1
   

Is thinking overrated?

 
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 12:37 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;95558 wrote:
I would imagine that for those who are intense mathematicians the feeling is quite the same. The same for anyone of passion.


I'm wondering if there's a different "feeling" associated with expressions of artistic ability. Expressions that would not be involved when solving a math problem. There's obviously a difference between the two activities (drumming and solving a math problem), but I'm not sure if the difference correlates to a different kind of dissociation. You don't think it does, right? Passion is passion. I don't know if I can accept that quite yet.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:10 pm
@richrf,
Early music education and musical ability are quite famously correlated with math performace.

I think that mathematicians see patterns, see elegance, see relationships in math that are analagous to abstract art (probably true for all science). But insofar as math is abstract, especially discrete math, I think there is a very plausible cognitive relationship between it and music.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:21 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;95582 wrote:
Early music education and musical ability are quite famously correlated with math performace.

I think that mathematicians see patterns, see elegance, see relationships in math that are analagous to abstract art (probably true for all science). But insofar as math is abstract, especially discrete math, I think there is a very plausible cognitive relationship between it and music.


If there's a very plausible cognitive relationship, then it would make sense that the same type of dissociation would occur whilst partaking in acitivies dealing with either topic.

For some reason, and I may be biased, it appears the dissociation that one feels when playing music is different than the dissociation someone may feel who's proficient in math (at least, in my head, it seems like it would be). How would I know, though? I wouldn't, because I never felt a dissociation with math (besides boredom), but I have with music. I guess there's much more correlation than I can understand at this point in time.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:25 pm
@richrf,
I've dabbled in a lot of arts, though not particularly well at any except photography, but for what it's worth I've experienced that dissociation when painting, drawing, playing guitar, playing piano, and yes even setting up an 8x10 large format view camera and taking pictures. I've also done it in the lab, at least when doing somewhat repetitive tasks.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:26 pm
@richrf,
Have we decided whether thinking is overrated? Or underrated? I think it is the latter. And, when it comes to philosophy, it cannot be overrated.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:29 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;95589 wrote:
I've dabbled in a lot of arts, though not particularly well at any except photography, but for what it's worth I've experienced that dissociation when painting, drawing, playing guitar, playing piano, and yes even setting up an 8x10 large format view camera and taking pictures. I've also done it in the lab, at least when doing somewhat repetitive tasks.


My implication was that different types of dissociation may make different parts of the brain more or less active. One would be dissociated in either activity, but differently dissociated.

I don't know what I'm talking about, really, it was just a thought I was wondering about.

kennethamy wrote:

Have we decided whether thinking is overrated? Or underrated? I think it is the latter. And, when it comes to philosophy, it cannot be overrated.


Can not one overthink in philosophy? If one overthinks (assuming it's possible to overthink), would it be fair to say thinking is overrated then, in that particular case?
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:31 pm
@richrf,
I don't know what I'm talking about either.

But I don't know how you can distinguish different types of dissociation except by virtue of the activities being undertaken at the time.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:37 pm
@richrf,
Aedes wrote:

But I don't know how you can distinguish different types of dissociation except by virtue of the activities being undertaken at the time.


The activities being undertaken at the time would determine which parts of the brain were being heavily utilized. The parts being heavily utilized would be less dissociated (I believe this is where I make my error; parts cannot be dissociated, right? What do the different types of dissociations entail then?) than those parts which were not. The parts of the brain being less utilized would determine the type of dissociation.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:37 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;95592 wrote:



Can not one overthink in philosophy? If one overthinks (assuming it's possible to overthink), would it be fair to say thinking is overrated then, in that particular case?


What would overthinking in philosophy be? Using logic too much? I don't think so.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:38 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;95595 wrote:
What would overthinking in philosophy be?


The overcreation of philosophical "problems".
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:40 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;95594 wrote:
The activities being undertaken at the time would determine which parts of the brain were being heavily utilized. The parts being heavily utilized would be less dissociated (I believe this is where I make my error; parts cannot be dissociated, right? What do the different types of dissociations entail then?) than those parts which were not. The parts of the brain being less utilized would determine the type of dissociation.
I'm the wrong person to ask, but I don't know if there are easily identifiable and measurable neurologic correlates of dissociation, especially that could be teased apart from the background of the distinct cognitive activities happening at the time.

KaseiJin might know.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:44 pm
@richrf,
Aedes wrote:

I don't know if there are easily identifiable and measurable neurologic correlates of dissociation


Then what determines or identifies dissociation as you currently understand it?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:45 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;95596 wrote:
The overcreation of philosophical "problems".


Like? But, if so, that would be the misuse of thinking. Not the overuse.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 02:03 pm
@richrf,
kennethamy wrote:

Like? But, if so, that would be the misuse of thinking. Not the overuse.


I think the phrase, "You're overthinking that!", insinuates misuse, not simply an over- qualification.

Here's an example of overthinking, not in a philosophical context:

'A group of 4 students, all studying at MIT, top of their class, enter a diner to get something to eat. Upon receiving their food, one student notices that the caps on the salt and pepper shakers had been switched - the salt cap on the pepper bottle, the pepper cap on the salt bottle. The group decides that they will solve this problem and so developed an elaborate plan to sift the contents of each bottle into the appropriate container, while retaining every last grain of the salt and pepper. After almost 15 minutes of plan development and preparation in order to make sure they had a grain transfer process down pat, the waitress comes back to the table bewildered at the sight of salt and pepper dispersed. She asks, "What on God's earth are you all doing?!". One of the MIT students respond, "Oh, we had realized that you had placed the salt and pepper in the wrong shakers, and so developed this plan to sift all the contents into the appropriate shaker."

The waitress responds, "Why didn't you just switch the caps?".'

I suppose you could say this would be an example of misusing thought. But, then, I could say that they overthought the process, instead of focusing on the simplest solution.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 02:11 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;95604 wrote:
I think the phrase, "You're overthinking that!", insinuates misuse, not simply an over- qualification.

Here's an example of overthinking, not in a philosophical context:

'A group of 4 students, all studying at MIT, top of their class, enter a diner to get something to eat. Upon receiving their food, one student notices that the caps on the salt and pepper shakers had been switched - the salt cap on the pepper bottle, the pepper cap on the salt bottle. The group decides that they will solve this problem and so developed an elaborate plan to sift the contents of each bottle into the appropriate container, while retaining every last grain of the salt and pepper. After almost 15 minutes of plan development and preparation in order to make sure they had a grain transfer process down pat, the waitress comes back to the table bewildered at the sight of salt and pepper dispersed. She asks, "What on God's earth are you all doing?!". One of the MIT students respond, "Oh, we had realized that you had placed the salt and pepper in the wrong shakers, and so developed this plan to sift all the contents into the appropriate shaker."

The waitress responds, "Why didn't you just switch the caps?".'

I suppose you could say this would be an example of misusing thought. But, then, I could say that they overthought the process, instead of focusing on the simplest solution.


I would not call that over thinking. or misuse I would call it stupid, especially since they already knew that the caps had been switched, and they did not even have to think of anything novel. And they were not from MIT. Probably from the place across the river, and just had a social science class.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 02:22 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;95600 wrote:
Then what determines or identifies dissociation as you currently understand it?
Clinical features.

Think about something more common that we see -- think of dementia, which is chronic memory loss and cognitive impairment in someone whose consciousness is not impaired. We make the diagnosis based on its features. Or think of depression, which we also identify based on its features (combinations of sadness, changes in interests, appetite, sleep, feelings of guilt, loss of energy, etc).

There may indeed be objective neurological correlates, but they are not in routine use.

Same is true for dissociation, which you ascertain by talking to someone and matching their experience to a pattern.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 02:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;95610 wrote:
I would not call that over thinking. or misuse I would call it stupid, especially since they already knew that the caps had been switched, and they did not even have to think of anything novel. And they were not from MIT. Probably from the place across the river, and just had a social science class.


I don't know how I would go about proving to you overthinking exists. You can easily counter with a simple, "No, this isn't overthinking", because really, it's an arbitrary description, "He's overthinking". And, even if there were boundaries associated: for instance, someone answering more than the problem they were asked to answer, you could simply say this is a misuse of thinking, not a problem with the amount thinking. That is, any excess thinking on a particular matter could be regarded as a misuse of thinking.

Regardless, I agree that thinking is, for the most part, underrated.
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 02:40 pm
@Adam101,
Adam101;95455 wrote:
All of our actions are based off of thoughts and feelings. I doubt one could ever completely suppress either, though it's fun to practice in meditation.


I agree. The two seem to be linked, though I can say that under certain circumstances I certainly do less of one compared to another. My best tennis, no doubt, is when I am just dropping thought and feeling the racquet, the ball, and imagining the flight/trajectory of the ball.

My guess is that poker is full of all kinds of approaches. The best, I have found, are those who don't care if they go broke. Wild abandon. But they do all go broke at one time or another.

Rich

---------- Post added 10-06-2009 at 03:43 PM ----------

Didymos Thomas;95456 wrote:
Mostly, muscle memory. Instead of thinking about which pattern to play, the patterns are natural due to muscle memory so I am able to reproduce them without much thought - they just come because they fit the music. Muscle memory is the key.


I am not sure what this thing called "muscle memory" is all about. Not that I do not believe there is such a thing, but memory supposedly is in the brain - something that I would debate.

In any case, mechanistic viewpoints about how memory develops cannot explain the ease that a young child prodigy, who has little training, can play an instrument or sing - or perform any of the arts or sports activities.

So, I would agree it is memory. But it seems like we are talking about a completely different memory than one we normally refer to.

Rich

---------- Post added 10-06-2009 at 03:45 PM ----------

Aedes;95468 wrote:
My son does a LOT of thinking when he walks around, because he just learned how to do it. He watches his feet, he's cautious, he thinks about new things to try. You're not going to get innately good at any skill without concentrating on it first.


There are definitely many, many exceptions to this thought. I can think of so many when I think of young child prodigies - or even older people who suddenly discover a talent. Many artists I know fit this description.

Rich

---------- Post added 10-06-2009 at 03:48 PM ----------

Zetherin;95472 wrote:
This thread is convinced that when one is feeling during an activity, one isn't thinking?


Qualitatively, there are totally different things going on within oneself when they are performing an activity using feeling (e.g. dancing) and thinking. It is not only observable by the person performing the activity, but is easily observable by someone who is watching. I remember watching the Olympics and the robot trained athletes appear to perform so differently from those who are doing it with feeling. There are definitely differences. Anyone who plays a musical instrument knows what I am talking about.

Rich

---------- Post added 10-06-2009 at 03:51 PM ----------

Didymos Thomas;95474 wrote:
This is a definitional problem.


Not sure whether it is a definitional problem. I believe that there are clearly very different things going on within the being. You used the term "muscle memory". I think this is a good place to begin to better describe the qualitative differences. The feelings are different - but one first has to experience it to understand it. It is being in the zone.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 04:33 pm
@richrf,
richrf;95377 wrote:
There really seems to be an overabundance of focus placed on the ability to think. Leaving the definition of thinking aside for the moment (I think most people will know what I am talking about), I have found that when I am not thinking I am at my best.


Oh blimey ...

richrf;95377 wrote:
Examples: hitting a golf ball, playing tennis, practicing Tai Chi, playing pool, shooting baskets. dancing (definitely dancing), singing, playing the piano, drawing, relating to people, finding a healthy lifestyle, playing the stock market, etc. For all these activities, I am using feeling. It is sometimes called being in the zone. It is when I let go of the willfulness to do something, and let my natural body memory take over.


Can you give us operational definitions of "feeling," "being in the zone," and "natural body memory"?

Odds are at least one of us can give you neural correlates

richrf;95377 wrote:
Anyway, I think that people are missing a lot if they spend their life relying on thinking. Feeling is another way to go. If you haven't been there yet, look for it!


Your posts make me want to get a crew cut, shave my beard, seek employment in the military-industrial complex and eat nothing but pills

Rich, just be glad that there are "thinking people" who figured out how to put together all the intricate technological infrastructure that allows you to propagate your anti-intellectualism to a potential audience of thousands of people all over the world

http://www.phoenixdev.co.uk/MUI/osi-model-7-layers.png

^^^ was not hashed out by wishful, magical thinking

richrf;95623 wrote:
I agree. The two seem to be linked, though I can say that under certain circumstances I certainly do less of one compared to another. My best tennis, no doubt, is when I am just dropping thought and feeling the racquet, the ball, and imagining the flight/trajectory of the ball.


Great now try to do this without the motor cortex

(I've got an ice pick if you want to borrow it, vodka too)

richrf;95623 wrote:
My guess is that poker is full of all kinds of approaches. The best, I have found, are those who don't care if they go broke. Wild abandon. But they do all go broke at one time or another


Well of course ... and the reason they go broke is often because they've got a common cognitive bias where they think the Universe specially favors them ... a form of "not thinking"

richrf;95623 wrote:
I am not sure what this thing called "muscle memory" is all about. Not that I do not believe there is such a thing, but memory supposedly is in the brain - something that I would debate.


Why

richrf;95623 wrote:
In any case, mechanistic viewpoints about how memory develops cannot explain the ease that a young child prodigy, who has little training, can play an instrument or sing - or perform any of the arts or sports activities


Prodigies (like Einstein) and savants (like Kim Peek) tend to have pretty substantial neurological differences from a normal brain

richrf;95623 wrote:
Qualitatively, there are totally different things going on within oneself when they are performing an activity using feeling (e.g. dancing) and thinking. It is not only observable by the person performing the activity, but is easily observable by someone who is watching. I remember watching the Olympics and the robot trained athletes appear to perform so differently from those who are doing it with feeling. There are definitely differences. Anyone who plays a musical instrument knows what I am talking about.


I don't know why you expect us to swallow your personal anecdotes at face value and then you turn around and reject actual evidence

Again I ask

"Where's the beef?"

What can magicalist views be applied for?

Can you use "the fairy godmother did it" to contrive anything like this?

Free-flying cyborg insects steered from a distance - video 42939806001 - tech - 01 October 2009 - New Scientist

or this?

YouTube - B2B - BrainToBrain: A BCI Experiment - May 2009
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 04:57 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;95641 wrote:
Your posts make me want to get a crew cut, shave my beard, seek employment in the military-industrial complex and eat nothing but pills


Thank you for your thoughts.

Rich
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 06:56:56