Hello All,

I’ve been enjoying reading the various forums here. However, I figure it will take me at least 2.6 years to catch up. In the meantime, I thought I’d start a new thread with the goal of getting to know some of you better, a little sooner.

So....

Some of you may recognize the author of the following quote. For now I wish to withhold the author’s name. As it is only proper that credit be given, I will supply the name a little later.

~~~~~~~~~~

“Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it He cannot dig a ditch--or build a cyclotron--without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

“But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival--so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is ‘to think of not to think...”

~~~~~~~~~~

Agree?

Disagree?

And if so...why or why not?


~~~~~~~~~~

Regards,

Counterbalance

Greetings -

I agree.

Why? Well, lets break the first paragraph down into a more easily evaluated equation.

Hypothesis:
Man's mind is his basic tool of survival.

Axioms:
1. Life is given to him, survival is not.
2. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not.
3. His mind is given to him, its content is not.
4. To remain alive, he must act,
5. before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action.
6. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it.

So, to obtain the means for survival (in this case, food), one must have knowledge of those means. Even with a host of other tools with which food can be harvested, you must know that you need food, and that you cannot get food without employing those other tools. You have tools A(mind) and B(everything else) with which you can get C(food). If you can get B from A, and without A you cannot get C, it follows that A is the more basic than B.

Conclusion:
To remain alive, he must think.

Now, the second paragraph;

But to think is an act of choice.

True. One can either go about the task of finding food, or one can hope and pray that food will mystically appear.

Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct.

Indeed, try proving a complex mathematical theorem with only your emotions as guide. Also, if reason did work automatically, why would there be so many dissenting opinions in our (or any) society?

In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort.

As stated above, feeling the proof to a theorem does not prove it; yet some people are content to act on that feeling, ignoring(not thinking) that it is incorrect.

But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival--so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is ‘to think of not to think...”

Everyone exists. Not everyone thinks. As demonstrated earlier, and as the speaker goes on to say, "A being of volitional conciousness has no automatic course of behavior." Without thought, and the use of reason, the course that being ends up on is random and without purpose.


Thanks,
FyreStar

To remain alive, he must think.
To think, he must remain alive.

...to think is an act of choice.
Not to think is an act of choice.

...before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action.
After he has acted, he may think about the nature and purpose of his action.

Any the less 'true'?

Greetings -

***Chagur said:
To think, he must remain alive.

Self-evident, wouldn't you say? :D

***Chagur said:
...to think is an act of choice.
Not to think is an act of choice.

These statemens say the same thing. The choice is whether or not to think.

***Chagur said:
...before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action.
After he has acted, he may think about the nature and purpose of his action.

True... but that doesn't change the validity of the original statement.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.. what conclusion were you intending to draw?

Thanks,
FyreStar

Just a few thoughts:

1. Life is given to him, survival is not.
Who gave the life? For a baby the survival is controlled by the parents, and the community

2. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not.
A body is not a separate object from the Self. Again sustenance is given by the same people who brought the baby to the world.

3. His mind is given to him, its content is not.
The mind comes with the contents. Basic programs that runs the heart, the nervous system etc. Without the information regarding the level of glucose, amount of red blood cells, T-Cells and so on, the body can not control and will die.

My 1 cent....

Thank you, FyreStar, Chagur & kmguru...

I'd hoped to find there had been some thoughtful responses when I got the chance to look in again, so I'm hardly disappointed.

I'd planned to add my own thoughts, and certainly will, but also want to give it a little more time. This, and related topics, have likely been discussed here before, but if anyone else hasn't become too weary of repeating themselves, I'm all ears. :)

(FyreStar...I get the impression that you are familiar with the uncredited author. Help me keep the secret a little longer? ;)

Worth much more than 1 cent to me. Thanks again for everyone's input.

Counterbalance

I'm not sure where you are going with this.. what conclusion were you intending to draw? That 'thinking' is ancillary to 'action' - In this case, remaining alive; and that 'not thinking' is impossible. Too often I have found what is referred to as 'thinking' is synonymous with 'analysing'.

Greetings -

Chagur.. you say that action proceeds thought? This doesn't make sense to me.. Describe to me how a physicist develops a theory without thought. Or how a businessman turns profit without thought. Reduced to simplicity, tell me how a man could possibly find food to survive without thought. There may be a semantic problem here, but don't be so quick to assume that it is ours.

Thanks,
FyreStar

P.S. Counterbalance - Roger that :D

To continue the quote...

"A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible....

"....Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil...."

~~~~

No automatic course of behavior?

Is it only to a living entity that things can be good or evil?

Can we prove that life goes out of existence? Or do we rely on the proof that we have--that as far as we know--we don't actually know what happens when we die?

~~~

I know of no reason to disagree with any of the (as yet) un-named author's assertions, but different interpretations are welcome.

(And FyreStar, even if you also agree, say on! I enjoy reading your posts.)


Counterbalance

.. you say that action proceeds thought? This doesn't make sense to me.. Understandable considering your apparent acceptance of Rand's Objectivism.

Consider in utero: Action .. yes! Thought .. ?

And, no need to 'find food'.

The problem appears to be not one of semantics, but rather how big the picture is.

Good point, Chagur.

In utero: is thought possible?

What kind of proof do we have to support a belief that it is not?

Or that it is?

Is all action (in utero) reflexive? Reactive?

Or is there a thought: "I'm cramped," followed by an action of: "streeeettttccchhhhh."

"I'm cramped; therefore, I'll stretch. "

Simplistic, yes. But keeping it simple can further understanding in the long run.

Oh, and I agree that there is a much bigger picture. It just gets a bit fuzzier the more we open the lens.

Mucho thanks for the input! :)


Counterbalance


(And yes, the author of the quoted material is Ayn Rand, the founder of the philosophy Objectivism. These are excerpts from the famous speech in Atlas Shrugged , "This is John Galt Speaking." )

Speaking of understanding, I hope I'm using these text codes correctly! Here goes...

He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it He cannot dig a ditch--or build a cyclotron--without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.


Counterbalance, I know this is not your original quote. However, please consider this: You hold two buckets, one in each hand. One is filled with water and one is empty. You know instantly which one is heavier. Where did this knowledge come from? Did you have to be taught how to discern which bucket was heavier? Did you have to think about about it and then conclude that, based on what you were taught, the bucket full of water is heavier? Probably not. The things that you need to know about your immediate environment are built in and hardwired. Of course this does not discredit the above quote in one easy analogy, it merely outlines that not all knowledge is dependent upon the critical analysis of higher thought. It is amazing how a person requires so much instruction to achieve what squirrels achieve with a minimal need to build cyclotrons or dig ditches. Mabye it is just a matter of degree.

Hi machaon,

Thanks. I'm quite open to considering your suggestions. Note that in one of my prior posts I asked:


No automatic course of behavior?

Is it only to a living entity that things can be good or evil?

Can we prove that life goes out of existence? Or do we rely on the proof that we have--that as far as we know--we don't actually know what happens when we die?

~~~

I know of no reason to disagree with any of the (as yet) un-named author's assertions, but different interpretations are welcome.


~~~~~~~~~~~

You make a good point, machaon. I'd like to hear more if you've any further thoughts on this.

My reason for choosing this topic was to (hopefully) start a discussion about this. Granted, it could easily turn into a debate or an argument, but it doesn't have to. It's not critical that we all agree. My questions were merely questions and not assertions of my own hard line opinion.

That said...

You asked the question:



Did you have to be taught how to discern which bucket was heavier? Did you have to think about about it and then conclude that, based on what you were taught, the bucket full of water is heavier?


And I wonder: Even if a human body can "feel" the weight of the water-filled bucket, what does the mind know automatically?

Does it merely label the sensation the body feels? Does it transcribe the information and make sense of it? Can it do so if it hasn't been taught the definitions of words like "heavy?" Could a severely mentally-impaired person be able to do this? (Would they be able to discern the difference?) Perhaps they might scowl at the heavy bucket, but not be clear on why they did this?

I don't have all the answers, so I'm open to looking deeper into this. :)


Counterbalance

Thank you for your reply. I am also curious to learn more about this matter. I will do some research on this subject in order to provide this forum with good information based on the data I can find. If I can do this, then we will both be winners :).

Man is not born of an egg, and is at first nutured. Without nuturing man would surely die.

I mention this because I get this image that the very start of this topic sees a fully fledged man standing gapping at a new world. Of course in reality the entire process of something growing means at some point it was young.

You might say:

From Acorns, Grow mighty Oaks.

Of course an Acorn sits upon the ground beneath the tree that sheds it, it is now subject to chance. Will it be eaten by a squirrel, will it wrot within a dirt stagnent puddle or begin to sprout roots?

Okay a man has the ability to think, how is this apart of his survivial? Well you mentioned that the ability to think allows the chance to overcome, to solve puzzles with intellect.
But again back to nuturing, We learn of things not just by experience but by being taught. When you at a young age hear your mother say "Don't touch that, it will burn you" you should take heed, because it is your mother, a person who has not just nutured you but protected you and taught you of her experiences.

You as a curious child, take note, but while she's not looking... your curiousity gets the better of you.. you tip over a hot mug of coffee, and luckily it doesn't spill on you, But you get a scare...
A scare not just from the hot coffee and the pain of a few drips splattering on you, but the scare of your mother letting loose a scream of terror at fear for her childs potential injury being serious.

"Your lucky your not burnt"... "how many times have I told you"... "Don't do this again"
You get your scold in a different way... it forms your understanding of remorse, knowing you did something wrong and to take heed next time.

Another quote springs to mind:

Once bitten, twice shy.

You get bitten by a dog and it was bad, and now you are scared of dogs. Simply put on a subconscious level, you don't want that to happen again, so it effects your decision when your faced with entering a room with a dog.

Of course that can stem to Bad dreams (Nightmares), A giant spider chases you in a dream when asa young child, in later life your scared of spiders.

Other than your immidiate family teaching you, there is the interaction of others. (Some of you will know all about "On the job training")
Of course we aren't the only specie that has on the Job training.

It's noted in the 100th monkey experiment that involved 2 islands with monkeys on them. Each island was self-sufficient, but a team of scientists dropped sweet potatoes(at least I think they were) on the beaches.

Sweet potatoes, monkeys had never seen before let alone eaten, So at first they took no notice of this new plentiful food supply.

It took a few weeks for a monkey to venture to the supply of sweet potatoes, and for it to eventually eat it. With in minutes, the beach was swarmed with the other monkeys all eating the potatoes. They had learnt from one that it was edible.

At that exact same moment on the other island, the monkeys started eating them too... (telepathy perhaps?)

It's also noted that Chimps can lick sticks to poke into termite mounds to get the termites. (Yum!)

As for our survival functions...
If you feel pain, you know where it's coming from, what the reason is and you deal with it. Unless the pain is internal.

If your bleeding, you go by what you know... Some panick and pass out, while others will apply pressure and eventually dress the wound.

You know not to eat food that has gone off... Is it because it tastes bad? Or because you know you would get ill? If it's the latter who told you would get ill? (If no one told you, it proves we can also compute for ourselves)

Hello again!


FyreStar wrote: “Everyone exists. Not everyone thinks. As demonstrated earlier, and as the speaker goes on to say, ‘A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior.’ Without thought, and the use of reason, the course that being ends up on is random and without purpose. “

And FyreStar asks: “Reduced to simplicity, tell me how a man could possibly find food to survive without thought...”

###########

Chagur asserts: “That ’thinking’ is ancillary to ’action’ - In this case, remaining alive; and that ‘not thinking’ is impossible. Too often I have found what is referred to as ‘thinking’ is synonymous to ‘analyzing.’”

And Chagur proposes: “Consider in utero: Action .. yes! Thought ..?”

###########

kmguru suggests: “The mind comes with the contents. Basic programs that runs the heart, the nervous system etc. Without the information regarding the level of glucose, amount of red blood cells, T-cells and so on, the body can not control and will die.”


###########

machaon advises: “...The things that you need to know about your immediate environment are built in and hardwired. Of course this does not discredit the above [Rand] quote in one easy analogy, it merely outlines that not all knowledge is dependent upon the critical analysis of higher thought. It is amazing how a person requires so much instruction to achieve what squirrels achieve with a minimal need to build cyclotrons or dig ditches. Maybe it’s just a matter of degrees.

###########

(last but not least!)

Stryderunknown reminded: “Man is not born of an egg, and is at first nutured. Without nuturing man would surely die. I mention this because I get this image that the very start of this topic sees a fully fledge man standing gapping at a new world. Of course in reality the entire process of something growing means at some point it was young. ‘From Acorns, Grow might Oaks.’ ‘Once bitten, twice shy.’”


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chagur and I both commented on how there was a ‘bigger picture.’ Everyone who’s posted so far has opened a window upon this hazy vista; offered a different view of that picture. Including FyreStar when he wrote: “Not everyone thinks.”

So how to tie all of this together? Because it all does appear to be linked.

Guess it’s best to start ... in the beginning? :)

~~~~~~


The sperm and egg meet and if cell division is successful, and if an embryo or fetus is not aborted--or dies within the womb for other reasons--then a child is born. All that happens during development of a fetus within the womb during the traditional nine months of gestation is still in many ways a mystery. Fascinating discoveries about how a fetus is formed and “wired” are being made all of the time. Anyone who is knowledgeable about these matters is certainly welcome to contribute their own or already established theories. Particularly anything that may further our understanding about whether or not “thought” is possible in utero.

(There are studies, for example, supporting an unborn fetus’s ability to recognize it’s parent’s voices, to respond in predictable ways to certain types of music, etc... Much to suggest identification and integration, (thinking), but much that it is yet unknown, too.)

~~~~

Another point: Nurturing is required for the human infant. We’ve all heard the horror stories of the abused child found locked away in a basement or a closet, “living” there since its birth. Never taught anything except not to bite the hand that feeds it. Or even that it doesn’t matter whether it bites or not. The abused child is still alive when authorities come to rescue he/she, and we can’t be sure if we can credit the abusive parents so much for its survival because they periodically tossed food at the child, or because the child has learned how to “stay alive” by other means. There may be comprehensive studies about this specific type of (abusive) lack in nurturing for humans. Yet I don’t think there’s any question that nurturing and teaching are required for a child to develop “normally.” And normal would include further developing of the ability to learn. Unless a child is mentally-handicapped, it begins to learn during its first days of Life. And, seemingly, while in the womb.

The last line in the first quote I provided is: “But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival--so that for you, who are a human being, the question “to be or not to be’ is ‘to think or not to think.’”



In other words, once a child has been nurtured, gone through it’s first few critical stages of “development,” learned (as all creatures will to some degree), and reaches a so-called normal (age-appropriate) level of human cognitive ability ... it begins to use logic in its fuller sense. It begins to reason. It utilizes acquired knowledge to further one or more of its personal objectives. Ever noticed how you can't reason with a two-year-old? :)

In doing this, does this growing human now seek to sustain or improve his own life by means of .. choice? He may not yet understand that eating too many jelly beans will make him sick, but according to his continuously developing ability to reason, it is quite logical in his mind to accept that more jelly beans will make him happy and that he’s improving his state of existence by grabbing another fistful.

~~~

His human senses give him information, proof, a “heads-up!” His body in various states of health or decay will aid or impair his ability to process the incoming sensations. His memories and current environment may or may not hinder or help the process. But what does he do ultimately? Does he not respond by making a choice of some kind?

And sometimes he reacts. (Action before thought)

Ever seen a man hit his thumb with a hammer and calmly stop, look at his thumb and then proceed with his hammering? Most people would react to the instantaneous pain shooting through that smashed thumb by jerking the thumb away from the offending tool, by holding it, by swearing, by crying...whatever... And yet a few people--for whatever reason, and by whatever means of self-control--do not “react” other than to stop hammering and exam the injured thumb. Which, actually, is pretty logical.

People resist “reacting” all of the time. They make a choice to respond instead. And a response typically requires prior thought before being uttered or before carrying out an action.

~~~

One child is told not to touch the hot coffee mug and has learned (by various means) that it is, in fact, in his best interest not to touch the mug. Did he not make an active choice to mind his mother in order not to threaten his survival? (A scolding or a spanking or a burn can be quite threatening :) ) And is it possible for a child to never be told that the mug is hot, therefore dangerous, but only has to place a finger near it, feels the heat, and relies on its own mental library of experience to reason the first time that hot = possible danger/pain.

Or... has the child only learned that, in his current environment, getting attention for disobeying or risk-taking will somehow aid his survival--perhaps only on an emotional level--but nonetheless ranking as highly significant to that child. And if we can say that this is illogical behavior, where did the child learn it? Was it learned? Did he reason this out?

Or... has the child who continuously shows little sign of using logic in this kind of scenario, and who keeps getting burned... perhaps have a mental deficiency? Or simply hasn’t been exposed to logical behavior by others from which to learn?

If we can say that by one means or another a child’s normal development is not impeded, and that if he is not exposed to too much irrational behavior for examples to learn by, and that he is allowed to grow into a “natural” human being.... is Man’s Mind then his basic tool of survival? Is then his ability and choice to use reason his ticket to a productive life by his standards?

~~~~

Comments offered in all of the posts made here so far, along with Rand’s ideas and with input from a friend have helped me to put together this view and these questions.

The purpose for doing so is to seek a better understanding. And to that end, I wanted to ask a few questions relative to points made in prior posts.

FyreStar: How would you define “not thinking?”

Chagur: How would you define “thinking?” “Analyzing?”

kmguru: When you speak of the mind’s contents, do you include a sort of built in knowledge of the external world?

machaon: If you think it is still relevant, what kind of degrees? Would you provide some examples?

Stryderunknown: Can we consider “Man’s Mind: His Basic Tool of Survival” as such if we omit focusing on the first essential stages of development and nurturing and view him as a creature that has already begun learning and who can now choose to practice his ability to reason?

~~~~

Looking forward... :)


Counterbalance

I think this one is a very interesting thread and even if I have some reasons not to post here (like mine unfamiliarity with English, or the fact that it seems almost like a closed thread) I once believed I had found an answer to this matter, so... but let's cut the crap.:)

Counterbalance posts:

To remain alive, he must think.
What does Rand mean by 'think' here?
You see, this was the point where it all went wrong. Of course, 'to think is an act of choice'. But, like Chagur said, 'not to think is an act of choice', too. True. But what are you doing when you aren't thinking at all? Have you ever tried to stop all you thoughts - just for one minute? I never succeeded.

I believe the problem is how do you define the 'thinking' process.
Let me put it that way: we should have more than one word for it; every word to define a different degree (depth) of 'thinking' - from the kind of thinking that approaches us to the instinctual animals growing to the minds of our greatest scientists.

Albert Einstein had an interesting opinion about this. I will try to translate it for you.

What does in fact 'thinking' mean? If, through the perception of several sensorial impressions, there are images that appear from our memory, this doesn't mean 'thinking' yet. Nor if those images form series so that every link shall awaken a different remembrance - it doesn't get to 'thinking' yet. But if a certain image is found again in many of those series, it becomes by repetition an organizing element for this kind of series, which only this way succeed to form a context. Such elements grow to be a tool, a concept. I believe that the passing from the free association or 'dreaming' to thinking is characterized through a more or less dominant role of the 'concept'.

Back to Rand's quote:

To remain alive, he must think.
Yep, but he doesn't have to think a lot, because others may have already done it for him. It is enough that one man has done al the thinking and the others will use his conclusions even if they don't understand.

In conclusion, different way of thinking divide society into different kinds of people. I'm talking about quality here. Well used, our mind (which is 80% our choice) takes us apart from mediocrity.

This is not all I wanted to say here, but it will be enough for now.

Hi Twilight!

Your English is fine and I appreciate the input.

The purpose of this thread was to draw attention to the very things you've focused upon: What is thinking? And how necessary is it (and therefore the brain/mind) to man's survival?

If you've more to say on the subject, feel free to elaborate. I'm well aware that there are varying opinions and theories about this, so friendly disputation is not discouraged as far as I'm concerned.

Communication leads to learning.

Say on!

~~~

Counterbalance

Thank you, Counterbalance. I got your point:).

First of all... I think man's mind is indeed his basic tool of survival, because while other animals developed different skills in order to get food, safety etc., man has improved his mind. That also led to the involvement of the other skills he might have had in the past.

But I have a question related on what Chagur said earlier in this thread: is to think an act of choice or is not to think an act of choice? Interesting.

But I have a question related on what Chagur said earlier in this thread: is to think an act of choice or is not to think an act of choice? Interesting.

~~~

Interesting? Indeed. I cannot help but think that a better understanding of how our minds work can be anything but beneficial to mankind. Thanks again for sharing your insights.

Perhaps--at some point during his current journey around Sol-- Chagur will favor us again with his views. I'm also aware that being "Supreme Dictator of the World" takes up a lot of a man's time, so I'm content to wait. :)

Can hardly expect a better Rome to be built in a day.

~~~

Counterbalance

But I have a question related on what Chagur said earlier in this thread: is to think an act of choice or is not to think an act of choice? Interesting.

Just to answer that question, it all depends on what ur choosing or not choosing to think about, for example when im lonely or on my own far from family i choose to think of them and i choose not to think of being alone.

This doesn't answer the question is it possible to "not think" while your conscious, i think it is because when you meditate or just relax sometimes you clear your mind.
I have trouble with this evolution theory that we developed consciousness as a tool for survival , which is why are we the only ones with the evolutionary skills to do this.
By records we (humans) have only been on this earth a fraction of its life time other animals have been here millions of years before us and haven't developed this skill.
This leads us to the next question why are we the only ones?
Its not like we have the biggest brains, we dont even have the best brain to body size ratio so why do we have consciousness?
Mabey u guys can shed some light on that little problem for me :)

Some species evolve faster than others, or maybe a sort of mutation produced...?

Perhaps, i can accept the fact that the natural world around us evolved to it persent state but it seems as tho we differ to the rest of life on this planet where as we have a consiousness.
Surly this in itself casts doubt on the whole evolution theory, take in mind im not a religous person but if i am to belive that we evolved on this planet from the same genetic slim that first crawled out of the sea then why do we get a consiousness and no other animal?
Like i said before we are a very young speices in regard to this planet, mutation well its not impossible volcano's send radioactive magma to the surface which could mutate living cells, but thats a 'stab in the dark theory' for all we know we could be alien implantations, mutations or god's great creations who can say?

Originally posted by Counterbalance
Hello All,

...

“But to think is an act of choice.

...




Isn't an act of choice an act of thinking?

An act of choice implies a decision between multiple paths or options. Doesn't this decision imply thinking, or is it possible to "choose" without thinking?

It seems to me that it is a somewhat circular arguement, but I have been known to be incredibly wrong before.:D

Thanks for dropping in, Benji.

We humans have a consciousness --after a fashion ;) -- which many of us have trouble defining. We don't know with certainty what all other earth-bound creatures have in the way of consciousness. Many animals seem intelligent, (and how do we define intelligence?) aware or tuned in at our, or similar, "levels" of consciousness, and often seem even more attuned than man to the world they live in. Over all, their instincts get the job done for them. They are animals and live as such. But humans, for unclear reasons, have aspired to a more...*ahem*... civilized existence.

In the animal world, it plainly comes down to the "survival of the fittest." And so it has for man, too. In more ways than one. Only man seems to have developed or encountered a need to NOT live like animals; to not rely as heavily on instinct. My semi-educated guess is that by utilizing certain parts of our (early) brain, we aided our species' survival. One of these "parts" further developed into what we think of today as human consciousness.

We all (all creatures) may have come into Life with the seed of a consciousness, but not all may have needed to explore it's potential--as man did. Early (very early) man may have been a fluke of nature, too. A weak species that hung around in trees watching and observing, thinking without actually trying. Stumbling upon the ability to reason and exploring the possibilities of such a tool without realizing what "we" were doing. Likely that we only did whatever kept us alive. --and living--staying alive--was the impetus that kept us doing whatever the hec we were doing.


We have more evidence supporting the evolution theory than we have evidence supporting alien implantation, or for having been spawned from a biblical pair like Adam and Eve. So for me, some form of evolution makes sense and seems likely. WHY we have developed a "consciousness" is a great question.

Others likely know of better and more specific theories to offer. For now, I also keep asking questions. :)

Thx,

Counterbalance

Originally posted by SeekerOfTruth


Isn't an act of choice an act of thinking?

An act of choice implies a decision between multiple paths or options. Doesn't this decision imply thinking, or is it possible to "choose" without thinking?

It seems to me that it is a somewhat circular arguement, but I have been known to be incredibly wrong before.:D

~~~

I think choosing is an act of thought. Even if the options are trimmed down to something as simple as chocolate or vanilla. We think of what we prefer, and we choose. Might be so practiced at it, that we only think: "Chocolate! Yes!!" But a thought process, even a minimal one, took place. We "saw" the choice before us and responded with an answer based on what we like. What we "like" is stored in our memory and some brief retrieval/comparison took place. --in the simplest of scenarios. Choosing the last carton of chocolate because you know you're kid brother wants it more than you, is another thought process altogether... :)

To not make a choice? Is to choose to NOT make a choice. "I'll defer that choice." "I refuse to deal with that choice." "I'll think about that choice later."

Or so it is according to what I've learned so far...

Thx, Seeker...

Counterbalance

It is not that being "Supreme Dictator of the World" takes up all that much time (actually, most of the time I just observe the madness ;) ) but rather the difficulty of the question you posed on October 20th:

'Chagur: How would you define “thinking?” “Analyzing?”'

After much effort, (drum roll) and at the cost of many neurons, (another drum roll) I have come to the conclusion: (yet another drum roll) Analysis requires thought ... Thought cannot be analyzed (drum roll plus trumpets) !!!

Originally posted by Chagur
... Analysis requires thought ... Thought cannot be analyzed (drum roll plus trumpets) !!!

Chagur,

You should have had a cymbol crash at the end :D

I agree, the concepts of thought, choice, and analysis are too intertwined to be separated and then used to define one with the other. That was what I was getting at with my earlier posts. They aren't much help at understanding what "thought" is and how it arose in our evolutionary development.

Is thought the natural consequence of evolution?

If so, did the dinosaurs think?

If they did, why didn't they develop a more advanced civilization? They were certainly here a lot longer than we have been to date.

If not, why did they not develop thought?

Just some of the questions this thread has brought to my limited "thought" process...:p

I can see from the question this raises that our knoledge of the natural history of this planet is very limited.
If your lucky enough to live in the UK there's a documentry on the orignins of man on ch4 on monday evening, i shall try to watch it and see if it offers any solutions to these problems regarding evolution.
I think the program start's at 8pm i might be wrong always better the check the tv listing's.

Chagur, you have my apologies for posting such a difficult question on the 20th. Nonetheless, :) , I now request, respectfully, that you "brace yerself" and have a go at another one. --If you would be so kind and can spare the neurons, of course!

*ahem*

Chagur... Why cannot thought be analyzed?

Take your time. Enjoy the holidays. Muse it over while you visit with friends, neighbors or family. We'll leave the light on for when you return. :)

~~~

mucho thanks,

Counterbalance

I agree, the concepts of thought, choice, and analysis are too intertwined to be separated and then used to define one with the other. That was what I was getting at with my earlier posts. They aren't much help at understanding what "thought" is and how it arose in our evolutionary development.

~~~

Yep. And that's what we're about here. Or what we're trying to get to. :) These concepts are all intricately entwined. Anyone who wishes to untangle them is free to have to have a go at it.

Good questions, too, Seeker. Got any guesses or suppositions?

~~~

thx,

Counterbalance

i shall try to watch it and see if it offers any solutions to these problems regarding evolution.

~~~

Benji, what's the word? Have the documentaries provided us with any interesting and/or credible theories of late? I do believe your report is overdue. :)

(just kidding!)

~~~

Counterbalance

There was another post made on this documentry by stryder hold up here's the url: http://www.sciforums.com/t4784/s/thread.html

The documentry left a lot of questions unanswered, i still have major doubts about evolution but i will say its a best possible guess at this point.

I don't know why i move my hand to 'click' this topic.
But one thing that i understand, that i have energy to move my hands. If we only thinking, we cannot do something, like clicking this topic.
I may influenced by sisgroup's idea.....energy which has made my hand moved the crusors cannot be found when living creature was born on the earth......also energy whom i use to think this reply....
too bad, i cannot describe those energy........

Originally posted by Benji
Perhaps, i can accept the fact that the natural world around us evolved to it persent state but it seems as tho we differ to the rest of life on this planet where as we have a consiousness.
Surly this in itself casts doubt on the whole evolution theory, take in mind im not a religous person but if i am to belive that we evolved on this planet from the same genetic slim that first crawled out of the sea then why do we get a consiousness and no other animal?


The Universe is moving from Simplicity to Complexity over time. Complexity is non-linear and exponential. Humans are the result of increased complexity of the DNA. Who knows, what will form next?

May be DNA is at the end of its complexity like vaccum tubes, or may be it has a few more jumps left. Looking at tubes, no one can predict the ICs. Looking at copper wire to move information through electrons, no one could predict fiber optics to move massive information using photons. So looking at humans, we can not predict what is next.

It is a whole new paradigm...

the concepts of thought, choice, and analysis are too intertwined to be separated and then used to define one with the other.


These concepts are all intricately entwined. Anyone who wishes to untangle them is free to have to have a go at it.

Analysis and choice both require thought, that is how they are related. To have a choice, you must have a thought. To have analysis, you must have a thought, and therefore already made a choice.

To create a thought you must have a mind. Animals, for the most part, can create basic thoughts, such as eating or playing. Therefore they have a mind and thoughts. Humans have this same capability, except on a higher scale. Why? Evolution?

I think that thoughts can be analyzed(traced back to its source). A thought can be traced back to the mind. From what I know, there is no solid evidence that tells us where the ability to think up a thought came from. Can you go farther?

I am extremely new to this sort of "deeper thinking", and perhaps I am way off base. I apologize if I am. This is all very interesting to me, and I am eager to learn more.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Counterbalance


~~~

... Got any guesses or suppositions?

~~~

thx,

Counterbalance

Here are a few:

Is thought the natural consequence of evolution?

I believe it is a natural outgrowth of evolution. When a creature is faced with multiple choices, instinct may not be enough to select the correct choice, therefor 'thought' has evolved to help select the most 'pro survival' path. Our intelligence and thought have arisen out of that dynamic need to assess multiple potential paths. The level or capability of thought may vary with the number and types of options a creature is faced with. I believe kinamic mentioned that animals do have thought processes and therefor 'think' about their options. In some cases, such as primates, these thought process have become complex enough to allow tool development, which is a far step beyond instinct.

If so, did the dinosaurs think?

I think the level of the dinosaurs thought processes would have been on the level of animals such as elephants and lions. Low level 'thought' that were just a step above instinct. This is because the choices they faced were neither complex or distinct and their 'instincts' could correctly select the appropriate 'survival paths' without complex thought.

If they did, why didn't they develop a more advanced civilization? They were certainly here a lot longer than we have been to date.

If not, why did they not develop thought?

As I mentioned above, I do not believe they were faced with complex decisions that could have been 'helped' by a higher thought process, therefor they did not develop a level of 'thought' that we have. As is mentioned in another thread here at Sciforums, our complex cognitive processes probably arose because of our total lack of survival characteristics that compared with the existing predators we were competing with. The only 'claws', to borrow someone else's phrase, we had was our ability to think and utilize tools. These are what allowed us to survive.

You cruel, cruel man!

Back the end of November you asked: "Why cannot thought be analyzed?"

And then had the audacity to add: "Take your time. Enjoy the holidays.
Muse it over while you visit with friends, neighbors or family. We'll leave the
light on for when you return." Knowing full well that being the sort I be,
I would do whatever necessary to find the answer.

Oh the cruelty of it. Surrounded by friends, neighbors and/or family I
could not indulge in the festivities and good cheer of the season while
plagued by the question "Why cannot thought be analyzed?"

Even sleep was disrupted! I would find myself wakening mid-night and
there the question would be; "Why cannot thought be analyzed?" And
I would break out in a sweat! Were I not a male I would have wondered if
I weren't experiencing menopause!

And then came New Year's eve night ... and I found myself trying to desperately
to partake in the merriment ... and failing, going back to the punchbowl time
and time again until I could barely make it upstairs to my daughter's
bathroom and collapse in her tub.

I know not how long I was oblivious before bolting upright! An hour? Maybe
two? And the thought ... the answer ... like a bolt from the purple struck (my
daughter has strange ideas about decorating)!

Schroedinger's Cat!

Relief washed over me, joy flooded me, I KNEW WHY!

Exhausted, I curled up in my daughter's tub and went back to sleep thinking
how beautifully simple the answer was ... how elegant!

Well, it looks like the light will have to stay on a bit longer ...

Come morning, not only did I have one hell of a hangover, I could not remember
the beautiful, the simple, the elegant answer!

Oh you cruel, cruel man!

Hope you had/have a good one ;)

I don't know why i move my hand to 'click' this topic. But one thing that i understand, that i have energy to move my hands. If we only thinking, we cannot do something, like clicking this topic.
I may influenced by sisgroup's idea.....energy which has made my hand moved the crusors cannot be found when living creature was born on the earth......also energy whom i use to think this reply....
too bad, i cannot describe those energy........

~~~

Hi scully,

Thanks for dropping in.

I'm not sure I understand exactly where you're coming from, but it sounds like you are dismissing your ability to understand your own motivation for wanting to click on this topic. However, didn't something about the thread title catch your attention for some reason? Provoke a thought...a question? Prompt you to investigate a bit further?

Maybe you'd like to elaborate a little more?

thx,

Counterbalance.

I am extremely new to this sort of "deeper thinking", and perhaps I am way off base. I apologize if I am. This is all very interesting to me, and I am eager to learn more.

~~~

kinamic...

No apology necessary. The purpose of this thread was to explore, share and hopefully learn more about what interests a lot of us: our minds. My bet is that we've all done more "deep thinking" than we give ourselves credit for. (how we make use of the ability is another matter)

But look at what we're doing here. We're discussing how we think--and how we think about thinking. In order to do that, we have to think about how we're thinking before and as we type our 'thoughtful' opinions. Kinda weird but fascinating, too! :)

You've reminded us of how animals think differently than humans. Any more insight into these differences would be welcome.

And I agree, btw... analysis and choice both require thought.

~~~

Counterbalance

I believe it is a natural outgrowth of evolution. When a creature is faced with multiple choices, instinct may not be enough to select the correct choice, therefor 'thought' has evolved to help select the most 'pro survival' path. Our intelligence and thought have arisen out of that dynamic need to assess multiple potential paths. The level or capability of thought may vary with the number and types of options a creature is faced with. I believe kinamic mentioned that animals do have thought processes and therefor 'think' about their options. In some cases, such as primates, these thought process have become complex enough to allow tool development, which is a far step beyond instinct.

~~~

Overall, Seeker, I think researchers have done a good job of recognizing that we can only hypothesize about much of this, but what you've proprosed is in line with what I've read as well. It makes sense to me. Just as I suspect it "made sense" (of some sort) to Man's earliest ancestors to choose option A over option D when faced with a same or similar survival dilemma/choice after a number of times.

But then I also wonder about the "fluke" factor. Did our first ancestor just get lucky? Did we win the DNA lottery? Again, we can look at what we now know about DNA and speculate. kmguru's post sweetens the pot on this. Yet, the bottom line still appears to be the same: Man's mind is not only exceptional, it's essential to our survival.

If we are all in agreement about this, (granted, some may not be) including the concept that Man's Mind is an essential "tool," then is there any rational justification for abandoning or dismissing our own ability to survive, or thrive, as seems appropriate for our species as it has evolved thus far?

We don't expect an animal to abandon it's mostly instinct-driven methods of survival. When an animal doesn't behave in a pro-survival way, we consider its behavior abnormal. We study it or take it to the vet. We know that something is off.

When Man behaves in a manner that threatens his own survival, (abandons the proper use of his mind and lets others tell him what to think--or not to think at all) is it just a single man's survival that's at stake, or is it Mankind's survival that's at stake?

I see such an abandonment as a threat to both, even as I recognize that every individual has a choice.

For those that are interested, is there a real threat, and if so, to whom? Who or what poses the biggest threat to Man's survival?

~~~

Thanks,

Counterbalance

Hail, and well met, my friend!

(btw, a sadder tale of woe I have never heard. I'd invite you to join me on the virtual couch here in order to offer my commiserations, but methinks you could stand another dunk in ye ol' bathtub first--no offense intended, of course! ;) )

But what's this? You claim me to be a cruel man?? Worse, a cruel, cruel man...?

Alas, had I known that my question would drive you to such depths of despair and, uh...impaired perception, I'd never have put the task to you. (Schroedinger's Cat?! Ye gods, man... what WERE you drinking? lol!) But yea... to think of all you've suffered over the holidays...what with partying, visiting with friends, and ruling the world everything, I suppose I was a smidge inconsiderate.

But hey! You seem to be back among the living now, so how about engaging that masterful brain once more? We have quests aplenty here on this thread. I, myself, have posted some new questions just today. As usual, you may contribute per your whim. (We can hardly expect more from the "Supreme Dictator of the World.") Indeed, 'tis an honour and a pleasure to digest your....errrrr... input! :D

The light remains ON, and until we meet again...

Happy Journeys!

(bowing respectfully)

Counterbalance

Please, my head still aches a bit ... and then to lay on me the following:
Indeed, 'tis an honour and a pleasure to digest your....errrrr... input! And all I can think is: Input? Output! Output??? Barrrrffffff!!!!!

Take care. ;)

PS Switched over to 'Human Science > The Nature of Thought'

Man's mind is not only exceptional, it's essential to our survival. If we are all in agreement about this, (granted, some may not be )
The survival of mankind is dependent on thinking. If we do not think, then we can not make proper choices. If we do not make choices then we can not analyze(learn), if we can not analyze, then we will not survive. How is this disagreeable?

For those that are interested, is there a real threat, and if so, to whom? Who or what poses the biggest threat to Man's survival?
If we abandon the proper use of our mind, and lose our thought, we lose our conscience. Once we have lost that, there is no telling what would or could happen. As far as I can see, it is happening, generation after generation, a bit of our conscience dies out. With no conscience it would be "okay" to kill, steal, and destroy. In the long run, that is the real threat to all living things.

...if we can not analyze, then we will not survive. How is this disagreeable?

~~~

Seems pretty obvious to me, kinamic, yet in order to justify some choices/actions, or non-choices, humans have made all kinds of attempts to deny this. This ties in with what I wrote on your thread regarding your choice of embracing a religion or some other form of "seeking." Some folk tend to let themselves be guided by their feelings. By doing this many will abandon their ability or choice to analyze a problem/situation. Their ultimate choice of what to do--or not to do--may be correct in some instances, but I equate "letting one's feelings be one's main guide" with an unjustifiable gamble. The same with the choice to allow "faith" to override our ability to reason.

We already have what it takes to make the most of our human survival. We have our brains, our minds, our human consciousness along with the rest of our amazing body. Throughout our history Man has been faced with one challenge after another to discount his own abilities--Man challenging Man. Rather than face up to this unfortunate truth, some men buy into philosophies that provide excuses for anti-man behavior; rationality that is truly not rational. Not in the long run; not in the bigger picture. Some do it in ignorance. Some know they are wrong, but take the easy way out.


If we abandon the proper use of our mind, and lose our thought, we lose our conscience. Once we have lost that, there is no telling what would or could happen. As far as I can see, it is happening, generation after generation, a bit of our conscience dies out. With no conscience it would be "okay" to kill, steal, and destroy. In the long run, that is the real threat to all living things.


It does seem at times that an overwhelming percentage of our fellow men have lost some or all of their consciences. Yet I think Man is entering a phase of history where we're actually standing on the brink of another age of enlightenment. The popularity of "spiritualism" has increased in recent years, but I think one of the primary reasons for this is because people are hungry for truth. In some cases, they're starving for it. Science has gained a stronger respect and Religion has had to combat that. The outcome of such a battle (in a war that has been going on for much of our history) creates a variety of causes that nudge people to question and to seek.

Still, irrational methods of "surviving" have been on the intellectual market for a long enough time that these seem to have at least some credibility. People have been given reasons to fear trying to live Life without being certain about various "unknowables." Such notions are embedded in our human culture. Some philosophies, particularly religions, claim to have enough correct answers to relieve what are actually unnecessary human fears--in my opinion.

Men living in our age have the benefit of more human history to reflect upon, and much improved abilities to communicate with the rest of the world, to do research. Thus, they have more to support their doubts, and are, I think, more skeptical than were the majority of people who lived a hundred years ago--and even as Today's Man encounters more counterclaims that abandoning the ability of one's own mind-tool is the way to go. These counterclaims just don't add up and larger numbers of Mankind appear to be coming to terms with this, albeit slowly.

Fear is an extraordinarily powerful tool. But I agree with all who've made the statement before: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Because we also have our wonderful minds which we can use to diffuse "fear" in all its anti-man guises.

Btw... for a more in-depth discussion about how the mind works, inasmuch as we understand it to work so far, there have been some very intriguing posts offered on the "The Nature of Thought" thread.

~~~

Thanks for the input, kinamic...

Counterbalance

Some folk tend to let themselves be guided by their feelings. By doing this many will abandon their ability or choice to analyze a problem/situation.

Where do people's feelings originate? Isn't being guided by your feelings actually being guided by a mixture of the way you were brought up and your past choices? Choices require thought, and someone that brings you up tells you things based on their thoughts of what they "think" you should know.

People’s feelings can ‘originate’ from various causes. But are our feelings influenced by our upbringing? By our past choices?

My reply to both would be “yes.” A child who is taught that certain behavior or beliefs are wrong is likely to accept, for a while at least, that such teachings are true, or correct enough. Generally in the heads and hearts of the child’s parents, teachers or peers these ideologies are true. For the young to dispute what they are taught, to behave or believe differently than what is expected or desired, is typically perceived by the child as being too risky to attempt too often. The child stands to lose acceptance or approval by family members, friends or society at large if he doesn‘t conform. Most children fear falling out of their parent’s favor. Many would rather die than be considered too uncool by their peers. Instinct strongly suggests that we don’t bite the hand that feeds us (--or the hand strokes our egos as we like best. Pro-survival either way.)

Why this instinct came into being in the first place however likely had more to do with keeping our offspring from straying too far from their “family unit” and into harm’s way, and much less to do with guiding them in their choices about personal belief systems. Then again, there is evidence that as time passed early man (who by our standards was quite child-like) discovered or developed the concept of “spirits,” or of the supernatural. Depending on what any of these ideas entailed, the young could then have been instructed to “think as we think” for the sake of improving their chances of survival. (Not a good idea to anger the powerful spirits overseeing certain predatory animals.) Eventually, or even simulataneously, more clever men found it useful to “fear” their peers into following certain rules. Doing so seemed to aid the group’s survival in some ways, and often brought status or other rewards to the spiritual teacher, leader, or rule-maker. Doubtful that few (or any) at the time thought in terms of how such behavior might affect Mankind so far into the future. Their idea of "future" was probably quite different than ours.

The frequency of a tendency to accept what one is taught becomes part of the child’s personality, part of his own “method” of reasoning, though some children will question more than others, of course. (thank goodness) Depends on how necessary or how often it seems proper to the child to behave this way. Until or unless a child finds a reason to doubt that a claim is untrue, and then seeks to verify that his doubts are reasonable, then behaving ‘out of accordance’ with what he was taught was right in the first place is going to cause him to have unsettled feelings. Mind and body are then at odds. Coping with this can be very difficult. No one likes to be too uncertain about too many things at once. In many instances people will decide to stick with what has always been “comfortable” rather than risk a season or longer of uncertainty. It’s fear that underpins these feelings; fear or guilt stemming from the action of straying from the pack. If one has a strong desire for truth though, one can investigate the causes for whatever they’re feeling at such a point and very likely discover enough to be able to weed out irrational feelings from those proper to a questing human.

Our past choices?

Some past choices were made in error. Some choices were the correct choice at the time they were made. But we grow and learn, and in doing so we often discover perfectly valid reasons to make new choices. A good understanding of why we’re considering a choice, and of the consequences of a choice, are highly advisable, I think, though also with the understanding that we are usually just doing the best we can. No need to be unnecessarily hard on ourselves, just as it's foolish to be too lax. One person’s “best” will better than another’s. That’s the way it goes.

Regardless of any choices we’ve made in the past, I think we owe it to ourselves to be the best we can be--and according to our own standards of "best." Achieving this will often mean moving beyond or discarding past decisions while being careful as we handle new ones. Bottom line: There usually aren’t any valid reasons to rush to judgment once we‘ve determined that we are worth more than biblical dust after all.

~~~

Counterbalance

Well said Counterbalance(Your a very smart person)... I think this thread is about dried up. I hope everyone learned a little bit from it, I know I did. It was nice chatting with all of you.

Apparently you are an Ayn Rand reader. I certainly hope her teachings have landed you in the school of Objectivism. I appreciate your writing. I only stumbled upon it when looking for the exact verbiage of my favorite quote: "to be or not to be" for man, is "to think or not to think" words I was raised by. Anyhow, I do not know how old these posts are but refreshing nevertheless. A little something I recently told a friend who was vacillating between her own political beliefs and populous conjecture: PRINCIPLES ARE NOT A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE AND OUGHT TO BE ABSOLUTE! THEY ARE A MANS DEFINING IDEALS THAT WHEN ACTED UPON, ILLUSTRATION ONES TRUE SELF, THAT ACTION REVEALS ONES CHARACTER, ONES BEING AND DEFINES ONES LEGACY. So, I do not know how deeply you treasure Rand's works, her insight, her unapologetic correctness but I was pleased when typing in my Google search to find that I did not have to thread through her book to find the words as they are seemingly clearly and proudly displayed/quoted in abundance and from multiple sources on the web. Thankfully the lack of Rand exposure in academia has not stifled her voice. Best Regards, Kara

Mod Note:

j.galt,

The thread is 8 years old, which you can easily see by the post dates.
Thread necromancy is to be avoided. Next time, copy a particular post you'd like to respond to, and start a new thread.

Thread closed.