Consider a thought experiment: a human is born and lives without ever
perceiving anything. Would that human be able to "think"? Would that
human know that it could think? Would he in fact think at all,
whether he can or not? What would he think about?
In a point to Terry, the ways of thinking that Kari suggests are all
of the form "thinking by [some mechanism]". This suggests to me that
thinking *is* not those mechanisms.
Also, they're one way implications in that "reading by thinking", for
instance, doesn't really make sense. This also suggests that thinking
is different from - though enabled by -
talking/reading/writing/discussing/doing. Pure thinking, I suggest,
isn't really that pure in that it is enabled by remembered
externalities.
I'm wondering if this isn't a boundary problem. Either you include or
you exclude the enablers in your definition of thinking. The
definition that is best, I would say, is the one that is most
consistent with the rest of our knowledge and that lets us make
meaningful predictions.
Cheers.
Fil
On 18 June 2011 04:26, Kari Kuutti <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Equating writing with research may be a bit narrow interpretation, and this
> is what Terry is in his polemical way reacting against. Writing is anyway
> without doubt one form of thinking, and a thoughtless researcher should be
> an oxymoron (although that may be the direction older research managers are
> evolving, when running years and years after funding...a bleak future...).
>
> I have tried to teach my doctoral students that as researchers they are
> expected to become professional thinkers, but this thinking comes in many
> guises they should be aware of:
>
> 1. "Pure" thinking without any props. This is of course the most common, and
> we do it all the time from moment to moment. But in a sustained form it is
> quite difficult, needing discipline, practice, and perhaps even natural
> talent, because some (few) people seem to be so much better in it than
> others. I can do it 5 minutes at a time, and there may have been occasions
> that I have been so exited that it has been sustained a quarter of an hour,
> but that's surely my limit without any props.
>
> 2. Thinking by talking (to oneself, either silently or aloud). Thought is
> not flying from flower to flower, but muddles through at a pace of speech.
> For me, this is an essential and valuable partner of writing; whenever
> running in difficulties finding an expression, I resort to talking it to
> myself and varying it until something understandable emerges; silently when
> in company, aloud when alone. Walking around seems help more. (Advice: keep
> the door of your room closed when practicing this, otherwise you will be
> thought being even more weird than you are...).
>
> 3. Thinking by reading. This is one easiest and often also most enjoyable
> forms of thinking: somebody else has done a lot of preprosessing and
> prepared a series of props of thinking for you to interpret, react, argue,
> and use as springboards for your own thoughts. It is so easy and enjoyable
> that doctoral students should be warned not to use it excessively as an
> escape from more stressful forms of thinking (we older researchers naturally
> know the danger and are more disciplined in this respect).
>
> 4. Thinking by discussing. This is also an easy form, and in a good company
> it may be very enjoyable. It is a bit like reading in the sense that someone
> else is providing the props for your thinking, but unlike reading it is
> directly interactive, and you can get immediate answers to your reactions,
> arguments, and ideas, and it can branch out to unexpected directions. If
> there is a problem, it is that longer narratives are difficult to maintain.
>
> 5. Thinking by writing. As we know, most stressful from all forms of
> thinking: enjoyable during the moments when it flows, but those moments come
> sparsely and are difficult to sustain long. No props, and you have even
> imagine your audience and counterarguments yourself. Small wonder that it
> tends to be avoided by doctoral students (alone?)
>
> 6. Thinking by doing. Interacting in a non-verbal form (hands and other
> body) with material world and reflecting upon that. I count sketching to
> this class, but it is more wide and varied: whatever the material of
> interaction, thinking can be stimulated. In our own research, we must often
> construct experimental settings for user interaction; get various input- ja
> output technologies working together, prepare the space, tweak that and tune
> this to make the experiment work, and even that kind of practical
> involvement clearly evokes different kind of sensitivities than the other
> forms of thinking listed above.
>
> This list is based on my own experiences and observation; perhaps some
> theorizing could be connected to it. In any case, we should not block any of
> the channels for thinking -- on the contrary, we should perhaps prepare and
> train for them more...
>
> best regards,
> --Kari Kuutti
> Oulu, Finland
>
--
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
