Okay so here is an attempted continuation from the previous entry. Attempted because I don't have much else to say.
This theory is based on experience. I cannot sense my own thinking process. Therefore I propose that thinking is subconscious. However, if you can sense your own thinking, then I can only say that my theory doesn't work for you. The only people I can try to convince are the people who, like me, cannot sense their own thinking process. I can only use examples here, because "thinking", "feeling", "subconscious", "conscious" and "I" are abstract concepts that I don't understand myself either. Any argument that attempts to bring reason into the picture would need to define these terms. I would dread doing so. Hence, my "argument" shall comprise of mainly examples and not much reasoning.
If you look at a phrase written in English, do you see the individual letters one by one, or do you see a word, or do you see the phrase? In my case, I normally see the phrase. In occasional lapses of broken concentration I see the letters as pictures. At that very instant I can't comprehend the phrase at all! I see the paragraph as a picture with many details. Yet when I sort of recover, there seems to be something about the letters that make them different from pictures, which I would take for granted again. When I read, I can somehow make sense of the words, even though the meanings of each individual words do not pop up in my head. I may even read a phrase, remember the idea, but forget how to phrase it the next time I recall the idea (it happens quite commonly in chemistry and economics). It seems that much of the comprehension in reading takes place subconsciously. I do not need to tell myself what each word means to understand a phrase. If a phrase is poorly phrased I'll just spend more time looking at it, and somehow I just get it. I do hear whispers in my head now and then, but they are not constructive to the understanding of the phrase.
In my case, it seems that when I understand something, I just "get it". I can't really control what I think. There are times when I hear something and I tell myself "don't think dirty, don't laugh" but really, I can't help it.
If thinking is like feeling, then perhaps we can extend some empiricist arguments to include thinking as one of the senses. Never mind that empiricist arguments are not foolproof, let's just see if it makes sense first.
1. Basic ideas: Complex ideas are made up of basic ideas. I cannot conceive of a complex idea based on a basic idea I had never experienced.
2. Certainty of sensation: At that very instant I am sure I felt that way.
3. Incorrugibility of sensation: What I feel is always correct.
4. Tabula rasa: No sensations at birth.
5. All ideas are linked to sensations: If you can't trace an idea back to a sensation then you are just confused about the idea.
Now if I am to include the "Eureka" from thinking process as a sensation, I would need to provide examples.
1. If I cannot comprehend logic, I cannot analyse arguments for validity.
2. At the very instant I saw my teacher with a stack of paper, I was sure I thought we were going to have a quiz.
3. I think Alwyn is gay; therefore Alwyn is gay.
4. (what is there to say?)
5. Mathematical ideas can be linked to thinking processes. The idea of complex numbers is linked to the thought processes associated with negatives and square roots. The concept of derivative is linked to the thought processes associated with gradient.
Note that point three doesn't make much sense with "thinking" in it. This is not because "thinking" doesn't fit in well with that empiricist argument. It is because point 3 already doesn't make much sense without "thinking" in it.
Hmm "thinking = feeling" makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you? If it does, I might be able to draw analogies from feeling to thinking.
- Thinking cannot be controlled.
- It is impossible to know how someone else thinks.
- Thinking can be shaped by experience.
- No one can doubt how you think.
- Thinking is a fallible process.
- Thinking cannot result in undubitable synthetic truths about the noumenal.
Ok... this is weird. The last point seems to contradict what we have been learning so far!
Before I proceed, I hope someone can tell me if I'm on the right track, and guide me along.
This theory is based on experience. I cannot sense my own thinking process. Therefore I propose that thinking is subconscious. However, if you can sense your own thinking, then I can only say that my theory doesn't work for you. The only people I can try to convince are the people who, like me, cannot sense their own thinking process. I can only use examples here, because "thinking", "feeling", "subconscious", "conscious" and "I" are abstract concepts that I don't understand myself either. Any argument that attempts to bring reason into the picture would need to define these terms. I would dread doing so. Hence, my "argument" shall comprise of mainly examples and not much reasoning.
If you look at a phrase written in English, do you see the individual letters one by one, or do you see a word, or do you see the phrase? In my case, I normally see the phrase. In occasional lapses of broken concentration I see the letters as pictures. At that very instant I can't comprehend the phrase at all! I see the paragraph as a picture with many details. Yet when I sort of recover, there seems to be something about the letters that make them different from pictures, which I would take for granted again. When I read, I can somehow make sense of the words, even though the meanings of each individual words do not pop up in my head. I may even read a phrase, remember the idea, but forget how to phrase it the next time I recall the idea (it happens quite commonly in chemistry and economics). It seems that much of the comprehension in reading takes place subconsciously. I do not need to tell myself what each word means to understand a phrase. If a phrase is poorly phrased I'll just spend more time looking at it, and somehow I just get it. I do hear whispers in my head now and then, but they are not constructive to the understanding of the phrase.
In my case, it seems that when I understand something, I just "get it". I can't really control what I think. There are times when I hear something and I tell myself "don't think dirty, don't laugh" but really, I can't help it.
If thinking is like feeling, then perhaps we can extend some empiricist arguments to include thinking as one of the senses. Never mind that empiricist arguments are not foolproof, let's just see if it makes sense first.
1. Basic ideas: Complex ideas are made up of basic ideas. I cannot conceive of a complex idea based on a basic idea I had never experienced.
2. Certainty of sensation: At that very instant I am sure I felt that way.
3. Incorrugibility of sensation: What I feel is always correct.
4. Tabula rasa: No sensations at birth.
5. All ideas are linked to sensations: If you can't trace an idea back to a sensation then you are just confused about the idea.
Now if I am to include the "Eureka" from thinking process as a sensation, I would need to provide examples.
1. If I cannot comprehend logic, I cannot analyse arguments for validity.
2. At the very instant I saw my teacher with a stack of paper, I was sure I thought we were going to have a quiz.
3. I think Alwyn is gay; therefore Alwyn is gay.
4. (what is there to say?)
5. Mathematical ideas can be linked to thinking processes. The idea of complex numbers is linked to the thought processes associated with negatives and square roots. The concept of derivative is linked to the thought processes associated with gradient.
Note that point three doesn't make much sense with "thinking" in it. This is not because "thinking" doesn't fit in well with that empiricist argument. It is because point 3 already doesn't make much sense without "thinking" in it.
Hmm "thinking = feeling" makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you? If it does, I might be able to draw analogies from feeling to thinking.
- Thinking cannot be controlled.
- It is impossible to know how someone else thinks.
- Thinking can be shaped by experience.
- No one can doubt how you think.
- Thinking is a fallible process.
- Thinking cannot result in undubitable synthetic truths about the noumenal.
Ok... this is weird. The last point seems to contradict what we have been learning so far!
Before I proceed, I hope someone can tell me if I'm on the right track, and guide me along.
Logging you in...