Why Thinking Is Over-rated

[RCSaunders]

Look out any window.

Sour grapes!

Only those who can't think regard it as over-rated.

[simplicity]

Look out any window.

Sour grapes!

Only those who can't think regard it as over-rated.

So either agree with you or I am not able to think?

That's not such a compelling position.

[Eodnhoj7]

Thinking is the formation of concepts.

The formation of concepts is the division of phenomenon.

A unified reality is divided through the formation of concepts.

The division of reality is the formation of opposition within reality.

The opposition of reality is contradiction.

[RCSaunders]

Look out any window.

Sour grapes!

Only those who can't think regard it as over-rated.

So either agree with you or I am not able to think?

That's not such a compelling position.

I have no interest in your agreement.

[simplicity]

Sour grapes!

Only those who can't think regard it as over-rated.

So either agree with you or I am not able to think?

That's not such a compelling position.

I have no interest in your agreement.

You contradict yourself.

[Fja1]

OP is preoccupied with reinforcing (continuously) reactive, not active faculties of perception. I don't think there is a way to make sense of the problem without inquiring on a reactive perception which is somehow analoguous to concept-forming. Reactive perception can reflect structure and hierarchy, much like active/conceptual perception, and accordingly reaction is either reinforced or suppressed. The notion of salience largely reflects this structure and hierarchy, but is continuous instead of divisive. When looking out of the window, why are some things more salient than others?

[RCSaunders]

So either agree with you or I am not able to think?

That's not such a compelling position.

I have no interest in your agreement.

You contradict yourself.

If you could think you would know that's not true, but I'll spare you. I won't ask you to overtax your own mind.

[simplicity]

OP is preoccupied with reinforcing (continuously) reactive, not active faculties of perception.

"Look out any window," was to suggest that mere observation is enough to understand the limits of our intellect.

[simplicity]

If you could think you would know that's not true, but I'll spare you. I won't ask you to overtax your own mind.

As an aside [and perhaps you can help me out here], what exactly is the point of having this kind of conversation? Are you attempting to prove something? Are you trying to be "right?"

[Fja1]

OP is preoccupied with reinforcing (continuously) reactive, not active faculties of perception.

"Look out any window," was to suggest that mere observation is enough to understand the limits of our intellect.

AS IF thinking is reductible to conceptual thinking.

[RCSaunders]

If you could think you would know that's not true, but I'll spare you. I won't ask you to overtax your own mind.

As an aside [and perhaps you can help me out here]

I would if I could, but I doubt very much that is possible.

, what exactly is the point of having this kind of conversation? Are you attempting to prove something? Are you trying to be "right?"

It's not a conversation, simply a statement based on you view that, "Thinking Is Over-rated," so I evaded attempting to force you to do what you regarded as over-rated.

I'll make it simple. Those who can think and know it is the only means to knowledge and that human life is not possible without it know that, along with knowledge, it is the most important thing there is. If one believes they can be successful as a human being with no more consciousness than their cat or dog, good luck, because without thinking, that's all one has.

You don't have to agree with that. It would be impossible to understand it without thinking.

[Dubious]

...the default position of those who are less adept at it.

[Sculptor]

...the default position of those who are less adept at it.

Yes, people who find thinking difficult are like the fox who cannot reach the grapes; "those grapes are sour"

[Sculptor]

Imagine! said Einstein. Am I getting hotter/colder?

The idea is that man's attempt to improve upon Reality [via conceptual thought] continues to be an abject failure. Conceptual thinking takes what is and transforms it into what is thought to be [which almost always seems to be some kind of bizarre dystopian reality].

I think you might want to think this one through a little more.
The aim is not to improve reality. The aim is to understand it and represent it so as to best describe it. And take a look under your fingers. The results of this process mean you are able to communicate with people all over the world just my moving your fingers. Maybe not such an abject failure as you think.

Instead of imagining, perhaps accepting what it is might serve our species better.

We can accept the weather or build a shelter.
We can accept that we shall be eaten by a predator or we can make protection.
We can accept that we die of disease or we can understand the disease and create medicine.

So, go on! Accept all you want. But people imgined the computer you are using to type and you are benefitting.

[simplicity]

OP is preoccupied with reinforcing (continuously) reactive, not active faculties of perception.

"Look out any window," was to suggest that mere observation is enough to understand the limits of our intellect.

AS IF thinking is reductible to conceptual thinking.

What's the difference? You get the idea. Again, the point is that people depend way too much on their personal reality[thinking] instead of accepting, 'what it is,' as sufficient.