how would you define evolution, would it be goal-directed behaviour?

"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes

Why is that such a profound statement? Because it is an intuitive leap which does not depend on any outside or learned information. Thinking goes beyond the simple processing of information or stimuli that might occur in lower animals (and some humans I've met) and reaches into the realm of insight, imagination and reasoning. A calculator can process input but it cannot think. It has no insight as to what the input might mean or why it should output. It cannot reason that it exists and neither can it imagine who or what is feeding it the input. Nevertheless, we are all too aware that a calculator is far better than we are when we need to extract the 3rd root of a 12 digit number... as we often do.

We often forget about language when trying to define thinking. What language do we think in? As I'm typing this, I am forming the words in my mind, but I "speak" to myself in the everyday thoughts that drift through my mind and I do so in English. So what about someone who was born deaf? Do they think in sign langauge? What if they were blind too? Would they still be able to reach the point of, "I think, therefore I am", when they don't have the words to think it?

Well I'm all thunk out so I'm off to bed.

In the final of the Matrix movies, an interesting discussion was held between the hero, Neo and a sentient computer program on the subject of love. The program said, "Love is just a word. It is the meaning we attach to it that is important." So what is the meaning we all attach to the word, think? If I ask you a question and you then say, "I'll have to think about it.", what exactly do you mean, and is what you do the same as what someone else would do? Is the process the even the same? As humans we may all share the necessary DNA to all grow brains with physiological brain structure that is similar, but do that necessarily mean that thinking is the same to each individual. This would be like have two identical computers running different operating systems but still achieviing the same result, although granted, thinking is far more complex than any artifical operating system. The question is, can there only one definition of thinking, or are there many that are equally valid?

Here's something that occured to me as I was drifting off to sleep last night...

Although our brains have many processes operating in parallel, (as Tyrell said, separate compartments of processing), we experience consciousness as a singular state. While we can have many trains of thought, we think them (process them) one at a time even though our minds may be doing many things subconsciously all at the same time.

Suppose we did develop an artificial equivalent to this. A computer mind based on the way humans think. What if we then married this technology with quantum computing? A quantum computer (in theory) would be able to operate in all states at the same time. Give it a problem and it could simultaneously assess all possible solutions. So what kind of a thinking could be performed in such a processing environment. All possible thoughts occuring at the same time? No time wasted going down one train of thought only to find it was flawed. Every train of thought would occur at the same time and could spill over into or even spawn other thoughts. This would an entirely different form of thinking.

"A thought" ... You'd think it would be reasonably easier to come up with a definition seeing you have to think about it in order to do so. I think the problem here is in defining what a thought is in such a way as to bring it within reach of artificially creating one. We all know what thinking is and what a thought is even if we have trouble precisely defining it in terms we can all agree on. I'm still scratching my head over this one!

Dear Tyrell

~"I believe that greater thoughts require not just the entire functionality and interconnection of the brain working together but the actual concepts and perception like pillars of a structure to hold a thought."~

Nice statement. In mathematical thinking, I'd define it further as the whole being more than the sum of its parts.

As regards thinking as simply problem solving, i would say that there's a strong emphasis on the ability to 'grasp' information as opposed to solving it. Solutions are based on data formulation, proposed scenarios dependent on experience and draw from logic. But the awareness of the whole (bird's eye view) in the larger scheme of things is where thinking, or rather thinking *intelligently*, finds itself better suited.

I was recently watching some funny videos of animals and one in particular caught my attention. There was a dog snarling at its own tail and it even began to chase after it and ended up running around in circles. Obviously the dog did not comprehend that this thing it was trying to catch was its own tail. Why couldn't it figure it out? Dog's can be taught to do some amazing things and even "seem" to demonstrate a fairly high level of understanding, but we know there is a limit to their capacity.

If the dog suddenly realised it was chasing its own tail, what would we call this?

A logical conclusion? Do dog's use logic? Would we say that the dog must have thought about it or did it involve some other process which is below what we would call thinking? Is being able to draw a conclusion thinking? Certainly if a dog managed to bite its own tail, the pain would eventually deter it from doing it again, but is this simply a learned response rather than something it thought about?

I tend to favor the comments above by Natasha van Rooyen. Finding solutions and even drawing conclusions from available information and experience is one thing, but actual awareness is something else altogether. Humans don't just solve problems or draw conclusions. A computer can be programed to do that but we don't call it thinking. Humans not only solve and conclude, we are also aware of these processes as we go through them. We can also develop abstract concepts and imagine.

Dogs can learn not to chase their tails. They can solve simple problems.. I've seen dogs open doors using the handle without being taught how to do it... they watched their owners! But, can they think abstractly? Can they imagine? What level of awareness do they have? If we could build a robot dog capable of doing everthing a real dog could do, would we say we'd created a thinking machine? Would we say we'd achieved AI?

That's quite an interesting point. Many of our human accomplishments have had a driving force or purpose behind them. We struggle to come up with an answer to AI but programming a computer to have purpose is a bit of a brain bender as well. We can certainly set tasks for them, but can you give them a sense of urgency? We sometimes solve problems, come up with ideas or imagine things for the pure pleasure of it. Can we program the capacity for pleasure into a computer?

Again on the example of dogs, have a look at this Youtube video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0

While quite entertaining to watch, it demonstrates the learning capacity of dogs.. or at least this particular dog, but is it enjoying itself and did that play a part in its ability to learn? It also raises some points I made earlier about what counts as intelligence. We do attribute some degree of intelligence to dogs and we might say that in this example of skateboarding we are seeing that intelligence demonstrated. At one point the dog appears to lean to one side to steer the board and it also appears to anticipate the curbing and the grass areas. It also roughly knows how to align the board parallel with the direction it wants to go. Are these signs of intelligence? We could build a mechanical device that did all of these things. A proximity sensor to avodiing hitting anything, an artificial leg to provide power, a sterring system and a simple computer control arm to make sure to board is facing to right direction before kicking off. Now if this mechanism can do what the dog can do, is it as intelligent as the dog? If we are going to say no, then are we looking at the right things to tell us if something is intelligent or not?

I am currently working on an Artificial Consciousness theory.

My model of motivation goes something like this:

1. instinctive knee jerk reaction

2. Automated Response (sometimes called intention)

3. Volition (sometimes called Will or choice)

4. Thought

The primary difference between volition and Thought, I think is deliberation. Essentially we choose to process information rather than just choose between a number of poor answers. I think this is all tied up in the role of the Anterior Cingulate Cortex, which selects from among functional clusters that represent data or action/functions of the brain. Essentially, the Cerebellum serves us up instant sequences of actions/functions, as a sort of macro-language. We then have to choose which ones get executed, and it is the ACC that is charged with the selection. However the ACC has no experience with evaluating action/functions, so it relies on the Vertro-Lateral PFC which is sensitive to sequences, to tell it which sequences to select.

If it still can't choose a winner, it looks for an automated solution to resolve the ambiguity. This is where intention comes into play, by selecting an automated sequence to operate, according to some probably limbic functinos that evaluate the possible automated sequences, it may be able to disambiguate the selection in which case no further processing is required.

If the last stage failed for some reason, it looks for a conscious decision. The conscious mind looks at the options and models their likely outcomes, then tries to disambiguate the selection using the new evaluations, which probably include such things as Morals, Goals, and other higher level processing constructs than would be found in the intention level.

It is only at this point, that I think that deliberation comes in. Failing to select an option in the previous step, the ACC triggers a fourth step, which is to try to create a new sequence that it can replace the automated solutions with. This then follows a synthesize-Model-Test loop until all the evaluation characteristics are positive, in which case the new sequence is presented and eventually learned by the cerebellum.

What we call thinking, I think... is the deliberation process as it goes through the loop synthsizing new sequences, Modeling them, and then testing them to find if they work. However introspection probably includes some of the other stages, if only because the brain tries to attribute causes to actions, and it needs causes for automated solutions.

Volition seems to me primary---but when you examine it carefully to see how it manifests in practice, then it disappears into its manifestations i.e. it does not exist apart from them.

These manifestation are hierarchically organized: willingness, purpose/intention, communication, experience, change, inquiry, action. It is important to understand what human elements belong in each of these major realms. You can read more at: http://thee-online.com where I have developed a whole taxonomy from these. It explains how they relate to each other and much more. I think there are about 5000-10000 human elements....in comments above, various elements seem to be picked on rather haphazardly.

"Thinking" belongs within "experience" (4th Realm). It is primarily about the manipulation of "ideas" (Level-4 within "experience"), but also involves other elements like "intuitions", "emotions" and "images". (I have not yet developed and posted this part of the taxonomy.)

Another way to look at thinking, is as a task sequence that includes concepts and actions.

Graeme -- Of course you can look at thinking like that. But it would seem to omit what actually goes on when we think e.g. images and concepts are worlds apart.

Graeme: In thinking more about it, images and concepts are not so far apart in the Taxonomy. Images are Level-2 in experience (PH4), while concepts are Level-2 in inquiry (PH2). So let's try again. Intuitions are Level-5 in experience. That is a long way from Level-2. OK: intuitions and concepts are worlds apart.

Make that a task sequence that includes images, concepts, feelings, and actions.

Warren,

In my way of conceiving vision, image and concepts are not far. The visual experience of seeing a human body correspond to the actualization of sequence of image structure detection events which are instantiated into an hiearchy corresponding to the most abstract aspect of a human body, the important structural formative aspect of this body. Comparison of this instatiated detection structure is an implicit concept. Thinking is the self-enactment of the same visual detection structure. We think we our senses.

Louis--I agree. Hence my follow-on item.

Graeme & Louis: What about "emotions" -- they play a role in thinking. So does "willingness" e.g. discouragement can inhibit a process, well-meaning but possibly inappropriate advice can push the process in a particular direction.

In my view thinking is a processes based on prior information and training and experience as well as common sense (what is possible what not). Sometime thinking is impulsive due to intuition. It is said that most of Einstein’s theories were intuitive which he latter developed and refined.

Warren,

" What about "emotions" -- they play a role in thinking. So does "willingness" e.g. discouragement can inhibit a process, well-meaning but possibly inappropriate advice can push the process in a particular direction."

Aspects of consciousness related to perceptions have been studied extensively but the emotional side of consciousness, the demand of the inside, have not been studied as much. Our inner self speaks to us through our emotions and what we perceived get meaning through our emotions. The intellectual process in my case is totally guided emotionally. I know emotionally if something is interesting instantly before I have any conscious understanding. I read a few words in the intro, in the conclusion and I know emotionally if something interesting is said in this book.

Thinking is a continuous process going on in our brain! I doubt whether there is even a moment when we are not thinking. According to me, it is a chain process where one event stimulates thinking which utilises prior experiences, common sense, I Q, presence of mind, analytical power, interest , one thought leads to another one and the chain continues. Thinking is a characteristic feature of human beings. It originates from the developed brain.

I was wondering if I should include emotions as well, but in at least one definition emotions are a form of action. They are actions that our brain/body takes to bias decisions so as to increase survival.

What is more important to me, than getting the list exactly right, is the idea that they, thoughts, are a task sequence. We aren't sure yet exactly what task sequences are and how they are built within the brain, but that is also why we aren't sure yet what thinking is, and how it is built within the brain.

I would answer with a question. Is existence above all possible w/o thinking? If existence were to be impossible in the absence of practice and ability to think, then thinking would mean existing. The primary level of thinking, the one of problem-solution simplified set of equations, is inherent to any living autonomous being.

What separates the human from the animal is the ability to make sense of its own life, to analyse it and try to control it. Thinking at this 2nd level signifies reflection. Reflection is already a secondary activity, it's a thought about an already existing thought. Our ability to evolve is connected to this secondary level (we revisit the old thought and analyse it critically).

Is it there any third level of thought i.e. a new unexplored possibility to evolve?

I agree learning also has two dimensions:

1) learning from life experience (direct learning)

2) learning from studies (indirect learning).

Animals learn only from experience while humans can also study and learn without a direct anchorage in own experience. However, we still see the indirect learning as inferior to direct learning when it comes to the ability to qualify for a job, because jobs involve more than knowing the matter in itself, but it's also about knowing the matter in its social context, framing it. This framing requires OWN experience.

Despite the fact that we, the intellectuals, tend to describe the indirect learning and the secondary thoughts (reflection) as superior in nature, in fact the strongest power of thought is still at the lower level: intuition, direct practical thinking, cognitive abilities involved in the simplest tasks. Making the connection between simple and complex, uncomplicated and intricate, concrete and abstract, in this ability to create new associations and frames, place the information in a context, exactly in these apparently less important tasks, lies the foundation of the human creative thinking.

In my opinion the first advantage of thinking is the very unpredictable timing of the response. The more is large the stimulus-response range the more your "entity" is a thinking being. In other words the timing of the response may be the best performace with respect to the exactness. In natural environment the reaction have to be just in time for all the species.

Re: emotions and thinking -- "Nothing is neither good nor nor bad, but thinking makes it so." Wm. Shakespeare - Hamlet. Hence, "logic" strives to eliminate the emotional, and the pursuit of science to eliminate prejudicial contamination from observation. In the spirit of this question, I would not go in to any philosophical meaning of "truth". Rather: this device of removing the emotional from the thought process -- how and why does it come about? Is the root cause one function of the task sequence, or a consequence of it? One could argue "cultural" influence, but it seems to be a universal response of the individual. I have heard somewhere that the Greeks "invented" "thinking" as a recognition of divine inspiration, implying, an evolutionary event in human brain development.

One final, further point: the divergence of Socratic and Platonic forms, according to Aristotle, marks an important point in the development of understanding the nature of thought: Socrates' forms can be discovered through the investigation of nature, while Plato's forms lie beyond the range of human understanding. Yes, "Western Philosophy"; but, again, how did this point come about at that particular point in time?

"Thinking is an internal mental process that uses information as input, integrates that information into previous learned material and the result may be knowledge or may be nothing. Problem solving, planning, information integration, and analysis are four kinds of thinking."

Jonathan,

the platonic forms are categories which are formed out of all by an individual perceived real and akin objects - the instances. The categories are accessible only for philosophers.

Wilfrid,

For a form to be perceived when viewing a natural object, the basic form perceptual capacity had to be in the visual system.  The forms out there and the forms perceived are always embodied, there do not belong to an separate world of forms.  The forms are the forms of the natural world. A science is exploring these forms in all phenomenal domains.  Science is an extension of our perceptual system, it gradually embeded into itself all the forms of nature.  Our perceptual system allows us to interact and science has the same purpose for humanity.

Thinking is a dedicated process. The input for this process is careful observation and study about a phenomena/object/activity.

You could say that thinking is the process of converting parallel functions and data, including concepts, actions, feelings, and emotions into a serialized task stream or Train of thought.

Well said, Sir.

Louis,

I think (smile) you agree with my post above. The average of all perceived instances are similar to Plato's idea of an object. This is the concept of a class of objects. Plato's philosophy make no sense if it would be different.

Wilfried,

I think (but I am not certain) that my interpretation is in line with Aristotle but not with Plato because Plato did beleive in disembodied forms, did beleive into a separate realms of forms. The idea is not totally dead today, some physicists beleive that the ground of reality is a mathematical real of forms.  Here is an example of modern platonism :

''Barbour's theory of timeless quantum cosmology offers palpable consolation for our mortality. I can feel it. I wish I could believe it. You experience yourself in a collection of moments. According to Barbour, that's all there is. Those moments always are, eternally. The past is not lost. Past, present, and future are with us, always. Your experience may figure in a finite set of moments, but those moments never go away or cease. So nothing comes to an end when you come to your last day. It's just that now you are experiencing a moment that has all the memories you will ever have. But nothing ceases, because nothing ever started. The fear of death is based on an illusion, which in turn is based on an intellectual mistake. There's no flow of time running out, because there's no flow of time. There are just, and always are, and always will be, the moments of your life.''

Another example from Einstein. In 1955 Michele Besso a man who was Einstein’s closest and friend, died. Einstein who was himself old and approaching his own death wrote a letter of of condolence to the Besso family

''He is now a little ahead of me in bidding this strange world farewell. That means nothing. For us devout physicists, the distinction between past, present and future likewise has no significance beyond that of an illusion, albeit a tenacious one. ''

Dear Haris

"What is thinking?" Well, let me tell you this much, it sure does take thinking to answer your question! 

Louis,

my analogy is not hardly serious an you are the better philosopher.

I always thought Plato is idealist and Aristotle empiricist. So the real things are closer to Aristotle (the instances) and the non real average of these instances is like the ideal thing -  disembodied and not existing  - only existing in the mind of the philosopher. Well, for Plato  the space of ideas was a real space, but we may adapt the old philosophy to modern times. 

@Wilfried Musterle,

I appreciate your reply. How does thinking in the context differs from scientific thinking?

Asmat,

a very good question, you asked. There are several differences between everyday thinking and scientific thinking.

Scientific thinking is convergent to a subject. It is very logical and follows often mathematical formulas. It follows strongly a cause-and-effect principle.

Everyday thinking is not so guided. It follows associations and is divergent. Emotions and feelings are also of influence for this kind of thinking. 

I would not distinguish scientific thinking and other kinds of thinking. IMHO I would distinguish problem solving thinking and not problem oriented thinking. In every case where a problem has to be solved thinking is in the context convergent.

Wilfried,

You compared scientific thinking vs everyday thinking but you mostly insisted on the differences and you did not differentiated the search from the expression.  Emotions are important for both in the search phase.  Cause-and-effect are intrinsic to the mathematic language. Thinking is story telling process.  In mathematic and engineering, the story is a construction.  In everyday thinking, the story is similar to everyday experience, it is theatrical.  The primeval ideas of force and power comes from our theory of mind which is equiped with agent-like actors from which we build our stories. You will notice that all the scientific stories converges or will converge into a single story of the whole universe.  Like in the ancient cosmogonies.

Louis, I agree!

Louis, I find it interesting that you brought up the idea that our "primeval ideas of force and power come from our theory of mind which is equipped with agent like actors."

That is also one of the reasons that "Will" is so problematic a concept, the assumption is that the "Will" has the power to force things to happen, when evidence all seems to point to will as being cobbled together after the fact to explain rather than a causitive force. Attribution is mistaken for cause. The attribution to an agent is taken as a cause.

The assumption that all the scientific stories will converge into one uber story of the whole universe is of course one of the guiding lights of science, but may be simply short sighted, men being as they are.

Artifacts are the outcome of the processes of "thinking" in all living species. A determination of the relationships between a species and its artifacts is a key to understanding the underlying processes. For example, the human species "learns" from its artifacts.

Graeme,

The problematic of the will depends from the theoretical perspective that is adopt on this question.  You mentioned the ''evidence all seems to point to will as being cobbled togeteher after the fact''.  If you are thinking to Libbet's experiment then these so-called evidences vanish when one clarify the relation between action and thinking.  If one wrongly assume that we act according to our thinking in an immediate relationship then Libbet's experiment contradict this assumption.  But if one assume that thinking never evolve to guide immediate action but evolves to prepare future actions .  Human can learn through thinking new pattern of action.  Can review old situation and envision possible appropriate pattern of action.  This is a very slow process that does not take place while the action is taking place.  But if one do that then when a new situation where this appropriate course of action already prepared by thinking present itself, then the individual can automatically implement it quickly.  It is like the piano playwer who practice and practice and on the night of the concert can play harmoniously without thinking but not like an automate , still being present into the action.  It is like the practice of kata in karate where the master through long period of thinking may have though out a new kata and practice it time and time again an when come the time of the fight use it effortlessly.  

I do not think that we will get one uber story but an uber strory tree where all the thread comes from an common origin.

Louis,  

I like your example (kata) but I think the Libbet experiment is hard to Interpret. It is not so simple as it looks like. 

The initial question is "what is thinking". 

It is a rule based logical operating with words (grammatical), numbers (mathematical) ore objects (physical). A metaphor for this operation is routing. The rules are defined by the streets of your city, the words (in the verbal case) are the streets you should go. 

Libet experiment

Some of you mentioned the experiment carried out by Benjamin Libet. Long ago I had the idea that it might be quite easy for musicians to decide to be “together with the next but one clock tick” because musicians are used to play together with others and not to enter before a certain point in time, while they already know what they are going to play when the “time is ripe”.

Now after learning a bit more about the way the experiment was carried out I saw that it is not a “ticking clock” but a light point moving in a circle that is watched by the test person. So I am not sure anymore that the coordinative capacities of a musician can play a decisive role in the experiment. Does anybody know whether this aspect has been discussed in relation to the Libet experiment?

Wilfried,

“I thought about my childhood.” : a self-enact narrative whose theme is my own childhood, a recollection,

“The thought of death terrifies me.” : thought here is associated with a self-enact narrative with death as a theme.

“She had no thought of seeing him again.” : Here thought is assimilated with a plan narrative

A narrative is primarily a self-enact dream-like imaginary experience. It may be accompanied with speech-like experience but it is similar to normal experience that is self-enact like in dreams but is less vivid and is parallel with the normal waked experience. These self-enact narratives could be enact to plan the future, to review the past experience and learn from it, it can be enacted to formulate a problem. Once a narrative is self-enact and emotionally validated as life important it then put in motion a sub-conscious process of action schema preparation for the world where such narrative exist. The act of enacting a narrative allows our sub-conscious to react to it and prepare for it and transform our consciousness and ultimately learn.

A quote of Richard M. Rorty illustrates the role of narrative creation:

“...the conscious need of the strong poet [defined broadly as the creator of new metaphors]...to come to terms with the blind impress which chance has given him, to make a self for himself by redescribing that impress in terms which are, if only marginally, his own.”

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought