Axiom of thinking

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Axiom of thinking

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 10:58 pm
The simplified principles of thinking
Axiom of thinking

http://www.smbmarketingguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/thinking.jpgth(sth.) = i
(notes: th: thinking; sth: something, or inf. , referring to information; i: idea)



Such a process is quite similar to the function in Mathematics. However, actually they are very different. In mathematics, a function is "a quantity whose value depends on the varying values of others"[1]. A functionary must have a certain result. In a function y = sin x, if x =30˚, y must be equivalent to 1. It is because the nature of that formula itself is unique. The function y = sin x must remain its nature as a function of sine. However our thinking is different. Because of the differences of personalities, habits and environment (including the background of the person and the situation at that time) make our idea of the same object can be difficult. Even a person can have different ideas about the same object because of the variation of environment, or rarely, of the habits. While I am attracted by a beautiful and sexy girl walking on the street, a homosexual man doesn't have the same feeling. While a woman just feel jealous about her, a homosexual or even bisexual girl may even fall in love with this sexy girl. That's why human thinking is so special. Sometimes we may have the same idea with some object, for example most people think drinking more water is healthy (of course the clean one, not those found in the toilet). But the reason for the formation of this idea may be different. Even the reasons are the same, we can never ignore that somebody may have different opinion about such a common sense, though they sound like quite irrational and silly. Simply speaking, though the principle is the same (as the formula shows), supposing the sth. is the same, although there are some differences in our thinking and the ideas may be different from each other, the whole process itself must be the same.

[CENTER]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_337GUHQH0FY/R9iZlGtoS5I/AAAAAAAAA5I/oT-v1Jn4se8/s400/critical+thinking+skills.jpg
Critical thinking is a good example in explaing the axiom of thinking I. Though the elements are the same (e.g. You analyse something by critical thinking, no matter how you analyse it you are "analysing" something; that's the common point), because of the differences of environments, and your own standing point or view, sometimes also the limitation of complete information, making the analysis toward the same object become different, even though within the same person's thinking.[/CENTER]

To conclude, there are three main principles: the law of the existence of thinking, the axiom of thinking I plus the axiom of functionary: firstly, the law of the existence of thinking, proved by the inductive reasoning, claims all the things we do must be related to our thinking. In other words thinking exists in everywhere of our daily life, even when you are in the toilet. Secondly, the axiom of thinking I suggests a clear common process of all human thinking: every thinking must be suitable for the formula of th(sth) = i . Thirdly, the axiom of functionary, actually is an axiom of the MSS, claiming that all the communication between the world of substance and the world of spirit can only exist when thinking occurs. From these three basic principles of thinking, we can infer that:

Firstly, the necessary existence of thinking. Thinking exists in our daily life in anytime and anywhere. Without thinking we can do nothing. It is not difficult to prove it as we can experience it, although we cannot exactly prove it by ratiocination. However, such a conclusion is only valid among human. So is it the same for the animal? This is quite a difficult question, which will be discussed in the end of the whole essay after you have learnt the TFS completely. Using TFS we can try to check whether the proposition that "all animals cannot think" is true or not.

Secondly, the significance of thinking. Thinking is important as it is the unique method for us to know. Without thinking, though you can "see" from your eyes, you cannot really "see" it as your brain cannot deal with the information of the picture. Only when you can "understand" the image you can "see" it.

Thirdly, the existence of a common form of thinking process. There is a fixed and common form of the process of thinking, based upon the original functionary of thinking must be unique. However, a question is left then. This axiom should be valid among all human's thinking. However, though the process is the same, does it mean a common system of thinking exists too? In the following essays it will be the main thesis for discussion.


Patriarch
5th October, 2009


[1] A S Hornby. Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary. "function". 6th Edition. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press (China) Ltd., 2000
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 01:08 pm
@patriarch,
patriarch;95370 wrote:
People have to keep on thinking on her or his daily life, even in every minute. Thinking does not necessary lead to a person to take action but all action taken by a person must base upon the thinking. No matter you eat, walk, talk, day dreaming, even sleep sometimes, you keep on thinking. Even doing something very mechanical, for example walking, bathing or washing clothes, at least you need to use your experience in doing it "automatically". Therefore this is an axiom.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word thinking. If you have to rely on experience for walking, talking, and sleeping, how did you start doing them in the first place?

Or are you ruling out that you were once an organism that didn't think?
 
Emil
 
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 01:53 pm
@patriarch,
Crank (person) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
patriarch
 
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 07:44 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;96542 wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by the word thinking. If you have to rely on experience for walking, talking, and sleeping, how did you start doing them in the first place?

Or are you ruling out that you were once an organism that didn't think?

If you do this thing at the first time, you still need to think about them. When you walks first time, you need to observe how the other walks. Then you need to try. Your expereince is accumulated after several try. After a certain period of the accumulation of experience, you can walk "automatically".

---------- Post added 10-11-2009 at 09:45 PM ----------


WHO IS CRANK?? You'd better explain clearly.........
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 08:42 am
@patriarch,
It is difficult to follow the argument when "thinking" is used for so many different processes including those most of us would not want to call thinking at all. In some examples, it seems that thinking is used to mean "experiencing," in others "having a feeling" and in others ratiocination, and in still others as "something crossing my mind at the time" that creates an "idea."
But then I may be misreading it entirely.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 08:55 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;96729 wrote:
It is difficult to follow the argument when "thinking" is used for so many different processes including those most of us would not want to call thinking at all. In some examples, it seems that thinking is used to mean "experiencing," in others "having a feeling" and in others ratiocination, and in still others as "something crossing my mind at the time" that creates an "idea."
But then I may be misreading it entirely.


In the 17th century, the the verb, "to think" was used in a much wider sense than it is now used. Now, it is used pretty strictly to mean cogitation. But then it was used more generally to mean any form of consciousness. Descartes used "penser" in just that wider way. So when he famously wrote, "I think, therefore I am". he was read as saying, "I am conscious, therefore I am". Probably, knowingly or not, some posters are reverting to this wider use of "thought".
 
patriarch
 
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 11:08 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;96730 wrote:
In the 17th century, the the verb, "to think" was used in a much wider sense than it is now used. Now, it is used pretty strictly to mean cogitation. But then it was used more generally to mean any form of consciousness. Descartes used "penser" in just that wider way. So when he famously wrote, "I think, therefore I am". he was read as saying, "I am conscious, therefore I am". Probably, knowingly or not, some posters are reverting to this wider use of "thought".

According to the definition of OALD, the meaning of "to think" or "thinking" in this thesis should be like this:
"to use your mind to consider sth, to form connected ideas, to try to solve problems, etc."
Although in OALD about ten differenent explanation of the word "to tink", I "think" this definition is the most fundamental and significant, just because of the phrase "use your mind". Every other definition must be based upon this; to image you must use your mind, to have ideas you must use your mind, to intend sth you must use your mind......"using sb's mind" is the most significant key concept of thinking.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Axiom of thinking
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 07:21:16