I think I need to go "good light" too, since the brain is starting to get a little thick. That's most likely my trouble with Whorf and Godel, too. I made the connection to Startrek, TNG (Whorf and Gordy) but that's enough for one night.
One Raven, I think you are confusing "THINKING FOR ONESELF" with "(strength of) CHARACTER". Children, too, can display what is often termed "strength of character". People who are deemed to have "a strong character" usually have good self-esteem, good self-confidence. You can find this in a peasant who probably has never thought a thought that would be novel by your criteria.
If someone were to believe whatever his Daddy told him without questioning it, then stood up for those beliefs against persecution, I suppoose you could say he has strength of character, yet I would still say he is not thinking for himself.
Ask yourself how important this "thinking for yourself" is. "Thinking for yourself" for the sake of it may not always be the wisest option; just as disagreeing for the sake of showing that one isn't "going with the flow" isn't always a true reflection of what one thinks, or what is wise. Namely, one can disagree with anything, just to show one is able to "think for oneself". But how wise is it to do something for the sake of doing it ...
The “problem” with thinking is that it sometimes, although rarely, leads to awareness and knowledge. Awareness is detrimental to action. Stupidity, intuitive reaction, unconscious reasoning, is the fertile ground of action.
Of insight to the topic will be Bloom's taxonomy where the levels of cognitive abilities are classified. For a more comprehensive look on the matter, see this. "Thinking for yourself" would qualify as what are the upper 4 levels in the Bloom taxonomy. Most people tend to be stuck on level 1 or 2, regardless of the subject matter.
For example: X and Y are both on a yacht. X knows there are sharks in the water, or he suspects that there’s a good chance there are sharks in the water, Y has no clue. Who will enter the water first and the fastest? Who will jeer at the other for being such a pussy? Who will, potentially, be attacked?
That's even worse. At any given moment in time, you are aware/have knowledge only of "all that is possible within [your] capacity". If you don't believe me, try discussing politics with babies or robotics with serfs; your statement is specious, simple. What you have said is true, yes, but it is a mere rewording of Satyr's original statement and thus answers nothing; the meaning of "one's capacity" is itself ambiguous, you agree. I'm going to use your response to answer Satyr's questions and see what comes up. What does that say for Natalie Halloway.. heh. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If Y has no clue, as you say, then he cannot know by himself that there are sharks in the world. Even if he suspects it, we cannot say he knows in the same way X knows. If X wants Y to be eaten, X will jeer Y. Y, not knowing, can either keep being a "pussy" or succumb to pressure. But he is in any case making a choice based on his knowledge, which is no different from what X is doing. Now if X were to overdo it, causing Y to become suspicious, then we can say Y will choose not to go in the water. But, again, Y can only act on his knowledge that something fishy might be going on. But. The important thing is that Y did not think "on his own" and conclude that something fishy was going on. He was prompted by X's suspicious goading and so we can characterize his subsequent conclusion as a predictable response. If Y was not goaded and yet arrived at the suspicion that there were sharks in the water, without any physical evidence, then, well, either he's psychic or he's mad. As long as he's not psychic and he's not mad, he is a) only acting on information available at the given moment and b) not thinking "on his own", but rather, fulfilling the behaviorist's wet dream by responding predictably to X's goading. No one thinks independently.
Bah, all this "thinking for yourself" tripe only reveals that those who want/demand it, are actually having a full-blown God complex; ie. "Man SHOULD be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent in order to be called a proper man, or he is a dimwit."
Not even in the least, Water. Or do you REALLY want someone else to do all of your thinking for you and then you simply do whatever they say do???????? I really, really doubt that!
Very well then, clarify it. What I though I was reading was a reference to an extreme control-freak. Someone with a God complex. What did you really mean?
"To think for yourself" by the criteria of novelty mentioned here before by One Raven and yourself, it takes a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and creative (that is, with a will that can make something out of nothing), or is at least close to those characteristics. So in order to "think for yourself", per you, one must be godly or close to that ...
Hold on - I never said or implied any such thing! I have absolutely NO idea how you came up with that. But just to set the rescord straight, let me CLEARLY state how I define 'thinking for one's self.' It simply means making up your own mind, researching information, and coming to your OWN conclusions rather than having other people spoon-feed you THEIR answers to everything. I do not need a fashion critic to TELL me what to wear. I've no need of a movie critic to TELL me what I want to watch. And just because the preist, precher, rabbi, or whatever says it's so does NOT make it so. In short, 'thinking for yourself' just means making your own decisions. Now - just exactly WHAT is wrong with that???????????????????
For crying out loud. How can you make up your own mind? Prove you have one. Can you prove that? "In short, 'thinking for yourself' just means making your own decisions." Yeah right. Whereby you are employing the logic that is common to most, if not all of the human race, and you are employing input premises that are not your own either. You are just a machine, claiming originality. Even if you do "make decisions with your own mind", you'd still not pass the Turing test.
Dare to have an original thought ? LOL, well fine but don't let the mods cotton on. "Marginalize" is the attitude to quell such dissention. Pathetic All through histrory, those thinkers that were gifted with original thought bore the brunt of ridicule and persecution by those that worship the status quo. Today there is no change in attitude, even though our history screams for justice. And as long as we (who have no power) allow "supervision", our thoughts will be squashed and ( usually then stolen by the power) LOL up theirs !!!!!!!!!!
§outh§tar WHAT?!!!! You are simply describing how X and Y interact or affect each other. I’m speaking of them independent of each other. Let us say, because this is getting ridiculous, both are on different boats in different parts of the world. The point is, knowledge, awareness burdens the mind with added speculation and anxiety. The imbecile, the ignorant mind lunges forward, jumps in head first, acts and reacts with little concern because there is less for him to consider and analyze and evaluate. An animal doesn’t contemplate the metaphysical implications or analyze all the hypothetical ramifications or possibilities, it simply acts. Because of this there are two types of courage. The first courage, the most popular one, is that founded on total ignorance. The oblivious mind just does and then thinks about what it has done or how thinks might have turned out. The second kind of courage is the one that acts despite, what it knows or what it perceives as possible or probable. It is founded on a force of Will.
You're grasping for straws. Either go and hail eugenics and that one is to take the credit for being born smart and strong, or prove that everyone has this force of Will, but neglects it ... by his own will.
