How do we think?
How do we think?
First, what is thinking? Thinking is a process in which we attempt to fill the gap between two mental states, question and answer for example; or when we want to prove something by which proof is the proper proposition/relation between two other propositions in which one the proposition is accepted as the true and second one we want to prove that is true or false.
Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.
Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: How do we think?
"I taught I thaw a puddy tat"
-Imp
-Imp
Re: How do we think?
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:24 pm First, what is thinking? Thinking is a process in which we attempt to fill the gap between two mental states, question and answer for example; or when we want to prove something by which proof is the proper proposition/relation between two other propositions in which one the proposition is accepted as the true and second one we want to prove that is true or false.
Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.
We experience. This may be difficult but try looking outside at something and "feel" the experience; look at the tree without labeling it as a tree...just experience the tree. Then we put concepts on our experience, i.e. that, is a tree. Then we time travel. Why did I cut down that tree... I am such an idiot; what could I use that tree for? Then we become philosophers; what is the value of trees?
Re: How do we think?
Think of this like this, X is a tree, and Y is the word for the tree. Thoughts are logistic things. Then you have fruit which grows on the three and the corresponding word etc.KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:30 ambahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:24 pm First, what is thinking? Thinking is a process in which we attempt to fill the gap between two mental states, question and answer for example; or when we want to prove something by which proof is the proper proposition/relation between two other propositions in which one the proposition is accepted as the true and second one we want to prove that is true or false.
Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.
We experience. This may be difficult but try looking outside at something and "feel" the experience; look at the tree without labeling it as a tree...just experience the tree. Then we put concepts on our experience, i.e. that, is a tree. Then we time travel. Why did I cut down that tree... I am such an idiot; what could I use that tree for? Then we become philosophers; what is the value of trees?
Re: How do we think?
The first experience is simply the fruit, then the concept, then causation.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:51 amThink of this like this, X is a tree, and Y is the word for the tree. Thoughts are logistic things. Then you have fruit which grows on the three and the corresponding word etc.KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:30 ambahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:24 pm First, what is thinking? Thinking is a process in which we attempt to fill the gap between two mental states, question and answer for example; or when we want to prove something by which proof is the proper proposition/relation between two other propositions in which one the proposition is accepted as the true and second one we want to prove that is true or false.
Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.
We experience. This may be difficult but try looking outside at something and "feel" the experience; look at the tree without labeling it as a tree...just experience the tree. Then we put concepts on our experience, i.e. that, is a tree. Then we time travel. Why did I cut down that tree... I am such an idiot; what could I use that tree for? Then we become philosophers; what is the value of trees?
Re: How do we think?
Yup.KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:56 amThe first experience is simply the fruit, then the concept, then causation.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:51 amThink of this like this, X is a tree, and Y is the word for the tree. Thoughts are logistic things. Then you have fruit which grows on the three and the corresponding word etc.KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:30 am
We experience. This may be difficult but try looking outside at something and "feel" the experience; look at the tree without labeling it as a tree...just experience the tree. Then we put concepts on our experience, i.e. that, is a tree. Then we time travel. Why did I cut down that tree... I am such an idiot; what could I use that tree for? Then we become philosophers; what is the value of trees?
Re: How do we think?
Re: How do we think?
Do you agree that to make the 'change' necessary to make and create the fruit first, then causation was needed BEFORE you experience?
Re: How do we think?
It depends. There is no fruit if there is no tree. SO you first need the tree. Then comes the fruit. But you can make a change, grab the fruit and eat it if you have the tree and the fruit.
Re: How do we think?
This, supposedly, 'depends' on 'what', EXACTLY?
Either 'causation' was NEEDED and IN EXISTENCE FIRST, or it was NOT. To me, there is NO 'depends' here.
AND, BEFORE that you NEEDED some thing else, correct?
Or, are you still under some sort of illusion that " it still 'depends' "?
So, in ALL Honesty this can NOT be a Truly 'free decision' as 'that' decision was DETERMINED on previous factors, correct?
Your Honest answers, like ALWAYS, are MUCH APPRECIATED.
Re: How do we think?
Depends on circumstances.
Causation was not needed in existence first.
Sure yes.
No.
Of course not. we were talking about causation only and not decision. The reality is that there is a decision is needed for each causation.
I did my best.
Re: How do we think?
WHAT 'circumstances' could affect the FACT that a tree was NECESSARY FIRST, to CAUSE the fruit on that tree?
Well this is A HUGE CLAIM.
Are you able to back up and support this CLAIM?
If yes, then will you?
HOW did 'Existence' come into being if there was NO 'cause'? In fact, HOW could ANY 'thing' come into existence if there was NO cause?
Great.
This, in and of itself, MEANS that 'causality' HAS TO HAVE ALWAYS been in Existence.
UNLESS, OF COURSE, 'you', "bahman", can PROVE otherwise.
Can you PROVE otherwise "bahman"?
Okay great.
So, will you NOT use that unnecessary and diversionary remark "It depends" anymore in relation to 'causality' and 'existence'?
Did you forget that it was 'you', "bahman", who STARTED talking about 'making a change' through and from 'a decision' here?
Did we, or did we NOT, just get through AGREEING that trees were NEEDED FIRST to 'cause' fruit?
If we did AGREE that this is true, then do you also agree that trees and fruit were around BEFORE human beings and decisions EVERY came into Existence?
Your CLAIM that 'a decision' is NEEDED for EACH causation implies that human beings have been in Existence, FOR EVER. Or, are you 'trying to' suggest that there is some 'thing' else that has been making 'decisions' FOR EVER?
If you, supposedly, "did your best" here, then you could have ONLY answered with PURE Honesty.
We are YET to SEE if you answer these current clarifying questions Honestly.
Re: How do we think?
Depends on where and when you are. Depends on what is available. Etc.
This is a long debate. I have to prove two things: 1) There is no God and 2) There was a beginning. Which one do you like to start with?
That is not correct. Regress is not possible.
That is the subject of the previous comment.
Of course. There are lots of detail are missing here. For example beginning, decision and experience.
I thought that you missed that part. Everything is alright if you agree that a decision is needed for any causation.
I am not talking about humans but minds in here to be clear. Minds have existed since the beginning.Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 amDid we, or did we NOT, just get through AGREEING that trees were NEEDED FIRST to 'cause' fruit?
If we did AGREE that this is true, then do you also agree that trees and fruit were around BEFORE human beings and decisions EVERY came into Existence?
Your CLAIM that 'a decision' is NEEDED for EACH causation implies that human beings have been in Existence, FOR EVER. Or, are you 'trying to' suggest that there is some 'thing' else that has been making 'decisions' FOR EVER?
I did my best.
Re: How do we think?
Without examples, then you just sound like you are 'trying to' DEFLECT.
Are you at all ABLE TO provide an example of where a tree is NOT necessary FIRST for fruit to be bared, depending on WHERE and WHEN 'you' are or 'i' am?
Are you at all ABLE TO explain WHY 'what is available' would depend on the FACT that a tree is NEEDED FIRST BEFORE fruit could come into existence?
Well I can FINISH 'that debate' ONCE and for ALL.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 amThis is a long debate.
I do NOT care how many 'things' you BELIEVE that you HAVE TO PROVE. I suggest just 'doing it'. I will AGAIN suggest to you that if you want to make a CLAIM, then it is BEST that you are able to back up and support that CLAIM with ACTUAL PROOF FIRST.
1) There is no God and 2) There was a beginning. Which one do you like to start with?[/quote]
When you say, "God", what do you mean, what are you referring to, how do you define that word, and what do you identify that word with, EXACTLY?
When you say, "There was a beginning", what are you referring to, what was there 'a beginning' of, EXACTLY?
Also, I have PROVED what thee ACTUAL Truth IS ALREADY. This is done by YOUR INABILITY to answer MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you above here.
That is not correct. Regress is not possible.[/quote]
This is ANOTHER CLAIM you like to make. YET you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM.
Are you even YET AWARE that I NEED to SEE PROOF FIRST, BEFORE I agree with and accept the CLAIMS made by 'you', human beings.
'you', "bahman", have YET to SHOW ANY PROOF for ANY of YOUR CLAIMS here.
If you can PROVE otherwise, then just say YES.
WHY are you making this SO UNNECESSARY HARD and COMPLEX?
Well WHY are YOU LEAVING these details out for?
BUT OBVIOUSLY ONLY 'you', human beings, make decisions. AND, just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that causation was happening and occurring BEFORE you human beings evolved and came into existence. SO, this makes YOUR CLAIM here beyond RIDICULOUS.
Okay, now we are STARTING to get SOMEWHERE, although it is BACK to WHERE we first began.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 amI am not talking about humans but minds in here to be clear. Minds have existed since the beginning.Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 amDid we, or did we NOT, just get through AGREEING that trees were NEEDED FIRST to 'cause' fruit?
If we did AGREE that this is true, then do you also agree that trees and fruit were around BEFORE human beings and decisions EVERY came into Existence?
Your CLAIM that 'a decision' is NEEDED for EACH causation implies that human beings have been in Existence, FOR EVER. Or, are you 'trying to' suggest that there is some 'thing' else that has been making 'decisions' FOR EVER?
So, to 'you', which is sometimes A 'mind' and sometimes A human being WITH a 'mind', there has been these 'mind' thingies, which have, sometimes, been around FOREVER, and, sometimes, been around SINCE THE BEGINNING, correct?
When our discussions are LOOKED BACK OVER, the amount of times 'you', "bahman", CONTRADICT "yourself" is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS to LOOK AT, NOTICE, and OBSERVE.
Now, what sort of 'decisions' have these 'mind' thingies been making which MUST OF been BEFORE trees and fruit evolved and came into existence?
You OBVIOUSLY have NOT.
Your LIES and DECEIT are CRYSTAL CLEAR, well to 'me' anyway.