Thinking: The questions to be answered

[bahman]

Information is stored in chronological order as well.

There seems to be a hierarchy. With various top down options, like dog (category of thing), animal (broader category), chronology, emotion (if you were scared of the dog or worried about it), even by sound of the word (I notice how words related by sound can appear, be associated to, more easily or even confused) and all sorts of other ways, it seems. (this is me just exploring off the top of my head). None of this is perfectly organized. Take chronology. I may confuse the order of events. I may remember seeing the puppy and be sort of good at the month, if it was this year, but go back a few years and I may place it before or after events incorrectly. And this is not just an exception. Unless there is a narrative reason, important to me, for knowing X came before Y.

True.

Associations seem to be allowed/actively made in lots of different ways.

And I would guess that creative people's brains allow for more types of association - thus organization.

True.

Which probably has both positive and negative sides.

Why negative?

[bahman]

We are assuming that the brain builds up experiences from pieces, but what if instead, it disassembles whole experiences to categorise.

Why do you think so?

In order to replay an existing memory, the pattern which that original memory created in our perception becomes reinforced, and that same pattern is echoed back, to the best of the perception systems ability. Then, a second system of pattern recognition parses the image, breaking down elements such as street sign, puppy, etc etc.

So my premise is start with the whole and work backwards.

I would be glad if you elaborate a little with an example. I believe the whole takes a lot of room to memorize instead most of the time we only memorize what is in the focal focus.

[Iwannaplato]

Why negative?

Let me say first I think it is a net positive. But the negative might be that what other have as locked in habits, may be questioned or not so directly chosen by the creative person. This is great when being creative, but might be a problem, for example, in a job interview. Or it might be a problem when a series of habitual choices make you safe. Also, if you are constantly questioning, you have to make more decisions. OK, OK, I'll go to the doctor for my broken arm. This kind of thing means that, well, you have to make more decisions, rather than doing certain common sense things. More time for deliberation. Also more responsibility for whatever happens. The non-creative just does common sense A. OK, true they will miss out on alternatives, downside for them. On the other hand, if it goes badly with common sense A, they are not likely to feel responsible. IOW if the creative person chooses to go with common sense A - and quite often this is a good option - and it goes wrong, they are more likely to blame themselves. Perhaps there was a better alternative option they missed. Everything is on the table for discussion.

Again, there are counterbalancing positives and I take the life of a creative person, but it has its downside.

[bahman]

Yes, it does. Perhaps there are some other questions that you might want to ask.

Think of a situation in which you see a puppy in a street. Puppy belongs to the category of dog. This new information is stored in a specific area of the brain that deals with memory.

ACCORDING TO WHO, EXACTLY?

AND, DOES 'that person's KNOW what 'you' CLAIM here IRREFUTABLY, OR IS 'that' just what is PRESUMED TO HAPPEN and OCCUR?

This is well known.

The information within that area are however organized otherwise we are dealing with a jumble. My question is how the brain can store things in an organized manner knowing the fact that neurons fire.

But KNOWING 'neurons fire' does NOT mean that ANY 'thing' ELSE is KNOWN here, FOR SURE.

What do you mean?

Also, if 'this' IS 'your question' now, then WHY did 'you' NOT JUST ASK and WRITE 'this question' BEFORE?

It is obvious.

WHY did 'you' JUMBLED UNORGANIZED MESS OF QUESTIONS AT the beginning of this thread, EARLIER?

They are not jumbled. They are organized.

Or, HOW did 'that brain' store, and express, 'things' in an UNORGANIZED manner, knowing the fact that 'neurons fire'?

What do you mean?

[bahman]

Why negative?

Let me say first I think it is a net positive. But the negative might be that what other have as locked in habits, may be questioned or not so directly chosen by the creative person. This is great when being creative, but might be a problem, for example, in a job interview. Or it might be a problem when a series of habitual choices make you safe. Also, if you are constantly questioning, you have to make more decisions. OK, OK, I'll go to the doctor for my broken arm. This kind of thing means that, well, you have to make more decisions, rather than doing certain common sense things. More time for deliberation. Also more responsibility for whatever happens. The non-creative just does common sense A. OK, true they will miss out on alternatives, downside for them. On the other hand, if it goes badly with common sense A, they are not likely to feel responsible. IOW if the creative person chooses to go with common sense A - and quite often this is a good option - and it goes wrong, they are more likely to blame themselves. Perhaps there was a better alternative option they missed. Everything is on the table for discussion.

Again, there are counterbalancing positives and I take the life of a creative person, but it has its downside.

I think a creative person could be in trouble if he does not have a job that fits his creativity, a routine job for example. But let's first try to define creativity. Does it mean that she/he asks more questions or finds answers to questions?

[Iwannaplato]

I think a creative person could be in trouble if he does not have a job that fits his creativity, a routine job for example.

Sure.

But let's first try to define creativity. Does it mean that she/he asks more questions or finds answers to questions?

Likely. Considers more alternatives. Able to associate in more ways, one thing to more things. Curiosity should be a supporting trait. Likes to explore (taken in the broadest sense). These are mainly traits that underlie the thinking processes, if we think of thinking as the word type thinking. In fact, I do think it is an attitude, that then accumulates tricks over time.

[bahman]

I think a creative person could be in trouble if he does not have a job that fits his creativity, a routine job for example.

Sure.

But let's first try to define creativity. Does it mean that she/he asks more questions or finds answers to questions?

Likely. Considers more alternatives. Able to associate in more ways, one thing to more things. Curiosity should be a supporting trait. Likes to explore (taken in the broadest sense). These are mainly traits that underlie the thinking processes, if we think of thinking as the word type thinking. In fact, I do think it is an attitude, that then accumulates tricks over time.

I agree.

[Age]

Think of a situation in which you see a puppy in a street. Puppy belongs to the category of dog. This new information is stored in a specific area of the brain that deals with memory.

ACCORDING TO WHO, EXACTLY?

AND, DOES 'that person's KNOW what 'you' CLAIM here IRREFUTABLY, OR IS 'that' just what is PRESUMED TO HAPPEN and OCCUR?

This is well known.

'This' IS CLAIMED, OFTEN, and may well be PRESUMED to be true. However, as for being ACTUALLY Accurate AND Correct, 'this' is NOT YET, ACTUALLY, KNOWN

The information within that area are however organized otherwise we are dealing with a jumble. My question is how the brain can store things in an organized manner knowing the fact that neurons fire.

But KNOWING 'neurons fire' does NOT mean that ANY 'thing' ELSE is KNOWN here, FOR SURE.

What do you mean?

All 'you' ARE REALLY SAYING, and MEANING, is that 'we' KNOW 'neurons fire', BUT 'this', itself, does NOT mean 'we' KNOW what ELSE is ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING. EVERY 'thing' ELSE here is NOT YET ACTUALLY KNOWN. ONLY PRESUMPTIONS and/or GUESSES are being made here.

Also, if 'this' IS 'your question' now, then WHY did 'you' NOT JUST ASK and WRITE 'this question' BEFORE?

It is obvious.

'This' here is ANOTHER one of the PRIMEST examples of WHY 'these people', BACK THEN, took SO LONG. 'They', literally, nearly always PRESUMED "others" KNEW/KNOW, EXACTLY, what 'they' are talking ABOUT, and MEANING. AND, even when 'they' would SAY 'things' that were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

'This one' SAID and WROTE in 'its' opening post here:

Three main questions come to my mind when it comes to understanding how we think:
1) How the new information in the brain is classified?
2) How the related information are linked in the brain?
3) How do we find new information from the linked information?

But then CLAIMS that it IS OBVIOUS that what 'this' ACTUALLY MEANS IS:

My question is how the brain can store things in an organized manner knowing the fact that neurons fire.

ONCE AGAIN, I WILL suggest that to HELP the 'human race' PROCEED and MOVE FORWARD along the evolutionary chain, or line, then JUST SAY, and WRITE, what IS ACTUALLY MEANT, and, MEAN what IS ACTUALLY SAID, and WRITTEN.

That way even 'you' can MOVE UP and OUT of the 'human being' LEVEL and STAGE and ONTO the next and FAR BETTER and GREATER LEVEL, and STAGE.

WHY did 'you' JUMBLED UNORGANIZED MESS OF QUESTIONS AT the beginning of this thread, EARLIER?

They are not jumbled. They are organized.

Okay. If 'you' SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, right "bahman"?

Or, HOW did 'that brain' store, and express, 'things' in an UNORGANIZED manner, knowing the fact that 'neurons fire'?

What do you mean?

'your' QUESTION IS ASKING, 'How CAN 'the brain' store things in an organized manner, knowing the fact that neurons fire?'

And, I AM ASKING 'you', 'How DID 'that brain', within 'that body', store 'things', in an UNORGANIZED manner, even when knowing the fact that 'neurons fire'?

SEE, when 'you' can ANSWER 'this QUESTION', then 'you', ALSO, WILL HAVE, and thus KNOW, 'the ANSWER' TO 'your QUESTION' here.

Also, and by the way, just KNOWING 'neurons fire' has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON ANY 'thing' here.

[Age]

We are assuming that the brain builds up experiences from pieces, but what if instead, it disassembles whole experiences to categorise.

'This' here holds FAR MORE TRUTH.

See, THE WAY the brain, or 'you', IS ABLE TO COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND, 'the world', or better worded 'the Universe', in which 'it' has found 'itself' WITHIN, is by CONCEPTUALLY, ONLY, SEPARATING 'the One' IN TO MANY PERCEIVED DIFFERENT 'things', and then labeling those PERCEIVED 'different things'. 'This' is HOW 'the brain', and 'you', can MAKES 'sense' of ALL-OF-THIS.

In order to replay an existing memory, the pattern which that original memory created in our perception becomes reinforced, and that same pattern is echoed back, to the best of the perception systems ability. Then, a second system of pattern recognition parses the image, breaking down elements such as street sign, puppy, etc etc.

So my premise is start with the whole and work backwards.

[Age]

We are assuming that the brain builds up experiences from pieces, but what if instead, it disassembles whole experiences to categorise.

Why do you think so?

In order to replay an existing memory, the pattern which that original memory created in our perception becomes reinforced, and that same pattern is echoed back, to the best of the perception systems ability. Then, a second system of pattern recognition parses the image, breaking down elements such as street sign, puppy, etc etc.

So my premise is start with the whole and work backwards.

I would be glad if you elaborate a little with an example. I believe the whole takes a lot of room to memorize instead most of the time we only memorize what is in the focal focus.

OF COURSE the WHOLE could NEVER be so-called 'memorized', or 'stored', by 'one brain'.

And, if 'you' are 'memorizing', ONLY, a VERY SHALLOW, VERY SMALL, or VERY LIMITED PART, ONLY, of the 'whole', then 'this' IS BECAUSE 'you' are ONLY LOOKING FROM A VERY SHALLOW, VERY SMALL FIELD OF VIEW, or FROM A VERY LIMITED PERSPECTIVE OF 'things' here.

[Age]

I think a creative person could be in trouble if he does not have a job that fits his creativity, a routine job for example.

Sure.

But let's first try to define creativity. Does it mean that she/he asks more questions or finds answers to questions?

Likely. Considers more alternatives. Able to associate in more ways, one thing to more things. Curiosity should be a supporting trait. Likes to explore (taken in the broadest sense). These are mainly traits that underlie the thinking processes, if we think of thinking as the word type thinking. In fact, I do think it is an attitude, that then accumulates tricks over time.

ONCE AGAIN, here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of NOT JUST ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED.