jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (83 posts)

Define Critical Thinking

  1. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    As a lifer of Applied Philosophy, I rarely have the pleasure of engaging real philosophers here on HP. You know, critical thinkers or better stated critique. Being a child of military intel (thanks dad) and also from every knowledge base I have scoured or pillaged, the definition of critical thinking IS philosophy itself.

    Philosophy is not the injection of an idea into another, so much as it is a method used to view and critique ideas. Critique is observing the raw material and, if available, the finished product. Once viewed, a thought is formed then radically shaken to see what falls out. That fallout is what forms questions or possible considerations apart from the product being viewed. Call them leftovers, if you like. The finished product is then tagged and shelved according to the ideas foundation.

    The process can be vigorous and extensive depending on what it is the you are viewing and critiquing.

    I am curious if all of the pseudo "critical" thinkers -either by the sub methods of equation or sensation- are capable of actual critical thinking, from a genuine perspective. Is it possible to look at your opposing playmate with no injection of your own personal/emotional preference?
    If yes, is it also possible that you could express critical thought based solely on your personal experience with either side, and not the leftovers or absorbed/accepted notions of others?

    1. Shadesbreath profile image89
      Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      One would need to be extremely (impossibly) intuitive to do a very good critique of a philosophical question based purely on personal experience.  Personal experience, unaided by rigorous study of the work previously done by others, essentially requires that the layman philosopher "reinvent" all previous approaches to the subject on his own, essentially requiring an individual to manifest the genius of hundreds upon hundreds of great philosophers, artists, and theologians.  Which is pretty unlikely. 

      Imagine having to have the intellectual acumen to come after something from the perspective of the classicists and then from the romantics, on your own.  Just that wouldn't happen.  Then having to come at it again from a deconstructionist view.  Then, refine that into feminist theory and queer theory. Toss in old school ideology and theology.  All racial view points, done from all historical perspectives, and gender perspectives.  Etc.

      Never happen.  In my opinion.

      There are a handful of folks on HP who can give you a philosophical go, though.

    2. profile image60
      (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is what is called "guesswork" and it is often wrong.

      1. Shadesbreath profile image89
        Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe I just come from a totally different frame of reference, but there's nothing approaching the topic of "critical thinking" here. 

        I'm not saying the conversation isn't evaluating philosophical approaches, but, critical thinking is pretty straightforward.  You either employ the widest range of thought disciplines you can muster to evaluate an idea/work/process/etc., or you don't.

        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Confetti and super glue are not true expressions of critical thinking. That is what I call the crumb. THAT is what people are using to define critical function/critical thinking. There is no valid projection -from a pure perspective- of the individual or collective.

      2. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe your definition of critical experience is guesswork, and that's okay for you. But, as a uninfluenced expression -again, not the leftovers but the product itself- it would be much more effective and valuable to have that experience, apply it and then go outward and 'test' it against others (within the same idea).

        What I often find to be the case is a style of thinking is used solely based on the leftovers (primarily left by others passed or present), which are used for analogies to design conclusions, with no fundamental foundation of the individual or collective. The end result is no actual critical function and ultimately the core critique is lost. Hence, the spread of crumbs that end up becoming piles of useless mind fodder...

  2. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 7 years ago

    I would think it possible to approach a discussion without very much personal/emotional preference as to your opponent.  This is made easier on such things as HP where other people are hidden by pseudonyms and words on a page are just - words on a page.  At the same time, such preference will inevitably come to happen to some degree; Even as a newbie here, there are a few people I read only for a laugh as I do not believe they have anything real to contribute.  I am pleasantly surprised occasionally, but the preference is merely put on hold for a while.

    Can we make comments based solely on personal experience?  No.  However hard we might try, much of what makes us up has come from someone else.  Our moral identities, our religious beliefs, much of our personal knowledge base comes from others.  While we certainly modify that knowledge and belief, it is still based on someone else's thoughts and often the change itself is based on something we did not directly experience.

    1. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Why not? If in fact we apply critique, shouldn't it be based upon our experiences then compared to other experiences within ourselves, then others and then the world itself?

      Hume and Kant would place a higher critique on personal experience as far more relevant than a mirror Freudian, Blake or even Epicurean suggestion.

  3. NightEmpress profile image60
    NightEmpressposted 7 years ago

    As critical thinking is applied in analyzing or evaluating information you need to consider to reach a conclusion, I think you have to use both sources: your personal experiences and the experienses of other human beings.

  4. Rafini profile image87
    Rafiniposted 7 years ago

    Define Critical thinking....a dictionary definition states: Looking for faults. 

    The thesaurus gives the following words as having similar meaning: censorship, disapproving, disparaging, derogatory, uncomplimentary, unfavorable; OR crucial, decisive,  pivotal, key, all-important, vital; OR dangerous, grave, serious, risky, perilous, hazardous, precarious.

    It's difficult (for me) to explain although I understand I'm highly critical - So, I'll give it a shot. smile

    What I would say, based on the dictionary & thesaurus, is: Critical Thinking is having the ability to see both sides, positive and negative, and being able to determine which stands out.  Which has more value.  I would also say, critical thinking involves the ability to see things clearly, on all sides, (such as in 3D) and being able to express what is seen (or would that be logic?) whether the expression be written, spoken, or artistic.  Critical thinking could also be defined by making decisions and coming to rapid conclusions.

    One more thing:  Critical thinking means thinking for yourself and forming your own opinions rather than following what someone else thinks.

    1. profile image0
      Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This sounds very similar to my ideas on it.  Excellent.

  5. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Critical thinking is just one step in the evolutionary chain that leads oneself to Integration Thinking, which not only uses what we know, but allows for imagination to power the future.

    All philosophies, knowledge, experience, research, all knowable to humanity's collective reality becomes Integrated together. Harnessed, if you will. It works more efficiently, more effectively and not skewed or disrupted by stagnation.

    Thus, bring into existence cures, poverty elimination, starvation elimination and a much happier less delusional atmosphere.

    Integrity the mainstay of human morality will lead the charge

    Access to everything knowable will be at the fingertips of every man, woman and child.

    Critical thinking is just a sectional piece of the larger picture of the expansion of the human mind. Integration Thinking will bring a change unlike anything anyone has seen.

    Just a thought. smile

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So, you're saying critical thinking leads to integrated thinking which will (eventually) cure all earthly wrongs and create more happiness with less delusion?

      Do you really think its possible?  I'm not too sure....hmm

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Do you really think that is possible? I just said it, didn't I.

        I can understand why you wouldn't, but do you? hmm Maybe, maybe not. It would take too much to explain it, so let me give you the gist of it:

        Integration Thinking will improve-

        (a) individual household incomes
        (b) science advancements
        (c) medical advancements
        (d) technological advancements
        (e) establish stable economies globally
        (f) perspective about ending poverty
        (g) perspective about ending starvation
        (h) perspective about wars
        (i) individual self-responsibility
        (j) helps restore integrity within society
        (k) quality of life suitable for anyone

        That's just the gist of it. I hope that helps.

        Again, just my thoughts. smile

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I would agree with b,c,d only.  Without the elimination greed, gluttony, hatred, and other fine human traits the best thinking in the world won't change much.  Or do I have the cart before the horse; elimination of such things is a necessary precursor to integration thinking?

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Most people would agree on only those three too. lol
            Okay, greed - gluttony - hatred and many other traits fall to the wayside, because Integration Thinking requires full self responsibility, self-control and acceptance of self. Once reached, love for oneself breeds Integrity. Hatred cannot exist, not at least in the manner of racism, discrimination and gender bias. wink

            1. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Okay, let's say this Intigration Thinking is going to happen, I can accept it.  However, I doubt it will happen within my lifetime - look how long it took for Civil Rights after slavery was abolished.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I can understand that too. I don't expect to see a HUGE change, between this conversation and my own death. However, that does not mean I cannot be wrong. There happens to be a higher probability that I am wrong than correct. I am human after all, infallible like everyone else.

                I have no clue "when" the change is going to take place. But, as I said to Twenty One Days, it is the most positive step forward. And, to me, it seems to make the most sense.

                Narrow-minded people and closed-minded people will no longer be able to live, let alone anything else. These people will find themselves on the short end of the rope and that rope will be burning beneath them, as they climb to understand. smile

                1. Rafini profile image87
                  Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Ya know, something that occurs to me everytime I think about new concepts or evolution.....its supposed to happen & has happened ever since the beginning of time.  the only difference is now there are words attached to the actions.

                  So, I guess what I'm saying is....is this integrative thinking process something that can be taught or even learned by all?

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Everything(knowable) can be learned. The only thing that stops someone from learning is choice. wink

        2. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I understand what you're saying, but I have to agree with wilderness.  I don't see how Integration Thinking is going to solve the problems associated with Greed, which is what powers the world.

          I understand a-d along with f & g have improved much over the past century, and some (a, f, g) are now declining rapidly due to the Greed factor.

          But - if Integration Thinking can resolve Greed, I say: Bring it on!  Don't wait another minute!!

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            http://hubpages.com/hub/misconception-t … r-of-money

            Greed is simply the lack of knowledge of the power of money and the respect it deserves. Those who are greedy? Are the ones who "steal" from others, not the ones who are in "business".

            You must be able to separate the two. Not ALL business is greedy and Not ALL businesses were started because of greed. Millions of companies were started because of Integration Thinking and some where simply started to help others.

            The few that were built to do both are the ones to value. They add value to a person's life. They do not destroy people's life.

            1. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I disagree with you there.

              How many business owners live on the same minimum wage they pay their entry level employees?

              I am also stating Greed in terms of Wall Street and the reasons behind the 'Economic Crisis' the world is currently in - it wasn't the people who respect the power of money who put us into this mess, it was the people in power who are Greedy.

              Greed powers the world and I don't understand how integration thinking can change that.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                It goes to show that you don't understand money. But, that's okay. smile

                1. Rafini profile image87
                  Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  I get paid a minimum of $7.50 an hour for my work, and my paychecks pay my rent or morgage, bills, food and gas.  If there's anything left over I save it or its spent on necessities such as clothing or some sort of entertainment such as movies or books.

                  What's not to understand about money??

                  As I said, Greed powers the world and keeps the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.  I don't see how integration thinking is going to change that fact.

        3. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsil, you touched a point from the list (k).
          this is a subject I have been evaluating for some time.
          I am curious why you listed it and if it was purposeful as last but seemingly most important.

          As for the dialogue, between you and Rafini, that is what I was reviewing -the leftovers. It appears, from the list that economics is in question or the driving force behind that critique? Is that the finished product?

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I listed it because quality of life is based on having needs and those needs being met. Specific, food, shelter and other necessities to not live like animals. Was it purposeful putting it at the end? No.
            I'm sure it is not the finished product, it was just the gist of it.

            I'm still presently exploring Integration Thinking, and so far, I see it as the most positive step forward, in the overall aspect of humanity. I only started exploring it, after I was finished with religion, so about 5+ years now.

            1. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting....Integrative thinking honestly sounds like a highly developed critical thinking style, but I do have to wonder about it.  Integrative thinking is a fairly new concept, right?   I mean, it may have been used throughout history but is only now becoming known as a thinking style.  At this point I don't know enough about it to say anymore, but it sounds like the 'research subjects' were naturals in the process of critical thinking and lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                That would depend on who you talk to? The concept began in the 1800's.

                Why hasn't it been available to the general public? Unknown, I am still exploring it myself. wink

                1. Rafini profile image87
                  Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  big_smile   oh, okay.  big_smile  I did some quick research and found Wikipedia to tell me something about 2007....big_smile

    2. profile image0
      Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Integrity implies strength, and strength implies solidity, solidity implies foundation, and foundation implies truth. 

      Without truth, there is no integrity.

  6. profile image0
    Tilecleaninghubposted 7 years ago

    1,2,3,5,8,13,21....

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      34, 55

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree

      1. Coolbreezing profile image70
        Coolbreezingposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Critical thinking is having the ability to balance reasons with facts while at the same time being able to fragmentize a whole sentence structure to organize a reasonable conclusion.

  7. wudie profile image60
    wudieposted 7 years ago

    critical thinkin is the ability to evaluate anything in a way to reduce obscurity thus makin something; be it a problem or a set of data, much simpler.

  8. profile image0
    Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago

    The human mind has more resemblance to a computer than it does to jello.

    Critical thinking is if I hold one opinion, but consider opinions that are opposite of my own.  I then pose arguments that defend my position, and imagine what the counter-arguments would be.  Critical thinking sees beyond what is obvious, the process of critical thinking has the ability to bring the imaginary into reality, BUT it does not have the ability to put the reality back into the imaginary.  The only thing that critical thinking can do with reality is to either accept it, or to lock it up in an area that the human mind does not visit often.  This is how the human mind has the ability or disability of believing two opposing beliefs simultaneously.

    Furthermore, critical thinking is not an expression, it is a processing and exploration method as much as a spell checker in a MS word program is a word/spelling/grammer processing method.  Critical thinking seeks to boil a concept down to its most basic functional parts.  Instead of seeing a planet, critical thinking seeks to discover the atom, and then the sub-atomic particles within, and then anti-matter.  Once the critically thinking mind discovers the reality of anti-matter, it cannot go back and must re-shape all of the brains ideas and opinions that were formed prior to the discovery of anti-matter.  The same way that humanity was never the same once it was discovered that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa.

    1. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Shelly,


      So it is expressive. what is interesting in your statement is that CT seeks to discover. Can it do so without injection or influence of the leftovers. If it is seeking an atom (the product) than any individual should be able to critique the product itself -from all views, yes?

      1. profile image0
        Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Any individual should be able to accurately critique a product IF they have all the information.  As to whether a critique should lead to an absolute definitive yet tentative conclusion is a topic of great, lengthy debates.

        A product can only be in one position at any given time, even if that time is only a nano-second.  If we had the ability to think and measure in nano-seconds with our naked minds, we would be able to come to an absolute conclusion about what the product is and what the product is doing or attempting to do.

        For example, if a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound because the impact with the ground sends out sound waves regardless of whether a human or animal is in the vicinity to hear it.  Sound waves happen regardless of if someone can hear it or not.  Therefore, there is a definitive, absolute answer to the question: does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if nobody is there to hear it?

        If someone can argue against the legitimacy of sound waves, I would love to hear that one.  And if someone can argue against the legitimacy of gravity on a rotating and revolving planet, I'd love to see that argument as well. 

        This means that in the physical, visible, tangible dimensions, there are absolute, proven, imperical facts.  But truth can only be found in the non-physical, invisible, non-tangible dimensions.  Truth is identified by a conglomeration of facts, but because it is in a dimension that we can't see with our eyes, then the only way Truth is found in the visible dimensions, is if it chooses to make itself known.  Thus, we have just discovered that one dimension can interact with another dimension.  They can interact with each other.  But this also denotes that the visible, tangible dimensions are limited whereas the invisible, non-tangible dimensions are unlimited relative to the visible, tangible ones.

        Did gravity exist before there was a theory for it?  Was the theory invented based on gravity, or was it merely discovered?  Did equations exist before the first time an equation was written?  This points to the possibility that the immaterial is real whether we perceive it or not.

        1. profile image0
          Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Therefore, although a product can only exist in one position at a time, it can exist in multiple positions outside of time.  This is what enables a person to imagine the future because their mind can travel outside of time and jump ahead to a possible effect of previous and or possible causes.  But even then, we are still limited because the distance we can travel in our imagination is hampered by how strong we allow our past experiences to bind us.  But we know that it is possible to travel outside of time, to exist outside of time, because if it weren't possible, our minds would never have conjoured such a concept in the first place.  Someone had to see an equation in their mind before they wrote it down, which means the immaterial had to make its mark in the material in order to find an anchor there.

          Because we were able to see an immaterial concept and to bring it into the material universe, it means our vision is not as limited as it seems at first.  Additionally, it means we, ourselves, everything that denotes a person exists in multiple dimensions, one that is obvious to everyone using physical eyes and one that is more obvious to onself than anyone else. 

          So the bigger question is, what is happening to us in the invisible, non-tangible, non-physical dimension that we exist in?  And is any of what happens to us in that dimension effecting what we see, know, or experience in the visible, tangible, physical dimension that we also inhabit?

          1. profile image60
            (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, but I have no idea what that means?

          2. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            This is very interesting.  Just a question tho - is this what you learned in a class, theories you came up with on your own, or where your critical thinking and education has taken you?

            1. profile image0
              Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It's a conglomeration of things I've learned from vastly different sources.  Over half of what I told you, I did not learn in an educational institution.  There are so many things in this universe that are interconnected, chain reactions, causes, effects, and causes.  Anyone could reach the same conclusions I have, but it requires people to forsake their comfort zones.

              1. profile image0
                Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                If anything, it's an extension of my education.  I've had a strong desire all my life to see things outside of the box.

    2. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You said that very well!  One thing though, even tho critical thinking isn't an expression I believe having the ability to express the results must be present.  whether it be written, spoken, or artistic expression of results - even spellchecker expresses results.

      1. profile image0
        Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Agree

  9. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Time is a state of human consciousness, so yes, that is hugely probable -and one of my cases for superseding thought (not in the standard meta-physic sense) allowing unlimited understand from multiple perspectives of the product viewed -at any given instance.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Time is not a state of human consciousness. Time, like Reality, exists without us to perceive it. We, as human beings, barely know enough about it, but do know it exists. We only designed ways to measure it. wink

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Time is definitely a state of human consciousness, as is reality.
        It is the middle section of the tres priori.
        So, humans "measure" from consider/question to solution/answer and set those parameters defined as time, distance, length, space, interval, even dimension, etc...

        This is the necessity factor.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          roll

          1. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            look at the product: life.
            humans define it as the span from concept to death.
            the measured instance between is called lifetime, span, etc.
            Those instances are human perceptions of reality.

            True, the product exists without us, but that is something all together different than humans perceive. It is one of the pillars of the very old arguments we have all engaged in. It is much of the premises of equation and sensation -perhaps where both sub-products stem. It is the human necessity to define them, making the product valuable to them, but beyond reach. So, humans radically shake the product and use what falls out (the leftovers) as if they were the product itself. But in truth those things are by-products...

        2. profile image60
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Nonsense, any time dilation experiment in any particle accelerator will demonstrate well beyond a shadow of a doubt that time is certainly not a state of human consciousness.

          1. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            that mechanic is a by-product of human perception.
            So, time to the particle itself is irrelevant.
            The human imposition of "a measure" on it is a human necessity.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              By the same token - your statement is the same and any opinion you have is merely your perception and therefore irrelevant. You are as unqualified to make this statement as the one you are attempting to refute.

              You cannot know anything unless you are able to be outside of it and observing through a non-human.

              I don't think you are able to do that.

              1. profile image0
                Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I believe we are able, Marcus.
                And, you are correct, my or any perception within the instance is no different than any one else -though I am genuinely not refuting, only engaging.

                EDIT:

                We can observe without human inception or interaction in many ways -though it disputes the need and the necessity of experiencing, yes. Parallel to that, we can also interact without disrupting as well.

              2. profile image0
                Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Mark, true, we're not able to do it with certainty, however our imagination gives us a head start.  But I see your point though.

            2. profile image60
              (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Nope. Time is a product of our universe and can dilate due to velocity and gravitational fields, all of this occurring completely disassociated from our existence.

              1. profile image0
                Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, exactly.  Perhaps it is my love of sci-fi that led me to comment here.  I'm a big fan of Stargate SG-1 and Babylon 5.  LOL, go figure.

              2. profile image0
                Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                key word Q: our universe -by our perceptions of the universe we exist in. So again the human necessity factor -consciousness- determines those elements of time, gravity, fields, etc. Nothing in the universe has engaged humans by the human perspective. Which means there is a completely different -or many different perspectives- out of human reach. What those things are doing is irrelevant to us unless engaged by us for our purposes -which is to define and understand them from our perspective.

                1. profile image0
                  Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  That's certainly the more selfish, self-centered, egocentric perspective, yes.  Just because we aren't the center of the universe does not mean that we shouldn't care about what happens in the universe, even if it isn't engaging us.  Physiology defines purpose.

                  1. profile image0
                    Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The purpose of a light is to be seen.  Period.

                2. profile image60
                  (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  We are only aware of one universe, so your statement is meaningless as it implies more than one.



                  Nope. Those phenomena occur regardless of of human necessity.



                  And, when we do understand them, we understand their existence does not concern our existence or any purpose we may assign. Sorry to burst your bubble.

                  1. profile image0
                    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, Q, you are injecting and using the by-products.
                    Human collection of those items/knowledge of, etc is futile,
                    because humans determined what those knowing were/are -by human perspective and NOT from the perspective of the product itself.

                    There are more than one singular verses? How do you know?
                    Have those items interacted with you from their image/desire/parameters and through human perspective? Certainly not.

      2. profile image0
        Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If time is a state of human consciousness, then what is the point of carbon-dating anything older than human existence?  Why should it matter if dinosaurs died out 65 millions years ago if time is just a state of human consciousness?

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well, first off, it might be helpful if you read my post and all the words in it. But, since you didn't. I didn't say that Time was a state of Human Consciousness.

          Someone else said it. wink

          1. profile image0
            Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I was responding to Twenty One Days, I actually agreed with your post.

        2. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Shelly, it doesn't matter, which is precisely the point.
          Why humans feel the need to is the actual product we should critique. The dinosaur cannot engage us to explain its existence, so we rely on the by-products (fossils) and our own desire to understand it from our perspective.

          1. profile image0
            Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Because humans are born with an inherent understanding that they didn't make themselves, nor did they evolve themselves by choice.  So the desire will always be there to find out, at least in this dimension, what led up to this point.  This is why the study of history will never vanish completely.  We know that we haven't always existed, so we want to know what came before us.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I do not think time is a state of human consciousness.

      Time is a dimension. We may experience it subjectively though -  but "travel outside of time" is about as likely as "travel in two dimensions" which would provide us the ability to travel any where very quickly because all points would be next to each other.

      Can you just lose that third dimension? No more than you can time I think.

      1. profile image0
        Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        For a long time, I've wondered why the "speed of light" isn't considered a dimension.  Time ceases to exist for anyone who is traveling at the speed of light, though time still remains for anyone who isn't...

        1. profile image0
          Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Also, just to clear things up, the present thinking in physics is that Time is the 4th dimension.

        2. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I would think time still exists at the speed of light, just at a different rate.

  10. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    If humans were able to quantify light, they wouldn't necessitate a dimensional perspective of it. Light would be the absolute -the product. The critique of light would then force us to put aside our measures, viewing light from lights perspective only, yes?

    1. profile image0
      Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, because light doesn't have a perspective.  It simply is.  Light has no purpose other than to be observed by someone or something that does have perspective and to enable the observation of otherwise invisible phenomena.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why would light not have a purpose, except to be observed?
        it exists only to be observed? If so, are we also subject to the same parameters of existing only to be observed?

        1. profile image0
          Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No, we are not subject to the same parameters.  Our physiology gives us clues as to our purpose.  The physiology of light, if there is such a thing, gives clues to its purpose.

          1. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So if we are not subject to the same critique and tests we impose on the universe, are we greater than the universe itself?

            How would humans know the psyche of light, unless observed light from lights perspective, yes? So light would have to have a purpose, it seems, without observation that presently humans do not perceive (because of our own limitation/necessity).

            It is truly something to consider...

            1. profile image0
              Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What is the purpose of a painting within one's home? decoration, i.e. to be seen.  Why is it hard for you to consider the possibility that light (by the way, light isn't just defined by the stars/sun) has only one purpose?

              Let's assume that you are correct and that Light has a consciousness, i.e. it's own perspective, how do you know that it hasn't chosen to freely be used by anyone who needs or wants it?  Perhaps its only purpose, or the choice that it has made, is to illuminate others, is that so hard to fathom?

              1. profile image0
                Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                precisely, we would have to critique light from its perspective of itself and its perspective of us. That is what humans fail to do.
                which is where the limitation comes from/in.

                You have repeated that light has one function: to be seen, observed by humans and the image humans express. Yet, light exists without the optic view via humans, so it must have its own purpose regardless of the by-products we assume.

                This reflects the OP. True critical thinking must exceed human standards of necessity/expression -viewing the product from a pure perspective -the product itself.

                This would eliminate much of the human necessity, yes. But, I believe it would also elevate human existence beyond necessity.
                Could this be exactly what humans -from both the equation and sensation (consciousness)- are missing; the cause of continued struggle, lack...

            2. profile image0
              Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Also, you are assuming that there aren't double-standards inherent to the universe.  Light has but one function, while humanity and human imagination serve many functions.  Perhaps the message of Light is simply "use me."

  11. profile image0
    Chasukposted 7 years ago

    I don't know that our definitions of critical thinking coincide.

    To me, critical thinking means the logical analysis of any inference or argument, applying rigid standards of evidence.

    This logical analysis entails an understanding of logical principles and logical fallacies. It is a difficult cognitive process that most never learn.

    Even when we have learned these processes, we don't always uniformly apply them.

    Yes, I am including myself in that "we."

 
working