[MD] Thinking

[MarshaV]

On Aug 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Marsha]
> It wasn't an accusation.  It was open question.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> "Thinking", like all concepts, is something we define to explain or make sense
> of experience. Thus the definition of "thinking" is an intellectual pattern of
> value. You can, if you will, use this definition to point to non-intellectual
> activity, the same way the intellectual pattern of "gravity" points to the
> behavior of inorganic patterns of value, or I can define "blooming" as the
> process of opening up (an intellectual pattern), something I experience a rose
> after a storm doing, even though the rose has no concept or understanding of
> "blooming".
> 
> In the process, there are shared understandings of the term, when I say "I was
> thinking about taking a trip to New Zealand", you know what I mean. If I say,
> "my dog was thinking about chasing the cat" (deduced, perhaps, by a particular
> stare it was giving it), you'd know what I meant. If I said the sun was
> thinking about producing some solar flaring today, would that make any sense?
> 
> So, defining the concept of "thinking" is an intellectual pattern, but how you
> define it (i.e., does it describe experience on the inorganic, biological,
> social, intellectual levels, or some, or one, or none or a few, etc.) is more a
> matter or what is pragmatically valuable in such a definition.


Marsha:
I agree that the concept of 'thinking' is an intellectual pattern.  But I thought it 
was stated, somewhere, that the activity of thinking indicated the intellectual level.
It could be all misunderstanding on my part.   I'll drop the subject.  


Thanks,

Marsha 

 
___