Talk:Thought

Template:WP1.0 A larger wiki forum on this area may be found on ttp://www.sense-think-act.org sense-think-act.org which may be of interest to contributors to this area... Szczels 12:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Animals

I hear a lot of people say that "animals"(that is, any creature other than a human) do not think. If its true, why have they come to this conclusion? Sources? --IronMaidenRocks 07:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Highly Insufficient Article

Many philosphical (Freemasonry, Thelema, Theosophy, etc.), psychological (Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Samael Aun Weor, etc.) and religious (Buddhism, Hinduism, Gnostic Christianity, Judasim, Sufism, etc.) systems have indicated that the thinker itself does not exist, thought exists, and thought shapes life. Through the establishment of an artificial seperation between the thinker and the thought, thinking has regressed as an impulse to act without inquiry of its supposed originator while its real objective is simply to communicate or to compare between two states (yes or no). Since thought is unconsciously connected with our prejudices, affections and aversions, this unquestionably leads to self-centered destruction and a grasp on reality that cannot be real anymore. The inner chatter you hear deceives you to act on its purpose and is in no way healthy, practice makes the separation break down and one can clearly hear it talk detached. Behind thought is said to abide the true nature (or soul) trapped in the subjectivity of the false-self (the Ego). It takes just one minute to find out for yourself that you are simply unable to "not think", which alone implies a lack of control. To try it out simply fix your eyes somewhere with the intention to just observe a minute or two without thinking, you'll find yourself coming out of trance (=being sunken into thoughts) either minutes later or you'll forget about your intention totally. You'll also notice that you are trapped in endless patterns like "do not think ... wait, that *is* a thought ... hey, that was another ... etc." We certainly are what we think, yet -with the exception of deep concentration- we have no control over the thought-process itself, we only "think" we have and retrospection which is an exercise to follow the chain of thoughts to its origin can easily disprove that. No thought comes out of the blue although people think so and it takes you just another minute to experience that. To see it for yourself, again fix your eyes on an object and observe with the intention to not think, when you find yourself coming out of trace observe the last thought in your mind, this will get you to another thought, etc., the begining will either be the object itself or an impression of the senses that unconsciously stole your attention. Many people still believe that "non thinking" implies being dull or incapable and that its function is to exploit believers by drilling lies into their naive minds. But that is partly wrong, western psychology is misused in the same fashion (to sell products or to influence an election campaign, etc.) but its root principles remain true nonetheless. In fact western psychology has slowly begun to research methods like "Self-observation" which are common knowledge in eastern tradtions for thousands of years. Self-observation makes you see the mechanical beginning of thought and its consequences in life and furthermore it makes you see that there is no continuity of self (awareness) which another method called "Self-remembering" helps to aid (both together are called Mindfulness). In many eastern traditions "thought" is seen as a form of sleep (the origin of the saying: "the world is asleep"). Moreover, these methods in time unlock certain phenomenas one of them known and proven by western science under the name of lucid dreaming which is a form of cognizant awakening while the body rests in deepsleep. In the same way awakening is said to be possible in the so-called "vigil-state", that unfortunately you cannot verify in just a minute for it may take a long time to break the conditioning of mind, yet many students from all over the world bear witness to that. Not to forget that every serious system of Meditation emphasizes thoughts in the very begining for true meditation is simply inaccessible to a mind that is distracted easily. A good system calls you to observe and experience thought as being self-driven whereas a bad system calls you to suppress and fight thought which can cause severe damage. When the mind is silent and receptive the meditative states of consciousness unfold. Some devotees need to practise years (trying to be mindful 24 hours a day, yes that includes sleep, concentration practices, etc.) before they can even attempt to meditate and to the great dismay of many this makes it impossible to "prove it scientifically" since scientists themselves are "thinkers by profession" and therefore will barely be able to see the objective truth in it. So call it pseudoscientific, but (some of) these things should not remain unmentioned if this shall once be a balanced article. -Paul

Thought as an abstract form

Ndru01 keeps trying to insert this section. The problem is that it's entirely uncited and, frankly, it's psuedoscientific gibberish. It has no place here. Alienus 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The following was deleted without comment by ndru01, so I've restored it:

"Thought as an abstract" is a very weak section of this otherwise excellent article: filled with poor construction and unclear evidence and points. Help! Moncrief 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why haven't you restore my question after that too ("what exactly is unclear/poor?"), and the initial request that the section don't be removed. In the meantime I made some slight change and it might be not so 'unclear',so that vicious comment might be completely unnecessary.Ndru01 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious article, and there is no reason to give undue weight to pseudoscientific religions. Alienus 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bohm (who is cited which you ignored) and Sheldrake are scientists. Serious as can be. Competent enough in the subject or not, you should eventually leave some tag and not just remove something that you might not understand properly. The section is more serious than the rest of the article. Ndru01 02:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheldrake is a joke, and Bohm doesn't support your religious interpretation of science. Mentioning someone is not the same thing as offering a citation, but that's probably the sort of academic fine point that goes right over your head. The section is a joke and does not belong here or anywhere else. I will continue to remove it unless a consensus appears on this Talk page to support your suggestions. Alienus 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no religion at all in the text, and I have no idea what might seem so 'religious' to you. If Sheldrake is a joke, then Darwin is a bigger one, and any biologist, chemist, physicist and other scientist. Descartes especially with his false mechanistic model of the universe that mislead much of the science after him. And it wasn't a word of removing the whole section but of the comment about the section. No one expects from you to remove it, since you're not the only one who is being asked about it. Ndru01 05:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I support removing this section. It reads way ot much like OR (the first three sentences really need a citation, or better yet, instead of trying to rest as facts, they should be clearly attributed to someone. The Bohm quote (which is not well referenced) really has almost nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, and, on the whole, the sections makes too many logical leaps (one second we are talking about "elemental abstract forms" and then *BAM* "telekinesis!). Ugh. Ig0774 05:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

lg, the material seems related to modern gnosticism, if that helps put it in perspective. Alienus 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, first of all I see you still haven't even bothered to go through the enormously challenging process of learning to sign your posts on talk pages properly. Now you're edit-warring again in oder to get your bizarre POV insterted into this page as well. It is not the will of L'andrew!! You are not of the body!! You must destroy this odd-ball New Age programming that someone has drilled into your brain, my friend. Please leave Sheldrake's extraodinarily non-standard views (to put it very politely) on the Sheldrake page or somwhere else. What's the problem?--Lacatosias 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus: I do understand the perspective. My comments were perhaps a little rash. Nevertheless, the point is really that its not terribly encyclopedic (to be perfectly honest, I find some of the phrasing in the rest of the article slightly problematic as well, but not quite so much as in this section). I'm not entirely opposed to seeing something like this somewhere on wikipedia, just with a little better thought out presentation. Ig0774 08:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How is telekinesis mentioned in context with thoughts illogical!? It is perfectly logical and in context. I sign my posts exactly as suggested, with 4 tildes at the end, so I don't know what Alienus is talking about. It doesn't say that it's a must of hyperlinking the signature. Why should I waste my time on that when its not a must. Bohm is exactly cited, check under his entry, and it underlines the point of the section, that a thought is not just 'energy' (that we already know from the fact that telekinesis is a reality), but energetic 'something' (call it -entity, unit, form, object, meme, in any case a - system)... Sheldrake deals with forms (morphe), and he uses that term for it. And every form IS a system (some sub-form being its element), every intelligent person should know that, and Bohm clearly yells out to everyone's face that thought is a system. So there you have it-> thought-(abstract)form-system. Ndru01 10:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Howevere, since I'm not going to succeed in depragamming you here, I suggest another vote:

Ndru01, I really don't appreciate you removing my comment from this page without comment. [1]. Such an action is a fairly serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Moncrief 23:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is not 'filled' with anything, the wording is fairly rational and moderate (and I don't need to be 'depragammed', as Alienus or whoever suggested), and it is not poor. Maybe it wasn't very clear to many people but still it can be more nicely and politely said than you did. If people remove something that is good-intentional and relevant, why shouldn't something bad-intentional plus unkind be removed too (at least for sake of rephrasing it). Ndru01 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ps. It is unclear who suggested the vote. It now looks like I did since it is immediately after my signed text, while that someone's sentence is unsigned. That is another 'violation' (not by me), isn't it?Ndru01 00:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, what is your first language? Moncrief 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you're so curious, one european in earthly terms (actually 2 european, one middle-european and one south-european since I'm from a mixed marriage and learnt both as a child). But, in truth, probably K-Paxian.Ndru01 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole point has become moot, as I cannnot find the article you all are referring to. The Silent Russian 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Move the section somwhere else

Move -- Lacatosias 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Move -- It's irrelevant pseudoscience from a well-known crank. It's an embarassment to mix it in with genuine scholarship. Alienus 15:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Move -- Ig0774 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Move It mars an otherwise superb article. My objections have as much to do with the poor quality of the writing as they do with the topic. Moncrief 23:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Move or delete. Even if relevant, true and possibly interesting, it would have to be rewritten, and possibly reworked altogether to have any place in wikipedia.DanielDemaret 10:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Move, or even better delete. It makes several undocumented claims, refers to telekinesis as proof and attempts to steal credibility from quantum physics. Complete BS. --AndersFeder 10:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep the section on Rupert Sheldrake

Leave it under this entry (it is not so long and it is more than relevant to the subject).Ndru01 10:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

to know what you were voting about, it should at least stay here on discussion:Ndru01 15:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought as an abstract form

The brain generates and uses countless abstract forms/objects. The elemental abstract forms are thoughts (as elemental organic forms are cells), the most complex are skills, sciences, languages etc. Abstract forms/objects, although non-dimensional (shapeless), are energetically real (not 'imaginary'), as material forms are real (telekinesis, moving material objects/forms with thoughts, is a direct proof of that). Quantum physicist David Bohm (see: Thought as a System) among many others, also realized this, and dedicated many of his efforts bringing up the importance of thoughts to humankind: "Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us..."

According to Rupert Sheldrake every abstract form, like every organic form, relates to a certain morphic field.

Link to Bohm in 'See also'

Please would you be so kind not to remove the (TAS) in brackets after the link. If you know how to link it directly to 'Thought as a system' under his entry, then replace 'David Bohm' with 'Thought as a System', otherwise leave this abbrevation (TAS) so that it is known why the link is present.

Be happy I left the link in. The reader doesn't need you to guide him or her to what you deem to be the correct place in the article. — goethean ॐ 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Relation between thought and language

"As of yet, the English language has not coined more specific words for the exact experiences and endeavors people do in their minds on a daily basis."

Is this accurate, you think? I'm pretty sure that some dominant schools of thought would say that indeed each and every word of the English language are artifacts of people's experience of thought. Mental experiences that go beyond language are either too subjective or too vague to find a linguistic formation but are not truly different from the experiences associated with words. --AndersFeder 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to add, that sentence is just begging for an explanatory subsection giving examples of other languages words/definitions, for these undefined-in-english subtypes of 'thought'. :) -Quiddity 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

it would be nice to have more opinions on this but I really don't believe it merits inclusion. i'll just go and be bold <3Seasponges 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Think

I added a link to new think (disambiguation) page, but perhaps think should redirect there, instead of here. —johndburger 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See also

I think there are far too many links in the See Also section—isn't a link to the Thinking Portal sufficient? What's the Portal for if not to collect links???

I agree, I removed all these links. --Quiddity 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

==========

I came to this entry hoping to see various psychophysical, epigenetic, or perhaps esoteric(new thought, rosecrucians, theosophists etc.) hypotheses to the question "what is thought?" Surely a thought or abstraction is a thing composed of matter an energy. I found the entry to be quite unsatisfying.

Thought

In the sentence "Thought or thinking is a mental process which allows beings to model the world", shouldn't the word "thought" have an article before it? What I mean is it should be "a thought", not just "thought". Agen0 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Conceptualizing section

I came across this section and thought this part: "Powerful neo-conceptualizing cannot compare in scope to the vast intricacies of past development from which modern thought has evolved." I'm sure this can be improved a bit, it doesn't sound right in an encyclopedia article somehow. --WikiSlasher 11:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind it's been removed now --WikiSlasher 03:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Like, Seriously!

I mean, not to get all existential/philosophical (actually, that's exactly what I intend to get), but there isn't any reference here really to the notion that thoughts, emotions, etc., have no real basis in anything that the Universe provides. I mean, if emotions and human brain function as a whole is nothing but electrical signals and such, then what causes them to say "okay, time to expel saline fluids from the eyes, because you're SAD"...it doesn't make sense to me, in the slightest.

The Speed of Thought

What is the Speed of Thought?

Around 300 milliseconds. That's how long it took a volunteer to begin to understand a pictured object. Add to that another 250 to 450 milliseconds to fully comprehend what it was. Total speed of thought: between 550 and 750 milliseconds.

Such are the results coming out of work conducted by John Hopkins scientists seeking to measure rates of comprehension. "This information has been difficult to acquire," says neurologist and team leader John Hart, "even with different combinations of behavioural tests, electrical recordings and imaging studies such as PET scans."

Yet by taking advantage of a unique opportunity afforded by a patient scheduled for tests using electrodes surgically placed on his brain, the researchers have moved one step closer to "building theories of higher mental activity." Until now, the speed of cognitive operations (including language processing) has been the missing ingredient.

Reporting their findings in the May 25 Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, the researchers describe how the patient was asked to name and categorize a variety of pictures and words. By way of a grid of 174 electrodes, his brain activity was then monitored. The speed of comprehension was far quicker for objects that were already familiar to him.

"The data, obtained within a single stage at a single site in the brain, are further evidence that information accumulates gradually in the brain, rather than in a strictly all-or-none fashion," says Hart.

He adds that understanding this process of accumulation could help scientists understand comprehension and word loss from disorders such as stroke or Alzheimer's disease. _____________________________________________________ Can someone make an article on the Speed of thought? It seems really interesting. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/23027 74.167.170.215 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

merge with idea

what's the difference between a thought and an idea?!

That answer is online here - http://cnx.org/content/m14812/latest/

also, many differences and the relationship between thoughts, emotions and feelings is discussed in my online book "The Psychology of Emotions, Feelings and Thoughts" online here - http://cnx.org/content/m14358/latest/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.163.183 (talk)

Thought as a material process

Why haven't I found the definition of a thought in its relation to material processes of the human brain? The challenge is to show how all the electro-chemical-neuronal activity IS actually our thoughts, how they are produced from the information we get from our senses. Here, a thought is dubbed 'a mental process', then an array of functions is provided. This would be similar to defining an atom as 'a physical entity', which holds all the things together and makes the world what it is. Exaggeration or not, surely you would mention in the definition what it actually is: protons, electrons, neutrons. I am not proposing reductionism, I am well aware of and accept the concept of emergence. But thought is not all emergence; it is not merely a quality or a state of the matter of the human brain, but also a quantity (of neurons). Both these aspects should be put into the definition.

Holistic View

The task of thinking is to form a picture of what the world is like. Ideally the picture should contain everything in the world in it, at least everything that we know, in a form that is easy for us to understand. A holistic view of the situation is such an easy form and the only way to take into account the main features of the situation/thing. An well organized landscape like holistic view of the world (like a map or instinctual view of the environment) is a basic form of our thinking that all are capable of and at the same time the only really good way to arrange one's picture of the world. So a holistic view should be mentioned in the list!InsectIntelligence 09:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC) i added nothing