Some thoughts are believed. Is "believing" done with thought?

Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
You both refer to 'programmining'. Can we consider programming; conditioning; learning as the same in effect? Our species specializes in learning. (and believing).
When we think; we 'think' the information we learned and know. This brings up the question; "Is there 'natural' thinking as well as 'learned' thinking? Or am I only making a arbitrary/artificial/capricious distinction that does not exist?
Let me posit that insight/aha/ epiphanies, experiences as 'natural' thought, new, original, not pre-existent in 'learned repertoire' (memory).
 
Nov 2008
2,536
0
U.S.A.
I would think natural thinking would be basic cause and effect. Learned thinking would be something more complicated that requires higher level thinking. So I would agree with your statement.

Also I have checked into the copywrite/copyright thing and either spelling is correct.
 
May 2011
884
0
Marble, N.C.
Quote Everything we allow into our inventory is programming us. Quote
I believe it. Our so called free will is challenged every moment of our lifes. Independent people are dangerous to the power elite who want to control our mind. pl

[quote author=S. Earl Martin link=topic=2215.msg19862#msg19862 date=1334968508]
All our lives we build an inventory of information. This information creates our image or belief of ourselves and our world. This image is just what we think our world is like or what we are like. When we encounter something that conflicts with our beliefs? It can have different effects on different people. Some people just deny the information. Others may react violently or emotionally. Some people who are open to change may investigate what the new information is about and if it is true? Information that doesn't fit our expectations or our view of our world forces us to make difficult decisions. It also provides opportunities to learn and grow.

Everything we allow into our inventory is programming us. Convincing us that we are this or the world is that.
[/quote]
 
May 2011
884
0
Marble, N.C.
Natural thinking vs learned thinking. My argument is, be it natural or learned both come from a memory bank. Learned memory for birth natural memory from learned memory.pl

[quote author=S. Earl Martin link=topic=2215.msg19879#msg19879 date=1335132896]
I would think natural thinking would be basic cause and effect. Learned thinking would be something more complicated that requires higher level thinking. So I would agree with your statement.

Also I have checked into the copywrite/copyright thing and either spelling is correct.
[/quote]
 
Nov 2008
2,536
0
U.S.A.
The part that concerns me the most is more and more the media, governments, and even scientists are being influenced by people who want to control what we think and believe. So our inventory is being controlled by other people because they control what information we have access to and how it is presented. If all the sources of information tell us X+Y= Z how are we supposed to know if they are lieing?

Natural thinking vs learned thinking are just ways of defining ways of thinking. Really thinking is thinking and learning is learning. It just depends on the way you look at it or catagorize it.
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
You gentlemen don't want to recognize/acknowledge two source of thoughts?
pljames; you maintain that thoughts come from memory; (all of them)? "...be it natural or learned both come from a memory bank." ;D
How can what WILL BE a new, original thought, NOT YET FORMED already be in memory? Are you referring to SYNTHESIZING thoughts from memory, and calling it new? Like imagining a dog with wings? ( see the last sentence in reply # 40).
S. Earl Martin: "Really thinking is thinking and learning is learning." Aristotle's Law of Identity; he observed it's 'built into' our language, so just using language, your compelled to adhere to that 'law', ( unless you take it into account).
 
May 2011
884
0
Marble, N.C.
As long as mankind has been on this earth one would think, that all thoughts would have been thought of before. How does the brain associate a new thought?

Side note: We are programmed by our language. We are deluged by our language. That law will never change. We always take our language in account, I do every word. pl


[quote author=sakoz link=topic=2215.msg19902#msg19902 date=1335197715]
You gentlemen don't want to recognize/acknowledge two source of thoughts?
pljames; you maintain that thoughts come from memory; (all of them)? "...be it natural or learned both come from a memory bank." ;D
How can what WILL BE a new, original thought, NOT YET FORMED already be in memory? Are you referring to SYNTHESIZING thoughts from memory, and calling it new? Like imagining a dog with wings? ( see the last sentence in reply # 40).
S. Earl Martin: "Really thinking is thinking and learning is learning." Aristotle's Law of Identity; he observed it's 'built into' our language, so just using language, your compelled to adhere to that 'law', ( unless you take it into account).
[/quote]
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
pljames: You wrote;"As long as mankind has been on this earth one would think, that all thoughts would have been thought." ( One would be wrong.)
S Earl Martin and I both mentioned that the patent office seriously considered closing because they thought all inventions were already thought of. They did not envision i-pads; i-phones, etc
I'm a bit surprised you think the same could even be possible with thoughts.
There's no such thing as largest, biggest number, beyond we can't go; because we can always add 1 to any number, etc.
There's more unformed energy in the universe than 'matter';(e=mc2)
 
Nov 2008
2,536
0
U.S.A.
To further explain what I meant by my previous statement is when I am thinking about something I am doing just that. When I learn by whatever means that is something different I am learning. Learning might include thinking, but the thinking is still thinking and learning is learning. Now you refered to learned thinking before. I took that as learning to think a certain way. In this particlur situation learning and thinking would be combined. Only because the learning is specific to thinking.