Can we talk about thinking?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



coberst

lord xyz
Thinking is a natural body instinct in order to survive. I guess we could survive without thinking, but if we never thought, we wouldn't have any technology, so thinking is a good thing.

zart22
Thinking is good and bad i think (i think lol) Some days I have great good fun thoughts but other days not so good I wish we could just have good happy thoughts.

Symmetric Chaos
Thought begets heresy; heresy begets retribution.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thought begets heresy; heresy begets retribution.

I concur.

inimalist
god, I was hoping for epistemology and alls I gets is some anti-conformity stuff wink

in all seriousness, I find this type of logic quickly devolves into "My way of thinking is right" which is not far away from "If you don't think what I think, you aren't thinking properly".

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
god, I was hoping for epistemology and alls I gets is some anti-conformity stuff wink

in all seriousness, I find this type of logic quickly devolves into "My way of thinking is right" which is not far away from "If you don't think what I think, you aren't thinking properly".

Okay, but my way of thinking is right and if you don't think what I think you are thinking improperly.

Mindship

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
What have you observed that would lead you to these conclusions?

I'm not sure if he/she has thought this through. wink

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by inimalist
god, I was hoping for epistemology and alls I gets is some anti-conformity stuff wink

in all seriousness, I find this type of logic quickly devolves into "My way of thinking is right" which is not far away from "If you don't think what I think, you aren't thinking properly".

You wouldn't think that if you thought properly...

coberst

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not sure if he/she has thought this through. wink I feel like I'm being lectured to. Perhaps I needed to clarify.
Coberst, what have you observed that would lead you to these conclusions? To post all this stuff suggests a recent epiphany on your part. What have you experienced that's connected you to this information?

inimalist

inimalist
Originally posted by coberst
There is no direct connection between perception and language.


this statement is also incorrect

coberst

Mindship

coberst
mindship

I tried meditation long ago and managed only to sleep sitting up.

Mindship
Originally posted by coberst
mindship

I tried meditation long ago and managed only to sleep sitting up. Yeah, it can have that effect.

I mention it because meditation (ie, metaconsciousness, attention-training) gives perspective on thinking (and thinking about thinking), as well as awareness of subtler phenomena (obviously, such awareness doesn't blossom overnight). You bring up educating people on how the mind works; meditation, IMO, is indispensable. However, as you've also noted, the dominant mindset / culture-at-large is not big on such reflection, especially when it's given a heavily spiritual / anti-materialistic bent (which is not really necessary; meditation can be appreciated on a number of levels).

coberst
Originally posted by coberst
mindship

I tried meditation long ago and managed only to sleep sitting up.

I think that CT (Critical Thinking) is a better means for comprehending the self and the world, however, I am not very knowledable about Eastern tradition.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, but my way of thinking is right and if you don't think what I think you are thinking improperly.

lol, a sentiment most people appear to share

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You wouldn't think that if you thought properly...

another sentiment I find a lot of people share, lol wink

and one more try:

Originally posted by coberst
There is no direct connection between perception and language.


What about the speech perception or reading? What about the Stroop Task? What about the McGurk effect?

There are direct neuronal connections between our sensory areas and our language areas. I don't understand how you could comment that there is no connection between them. Could you clarify?

coberst
There are direct neuronal connections between our sensory areas and our language areas. I don't understand how you could comment that there is no connection between them. Could you clarify?

In the chain of evolution when did language develop? There was no language before humans came on the scene, which means that creatures were perceiving for billions of years before there was language. Why would anyone think that language had a direct connection to perception?

Language is a means for communication. Concepts must be translated to language before language can be engaged.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by coberst
In the chain of evolution when did language develop? There was no language before humans came on the scene, which means that creatures were perceiving for billions of years before there was language.

Whether or not language existed before humans depends entirely on how you define language.

Originally posted by coberst
Why would anyone think that language had a direct connection to perception?

He told you that. There's a direct physical link (read: connection) between them in the brain, apparently.

Mindship
Originally posted by coberst
I think that CT (Critical Thinking) is a better means for comprehending the self and the world, however, I am not very knowledable about Eastern tradition. Critical thinking is certainly an essential element as well. Combined with "internal observation" -- meditation -- one can be in a position to learn how the mind works very much like critical thinking + sensory observation helps us to understand the empirical world.

Critical thinking by itself, though, especially to evaluate thinking...I sense a subtle conflict of interest here, like a bank suspected of ill-conceived lending practices saying it will set up a committee to investigate what it's doing. There's no outside, detached witness, like what meditation can provide, especially over time as the skill develops. Plus, critical thinking can evaluate only what it can see with the spotlight of untrained attention.

Listen I don't mean to be pushing it. I mention meditation only because you have a deep and earnest interest in the subject matter ("thinking"wink, and I figured, maybe, you would find attention-training an asset.

inimalist
Originally posted by coberst
In the chain of evolution when did language develop?

The theory is that early primates had a place in their brain, the homologue of Broca's area, which was used for very fine finger movement. This area developed as these primates were able to communicate basic intentions through hand signals.

It gets confusing as you morph from fine finger movement to throat articulations and audio symbols, but the premise is that this happened before the evolution into humans, and this is evidenced by the fact that chimps still have this area but it has not been changed into a vocal center.

As Sym just pointed out, it depends now on what you define as "human" and what you define as "language", and there wont be a clear line of distinction for either, but clearly somewhere between the co-ancestor between humans and chimps and now what we consider language was developed.

Originally posted by coberst
There was no language before humans came on the scene, which means that creatures were perceiving for billions of years before there was language.

1) human perception is different from any other animal. Each organism perceives that which their sensory organs enable them to, and their percepts then are dependent on the basic biology of those sensory organs. Thus, all organisms, even of the same species, are going to have a unique perception of reality. Would you say that a human who has no language ability (such as severely autistic individuals, or severe specific language impairment) have the same perception of the world that you do?

2) organisms perceived the world for billions of years without the primate cone in the retina for perceiving a specific wavelength of light. Are you then going to also argue that specific shades of red are not part of human perception simply because organisms were perceiving for billions of years without them?

3) all animals are just as evolved as humans. Humans didn't "gain" language, its use became a survival/reproductive benefit for proto-humans. Much like how evolution has altered the perception of blind subterranean mammals to encompass their environment and what was necessary for survival, it has done the same for humans.

4) ALL parts of the brain work together to create perception. Your posture while reading this will determine, to some extent, your perception of the material.

Originally posted by coberst
Why would anyone think that language had a direct connection to perception?

well, for one, there is an entire field of study devoted to the perception of language.

for another, to understand language, it must be perceived, as in, the physical stimuli must get into the brain some how.

more specifically though, would be the direct neuronal connections between primary sensory cortices, such as A1 and V1, and language centers, specifically those located at the rear of the brain near or in the parietal cortex.

Here, I'll make it absurdly apparent:

look at the following words. Attempt to say the colour they are written in, but not the word itself.











RED
BROWN
BLUE
YELLOW
GREEN
















notice how difficult this is.

Originally posted by coberst
Language is a means for communication. Concepts must be translated to language before language can be engaged.

indeed?

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
look at the following words. Attempt to say the colour they are written in, but not the word itself.

RED
BROWN
BLUE
YELLOW
GREEN I get a kick out of this task, one of the simplest ways to evaluate executive functioning, and it's just plain fun to do.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
I get a kick out of this task, one of the simplest ways to evaluate executive functioning.

indeed, one of my favs

smile

I thought it made my point well though, lol

If I could be sure the McGurk effect would work, I'd post something on it too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect

coberst

coberst

inimalist
Originally posted by coberst

If all concrete concepts result from sensorimotor aided experience does this mean that all concepts, either concrete or subjective, are grounded in sensorimotor aided experience?


there is good reason to believe that all human experience and cognition is directly related to motor experience and action. As humans are an evolved organism, all of our mental faculties must have evolved in response to our environment. In this light, our cognition must be understood as serving various survival purposes, all ending with behaviour that produces reproductive advantage. Because the end result is necessarily action, all parts of our brain potentially are evolved to produce the necessary action in a scenario.

For instance, our ability to see colour is almost assuredly related to what colours represented to our ancestors in the environment they evolved in. Recent studies show an attentional bias toward pink, then red, items. Pink represents, in nature, highly vascularized skin, meaning sex organs and face/lips. Red often represents food or caution for foraging people. Thus, the perception of the colours pink and red is evolved specifically to create action that is beneficial to the immediate survival and reproduction of an organism.

Mindship
Originally posted by coberst
I remember having watched, on TV, a high-jumper performing an obvious mental imagery of his up-coming jump just before he actually performed his physical feat. I could watch his gaze going through the running to the bar and lifting himself up and over the bar. It was obvious that he was doing a practice jump in his mind just before he actually performed the jump.

I have discovered since that time that this is somewhat standard practice for athletes.

As someone who used to lift heavy weights back in the day, yeah, this mental rehearsal was invaluable for bringing both mind and body fully online for the task at hand.

But even better...
Years ago there was a study which sought to measure increases in strength. It compared three groups:
Group 1 trained by doing actual pushups.
Group 2 trained with visualization, imagining themselves doing pushups.
Group 3 did nothing mentally nor physically.

The aim was to see which group showed the highest gains in strength (as measured by an increase in the number of pushups). Not surprisingly, Group 1 showed the most strength gain; Group 3 showed no gain.

However, quite surprisingly, Group 2 -- the visualizers -- also showed a significant increase in pushup strength (though of course not as much as Group 1).

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
As someone who used to lift heavy weights back in the day, yeah, this mental rehearsal was invaluable for bringing both mind and body fully online for the task at hand.

But even better...
Years ago there was a study which sought to measure increases in strength. It compared three groups:
Group 1 trained by doing actual pushups.
Group 2 trained with visualization, imagining themselves doing pushups.
Group 3 did nothing mentally nor physically.

The aim was to see which group showed the highest gains in strength (as measured by an increase in the number of pushups). Not surprisingly, Group 1 showed the most strength gain; Group 3 showed no gain.

However, quite surprisingly, Group 2 -- the visualizers -- also showed a significant increase in pushup strength (though of course not as much as Group 1).

One of my profs last year mentioned that for the first even month of working out, the vast majority of change happens in the brain rather than in the muscles. It makes sense, just really cool imho smile

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
One of my profs last year mentioned that for the first even month of working out, the vast majority of change happens in the brain rather than in the muscles. It makes sense, just really cool imho smile I read somewhere...not sure where...so probably cracked.com...that there were tests made on people just strongly imagining that they work out, rather than actually working out, which then, apparently increased their strength...which is kinda awesome.

no expression

inimalist
Originally posted by Bardock42
I read somewhere...not sure where...so probably cracked.com...that there were tests made on people just strongly imagining that they work out, rather than actually working out, which then, apparently increased their strength...which is kinda awesome.

no expression

its what mindship was talking about

I've only heard it with relation to thumbs.

The skinny, as far as I was taught, is that instead of muscle increase, the pathways in the brain between the motor planning areas and the muscles themselves become leaner and stronger. Basically, you build neurological "short-cuts".

The visualization wont work the muscles, but it will increase the strength of these connections, making the movement more coordinated, and allowing for greater feats of strength

EDIT: then we get the really fun stuff where you compare 1st person visualizations vs 3rd person visualizations... its cool, but you are basically counting angels on a pinhead at that point... Though for some reason I'm remembering fMRI differences in perspective taking for visualization of action... god damn it, and I should be reading this stuff on memory anyways... stupid time wasting internets

JVposter
Originally posted by lord xyz
Thinking is a natural body instinct in order to survive. I guess we could survive without thinking, but if we never thought, we wouldn't have any technology, so thinking is a good thing.

hello!

How can we survive without to think ... it is impossible ... you cannot live without to think ...my opinion

regards,

JVposter
Originally posted by Mindship
I get a kick out of this task, one of the simplest ways to evaluate executive functioning, and it's just plain fun to do.

yes indeed

Here, I'll make it absurdly apparent:

look at the following words. Attempt to say the colour they are written in, but not the word itself.











RED
BROWN
BLUE
YELLOW
GREEN
















notice how difficult this is.

-----------

It is not difficult it is impossible

inimalist

inimalist
Originally posted by JVposter
It is not difficult it is impossible

much fun though smile

coberst
Inimalist

Your account sounds good to me.

Mindship
< visualizing more $20 bills in wallet.

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
its what mindship was talking about


Ha, yeah, that's where reading more than one post back pays off, doesn't it? no expression

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
< visualizing more $20 bills in wallet.

not so good, it will make you that much faster at spending them when they show up

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ha, yeah, that's where reading more than one post back pays off, doesn't it? no expression

blah, preaching at the choir my friend

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by JVposter
look at the following words. Attempt to say the colour they are written in, but not the word itself.











RED
BROWN
BLUE
YELLOW
GREEN












notice how difficult this is.

-----------

It is not difficult it is impossible

That was pretty easy. Their all the same color.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.