Believing vs thinking. Why greatness has been ignored. *UPDATED*

[Reidy]

I don't believe it's a good definition, in part because it's too broad. A purely negative concept can be tricky (though it's not always wrong; "freedom" in the political sense, comes to mind). Any of the items you name would probably be better treated on its own rather than grouped with the others you name. Not least, I doubt that one would want "to integrate...that which one takes on faith." At least such integration (identifying that it's wrong and rejecting it) doesn't have much in common with the other kinds of integration you bring up, like integrating emotions (identifying why one feels this way and deciding whether the feeling proceeds from a sound judgement or not) or factual claims (deciding whether they're true or not and whether or not they are consistent with one's other beliefs).

I'd call it an early, exploratory move in the direction of a definition. Such a move, if one made it rationally, would be open to the possibility that the definition isn't worth seeking.

Postscript in answer to #25:

They aren't the same. Reason is a capacity; thinking is an activity. Reason is the capacity to think and a necessary condition of thinking. It's there even when you're asleep or comatose, but you're not thinking when you're in these states. I think this is a case of Aristotle's distinction between potentiality and actualization.

Postscript to this entire thread to date:

You proposed to explain why greatness is ignored. Like Aristocrates, I don't see that you've delivered on that promise. I'm not sure that greatness is ignored at all, though perhaps some instances of it are, for different reasons in each case. This is not the same claim at all.

[Brant Gaede]

You mischaracterize what belief is. I believe that tomorrow is Wednesday and that I drive a Hyundai, but neither of these beliefs fits your description. You believe a lot, to judge from your postings to date, and I doubt that you came to any of these beliefs by the process you outline in #1.

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think?

Being rational or thinking or using your mind creatively are all different things with some overlapping. You have to be very careful in throwing morality into cognitive processes so they aren't unnecessarily screwed up. Take responsibility for how you use your brain and what's right and proper will tend to follow naturally moral moral sensibilities.

--Brant

To the extent of my knowlege, all thinking is an act of reason. I hold that reason and thinking are the same thing as they both are the identification and integration of sensory evidence. Am I wrong?

Creativity doesn't necessarily require ostensible thinking or reason. In fact not to just let it happen cognitively can stop it dead. You can certainly use reason to prime the creative pump or be consciously creative, but a lot of creativity seemingly just pops into your head, even in some dreams.

--Brant

[MrBenjamatic]

I don't believe it's a good definition, in part because it's too broad. A purely negative concept can be tricky (though it's not always wrong; "freedom" in the political sense, comes to mind). Any of the items you name would probably be better treated on its own rather than grouped with the others you name. Not least, I doubt that one would want "to integrate...that which one takes on faith." At least such integration (identifying that it's wrong and rejecting it) doesn't have much in common with the other kinds of integration you bring up, like integrating emotions (identifying why one feels this way and deciding whether the feeling proceeds from a sound judgement or not) or factual claims (deciding whether they're true or not and whether or not they are consistent with one's other beliefs).

I'd call it an early, exploratory move in the direction of a definition. Such a move, if one made it rationally, would be open to the possibility that the definition isn't worth seeking.

Postscript in answer to #25:

Reason is a capacity; thinking is an activity. Reason is the capacity to think and a necessary condition of thinking It's there even when you're asleep or comatose, but you're not thinking when you're in these states. I think this is a case of Aristotle's distinction between potentiality and actualization.

Would you agree that it would be more practical as an estimation of non-thinking?

I have done a 4 year psycho-epistemological study. I have made "friends" with, constantly observed (as I gained a high social standing in that social set) and had long, deep philosophical conversations with some of them (non-thinkers). I discussed epistemology the most. Some do, actually, try to integrate that which they take on faith. That is one of the causes of their belief that logic is impotent: they can't logically integrate that which they take on faith; the false can contradict the false and always contradicts the true. That is also one of the causes of their terror of logic: they're subconscious that taking things on faith and acting on the false is illogical, and, logically they're evil. I was talking with a very old post-modern intellectual; I discovered a piece of his philosophy, one time, by having him speak about the philosophy of the dictators he supported (and refused to accept as being dictators). He said no matter how hard they try, the politicians cannot completely evade the fact that they're lieing, that what they're doing is wrong. They try to pretend to themselves and to others, vigorously, that their actions are right and what they do is think, but deep down they know they're evil and logic proves it so; that is one of the causes of their terror of logic.

As for the idenfication of faith, emotions, wishes and whims, the evil feverishly try only to identify that they exist. They try to pretend to identify their actions as being right and their faith-created beliefs as being true. They evade to fully identify what they're doing.

I agree with you completely on the purpose of identifying your emotions. I will have to further my estimation of non-thinking as a result. The evil non-thinkers don't even identify their true emotions. They try very hard to pretend that they're not terrified. Optimism is an example of that. They believe (on faith) that pretending to be happy will replace the only cause of happiness which is virtue. Another example, very similiar, is the half-empty, half-full folly. They say that you can complain that you glass is half empty as if complaining, not vice, caused it to be so -or- you could (pretend to) be happy that your glass is half full as if pretending to be happy filled your glassand as if to thank the sacrifice-demanders (who likely originated this folly) for only demanding that you sacrifice only half the contents of your glass. A full glass being a metaphor for unbridled happiness.

What do you think? Do you agree?

In regards to freedom, here is my estimation of freedom (or would it be better as a definition?): the right to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. My justification of this statement is at the end of my architectural post. What do you think of that?

[MrBenjamatic]

You mischaracterize what belief is. I believe that tomorrow is Wednesday and that I drive a Hyundai, but neither of these beliefs fits your description. You believe a lot, to judge from your postings to date, and I doubt that you came to any of these beliefs by the process you outline in #1.

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think?

Being rational or thinking or using your mind creatively are all different things with some overlapping. You have to be very careful in throwing morality into cognitive processes so they aren't unnecessarily screwed up. Take responsibility for how you use your brain and what's right and proper will tend to follow naturally moral moral sensibilities.

--Brant

To the extent of my knowlege, all thinking is an act of reason. I hold that reason and thinking are the same thing as they both are the identification and integration of sensory evidence. Am I wrong?

Creativity doesn't necessarily require ostensible thinking or reason. In fact not to just let it happen cognitively can stop it dead. You can certainly use reason to prime the creative pump or be consciously creative, but a lot of creativity seemingly just pops into your head, even in some dreams.

--Brant

Romanticism is that which can and ought to exist in reality, to the extent of my knowlege. A mind divorced from reality is not creative. In order to create in accordance to reality one must think. An individuals view of man is introspective. I am an artist among many other things. I always think in order to create. I'm glad you mentioned the popping of ideas in ones head. I have been, very recently, thinking of why that happens. Nothing is random; the law of causality is an absolute. An individual is responsible for choosing his values and setting his standards. About a year and a half ago, I wanted to move magnetically levitating objects. I thought for a long, long time about how to do it. I read that, so far, people have only magnetically levitated objects by magnetic repulsion (magnetic push). I knew that magnetic attraction existed. Though it did seem random, as the thought popped into my head without my conscious intention, I suddenly thought of counterbalancing magnetic attraction with magnetic repulsion. My thought was justified, I think, by my playing around with a circular piece of wood: I pressed down on opposite points and pushed up on the points in-between those points. By doing that I had a good enough grip on the wood to move it and I think I subconsciously (then consciously) realized that the same could be done magnetically by virute of magnetic repulsion counterbalanced by magnetic attraction. I hold, so far, that, as I set holding and moving magnetically levitating objects as my value, I subconsciously played with that circular piece of wood and subconsciously made that connection. I think that creators are in tune with their subconscious when an idea pops into their head. i don't think its random at all. I think it's a subconscious connection. Does this make sense? What do you think?

Now that I think about it, I discovered the probable means to move magnetically levitating objects by subconscious connection. This is a very intricate topic and I'd very much like to discuss it with you or someone with great knowlege of Objectivist epistemology. Would what I did be thinking? Again, i was in tune with my subconscious (because a connection was made that was of value to me-I set the value) and so I had the idea. What do you think? Was I thinking. I had already identified sensory evidence, but was my integration of it thinking even though it was done subconsciously? I do know that that thought was not at all random.

[anthony]

An "evil non-thinker" may potentially be of "evil" to others, but under Objectivist morality,

the primary "evil" is to himself, I believe. Considering that rational thought is relatively unknown,

misunderstood, inconsistently practised - and effortful - you would be condemning the entire

planet by your judgment. Mainly, it is IGNORANCE of reason, that is more prevalent than evasion.

Most people just get by on some simple logic, with whimsy and primacy of consciousness, in my experience,

and believe they are thinking.

[MrBenjamatic]

An "evil non-thinker" may potentially be of "evil" to others, but under Objectivist morality,

the primary "evil" is to himself, I believe. Considering that rational thought is relatively unknown,

misunderstood, inconsistently practised - and effortful - you would be condemning the entire

planet by your judgment. Mainly, it is IGNORANCE of reason, that is more prevalent than evasion.

Most people just get by on some simple logic, with whimsy and primacy of consciousness, in my experience,

and believe they are thinking.

I agree with your saying that the evil are always evil to themselves and that that is why they're evil. And you can't do evil unto others without doing evil unto yourself (violating the rights of the innocent is ALWAYS wrong and irrational). And I only condemn those who commit breach of morality. But that is most of the globe. "It's not ignorance, it's the refusal to know. Not blindness but the refusal to see". (That quote may not be entirely correct word for word). I hold that it is insaine not to think. The difference between insainity and mental retardation is one is not born insaine, it's the life style choice of those who refuse to know- those who would rather pretend to be right that to truly be right- those who have no desire to know the truth when it contradicts their premises -those who know their epistemology is wrong but pursue it none the less. Yes, I think most people are not worthy of love.

[MrBenjamatic]

But by thinking, even those who refuse to know (the evil), can earn the love of others. Earning others love should not be the reason for thinking and virtue. One should do it for one's own sake.

[MrBenjamatic]

I don't believe it's a good definition, in part because it's too broad. A purely negative concept can be tricky (though it's not always wrong; "freedom" in the political sense, comes to mind). Any of the items you name would probably be better treated on its own rather than grouped with the others you name. Not least, I doubt that one would want "to integrate...that which one takes on faith." At least such integration (identifying that it's wrong and rejecting it) doesn't have much in common with the other kinds of integration you bring up, like integrating emotions (identifying why one feels this way and deciding whether the feeling proceeds from a sound judgement or not) or factual claims (deciding whether they're true or not and whether or not they are consistent with one's other beliefs).

I'd call it an early, exploratory move in the direction of a definition. Such a move, if one made it rationally, would be open to the possibility that the definition isn't worth seeking.

Postscript in answer to #25:

They aren't the same. Reason is a capacity; thinking is an activity. Reason is the capacity to think and a necessary condition of thinking. It's there even when you're asleep or comatose, but you're not thinking when you're in these states. I think this is a case of Aristotle's distinction between potentiality and actualization.

Postscript to this entire thread to date:

You proposed to explain why greatness is ignored. Like Aristocrates, I don't see that you've delivered on that promise. I'm not sure that greatness is ignored at all, though perhaps some instances of it are, for different reasons in each case. This is not the same claim at all.

I explained it in the 14th post on page 1 which I wrote as a reply to Aristocrates. Does it not make sense? Oh! I see my error! I used the word reason in the wrong places as I thought that it was the same as thinking. I thank you very much for your differentiation of the two! I'll correct my response to Aristocrates. I think it will make more sense then.

[Brant Gaede]

You mischaracterize what belief is. I believe that tomorrow is Wednesday and that I drive a Hyundai, but neither of these beliefs fits your description. You believe a lot, to judge from your postings to date, and I doubt that you came to any of these beliefs by the process you outline in #1.

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think?

Being rational or thinking or using your mind creatively are all different things with some overlapping. You have to be very careful in throwing morality into cognitive processes so they aren't unnecessarily screwed up. Take responsibility for how you use your brain and what's right and proper will tend to follow naturally moral moral sensibilities.

--Brant

To the extent of my knowlege, all thinking is an act of reason. I hold that reason and thinking are the same thing as they both are the identification and integration of sensory evidence. Am I wrong?

Creativity doesn't necessarily require ostensible thinking or reason. In fact not to just let it happen cognitively can stop it dead. You can certainly use reason to prime the creative pump or be consciously creative, but a lot of creativity seemingly just pops into your head, even in some dreams.

--Brant

Romanticism is that which can and ought to exist in reality, to the extent of my knowlege. A mind divorced from reality is not creative. In order to create in accordance to reality one must think. An individuals view of man is introspective. I am an artist among many other things. I always think in order to create. I'm glad you mentioned the popping of ideas in ones head. I have been, very recently, thinking of why that happens. Nothing is random; the law of causality is an absolute. An individual is responsible for choosing his values and setting his standards. About a year and a half ago, I wanted to move magnetically levitating objects. I thought for a long, long time about how to do it. I read that, so far, people have only magnetically levitated objects by magnetic repulsion (magnetic push). I knew that magnetic attraction existed. Though it did seem random, as the thought popped into my head without my conscious intention, I suddenly thought of counterbalancing magnetic attraction with magnetic repulsion. My thought was justified, I think, by my playing around with a circular piece of wood: I pressed down on opposite points and pushed up on the points in-between those points. By doing that I had a good enough grip on the wood to move it and I think I subconsciously (then consciously) realized that the same could be done magnetically by virute of magnetic repulsion counterbalanced by magnetic attraction. I hold, so far, that, as I set holding and moving magnetically levitating objects as my value, I subconsciously played with that circular piece of wood and subconsciously made that connection. I think that creators are in tune with their subconscious when an idea pops into their head. i don't think its random at all. I think it's a subconscious connection. Does this make sense? What do you think?

Now that I think about it, I discovered the probable means to move magnetically levitating objects by subconscious connection. This is a very intricate topic and I'd very much like to discuss it with you or someone with great knowlege of Objectivist epistemology. Would what I did be thinking? Again, i was in tune with my subconscious (because a connection was made that was of value to me-I set the value) and so I had the idea. What do you think? Was I thinking. I had already identified sensory evidence, but was my integration of it thinking even though it was done subconsciously? I do know that that thought was not at all random.

I didn't use the word or the idea of "random"(ness).

I wish you luck in your endeavors.

--Brant

[anthony]

Earning others love should not be the reason for thinking and virtue. One should do it for one's own sake.

Yes! For the purpose and the pleasure. The rest follows from that.

[Xray]

As I said it is insane, stupid and evil to believe; no existence can be justified by insanity, stupidity and evil.

I think you have to differentiate more here. For example, one can believe in ones ideal's, in another person's ability, and in much more without being insane, stupid and evil.

Re "evil": It is true that certain beliefs are irrational; being irrational means being in error about a fact, but being in error is something else than being evil.

'Evilness' would come into play for example if irrational tenets are consciously used to oppress others and stifle their independent thinking.

[MrBenjamatic]

As I said it is insane, stupid and evil to believe; no existence can be justified by insanity, stupidity and evil.

I think you have to differentiate more here. For example, one can believe in ones ideal's, in another person's ability, and in much more without being insane, stupid and evil.

Re "evil": It is true that certain beliefs may are irrational; being irrational means being in error about a fact, but being in error is something else than being evil.

'Evilness' would come into play if irrational tenets are consciously used to oppress others and stifle their independent thinking.

It was a mistake to try to redefine believe. I made other mistakes in my original post which is now corrected and on view. Does my update make sense?

*P.S. If you absolutely agree with the below we are on the same page and I agree with you:

"Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life." _Ayn Rand

[syrakusos]

Xray, you need to track back through the discussion. MrB is setting up definitions different from the vernacular. Peter Reidy says that he believes that he owns a Honda, which he does. MrB says that this is a thought, not a belief, as beliefs are irrational, being based on faith. It is a special use of the word, granted, but can be found in a common dictionary, also, so his use of it that way for this purpose is valid. Just be aware of the vocabulary here.

Also, on the same note, you say; "'Evilness' would come into play if irrational tenets are consciously used to oppress others and stifle their independent thinking."

Again, that ignores the special Objectivist understanding based on egoism and individualism. If you fear learning the truth about something - say, your husband's infidelity - and keep yourself from thinking about it, and ignoring the evidences, that is evil. Consider Crusoe on his island. Rather than making an effort to survive while attempting to signal for help and/or build a seaworthy raft, having found really nicely fermented mangos, he just eats sweet alcohol and quietly slips off into a coma and dies. No one else is hurt. The lack of thought is evil, the consequence of which is death.

You are not an Objectivist, and that's fine, but realize that your collectivist assumptions have cognitive consequences.... and they make discussion a little bit more work...

[MrBenjamatic]

As evidence of non-thinkers refusing to know truth and thinking based on truth I offer two very funny videos.

[Xray]

Xray, you need to track back through the discussion. MrB is setting up definitions different from the vernacular. Peter Reidy says that he believes that he owns a Honda, which he does. MrB says that this is a thought, not a belief, as beliefs are irrational, being based on faith. It is a special use of the word, granted, but can be found in a common dictionary, also, so his use of it that way for this purpose is valid. Just be aware of the vocabulary here.

Also, on the same note, you say; "'Evilness' would come into play if irrational tenets are consciously used to oppress others and stifle their independent thinking."

Again, that ignores the special Objectivist understanding based on egoism and individualism. If you fear learning the truth about something - say, your husband's infidelity - and keep yourself from thinking about it, and ignoring the evidences, that is evil. Consider Crusoe on his island. Rather than making an effort to survive while attempting to signal for help and/or build a seaworthy raft, having found really nicely fermented mangos, he just eats sweet alcohol and quietly slips off into a coma and dies. No one else is hurt. The lack of thought is evil, the consequence of which is death.

You are not an Objectivist, and that's fine, but realize that your collectivist assumptions have cognitive consequences.... and they make discussion a little bit more work...

Michael,

I know that the term 'believe' can have a variety of meanings:

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/believe

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?

2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.

3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v.intr.

1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.

2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.

3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.

4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

Idioms:

believe (one's) ears

To trust what one has heard.

believe (one's) eyes

To trust what one has seen.

What I want to test is the premise that sticking to irrational beliefs is per se 'evil'. It has nothing to do with 'collectivist' thinking on my part ; I'm merely appyling Rand's "Check your premises" to an Objectivist premise.

One test example: just think of those criminal cases where relatives often refuse to believe that a family member [who has been rightly] accused of a crime has actually committed it, despite evidence indicating the contrary. But is this an "evil" action?

[syrakusos]

Yes, it is evil. Right and wrong have little to do with other people. You can only commit an act of evil against another person by first committing an egoistically evil act. Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

Evil is a strong word. In our house, we have some formulas for making coffee, generally, one more scoop of grounds than cups of water in the maker. Sometimes, first thing in the morning, I lose count of the scoops. That is not evil. Mistakes are not evil. If I purposely ignore the known potential error and do not recount and thereby make a bad pot of coffee, that is evil -- and you can taste it.

The Crusoe example above was another way to say the same thing: it did not involve another person, but his choice to evade reality and not think was evil.

In your example, some people might claim that the family's willingness to stick by the accused despite the evidence is noble, but it is not: it is evil. They can still stick by him, try to help him remediate and restore his victim and himself, and that would be moral, but only as they acknowledge the reality of the evidence. Also, it is possible that knowing the accused, they can insist on his innocence despite the apparent "evidence" - the police make mistakes - not as faith but as judgment. Again though it depends on their acknowledging the reality of the apparent evidence, even as they (rightfully) deny its objective validity.

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought. It may start as a conscious evasion - Scarlet O'Hara's "I'll think about it tomorrow." - but habitually becomes psychological repression.

And it is evil. ... even if no one else is involved.

[anthony]

Yes, it is evil. Right and wrong have little to do with other people. You can only commit an act of evil against another person by first committing an egoistically evil act. Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

Evil is a strong word. In our house, we have some formulas for making coffee, generally, one more scoop of grounds than cups of water in the maker. Sometimes, first thing in the morning, I lose count of the scoops. That is not evil. Mistakes are not evil. If I purposely ignore the known potential error and do not recount and thereby make a bad pot of coffee, that is evil -- and you can taste it.

The Crusoe example above was another way to say the same thing: it did not involve another person, but his choice to evade reality and not think was evil.

In your example, some people might claim that the family's willingness to stick by the accused despite the evidence is noble, but it is not: it is evil. They can still stick by him, try to help him remediate and restore his victim and himself, and that would be moral, but only as they acknowledge the reality of the evidence. Also, it is possible that knowing the accused, they can insist on his innocence despite the apparent "evidence" - the police make mistakes - not as faith but as judgment. Again though it depends on their acknowledging the reality of the apparent evidence, even as they (rightfully) deny its objective validity.

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought. It may start as a conscious evasion - Scarlet O'Hara's "I'll think about it tomorrow." - but habitually becomes psychological repression.

And it is evil. ... even if no one else is involved.

Good thoughts, Michael. Continuing with evasion, I think it occupies several levels. Day-to-day, right on up

to the highest principles. Examples of it:

Noting a warning light on your dashboard every day, but putting off a check-up, until serious damage is done to the car. A minor expense and trouble, later become major ones. Why? laziness, or anxiety for what

the warning light might indicate.

'Knowing' inductively that there's something strange about your son's behavior, but avoiding any

confrontation with him - because you're scared of what you might find out. Til the police arrive at your

house one day, and you discover he's a wanted criminal. (For every criminal, there are a mother

and a father who looked the other way.) : Fear of the truth - which you already know.

Having all the evidence from our past that any degree of totalitarianism, from statism on, causes suffering

and repression to humans - but still supporting and recommending such ideologies. Why? Because it won't

affect me, only those 'other people'; or, because we all need to be controlled, for everybody to be safe and

happy; because I'm fearful of standing against it; or, because authority (leaders, the public) knows best - and who am I?

Evasion then, amounts to self-abdication, fear, laziness and ultimately, moral cowardice.

Commanding one's own life requires courageous, unflinching attention to realities. We all fall short at

times, and ignorance of a fact isn't something to blame oneself for, but I think and believe

every person has the knowledge (usually unarticulated or implicit) of the standards of truth he must aim for.

The evil is not making it explicit to oneself, and acting on it.

[Dglgmut]

What's really interesting me right now is figuring out what in our brains is automatic and what is not. Where is our focus necessary and where is it redundant or even counterproductive?

Controlling focus is what learning is all about. When we are trying to learn how to do something, we are trying to learn where to put our focus so that the rest happens automatically.

[caroljane]

What's really interesting me right now is figuring out what in our brains is automatic and what is not. Where is our focus necessary and where is it redundant or even counterproductive?

Controlling focus is what learning is all about. When we are trying to learn how to do something, we are trying to learn where to put our focus so that the rest happens automatically.

What's really interesting me right now is figuring out what in our brains is automatic and what is not. Where is our focus necessary and where is it redundant or even counterproductive?

Controlling focus is what learning is all about. When we are trying to learn how to do something, we are trying to learn where to put our focus so that the rest happens automatically.

That is interesting, and MSK who has been delving into neuroscience could comment knowledgeably on this as could others here.

The impression I get from a non-knowledgeable standpoint is, most of what happens in the brain is automatic.

[anthony]

What's really interesting me right now is figuring out what in our brains is automatic and what is not. Where is our focus necessary and where is it redundant or even counterproductive?

Controlling focus is what learning is all about. When we are trying to learn how to do something, we are trying to learn where to put our focus so that the rest happens automatically.

I don't get 'automatic'. You mean subconscious? But then, everything subconscious had to come

through the conscious. So can be introspected.

You mean, like driving a car - habitual?

The only 'automatic' in the brain is reflexive, and instinctive behavior, far as I know.

Being aware of everything pertaining to one, is what we've been discussing with evasion.

Automatic is for automatons.

[Dglgmut]

I'll give you an example. I started taking acting classes three years ago, and I knew the reason I was going was to learn where to put my focus. I wasn't going to learn technique, which you can practice and make habitual, but to experiment with help from the coach. The point of acting classes is to learn to control your brain.

Does this make what I'm talking about more clear? Controlling your brain is focusing in a way that will allow the automatic functions to perform the way you want them to.

[anthony]

You mean like tai chi or yoga? I have little doubt that as exercises - without the mysticism

related to them - they are beneficial for clearing random, mental 'white noise' and maybe improved

focus. Apart from this aspect, we seem to be pulling in opposite directions.

I'm fascinated by how much can be made conscious, if one only wants to.

All over focus, (not only selective) of all concretes in and around one, induction of them into concepts - then

the deduction of concepts back to reality as the test of their accuracy.

It is the process of learning too, but definitely not automatic.

[Dglgmut]

Consider learning something physical... You know what you're supposed to do, but you've never done it and you don't know how it feels. The learning process here is finding out what to focus on... You must know what I'm talking about now.

Also, recently I've been learning chess. Now, knowing how the pieces move is one thing, but learning strategy and tactics is completely different. Again, the point is what to focus on... In learning chess I am not trying to improve my brain's ability, but I'm learning which parts of the brain to use and how.

[caroljane]

What's really interesting me right now is figuring out what in our brains is automatic and what is not. Where is our focus necessary and where is it redundant or even counterproductive?

Controlling focus is what learning is all about. When we are trying to learn how to do something, we are trying to learn where to put our focus so that the rest happens automatically.

I don't get 'automatic'. You mean subconscious? But then, everything subconscious had to come

through the conscious. So can be introspected.

You mean, like driving a car - habitual?

The only 'automatic' in the brain is reflexive, and instinctive behavior, far as I know.

Being aware of everything pertaining to one, is what we've been discussing with evasion.

Automatic is for automatons.

What's really interesting me right now is figuring out what in our brains is automatic and what is not. Where is our focus necessary and where is it redundant or even counterproductive?

Controlling focus is what learning is all about. When we are trying to learn how to do something, we are trying to learn where to put our focus so that the rest happens automatically.

I don't get 'automatic'. You mean subconscious? But then, everything subconscious had to come

through the conscious. So can be introspected.

You mean, like driving a car - habitual?

The only 'automatic' in the brain is reflexive, and instinctive behavior, far as I know.

Being aware of everything pertaining to one, is what we've been discussing with evasion.

Automatic is for automatons.

Yes I think I do mean subconscious, But I don't think the subconscious is programmed consciously.

[anthony]

Chess is a great analogy for concept-building. You start at the lower levels with

simple moves, piece play, etc. Simple patterns are established in the early game,

growing ever-more complex into middle game. Square by square, you integrate pieces

of different values into gaining an advantage.

Anytime you attempt a contradiction, you lose a piece. If your over-all concept

(your strategy) is flawed, you lose the game.

When you win, you have created a solid principle/concept.

Even after becoming an expert, the simple initial moves do not become automatic -

they are the premises your 'game' is built upon.