Re: Re: Re: Re: What is thinking ?
Hi Craig Weinberg Language, as you suggest, is an important part, even the foundation, of thinking. And indeed, Peirce said that we think in symbols. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:25:09 Subject: Re: Re: Re: What is thinking ? I think that thinking can be best understood as hypothetical feeling. If you start from sensation and allow that through time, memory would elide separate instances of sense together, giving us meta-sensation or emotion. This can be thought of as an emergent property, as a melody is an emergent property of a sequence of notes, but this is not enough to explain what it really is. It makes just as much sense to see the individual notes as mere stepping stones to recover the richer sense of melodies. It works both ways, gestalts pulling algebraically from the top down and fragments pushing geometrically from the bottom up. From emotional gestalts, we get mental gestalts, which are essentially placeholders for emotions. Evacuated logical frameworks which we use like formulas to attach our awareness as lenses and prisms manipulate light. Thoughts have no extension in space, they literally aren't structures in space, they are metaphorical tropes through time. Think of how the advent of language extends experience beyond the present. In a paleolithic tribe, even if I can gesture and grunt, it can only be assumed that I am communicating about something imminent and local. With language and writing we can hear voices from centuries ago and far away. We can replace the concrete fluidity of our shared realism with bubbles of hypothetical possibility. We can feel emotions that we are not realistically justified in feeling. We can plan and conspire to create things to be rather than just what already is. Mind is emotion squared. Emotion is sensation squared. Sensation is detection squared. Semiconductors detect, living cells feel, nervous systems think. This is simplified of course, the reality is a much subtler continuum. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C0IM36eeQmYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: What is thinking ?
Hi Brian Tenneson Thought itself, IMHO, is beyond spacetime. It belongs to that Platonic realm to which the circumstances of time are wholly irrelevant. But the brain is not. Perhaps it is something like a fishing line and hook waiting for something of interest or useful in the sea of thought to become esnared on it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Brian Tenneson Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 11:16:13 Subject: Re: What is thinking ? Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define time. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Clark Please define the term thinking. What is thinking ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 16:10:20 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game. No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference between thinking and imitation thinking. I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that says THANK YOU. And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 47'th customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much thought into the message as the trash can did. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: What is thinking ?
Hi I agree with what you say about thought but the question was about thinking which to me suggests a process. The word thinking is a verb, meaning something (the thinker) is doing something (thinking). There is a dictionary-type correspondence between processes and formally-defined algorithms. The first is in the realm of the physical universe and the second is in the Platonic realm. This correspondence is like a bridge between the two. (Although Max Tegmark might say there is no essential difference between the two realms.) Thinking is a process and thoughts are the outputs of algorithms (algorithms exist in the Platonic realm and may or may not be expressible in a natural language). PERHAPS we can identify (concrete) thinking with specific (abstract) algorithms or at least encode one by the other. With that identification made I can see how thinking can be viewed as something abstract. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Brian Tenneson Thought itself, IMHO, is beyond spacetime. It belongs to that Platonic realm to which the circumstances of time are wholly irrelevant. But the brain is not. Perhaps it is something like a fishing line and hook waiting for something of interest or useful in the sea of thought to become esnared on it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-30, 11:16:13 *Subject:* Re: What is thinking ? Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define time. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Clark Please define the term thinking. What is thinking ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 16:10:20 *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game. No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference between thinking and imitation thinking. I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that says THANK YOU. And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 47'th customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much thought into the message as the trash can did. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: What is thinking ?
Hi Brian Tenneson I don't kinow the answer to what thinking is. Some believe that the thoughts appear spontaneously and think themselves. I suppose such could happen in the mind of God (or as some prefer, the supreme monad). At one point Wittgenstein said that he hadn't a clue as to what thinking is. BTW Leibniz and no doubt Plato was a fan of formal systems. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Brian Tenneson Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 12:14:37 Subject: Re: Re: What is thinking ? Hi I agree with what you say about thought but the question was about thinking which to me suggests a process. The word thinking is a verb, meaning something (the thinker) is doing something (thinking). There is a dictionary-type correspondence between processes and formally-defined algorithms. The first is in the realm of the physical universe and the second is in the Platonic realm. This correspondence is like a bridge between the two. (Although Max Tegmark might say there is no essential difference between the two realms.) Thinking is a process and thoughts are the outputs of algorithms (algorithms exist in the Platonic realm and may or may not be expressible in a natural language). PERHAPS we can identify (concrete) thinking with specific (abstract) algorithms or at least encode one by the other. With that identification made I can see how thinking can be viewed as something abstract. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Brian Tenneson Thought itself, IMHO, is beyond spacetime. It belongs to that Platonic realm to which the circumstances of time are wholly irrelevant. But the brain is not. Perhaps it is something like a fishing line and hook waiting for something of interest or useful in the sea of thought to become esnared on it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Brian Tenneson Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 11:16:13 Subject: Re: What is thinking ? Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define time. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Clark Please define the term thinking. What is thinking ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 16:10:20 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game. No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference between thinking and imitation thinking. I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that says THANK YOU. And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 47'th customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much thought into the message as the trash can did. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Re: Re: Re: What is thinking ?
I think that thinking can be best understood as hypothetical feeling. If you start from sensation and allow that through time, memory would elide separate instances of sense together, giving us meta-sensation or emotion. This can be thought of as an emergent property, as a melody is an emergent property of a sequence of notes, but this is not enough to explain what it really is. It makes just as much sense to see the individual notes as mere stepping stones to recover the richer sense of melodies. It works both ways, gestalts pulling algebraically from the top down and fragments pushing geometrically from the bottom up. From emotional gestalts, we get mental gestalts, which are essentially placeholders for emotions. Evacuated logical frameworks which we use like formulas to attach our awareness as lenses and prisms manipulate light. Thoughts have no extension in space, they literally aren't structures in space, they are metaphorical tropes through time. Think of how the advent of language extends experience beyond the present. In a paleolithic tribe, even if I can gesture and grunt, it can only be assumed that I am communicating about something imminent and local. With language and writing we can hear voices from centuries ago and far away. We can replace the concrete fluidity of our shared realism with bubbles of hypothetical possibility. We can feel emotions that we are not realistically justified in feeling. We can plan and conspire to create things to be rather than just what already is. Mind is emotion squared. Emotion is sensation squared. Sensation is detection squared. Semiconductors detect, living cells feel, nervous systems think. This is simplified of course, the reality is a much subtler continuum. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C0IM36eeQmYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
