Origin of Thought

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Origin of Thought

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:32 pm
As science has yet to provide any evidence as to the origin of thought, what are your thoughts on the subject.

Perhaps the thoughts themselves are the thinkers.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:28 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149052 wrote:

Perhaps the thoughts themselves are the thinkers.


I like this. This is close to my view. And Hegel's. This touches the thread called "self-conscious logos."

The concept of "thought" is itself a thought. And the concept of concept is of course a concept. The self-consciousness of concept. We can, if we want, view ourselves as systems of concepts. And these concept-systems include within themselves a plurality of self-concepts.

As to the origin of thought, I think is reduces to one "transcendental analytic." From unity and negation, the rest follows. Logic can be reduced to one operator. I don't want to drone on too long, as I've already spilled my thoughts on the matter all over the metaphysics section. But here's a quote on an interesting character.
Quote:

Peirce's most important work in pure mathematics was in logical and foundational areas. He also worked on linear algebra, matrices, various geometries, topology and Listing numbers, Bell numbers, graphs, the four-color problem, and the nature of continuity. He worked not only in pure areas but also on applications for economics, engineering, and map projections (the Peirce quincuncial projection of a sphere keeps angles true and results in less distortion of area than in other projections), and he was especially active in probability and statistics.[22]
Peirce made a number of striking discoveries in foundational mathematics, nearly all of which came to be appreciated only long after he died. He:
The Peirce arrow



Peirce's symbol for "(neither)...nor...", reflecting negation of "or" (its standard symbol "v" is the arrowhead).

Peirce wrote drafts for an introductory textbook, with the working title The New Elements of Mathematics, that presented mathematics from an original standpoint. Those drafts and many other of his previously unpublished mathematical manuscripts finally appeared[22] in The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce (1976), edited by mathematician Carolyn Eisele.
Peirce regarded mathematics as more basic than philosophy and the special sciences (of nature and mind), but credited this observation to Auguste Comte. Peirce classified mathematics into three subcategories, (1) logic, (2) discrete series, and (3) pseudo-continuous series (as he called them, including the real numbers) and continuous series. Influenced by his father Benjamin, Peirce stated the following propositions about mathematics and logic:

  • Mathematics is not just the science of quantity but is more broadly the science which draws necessary conclusions.
  • Mathematics studies purely hypothetical objects.
  • Mathematics aids logic, not vice versa. (Here, Peirce criticized Dedekind's logicism.)
  • Logic itself, which Peirce placed in philosophy, is the science about drawing conclusions necessary and otherwise.[25]


[/LIST]
 
north
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:33 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149052 wrote:
As science has yet to provide any evidence as to the origin of thought, what are your thoughts on the subject.

Perhaps the thoughts themselves are the thinkers.


the origin of thought

is the evolution of instinct
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:41 pm
@north,
north;149084 wrote:
the origin of thought

is the evolution of instinct


What do you mean by that?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:01 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto wrote:
Perhaps the thoughts themselves are the thinkers.


What does that mean?
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:05 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;149099 wrote:
What does that mean?


That the thoughts are the being and the body is only a tool for interacting in the physical sphere.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:07 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149100 wrote:
That the thoughts are the being and the body is only a tool for interacting in the physical sphere.


If I repeated the question, would you think me rude? I have absolutely no clue what you mean. Thoughts are the being? Do you mean thoughts exist? Well, that seems true. So do bodies.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:13 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;149101 wrote:
If I repeated the question, would you think me rude? I have absolutely no clue what you mean. Thoughts are the being? Do you mean thoughts exist? Well, that seems true. So do bodies.


It means that your concept of self is misguided if placed on the body. The self is the intellect which merely uses the body as a tool of physical interaction in the universe. The body is like a glove, it looks like a hand, it moves like a hand, but only when a hand is operating it.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:17 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;149105 wrote:
It means that your concept of self is misguided if placed on the body. The self is the intellect which merely uses the body as a tool of physical interaction in the universe. The body is like a glove, it looks like a hand, it moves like a hand, but only when a hand is operating it.


Do you mean that when I drink a glass of water, I am not actually drinking it? If I think I am drinking it, I am misguided? It seems to me accurate to say that I am holding a glass of water, if my hand is holding a glass of water, since it is my hand. So, I think I disagree.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:25 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;149107 wrote:
Do you mean that when I drink a glass of water, I am not actually drinking it? If I think I am drinking it, I am misguided?


Thats pretty much the gist of it.


Zetherin;149107 wrote:
It seems to me accurate to say that I am holding a glass of water, if my hand is holding a glass of water, since it is my hand. So, I think I disagree.


It seemed pretty accurate for a lot of people to say that the stars moved across the night sky as well.

You can agree or disagree all you like, it does not change the meaning of the saying.

If you limit yourself to your body, your body will be your limit.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:30 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto wrote:
Thats pretty much the gist of it.


That's quite strange that you don't believe I would be holding a glass of water, if I had a glass of water in my hand. I suppose you then also don't believe that you are typing to me. I wonder who you think is typing to me.

Quote:
If you limit yourself to your body, your body will be your limit.


I don't quite know what this means.

Quote:
It seemed pretty accurate for a lot of people to say that the stars moved across the night sky as well.


If you are implying that I am wrong about something, then present to me an argument, and explain why I am wrong. Until then, I will just assume you have no reason to think as you do (can you blame me?).
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:47 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;149116 wrote:
That's quite strange that you don't believe I would be holding a glass of water, if I had a glass of water in my hand. I suppose you then also don't believe that you are typing to me. I wonder who you think is typing to me.


For a demystifier, you seem pretty mystified.



Zetherin;149116 wrote:
I don't quite know what this means.


Its okay, give it time to sink in. You'll get it.



Zetherin;149116 wrote:
If you are implying that I am wrong about something, then present to me an argument, and explain why I am wrong. Until then, I will just assume you have no reason to think as you do (can you blame me?).


A little testy aren't we? Take a deep breath you'll be okay, it's really nothing to get your blood pressure up about. I have already presented to you the argument and you didn't like it. I would think as a moderator you would have a better understanding of this.

You should have some philosophical background, instead of just saying I disagree why don't you offer your learned opinion on the origin of thought.

I would be interested to hear it.
 
north
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:55 pm
@trismegisto,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
the origin of thought

is the evolution of instinct




trismegisto;149088 wrote:
What do you mean by that?


what I mean is that instinct became anticipation of instictual behaviour of other animals
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:55 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto wrote:
A little testy aren't we?


Because I said I will assume you have no reason to think as you do, since you have presented no argument, I am testy? I don't follow.

Quote:
I would think as a moderator you would have a better understanding of this.


Man, now you're even starting the condescending childishness. All I ask for is an argument, and you lash out.

Quote:
You should have some philosophical background, instead of just saying I disagree why don't you offer your learned opinion on the origin of thought.


The burden of proof is on you, not me. It is common knowledge that if I had a glass of water in my hand, I would be holding a glass of water. If you think it insulting that I find it strange that you disagree, then so be it.

PS: I really think you should go back and read that post you just quoted of mine. Oddly you have interpreted it as malicious. All I did was sincerely state that unless you present me with an argument, I have no reason to believe you have a reason to believe what you're saying. I think that is fair. Why don't you?
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:59 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;149126 wrote:
Because I said I will assume you have no reason to think as you do, since you have presented no argument, I am testy? I don't follow.



Man, now you're even starting the condescending childishness. All I ask for is an argument, and you lash out.



The burden of proof is on you, not me. It is common knowledge that if I had a glass of water in my hand, I would be holding a glass of water. If you think it insulting that I find it strange that you disagree, then so be it.

PS: I really think you should go back and read that post you just quoted of mine. Oddly you have interpreted it as malicious. All I did was sincerely state that unless you present me with an argument, I have no reason to believe you have a reason to believe what you're saying. I think that is fair. Why don't you?


So what do you hope to prove by all this? You asked me the meaning of the saying, I told you the meaning of the saying. Get over it.

There is no burden of proof, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely explaining the meaning of the saying you didnt seem to understand. Why are you so hostile? As a moderator you really should have a little more self control.

Stop being childish. It is unbecoming.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:00 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto wrote:
Why are you so hostile? As a moderator you really should have a little more self control.


I am hostile because I asked for an argument? Please quote where exactly it was I was hostile. I have been calm the entire time, as far as I'm concerned. But, if you disagree, again, please provide the quotes, and I'll try to clear them up for you.
 
north
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:06 am
@Zetherin,
Quote:
Originally Posted by trismegisto http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
What do you mean by that?

Quote:

what I mean is that instinct became anticipation of instictual behaviour of other animals


thoughts , trismegisto ?
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:07 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;149130 wrote:
I am hostile because I asked for an argument? Please quote where exactly it was I was hostile. I have been calm the entire time, as far as I'm concerned. But, if you disagree, again, please provide the quotes, and I'll try to clear them up for you.


First, just calm down.
Second, you clearly have gotten off on some tangent in your mind and are not communicating it very effectively. Why don't you go back to the very beginning and start over.

The saying goes, "The thoughts themselves are the thinkers."

Now, as i have explained, as far as I am aware this means, that the intellectual self is the being and the physical self is the tool. In other words, your thoughts are you, your body is not.

You want to argue the validity of this saying go find the guy that coined it. You got a better alternative, offer it. You still totally confused, as questions.

But if you are just trying to be an ass I don't really have any desire to play along. There are already enough asses in this forum to play with.

---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 11:12 PM ----------

north;149125 wrote:

what I mean is that instinct became anticipation of instictual behaviour of other animals



I am still not getting it, sorry.

---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 11:13 PM ----------

north;149132 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by trismegisto http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
What do you mean by that?



thoughts , trismegisto ?



I think I am missing something can you elaborate a little more for me, it's late.
 
north
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:13 am
@trismegisto,
so trismegisto

shall we get back on topic

post # 17
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:15 am
@north,
north;149136 wrote:
so trismegisto

shall we get back on topic

post # 17


Yes please, sorry, I am not sure what all that was about. Now, can you elaborate for me. I am a confused about your thoughts on instinct.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Origin of Thought
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 12:50:22