Learning how to think

[OldScratch]

I don't think you learn to think. We are taught methods of analyzing things, but if you can't do it, you can't do it. There's a certain ability we are born with, and while teaching can make up for some, it can't totally level the field.

All "level the field" talk notwithstanding:

http://www.harperacademic.com/catalog/excerpt_xml.asp?isbn=006090528X

 

[Norsemaiden]

All "level the field" talk notwithstanding:

http://www.harperacademic.com/catalog/excerpt_xml.asp?isbn=006090528X

Thanks for that Old Scratch. It is odd that WeAreInFlames is of the opinion that Nietzsche (and me) would believe in a level field regarding the potential to think!

 

[Silver Incubus]

just a small point, perhaps what he's trying to say would make sense if fleshing out the language a little better, 'mind' and 'thinking mind' (I'm no spiritual nutball, but I do like this one way of conveying the idea from freelance spiritualist Eckhart Tolle...)

"When you recognize there is a voice in your head that pretends to be you, and never stops speaking, you're awakening from your unconscious identification with the stream of thinking. . . . Be present as the watcher of your mind -- of your thoughts and emotions as well as your reactions in various situations. . . . Watch the thought, feel the emotion, observe the reaction. Don't make a personal problem out of them. You will then feel something more powerful than any of those things that you observe: the still, observing presence itself behind the content of your mind, the silent watcher."

in other words, you are that which experiences input from the world, you're not just the thinking you do, when you stop thinking about something you're still there. of course you are this 'consciousness', but the capabilities of the 'mind' such as 'thinking' aren't the limit of what we are.

if that makes any sense at all. ('mind'/'consciousness' stuff is a bitch of a thing to have a nice vocabulary of like the body's anatomy)

Is there really a difference between mind and thinking mind? To me, there really has never been a difference. My thoughts and pondering are as much a part of me as my body is.

As for the voice in the head that is not you and never stops speaking? That sounds like schizophrenia to me. I do understand that you are talking about being mindful of the things in which you experience so that after some critical thinking you can gain the best solution to react with. What you are suggesting is what is known as dissociation, which isn't easy to do for everyone. That is being a meta thinker, not actively experiencing things but observing your unconscious tenancies in order to gain more control over your actions, thoughts and feelings so that you can act meticulously consciously. People literally call it stepping outside themselves or situation for a minute to get a more objective perspective, angle or feel.
IF I am way off please let me know how!

 

[Seditious]

Is there really a difference between mind and thinking mind? To me, there really has never been a difference. My thoughts and pondering are as much a part of me as my body is.

As for the voice in the head that is not you and never stops speaking? That sounds like schizophrenia to me.

my thoughts are a 'part' of me too, it's just that they aren't the whole of me. when I stop negotiating the world via symbols I'm still there doing the perceiving of that which can be thought about.

all he means by that phrase is people do get caught up in thinking they are their thinking process and there's no way to stop this endless internal monologue (something of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you have no hypothesis of an alternative---peace of mind)

 

[Frank the tank]

i guess i wasnt too clear but it really isnt that hard of a question to understand if you take another look at it. no one here has to be an intellectual jerkoff. simply put, do you have more control over your thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. or does whatever force that lay deep within the mind control you? or is there some sort of balance. think about how it relates to the things you do in everyday life. i dont think anybody fully understands themselves and there may be parts of our consciousess that we may have completely omitted or neglected to realize were even there. i mean think about it, does a dog know it's a dog? for the most part i was asking if anyone believes that we're bound strictly by our impulses and if so does that perpetuate the thoughts within the conscious mind, or can it be otherwise. it kind of makes me wonder how much does anyone truly know themself as an individual? did it ever make you wonder why two people can look at the same thing and both see something entirely different ? i guess it's cause your mind sees what it wants to see, but then why is that? questions just go on. as far as you are your mind and your mind is you , well thats interesting. ive never really thought of it that way

 

[Seditious]

simply put, do you have more control over your thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. or does whatever force that lay deep within the mind control you?

are you presuming the existence of free-will, or do you just mean the determinist question on which has the most impact in determining our behavior---'genes vs. environment'?

i dont think anybody fully understands themselves

safe bet.

and there may be parts of our consciousess that we may have completely omitted or neglected to realize were even there.

the unconscious (inaccessable), the subconscious (able to be conscious), the presently conscious (how your underwear and your feet feel), the center of consciousness (this sentence right now)... where do you hypothesize we might be missing something and what role might it be playing?

i mean think about it, does a dog know it's a dog?

google self-awareness studies on animals.
chimps are able to use mirrors to better pick things out of their teeth. I can't remember what the ruling on cats was, I don't think it was favorable. dogs I haven't heard of specifically and can't be fucked googling.

for the most part i was asking if anyone believes that we're bound strictly by our impulses.

I'm not sure how you're defining 'impulses', but since people learn chastity, or to fast, or to 'control their anger', and only one case is necessary to refute the idea that 'we're bound by our impulses', if lust/hunger/rage are 'impulses', and you don't mean just any old desire (as if to say 'the impulse to control your anger') then it's obviously false. Hell, the fact we have this big ol' neocortex, the significant developmental lacking of which in teenagers is responsible for the stereotypical 'impulsive behavior' of theirs and a lack of ability to control it, should itself demonstrate that we, as a species, indeed have the ability to consciously regulate our conduct against impulse.

if so does that perpetuate the thoughts within the conscious mind,

dunno what that means, bro. 'the thoughts' of what? just 'thoughts' in general, or...?

it kind of makes me wonder how much does anyone truly know themself as an individual?

your individuality (if you're refering to identity, not biology) is probably what you know best about yourself.

did it ever make you wonder why two people can look at the same thing and both see something entirely different ?

garbage in, garbage out.

i guess it's cause your mind sees what it wants to see, but then why is that?

your language again is puzzling. ask yourself 'what is the mind that sees', if it's you, then ask 'does the idea 'I see what I want to see' have any explanatory power?', go through the process of fleshing out such propositions, they're nothing but inspiration---a place to start.

questions just go on. as far as you are your mind and your mind is you , well thats interesting. ive never really thought of it that way

: ) if there's one piece of advice I can give it's to write down all the words that interest you at the back of a notebook... 'provocations of thoughts', 'limitations of awareness', 'differences in evaluation', 'prior experience bias', and when you have the free time, walking down the street, eating lunch, whatever, see if you feel like exploring one. this I suggest not just because it's concise, but also because it doesn't too much trap you in presuppositions, on different days you might think about the same thing in completely different contexts, and might find a new way of approaching it and find the error of other concepts...

mmm well that's a nice long 1AM wankoff, now I'm sleepy.

hopefully you find something of value in there.

 

[Frank the tank]

yeah, pretty good answers i guess.

 

[judas69]

"Do you beat your heart, or does your heart beat itself?" - Alan Watts

 

[apaintedredlove]

I think you first have to describe what thinking is; to me it's doing so freely, with your own mind, and not having outside interference disrupt your thoughts. If this is what thinking is, then yes, one must first learn who they are before they can truly think for themselves. Before you think for yourself, you are thinking for yourself with someone else's mind. It is a learned exercise that some never manage to master, or even, sadly enough; manage to do so on the lowliest scale. To me, very religious people
are the one's who are the furthest from being a master thinker.