What is thinking?

[Fontwell]

Two add my 2 cents worth: The normal use of the word thinking is all about being aware. For instance, my blinking is normally done automatically - I don't think about it. If there is a bright flash, I will automatically blink. But if I want to I can blink at will and I will be aware of my blinking. BTW, I am not saying that blinking is thinking, it is just to point out that brain functions can be done in a fashion where we are aware of them, or in a way where we are not aware of them. Others, we can never be aware of.

After (years of) thinking about this it seems to me that a big criterion for the definition of thinking is the ''being aware" part. By using this criterion I can try out some different scenarios and see if they tally with my use of the word think.

I was thinking of General Relativity when I drove into the car in front. Thinking/aware of GR. PASS
Not fully thinking of driving- reverting to automatic brain control. PASS

I don't think about regulating my heart beat. PASS

I forgot your Birthday. I just didn't think about it.
The information was known to me but was not in the part of mind/brain that is aware (minefield alert!!). PASS

Computers don't think (yet).
In my opinion (unverifiable) they can process information but have no more awareness than a rock. PASS

etc

Where this gets me is this: This the question of thinking resolves to the question of awareness i.e. what is it and how can it be properly defined. (Although we all seem to have a general idea of what is meant by self awareness/consciousness.) This, as has already been mentioned is a biggy. Probably we are not going to sort that one out here but hey, lets try any way. The Philosophers/Psychologists refer to this as the The Hard Problem Of Consciousness (I think), to distinguish it from the soft/easy problems which are general brain functions.

You have also got the topic of freewill running here but I will refrain from comment on that at the moment, other than to say that, in principal I can imagine thinking happening (using my definition of awareness of brain function) without freewill, even if it normally doesn't. I think it is more profitable to ignore the freewill part and sort out thinking first - mainly because a lot of freewill discussion reverts to ideas about thinking.

 

[JAK]

Someone who pretends to be a stripclub bouncer?
...

My goodness, Hammegk! How would a curmudgeon like you know about stripclub bouncers??!!

 

[JAK]

...
After (years of) thinking about this it seems to me that a big criterion for the definition of thinking is the ''being aware" part. By using this criterion I can try out some different scenarios and see if they tally with my use of the word think.
...
Where this gets me is this: This the question of thinking resolves to the question of awareness i.e. what is it and how can it be properly defined. (Although we all seem to have a general idea of what is meant by self awareness/consciousness.) This, as has already been mentioned is a biggy. Probably we are not going to sort that one out here but hey, lets try any way. The Philosophers/Psychologists refer to this as the The Hard Problem Of Consciousness (I think), to distinguish it from the soft/easy problems which are general brain functions.
...

Gee, this sounds a lot like the "unconscious" thread going on next door. (I think they're hunting "quail.")

 

[hammegk]

My goodness, Hammegk! How would a curmudgeon like you know about stripclub bouncers??!!

Self-awareness allows and/or forces and/or defines differentiation *I* from *not-I*.

 

[Jyera]

Now I shall attempt to skip the step of drafting a word-based definition of self-awareness.

I have gone direct to device this simple procedure for testing self-awareness.

1. Choose a Target (person/animal/object/robot).
2. Communicate to this Target to do something this Target is able to do.
3. Verify that the communication is successful.
4. Check if this Target is able to NOT do it.
5. If Target is "able to NOT do it", it has self-awareness.
6. If it has self-awareness, it also has ability to think.

Note the emphasis on the "ability".
Not just the non-action "Not doing it".

I believe all here wishes to see a workable test.
So I invite constructive comments on how to improve.

 

[Jyera]

Example:

1. I choose a friend.
2. I note that he can read a story to me.
3. I talk to him to ask him to read to me.
4. I can verify that he nodded in agreement he knows what I wanted.
5. I noted that he is ABLE to don't read to me, by putting asdie my story book.
6. Since he is able to NOT do what I ask, I conclude he is self-aware.
7. I conclude also that he can think.

Note: Based on Jyera's self-awareness test procedure version 1.

 

[JAK]

Example:

1. I choose a friend.
2. I note that he can read a story to me.
3. I talk to him to ask him to read to me.
4. I can verify that he nodded in agreement he knows what I wanted.
5. I noted that he is ABLE to don't read to me, by putting asdie my story book.
6. Since he is able to NOT do what I ask, I conclude he is self-aware.
7. I conclude also that he can think.

Note: Based on Jyera's self-awareness test procedure version 1.

I'm not sure I can comment directly ...

Researchers frequently use the "mirror" test to verify self-awareness. Some animals upon seeing their reflection in a mirror will attack it. (Definitely not self-aware.) Some birds will talk to the image in the mirror as if it was another bird. (Probably not self-aware.) A few will use the reflection for pruning and making faces. (Bingo! Self-aware! Give that critter a kewpie doll!)

I believe that any constructive criticism might entail comparing your test scenario with that of the researchers and looking for similarities and differences.

(Here's an interesting link: http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm)

 

[Jyera]

On the particular "mirror" test mentioned in
(Here's an interesting link: http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm)

I do not see them defining specific steps to test for self-wareness.
The "Mirror" test made a definition about what self-awareness is.
Which seems to imply an reaction "Hey! that's me in the mirror" .

On the other hand, the procedure I proposing here, I am attempting to side step the need to even define self-awareness.

 

[drkitten]

The "Mirror" test made a definition about what self-awareness is.
Which seems to imply an reaction "Hey! that's me in the mirror" .

Well, yes. I would certainly think that "awareness of self" would be almost irrefutable evidence for "self-awareness." Perhaps you disagree?

The problems with your proposed test for self-awareness are that, first, you need to be able to communicate with it. This can be extremely difficult with something like dolphins (which have been proven self-aware via the mirror test). Second, you need to be able to ensure that the subject is willing to cooperate with you. Third, you need an accurate assessment of what the subject "can" and "can't" do at any point in time, something that is probably unavailable for most systems. This makes the problem of false negatives extremely serious.

More worrisome, however, is the problem of false positives. Your same "please read to me" test would result in judging a bobblehead doll to be self-aware. After all,.... he nodded when I asked him to read to me too, so he obviously understood what I was asking.

 

[Jyera]

Well, yes. I would certainly think that "awareness of self" would be almost irrefutable evidence for "self-awareness." Perhaps you disagree?

I agree. But it requires us to be able to prove the "awareness of self" in people/robot/animal beyond doubt.
We do not have intimate access to their mind (not brain). And how can we be sure it is not just a robot that is not-self-aware that behave just like a apparently self-aware human?

The problems with your proposed test for self-awareness are that, first, you need to be able to communicate with it. This can be extremely difficult with something like dolphins (which have been proven self-aware via the mirror test). Second, you need to be able to ensure that the subject is willing to cooperate with you. Third, you need an accurate assessment of what the subject "can" and "can't" do at any point in time, something that is probably unavailable for most systems. This makes the problem of false negatives extremely serious.

I intend the procedure to be "usable" on robot or on a rock.
The communication will be no less of a challenge compared to a dolphin.

Willingness to cooperate is not needed, although desired.
This is because the Target need to demostrate that it is "able to NOT do it". That is , despite being "able to do" , perhaps initially willing to do. The element of "rebel" and to have it's own mind to abstain.

You can get a simple computer program to co-operate without fail. But it doesn't move itself any closer to being self-aware.
On the other hand, a simple computer program that defy all logic and showed a rebellious trait may warrant a second look.

More worrisome, however, is the problem of false positives. Your same "please read to me" test would result in judging a bobblehead doll to be self-aware. After all,.... he nodded when I asked him to read to me too, so he obviously understood what I was asking.

Bobblehead doll, would, in the first place, not have demostrated it's ability to do "read to me". So the procedure for the test cannot proceed.

The emphasis is on the "ABLE to NOT do it" (despite understanding what we want it to do).

 

[FreeChile]

I have a simple comment on this here.

The problem of thinking can not be solved by thinking which is what this critical thinking thread is about. To solve the problem of thinking we would need to stop and look at thought itself. But because anything we do to look at thought is itself a thought, we will never look at thought.

Also, the only tool at our disposal to examine thought is thought itself. So we are doomed when it comes to this.

One philosopher in particular has addressed this issue and concluded there are limits to thought: Ludwig Wittgenstein. He did this by looking at language, the expression of thought.

This leaves us with a guestion: can we live intelligently without thinking? Well, it seems that if we think about it, we will not solve this one either.

 

[drkitten]

I agree. But it requires us to be able to prove the "awareness of self" in people/robot/animal beyond doubt.

So what is a creature aware of, if not "self," when it interprets an (external) image (of self) as a cue for grooming behavior?

If you doubt the evidence of the mirror test as being evidence of "self-awareness," what other interpretation can you place on it?

Absent such alternative explanations, I submit that it is, in fact, evidence 'beyond doubt.'

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I have a simple comment on this here.

The problem of thinking can not be solved by thinking which is what this critical thinking thread is about. To solve the problem of thinking we would need to stop and look at thought itself. But because anything we do to look at thought is itself a thought, we will never look at thought.

Also, the only tool at our disposal to examine thought is thought itself. So we are doomed when it comes to this.

One philosopher in particular has addressed this issue and concluded there are limits to thought: Ludwig Wittgenstein. He did this by looking at language, the expression of thought.

This leaves us with a guestion: can we live intelligently without thinking? Well, it seems that if we think about it, we will not solve this one either.

Very well said.

 

[Jyera]

So what is a creature aware of, if not "self," when it interprets an (external) image (of self) as a cue for grooming behavior?

I suggest the awareness of ability to control his/her action or non-action.

Originally posted by new drkitten
If you doubt the evidence of the mirror test as being evidence of "self-awareness," what other interpretation can you place on it?
Absent such alternative explanations, I submit that it is, in fact, evidence 'beyond doubt.'

I do not doubt the usefulness of mirror tests but there are instances that challenges it.

Consider your earlier post which I quote below.

Originally posted by new drkitten This may be a limitation of the empirical paradigm; I can't test for the presence of a "soul," and any of the tests I can perform for the presence of "self-awareness" could be programmed into a sufficiently complex machine. Would it satisfy you if I built a robot that was demonstrably able to "recognize" its reflection in a mirror?

I take it that you meant that, the robot may be observed to behaved as it has self-awareness, by it's observed ability to recognize and groom itself. And that you asked if it is enough to accept that the robot is self-aware.

Consider also ...
(A) 100 "successful" mirror tests of a robot recognizing and grooming a specific part of itself.

Compared with ...

(B) 10 instances where the robot "agreed" to do something and then later "defied" the agreement and refuse to cooperate.

I suspect the "rebellious" robot looks like it has more life and self-awareness.

 

[Jyera]

I have a simple comment on this here.

The problem of thinking can not be solved by thinking which is what this critical thinking thread is about. To solve the problem of thinking we would need to stop and look at thought itself. But because anything we do to look at thought is itself a thought, we will never look at thought.

Also, the only tool at our disposal to examine thought is thought itself. So we are doomed when it comes to this.

Whether or not problem of thinking can be solved by thinking...
Thinking about thinking in this thread helps understanding.

In the end, we need some TOOLs.
Eg. Tool to be used in the daily lives, to proof if the robot that behaves as if it has self-awareness, is indeed self-aware.

One philosopher in particular has addressed this issue and concluded there are limits to thought: Ludwig Wittgenstein. He did this by looking at language, the expression of thought.

This leaves us with a guestion: can we live intelligently without thinking? Well, it seems that if we think about it, we will not solve this one either.

Agree this is tough to solve.

 

[FreeChile]

Let's see what we can come up with about this quote.

UG Krishnamurti on consciousness:

The consciousness of the body does not exist. There is no such thing as consciousness at all. The one thing that helps us to become conscious of the non-existing body, for all practical purposes, is the knowledge that is given to us. Without that knowledge you have no way of creating your own body and experiencing it. I am questioning the very idea of consciousness, let alone the subconscious, the unconscious, the different levels of consciousness, and higher states of consciousness. I don't see that there is any such thing as consciousness. I become conscious of this (touching the arm of the chair) only through the knowledge that I have of it. The touch does not tell me anything except when I translate it within the framework of knowledge. Otherwise I have no way of experiencing that touch at all. The way these senses are operating here is quite different from the way we are made to believe. The eye is looking at the movement of your hand, and is not saying anything about that activity, except observing what is going on there.

Feeling is also a translation. This touch does not say anything about the touch per se except through the help of the knowledge that we have. You have no way of experiencing the fact that this is 'soft' or 'hard' except through the knowledge that you have of it. I don't know if this makes any sense to you.

That sensation of touch is through the sense of touch. It is translated by the activity of memory, the neurons, or whatever you like to call them, and only then you say that it is soft and not hard. So, you can kid yourself by telling yourself that this touch is one with feeling and not just a simple touch. But all that is superimposed on that.

If it (touch) is left purely on the physiological level, there is no reaction on your part. And which part is it?

That is the physical response. It is not translated. Probably that is a kind of pleasure for the body. I don't know. I have no way of finding out whether that is the response of pleasure or a purely physical response to the touch. I say that it is just a response like any other response to a stimulus.

 

[drkitten]

Originally said by UG Krishnamurti and quoted by FreeChile

The one thing that helps us to become conscious of the non-existing body, for all practical purposes, is the knowledge that is given to us. Without that knowledge you have no way of creating your own body and experiencing it.

Unless I'm dreadfully misinterpreting, this claim is equivalent to the statement that newborn babies can't feel anything (since they have no knowledge). This does not give me confidence that the rest of the selection is worth analyzing in detail.

 

[FreeChile]

Posted by Jyera:
Whether or not problem of thinking can be solved by thinking...
Thinking about thinking in this thread helps understanding.

Oh, so this thread in about understanding and not thinking! Then why call it “What is thinking?” What do you mean by “understanding”? From your following lines, I assume you mean the understanding of tools. Then why talk about the self-awareness of robots and animals?

Posted by Jyera:

In the end, we need some TOOLs.
Eg. Tool to be used in the daily lives, to proof if the robot that behaves as if it has self-awareness, is indeed self-aware.

Assuming we do need some tools to be used in daily lives, why would we need to prove if a machine or an animal is self-aware? What is it that we are seeking to understand by this?

 

[FreeChile]

Posted by new drkitten:

Unless I'm dreadfully misinterpreting, this claim is equivalent to the statement that newborn babies can't feel anything (since they have no knowledge).

Can they feel? Have you seen a child sad at a funeral? In that sense, that is what the UGK quote is about. It is their knowledge and experience of funerals and death that gives them the foundation to feel. This is Kantian philosophy.

Also posted by new drkitten:

This does not give me confidence that the rest of the selection is worth analyzing in detail.

Why would some words be more worthy of analysis than others?

 

[drkitten]

Can they feel?

Yes. Demonstrably. Slap a child and see if it cries. The fact that I know this and Krishnamurti apparently doesn't is not a point in his favor.

Why would some words be more worthy of analysis than others?

I don't need to eat an entire apple to know that it's rotten.