What is Thought ?
- Thread starter china
- Start date
My thoughts give me the ability to sort out many issues, inside my head, without having to talk out loud
which would have others questioning my sanity.
Before I say somelthing or give my opinion 'out loud" to someone, I often discuss it to myself, and give
my opinion, in my thoughts, then decide if it is worthy of "real" conversation.
A thought is just a "word"s that aren't spoken out loud.
Maybe I should have given "this" thought more time, and probably not "written" it down, cause it just
seems too simple and childish. Sorry.
which would have others questioning my sanity.
Before I say somelthing or give my opinion 'out loud" to someone, I often discuss it to myself, and give
my opinion, in my thoughts, then decide if it is worthy of "real" conversation.
A thought is just a "word"s that aren't spoken out loud.
Maybe I should have given "this" thought more time, and probably not "written" it down, cause it just
seems too simple and childish. Sorry.
Talloola
Some "simple" thoughts are the basics and perhaps we need to hear more about them. We refine our communication to the point where it is only marginally understandable and couch all of our deep feelings in large words prefaced by "perhaps" or "it might seem" instead of just coming to the thought and stating it in bare bones terms with no frills nor caveats or wiggle room.
Please don't self-censor....the beauty of a forum is to communicate what you believe.... not to convince anyone else.... but to sort out your own thoughts with feedback.... which you can keep or not....
It's beneficial for you and you alone...what others do with information here is their choice too.
Some "simple" thoughts are the basics and perhaps we need to hear more about them. We refine our communication to the point where it is only marginally understandable and couch all of our deep feelings in large words prefaced by "perhaps" or "it might seem" instead of just coming to the thought and stating it in bare bones terms with no frills nor caveats or wiggle room.
Please don't self-censor....the beauty of a forum is to communicate what you believe.... not to convince anyone else.... but to sort out your own thoughts with feedback.... which you can keep or not....
It's beneficial for you and you alone...what others do with information here is their choice too.
It's what we do when we're not sleeping. Alpha waves, beta waves, beta blockers?, the little researched gamma waves ... and I suppose the rest of the greek alphabet is in there somewhere too. Thought is supposedly the beta waves - that which makes dreams interesting and thought; a little bit of neuronal transmission elevated above the restful state.
... and then what? What happens after we know what it is? Do we seek out those endorphens? pheromones? just be happy that it is? debate whether it really exists - maybe use the contradiction argument: suppose it doesn't exist, prove by induction that it must exist because we can imagine it?
... and then what? What happens after we know what it is? Do we seek out those endorphens? pheromones? just be happy that it is? debate whether it really exists - maybe use the contradiction argument: suppose it doesn't exist, prove by induction that it must exist because we can imagine it?
As intriguing as your post is, it is flawed in its premise that we have never questioned. Centuries of philosophers before you, decades of psychologists and psychiatrists, have written texts upon texts filled with their work attempting to answer the same question. I am a student of psychology, and it seeks to explore the nature of thought in a multitude of ways. It has yet to presume a solid answer, but it seeks.
I'm pretty sure that beta waves have to do with neurotransmitters ... nothing of philosophy and definitely nothing to do with a soul; which has proof of not existing in an unhealthy physical body.
As a student of philosophy, or psychology (which are distinctly different, by the way), I can only assume that you are like every other student of psychology, whacked. No offence intended, but you have to admit that the only people interested enough to pursue psychology have so many issues that even after completing a phd, they still have problems.
Thought, eh. I seem to remember being particularly fascinated about that when I was about 17 years old. I don't think I was able to dismiss psychiatry and beta waves without at least a second look.
By the way ... you claim that my response is "flawed in its premise that we have never questioned." That's a dangling participle, my friend. My response is not flawed, it is intact and you have yet to learn the written word.
Long and rambling but I’ll offer no apologies.
Thought could be everything we know and everything we don’t know, everything we feel and haven’t felt, every place we’ve been and haven’t been—or that could be a reflection of some god. Richard Dawkins might say that thought is just another bio-chemical process that assists your selfish gene in its quest for the prosperity of your DMA--or perhaps that too is a reflection.
I know I give something of myself to an audience when I’m on stage. Pieces of my soul expressed though my congas and the singer’s songs may have some value. I don’t know how to think about it.
I don’t know how I change photographs into images that people want to buy. Images connect with feelings; perhaps reflections of experiences past. I don’t know how I know where to stick a canoe paddle into the rapids so the canoe gets to an eddy at the bottom. The waves and eddies are reflections of the river bed. Time flows and I act in it. I don’t know if thought flows or what its bed might be. I don’t know how I know that if I hold onto the soccer ball for a time my mid-fielder will come free for a moment and I can push the ball through. I don’t know if the mid-fielder can foresee what I do.
I don’t know how to think about these things. Perhaps these things are knowledge beyond words. Perhaps thought is tied to words. Perhaps thought is a word of seven letters.
I try to live in first-hand experience. Words may be abstractions—reflections. Possibly useful but still just second-hand life. Words may deny experience. Thought may be only words.
From David Ignatow “I should be content to look at a mountain for what it is and not as a comment on my life.”
I seek to be free from the condition of being lost in thought:
Lost: from David Wagoner:
“Stand still. The trees ahead and the bushes beside you
Are not lost. Wherever you are is called Here,
And you must treat it as a powerful stranger.
Must ask permission to know and be known.
The forest breathes. Listen. It answers,
I have made this place around you.
If you leave it you may come back again, saying Here.
No two trees are the same to the Raven.
No two branches are the same to the Wren.
If what a tree or a branch does is lost on you,
You are truly lost. Stand still. the forest knows
Where you are.You must let it find you.”
Quoted material is copyright protected and contained in “The Heart Aroused” and “The House of Belonging” by David Whyte
Poetry may be words without thought. May be feeling. May be first hand experience. May be knowledge My use of words here is arcane and obscure. Somehow that seems fitting. I won’t try to spell out what I feel. Spell is a word of five letters. I live in the forest. I don’t know it any better whether I have a word of six letters or not.
Thought could be everything we know and everything we don’t know, everything we feel and haven’t felt, every place we’ve been and haven’t been—or that could be a reflection of some god. Richard Dawkins might say that thought is just another bio-chemical process that assists your selfish gene in its quest for the prosperity of your DMA--or perhaps that too is a reflection.
I know I give something of myself to an audience when I’m on stage. Pieces of my soul expressed though my congas and the singer’s songs may have some value. I don’t know how to think about it.
I don’t know how I change photographs into images that people want to buy. Images connect with feelings; perhaps reflections of experiences past. I don’t know how I know where to stick a canoe paddle into the rapids so the canoe gets to an eddy at the bottom. The waves and eddies are reflections of the river bed. Time flows and I act in it. I don’t know if thought flows or what its bed might be. I don’t know how I know that if I hold onto the soccer ball for a time my mid-fielder will come free for a moment and I can push the ball through. I don’t know if the mid-fielder can foresee what I do.
I don’t know how to think about these things. Perhaps these things are knowledge beyond words. Perhaps thought is tied to words. Perhaps thought is a word of seven letters.
I try to live in first-hand experience. Words may be abstractions—reflections. Possibly useful but still just second-hand life. Words may deny experience. Thought may be only words.
From David Ignatow “I should be content to look at a mountain for what it is and not as a comment on my life.”
I seek to be free from the condition of being lost in thought:
Lost: from David Wagoner:
“Stand still. The trees ahead and the bushes beside you
Are not lost. Wherever you are is called Here,
And you must treat it as a powerful stranger.
Must ask permission to know and be known.
The forest breathes. Listen. It answers,
I have made this place around you.
If you leave it you may come back again, saying Here.
No two trees are the same to the Raven.
No two branches are the same to the Wren.
If what a tree or a branch does is lost on you,
You are truly lost. Stand still. the forest knows
Where you are.You must let it find you.”
Quoted material is copyright protected and contained in “The Heart Aroused” and “The House of Belonging” by David Whyte
Poetry may be words without thought. May be feeling. May be first hand experience. May be knowledge My use of words here is arcane and obscure. Somehow that seems fitting. I won’t try to spell out what I feel. Spell is a word of five letters. I live in the forest. I don’t know it any better whether I have a word of six letters or not.
I want to thank the people who are writing here - there are so many diverse comments they make a great read and open up more "thought" for me.
China...welcome back - it's fej chang bang to see you again!
China...welcome back - it's fej chang bang to see you again!
Being new to the forum Ariadne, I did not realize that replying to a post does not, as I have found on other forums, show which post you are replying to. I was not replying to your post. I was replying to the original post in this thread. But thanks for the venom nonetheless. As for philosophy and psychology being seperate things... no kidding. But, I was speaking in terms of human history in questioning the origins of thought. And before the 1800's, psychologists didn't exist in the manner they do today. Philosophers were the ones dominating the field of introspective thought up until the last couple of centuries. Oh, and thanks as well for the gramamtical critique. I find it most enlightening and humorous.
Oh, welcome to the forum. I too am new to the forum and you, unfortunately, were the person I tripped over when I redlined on yet another quick dismissal on the basis of premise. Dangling participles are most coy, indeed ... and enlightening.
Ariadne
You blast..... people interested enough to pursue psychology have so many issues that even after completing a phd, they still have problems.
Pretty ugly generalization there Ariadne - how many Ph.Ds or any behavioral practitioners with advanced degrees do you know personally?
rofl
That's very funny but a pile of crap. Sorta like saying everyone that drive cars too incredibly lazy to walk anywhere. There is a little bit of truth there, however, but you're in the wrong field. I've met 5 or 6 psychiatrists and each has been a real twister. Psychologists study normal behavior. Cultural anthropologists also study behavior to a degree, are they nuts, too?
Last edited:
The other post I found very funny but very wrong, was where someone said something about humans being the only critters that think. Either they'e never encountered any other living thing or have been led off the garden path.
LGilbert
The field of psychology is as varied as the numbers of people who populate this earth and there are vast studies of humanity going on for the benefit of both normals and abnormals.
Psychologists deal with people in trouble as do Psychiatrists - the difference being very few Psychologists have the licensing to dispense medications for remediation and generally work in concert with a Psychiatrists if meds are necessary.
As you say there Psychologists who work with normal behavior - almost any career undertaken which offers stress such as airline pilots, and law enforcement work, competitive sports athletes, actors, etc., can benefit from psychological testing and smoothing out the quirks they may develop.
I think many professions have their weirdos....matter of fact any group will have one or two abnorms lurking around - well abnorms according to whatever the "group norm" happens to be.... even on forums... lol
The field of psychology is as varied as the numbers of people who populate this earth and there are vast studies of humanity going on for the benefit of both normals and abnormals.
Psychologists deal with people in trouble as do Psychiatrists - the difference being very few Psychologists have the licensing to dispense medications for remediation and generally work in concert with a Psychiatrists if meds are necessary.
As you say there Psychologists who work with normal behavior - almost any career undertaken which offers stress such as airline pilots, and law enforcement work, competitive sports athletes, actors, etc., can benefit from psychological testing and smoothing out the quirks they may develop.
I think many professions have their weirdos....matter of fact any group will have one or two abnorms lurking around - well abnorms according to whatever the "group norm" happens to be.... even on forums... lol
Ariadne's not the first person to complain to me that psychologists have psych problems of their own. People also laugh about the shabby condition of carpenters' houses, the poor state of many mechanics' personal vehicles, and physicians who are obese, smoke, or drink excessively. People just love pointing out that others aren't as smart as we think they think they are.
Lookit the descriptions: psychology is the study of behavior and mental processes. Psychiatry is the study "dealing with the prevention, assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of mental illness". -Wikipedia.
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/112/110350.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ychiatry&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ychology&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
So dispensing medications is the only diffrerence? rofl
Sounds like a "whacked" viewpoint, to me.
Ah, but psychiatry and psychology are the only professions where all that take interest in them are "whacked". I see. :roll:
I know as I write this that you'll probably roll your eyes in annoyance, but in order to argue with one another over this issue, you should first argue over the same things, which you're not.
the field of psychology is exactly as you said.... the study of mental processes. But the difference between a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist is exactly what the other person said.... one is a medical doctor capable of dispensing meds, the other is a doctor in the sense that they have a pHd, but can not dispense meds. The medical background, and ability to dispense medications, and perhaps a slightly different tactic in which the two might approach a problem, is really the only difference.
While not all psychologists are clinical psychologists, many will take that path, and see just as much abnormal psychology as a psychiatrist.