Talk:Thought
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
A larger wiki forum on this area may be found on ttp://www.sense-think-act.org sense-think-act.org which may be of interest to contributors to this area... Szczels 12:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Thought as an abstract form
Ndru01 keeps trying to insert this section. The problem is that it's entirely uncited and, frankly, it's psuedoscientific gibberish. It has no place here. Alienus 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The following was deleted without comment by ndru01, so I've restored it:
- "Thought as an abstract" is a very weak section of this otherwise excellent article: filled with poor construction and unclear evidence and points. Help! Moncrief 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Why haven't you restore my question after that too ("what exactly is unclear/poor?"), and the initial request that the section don't be removed. In the meantime I made some slight change and it might be not so 'unclear',so that vicious comment might be completely unnecessary.Ndru01 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is a serious article, and there is no reason to give undue weight to pseudoscientific religions. Alienus 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Bohm (who is cited which you ignored) and Sheldrake are scientists. Serious as can be. Competent enough in the subject or not, you should eventually leave some tag and not just remove something that you might not understand properly. The section is more serious than the rest of the article. Ndru01 02:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sheldrake is a joke, and Bohm doesn't support your religious interpretation of science. Mentioning someone is not the same thing as offering a citation, but that's probably the sort of academic fine point that goes right over your head. The section is a joke and does not belong here or anywhere else. I will continue to remove it unless a consensus appears on this Talk page to support your suggestions. Alienus 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is no religion at all in the text, and I have no idea what might seem so 'religious' to you. If Sheldrake is a joke, then Darwin is a bigger one, and any biologist, chemist, physicist and other scientist. Descartes especially with his false mechanistic model of the universe that mislead much of the science after him. And it wasn't a word of removing the whole section but of the comment about the section. No one expects from you to remove it, since you're not the only one who is being asked about it. Ndru01 05:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I support removing this section. It reads way ot much like OR (the first three sentences really need a citation, or better yet, instead of trying to rest as facts, they should be clearly attributed to someone. The Bohm quote (which is not well referenced) really has almost nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, and, on the whole, the sections makes too many logical leaps (one second we are talking about "elemental abstract forms" and then *BAM* "telekinesis!). Ugh. Ig0774 05:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
lg, the material seems related to modern gnosticism, if that helps put it in perspective. Alienus 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Andrew, first of all I see you still haven't even bothered to go through the enormously challenging process of learning to sign your posts on talk pages properly. Now you're edit-warring again in oder to get your bizarre POV insterted into this page as well. It is not the will of L'andrew!! You are not of the body!! You must destroy this odd-ball New Age programming that someone has drilled into your brain, my friend. Please leave Sheldrake's extraodinarily non-standard views (to put it very politely) on the Sheldrake page or somwhere else. What's the problem?--Lacatosias 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Alienus: I do understand the perspective. My comments were perhaps a little rash. Nevertheless, the point is really that its not terribly encyclopedic (to be perfectly honest, I find some of the phrasing in the rest of the article slightly problematic as well, but not quite so much as in this section). I'm not entirely opposed to seeing something like this somewhere on wikipedia, just with a little better thought out presentation. Ig0774 08:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
How is telekinesis mentioned in context with thoughts illogical!? It is perfectly logical and in context. I sign my posts exactly as suggested, with 4 tildes at the end, so I don't know what Alienus is talking about. It doesn't say that it's a must of hyperlinking the signature. Why should I waste my time on that when its not a must. Bohm is exactly cited, check under his entry, and it underlines the point of the section, that a thought is not just 'energy' (that we already know from the fact that telekinesis is a reality), but energetic 'something' (call it -entity, unit, form, object, meme, in any case a - system)... Sheldrake deals with forms (morphe), and he uses that term for it. And every form IS a system (some sub-form being its element), every intelligent person should know that, and Bohm clearly yells out to everyone's face that thought is a system. So there you have it-> thought-(abstract)form-system. Ndru01 10:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Howevere, since I'm not going to succeed in depragamming you here, I suggest another vote:
- Ndru01, I really don't appreciate you removing my comment from this page without comment. [1]. Such an action is a fairly serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Moncrief 23:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The section is not 'filled' with anything, the wording is fairly rational and moderate (and I don't need to be 'depragammed', as Alienus or whoever suggested), and it is not poor. Maybe it wasn't very clear to many people but still it can be more nicely and politely said than you did. If people remove something that is good-intentional and relevant, why shouldn't something bad-intentional plus unkind be removed too (at least for sake of rephrasing it). Ndru01 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
ps. It is unclear who suggested the vote. It now looks like I did since it is immediately after my signed text, while that someone's sentence is unsigned. That is another 'violation' (not by me), isn't it?Ndru01 00:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Out of curiousity, what is your first language? Moncrief 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you're so curious, one european in earthly terms (actually 2 european, one middle-european and one south-european since I'm from a mixed marriage and learnt both as a child). But, in truth, probably K-Paxian.Ndru01 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the whole point has become moot, as I cannnot find the article you all are referring to. The Silent Russian 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vote
[edit] Move the section somwhere else
Move -- Lacatosias 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Move -- It's irrelevant pseudoscience from a well-known crank. It's an embarassment to mix it in with genuine scholarship. Alienus 15:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Move -- Ig0774 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Move It mars an otherwise superb article. My objections have as much to do with the poor quality of the writing as they do with the topic. Moncrief 23:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Move or delete. Even if relevant, true and possibly interesting, it would have to be rewritten, and possibly reworked altogether to have any place in wikipedia.DanielDemaret 10:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Move, or even better delete. It makes several undocumented claims, refers to telekinesis as proof and attempts to steal credibility from quantum physics. Complete BS. --AndersFeder 10:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Keep the section on Rupert Sheldrake
Leave it under this entry (it is not so long and it is more than relevant to the subject).Ndru01 10:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
to know what you were voting about, it should at least stay here on discussion:Ndru01 15:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
[edit] Link to Bohm in 'See also'
Please would you be so kind not to remove the (TAS) in brackets after the link. If you know how to link it directly to 'Thought as a system' under his entry, then replace 'David Bohm' with 'Thought as a System', otherwise leave this abbrevation (TAS) so that it is known why the link is present.
- Be happy I left the link in. The reader doesn't need you to guide him or her to what you deem to be the correct place in the article. — goethean ॐ 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relation between thought and language
"As of yet, the English language has not coined more specific words for the exact experiences and endeavors people do in their minds on a daily basis."
Is this accurate, you think? I'm pretty sure that some dominant schools of thought would say that indeed each and every word of the English language are artifacts of people's experience of thought. Mental experiences that go beyond language are either too subjective or too vague to find a linguistic formation but are not truly different from the experiences associated with words. --AndersFeder 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have to add, that sentence is just begging for an explanatory subsection giving examples of other languages words/definitions, for these undefined-in-english subtypes of 'thought'. :) -Quiddity 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- it would be nice to have more opinions on this but I really don't believe it merits inclusion. i'll just go and be bold <3Seasponges 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Think
I added a link to new think (disambiguation) page, but perhaps think should redirect there, instead of here. —johndburger 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] See also
I think there are far too many links in the See Also section—isn't a link to the Thinking Portal sufficient? What's the Portal for if not to collect links???
- I agree, I removed all these links. --Quiddity 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ==========
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.
[edit] Thought
In the sentence "Thought or thinking is a mental process which allows beings to model the world", shouldn't the word "thought" have an article before it? What I mean is it should be "a thought", not just "thought". Agen0 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conceptualizing section
I came across this section and thought this part: "Powerful neo-conceptualizing cannot compare in scope to the vast intricacies of past development from which modern thought has evolved." I'm sure this can be improved a bit, it doesn't sound right in an encyclopedia article somehow. --WikiSlasher 11:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
