Talk:Thought

Thought as an abstract form

The brain generates and uses countless abstract forms/objects. The elemental abstract forms are thoughts (as elemental organic forms are cells), the most complex are skills, sciences, languages etc. Abstract forms/objects, although non-dimensional (shapeless), are energetically real (not 'imaginary'), as material forms are real (telekinesis, moving material objects/forms with thoughts, is a direct proof of that). Quantum physicist David Bohm (see: Thought as a System) among many others, also realized this, and dedicated many of his efforts bringing up the importance of thoughts to humankind: "Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us..."

According to Rupert Sheldrake every abstract form, like every organic form, relates to a certain morphic field.

Unsigned comment

I came to this entry hoping to see various psychophysical, epigenetic, or perhaps esoteric(new thought, rosecrucians, theosophists etc.) hypotheses to the question "what is thought?" Surely a thought or abstraction is a thing composed of matter an energy. I found the entry to be quite unsatisfying.

merge with idea

what's the difference between a thought and an idea?!

That answer is online here - http://cnx.org/content/m14812/latest/

also, many differences and the relationship between thoughts, emotions and feelings is discussed in my online book "The Psychology of Emotions, Feelings and Thoughts" online here - http://cnx.org/content/m14358/latest/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.163.183 (talk)

Thinking effects

Result 1:

Favors in thinking comes from lacking of understanding how something works in life.

Example: Business Business owners use the limitations of human's education abilities as a tool for producing primary products for customers use for a profit range which changes as the economic cycle turns in stages.

Ex: TV mational and international People's lacking in knowing hoe electronics use electric energy for powering up a TV device.

So animation and vibraion from audio to reproduce a copy of a recording that will have fans amazed for centuries.

So this is one example that cause a business to be great from having people use there limits in understanding as a main source to buiness gains.

So everything is all about what people know and what people don't know. Key concept (patterns in life)

Cognitive Science

This subject EXPLICITLY studies the mind and its precesses. However, it is composed of many subjects including AI, Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics etc... Should some of these subjects be replaced since cognitive science "absorbs" them? After all, the field is dedicated to it.

Changes to Therories of Thinking, Platonism section

I made an edit to the Theories of thinking section, Platonism subject which was soon reverted by User:Phlsph7, and returning later finding such made another, only to once more have undone by User:Phlsph7. I don't mean to suggest that the content of the original was necessarily problematic. I do know, however, that the plurality of antecedent ought find agreement with any subsequent usage of pronoun (viz Platonic forms implies original ones and not one), and that any supposed difficulty in thinking would arise most likely through an inability rather than ability (viz able should instead be written unable or ill-able). The edits caught my attention mainly because the structure was awkward to grasp, as opposed to any specific intention I had to add anything new to their content. Lispenard (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Lispenard (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Lispenard, I have already responded to your inquiry on my talk page. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

so here's what I got so far:

Viewed as such, difficulty in the mind's realisation stems from being less than adept at grasping thought wherein Platonic forms might arise, and thus fail to behold in these their original Natures - distinct from the but mere glimpses we receive through the sensory world.  Succeeding meant, to illustrate, being both able to experience Beauty herself - together, yet alone, and at once in harmony - with all her derivative manifestations in all their diverse attribute, variform aspect, and unremitting splendour.

Lispenard (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no point discussing this issue at two different places at the same time. In the future, please do not start two parallel discussions on an editor talk page and on the article talk page. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Definition

IMO, there is nothing wrong with adding the definition from the textbook Clinical psychiatry by the author, professor Maric. It is well formulated, concise and clear. Therefore, I will be restoring the one sentence definition that was there prior to improvements made by the other major contributors. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 18:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The opening sentence needs to be clear and easily understood, not a barely comprehensible quotation laden with technical jargon. MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie Well, what exactly tells you that the opening sentence is not as you say clear and easily understood?

Let's take a look at the sentence:

Thought is defined as an "aim-oriented flow of ideas and associations that can lead to a reality-oriented conclusion".

aim-oriented means oriented towards a goal or an aim.

Flow is a fairly common noun.

Ideas and associations too.

Reality-oriented conclusion is a conclusion that is based on reality, in other words what is real.

Therefore, for example, my idea was to check if there is still this definition there for people to read it and gain knowledge from it. The association was this article on the English Wikipedia, which was, as I suppose, thanks to you greatly improved. My conclusion would be that you don't like the content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT

My suggestions would be:

1. Adding a definition based on my literature in Simple English + adding a Definiton section.
2. Restoring IMO very nice definition + adding a Definition section.
3. All of the above without addition of Definition section.
4. A combination of these.

Kindly,

Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 18:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, to some extent noting that an addition is badly written is always 'IDONTLIKEIT'. That doesn't mean that we want to have a badly written encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie Okay, I appreciate your edit on this page.

Do you concur with the addition of the improved version of the definition from that page in this form:

Thought is a mental process, that consists of ideas and associations, which allows beings to come to conclusions, be conscious, make decisions, imagine and, in general, operate on symbols in a rational or irrational manner.

Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 18:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Way too many clauses. I'm not even sure what that sentence is actually trying to communicate. I do not find it to be an improvement over what we have in this article currently - it was just the nearest semi comprehensible thing I could find in the article history. I'm still thinking about what would bet better. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC

You're right. I've tried to improve it. What about this one:

Thought is defined as a mental process consisted of ideas and associations. It can lead to logical or irrational conclusions. During a thought process conscious cognition can happen independently of sensory stimulation.

Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

'Thought is defined as a mental process consisted of ideas and associations.' is improper english. MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring to keep in grammar errors. Please stop. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There are many different definitions of thought. They are explained and compared in the section "Definition". The first lead paragraph just constitutes a summary of this section. It's not a good idea to take one very particular definition of one specific field and use it as the introductory sentence of the whole article when there is a much more general definition available that covers all the cases. And, as MrOllie has already pointed out, the suggestions have various linguistic issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)