Is thinking overrated?

I would imagine that for those who are intense mathematicians the feeling is quite the same. The same for anyone of passion.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

The overcreation of philosophical "problems".

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.

Then what determines or identifies dissociation as you currently understand it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

This thread is convinced that when one is feeling during an activity, one isn't thinking?

This is a definitional problem.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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