Joe Niederberger posted Jun 9, 2013 1:14 AM: > > GS Chandy says: > >(very crudely) human thinking is fundamentally > 'different' from computation and computational > processes. I observe that I'm in agreement with the > proposition. > > You and lots others no doubt. Its funny though, that > no one can really explain thought very well, but so > many know all about it, including knowing definitely > what its not. > > Cheers, > Joe N > Well, I'd like to modify that a bit, to: "(very crudely) human thinking appears to be fundamentally 'different' from computation and computational processes. I observe that I'm in very broadly in agreement with the proposition".
But here, for whatever they are worth, are a few things that (we think) we can definitely say about 'human thought':
i) Human thought is something that humans do. Some of us seem to do it more; some less.
ii) Human thought appear to be 'different' from animal thought - or so we like to think.
iii) Human thought seems to be 'associated' with human brains (though the nature of the association is not known). As a (quite crude and probably unfair) insult, we sometimes do say that a person is thinking with some other portion of his/her anatomy.
iv) Human thought appears to be a useful thing for humans to do.
v) However, sometimes thinking seems to have led the individuals/ groups doing it into dangerous or difficult circumstances.
vi) Notwithstanding v), we believe we can definitely claim the following: far too often, we 'think' far too superficially about the what, the how and the why of our thinking.
Doubtless there are many other significant things (quite possibly more significant things) to think about human thought. The above were a few that 'came to mind' on casual thought about your statements above.
One difficulty appears to be (I think) that the only way to 'explain' anything about human thought is by 'thinking about it', which appears to be quite a difficult thing to do.