If you have a better word than my word "Over-mind" please tell me. — Ken Edwards

OK, I'll go with that term. We could almost just call it "mind", but that would imply that we were limiting ourselves to the conscious aspect. I think, that when we talk about "thinking" we are talking about a directing of the mind. So if we use the limited conscious "mind" as an example, we assume some sort of conscious directing of thoughts, when we say "thinking".

Notice here that "thought" is a noun, so there is assumed things, thoughts, and "thought" also represents a past act of thinking. I think we can characterize a "thought" as the product of a past act of thinking. It's like an object which has been created, like a memory, and is now employed in the act of thinking. That object might be a word, or some other symbol (mathematical for example), or an image, or something like that. Now, we have this representation of conscious "thinking", the limited type of thinking, as an activity which is directing, or some sort of ordering, of products (thoughts) previously acquired from this activity.

If we extend this now, to the "over-mind", then we are forced to forfeit from the conscious mind, the principal capacity, which is the capacity to direct, or order this activity. But this is contrary to our experience, which demonstrates that the conscious mind does have the capacity to do this directing of thoughts. To maintain consistency with this empirical observation therefore, we must deny any relationship of supervenience. There is not a relationship of necessity between the over-mind and the conscious mind. It also proves expedient to deny supervenience because if we pass this capacity to direct on to the over-mind, we have no means for locating what sort of thing actually does the directing, Then we're faced with an infinite regress, or determinism, or else some sort of homunculus.

So we have a little problem here which is that thinking is an activity of directing thoughts, and thoughts are the product of such directed activity, but we cannot locate what is actually doing the directing. To assign the capacity for directing to the over-mind is not the answer, because it is contrary to what we experience, that the conscious mind has some capacity to direct itself, free from the direction of the over-mind. But if the conscious mind, as a higher, more free power, emerges from the over-mind, as the base of that power, then we have to allow that the over-mind has the capacity to create within itself, a limited realm of autonomous activity, free from the causal necessity of that base.

We are at this moment using our 2 vastly limited semantic minds with occasional flashes of intuition from the overmind and trying to do the impossible. — Ken Edwards

What I think, is that if we can determine precisely what the over-mind actually does contribute, in the form of direction, to the conscious mind, this will give us a great advantage toward understanding the mode of directing. And that's what thinking is, right? It's a simple act of directing. If thinking requires thoughts (remembered content from previous thinking), we're looking at an infinite regress. So we ought to allow that thinking is an activity which can occur without any content, no thoughts, an activity without anything moving. Then as thoughts come into being, the activity may be free from the influence of prior thoughts, to direct these thoughts as required. In reality then, the over-mind must contribute nothing to the act of thinking, no content, just the capacity for this activity, the capacity to think.

"Do you notice an awkwardness in your thinking? Awkwardness almost to the the point of an inability to think the words at all?"

Nope

I am going to take awhile to answer this because I got visiters. But keep in mind the urgent need within this conversation to invent more names for thing which you just did and also that the mutiple mind gestalt, the pyramid, is only partly conscious. The very devil is that you and I are so restricted to one part of the gestalt.

Jesus. I checked this out again with 3 guys and they got awkwardness all 3. But I had a time getting them to be aware of their thinking itself rather than the awareness of the meaning. Maybe try it again.

Hi Darknes. These following opinions are 100% accurete. No leeway here at all.
You say: Pretty sure the conscious mind came first otherwise you wouldn't have language.
They came together.

I wouldn't put much stock in research put forth by psychology since half of it had to be thrown out due to reproducibility and from what I learned in psychology courses in college it's not the best indicator of how humans work or their minds. So many theories yet nothing truly conclusive.
Pure uninformed gibberish

There isn't. The unconscious as we have found out turns out to not be some hidden brain but more just upkeep processes of the body.
Meaningless.

And yet you have many saying they don't including me so they're clearly doing something wrong. It's more likely the inability to keep the tongue still. I mean it's fairly tricky for humans to remain perfectly still even if they are sitting down. Their study had nothing to do with thinking and words.
Meaningless

But I guess psychology is desperate for something to publish since that blow it was dealt
What blow?.

-If you have a better word than my word "Over-mind" please tell me. — Ken Edwards


<OK, I'll go with that term. We could almost just call it "mind", but that would imply that we were limiting ourselves to the conscious aspect.

-I think that most popular usage of the word "mind" means the complete mind, the Over-mind.
-Examples - "The mind reels." "You are out of your mind." Joe has a mind like a steel trap. Other unrelated examples - "Don't mind me" Mind your manners"

<I think, that when we talk about "thinking" we are talking about a directing of the mind. So if we use the limited conscious "mind" as an example, we assume some sort of conscious directing of thoughts, when we say "thinking".

-I am not sure what you mean by the word "directing". That is a verb and it requires a subject and a complement to make sense, "He directed me to his mother's house". So, could not the over-mind direct parts of itself to other parts of itself? I think much more probable, the over-mind directing the conscious min and visa-versa.

-The conscious mind cannot direct thoughts towards me because the conscious mind IS me. (I think)

<Notice here that "thought" is a noun, so there is assumed things, thoughts, and "thought" also represents a past act of thinking. I think we can characterize a "thought" as the product of a past act of thinking. It's like an object which has been created, like a memory, and is now employed in the act of thinking. That object might be a word, or some other symbol (mathematical for example), or an image, or something like that. Now, we have this representation of conscious "thinking", the limited type of thinking, as an activity which is directing, or some sort of ordering, of products (thoughts) previously acquired from this activity.

-Remember that I assume that Thinking is not an abstraction anymore than belching is an abstraction. Thinking is the actual movement of a living piece of matter inside of the skull.

<If we extend this now, to the "over-mind", then we are forced to forfeit from the conscious mind, the principal capacity, which is the capacity to direct, or order this activity. But this is contrary to our experience, which demonstrates that the conscious mind does have the capacity to do this directing of thoughts. To maintain consistency with this empirical observation therefore, we must deny any relationship of supervenience. There is not a relationship of necessity between the over-mind and the conscious mind. It also proves expedient to deny supervenience because if we pass this capacity to direct on to the over-mind, we have no means for locating what sort of thing actually does the directing, Then we're faced with an infinite regress, or determinism, or else some sort of homunculus.

-Again I am misunderstanding the word "directing".

<If thinking requires thoughts (remembered content from previous thinking), we're looking at an infinite regress

-I think thinking is the creation of thoughts that may or not lead to more thoughts ie questions and answers, and are things in themselves. The act of thinking can be precipitated by many kinds of stuff. A pretty sunset, an angry face, a question, a kick in the ass an erotic picture etc.

-I will try to expand all this, reluctantly, because I am relying on data that I remember imperfectly from dozens or hundreds of psychological printings that I have read including Freud himself over a period o 40 years or more. But not now. Give me a few more days to prepare and then return to the forum and make an ass of myself. Fun!

-A preliminary sample: ''Thoughts are rich in vitamin D"

<So we ought to allow that thinking is an activity which can occur without any content, no thoughts, an activity without anything moving.

-I don't think that is a true statement.

-Thinking is movement, (actually the movement of electrons in an electric circuit which can be detected).

-I am not sure what you mean by the word "directing". That is a verb and it requires a subject and a complement to make sense, "He directed me to his mother's house". So, could not the over-mind direct parts of itself to other parts of itself? I think much more probable, the over-mind directing the conscious min and visa-versa. — Ken Edwards

I use "direct" here in the sense you suggest, as to guide something. The issue I indicated, is that if the mind was directing itself, there would be no need to assume an "over-mind". And if we need to assume an over-mind as the director, it is because the direction is coming from somewhere outside the mind, somewhere the conscious mind does not have control over. But if we see that the nature of the mind is such that it is being directed by something outside it, then why wouldn't the over-mind, being itself a type of mind, have the same characteristics? So if we find that it is necessary to assume that the mind is being directed by an over-mind, I see no reason to stop there and conclude that the over-mind is not being directed by something outside of it.

The conscious mind cannot direct thoughts towards me because the conscious mind IS me. (I think) — Ken Edwards

So do you not find that you are capable of directing your own thoughts? If so then why do we need to assume a over-mind?

Remember that I assume that Thinking is not an abstraction anymore than belching is an abstraction. Thinking is the actual movement of a living piece of matter inside of the skull. — Ken Edwards

The question is what directs that "actual movement"? I'm sure you must have noticed that your thinking is generally guided toward specific goals, ends, purposes. It's what we call intentional. What is it which does that guiding? Is it the purpose itself which guides the thinking toward it? If so, what would choose which specific purposes to be guided by? But if this is a form of thinking which makes those decisions, as to what will guide the thinking, then we're just going around in a vicious circle. The thinking guides itself, and now there is no need to assume a mind, or an over-mind.

-I think thinking is the creation of thoughts that may or not lead to more thoughts ie questions and answers, and are things in themselves. The act of thinking can be precipitated by many kinds of stuff. A pretty sunset, an angry face, a question, a kick in the ass an erotic picture etc. — Ken Edwards

Here, I think we need to distinguish between what you call "precipitated by", and what I call directed. I think that thinking is going on all the time in my head, I cannot stop it. It goes on even while I'm sleeping, as dreams. So I think that the thinking gets directed toward these things which you mention, the pretty sunset etc., not precipitated by them. And, it seems to me like the more focused and directed the thinking is, the more productive it turns out to be. This is due to that relationship between goals, or purpose, and thinking. I might direct my thinking to the sunset for a short period of time, but this would just be a brief distraction, before I got back to thinking about more important things. Therefore the issue here seems to be a matter of determining what is important, and therefore ought to be thought about.

<So we ought to allow that thinking is an activity which can occur without any content, no thoughts, an activity without anything moving.

-I don't think that is a true statement. — Ken Edwards

But you just said:

I think thinking is the creation of thoughts... — Ken Edwards

If thinking creates thoughts, then the existence of thinking is prior to the existence of thoughts, so there is necessarily thinking without thoughts. Thinking without thoughts would be an activity without content.

Thinking is movement, (actually the movement of electrons in an electric circuit which can be detected). — Ken Edwards

If you check the physics on this, I think you'll find that the current moves through the electric field, rather than as a movement of electrons.

They came together. — Ken Edwards

No they didn't. It's clear you don't have any real evidence for your claims.

But what I said about psychology is the truth, so much so that even my professors grudgingly admit it. Psychology has always been the least accurate of all the sciences so it's no surprise your evidence is incorrect.

I am biginning to suspect that we are both saying the same thing. Let me begin by repeating my own words: "-I think that most popular usage of the word "mind" means the complete mind, the Over-mind."

I erred. I should have said "-I think that most popular usage of the word "mind" means the complete mind, the Over-mind plus the conscious mind. The complete mind includes both. the overmind being greater as we have just decided.

My problem lies here. yo say: <Notice here that "thought" is a noun, so there is assumed things, thoughts, (Okay ) and "thought" also represents.......>

(let me change that to: "a thought IS a direct result of a past act of thinking.)

<"a past act of thinking. I think we can characterize a "thought" as the product of a past act of thinking.">

Let me change that to: "a result of a past act of thinking"

I Sum it up_ "A thought is a result of a past act of thinking." Am I right so far?

If so how has that thinking been provoked? Might it not have been provoked by something exterior like a tree or a traffic cop. Or provoked by an earlier thought coming from either of the two minds or from the newly discovered default mind?

How does "directed" come into it?

Let me change that to: "a result of a past act of thinking" — Ken Edwards

OK, so we have identified two features, the act called thinking, and the results of that act, thoughts.

If so how has that thinking been provoked? Might it not have been provoked by something exterior like a tree or a traffic cop. Or provoked by an earlier thought coming from either of the two minds or from the newly discovered default mind?

How does "directed" come into it? — Ken Edwards

What I tried to explain in the last post, is that i do not think that thinking is provoked, it just goes on and on, somewhat automatically. However, it is directed, guided. This is why it is not totally random like dreams can be, though dreams are generally guided to an extent anyway, and so are not completely random. We can know that it is guided rather than provoked, because we sense many different things at the very same time, and we only direct our thinking toward particular things. You would say that these are the things which provoke us, but if we ask why did this provoke, rather than that, we must turn to an internal reason and explain it by saying that the thought was directed toward this rather than that, for whatever reason.

So, consider your example, "a tree or a cop". What makes you think about the tree rather than the cop, or the cop rather than the tree? Think of all the visual stimulus around you, the aural stimulus, and things like smells. Of all those things, why do you direct your attention to this or that thing instead of the many other things? You would say that these are the things which provoke you, but it's not the thing which is responsible here, it is you who is seeing the thing as interesting. The thing is doing something, which for some reason interests you, so I turn to you, and ask why does this thing interest you. Why are you directing your thought toward this thing and not something else?

The sense of touch provides a very good example because it is very high in the hierarchy of capacity to attract one's attention. If something, or someone touches you physically, it's almost impossible not to direct your attention, and therefore think about that thing which touches you. Now if you think about the sense of sight, there is at any time many things within your field of sight, which you see, but you will not think about. So I think I can conclude that something touching me physically is much more important to me than something simply being in my field of vision. That's why when something touches me I direct my attention to it.

Great discussion - respectfully handled. I am reading along with interest...just wanted to say...

but I have 2 caviets.
First regarding your last sentence: "That's why when something touches me I direct my attention to it."

I agree but Attention from where? from your conscious mind or from the subconscious ie, over-mind? I would say the latter.

But, a caveat. 2 or more events must occur before you can direct your conscious attention to it. If you are touched that would activate your sense of touch without the participation of the conscious mind. If it were something that was very hot that would instantly turn on a series of alarm bells and you would take violent action without the participation of the conscious mind.

Who or what is "I". Your conscious mind obviously. It would be normal for me to use a slightly different vocabulary. That's why when something touches me I would say: "It would attrect my attention" which would be a general statement refering to all aspects of my response. Rather than: "Direct attention to it"

Now in regard to your first statement: "What I tried to explain in the last post, is that i do not think that thinking is provoked, it just goes on and on, somewhat automatically."

I agree. I think it does, indeed "go on and on", somewhat automatically, one after another and can continue. But, I think any thought can be interrupted or cancelled and a new thought provoked or intruded or substituded. Multiple thoughts can occur coming from different sources. But never 2 at once. For instance: #1from the senses - a crying baby #2 from the emotions - "drat it, where is that nurse?" #3from the memory - "Oh, she went shopping" #4 from logical processes. - "That's funny, she didn't take the car. She must have gone to the corner store" #4 from the pain centers. - a kick in the ass - "Ouch!" .

I agree but Attention from where? from your conscious mind or from the subconscious ie, over-mind? I would say the latter. — Ken Edwards

Think about when you let your mind wander, daydream, it's similar to dreaming while you're asleep, the thoughts can proceed in all sorts of different ways. You can think bout anything. I would say that this is as close to subconscious as I can get and still be conscious. So when my attention gets directed, and my thoughts get focused, my mind gets pulled away from the subconscious, and directed toward my conscious activities.

But, a caveat. 2 or more events must occur before you can direct your conscious attention to it. If you are touched that would activate your sense of touch without the participation of the conscious mind. If it were something that was very hot that would instantly turn on a series of alarm bells and you would take violent action without the participation of the conscious mind. — Ken Edwards

But there are five senses, and they can all be sensing at the same time. If the conscious mind focuses on the products of one sense, wouldn't this be the conscious mind which directs the thoughts in this way? If something very hot touches me and I take violent action, I think this is at the direction of my conscious mind.

Who or what is "I". Your conscious mind obviously. It would be normal for me to use a slightly different vocabulary. That's why when something touches me I would say: "It would attrect my attention" which would be a general statement refering to all aspects of my response. Rather than: "Direct attention to it" — Ken Edwards

If, your conscious mind is what you refer to with "I", then I think there is inconsistency to say that you might "take violent action without the participation of the conscious mind". This would not be you who is taking that action?

I agree that there are all sorts activities carried out without the participation of the conscious mind, pumping of blood for example, and breathing, but we're talking about thinking activities.

We can't really go by what you would say, or how you would say it, because we're looking for the truthful description, not the habitual one. That you'd be more likely to say "it would attract my attention" rather than "I would direct my attention to it", is irrelevant. I would be more likely to say that the sun rises and it sets, than to say that the earth spins so that I'm facing the sun and then it continues to have me facing away from the sun at night. How we describe something in our common way of speaking is often not a good representation of what is really going on.

So I would rather include the entirety of myself, conscious and subconscious within "I", and recognize that some actions are direct by the subconscious part of me, and some by the conscious part of me. There could be some overlap, or a grey area. But what about thinking? Isn't all thinking directed by the conscious part? We could go back and take another look at the mind wandering, daydreaming, and dreaming itself. Is it really appropriate to call this 'thinking'? I don't think so. So what is it? Can we say that it is mental activity which is being directed by the subconscious part? If not, what is it? It's clearly not completely random, so it's somewhat directed, but not directed by the conscious mind.

But, I think any thought can be interrupted or cancelled and a new thought provoked or intruded or substituded. — Ken Edwards

Wouldn't you agree that these actions imply direction?