What Defines Us? Thoughts or Actions?

[ChrisA]

Action begins in thought. Ergo, both.

If I move to kick you in the crotch, you're going to avoid the strike without thinking about it. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence that not all action begins in thought.

The fact that a thought is non-verbal doesn't mean it's not a thought. People avoid painful
contact because it will hurt, they know it, they don't want it to happen. In the moment, there isn't time to -verbalize- this, but there's time to react to it.

If physical action following from nonverbal thought is action without thought, that
nobody in professional sports does any thinking on the field...

(Or, alternatively, they can verbalize, "That guy has the ball, but he's going to pass it very
quickly, not to that guy because he's too well covered by my teammate Joe, but probably to
that guy over there who isn't properly covered at all so I'd better get over there quickly" all
in, say, 1/100th of a second. If you could eavesdrop on their thoughts it would sound like a
memo tape on fast-forward, only more so. I think this is the less likely theory. )

Or closer to home, someone who can move a tune up or down by a fifth, on the fly
and without hesitation, is doing so 'without thought' in the literal sense. We may use
that expression to describe the action, but it is proveably not literally true (as long as
one takes as a given that brain activity has a correspondence with thought).


Anyway. If you define 'define' as how other people see you, obviously, it must be by your
actions and your words. Unless you're the mindreader from the previous digression. If you
include your own idea of yourself, then you can talk about thoughts. If you're talking about
how society categorizes you, then it depends on which categories you're talking about.

Sexual orientation and identity are defined by thoughts and desires. Abuse is defined by
action (or, in cases of negligence to the point of abuse, by inaction.) Honesty is defined
by whether or not thoughts, words, and actions are in alignment. Dishonesty is when
thoughts and words are not in alignment, Hypocrisy is when words and actions are not
in alignment.

[Jeff Stallard]

If one refuses to continue act on thoughts/impulses that one wishes to overcome, eventually the thoughts themselves can be overcome.

It's interesting to see someone else who thinks this way. I've long thought that we have the power to change our impulses (desires). It's easier, however, to say you're helpless against them, and we tend to follow the path of least resistance.

[TomB]

Action begins in thought. Ergo, both.

If I move to kick you in the crotch, you're going to avoid the strike without thinking about it. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence that not all action begins in thought.

I don't know about that. Just because it's not conscious thought doesn't mean that there is no thought.

Your brain processed the action of the kick, figured out evasive action and told your body what to do, and your body did so- isn't that thought?

Tom


Edited to correct my error so kindly pointed out to me!

[Jeff Stallard]

The fact that a thought is non-verbal doesn't mean it's not a thought.

True. I was meaning instinctual behavior, not learned behavior like music or sports. Touching a hot burner for example. Instinct triggers behavior, not thought. Okay, so technically you could say that instinct is thought, but the behavior is uncontrollable, so it's moot whether instinct is a thought process or not.

I think the easy answer is to say that definitions are derived differently under various circumstances. Maybe you're right though...I just think there's a single, correct answer out there somewhere, sort of the sociological version of Einstein's universal constant.

[Jeff Stallard]

Just because it's not conscience thought doesn't mean that there is no thought.

Maybe I mean just CONSCIOUS thought. Otherwise, the argument is pointless, since we don't know what our unconscious thoughts are.

[TomB]

Just because it's not conscience thought doesn't mean that there is no thought.

Maybe I mean just CONSCIOUS thought. Otherwise, the argument is pointless, since we don't know what our unconscious thoughts are.

OK, whatever. Oh, thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake in those big bold letters. It's a word I can never spell, and this time, I forgot to spell check- but I guess I didn't need to

Tom

[carrie]

I'm with Milton on this one, on the whole:

Evil into the mind of God or Man
May come and go, so unapprov'd, and leave
No spot or blame behind...

I do, though, think that happiness may have a lot to do with how aligned one's thoughts and deeds are.

Carol

[Stu H]

I would like to think that we can be defined by the effect that we have on other people.

[TelegramSam]

The fact that a thought is non-verbal doesn't mean it's not a thought.

True. I was meaning instinctual behavior, not learned behavior like music or sports. Touching a hot burner for example. Instinct triggers behavior, not thought. Okay, so technically you could say that instinct is thought, but the behavior is uncontrollable, so it's moot whether instinct is a thought process or not.

I think the easy answer is to say that definitions are derived differently under various circumstances. Maybe you're right though...I just think there's a single, correct answer out there somewhere, sort of the sociological version of Einstein's universal constant.

So you're saying that reflexes define who/what you are? I'd be hesitant to boil a human being down to a few reflexive responses if I were you. We all have the same reflexes, more or less, after all. Are you saying we are all the same?

All <i>meaningful</i> action is borne of thought.

[Flyingcursor]

Two things I take issue over.

1. Who we are is entirely the result of outside influence.
Rebuttal: Nonsense. It's too big a topic to go into but we certainly have a concept of self and identity independent of the world outside.

2. Some people never think about who they are.
Rebuttal: I disagree. We are constantly thinking and reshaping what our own sense of identity.

[Jeff Stallard]

I would like to think that we can be defined by the effect that we have on other people.

Ahh, that's an excellent way to put it. Hmm....yeah, I like that a lot.

So you're saying that reflexes define who/what you are?

No, I was using reflex as an example of an action that is NOT preceeded by thought.

Oh, thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake in those big bold letters.

That's funny! I was just emphasizing my own word, not yours. I didn't even notice the spelling error until you pointed it out.

[ChrisA]

True. I was meaning instinctual behavior, not learned behavior like music or sports. Touching a hot burner for example. Instinct triggers behavior, not thought. Okay, so technically you could say that instinct is thought, but the behavior is uncontrollable, so it's moot whether instinct is a thought process or not.

With human beings, you'll be looking a long time before you find a reaction that is not learned
(though, breathing comes to mind...). We have a very poor set of instincts. Even the hot
burner is learned behaviour... as it must be, since there are no hot burners in nature. We all
burn ourselves at some point, and learn to flinch away from things that might be hot, even
before we can perceive the pain directly. Watch someone flinch from touching a cold burner,
and only afterward realize that it wasn't hot... but they thought it might be. It's a -reflexive-
reaction, the same as sports or music or fighting. (I think I'm having flashbacks to my 101
required for a rounded education classes... anyway...)

That said, whether you define the mental impulse behind reflexive actions as thought or not is
up to you. I suppose you could say some reflexive actions are consciously trained, and some
are accidentally trained. (We might practice scales, but are unlikely to 'practice' touching and
flinching from hot stoves.) That way you can defer the 'conscious thought' judgement to
the training.

On the larger question, I think at a minimum you have to separate self-identification from
social identification (there's got to be another word for that... ). The way we think of
ourselves, and the way we think of others, are very different. You're welcome to try, but
I'm going to stick with categorizing my categorizations and categorizers into different
categories.

--Chris

[Jeff Stallard]

...we certainly have a concept of self and identity independent of the world outside.

Really? Define yourself without using relative terms (like funny, smart, thoughtful, rich...). Well wait a minute, you can certainly define yourself as a whistle player and not have that dependent on the outside world. Hmm...so maybe it's just our personalities that we cannot define in isolation..?

[TelegramSam]

Personality is at least partially an internal process, and after a certain age in most people, is shaped by internal thought.

In infants, however, personality emerges and is shaped through interaction with the surrounding environment and primarily through interaction with parents and other people. There have been some sad cases of extreme child abuse (look up the case of Genie for an example) where children where isolated and ignored from birth for several years. When found, they are usually passive, do not smile or speak, or show any real evidence of pesonality. Most of them progress greatly once they are put in a caring environment, though they remain mentally disabled the rest of their lives because of their early neglect.

I think it's kind of like looking in a mirror. Even if you can't see your face, it's there, but you can't define it and you don't know what it looks like. Interacting with others is like looking in a mirror, you get back a reflection and knowlege of yourself.

[Jeff Stallard]

We have a very poor set of instincts. Even the hot
burner is learned behaviour... as it must be, since there are no hot burners in nature.

Excellent point. Can I retract my statement?

I think at a minimum you have to separate self-identification from
social identification (there's got to be another word for that... ). The way we think of
ourselves, and the way we think of others, are very different.

Yeah, I've been wondering if that's viable. Yes, it's true that we see ourselves very differently than others see us, but does that automatically make each perception equally valid? I don't know, but it's certainly an interesting thought. Bad people don't think they're bad, so if Hitler thought he was a great guy, how much weight would his self identity have carried? In a court of law, self identity has very little weight (right? any lawyers here?), but there are many more courts of judgement than just human law. Are there any "courts" you can think of where self identity is more important than public identity?