[plase use the BACK key to return to your previous pagethinking
(iconosphere entry)

On this page:  {The Basic Neurology of Thinking>}
               {Self Consciousness}
               {Absurdist view of thinking}

  

The Basic Neurology of Thinking
According to Rita Carter in her quite approachable book,
"Mapping the Mind", she points out the following:

    Consider thinking. Thinking is not just a generic
    term for for the collection of all skills housed
    in the brain. It involves many of them: 
    Recollection and Imagining. But it includes something
    that is not part of any other function: Self-awareness.  {See next section}
    ...
    Thought processing is in one way like the later stages
    of sensory processing: Just as the various parts of an
    image -- location, colour, shape, size, and so on -- are
    brougth together and integrated into a whole, so we bring
    together various memories and imaginings and put them 
    together into a new concept. The big difference is that
    whereas sensory construction is unconscious, thought
    processing is done consciousl. As the frontal cortex
    [of the brain] carries out its task, it monitors what
    it wis doing. So, while an image simply "arrives" in 
    the consciousness, a concept carries with itthe 
    knowledge of how it came to be.  [Carter, OpCit. Pp. 191-192]

But again, one must beg the question as to the nature of the 
thinking. If we are not actively focused, then the mind is 
merely aware of the process of thought but taking no action
other than to observed in a mostly sensory manner. But, when 
we actively focus on the flow of thoughts (be they retrieved
memories or new ideas), then we actively thinking. 

Further, it should be clear that there are (at least) two different 
ways of thinking: Trying to accept the ideas and note and record
them (organising) vs. Trying to purposefully create NEW ideas.
The second of these processes involve brainstorming and almost
always a goal-directed evaluation of the thoughts.


 

Self Consciousness

The point raised above by Rita Carter that thinking "must"
(to some degree) involve self awareness gives us problem
when we think about machines and whether they can think
or not. Indeed is it possible to construct a thinking
machine? 

This problem is at the core of AI (Artificial Intellegence).
In the sf film by Stanley Kurbrick ??sp?? and Arthur C.
Clarke the question arises as to whether or not HAL
(the on-board computer) can actually think and more so
can he (it?) have emotion. Indeed the point is made that
what-ever it is that HAL does it may be no more than a
simulation of thought. 

As we know the process of learning involves taking in new
ideas from an outside source and integrating them into the
already existant body of knowledge that the thinking object
has. This process is certainly part of thinking, since "in
order to think, you have to have something to think about",
as the Chemist John Squib put it. 

Thus, we see thinking as a system which acts upon a body of
facts and produces some new or at least re-organised fact.
Early on in the debate about the possibility of AI machines
being able to think, the game of Chess was thought to be
the dividing mark; ie, that no computer could ever play 
chess as well as a (human) chess master. Of coure, now with
computers such as "Deep Blue" (by IBM) that are at least as
good as any human player -- that "test" has to be discarded.

As the evolutionist/author Charles Darwin pointed out:

    That thought is an excretion of the brain,
    is different than the excretion of movement
    by a muscle is a result of our arrogance, our
    self appreciation. 

Again, turning to the "Turing Test" where a person or an AI is
on one terminal and it is the task of the other participant to
determine if they are talking to a person or a machine. This too
is thought to be the way that we can decide if a machine can
think -- at least enough in the way to fool the human into 
believing that it IS a person. 

Given the rate at which computer power is increasing (according
to Moore's law that capacities increase geometrically), there
will come a day when AI's ARE capable of thought. That the 
nature of this thought (and its associated thinking processes)
may or may not be the same at all as the process of thought in
the Human mind is irrelevant.
              
Also, if we dis-regard the method of the "thinking" process, then
we might well see that a machine can probably think. But that it
must be self-aware (as Carter states; see above) is not necessarily
true. To what extent that we are self aware depends on many
internal and external (environmental, etc) factors. Reacting in
a phobic, ecstatic or other emotional way gives rise to an almost
spontaneous for of thinking that might well be thought of as more
akin to perceptual processing than to cognition (thinking) processing. 

An assoicated problem with whether machines can think is the so-called
"Chinese Room Problem".

   

A possible absurdist view of thinking

Thinking: A process involving one thing following (or not) another thing
          (usually); a series of logical (or not) things (call them thoughts
or "draws of the hand" or "rolls of the dice" or "flips of the 3 coins (twice)",
etc) that are interpreted to have somethng called "meaning".

The philosopher/author Jean Paul Sartre in his magnum opus (great work),
"Being and Nothingness" pointed out that when we try to think about
thinking -- we are not actually thinking. That is, if we try "track down"
what is this "thinking" thing, we are actually listing or studying an
excerpt from our thoughts. This of course if fraught with the falacies
inherrent in the self-referential paradox. 

Thinking is a causal process (almost always) by which certain a-causal thoughts
are derived. 

For example, let us say that there exists something called "chalk". 
It is a mineral, common amoung certain small, near-star planets. It can
take many forms, but most simply it is given by the equation 

    "Calcium carbonate"    Ca (CO3)

It is almost non-existently soluble in water (that is to say that it
is mostly in-soluble in H2O) and has various usefull 
properties in both science and industry.

But some time ago, a certain small child, on a certain slightly 
blue-green, planet discovered that chalk could be used to write
with. What the subject of this proto-proto-proto-renaissance 
essay was is lost to time. However, those that study such matters
decided that it was a picture of a (er, ah.., how to say this),
a picture of 

OUT WITH IT!!! JUST SAY IT!!! SAY IT SOLDIER!! SAY IT.

of a duck.

Regardless, this "leap of faith" (see Iconosphere (Spiritualist)) was sufficient
to create something called "art" (what-ever THAT is?).

Thus, the process of "reasoning" (closely related to "thinking",
by a second marrage on their cousins' sides) was borne as well.

Now, while many regard thinking as a "kind of disease" (MIB ref),
since it has led almost in-evitably to such things as war, hate,
predjucide, and genocide (see entries on: Holocaust, Rawanda,
Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Darfur, Albania, , ..., ..., , ..., ..., ..., ...,, ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., , ..., ...., ..., ... (etc)

It has been suggested by many children (who seem to be the clearest
thinkers in any civiilisation (despite the fact that many neurologists
would point out (quite loudly): You're going to entrust our fate to 
THEM [the children]??? Why, their amagdalias aren't even connected 
completely to their hypocampuses!!!!

And then at the other end of the age-thing spectrum, those doddering
old fools (locally known as grand-parents) reply (quite quietly), yes.

So, goes the debate as to what exactly thinking is.

THose that are wise before their years say things like:

"Thinking is like when you want to do something, but you have
 to wait. Then you can only think about it."

"Thinking?  I don't know. .... You just do it (hands in air gesture)".

"Thinking is like when you try to do something. But, then you can't
 and you think you can. And you still can't. But, then later you
 figure out how to do it. But then, it's too late, 'cause you have
 to go to bed then. But. ... sometimes you remember the next day.
 If you don't then you forgot and that's not thinking. ... Thimking
 is well, THAT'S WHAT IT IS (oops sorry) thinking is NOT forgetting".

ANd with this your current narrator concludes with this:

    Thinking is what you think it is.
    (And don't let anyone tell you different).
     (different-ly -- adverb, Dr. T, ad-verb)

(night all)



[plase use the BACK key to return to your previous pageNon-thinking

Don't even think about it. (down that road lies madness; and of course a "certain small duck").

--42--