On Aug 3, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > I have the 'activity of thinking' connected to language, which would be but > one type of mental fabrication within consciousness. > > [Arlo] > In your opinion, is language something we "think with", or is thinking itself > the very use of language?
Marsha: I see the two as interdependent. > [Marsha] > There are all types of mental experiences that fall outside of this > definition. > > [Arlo] > Well, that was my question, a way to differentiate between "thinking" and > "non-thinking" states, a definition that allows you to say "that is thinking, > but this other thing is not thinking". > > You mention thinking being "connected" to language, I'm wondering if you > could elaborate on the nature of that connection? Are they synonyms? Can you > ever have one without the other? Can you have thought without language? What > about language without thought? Marsha: Interconnected would probably be the better descriptor. I don't know enough to elaborate. > [Marsha] > Within the MoQ, I think 'the activity of thinking' included within both the > social and intellectual levels. > > [Arlo] > Well this is definitional, if you define "thinking" in such a way as for it > to apply to social and intellectual patterns, then yes it would be included > in both. I do, by the way, so I agree with you and Ian. I also further agree > with Ian (and this puts me at odds with Pirsig's MOQ) that "thinking" is most > valuably defined to include certain activities we experience in non-human > species (since I do not agree with Pirsig's restriction of the > social/intellectual level to just humans). Marsha: I know of one case where RMP has suggested that both social and intellectual level might be equated with mind, but how far to stretch that I cannot speculate. - I've never been other than a human animal. I can project all sorts of activities onto non-human species, but I do not know how I could have those projections verified. I cannot really even verify what you think, let alone Rex, you German Shepard. > [Arlo] > But yes, the value of a definition is pragmatically valuable for its > usefulness in describing experience. For example, a neurobiologist may indeed > define "thinking" as the detectable firing of neurons in certain areas of the > brain, in which case our society holds this as having value in making > terminal decisions about brain-damaged or comatose patients. Marsha: For me definitions represent a part of a pattern, but not the whole pattern. Of course, definitions are useful. - I tend to find what neuroscientists say as interesting, and hopefully useful, but that's as far as it goes. I do try to keep the fact that it is all analogy in mind. It represents knowledge that is ever-changing, impermanent and interdependent. > > > > > > > > > On 8/3/11 2:04 PM, MarshaV wrote: >> Hello Arlo, >> >> On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: >> >>> [Marsha] >>> I agree that the concept of 'thinking' is an intellectual pattern. But I >>> thought it was stated, somewhere, that the activity of thinking indicated >>> the intellectual level. >>> >>> [Arlo] >>> How would you define "thinking"? Or, what "activity" would you witness and >>> point to and say "that's 'thinking'"? What has to occur to differentiate, >>> in your opinion, "thinking" from "not thinking"? >> Marsha: >> My point was that I thought someone (maybe Dan, maybe someone else) had >> stated that the Intellectual level was thinking. >> >> >>> As for a cultural, common use, I think we tend to use the term loosely to >>> refer to some degree of information processing embedded in some bio-neural >>> mass. It's outside the cultural norm, for example, to use "thinking" to >>> describe the activity of the sun, or a computer, or a tree. If I say, "that >>> tree is thinking about the next rainfall", would that make sense (within >>> the cultural use of the term)? What evidence would I point to in a tree to >>> differentiate a "thinking" from a "non-thinking" state? >>> >>> Granted, there is an inherent reductionism in defining "thinking" as the >>> firing of neurons in a brain mass, but this tends to be the evidence we >>> look for to support our shared cultural understanding of the term. >>> Interestingly, if we equate "thinking" in some way with neural activity, we >>> may have to grant that "computers think", since a similar "firing" of nodes >>> occurs within computer processors when it processes information. >>> >>> For example, if I ask the person sitting next to me "what is two plus two?" >>> and he responds "four", is that evidence of "thinking"? If so, why would I >>> not say my calculator was "thinking" as well when it gives me the same >>> answer? >>> >>> I've read some post-Peircian work that speculates that abduction (or >>> hypothetical inference, which ties into Pirsig's works) may be a >>> differentiator between human and machine information processing in >>> determining "thinking". So "thinking" isn't JUST the processing of >>> information, or inducing or deducing, or making input-output decisions, but >>> rests on the ability of the "thinker" to abduce, or hypothesize, or (maybe >>> too simplistically) the generation of something "new". >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> Marsha: >> I have the 'activity of thinking' connected to language, which would be but >> one type of mental fabrication within consciousness. That would be as' >> talking to another person' (an external experience), or 'talking to oneself' >> (an internal experience). There are all types of mental experiences that >> fall outside of this definition. Science of Mind and Philosophy of Mind are >> very active fields right now, with many diverse opinions. At the moment, I >> know very little of the current thought on the subject. Within the MoQ, I >> think 'the activity of thinking' included within both the social and >> intellectual levels. >> >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 >> >> > > 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 ___ 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
