You can't do that. — YuZhonglu

I think I can, they scramble together while thinking them. What kind of "not being able to" are you referring to? The meaning? The sound of the thoughts at the same time?

Other than that, basically, the processing of information is not the same as motor skills, so the explanation is simply that its different parts of the brain controlling these things.

Regardless, you can't coherently think both thoughts at the same time. Right? When people do philosophy, they can only philosophize one sentence at a time. They can't, for example, philosophize two sentences simultaneously, correct?

Also, your response doesn't answer the question. Two problems:

1. Which parts?
2. Your brain can multitask for information processing, too. Like, for example, you can see the color red and listen to music on Youtube. That's multitasking. But then why is the processing of information in the content of "words" so restricted? Like, your brain can note the color red and green on opposite ends of the screen simultaneously. And yet when you read this paragraph you're restricted to reading only one line at a time. Why?

Descartes says "I think therefore I am."

Fine. So, then, on a mechanical level, how does Descartes think?

From a task point of view, my work experience suggests to me that people don't actually perform acts simultaneously but some are agile at switching jobs quickly and others are not.
Put that way, those who are agile at this skill are not always performing at the same level at all times. When one has a job with a lot of responsibilities, it becomes really important to understand and shape when work happens on each thing.
Being able to change quickly is helpful but not always the best approach to solving actual problems.

Stand on one leg, rub your tummy with your left hand, and the top of your head with your right hand. You can do that, right? — YuZhonglu

That is a step-by-step process, the given instructions are transformed to moving our physical bodies as a output. Our thoughts on the other hand are not.

Now: try to think the sentences "I like oranges" and "I like bananas" at the same time. Simultaneously. (Not one after another. Instead, literally: try to think both thoughts at the exact same time).

You can't do that.

Why not? — YuZhonglu

For the reason that our thoughts are only focusing to one-at-a-time intuitions. You certainly cannot think of two statements. Literally it's so simple; you're over-complicating it.

So, then, on a mechanical level, how does Descartes think? — YuZhonglu

It does not matter how he thinks, but when he thinks. The capability to comprehend implies the ability to exist in a semantic, metaphysical reality.

"Why does the Sun go around the Earth?"
Answer: 'Cuz it just does. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Literally, it's so simple. You're over-complicating it.

I.e. your response doesn't answer any of the questions. The only thing you've demonstrated so far is that philosophy has made you an ass.

your response doesn't answer any of the questions. — YuZhonglu

Perhaps this will satisfy you.

The bananas-oranges statement would be more similar to this multitasking action, it is as it follows;

With your left hand, draw a square — whilst on your right hand, draw a circle. Both actions must occur at the same exact moment. You can't do that by intuition, can you? It is because our thoughts are intertwining between each other, not to command one of our body parts to demonstrate a particular action distinct from the rest, let alone it being in a step-by-step process.

And yet here you are writing your sentences one at a time. That's odd, isn't it, considering that we can program machines to write millions of sentences simultaneously?

And yet here you are writing your sentences one at a time. That's odd, isn't it, considering that we can program machines to write millions of sentences simultaneously? — YuZhonglu

I am sorry.

Machines are programmed to do, humans are programmed to learn the process and hence be able to do, although not as powerful as machines would be able to.

Like humans, machines also encounter the programming process; in which it involves a step-by-step system, it requires an arranged algorithmic system like Binary, so subsequently the machine will be able to construct millions of sentences simultaneously. Moreover, machines also do not have the ability to comprehend things without the programming process, they do not possess the rationality to be able to think, they are merely programmed to construct these sentences.

Me writing my sentences are arranged to be one-by-one, because they are by intuitions and not algorithmic, I only know how to write sentences as communication, but not to write millions of them simultaneously. I was programmed to be able to write various sentences, in which they are transformed to concepts in your mind, in fact right now. Machines write sentences they are commanded to, but certainly not to rationalize concepts (unless of course, the ability of the AI is maximized to highest potential).

Returning to the bananas-oranges thought challenge you instated, our thoughts mostly rely on the capacity of our intuitions and transcendental idealism; wherein our rational capability and empirical viewpoints are merged to be able rationalize worldly events and logic. If we practice to think even just two thoughts at the same time, we are programming our selves into that step-by-step process in order to be able to simultaneously do the both of them, and then our intuitions (in that particular situation) just disappear. Simply elucidated, our intuitions drive our very way of life.

I hope I answered your question.

That's alright. Apology accepted.

But the larger problem is that despite all of the words bandied forth (intuitions, transcendental, etc.) your response still doesn't answer the question. What it does instead is to rationalize why you choose not to question it.

Like, on a physical level what is the reason we can't think more than one sentence at a time? Obviously, there has to be a scientific reason for it. What is it? And once we discover it, doesn't that mean we can modify this trait so that people in the future CAN think multiple sentences simultaneously?

What I'm trying to get here is this: what are the mechanics of human thought? Our physical bodies are bounded by physical laws (Newton, gravity, falling apples, etc.). We know we cannot, for example, fly like a bird because our legs cannot generate the thrust required to counter the force of gravity acting on our bodies. On a similar vein, what are the mechanical boundaries of human thought and what are the reasons for them?

"I like fruit."

Done.

Right. So we use larger concepts like "fruit" to summarize smaller concepts like "bananas or oranges" to get around this problem of "I can only think one sentence at a time."

But if we could think millions of sentences simultaneously, we wouldn't need to summarize concepts, now, would we? Instead, we could just make a list and expect everyone else to quickly scan through it, kinda like what computers do.

I'm pretty sure summarizing concepts is more efficient.

Additionally, sentences are pretty complex things that contain multitasking event of their own:

"I like oranges" contains all of the following concepts and ideas and probably more:

-I exist
-It is possible to like things
-Oranges exist
-I am capable of liking things.
-I like some of the properties of oranges
-etc.

We need efficiency because we can only think one sentence at a time. If we could parallel process millions of sentences, summarizing isn't necessary anymore. Philosophical concepts of categories and classes exist only because of this mechanical limitation on our thoughts.

On the other point: yes I agree. Sentences are very complex. Fine. But no matter how complex it is, you can still only express your ideas one sentence at a time.

Again, why?

Why do we generalize and create categories like "fruits?" So we can communicate more efficiently. Writing "I like fruits" is a lot more efficient than writing "I like bananas, oranges, canteloupes, watermelons, potato, tomato, blah blah blah blah blah." If I made a list you wouldn't be able to read it quickly enough, which is why you probably wouldn't read it in the first place.

But, you know, if all of us could parallel process a long list instantaneously, we don't need concepts like "fruits" anymore. Instead, I could just create a list of objects I like [bananas, oranges, etc.] and with a single glance, you can instantly tell what I'm trying to communicate.

Now: try to think the sentences "I like oranges" and "I like bananas" at the same time. Simultaneously. (Not one after another. Instead, literally: try to think both thoughts at the exact same time).

You can't do that.

Why not? — YuZhonglu

I can't?

Then what do you mean with "thinking the sentences"?

I can easily visualize the two statements. I think about two people saying the sentences, which is especially easy in the "I like" part and then it's not particularly difficult to think what saying oranges and bananas simultaneously will sound like. Basically there's a multitude of different algorithms how to handle this information, for example using the group of fruits that contains oranges and bananas.

You see, your argument starts from the premise that in order to think of a statement, you are in your head saying it. I disagree with this premise: especially when using my mother tongue, I don't first "think" a sentence in the way of saying it, before I say it. And a lot of 'thoughts' can be visual. Especially many mathematical objects are easier to be understood visually in geometry.

Because evolution stopped us from being inefficient with our calories.
Your brain eats up about 20% of your calories as is. Surviving in the wild meant we had to make the brain process in the most efficient way possible. It's hardwired to seek shortcuts. Multitasking uses much more energy than processing one thing at a time.

Also, because thinking multiple things at the same time makes you more prone to error. You're not devoting your entire attention to one thing, and so you might miss something and make a mistake.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4014320/Why-multitasking-BAD-brain-Neuroscientist-warns-wrecks-productivity-causes-mistakes.html

It depends on how literally you're interpreting my statement.

Try this: write two different sentences simultaneously with your right hand and your left hand. Can you do it?

Fine, fine. But on a physical level why is it that we can only "think" one sentence at a time? You're explaining the causes, not the actual issue here. On a broader philosophical level, if our brains were a bit different and we could, for example, think 4 sentences simultaneously, wouldn't that mean all of our philosophy today be different?

But that's not thinking!

Not good in writing with my left hand as I've not done it, but I guess with training I could do two different short sentences. How much time the training would take I don't know.

Ok, try it. Let me know when you've managed it.

I'm not sure what your question is about anyway.

Thinking and physical movement or speech or quite separate things.

I already explained why we can't physically.

And, yes, the world would be different if we could.

So what's the neurobiological reason for it?

Why is it that we cannot write or read two sentences simultaneously? Why is it that when we read we have to scan it one sentence at a time to understand it? Why can't we read from the top and the bottom of a page simultaneously?

It occurs to me while I'm writing this, though, that I often do have multiple thoughts going. Like a main thought and a sub-thought. Like, I'm typing this and thinking about what to say to you, but simultaneously, (and I do mean simultaneously) I'm thinking about how my cat laying on my leg is making my foot fall asleep.

So what's the neurobiological reason for it? — YuZhonglu

Calories.
Also, probably, the structure of the brain.

Those are just words, not explanations. An explanation has to be able to:

1. Explain why the structure of the human brain prevents us from thinking multiple sentences simultaneously.
2. Explain how to modify it so that we can create people who can think multiple sentences simultaneously.
3. Accurately predict, by removing or adding components to a brain, the outcome (like if I add this thing to your brain, can I change your brain so that you can parallel process multiple sentences simultaneously?)

An explanation has value only if it can modify and accurately predict outcomes. Otherwise, it's worthless. Little more than a rationalization to explain to yourself why you shouldn't question it.

Ummm, no, an explanation really only needs to do #1 on your little list there.

But you're free to ask #2 and #3 as additional questions if you like.

People created all sorts of plausible sounding explanations back then on why the Sun circled the Earth. We moved beyond this stinky stage only when people realized explanations have value only if they can predict or modify outcomes.

The goal of science is not to provide plausible sounding rationalizations. Any philosopher can do that. The goal of science is to provide tools, so we can modify the world around us to our advantage.