How do people generate new generalizations from observations? I do it by pouring information into my brain, letting it spin around for a while until a pattern emerges, an insight. Intuition. Generating a new premise, a hypothesis, is not a logical process. It requires that something new be created where there was nothing before. Then that new idea can be tested using empirical methods. You have to have a hypothesis before you can apply logic. Before you can be rational. — T Clark

Yes. Another thought is that when reasoning, there are moments of 'microintuitions'. They can be all sorts of things - moments of feeling into semantics, the 'I have checked that enough' qualia, 'it feels like some step is missing here' qualia, tiny thought experiments where one circles around a step in reasoning, quick dashes into memory looking for counterevidence and so on. All these little tweaks and checks.

With that said, is it ethical for technological automation top be stunted, in order to preserve jobs (or a healthy job marketplace)? — Bret Bernhoft

It certainly could be, I would say. IOW it is not in and of itself ethical, but for some it is heretical to say it could be. It is as if any technological advancement and proliferation is necessarily good or neutral and should be allowed, period. Of course, there are luddite positions, but actually a pure luddite position is extremely, extremely rare. But pure progress positions are pretty common.

Worse, I think there's a strong tendency in Buddhism to devalue rationality in their promotion of intuition and it has led to all sorts of problems for them. — praxis

Can you give some examples.

My concern is not to reform psychiatry. — introbert

I wasn't thinking about reforming psychiatry. I was thinking about the individual who has real challenges but does not want the psychiatric/pharmacological approach. Often, in my experience of others, they shift between rejectinga and accepting the pp approach. Rather than replacing it.

My concern is to simply encourage a critical mode of thought that transcends the logic of capitalism/ psychiatry with the far-out intention of getting people to develop insight into collective madness. — introbert

OK, I hear that. And that's also different from what I focused on. And I agree. At least at this level of distraction. I see a lot of collective madness.

Again, non-rational is not the same as irrational. — T Clark

I am often stunned that this needs to be said and how nice to read it.
So, I followed this back...

How do people generate new generalizations from observations? I do it by pouring information into my brain, letting it spin around for a while until a pattern emerges, an insight. Intuition. Generating a new premise, a hypothesis, is not a logical process. It requires that something new be created where there was nothing before. Then that new idea can be tested using empirical methods. You have to have a hypothesis before you can apply logic. Before you can be rational. — T Clark

Exactly. It is as if we can manage without intuition, often. Or, it is as if everything in science, say, is reasoned and empirical. Conclusions are formed, hopefully, after testing and rational analysis, but the process of science requires intution and other non-rational processes. Often if one asserts this, one is told 'but they are fallible.' Well, sure. And of course reasoned/rational processes are also fallible. But yes, intuition is fallible but necessary. We can't weed it out and function. And then as a related issue, some intuition is better than other intuition. Some people's intuition that is is better than other people's.

We could look at this as a failure to pay attention or a lack of mindfulness and focus everything on improving mindfullness, awarness. And/or one could wonder what was it you were actually wrestling with that distracted you. That might be of great importance and would not get addressed by either, continuing distraction thoughts OR by seeing this as a kind of less than optimal bad habit of not being mindfull. And then there's the post-Freudian angle. What might make you want to not have the briefcase with you or to have a kind of mini-crisis of that particular sort. Buddhism can tend to gloss over, in a way different from distracted thoughts, what is really going on also.

So, then an alternate strategy, perhaps. Good to write here, but what other social contacts can make a pharmaceuticalless life more livable? Do you know Johann Hai's Lost Connections?

What you wrote about substances and physics and definable elements are not definitions; they are separate descriptors of what we consider reality. We can't verify reality; we can verify differentness of instances of what we consider reality. — god must be atheist

OK, you're moving into a different area of philosophy (or perhaps I took you away from it. I can't remember) But then this argument you make here would also make it more likely to not talk about substance. We would notice differences, not substances.

That's why I wanted to avoid the whole issue. Reality can be decided over (i.e. what we consider reality) but it can't be verified. — god must be atheist

We can verify differences. We can verify that when we do X and Y we get Z.

I mean, I don't disagree with you. But I don't think this line of argument makes a case for calling everything in reality physical or material. That was my focus.

When I say verify, I mean things like. When I add salt to water it leads to a solution that gets saturated until each liter has X amount of salt at 65 degrees Cent. So, 10 labs around the world do this and find this is the case. Or I do some experiments on the material in pig bones and state that there is calcium in there. Other people in other labs verify this (or find counterevidence or fail to verify.

I'm happy to question if we are finding out about ultimate reality or ding an sich.

But for me I have little problem using this idea of verification. But I am not attached to it and it seems like for you this means something much stronger than what it means to me. We have called X salt and Y water and so on. And when I do process C this happens. Hey can you verify this in your lab, thanks.

What I like about the term is it is process focused and pragmatic. Rather than making some claim that everything is physical so we know that only physical things will be found.

Some users stopped talking to me, because I said matter is a matter of belief. — god must be atheist

I agree in a couple of different ways with you.

I think it's a love axiom to work with, but I think it is silly to continue using it as a universal ontological claim. The meaning has changed too much over time to take it seriously.

I am pretty sure some atheists, if defined as those lacking a belief in God or disbelieving there is a God, fear no longer existing. Not all of them, but the ones I have known. Yes, they are not afraid of experiencing 'things' after death. But they fear no longer existing, no longer experiencing, no longer being alive. The reason I am pretty sure, or actually, extremely sure, is because of their reporting on their fear, one of their death bed. So, it seems to me they could have been soothed if they suddenly decided there was an afterlife. And this I have also heard from atheists. That it would be nice if there was an afterlife - with provisos for it not being Hell - but they don't believe in one. Further I have encountered, online, atheist after atheist online who assumes that the reason theists believe is because it soothes them. Now this doesn't directly contradict the idea directly that atheists could not be soothed, but it's an ill-fitting conclusion if they themselves have no such possibility and given how many (types of) theists there are.

A real atheist would not find "peace" in Christianity (or other dogmas) because he already accepted the emptiness of afterlife.

So an atheist doesn't just lack a belief, a real atheist also lacks certain emotional responses to death and has a specific attitude?
And the people who lack a belief in god or believe there is no God, but are terrifed of death, they aren't real atheists?

Buddhist say they want to extinguish desire, but perhaps this is yet another paradox. Mustn't we desire to extinguish? — Gregory

They believe that it is a desire of a qualitative difference and it extinguishes itself (when accompanied by the practices). But more importantly, I think, there is a dualism at the heart of Buddhism. Accept what is outside you, but don't accept all of what is inside you.

Or...let's cut the limbic system off from the rest of the brain. Isolate it, and then atrophy the pathways there to other sections.

On the surface it can seem accepting (Buddhism) and training us to accept, not fight. But when it comes to emotions and desires, it cuts them off from expression and action. Buddhists may claim that they accept emotions and desires, since they notice them arise and dissappear in consciousness without judgment (supposedly). But in fact they practice (train) NOT allowing emotions to become sounds, be expressed. They train not acting on desires. They train discoupling natural impulses, and their practices and even texts implicitly and explicitly judge and attack them. Of course, Buddhism is not alone in doing this. However they aim to do this totally.

Good point. Well put. The only weaknesses of this definition are its use of undefinable elements, and its obvious subjectivity. — god must be atheist

It's open about it's subjectivity, sure. But it is about objectivity. Yes, we humans make decisions about what we consider objective. We do that whether we use the terms physical and material or if we don't use those terms. Scientists use the scientific method to make decisions about what is considered real (or physical or material). The only difference in what I am arguing for is it is leaving out a position on substance. And any elements are all definable. We just use nouns we have for other things we have decided are real.

Four Common Parts of a Cell. Although cells are diverse, all cells have certain parts in common. The parts include a plasma membrane, cytoplasm, ribosomes, and DNA.

When we discover a part we don't have to say it is physical. We can just say what it is a part of or does (effects/functions) or has as parts. And this would include more nebulous things like massless particles, particles in superposition, magnetic fields and so on.

I think we can agree that we are humans and real to us is what is real to us. — god must be atheist

Well, yes. But that's not what I am saying. I am suggesting we leave out words that imply substance because we keep shifting the goalposts. And we lose nothing if we simply, for example in science, say that X has been verified, rather than making metaphysical claims that only physical things are real.

and if we include the need for verification, then we really throw ourselves into the outer space of philosophical loo-loo land. — god must be atheist

That's what science does. They keep repeating experiments to verify in various places, say, that X exists, or X is made up of Y as we claimed and so on. They verify, or fail to, claims of existence or even find counterevidence and falsify. That's not woo woo. And no need to take an ontological stand on all of reality or even parts of it in the old ways philosophers and religious people did.

ok. I don't quite see a definition of physical/material in the link. I do see two, nicely present, different ways of looking at some ontology.

'Atoms swirling and swerving in the void' still works philosophically. Consider these refinements as "physical/material" correlates: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532028 — 180 Proof

I am not sure how this relates to what I wrote. Or perhaps better put - I haven't made an argument based on atoms swirling and swerving in the void or focusing on the void, so I am not quite sure what you are saying here. (and oddly, despite your quoting me, I got no notice that you had. I saw it by chance.)

I wouldn't use those words, because their meaning has changed over time and now encompasses things with qualities (or without the qualities) of physical/material 'things' earlier. IOW anything that is considered real will be call physical/material by physicalists/materialists regardless of the qualities of that 'thing'. Both those words imply/represent a metaphysical stand on substance, but actually they are not taking a stand. So, I would just use words like real and existant and if you wanted an overarching position you could call it something like verificationism. Meaning something like we will consider something real if we can verify it's existence. Those terms are used as part of stands against dualism (often) or idealism (sometimes) or other monisms that do not consider everything physical. But for me the terms have no meaning beyond that something exists.

Since the nature of things that are considered physical/material has changed (radically) over time, what is the definition of physical/material and should we assume that this definition will remain?

- psychiatry, like all branches of medicine, is an empirical science. Not theoretical like QA or Chemistry. — god must be atheist

Chemistry is an extremely empirical science. Also medicine is not a science it's a set of applications of science. What's QA? Did you mean QM? which is also empirical.

Psychiatry in part follows pharmacological companies and there's a lot of pr, manipulation and sales/marketing involved in treatment. And these are not empirical sciences.

- the stigma is warranted, as psychiatric patients are very hard to get along with. — god must be atheist

Some are. But pretty much anyone can be a psychiatry patient.

Larry is a big piece of shit in how he treats people. He is mean, taunting, smug, unhelpful to others, makes fun of people ruthlessly, shows off, overly competitive about everything to the point of hubris, controlling, aggressive, backstabbing, and a whole lot of other negative character traits.

HOWEVER, Larry is also REALLY good at his job. He is the most productive person on his team, and creates great value for the company, even being a direct reason for its growth in terms of output. Jobs are created from Larry's output actually, and the products are quite useful to certain sectors of society in terms of satisfying the needs of that industry. — schopenhauer1

The issues I am about to raise may seem like a tangent, and perhaps they are, but I cannot but raise them.
1) it does depend on the job. If it's a cigarrette manufacturer, his effectiveness wins few points for me.
2) how do we track the effects of him being a piece of shit? as someone who has worked with toxic people, I think they shorten lives, cause incredible suffering and affect the productivity of others. How do we track the value in all that? How do we put a number on that? (I do feel an antinatalist would at least have some sympathy for this issue, if not necessarily agreement)
3) the word 'nice'. If someone is utterly incompetent and we cannot find a role for them in society - perhaps one where niceness is central part of their role, I would have to call into question whether they are really nice. If they are cognitively handicapped - extremely low IQ, say - well, then they are the equivalent of someone who could be on disability and perhaps should be. If they are not disabled, then I question their niceness. They may present themselves politely, perform kind acts, listen well. But if they aren't getting the dishes off the tables, they are likely a passive-aggressive busboy.

I know. This may all seem like trying to get out of answering the question. But I did want to raise a few issues that are important to and apologies if they are not ones for you: 1) often if the effects of something are not easy to track, they are left out as effects. 2) the conflation of niceness with goodness. 3) that all business is treated as in and of itself good. 3 be 'fixed' for me, but making the company in question one that most people would think it was great if it was successful. But I think the other two remain in any scenario. And if they remain in any scenario, I don't think my reactions can be dismissed as evasive.

To answer despite my objections: I would say I tend to think that the assholes of the world are a greater problem than the (truly) kind (switching to a word I think is slightly less problematic) people are. On the other hand, truly kind people need to confront these assholes and help make it impossible for them to continue being assholes.

As one bit of background: I had an extremely competent boss, well liked by the CEO, who was somewhere in the sociopath/narcissist spectrum. I know people left the company because of her, some very competent. But generally they did not, as far as I know, say that part of all of their motivation was her monstrousness. Because it seemed like tacit approval from above, I would guess in part. I know that it added stress to my days until I could leave and this passed on to the way I interacted with clients. Every interaction had that possibility of giving fuel to the monster. Of course, bosses are a particular case, with added effects a coworker need not have. But i do think, because of this experience and others, that there are chains of effectives sliding away from the sides of an asshole. The cost is hard to track and may be displaced on family members and even organizations not within that workplace.

I'd say we cannot be wrong about subjective experience but we can be wrong about how we interpret it. For example, "I see water" may be an erroneous interpretation of a mirage. We can be certain of our experience (phenomena) but we cannot be certain as to its cause (noumena). — Art48

Apart from your stating this all with fairly strong certainty, I disagree. 1) I think it is very hard to separate perceiving - subjective experience - from interpretation. 2) we have reasons/motivations to not notice how things seem to us. So, I may say, when arguing with my spouse that she seems angry. When in fact she actually seems scared (really) but I'd rather not notice that she primarily seems scared to me. I, at least, notice that sometimes, at least, I try to deny, to myself, part or all of what seems to me to be happening. This can have an attendant feeling of anxiety or guilt, if I allow myself to notice that these emotional states are present...or not. So, I think we can be wrong about what seems.

And if that seems strange, I think it is important to remember that we are not monads. We are complicated and thinking of us as having parts, cognitive,subjective parts, can be a very useful model. That something seems like X to part of us but Y to another part or yet another now in control would rather not accept what it seems like to that first part of us.

3) there's the brute ontological issue deciding that seeming is always what we think it is. That may seem obvious, but seeming is a part of reality also. So, what we are claiming is that there are these perceptions about what are outside us, and these can be fallible but what is inside us, our subjective experiencing, that we can be sure of. And we can be sure that we are not fallible introspectors, that we are not interpreting incorrectly our perceptions of our internal reactions and so on.

I think that's an extremely strong claim. Think about all the motives for not noticed how we actually are experiencing ourselves our internal states our perceptions.

And from there you get an infinite regress. Where we must express ourselves that it seems like it seemed like......

I believe we habitually use "is" language. Changing language and the way we think about "is" may or may not have any practical benefit but I find more accurate language desirable in any case. — Art48

Desirable to whom? How do you find it this way? What was your process for determining it is more desirable and cannot this process also be fallible?

Well, self-congratulatory posts always add to a discussion. Here, I'll give it a go: So, there is no refutation of my critique of your orginal argument, so there is no more to say.

Then this isn't arguing anything contra my moral argument. It is simply a description that fetuses develop and become babies. — schopenhauer1

I was arguing that your throwing someone into life (take that literally or metaphorically) as if they are victims or as if they have not consented is confused. As I said, you cannot create life that does not seek more life and to thrive. That does not match your model. You have an 'is' model that you base your 'ought' on. Since I am not a moral realist, I am not making a moral argument. I am critiquing the is part of your postion.

The problem I have with this is that you are making a decision on what you think is the case. I think there are two beliefs here. We are fallible AND because of that it seems we should implicitly or explicitly communicate that everything merely seems to be the case. I agree that the first seems to be true (lol), but the second I think is very questionable. I think that we often misuse 'is' and implicit 'is' claims, but that in general it works really well and especially well for people who have good self-knowledge. Last, I think there are all sorts of implicit 'is' ideas, even in your communication.

But the point goes much deeper than that because everything fallible human beings believe about the exterior world is liable to be wrong. — Art48

Apart from liable being too strong an word, there is also the implicit assumption that if it is true that we are fallible, it does not necessarily follow that we should quasi-assert things in all cases.

But things seem much different in the material world. — Art48

Do they seem that way? Does seeming count for seeming? Maybe this is one of those fallible ideas?

We often think that seem makes less of a claim than an is statement. But it is and is statement. It claims that something appears to be the case, but we don't know. That's also an is claim, while a subjective one. It's a claim about a subjective experience - and we can be wrong about those. It also universalizes that claim about appearances. (I did notice that you qualified some of the 'seems' statements with 'to me' )

The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority: — Art48

I don't think this is true. I don't think it seems that way. Though sometimes when I here 'is' statements it does.

Further 'the fundamental problem' part of the sentence has an implicit is. What the fundamental problem is seems to be...that there is a fundamental problem and certainly that there is a problem is presumed. Yes, one could further amend this statement....What seems to be a problem and further seems to be the fundamental one ....' But I think we end up with a kind of infinite regression, especially given my argument about 'seems' being a kind of is claim. This may be handled elegantly in Eprime, I don't know.

Also this seems to be viewing language as a container for truth period. My sentences will contain truth and convey this to others. I think that is a very limited view of language and it reminds me of Reddy's Conduit Metaphor essay.....
https://www.reddyworks.com/the-conduit-metaphor/original-conduit-metaphor-article

Further, what is the clearest sign we are dedicated to an 'is'?: how we live, I think. If one shifts one's use of language to Eprime and is critical of the use of English, one is living as if 'is' is a problem. And one is communicating to others and perhaps, if one gets what one wants, changing how they live. In the end, I can't really see how it matters. Is is getting affected by my choices.

Last, when we act in the world, it is often beneficial to act like something is. Not to act like it merely seems. It could be is but we act like it seems. It's not a good strategy for taking shots in golf. It might be ok leading up to the swing, but not for the swing itself. You don't want some qualifier in the air during that swing.

And I suppose as a side note, I am not sure amending language changes our basic is attitude. I imagine some arguments degenerating into 'well, you certainly seem to me to be being a real a______.' 'That seems typical of you.' Eprime merely lacking is may get around this somehow but my guess is that the implicit is will still be there.

Telling a kid he is behaving 'unharmoniously' may seem to avoid the kinds or moral judgment that he is naughty includes. But I suspect that the kid called the former feels pretty much the same. (this was not an example of replacing is with seems, but rather using a different kind of language shift that (in my opinion) fails because the humans means, in the end, the same thing at root, despite the surface change.

Let's set aside the issue of can one side of the brain function alone. So, can a scientist use only those traits that have been attributed (correctly or not) to the right brain. I don't think so. They could certainly come up with hypotheses. They might get all sorts of insights, even into procedures. They might catch on the blind spots in models and theories and notice anomalies and/or give them the credit they are due. They could be a valuable part of a team. They might notice patterns that other scientists on the team did not notice. IOW they could work as part of a team and be a cherished and useful member. But if they had to handle all the parts of a process from hypothesis to organizing the research, to researching prior related research, to getting finances, to carrying out protocols in the proper way, to analyzing data, to....and so on...they would have problems. And probably a lack of interest also.

It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more. — Bylaw


And this is explicitly the naturalistic fallacy as stated in last post — schopenhauer1

That is absurd. First of all, I am not a moral realist. I don't think morals exist. I was not mounting a moral argument. I was reacting to an implicit moral argument on your part with a description of what I think is a factual issue. The fetus and babies will seek out more life.

I have not argued that having babies is good. I don't think that even makes sense.

You are misapplying the concept of natural fallacy.

You are using “throw” as some literal term — schopenhauer1

Not really, but I am taking it as a transitive verb. I mean, even as a metaphor it means transferring something somewhere. But that is not what happens. Any life was only ever life.

The problem with it as a metaphor (and certainly literally) is that it is as if a parent is putting some neutral essence into life. But no, this does not happen. Any life they create immediately desires life, the organism does, and strives to live. You can only create something living that immediately strives to continue living.

It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more.

It seems like you are presenting this as putting someone in a situation it may or may not want. But no, parents can only make life.

Life striving to live you said etc — schopenhauer1

Sure, and it does.

That’s great but doesn’t quite capture human like (I.e a self-aware being that has reasons). — schopenhauer1

I didn't say it did. I responded, I think pretty clearly, to this idea of a parent throwing someone into life. A someone who may or may not want life. I think that model is confused.

But to equate that with a reason for embracing life’s game is a naturalistic fallacy. — schopenhauer1

I never said anything about embracing life's game, whatever that means.

That’s more social conditioning. Babies don’t decide things yet. — schopenhauer1

I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism.

That’s also the point. There is no better version of the game of life (inter-worldly affairs) and so all you can do is kill yourself if you don’t like it(or die from a mishap from playing the game itself but that’s still affirming the game). — schopenhauer1

I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life.

No, a parent wanted a life — schopenhauer1

That doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't said a child chose a life. But that matter that was made after the choice of the parents wanted life, it strove for life. You cannot birth something that does not strive for life or it will miscarry. There is no bringing into life something that doesn't want life.

Really? If humans live in society and people don’t like the workings of society, isn’t that rejecting life? — schopenhauer1

Well, that would be rejecting society not necessarily life. But my point doesn't hinge on that. The way you framed the issue was as if someone was thrown into life. But really they only ever existed as life. And when they begin that life (as a fertilized egg, in the womb, on the way out, however you think of the beginning) they are life that wants life, that will eat and will grow. Later, yes, some humans anyway may decide they don't like life and then they have the option to end it.

e could do other than instinct. So I fully disagree with this. — schopenhauer1

Sure, we can. But there is no creature that wants to who is thrown into life.

The problem is, once a life is started, that person MUST go through the gauntlet or die. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

But you aren't thrown into the world. A part of the world coalesced. And that life that you were grew, that is did what life does. It's as if you are something other than your body and got put in a body. But you are a body and bodies are life and participate, given their nature, in life. And one can de-coalesce if one chooses. But that body wants life as shown by it's growing and multiplying and seeking food and experience. Yes, later it may no longer want it and then would need to take measures to de-coalesce, but there is no someone to get thrown in and the moment that someone exists, like all life it strives for life, an engaged participant. There's no you trapped in that thing yearning for life that doesn't want life, though humans, later can change their minds.

There's a difference between describing two types of people and a binary categorization which assumes every person belongs to one of the two types. — Art48

True. But I think that could be made clearer. And I think also the way the left column group seems to be religious and the right secular, it really seems like it is trying to batch people into one of two. I think we can easily imagine a secular person who nevertheless performs the kinds of fallacies tendencies attributed to the left hand column, it would be clearer you do not have a binary system if the issues were made more abstract on that side..

Also a scientific mentality should be open to the idea that while we may know more about the universe our governments and corporations might very well end up making or using technology in ways that do not benefit us. I think society was better in the 90s. I don't think this means I do not have a scientific mentality. I don't think we can rule out other positions, based on values (not science or a lack thereof) that value other times, going back further in time.) Increased knowledge of the way things work doesn not necessarily mean things get better.

I think the chart also runs against at least the spirit of the values on the right hand side, since on the right hand side seeing value in diversity of culture and background seems contradicted by the negative view of the people on the left side. (the smorgasborg of cultures) I mean, I think it's great that the Amish exist, even if there are problems with their culture. I think what is presented as two types of cognitive types is slipping in values.

And I guess I consider many people to conflate science with technology and products which of course have scientific research in their making. One can be critical of the latter without being anti-science of pre-science. One can also decide that paradigmatic biases and/or profit making biases (via lobbying, lack of independent oversight, pr, control of media) can frame some technological advance/proliferation as scientific, when it is political, or aids a particular corporation or industry, but isn't so good for humans.

Trusting experts can be a problem for both the right and left hand types of people.

Actually that isn't what evolutionary theory would say. That would be teleological, with evolution somehow deciding to produce thoughts that are lofty to make us thrive. Our thoughts, any of them, may be side effects of traits that at least didn't damage our survivability.

I think the binary categorization of people itself runs against some of the values I would guess it is promoting. Specifically those on the right side of Xenophobia, Punishment and Knowledge.

I think if anything it was understated. They own the regulators, some of whom even own stocks in the industries they are regulating. Plus the revovling door stuff, the campaign finance, the control of media via advertising revenue and investment ownership, etc.

Once having a corporation was considered a priviledge and one's corporate charter could be withdrawn. Those days are long gone.

Remember, I'm just some nobody online. But it sounds a little like an anxiety disorder.

Generalized anxiety disorder symptoms can vary. They may include:

Persistent worrying or anxiety about a number of areas that are out of proportion to the impact of the events
Overthinking plans and solutions to all possible worst-case outcomes
Perceiving situations and events as threatening, even when they aren't
Difficulty handling uncertainty
Indecisiveness and fear of making the wrong decision
Inability to set aside or let go of a worry
Inability to relax, feeling restless, and feeling keyed up or on edge
Difficulty concentrating, or the feeling that your mind "goes blank"
Physical signs and symptoms may include:

Fatigue
Trouble sleeping
Muscle tension or muscle aches
Trembling, feeling twitchy
Nervousness or being easily startled
Sweating
Nausea, diarrhea or irritable bowel syndrome
Irritability

I don't think these are the same: thinking about a Zen Koan and excessive thinking. First, thinking about Zen Koans in generally surrounded by meditation. Second, excessive thinking, generally, wanders, digresses, goes off on tangents. Of course this will happen to some degree when mulling a Koan, however you will keep coming back to the Koan. There's a discipline there. Third, the Koan itself is not a random thoughtt, but one chosen to symbollically relate to the problems we make for ourselves or what is really going on or how to suffer less or.....

Compared to this the modern thinking often has no center, goes from association to association while being immersed in each one not witnessing,say, the rising and falling of these. When working with a Zen Koan there will like be shorter to longer periods of mental silence or less wordy periods where the images of the koan are contemplated. And all the time some central problem/solution/facet of Zen ontology is holding an anchor in the excessive thinking.

I do think one can think obsessively and have something similar happen. But the stuff most people are thinking on the subway or while not focusing on their food and so on, I think it is very much less likely to create a burst point. It could go on forever without gaining much intensity.

If we are talking about emotional suffering, then current suffering can be a ressurection of past suffering.