV version of the collective mind, and is thinking its thoughts. Your mind is inactive only in the sense that it is not producing thoughts. It is, however, continuously absorbing thoughts and images that come through the TV screen. This induces a trancelike passive state of heightened susceptibility, not unlike hypnosis. That is why it lends itself to manipulation of “public opinion,” as politicians and special interest groups as well as advertisers know and will pay millions of dollars to catch you in that state of receptive unawareness. They want their thoughts to become your thoughts, and usually they succeed."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2014 12:50:28 GMT -5
The pure and simple answer is ego. The way the whole human process has unfolded, the neocortex has evolved, basically to make cooperation easier. Symbolic representation as language formed so you could tell a fellow tribe member, you go get water, another, I need that rock, let's attack the buffalo on the right end of the herd. As they are facing each other, the one says to the other, is that my right or your right? But, anyway, ego probably formed as language formed. So a means of cooperation devolved into separation, ego vs ego, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion, city vs city, country vs country. The problem is ego. I want more stuff so I take your stuff. And my ideas are better than your ideas so I'm gonna make you think like me, I know it's better for you if you think like me, so I'm gonna kill you if you don't start thinking like me. Sadly, we have to form a cultural self, still, today, to be able to communicate with each other. But we don't have any control of what kind of ego/cultural self we get, because it's formed unconsciously from birth. And then most of us just accept who we are as ego, that's me, that's who-I-am. Except some of us realize that something isn't right, there is a better way to live, and we begin the spiritual search. And then some realize that what you do to another you are really doing to yourself. A deeper level of seeing.......ego loses power. before language was invented, do you think cavemen had fears and desires? and 2) do you think a pole bean has any fears or desires? Hey popee, a bean pole has no fears or desires. I would make a distinction between a need and a desire. Any mind/body has certain needs, food, air, protection from heat and cold, IOW, clothes and shelter. I would say desires come mostly from ego (there are probably some exceptions, there are emotional desires that are "proper"). A desire could be defined as more than you need. So, a caveman had fears and needs. ..........In the USA most of us don't have real fears or real needs. Today we mostly have ego-manufactured-fears and ego-desires. ......It's a sad case that most of the money our taxes pay, to go to welfare, goes to government bureaucrats. If we just paid people to write checks, nobody would need to go hungry. ......But then, of course, all those government people wouldn't have jobs...... I guess it's clear I make a distinction between mind/body/self and ego. Ego is the trouble-maker.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2014 13:00:59 GMT -5
before language was invented, do you think cavemen had fears and desires? and 2) do you think a pole bean has any fears or desires? Hey popee, a bean pole has no fears or desires. I would make a distinction between a need and a desire. Any mind/body has certain needs, food, air, protection from heat and cold, IOW, clothes and shelter. I would say desires come mostly from ego (there are probably some exceptions, there are emotional desires that are "proper"). A desire could be defined as more than you need. So, a caveman had fears and needs. ..........In the USA most of us don't have real fears or real needs. Today we mostly have ego-manufactured-fears and ego-desires. ......It's a sad case that most of the money our taxes pay, to go to welfare, goes to government bureaucrats. If we just paid people to write checks, nobody would need to go hungry. ......But then, of course, all those government people wouldn't have jobs...... I guess it's clear I make a distinction between mind/body/self and ego. Ego is the trouble-maker. The difficulty is pinpointing where physical needs begin and end. For example, a famous study of Romanian orphans showed that when the babies were't given enough attention (even if they had food and shelter) there was some level of brain damage caused. I think there is something to be said for intangible 'needs' such as love and attention. It's also one reason I have argued that problems for humans begin long before the belief in the separate self is formed.
|
|