+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    Can we talk about thinking?

    Can we talk about thinking?

    We are born as unreflective thinkers; many of us die decades later, still unreflective thinkers.

    Who ever told us that we need to think about thinking? Who told us that we must practice thinking? Just as we must practice throwing or hitting a ball to improve our ability to play sports, likewise we must also practice thinking if we wish to improve our ability to think.

    Isn’t thinking just like breathing? We all breath and think; no one needs to practice such automatic things that our body does without our conscious action. Wrong! The body does handle breathing pretty well without our conscious management, but not so with thinking.

    There is a difference between “naive thinking” and “sophisticated thinking”. Can the naïve thinker become a sophisticated thinker? The answer is yes; provided there is motivated practice and study.

    A child clinging to her mother’s skirt is not an uncommon site. A child with wide eyes and a look of apprehension seeking security and assurance by remaining very close to his mother (his center of balance) is similar to the centricities we all carry forward and often remain with us until we die.

    Our centricities, our centers of irrational influence, are often the ego and the group. I suspect that as we get older we focus less on the ego for guidance and more upon the social group. Our nation centric, our ethnic centric, our political centric forces provide us with illusions of security without any independent thinking on our own.

    I think that it is worthwhile to focus our attention on the metaphors ‘egocentricity is a disease’ and ‘sociocentricity is a disease’. The cure for both diseases is self-consciousness. Being self-conscious permits us to combat the fever of irrationality caused by both tendencies.

    Of the two I suspect sociocentricity causes us and our community the greatest harm. When our ego leads us to do stupid things the harm done is limited because we generally affect only our self and maybe a few others. Sociocentricity, however, can easily be identified as the cause of the destruction and death of many.

    Ethno centric is one form of socio centric attitudes and behavior. Ethno centric is placing ones own race as the privileged group. This form of socio centric behavior is perhaps the most predominate and lethal form of social bias. Regardless of which group we belong to I suspect that one of the most important things one might do to make the world a better place in which to live is for all of us to become self-conscious of these innate human tendencies.

    Basic concepts become weapons of warfare within social groups. Basic words such as capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy, freedom, oligarchy, plutocracy, evil, patriotism, terrorism, etc. are twisted and maneuvered to confuse, distort, and to excite members of a group one way or another.

    I think that people often have difficulty distinguishing ideological uses of such words from their non ideological uses. What do you think?

    It appears that the key question of an egocentric is “How can I get what I want and avoid having to change in any fundamental way?”

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Can we talk about thinking?

    actually maybe ego centricity provides a common ground to overcome/moderate socio centricity or enthnic centricity!?this has to be the motivating reality of a war to install democracy!?does democracy ultimately lead to pure ego centric morality!?so then what makes up the personal ego!?the group ego!?

    if emotion is mind without thought!?is thought just weaker mind!?stronger mind does,weaker mind thinks!?our ego is what we do!?what if stronger mind is prohibited by group taboo!?what is the basis of group taboo!?is stronger mind(emotion) restricted to thought by group taboo!?

    so the basis of mind must be understood to understand thought/emotion!?understood as a group to have the necessary no hangover(thought/confusion) effect!?

    what inspires/motivates people to recklessly "test" authority/the group taboo!?certainly defiance and curiosity come to mind!?but the determining emotional source cannot be the same for both!?are there only 2 determining emotional sources for thought/action!?love and hate!?

    is all thought is just a personal description of our own mental state!?what we own as an ego!?can thought transcend the ego!?only if it carries a feeling that is not of the ego!?

    are love and ego compatable!?balancable!?is this the cause of all problems for mankind!?the attemp to find a personal balance of love and ego!?always in conflict with the group idea of balance!?

    OFF WITH HIS HEAD ALREADY!?: :spin2::judges: heeh!!.....just askn...
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    Re: Can we talk about thinking?

    In the 1970s a new body of empirical research began to introduce findings that questioned the traditional Anglo-American cognitive paradigm of AI (Artificial Intelligence), i.e. symbol manipulation.

    This research indicates that the neurological structures associated with sensorimotor activity are mapped directly to the higher cortical brain structures to form the foundation for subjective conceptualization in the human brain. In other words, our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation. “It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimate.”

    Categorization, the first level of abstraction from “Reality” is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.”

    Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

    Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization

    Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.”

    When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.

    When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.

    Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language.

    The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”


    Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson

    Questions for discussion

    Is all of this of any importance for ‘the man on the street’? I think so because if we comprehend these fundamental facts about human perception and motor movement we will better comprehend why we do the things we do.

    We live our lives by our abstract ideas, i.e. morality, flag, nation, patriotism, value, motive, good, right, fairness, etc.

    Do you think it is important for ‘the man on the street’ to comprehend how concepts are made?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Can we talk about thinking?

    you might say no 1 wants to just get into a venture if there is no sure end in sight!?especially when it involves there own lives/mental-emotional certainties/pursuits!?even if they have respect for a certain authoritative source if they venture as an individual/group with no sure end in sight they risk becoming prisoners of this authority/person/paradigm!?: :spin2::judges: hehe!!.....just askn...
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Can we talk about thinking?

    is there a difference between never land and never-never land? does it go from ever to never to never-never to never-never-never etc...KISS!

    what are the possibilities implied by "never say(think) never"?

    and dont make your first attemp to fly by jumping off a bridge?be sensible about it? just in case!
    Last edited by lexx; 04-07-2009 at 11:06 PM.
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

Similar Threads

  1. What I am Thinking.
    By ronniebryan in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-21-2012, 12:52 PM
  2. Coincidence Theorist Thinking
    By eflteacher in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2009, 08:01 AM
  3. What is Traditional Thinking?
    By coberst in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-11-2009, 05:50 PM
  4. Negative Thinking is NOT Critical Thinking
    By coberst in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 10:43 AM
  5. Re-Thinking Eight Glasses of H2O
    By SunniOne in forum General Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 04:09 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •