My two cents:

Regarding thoughts, here understood to mean propositions and the method by which their truths are established [logic], there are two things to consider:

1. The assumptions: The so-called starting positions [of belief systems]

2. The logic: The rules of logic that have been applied to the assumptions [of belief systems]

If either of the these two are different, the belief systems that evolve from them will diverge i.e."not all (will) have the same thought conclusions"

At the other extreme, when people do share the same thoughts then these are the possibilities:

1. All those who share the same thoughts have made the same assumptions and are using the same rules of logic. Thus the concurrence

2. Both the initial assumptions are different and the rules of logic being applied are different.

TheMadFool

I understand the processes by which we eventually conclude but anyone who created us obviously had the ability to ensure that these processes led to the same conclusion. This is not the case which causes huge problems. Giving us the ability to reach different conclusions causes more problems than it solves. Is the final way to the same thought conclusions via this messy thought differences that plague the world right now?

I don't see the logic of what you are saying by saying that anyone who created us had the ability to ensure that thought processes led to the same conclusion. This is because on an empirical level it is clear that the exact opposite is true. Or are you wishing for a return to Kant's transcendent logic and categorical imperatives?

"Or are you wishing for a return to Kant's transcendent logic and categorical imperatives?"
No, just pondering why we all go through the thoughts process and arrive at different conclusions. Eventually, in the predestination arena, this free will will result in the same conclusions so why go through the pain and anguish that we are going through. Free will seems a pointless gift or is it?

I do not see why you think it is the case that the thinking processes will result in us arriving at the same conclusions. I think the more we think the more diverse our conclusions will become. In backing this up I would say that the history of philosophy from ancient times has been one in which Plato in particular created some profound beginnings for us to create 'footnotes', as it has been stated. But after all the centuries of thought views have been ever diversifying, and I am not sure that this a negative point against developments.

In addition, you throw in the topic of predestination as if is a taken for granted assumption. Perhaps you need to back this up or create a post about this initially if this is part of your underlying basis of argument about the nature of conclusions. It may be the issue about predestination is the starting point of the debate you are creating in the first place and it may get lost in the haze of your concern about conclusions in the mess of the world.

I understand the processes by which we eventually conclude but anyone who created us obviously had the ability to ensure that these processes led to the same conclusion. This is not the case which causes huge problems. Giving us the ability to reach different conclusions causes more problems than it solves. Is the final way to the same thought conclusions via this messy thought differences that plague the world right now? — david plumb

Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking is an interesting answer to your question. Fast thinking is based on beliefs. Slow thinking involves reflecting on what we think and questioning it and using logic. Much of what we do is automatic. The action or thought is there as fast it is triggered. If we didn't have this fast-thinking and authomatic reactions our life span would be very short because if we processed on inform in slow thinking mode, by the time we reacted to a mother bear or car headed towards it would be too late. On the other hand would not evolve and learn from experience without slow thinking. Slow thinking questions what happened, why did it happen, could things have gone differently.

The higher thinking skills are not natural to us but must be learned. The difference here is figuring how to make and throw a spear or knowing the science behind why a spear works. Technology requires knowledge of math and science. This is the difference between primitive people and what we have acheived through science. Even if the primitive person ponders why something is so, it is more apt to come up as a supernatural notion than scientifically correct information. The primitive person has not learned the human invention of higher order thinking skills.

Something else we might consider is how our beliefs are connected to how we feel. Going against what we believe, can feel life threatening. We are not gving enough respect to what our feelings have to do with our thinking. Most the time when we say "I think---------" we are not actually thinking but feeling. We are not going to a source of information, but we are turning inward to know if something is true or not. If feels right so it must be right. That is, it agrees with what we believe, but that belief could be wrong or as least impossible to validate through the scientific method. There is not scientific evidence that a god made of us clay but there is a lot of scientific evidence supporting evolution but many do not accept evolution because it goes against what they believe and that FEELS wrong.

I do not see why you think it is the case that the thinking processes will result in us arriving at the same conclusions. — Jack Cummins

You make a good argument for diversified awareness but Cicero believed if we used good information and good logic we would come to agreements and I believe that is possible when we have a better understanding of our thinking. Daniel Kahneman has written a few books because his understanding or our thinking evolves and he has gotten a better and better understanding of it. We are doomed to make bad decisions unless we are aware of this, and discipline ourselves to use better rules for making decisions.

I have not read Cicero but take your point about possible undertaking of training in thinking.

I think that the book you refer to is part of the genre of smart thinking. I do not dismiss this tradition as well as other systems of improving thinking ability including NLP and cognitive behavioral therapy. I wish to engage with this tradition as much as possible.

My own thoughts are I am wary of the smart thinking genre if it is seen as a means of thinking as the supreme thinking tool. I think it can be used alongside philosophy rather than as a quick shortcut and replacement for philosophy as an art and discipline for developing thinking ability.

have not read Cicero but take your point about possible undertaking of training in thinking.

I think that the book you refer to is part of the genre of smart thinking. I do not dismiss this tradition as well as other systems of improving thinking ability including NLP and cognitive behavioral therapy. I wish to engage with this tradition as much as possible.

My own thoughts are I am wary of the smart thinking genre if it is seen as a means of thinking as the supreme thinking tool. I think it can be used alongside philosophy rather than as a quick shortcut and replacement for philosophy as an art and discipline for developing thinking ability. — Jack Cummins

It is not Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking verses philosophy. However, your reply is an example of fast thinking. You reacted to what I said with what you know. You did not investigate the explanation of fast and slow thinking and then think about this new information before replying. Investigating the new information and contemplating it before replying would be slow thinking.

Philosophy demands slow thinking but it is more common for people to argue based on what they know than try to understand what someone else has said. For sure I enjoy showing off what I think I know, and I didn't understand the importance of asking questions until entering my later years. Even now with an understanding of the importance of asking questions, I rather show off what I know than really pay attention to what someone else is saying. In my defense my experience in forums has been, if I ask questions, people assume I do have knowledge or they are offended when my question results in them realizing they do not know the answer. The younger the person, the more apt the person is to think it is my intent to make them feel stupid.

Interestingly, in a political forum, people tend to be much more sure of what they think they know (fast thinking), than in this philosophy forum (slow thinking). In this forum where a lot of people have done a lot of slow thinking, I am more apt to feel stupid, while in the political forum, where people are reactionary, I think I am a genius. :lol:

I hope that is a better explanation of fast and slow thinking?

PS there are huge political ramifications to education for technology that ended education for slow thinking and democracy. The technological society we have today is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. We now have the reactionary politics Germany had when Hitler came to power and there is fear, no matter who wins this election, there will be a violent reaction.

I am sorry if I did appear to have reacted to the book you read a bit prematurely. I believe I saw in WH Smith's at some point. When I come across a physical copy of it I will read it.

This is the first forum I have ever joined and I probably would not have done so if the pandemic had not occurred. I used to plod along to events like creative writing classes and this forum has become my new outlet.

I hope you are right in your belief that you are a genius because I think we need a few on this site and in the world.

Well, thank you for the flatter, but I am old enough to know how much I do not know, and I am very sure I am far from genius. :lol: I am so unsure of my brain function, I turned to a doctor to check it and I qualified for further testing of the possibility of being in the early stages of dementia. It is frightening the number of times I have felt overwhelmed by the complexity of post in this forum. I absolutely do not know philosophy as well as many who post here. I am more pragmatic and political but my political ideology comes from Greek and Roman philosophy.

I am obsessed by the effect of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. The social, economic, and political ramifications are huge- and the most important factor is the change in how we prepare our young to think. That is why I push for a better understanding of fast and slow thinking.

In a democracy it is pretty important we agree on important issues. Democracy is rule by reason, not rule by authority over us, but the change in education has left our democracy undefended and this year, the result of our election may be violence. That makes the subject of your thread extremely important! We seriously need to understand why we are polarized and reactionary and why we are experiencing so much violence as a means of settling our differences. Other people who post here explain the difference between thinking based on belief, versus thinking based on fact and reflection much better than I do. This also happens to be the difference between fast (belief) and slow thinking (reflection).

I am a bit surprised to hear that you are are checking for signs of dementia because my imaginary picture of you was an extremely young person, probably with a degree in psychology as so many people have nowadays. I imagined you as a force to take the world by storm.

This is not in any way a criticism as I am in Bedford drinking wine in Bedford in a venue calle Coffee With Art, reading a paper book called History and Spirit: An Inquiry into the Philosophy of Liberation by Joel Kovel. It is based on Hegel's philosophy but draws upon psychoanalysis and the whole spirit of authenticity.

I encourage you in your philosophical quest rather than too much worry about dementia until necessarily. Dementia is a label in itself. In the meantime I think philosophy needs a wake up call from the smart thinkers and at the present time your thinking is smart and offers a valuable contribution to philosophy.

I am a bit surprised to hear that you are are checking for signs of dementia because my imaginary picture of you was an extremely young person, probably with a degree in psychology as so many people have nowadays. I imagined you as a force to take the world by storm.

This is not in any way a criticism as I am in Bedford drinking wine in Bedford in a venue calle Coffee With Art, reading a paper book called History and Spirit: An Inquiry into the Philosophy of Liberation by Joel Kovel. It is based on Hegel's philosophy but draws upon psychoanalysis and the whole spirit of authenticity.

I encourage you in your philosophical quest rather than too much worry about dementia until necessarily. Dementia is a label in itself. In the meantime I think philosophy needs a wake up call from the smart thinkers and at the present time your thinking is smart and offers a valuable contribution to philosophy. — Jack Cummins

:lol: Well thank you darling but I am more like a moldy loaf of bread or an old car ready for the junkyard.
My epitaph needs to read "gone to get a new body" but if we do not have a major awakening and turn to caring for our planet and all life on it, I am not sure I want to come back.

As for a wake-up call, now you really excite me. I would so much like to be part of that. We could be moving into a New Age and unlike all the transitions we have made so far, built on our past and religious belief, the New Age is new because it is such a transformation of consciousness, those of the New Age will not be able to relate our history.

I am totally blown away by recent social change and today's politics! It is like we have come to a fork in the road that will mean our end or a completely new consciousness. Congress helping the little guy financially is mind-blowing! I have been through many recessions and wish the little guy had always been supported. Reagon was especially devasting to millions of lives with his Hollywood fanatacy of our national greatness that did not include the reality of the victims of economic collapse. Why is congress aware of the economic victims now and not in the past? We have marched for the end of war and the end of racism at least since the sixties, but now, at least the march against racism seems to be turning things around. And global economic collapse because of the virus could be a blessing or curse?

Talk about obsecure, how many people have a copy of Jose' Aarguelles' book The Mayan Factor- Path Beyond Technology. He says some very strange things, but really why is his explanation of The Mayan Factor strange but the Biblical explanation of Eden seems a like a story of God's truth? At least the Mayan had a more realistic notion of good times and bad times. Our Christian mentality is so dependent on a God who takes care of us, rather than a natural cycle of good times and bad times. Now I am going too far, but you mentioned a possible awakening and maybe we need other prespectives to stir up our creative thinking of how we are going to past some really bad times?