Talk:Thought

External link to a Wiki forum

A larger wiki forum on this area may be found at 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)

It is my belief, personally, that animals DO think. Thinking is the ability to create and use a model of reality in one's brain - animals have brains, *for* that purpose - thinking! BriEnBest (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Many arguments have been promoted that imply that animals do not think. Descartes likened animals to machines. Many modern scientific university departments have claimed that since the kind of thinking that is worth describing requires language, and since animals do not have what we call language, therefore they can not think. Some early behaviorists dismissed thinking in humans also - since thought could not be measured, therefore thought could not exist. This of course only goes to show what dangers lie in limiting ones thought. Today, I think most scientists recognize that animals think. DanielDemaret (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2009 (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

not thinkin is not tryin, well not tryin not to try... u start tryin to look at a point or stop thinkin for a set amount of time and uv killed it entirely, eitherway honest thinkin is more important than not thinkin. i just wanna add that u know the meanin of what ur goin to think before u think it eg. if i ask, what is this (+) before the words go through ur mind u already know what it is, try it with other stuff. Nawadap 00:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not helpful at all... No matter how true, we need sources, not a source. Enough with the claims.--71.126.63.193 (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

EXPLAIN

we seldom see people think before they act, and some would act before they think. It bumps in to my mind that every thing we do, we think of it, if and ever we are drunk, we have some reasons to claim that we didn't think of what we are doing because we are drunk. Is there a possibility that the act we just did was not controlled by us or even in our human mind? Is it the effects of the food/drinks(alcohol,drugs,lack of sleep, etc.) that why we are incountering this unknown observations of man, or is the mind itself that even the human mind cannot even control their own mind and acting like some other persons or beings are controling them,,, Sorry about my english. vahn_dinio vahn_dnio 12:50, 16 July 2008 (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)

Unsigned comment

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.

I hope this article doesn't become materialistic, but share's all viewpoints.--71.126.63.193 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

Thought is not material. Scientist do not actually know what 'thought' is, but they know how it works and function on a limited level.--71.126.63.193 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.195.40.44 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Wiki

Another case where the discussion side of the Wiki content is at least or more interesting than that in the facing Article. Perhaps WP could use some kind of structuring concepts for both types of content, front and back and a process to mediate between them. The hallmark of the front content would be encyclopaedic Q as discussed in my POV page while the back content would be informed on topic discussion where original work could be presented within the evolving consensus of the subject matter. Have seen this already to some degree in a number of areas such as for example Physics. The front matter on thought has a way to go doesn't it? Lycurgus 22:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

4 times "[edit]"

In my browser, the article has 4 "[edit]" texts on the headline "See also". If anyone else sees this, perhaps they could find a way to set them where they should be? I just tried to no avail. DanielDemaret (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the three sections previous to "See also" do not have [edit] links—they've migrated downward because of the long Neuropsychology box on the right—not much to be done about it, I think. —johndburger 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unique thoughts

I came across a quote, "thoughts are not common only if no one else could think them." If you could add a discussion this, it would be useful to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanjimalar (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

sentence structure

"The awareness of this process of reasoning is access consciousness" - is this correct sentence structure? is there a term called "access consciousness"? or is this incorrect sentence structure? thank you for the clarification :) BriEnBest (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions of Thought in Meditation and Other Philosophis (workspace, feel free to edit, this came from a post within this discussion page)

Many philosophical (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 separation 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 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. *(1)

Behind thought is said to abide the true nature (or soul) trapped in the subjectivity of the false-self (the Ego). *(2) 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.

Thought sometimes stems from what falls within the realm of your attention span.

Some say that Eastern views on thought are mis-used for "brainwashing." Western psychology is misused in the same fashion as meditative non-thinking (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 deep sleep.

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) using 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.

• Note: this came from "Pual"'s post. I would like to add some of it into the article, even if I have to write originally. Also, I wouldn't mind getting help trying to source this stuff...BriEnBest (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

---might leave out--- (1) 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.

(2) 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."

Thinking effects

Result 1:

Favors in thinking comes from lacking of understanding how something works in life.

Example: Business Business owners use the limitations of human's education abilities as a tool for producing primary products for customers use for a profit range which changes as the economic cycle turns in stages.

Ex: TV mational and international People's lacking in knowing hoe electronics use electric energy for powering up a TV device.

So animation and vibraion from audio to reproduce a copy of a recording that will have fans amazed for centuries.

So this is one example that cause a business to be great from having people use there limits in understanding as a main source to buiness gains.

So everything is all about what people know and what people don't know. Key concept (patterns in life)

Unnecessary Deletion of material

I put in several things making the article much more balanced. I first said in the discussion that I was going to do that, proposing an addition, explaining my reasoning... Then left it there for about a month. No one said anything at all. So I put in the addition. It was then deleted because it did not have citations, still with no response on the discussion page.. Shouldn't a tag be put in first??? The article sucks now. Can I please put it back in with cited sources? BriEnBest (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think uncited material should be deleted so much. If you return it with citations that would be considered okay.--Dchmelik (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OR

This article is so devoid of citations it is surely a candidate for deletion on the grounds of being OR.--Philogo 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it does not seem that there is any clear definition of what a "thought" actually is, and the subject seems to be beyond state of the art neuroscience and psychology at the moment. Perhaps a definition of what "thought" refers to in common language plus some information stating how little we actually know about human and animal thought processes will suffice for a rewrite of this article. Some information on how research in the various disciplines of neuroscience try to add to our understanding of thought and information on how some AI research attempts to simulate or replace thought might be warranted, as well.

The entire article at the moment is unacceptable; the definitions of "thought" and "thinking" already assume too much (and that's just the first sentence), and the whole thing reads like a hypothetical/opinion piece. I would suggest to anyone who adds information to this article that they make sure they use solid references, just to avoid any further problems. (After all, if you spend time adding to an article, you want your edits to matter; if someone deletes most or all of the information you added because it lacks citations, it kind of defeats the point.) 209.173.109.104 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a good definition would be very helpful. The current article comes off as odd largely because it jumps into awkward examples of what thought does without introducing the concept. Some historic references and contemplations on thought would be a good start for definition. Obviously, a great deal of actual content could be synthesized from a variety of concepts in the fields of philosophy, computing, logic, etc. which commonly relate themselves to human thought in literature. This content should not be too difficult to cite, and writers simply need to follow a strict procedure while working.DearthOfMateriel (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Total Rewrite

I am working on a total rewrite of the arrticle. You can review it in my sandbox and offer any suggestions or critique. [2]. This is going to take some time and the article may need to be expanded later. The main thing is to put a solid framework and hopefully we can reach the truth on the article quality level, that is. Empireheart (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So I decided to put it up as the quality of my draft was better than the original article, of course more work to be done, so I figured community input is important on this. Empireheart (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Epic Fail

Wow, what a complete piece of crap article. Let's rehash what philosophers and quacks have to say on the subject. Or not. For F's sake, this article doesn't even touch on the neurobiological theories of what thought is -- you know, what goes on in the brain. How about presenting empirical evidence based on neurobiological science rather than giving a platform for discredited nonsense like Fraudian theory?Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I second this, the material covered here whether religious or not is completely beside the point. The only matter that CAN be displayed here is scientific theory based on the actual inner workings of the brain. Under philosophy at the top, the whole mind-body problem is utter crap. We know a lot more than that. I originally came to this article to review such knowledge and I found nothing of value. This article needs a complete rewrite based solely how thought is made and functions, a purely neuro-biological endeavor. 151.197.25.131 (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys should really read some Heidegger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.110.103 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thinking in English

Aside from the various picture, and sounds/music playing in my head, I apparently think in English. Forming sentences of what I plan to say, and stuff like that. Sometimes playing out a conversation. Y'know how on TV or in theater, a character will think lines to themself? I actually do that. My aunt says it isn't normal, but she's a bible thumper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.177.183 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dreadful Lede

The lede is dreadful, rightly multi-tagged "OR" --Philogo (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Tried to stick in a (temporary?) fix with a more standard "dictionary"-type definition in the lede. The whole article lends itself to WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:COAT, to name a few, just by virtue of being such a vague and ill-defined concept. Not to mention that even when people do define it clearly, they still don't understand how it works. Not sure there's much of a solution to that. These sorts of articles are ones where--I hate to say it--wiki often doesn't work very well. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle and dualism

Aristotle was a hylomorphist, not a dualist. Check your facts wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.47.204 (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty of definition

The current definition is irritably ambiguous. Most regrettably, it suggests little if any difference of thought from emotion, which is commonly seen as its antagonist or polar complement. Fortunately, though, “thought” is easier to define than “emotion.” A thought is the mental evocation and/or analysis of concepts and/or their interactions. Most thoughts are voluntary, but they needn't be by definition (e.g., obsessive thoughts, some auditory hallucinations, sometimes suicidal ideation). Whether they have to be conscious by definition is another story, and you have to keep in mind all the while that “conscious” is not the same as “voluntary.” The last two sentences deal more with terminology than with psychology, but I can argue that what you might call an “unconscious thought” isn't as much of a thought as it is a mental process SVI GENERIS; consider the distinction between declarative memory and procedural memory, the two of which have a neural, empirical basis, so this is not just sophistry. EIN (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, long-term declarative recollections are consolidated by the hippocampus whereas long-term procedural recollections are consolidated by some other part(s) of the brain. EIN (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent article

I've added an article from New Scientist as further reading which gives an overview on 'Thought' by Tim Bayne, a 'philosopher' of psychology an Manchester University (I think that should be 'professor'?). I'm not competent to add any of its points to the article, but thought it worth including. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Cognitive Science

This subject EXPLICITLY studies the mind and its precesses. However, it is composed of many subjects including AI, Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics etc... Should some of these subjects be replaced since cognitive science "absorbs" them? After all, the field is dedicated to it.

We do not produce thoughts approach

According to a number of famous philosophers - thoughts aren't produced, aren't formed by the person. Thoughts are timelessly true and are only apprehended by the person. In his work “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” famous German mathematician, logician and philosopher Gottlob Frege writes that we don't produce thoughts, we apprehend (formulate) them. The apprehension of a thought presupposes someone who apprehends it, who thinks. A person is the bearer of the thinking but not of the thought.

Thus the thought, for example, which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a planet which, already before anyone has seen it, has been in interaction with other planets.

Yury2015 (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. Thank you coming to the talk page. Unfortunately I have used up my wiki-time for today and so will need to get back to you tomorrow. I also see that you have sought some guidance on using talk pages. I will therefore probably start by talking about what fellow editors might expect over here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. I'm back, and in the first place I would recommend reading the talk page guidelines. I would also recommend you browse through some of the other article talk pages. In fact, the latter is probably the best way to get familiar with the norms of wiki-talk pages.

In terms of this particular circumstance, what has occurred here is that an editor (me) has felt that an edit you have made does not improve the article and then has reverted it. It is now therefore time for you to begin a discussion of the merits of your proposed edit. This will usually involve either you asking the reverting editor for further explanation about their concerns, or going directly into addressing those concerns (a reverting editor should always provide some idea of their rationale in the edit summary). For example, because I have mentioned "undue weight" you might go straight into making the case that the theoretical perspective has enough recognition in the field of study to warrant inclusion. Good evidence for this would be its frequent mention in reliable secondary sources.

Does that help? And all make sense? If not don't hesitate to ask a question. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrew! What do you think about all that...

Dear colleagues, please tell me, how much time additional information to a certain article must be in talk page before it can be added to a certain article?--Yury2015 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no set amount of time. If the information is basic and uncontroversial, then it can be added right away. If it requires some discussion, then it's best to wait until a consensus has been reached.

That said, often things on talk pages get overlooked. So, it might be best to alert some of the more recent/regular contributors to the article of the presence of new information on the talk page. Dismas (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The talk page for thought is not busy. I suggest that you state more precisely what it is that you want to add to the article and where you propose adding it, and then leave it for two weeks to wait for responses. I note with amusement that, two sections above yours on that talk page, there is a long advertisement for gazebos, the only Wikipedia contribution of a registered editor. Maproom (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the spam.―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I added that section to the article "Thought"

"We do not produce thoughts" approach

According to a number of famous philosophers - thoughts aren't produced, aren't formed by the person. Thoughts are timelessly true and are only apprehended by the person. In his work “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” famous German mathematician, logician and philosopher Gottlob Frege writes that we don't produce thoughts, we apprehend (formulate) them. The apprehension of a thought presupposes someone who apprehends it, who thinks. A person is the bearer of the thinking but not of the thought. "Thus the thought, for example, which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a planet which, already before anyone has seen it, has been in interaction with other planets. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry, Gottlob Frege. Mind, New Series, Vol.65, No.259 (Jul., 1956), p.302 "

That's the result:

• (cur prev) 09:23, 11 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk contribs)‎ . . (23,915 bytes) (-1,007)‎ . . (Undid good faith revision 646621159 by Yury2015 (talk). Please do not simply reapply your edits if reverted. As per wiki-best practice, take it to the talk page.) (undo thank)
• (cur prev) 08:43, 11 February 2015‎ Yury2015 (talk contribs)‎ . . (24,922 bytes) (+1,007)‎ . . (See Wikipedia:Five pillars In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately) (undo)
• (cur prev) 00:32, 11 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk contribs)‎ . . (23,915 bytes) (-201)‎ . . (Actually this should be removed altogether. It is apparently self-published original research, and added in the face of conflict of interest issues.) (undo thank)
• (cur prev) 23:45, 10 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk contribs)‎ . . (24,116 bytes) (-1,007)‎ . . (Undid good faith revision 646546256 by Yury2015 (talk). Uncited claims, clarity issues, and likely undue weight.) (undo thank)
• (cur prev) 20:26, 10 February 2015‎ Yury2015 (talk contribs)‎ . . (25,123 bytes) (+1,007)‎ . . (Adding information) (undo) --Yury2015 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your addition to the article was apparently supported by a 1956 paper by Gottlob Frege. Frege died in 1925. I suggest to try to come up with a better source. Maproom (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you) Dear colleague, tell me please where can I read that kind of rule?

Thank you dear colleagues for your comments. --Yury2015 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of rule? The rule that we don't allow references that have highly questionable dates, or something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! What dates are questionable? 10, 20, 30 - 100 years? May be than I should make the section "From the history of study of thought"? Aristotle did study thought and thinking.178.120.87.219 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Yury2015 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yury2015, the problem is not the date that it was written, but that it was supposedly written by a dead person. If he died in 1925, he can't have written an article in 1956, you know? The guidelines about reliable sources can be found at WP:RS. — kikichugirl speak up! 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (/ˈfreɪɡə/;[3] German: [ˈɡɔtloːp ˈfreːɡə]; 8 November 1848 – 26 July 1925) was a German mathematician, logician and philosopher. He is considered to be one of the founders of modern logic and made major contributions to the foundations of mathematics. He is generally considered to be the father of analytic philosophy, for his writings on the philosophy of language and mathematics. While he was mainly ignored by the intellectual world when he published his writings, Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) introduced his work to later generations of logicians and philosophers.Yury2015 (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. Having looked through the material you have just added I think I might need you to ask a more specific question. I am not sure what you are asking me. What I can say is that your most recent post to this conversation is on the right track in terms of what form this discussion should take. There you are talking about the importance of the author whose perspective you think should be added to the article. I would suggest continuing down this path. Specifically, I would suggest you point out reliable secondary sources that speak to the impact of the ideas of Frege in the study of thought. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrew! ::What do you think about that exact post?

the problem is not the date that it was written, but that it was supposedly written by a dead person. If he died in 1925, he can't have written an article in 1956, you know? The guidelines about reliable sources can be found at WP:RS. — kikichugirl speak up! 03:31,

Yury2015 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. Again, I am still not sure exactly what you are asking, but the comment you are pointing out seems fine. kikichugirl has a valid concern, which might be assuaged by a subsequent discovery that in 1956 Frege's paper was either translated, republished, or posthumously published. As the person suggesting that the reference be included in Wikipedia the onus is now on you to clear this up. And, of course, you will have to return to my concerns as well. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, I still don't understand why I can't in English Wikipedia (in Russian part of Wikipedia its all right) refer to works of Aristotle for instance published for example a year ago?!

As for your concerns, Andrew, I don't agree with them. Why do I have to return to them if I don't agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yury2015 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. You still don't seem to understand kikichugirl's concern. She is not suggesting that you can't use republications as citations. She is instead worried that the citation you offered is incorrect. Again, if the citation is correct, but some context is missing, then it should be easy for you to assuage her concerns.

As for your second question, the answer is that for Wikipedia to function as a reliable crowd sourced encyclopaedia then the principals of consensus building and verifiability are critical. I would suggest that you read those in the first instance if you are surprised that someone would ask for supporting evidence for the additions that you propose. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrew! I am sure you don't quite understand kikichugirl's post. That post is really full of thought. And as for our problem I probably have to refer to a third party if we all want to reach consensus in this situation and if we all want Wikipedia to develop. Wish you all the best.Yury2015 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. You can of course explore disupute resolution options, however, I do think that doing so might seem to other editors like a premature escalation. After all, all I have requested is some evidence that the material you propose for addition is not a fringe theory. This isn't exactly a high bar. Cheers Andrew (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrew! As you asked me I "point out reliable secondary sources that speak to the impact of the ideas of Frege in the study of thought"

• Ganzel I.L. Representation, spirit and formation of thoughts: Frege, Hegel, Leontyev and Ilyenkov // Journal: "Questions of Philosophy” 2013 No 5 (in Russian). P. 94-106
• In the New philosophical encyclopedia (Russian edition) it is claimed that "Pronouncing the statement (aloud or "in mind") is carried out in time. In time also exist representations if they accompany the statement of this or that thought. But the thought (judgment) exists out of time" [3]

Yury2015 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. I am glad to see you are getting on board with the process. Those two sources are a good start. Are there any others? The ones you have supplied seem pretty niche, and given that 'thought' is such a broad topic we will need to maintain a high bar for what makes it into the article. Also, I note that the second article talks more about the idea of 'thought out of time' without reference to Frege. This make me wonder whether this would be the more appropriate route to take for the article. That is, perhaps a section could be added focusing on the notions without necessarily mentioning Frege, supported by the various academics who are on board with that perspective. What do you think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. I am sorry to hear that you have no more patience for the consensus building process. You are of course free to seek a third party. Please do not, however, continue attempt to push through your edit. In Wikipedia until some consensus is established the status quo reigns. What you are doing is edit warring and I have dropped the appropriate reminder on your talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrew! Unfortunately I missed your comment from 13:25, 28 February 2015! In that case I really have to ask you to propose your variant of my added section to the article. In what form do you see that section? Please, write! Of course we can drop the particular name in the article if it makes the article better!Yury2015 (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. Unfortunately I don't feel that I am in a position to help rewrite that section. I am unfamiliar with the theoretical approach you are advocating for inclusion, and based on what you have contributed thus far I don't think I really have my head around it. If you want help in that area I would suggest you try to elicit the help of the people over at the psychology wik-project.

But that is getting ahead of ourselves. I am still concerned about notability. Can you describe some other sources where the proposed content is described as important to our understanding of thought? For example, if it is important then I would expect to see it in psychology handbooks or textbooks. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrew! At last I got a free minute! Here is another notable source - I hope Hegel is notable for you!

"According to Hegel, the thinking of a person, and concepts, judgments and conclusions aren't a product and result of functioning of a person nervous system, activity of a brain, and even subjective activity of the individual. Hegel sees thinking as a certain step in development of an absolute idea". A.O Makovelsky . History of logic. M., 1967, p . 477 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yury2015 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yury2015. There are two issues here. First, it is unclear as to how this description of Hagel's writing maps onto your proposed contribution to the article. Second, although Hagel may be well regarded in various domains, it is not apparent to me here that his views have been impaction in the study of thought and thinking (the source appears come from the field of logic and philosophy). In other words, my notability and fringe theory concerns remain. Are you able to connect this latest contribution with your earlier proposal, perhaps in a sandbox draft? And are there some tertiary sources from within the study of thought that make a big deal abput the view you are trying to describe? Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

--

"Thought can refer to the ideas or arrangements of ideas that result from thinking, the act of producing thoughts, or the process of producing thoughts. " -- this is unacceptably wishy-washy and doesn't work as a definition. it's even circular! in short a terrible first line for the article. -- 99.232.96.123 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

-- Jordache --

This is a brand. It's logo is that of a Pegasus, not a horse, but it still has no wings. Like angels fly. It has to do with the coloring of the symbol not the text. Perhaps some input on synesthesia would be greatly appreciated here.