[Marsha] It wasn't an accusation. It was open question. [Arlo] "Thinking", like all concepts, is something we define to explain or make sense of experience. Thus the definition of "thinking" is an intellectual pattern of value. You can, if you will, use this definition to point to non-intellectual activity, the same way the intellectual pattern of "gravity" points to the behavior of inorganic patterns of value, or I can define "blooming" as the process of opening up (an intellectual pattern), something I experience a rose after a storm doing, even though the rose has no concept or understanding of "blooming".
In the process, there are shared understandings of the term, when I say "I was thinking about taking a trip to New Zealand", you know what I mean. If I say, "my dog was thinking about chasing the cat" (deduced, perhaps, by a particular stare it was giving it), you'd know what I meant. If I said the sun was thinking about producing some solar flaring today, would that make any sense? So, defining the concept of "thinking" is an intellectual pattern, but how you define it (i.e., does it describe experience on the inorganic, biological, social, intellectual levels, or some, or one, or none or a few, etc.) is more a matter or what is pragmatically valuable in such a definition. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
