Can we conceptualize thought?

 

Is it an agent and a driver, or an effect?

 

Is it anachronistic or rooted in the present?

 

Is it tangible or intangible?

 

Please provide your insights.

 

Thanks in advance.

No to conception.

 

It is all three.

 

The present.

 

In effect tangible.

 

Thought is the progenitor of action, it proceeds everything from innovation to emotional states, it is the highest of Mans attributes.

I think I thought a thought is what I think a thought is.

Research shows that colony insects like ants are able to collectively problem solve and make decisions much in the same many our minds do. The difference being the speed at which our minds can do it. Thought, in my humbe opinion, is a mechanism or program that allows us to mix stored information with immergrant information to problem solve in realtime.

I think I thought a thought is what I think a thought is.

 

I thought sincerely on your thoughts and found that I was not being very thoughtful....

The tracing of a thought form inception to completion, give s solid intell on what a thought is.

 

Some one downs a plane in Ukraine. the thought is who. Ukraine is at war, Russia supports one side in the conflict, the other side doesnt have the capability to pull off such a feat, russia therefore must have supplied the equipment needed to the rebels, and maybe the rebels downed the plane or Russia.

 

This thought is heavenly invested in material facts, so thoughts pulls togeather variables in concrete intakes of knowledge, and yet they could be wrong, so thought is the reasoning abilty to make some sense out of experences, based on the variables. But lets suppose that the ukraine army downed the plane, would we have thoughts on that, if we didnt have prior knowledge of ukraine acting in devious ways, or would this even be a thought. This suggest that thoughts are more reasoning abilities, Moot without prior experence and opinions etc.

The tracing of a thought form inception to completion, give s solid intell on what a thought is.

 

Some one downs a plane in Ukraine. the thought is who. Ukraine is at war, Russia supports one side in the conflict, the other side doesnt have the capability to pull off such a feat, russia therefore must have supplied the equipment needed to the rebels, and maybe the rebels downed the plane or Russia.

 

This thought is heavenly invested in material facts, so thoughts pulls togeather variables in concrete intakes of knowledge, and yet they could be wrong, so thought is the reasoning abilty to make some sense out of experences, based on the variables. But lets suppose that the ukraine army downed the plane, would we have thoughts on that, if we didnt have prior knowledge of ukraine acting in devious ways, or would this even be a thought. This suggest that thoughts are more reasoning abilities, Moot without prior experence and opinions etc.

 

You seem to be of the opinion that thought is reactive i.e. downing of a plane triggers a neuro-psychiatric response. You seem to have omitted thought that is active. i.e. ideation arising out of innovation. (remember Archimedes - what a potent physical reaction he had when a thought occurred to him.)

Who amongst us ever had a thought completely devoid of a goal or response, or a question looking for the same, a answer. Thinking is not a singularity unto itself without purpose. Some would say it is the balance of the incoming senses or cognition of circumstances, but it is never independent.