what is human, thinking and experience

[sushi]

what is human
what is mind/ thinking
what is perception and experience

how is thinking different from experience, discuss.

we process space and experience to produce time and information,

or we process space and information, to produce time and experience?

 

[QuickTwist]

I don't think the mind and thinking are necessarily the same thing.

As far as perspective and experience goes, you can't have one without the other IMO (unless you have some qualifying definitions of these things that you are not giving).

As far as thinking and experience being different...

Thinking is a subjective thing... always. Experience is also subjective, but less so because it hinges on how you actually view the world at large. You can tell yourself "that was just a thought, it doesn't mean it is true" but it is rather difficult to do that with experiences.

I'm of the mind that when talking about space and time, that they are really just 2 sides to the same coin. You can't really have one without the other. Why I think this is because anytime you have space, you have things moving in that space - otherwise it's a vacuum that is isolated from everything else in the universe. So even if you have a vacuum on earth to do experiments with, you still know that space is on a place called earth and that earth is moving, so then that makes the contents inside the vacuum moving as well.

So I would say more the latter - that we process space and information, in other words, we track things and notice that they move from here to there, and this adds to our subjective framework of time filtered through our experience.

Does that answer what you are inquiring about?

 

[computerhxr]

I'm of the mind that when talking about space and time, that they are really just 2 sides to the same coin. You can't really have one without the other. Why I think this is because anytime you have space, you have things moving in that space - otherwise it's a vacuum that is isolated from everything else in the universe. So even if you have a vacuum on earth to do experiments with, you still know that space is on a place called earth and that earth is moving, so then that makes the contents inside the vacuum moving as well.

That is interesting QuickTwist. Can anything truly be isolated from everything else in the universe?

Do you think it is possible that the known universe is actually orbiting a massive object, and like your idea of the vacuum on Earth, its contents are moving together as well?

 

[sushi]

My current hypothesis: space and experience becomes time and information

but time and information can also become space and experience.

 

[sushi]

I don't think the mind and thinking are necessarily the same thing.

As far as perspective and experience goes, you can't have one without the other IMO (unless you have some qualifying definitions of these things that you are not giving).

As far as thinking and experience being different...

Thinking is a subjective thing... always. Experience is also subjective, but less so because it hinges on how you actually view the world at large. You can tell yourself "that was just a thought, it doesn't mean it is true" but it is rather difficult to do that with experiences.

I'm of the mind that when talking about space and time, that they are really just 2 sides to the same coin. You can't really have one without the other. Why I think this is because anytime you have space, you have things moving in that space - otherwise it's a vacuum that is isolated from everything else in the universe. So even if you have a vacuum on earth to do experiments with, you still know that space is on a place called earth and that earth is moving, so then that makes the contents inside the vacuum moving as well.

So I would say more the latter - that we process space and information, in other words, we track things and notice that they move from here to there, and this adds to our subjective framework of time filtered through our experience.

Does that answer what you are inquiring about?

I am trying to understand the mechanisms of thinking, and how it is different from doing. this can be found psychology textbook, but they dont offer alot of insights.

the old philosphers (Like descartes) envision human beings as some kind of machine that process inputs and transform them into outputs. but the human being is the black box.

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm of the mind that when talking about space and time, that they are really just 2 sides to the same coin. You can't really have one without the other. Why I think this is because anytime you have space, you have things moving in that space - otherwise it's a vacuum that is isolated from everything else in the universe. So even if you have a vacuum on earth to do experiments with, you still know that space is on a place called earth and that earth is moving, so then that makes the contents inside the vacuum moving as well.

That is interesting QuickTwist. Can anything truly be isolated from everything else in the universe?

Do you think it is possible that the known universe is actually orbiting a massive object, and like your idea of the vacuum on Earth, its contents are moving together as well?

I think unless there is something really really strange in the universe, then no, I don't think anything can be truly isolated in the universe.

I think I would think about it more like the universe actually being a vacuum in this case. Beyond that, I wouldn't have a guess.

 

[QuickTwist]

I don't think the mind and thinking are necessarily the same thing.

As far as perspective and experience goes, you can't have one without the other IMO (unless you have some qualifying definitions of these things that you are not giving).

As far as thinking and experience being different...

Thinking is a subjective thing... always. Experience is also subjective, but less so because it hinges on how you actually view the world at large. You can tell yourself "that was just a thought, it doesn't mean it is true" but it is rather difficult to do that with experiences.

I'm of the mind that when talking about space and time, that they are really just 2 sides to the same coin. You can't really have one without the other. Why I think this is because anytime you have space, you have things moving in that space - otherwise it's a vacuum that is isolated from everything else in the universe. So even if you have a vacuum on earth to do experiments with, you still know that space is on a place called earth and that earth is moving, so then that makes the contents inside the vacuum moving as well.

So I would say more the latter - that we process space and information, in other words, we track things and notice that they move from here to there, and this adds to our subjective framework of time filtered through our experience.

Does that answer what you are inquiring about?

I am trying to understand the mechanisms of thinking, and how it is different from doing. this can be found psychology textbook, but they dont offer alot of insights.

the old philosphers (Like descartes) envision human beings as some kind of machine that process inputs and transform them into outputs. but the human being is the black box.

IMO, you are not asking the right questions because I don't think a lot of people know what exactly you are asking.

What I would suggest is to look up things like neuroscience and consciousness theories.

 

[computerhxr]

I am trying to understand the mechanisms of thinking, and how it is different from doing. this can be found psychology textbook, but they dont offer alot of insights.

the old philosphers (Like descartes) envision human beings as some kind of machine that process inputs and transform them into outputs. but the human being is the black box.

In my opinion, doing is a function of thought. Nature likes to divide things into groups, so what we call thought is typically non-affective cognition. However, it does have an affect, just primarily on the structure of the connective tissues we call neurons. When the affect extends through motor function, we typically think of that as the line between thinking and doing.

 

[QuickTwist]

I am trying to understand the mechanisms of thinking, and how it is different from doing. this can be found psychology textbook, but they dont offer alot of insights.

the old philosphers (Like descartes) envision human beings as some kind of machine that process inputs and transform them into outputs. but the human being is the black box.

In my opinion, doing is a function of thought. Nature likes to divide things into groups, so what we call thought is typically non-affective cognition. However, it does have an affect, just primarily on the structure of the connective tissues we call neurons. When the affect extends through motor function, we typically think of that as the line between thinking and doing.

Can you talk more about the brain doing affect that is going on in the brain? I don't really see how that is affective. I think of the brain as a SSD, not a HDD.

 

[computerhxr]

I am trying to understand the mechanisms of thinking, and how it is different from doing. this can be found psychology textbook, but they dont offer alot of insights.

the old philosphers (Like descartes) envision human beings as some kind of machine that process inputs and transform them into outputs. but the human being is the black box.

In my opinion, doing is a function of thought. Nature likes to divide things into groups, so what we call thought is typically non-affective cognition. However, it does have an affect, just primarily on the structure of the connective tissues we call neurons. When the affect extends through motor function, we typically think of that as the line between thinking and doing.

Can you talk more about the brain doing affect that is going on in the brain? I don't really see how that is affective. I think of the brain as a SSD, not a HDD.

The brain is not like a SSD or HDD. How can a storage device think?

The brain is more like a neural network. Affect is influence. When you update a node, there are other nodes that respond to the update. Unlike a storage device, where updating a bit of data has no influence over any other bit of data in the device.

 

[Polaris]

I find it very interesting that humans are able to abstract understanding through language (edit: language here meaning complex symbolism as human animals have developed it - other animals have their own versions of language). In that way, language is kinda like mathematics, just two different versions of symbolism. I therefore also find it interesting that many humans struggle with mathematics, but not with non-mathematical language.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that mathematical symbolism isn't really tied in with association. If we could develop a mathematical learning system that was based on association, similarly to language, would it be easier to learn? Or is it that mathematics are creatively constraining at more basic levels? Because I actually found mathematics easier at a higher level, where there's more room for creativity. Well, depending on the type of maths, of course. Could be related to dopamine, maybe, or the fact that mathematics become more relatable to real world problems at a higher level.

 

[sushi]

In my opinion, doing is a function of thought. Nature likes to divide things into groups, so what we call thought is typically non-affective cognition. However, it does have an affect, just primarily on the structure of the connective tissues we call neurons. When the affect extends through motor function, we typically think of that as the line between thinking and doing.

i think its better to compare sensing with thinking.

sensing and thinking is very much similar, but there is a difference in depth.

 

[computerhxr]

i think its better to compare sensing with thinking.

sensing and thinking is very much similar, but there is a difference in depth.

All of the cognitive functions are thinking functions from what I understand. Here's what Jung has to say about it...

According to Jung, thinking is "that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection." Jung also made distinction between active and passive thinking: "The term 'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intentions or not. The faculty of directed thinking, I term 'intellect'. The faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term 'intellectual intuition'." The former, active thought, is what Jung considered a 'judging function'.

What do you think?

 

[QuickTwist]

i think its better to compare sensing with thinking.

sensing and thinking is very much similar, but there is a difference in depth.

All of the cognitive functions are thinking functions from what I understand. Here's what Jung has to say about it...

According to Jung, thinking is "that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection." Jung also made distinction between active and passive thinking: "The term 'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intentions or not. The faculty of directed thinking, I term 'intellect'. The faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term 'intellectual intuition'." The former, active thought, is what Jung considered a 'judging function'.

What do you think?

You are aware Jung was probably talking about himself there, right?

 

[computerhxr]

You are aware Jung was probably talking about himself there, right?

What do you mean? Why is it important to make that distinction?

My understanding is that Jung was clarifying his definition, and giving his opinion regarding his works on Psychological Types.

 

[QuickTwist]

You are aware Jung was probably talking about himself there, right?

What do you mean? Why is it important to make that distinction?

My understanding is that Jung was clarifying his definition, and giving his opinion regarding his works on Psychological Types.

Jung talks about himself because he knows himself. He categorized himself as someone who was "categorized by thinking."

 

[computerhxr]

You are aware Jung was probably talking about himself there, right?

What do you mean? Why is it important to make that distinction?

My understanding is that Jung was clarifying his definition, and giving his opinion regarding his works on Psychological Types.

Jung talks about himself because he knows himself. He categorized himself as someone who was "categorized by thinking."

Okay, that makes sense. What is your point though?

Ref: Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types

Chapter XI. Definitions
53. THINKING

 

[QuickTwist]

You are aware Jung was probably talking about himself there, right?

What do you mean? Why is it important to make that distinction?

My understanding is that Jung was clarifying his definition, and giving his opinion regarding his works on Psychological Types.

Jung talks about himself because he knows himself. He categorized himself as someone who was "categorized by thinking."

Okay, that makes sense. What is your point though?

Ref: Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types

Chapter XI. Definitions
53. THINKING

So the assertion of "'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intentions or not." is just plain wrong.

Thinking is NOT categorized by intentions IMO... at all. Though Thinking is a judging function, it doesn't actually provide motivation. That is F's goal. Insofar as T is a judgement function, it tells what is, not what to do. Yada yada, you can't get an ought from an is.

 

[computerhxr]

So the assertion of "'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intentions or not." is just plain wrong.

Thinking is NOT categorized by intentions IMO... at all. Though Thinking is a judging function, it doesn't actually provide motivation. That is F's goal. Insofar as T is a judgement function, it tells what is, not what to do. Yada yada, you can't get an ought from an is.

Next time, just state your opinion and why you dissagree to begin with. There is no need for passive aggression or condescension.

Jung did not say that thinking provides motivation, or that judgement tells what to do. He is saying that thinking, directed by intention, is what he termed as active thinking.

Active Thinking:
[intention] directs [thinking] results in [judgement]

Passive Thinking:
undirected [thinking] results in [judgement]

Jung saying that the term 'thinking' should be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept—is like saying that the term 'exercise' should be confined to sustained physical activity, rather than any physical exertion. While any physical exertion is technically exercise, calling it that undermines the value of the term.

My opinion is that all of the cognitive functions are thinking functions, and that neurons perform thinking function.

 

[QuickTwist]

So the assertion of "'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intentions or not." is just plain wrong.

Thinking is NOT categorized by intentions IMO... at all. Though Thinking is a judging function, it doesn't actually provide motivation. That is F's goal. Insofar as T is a judgement function, it tells what is, not what to do. Yada yada, you can't get an ought from an is.

Next time, just state your opinion and why you dissagree to begin with. There is no need for passive aggression or condescension.

Jung did not say that thinking provides motivation, or that judgement tells what to do. He is saying that thinking, directed by intention, is what he termed as active thinking.

Active Thinking:
[intention] directs [thinking] results in [judgement]

Passive Thinking:
undirected [thinking] results in [judgement]

Jung saying that the term 'thinking' should be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept—is like saying that the term 'exercise' should be confined to sustained physical activity, rather than any physical exertion. While any physical exertion is technically exercise, calling it that undermines the value of the term.

My opinion is that all of the cognitive functions are thinking functions, and that neurons perform thinking function.

Yeah, it's "the product of one's intentions or not" that I disagree with.

That seems to infer an inherent motivation before the subjective interpretation of the object is established. The only way you could argue otherwise is if it was the feeling function that was motivating the thought of the subjective interpretation of the object, and well, I guess that depends on if perception goes through the conscious or unconscious functions first.

 

[computerhxr]

So the assertion of "'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intentions or not." is just plain wrong.

Thinking is NOT categorized by intentions IMO... at all. Though Thinking is a judging function, it doesn't actually provide motivation. That is F's goal. Insofar as T is a judgement function, it tells what is, not what to do. Yada yada, you can't get an ought from an is.

Next time, just state your opinion and why you dissagree to begin with. There is no need for passive aggression or condescension.

Jung did not say that thinking provides motivation, or that judgement tells what to do. He is saying that thinking, directed by intention, is what he termed as active thinking.

Active Thinking:
[intention] directs [thinking] results in [judgement]

Passive Thinking:
undirected [thinking] results in [judgement]

Jung saying that the term 'thinking' should be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept—is like saying that the term 'exercise' should be confined to sustained physical activity, rather than any physical exertion. While any physical exertion is technically exercise, calling it that undermines the value of the term.

My opinion is that all of the cognitive functions are thinking functions, and that neurons perform thinking function.

Yeah, it's "the product of one's intentions or not" that I disagree with.

That seems to infer an inherent motivation before the subjective interpretation of the object is established. The only way you could argue otherwise is if it was the feeling function that was motivating the thought of the subjective interpretation of the object, and well, I guess that depends on if perception goes through the conscious or unconscious functions first.

The only way to argue that Jung was not inferring an inherent motivation is if the feeling function was motivating the thought?

If there is no other way to argue otherwise, then case closed, right? No further investigation required.

 

[QuickTwist]

So the assertion of "'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intentions or not." is just plain wrong.

Thinking is NOT categorized by intentions IMO... at all. Though Thinking is a judging function, it doesn't actually provide motivation. That is F's goal. Insofar as T is a judgement function, it tells what is, not what to do. Yada yada, you can't get an ought from an is.

Next time, just state your opinion and why you dissagree to begin with. There is no need for passive aggression or condescension.

Jung did not say that thinking provides motivation, or that judgement tells what to do. He is saying that thinking, directed by intention, is what he termed as active thinking.

Active Thinking:
[intention] directs [thinking] results in [judgement]

Passive Thinking:
undirected [thinking] results in [judgement]

Jung saying that the term 'thinking' should be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept—is like saying that the term 'exercise' should be confined to sustained physical activity, rather than any physical exertion. While any physical exertion is technically exercise, calling it that undermines the value of the term.

My opinion is that all of the cognitive functions are thinking functions, and that neurons perform thinking function.

Yeah, it's "the product of one's intentions or not" that I disagree with.

That seems to infer an inherent motivation before the subjective interpretation of the object is established. The only way you could argue otherwise is if it was the feeling function that was motivating the thought of the subjective interpretation of the object, and well, I guess that depends on if perception goes through the conscious or unconscious functions first.

The only way to argue that Jung was not inferring an inherent motivation [to the thinking function] is if the feeling function was motivating the thought thinking function? (Yes)

If there is no other way to argue otherwise, then case closed, right? No further investigation required.

FTFY

 

[computerhxr]

So the assertion of "'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intentions or not." is just plain wrong.

Thinking is NOT categorized by intentions IMO... at all. Though Thinking is a judging function, it doesn't actually provide motivation. That is F's goal. Insofar as T is a judgement function, it tells what is, not what to do. Yada yada, you can't get an ought from an is.

Next time, just state your opinion and why you dissagree to begin with. There is no need for passive aggression or condescension.

Jung did not say that thinking provides motivation, or that judgement tells what to do. He is saying that thinking, directed by intention, is what he termed as active thinking.

Active Thinking:
[intention] directs [thinking] results in [judgement]

Passive Thinking:
undirected [thinking] results in [judgement]

Jung saying that the term 'thinking' should be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept—is like saying that the term 'exercise' should be confined to sustained physical activity, rather than any physical exertion. While any physical exertion is technically exercise, calling it that undermines the value of the term.

My opinion is that all of the cognitive functions are thinking functions, and that neurons perform thinking function.

Yeah, it's "the product of one's intentions or not" that I disagree with.

That seems to infer an inherent motivation before the subjective interpretation of the object is established. The only way you could argue otherwise is if it was the feeling function that was motivating the thought of the subjective interpretation of the object, and well, I guess that depends on if perception goes through the conscious or unconscious functions first.

The only way to argue that Jung was not inferring an inherent motivation [to the thinking function] is if the feeling function was motivating the thought thinking function? (Yes)

If there is no other way to argue otherwise, then case closed, right? No further investigation required.

FTFY

Impressive.