...how does one think? — Benj96

By virtue of drawing correlations between different things.

What defines "thinking"? - consciousness

IMO: Consciousness is a state of entangled, integrated and unified information.
Thinking is a state of entangled, integrated and unified information.
Can you separate the two? I don't think so.

Am I thinking as long as my brain shows electrical waves on an EEG? — Benj96

EEG data dose not cease under anesthesia, but there are two patterns which strongly correlate with unconsciousness, whilst the other patterns are largely normal / inconclusive.

Thinking / consciousness is a state of putting together information in various ways. Once the thought is formed, then we consider how best to implement it, or how best to articulate it. These are all activities of entangling, integrating and unifying information. Often we change our mind, as more information comes to hand.

I think therefore I am - is an expression of Descartes consciousness.
It is information about his mind activity / thinking.
He concludes that thought gives rise to his Identity ( I am ).
Spot on, I would say, and i would add consciousness gives rise to his thinking, such that the two are indistinguishable.

The act of thinking defines thinking.

Self/meta-questioning (i.e. reflection) is thinking.

If you actually learn what Descartes' argument was, you will find that doubting should be first on your list of ideas that constitute 'thinking.'

Good question! There is something very different about thinking in comparison to our perception of the world. For one, thinking involves contemplating possibilities, things which do and don't and might and could and couldn't occur, for example, whereas the world we perceive does not, at least to the degree or in the same manner as our thoughts do. Our thoughts seem to reflect a wider sphere of possibility, or abstraction, as well, such that they apply to more instances than what we are capable of perceiving. One might therefore ask, how is that we represent these possibilities or level of universality. Do we represent them or do we see them (reflect them) in some manner or do we merely construct them. Do our thoughts actually reflect reality or do they provide us with a useful but distorted view of reality. These are all things to think about... no pun intended

The brain does a lot; not all of it is thinking. Regulating breathing, heart, balance -- all those basal activities -- is not part of thinking. Emotions in their 'raw' form (like fear, lust, hunger) aren't thinking. So, if you see a snake and jump back, that's not thinking. These non-thinking functions are important, but... not thinking.

Whether conscious or not, thinking is grappling, wrestling with reality. Trying (and maybe succeeding) to make sense of the 'buzzing, blooming, confusion' that presents itself to us.

Some animals think, to a limited extent. They too grapple a bit with the reality presented to them. Granted, it's not high level, but it's an activity that developed before we became sentient.

I wrote something up, saw yours......dumped mine.

What defines thinking, is itself.

What defines thinking?

Processing information.

Some animals think, to a limited extent. They too grapple a bit with the reality presented to them. Granted, it's not high level, but it's an activity that developed before we became sentient. — Bitter Crank

Nobody can tell if animals are self-aware or not but I would think the ones nearest to us philogenetically probably have some form of consciousness.

Processing information. — Harry Hindu

... and knowing that you do. Otherwise a computer can think.

In my humble opinion, firstly, one must make a distinction - that between thinking and sensing/feeling. Sensing consists of processes that involve gathering data (visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory). Thinking builds up around the data/information so gathered and is itself of three types:

1. Random: No two thoughts are correlated in any way. One moment I'm thinking of bats and the next moment of the Hydrogen nucleus.

2. Associative: I may have seen you once in a gorilla suit and then when I see an actual gorilla in a zoo, I think of you.

3. Directed: The mind connecting the dots - seeing the logical relations between things and arriving at a necessary conclusion

Processing information.
— Harry Hindu

... and knowing that you do. Otherwise a computer can think. — Olivier5

Why would thinking require that you know that you are thinking?

Before humans existed, did life exist even though knowledge of life didn't exist? Does a mosquito need to know it is thinking for it to think?

You seen to be confusing knowledge and what knowledge is about.

It's all a matter of definition. You can chose whichever you'd like of course but for me your definition is too broad. Life too can be defined as some sort of information processing, as it's all coded in DNA. Is life the same concept as thinking? I don't think so.

Is 'thinking' necessarily 'conscious'? I am not conscious of all that goes on in my brain to produce this sentence. I am aware of the result as it flows out of my fingers, through the keyboard, and onto the screen. I am not -- I can not be, as far as I know -- conscious of how the neural networks located between my ears arrived at the result. A lot of thinking goes on unconsciously.

A large degree of self-awareness is a feature of human beings. I do not know how self-awareness is generated. I don't know whether and/or to what extent other animals (primates, canines, elephants, etc.) have self-awareness. My assumption (based on reports and some observation, is that other animals 'think' to some extent.

Do computers 'think'? No, not yet -- and maybe not for quite some time, or maybe ever. Computers, for all their electronic complexity, are really simple compared to animal brains. Even insects outperform computers. What makes computers do interesting things are tons of human input (programming). Nobody programs a bee; it operates independently.

1. Random: No two thoughts are correlated in any way. One moment I'm thinking of bats and the next moment of the Hydrogen nucleus. — TheMadFool

How are they not correlated? For example if you understand knowledge that links two individual thoughts for example "all bats are made of organic matter - some of which contains hydrogen atoms with a nucleus".

If I was a scientist investigating the effects of different isotopes of hydrogen in the metabolism of a bat would these two concepts not very much be linked and associated within my studies.

I believe all information is linked and ones level of factual knowledge pertains to their capacity to make accurate associations whatever they may be between any two or more concepts.

It's all a matter of definition. You can chose whichever you'd like of course but for me your definition is too broad. Life too can be defined as some sort of information processing, as it's all coded in DNA. Is life the same concept as thinking? I don't think so. — Olivier5

Your definition just doesnt work. There only needs to be awareness of thinking to possess knowledge of thinking, not just thinking itself. For thinking, all you need is to process information for some purpose.

It depends on the definition of life. Is life information? What isn't information? If everthing is information then thinking essentially exists wherever it is processed (changed) to achieve some purpose. Panpsychists would say that the universe thinks.

Would you at least agree that thinking involves memory of some sort? Can you think without possessing a memory whether it is working, short-term or long-term memory? Can you think without holding some information in memory over a period of time?

I think biologically it is a break away from habituated behavior. Sometimes I say something automatically and I know I wasn't thinking when I said it. Or I will do something without my mind really being there. For example, lets say a sink was moved and I'm thinking something else while carrying plates, but because of that something else I put the plates down where they used to be and they all break. For me, it's this lived experience (to use a trending term) that makes me doubt the subconscious mind is really that intelligent at all.
That's why the social term: "think about it" when we screw up makes so much sense to us. We know precisely what the person is talking about.
So it's conscious thought overriding earlier habits and the creation of new information.

I miss the user Apokrisis. He used to give good social-bio explanations for habit-attention.

Can you think without holding some information in memory over a period of time? — Harry Hindu

No, and that's what I am saying. Without some reflexivity, it's not true thinking, it's just mechanical. A true thinker can challenge his/her own thoughts, re-examine them for instance, connect them with other thoughts, etc. To do that s/he needs to remember these thoughts and be aware of them.

Computers have memory - both working memory and long term memory. Computers arent just mechanical either. They need software or else the hardware doesnt do anything useful.

A lot of thinking goes on unconsciously. — Bitter Crank

And yet, when people act mechanically and end up making a mistake they often say: “sorry, I wasn’t thinking”, as pointed by forgottenticket.

But their software is also ‘mechanical’ in that it is totally deterministic and unable to reform itself. No spreadsheet ever told me: “I’m tired with mathematics, I want to do poetry instead!”

And yet, when people act mechanically and end up making a mistake they often say: “sorry, I wasn’t thinking”, as pointed by forgottenticket. — Olivier5

What they mean is that they weren't thinking correctly, as in being logical. You can't help but think - I think therefore I am. Whether or not your thinking is consistent and coherent is something else.

But their software is also ‘mechanical’ in that it is totally deterministic and unable to reform itself. No spreadsheet ever told me: “I’m tired with mathematics, I want to do poetry instead!” — Olivier5

A spreadsheet isn't software. It is the product of software and hardware. Brains are mechanical, so I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make.

What Descartes means when saying "I think therefore I am" is: I am conscious of my own thoughts, and thus I cannot doubt my own existence." A computer cannot reason as such because it is not aware of itself.

As for the idea that brains are "mechanical" (as determined as clockwork), it is a bit counter-intuitive, and there is no evidence for it that I am aware of.

The kind of unconscious activity I was referencing goes on all the time and is often high level. Most people have had the experience of "sleeping on a problem" which yesterday seemed insoluble; upon waking up the solution was apparent. Just one example.

Self/meta-questioning (i.e. reflection) is thinking. — 180 Proof

:up:

It is reflexivity of attitude that I hold to make an opinion cognitive, apt for being found objectively correct or not. Intentions are cognitive but non-descriptive opinions; in the same way that perceptions are descriptive but non-cognitive opinions. I like to term cognitive opinions like beliefs and intentions "thoughts", and non-cognitive ones like perceptions and desires "feelings".

"sleeping on a problem" — Bitter Crank

Sure, some mental activity is unconscious, but I am not sure one would call that "thinking" in plain English. Also, the question is asked in the context of the cogito, which speaks of self-conscious thought.

What Descartes means when saying "I think therefore I am" is: I am conscious of my own thoughts, and thus I cannot doubt my own existence." A computer cannot reason as such because it is not aware of itself. — Olivier5

That's fine. But my point was that you are always thinking. You can never stop thinking. Even in clearing your mind, you are thinking about clearing your mind and focusing on that task. You are always thinking so when you are conscious, of course you are aware of the thinking because you are always doing it even when unconscious.

A computer could be programmed to be aware of itself, just as you are. And to say that you are aware of yourself, what exactly do you mean? Are dogs aware of themselves? Do they jump at the sound of their own bark? Do cats react as if they are being licked by another cat when cleaning themselves? How do you get woken up by external sounds or movements if your body isn't aware to some degree even when sleeping? Awareness of the self and its thinking process comes in degrees as well. To be aware of the self is to be aware of your body and its relationship with the world to some degree, not necessarily only being aware of your mind - which is just one process of many that make you "you". So can a computer be aware that it has been instructed to print out a piece of paper, because it seems to do that when I command it to.

As for the idea that brains are "mechanical" (as determined as clockwork), it is a bit counter-intuitive, and there is no evidence for it that I am aware of. — Olivier5

Well, then I would have to ask what you meant by "mechanical". I thought you mean materialistic and causal. We can't use our ignorance of how the brain works as evidence that brains can never be explained in causal terms. Computers are becoming less and less mechanical and more and more electronic. Hard drives are a great example of this in how going from the spinning disk IDE drives to the fully electronic solid state drives. Brains operate on electricity, as do computers. Throughout history, we've often tried to use mechanistic inventions as examples of how the mind works, but it wasn't until the computer came along that we truly have a good metaphor for how the mind works.

The inability to answer this question only arises if one presumes that its identity can be EXTERNALLY demonstrated; which is precisely what Descartes opposed. A “thinking thing,” i.e., a mind, according to Descartes, has nothing outside of itself to which it can directly point & say, “this is thinking” — whence arose the problem of solipsism.

So, the identity of thought isn’t to be externally sought for &, thus, revealed, but it’s to be discerned by way of personal observation; such that observation or perception, in general, is what Descartes identifies as “thinking,” rather than just conception in particular (which is what a lot of people get wrong about Descartes). As Descartes himself put it, in the ninth article of the first part of his “Principles of Philosophy,” “I take the word ‘thought’ to cover EVERYTHING that we are aware of as happening within us, and it counts as ‘thought’ because we are aware of it. That includes NOT ONLY understanding, willing and imagining, but also sensory awareness.”

my point was that you are always thinking — Harry Hindu

In common language: there’s always some mental activity happening.

A computer could be programmed to be aware of itself, just as you are. And to say that you are aware of yourself, what exactly do you mean? — Harry Hindu

In theory it can be done, but current ones can’t so by my definition they are not “thinking”. What I mean by aware is: I can hear myself thinking. I have some knowledge of what I think while I think it.