I don't know how to answer the question, because I don't know the difference between the way I can think and the way I think. If there are different ways a person can think, do we each choose different ways at different times? Or do we each have just one that, for whatever reason, we settled on, perhaps very early in life?

My focus has been on things and types of things we think about, not the way we think. Thinking about an object, say, a boulder on a hill, and thinking about what that boulder might do in the future, say, roll down the hill, are different kinds of thoughts. Thinking about that boulder landing on me leads to thinking about my mortality, which is yet another kind of thought. Thinking about these different kinds of thoughts Is a fourth kind of thought. At least it seems this way to me.

But I don't know that I'm not thinking these different kinds of thoughts in the same way. If they are different ways of thinking, I guess they are the thingd that might answer your question? But what are those ways?

You say things like this:

Sure he thinks in ways he could not before. — Harry Hindu

As I have said, learning anything can play a role in your ability to think in ways you did not before. Language is not special in this regard. — Harry Hindu

Yet you say things like this:

Language does not make us think in ways that we already could not. — Harry Hindu

How are these things not contradictory?

Sure he thinks in ways he could not before. He now understands that there are ideas can be shared. Can't it be said that you change when you learn anything new? — Harry Hindu

It seems to me learning language played a pretty big role in his ability to think in ways he could not before.

Exactly. It wasn't language that made you think differently. It was the ideas in a book expressed in language that changed your thinking. The ideas could have been expressed in any form as long as there were rules that we agreed upon for interpreting the forms, and as long as you had a mind capable of already understanding multiple levels of representation. — Harry Hindu

Yes. I still don't know where I'm suggesting any power, or something that isn't logically possible.

Fortunately not a requirement! Although to listen to some people on TPF, you'd think it was a requirement, and anyone who isn't quite sure what they think, and pursues possible lines of inquiry, is perceived as "refusing to take a position" or "arguing sophistically" or something like that. — J

Chin up! It's not the subject matter. Such people are in all walks of life. But there are also other types.

Language does not make us think in ways that we already could not. — Harry Hindu

I wonder if Ildefonso now thinks in ways he could not before he learned language. I'll have to think about that.

But even if language did not make him think in ways that he already could not, it certainly made him think in ways he had not. One day, I saw a book called Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. I'm a Bach freak, and Escher is great, so, despite never having heard of Gödel, I thought I'd see what it was about. I had never heard of Zeno's or Russell's paradoxes before I found GEB. We know everything we know because, at some point in our lives, we're exposed to them for the first time. My first exposure to these paradoxes came from reading a book. Because of the scribbles. One guy scribbled on paper, and, decades later, by looking at those scribbles, someone else is thinking in ways he never had before.

The real subject of the proposition, which is pain. Pain is never experienced in the third person. :roll: — Wayfarer

Indeed. Seeing a damaged hand does not mean the hand hurts. No damage does not mean the hand does not hurt. Only the bearer of the hand can know if the hand hurts.

So, sorry if I sound like I'm waffling. — J

What?? Not ready to declare total understanding of all things yet?!?

:rofl:

Ok, I'll let it slide this time.

edit

The more I work with this, the more I'm realizing that the idea of "accompanying" a thought can be given so many interpretations that I wonder if it's even helpful. — J

It does seem to be a bit of a bother. But many things are worth the bother.

The OP was examining a common but still controversial claim -- that when we think, there is some accompanying "I think" that characterizes the act of thinking, and which according to some is also a type of self-awareness or self-consciousness. — J

Did you mean a type of evidence of self-awareness or self-consciousness? Or did you really mean a type of self-awareness or self-consciousness?

I for one would like to understand this issue better. I guess that's the "something" toward which I'm heading. Its significance might be to give me a better self-understanding, a clearer feel for what being me in the world actually is, thought I don't mind admitting that I find the topic interesting in its own right, regardless of any further insights. — J

And that is as worthy a motivation for pursuing this as any other.

The OP was examining a common but still controversial claim -- that when we think, there is some accompanying "I think" that characterizes the act of thinking, and which according to some is also a type of self-awareness or self-consciousness. — J

It seems somewhat akin to a sentence like "Throw the ball." The subject of the sentence is You. That's not in question, or ambiguous, despite not being spoken. I think it might not even be thought, and omitted from the spoken command because, being certain and clear, it's not necessary. I'm not literally thinking "You/J throw the ball" when I say "Throw the ball." Still, it seems it must be part of my thought.

Maybe Frege's idea is a bit more involved than that, but it came to mind.

I don't know what you mean by power. I can't imagine anything about them I'd use that word for.
— Patterner
It's a term I'm using to refer to your idea that scribbles can somehow do more than what is logically possible. You are free to use a different term to refer to this idea of yours. — Harry Hindu

Ok. Well, Human languages are much more complex than any non-human language that we are aware of. With them, we can discuss things, and kinds of things, that cannot be discussed in any non-human language. Things that are not thought by any non-human.

Humans created systems using scribbles in order to make lasting records of ideas that can be expressed in those languages. Presumably, the motivation for creating such systems was the desire to communicate those utterances, both to distant people and to future generations. The squiggles can record and communicate relatively simple things that can be communicated in non-human languages, and also things, and kinds of things, that cannot be discussed in any non-human language.

The result being, when we look at the scribbles, we can, and very often must, think things, and kinds of things, that cannot be discussed in any non-human language, and which are not thought by any non-human. Also, they are often things the one looking at the scribbles has never thought before.

I don't know what's not logically possible in any of that. And I don't know how any power can be read into any of it. At least not in the magical/fantasy sense that I believe you mean it.

But these scribbles are signs that can pass extremely complex ideas, in great detail, from the mind of one person into the mind of a person living thousands of years later, who never had any inking of those particular ideas, or kinds of ideas. That's pretty darned special.

I can understand what you're saying. I differentiated different kinds of thoughts, in regards to baseball. What is the significance of it all? Is this a first step toward something?



How about this sentence, spoken by someone who lost a leg in an accident, but is in traction, can't see it, and hasn't yet been told:
"My foot hurts."

Sure, because of the sheer number of scribbles and rules for putting them together in strings, not because of some special power of the scribbles have apart from representing things that are not scribbles. — Harry Hindu

I don't know what you mean by power. I can't imagine anything about them I'd use that word for.

:grin: Well, you don't have to. . . . — J

Yeah, I meant can I understand that idea fairly quickly, in order to be able to continue reading.

As a short cut, forget about "thought1" -- this is just me trying to specify some terminology -- and focus on the idea of a thought as being merely entertained qua thought, as something to ponder or question. — J

As opposed to what??

Are you familiar with the force/content distinction? — J

Never heard the phrase.

The OP of "A challenge to Frege on Assertion" gives an overview. Take a look and then I'm happy to try to clarify. — J

I wondered what that was about when you started it. I'd never seen the name Frege before. And a book named Thinking and Being sounds fantastic! But I couldn't make head nor tail of the op. I'll try again.

Thank you for your time.

let thought1 be understood as unasserted, without force, "merely thought". — J

Do I have to read much (books? paragraphs? posts?) to learn what this means?

My point is that we could use anything to symbolize other things. Any visual could represent some other visual, sound, feeling, taste or smell. Our ancestors used natural objects to symbolize complex ideas like status within the group, or one's role in the group. It is merely the efficiency of symbol use that has increased exponentially with writing scribbles is more efficient than hanging a bears head above entrance to your tent. Increasing the number of symbols and their relationships allows one to represent more complex ideas and probably does improve the efficiency of conceiving of new ones. — Harry Hindu

It seems that you start off disagreeing with me, and end up agreeing. Certainly, our ancestors used things other than words to symbolize other things. We still do. But words and language is a huge step above anything else when it comes to communicating specifics, and let's us think about things I doubt think we could think about without it.

Can a society without a written language evolve? The Incans did not have a written language but were able to pull of some very sophisticated feats of engineering. — Harry Hindu

I guess that depends on what we mean by "evolve". if we mean ethically or artistically, I don't see why not.

Musically would take longer, unless you have musical notation but not written language. Which I guess is possible, but no culture in human history is known to have done so. A society's literature would also take much longer to evolved. I mean things like story-telling and poetry, which don't have to be written down. Anyone listening to the Aboriginal "Dreamtime" stories in Australia hundreds of years ago might have thought it would be good to create a huge, complex story. But very difficult to do that, as opposed to Shakespeare getting the idea. So the Aboriginies concentrated on stories that were important to their culture.

Technologically? No. The ability to store, and easily access, information, rather than being limited to what was able to be memorized, is a gigantic advantage. If they never started using written language, Incans were not going to the moon.

The fact that we can use hand movements (sign language) or braille to symbolize things is evidence that words can take any form that we can perceive and can be used to represent almost anything. — Harry Hindu

I agree. But if you don't find a way to store sign language outside of memory, like in writing, you won't get as far in some ways.

Rhyming is simply making similar noises in succession. — Harry Hindu

It's making similar sounding words in succession.

I always end up posting a link to this video in discussions like this: A Man Without Words — Harry Hindu

Watching it now. Sounds fascinating!

Hehe

"I think I am" sounds like I am guessing I exist. — Corvus

"Are you that baby's father?"
"I think I am."

I know that's not what you meant. I just couldn't resist. :grin:

For some reason, people seem to categorize words as having this special power or needing a special explanation that makes them separate from all the other visual experiences we have. I'm saying that is not the case. They are no different than any other visual experience you might have — Harry Hindu

Seeing words can make us think of things, and kinds of things, no other visual experience can. Things that wouldn't exist but for language. Rhyming, for example. If their weren't words, we wouldn't open a wooden barrier in a hole in the wall, behind which is a large, tusked pig, and bloody, dead body, and think:
The door
Hid the gore
Perpetrated by the boar

I'm sure there are things other than rhyming and poetry that can't wouldn't and couldn't be thought without words. Much of math and science must surely depend on them.

I am a mobile phone user. I can just holds the o, and it gives me options.
ô ö ò ó œ ø ō õ

Honestly, I don't know what you folks are saying half the time. I've never read Frege, Rödl, or most others being mentioned. (I read most of Nagel's Mind and Cosmos. Absolutely loved what I could follow.) So I don't know how relevant these thoughts are.

I want to get away from the oak. Let's take baseball.
"Who is batting next for the Dodgers?" Some possible answers:
1) "I think Freddie Freeman."
2) "Freddie Freeman"
3) "I think Freddie Freeman is scheduled."
4) "Freddie Freeman is scheduled."

1) It's a fact that I think Freeman is batting next. Freeman may or may not bat next.

2) This is presented as a fact. It may or may not be. Difficult to see is the future. Always in motion it is. It may be that he's not even scheduled to bat next. Even if he is, any number of things might prevent his from batting next, right down to stepping in a hole and twisting his ankle one second from the plate. We'll have to wait and see.

3) It's a fact that I think Freeman is scheduled to bat next. It may or may not be a fact that Freeman is scheduled to bat next.

4) It's a fact that Freeman is scheduled to bat next. The lineup is written down, so you can read it. Doesn't mean he'll bat next, but he's scheduled.

I find Wayfarer's sci-fi scenario of AI systems "duking it out" in the absence of human intentions to be an interesting thought experiment.

I find it interesting that Claude finds it interesting.

Here are my two cents, for what it's worth. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, I mean...
Hehe

I believe that reality exists independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense. — Brendan Golledge

Yes. Any number of people, none of whom know each other, can, all at different times, be rendered unconscious and taken to the same place, a place which none of them had ever heard of before, and take photographs, draw pictures, or write down descriptions of whatever objects they see. What would it mean if all of the photos, drawings, and descriptions matched?

I didn't realize the intent of this thread was to discuss the topic only in relation to Rödl's book.

But I think questions about 'whether animals think' really belong in the Rational Thinking Humans and Animals thread. — Wayfarer

It is relevant, because, if an animal that either has no sense of self, or has a sense of self but no thought of self, can think anything along the lines of ‛That oak tree is shedding its leaves,’ then the “I think” does not necessarily accompany all thought. And if it does not necessarily accompany all thought, then it might not always accompany all our thought.

Ok, my example wasn't good enough to make my point.

"The leaves are falling from the tree, and the temperature of the surface of the Earth's core is estimated to be around 9,800°F/5,430°C."

Am I able to think of these two entirely unrelated things at the same time? I would think so, or anything might come out of my mouth. If so, then any thoughts can be thought at the same time. They don't have to be related, or one built upon the other

I agree.



And I disagree with myself. :rofl: To wit:

However, i also understand the difference. And i agree with Pat. — Patterner

I've literally never thought about these things before, so I don't have a solid position. I came to a new conclusion while posting, then didn't proofread very well. I had just said (what I called) nested thoughts means I am thinking ‛The oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ as I am thinking ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ Else I wouldn't know what I was thinking. (Can't think about nothing. [Well, not in this sense.])

I recently said (Janus and/or Meta?) something along the lines of all this. Maybe compound thoughts of the same level, and nested thoughts of different levels, can exist if one is built upon the other, but not if there is no connection. But is even that correct? Am I thinking about leaves falling from the tree and the height of the Empire State Building when I say, 'The leaves are falling from the tree, and, when you include the antenna, the Empire State Building is 1,454 feet (443.2 m) tall"?

Do the quotes around "I" mean that there is literally no self without thoughts, or only that the "I" of philosophy, so to speak -- the self-conscious cogito -- is constructed from our thoughts?
— J

As I see it, there could be no self without thoughts. The self doesn't have thoughts, the self is the thoughts that the self has.

If you had no thoughts, would it be possible for you to have a self?

How could you express your self without thoughts? — RussellA

Someone recently told me about Noesis and Noema. I have only started reading it, but I think it's relevant?

Even if I can't think the higher level thought without the lower level though, I can think the lower level thought without the higher.
— Patterner

Yes, if "I think p" is indeed meant to be present to consciousness at all times that "p" is thought. — J

Am II right that a cat can think about the tree, but cannot think about thinking about the tree?

Whereas "the oak tree is shedding its leaves" is a combination of two lower level thoughts.
— Patterner

But you have said that "the oak tree is shedding its leaves" is the lower level thought. — RussellA

And you pointed out that it is (what might be called?) a compound lower level thought.

And then there's the added "I think..." Which raises it to a different (what I'm calling) level. Whereas "the oak tree is shedding its leaves" is a combination of two lower level thoughts.

So then is the question "Can you think A and B at the same time?" rather than "Can you be A and B at the same time?"?

“Sorry, but I don’t have this experience. When I look out the window and say to myself, ‛That oak tree is shedding its leaves,’ I am not aware of also, and simultaneously, thinking anything along the lines of ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ Please don’t misunderstand me as saying that I’ve never had such a thought, or wouldn’t know what it was to experience such a thought. There are indeed circumstances under which I may additionally reflect ‛And I am thinking thought p at this moment’ or ‛Thought p is my thought’ or ‛I judge that p’. But I disagree that this characterizes my experience of thinking in general.” — J

A cat is thinking about the leaves falling off the tree as it playfully leaps up to attack them as they're falling. But I do not believe a cat is capable of thinking about thinking about the leaves falling off the tree. That's a different level of thought, of which cats are not capable. (I don't know terminology. Levels? Kinds? Types?)

Is this an example of nested thoughts? Is it possible to think ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ without thinking ‛The oak tree is shedding its leaves.’? The words are actually in the sentence, after all. The higher level thought cannot exist without the lower level thought. How would I know the difference between ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ and ‛I think that the chair is broken.’ if I wasn't thinking the lower level thought within the higher level thought?

However, i also understand the difference. And i agree with Pat. Even if I can't think the higher level thought without the lower level though, I can think the lower level thought without the higher.

Indeed. Well said.

The first thesis ("My senses can device me" is a skeptical premise), from there the author asks a conditional statement: "If p (I cannot trust my senses), then q (I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist".

That's questionable. That very statement. — Arcane Sandwich

Of course it's questionable. If outside reality didn't exist, we wouldn't have ways of sensing it.

From The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes - and Its Implications, by David Deutsch.

There is a standard philosophical joke about a professor who gives a lecture in defence of solipsism. So persuasive is the lecture that as soon as it ends, several enthusiastic students hurry forward to shake the professor’s hand. ‘Wonderful. I agreed with every word,’ says one student earnestly. ‘So did I,’ says another. ‘I am very gratified to hear it,’ says the professor. ‘One so seldom has the opportunity to meet fellow solipsists.’ — David Deutsch

I doubt it's simple as that in this world. — Gmak

Certainly not on this forum. :grin:

My understanding of the Tao is that we are all a part of a greater whole, and to whatever end there is a purpose in life, it's to find what your purpose is and be the best at it as your authentic, genuine self. — MrLiminal

The first translation of the Tao Te Ching I ever saw was Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English. I read it very heavily, memorizing a quarter of it, before ever looking at another translation. So that's the translation I get my thoughts from. The following is rather wordy. :rofl: :rofl: I don't post things of such length. But this is what I wrote when I had a geocities page many years ago. Geocities hasn't even been around in many years. I haven't looked at this in years, but I still agree with my younger self. Still, it's a lot, so nobody feel bad about not getting through it. :rofl:


Taoism speaks of the way of the universe, the way of nature. It speaks of what it considers the best way to live. That is, living without anger, hatred, frustration, and all the other negative emotions. Living as the universe exists, without effort or worry.

And how is that accomplished? In Taoism, it all comes down to this: Give up desire..

If people lack knowledge and desire, then intellectuals will not try to interfere. If nothing is done, then all will be well. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 3

Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment. Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 15

Without desire there is tranquility. And in this way all things would be at peace. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 37

That’s all you need to know. Such a simple thing, really. Give up desire, and you will be content. And in your contentment, you will be able to find happiness.
I could stop now. And if you followed that advice, all would become clear to you. But I'll explain the nuts and bolts of it all.

In the Tao, everything acts only within its nature. The sun burns, the hawk hunts, the water runs, the tree grows. Water does not desire to run uphill. It does not attempt to act in a manner inconsistent with its nature, the Tao. The hawk does not desire to burrow into the ground as the mole does. It does not attempt to fight the Tao.

And despite the fact that things act only according to their nature, every single thing that is necessary for the continued existence of the universe is accomplished. My very favorite passage from the Tao Te Ching:
Tao abides in non-action, yet nothing is left undone.
Things run perfectly without thinking and planning, without fighting against the universe.

The problem is that we are no longer part of the Tao. We have lost our Way. We don't see the glorious harmony of it all, the perfection of the universe's intricacies. And we don't even know that we are lost! We have separated ourselves from everything, and then go back and try to possess it all. That damned desire!

We desire things that the universe does not naturally give us. If the earth was made entirely of gold, we would not desire gold. We don't desire what we have, or can have whenever we want. We only desire what is not readily available to us.

Therefore, when you act to attain what you desire, you are fighting the Tao. You are fighting the natural order of the universe. That's worth repeating: You are fighting the natural order of the universe! Doesn't that seem like a strange, arrogant, and impossible thing to do?

The problem is that desire simply can't be satisfied. On the practical side, it just doesn’t work. Yes, many individual desires can be achieved. But as soon as you get one thing that you desire, another pops up. Then another, and another..... Eventually, you will desire something that you can't have. Maybe you don’t have enough money. Maybe not enough time. Eventually, you will be frustrated. You may envy those who have what you cannot. You may hate them, steal from them, or kill them to take what they have.

On the spiritual side, desire is all consuming. Even if you could eventually get any particular thing that you set your sights on, there is simply no end to the wanting. Desire itself cannot be satisfied. It’s an all-or-nothing type of thing. If you have it, there is no end. No point where you say, "Ah, I now have everything I desire. I can relax now and enjoy all that I have." Give it up completely, or be prepared to spend your entire life trying, and often failing, to get one thing after another after another.(

So give up desire, and give up the negative results. The constant wanting, frustration, and anger. Accept what the Tao provides you, desire nothing that is not provided, and you will live in peace and happiness. Do only what is necessary to live, to eat, to breath, to be. If the Tao does not provide it to you, you don't need it.

This might seem somehow wrong. After all, doesn’t giving up desire mean giving up caring and being happy with something? Not really. Someone could taste chocolate for the first time in their life at the age of 40, and absolutely love it. But never having tried it before, their enjoyment of it clearly had nothing to do with desire for it. We will like and dislike things even if we are free of desire. Our preferences will still be there. The thing is, if you're not spending so much time and energy trying to satisfy desires, and being frustrated and angry over those desires that you can't manage to fulfill, you will realize that there are a thousand things every day that will make you happy. Pay attention to the moment. Notice the beauty and happiness that is around all the time. That old “stop and smell the roses” idea. Just because I enjoyed something, say a particular meal, doesn’t mean I have to drive myself crazy wanting to have it the next day. If I have it again, I’m happy again. But I can still be happy with other meals that come my way. Here’s a great story to illustrate my point. It's said to be a Zen story. But the connection between Taoism and Zen is obvious. I got this from a comic book called The Hands of Shang-Chi: Master of Kung Fu. The writer, Doug Moench, said it was his favorite.

A man was being chased by a ravenous tiger. He came to the edge of a cliff and began to climb down a hanging vine. Then he looked and saw a second, equally ravenous tiger waiting at the bottom. At that moment, a mouse began to gnaw at the vine. Something caught the man’s eye - a luscious, red strawberry growing just within his reach. He plucked it and ate it and exclaimed, “How delicious this is!” — Old Zen Story

This is obviously an extreme example of giving up desire; giving up the desire to continue living another five minutes. But when he realized that he could not change his fate, he let go of the desire to do so, and took the pleasure that was available to him. He was not thinking, "I want a strawberry before I die." He just happened to find one, and ate it. Just because he was not going to experience pleasure beyond the next five minutes, doesn’t mean that he couldn’t experience it within the next five minutes. Holding on to his desire to live would have precluded his ability to be happy in the last moments of his life. Remember the story when something infinitely less important than your imminent demise is bothering you, and realize that it’s probably not that important anyway. And if it can’t be changed, it doesn’t matter how important it is. Let it go.

The natural consequence of having no desire is something called wu-wei. This is usually translated as things like "non-action", "non-contrived", "non-ado", etc. The best explanation of the term that I've seen is from The Tao of Zen, by Ray Grigg. He says:

When non-doing appears as inaction it is peaceful, silent, and still; when it appears as action it is thoughtless, reflexive, and intuitive. — Ray Grigg

When we desire, our actions are planned and schemed. They are for a reason, with a goal in mind. Our energy is wasted trying to change circumstances, fighting the natural order of the universe. But when we practice wu-wei, our actions are unmotivated and instinctual. They are natural reactions to the moment.

Wu-wei is not gained through any desire, effort, or plan. You do not say, "I will achieve wu-wei in the following manner..." It is simply the way things without desire act. If you desire nothing, your actions will not be the result of any intent to satisfy a desire. Instead, your actions will simply be in accordance with what is happening around you. Because of our self-preservation instinct, the man in the story above did what he could to survive. His actions were the response to the moment; needs and instinct were driving him. (Of course, most of us desire to live, and his actions might be seen as attempts to achieve this desire. But animals that never think "I want to live" behave the same way. Without any conscious desire to live, the man would have instinctively acted the same way.) When he knew that his life was over, when there was no spontaneous/instinctual act left to perform (and, if desire to live did, indeed, play a role in his previous actions, he realized that no possible action could achieve this desire, and so stopped acting on it), he ate the strawberry. This was not a planned action based on any desire. It was a spontaneous action, made possible by the situation he was in.

And here are a bunch of quotes. They deal with the concept of giving up desire, accepting what comes to you through the Tao, and not fighting against it. These are all from non-Taoist sources, which are, nevertheless, clearly expressing this ideal.

It is from understanding that power comes; and the power in the ceremony was in understanding what it meant; for nothing can live well except in a manner that is suited to the way the sacred Power of the World lives and moves. — Black Elk

I will tell you something about the Sahara. This desert is very simple to survive in. You must only admit there is something on Earth larger than you...the wind...the dryness...the distance...the Sahara. You accept that, and everything is fine. The desert will provide. Inshallah. If you do not, the desert will break you. Admit your weakness to the Sahara’s face, and all is fine. — Nouhou Agah, in the March 1999 National Geographic, page 24,

The Man from Mars sat down when Jill left. He did not pick up the picture book but simply waited in a fashion which may be described as ‘patient’ only because human language does not embrace Martian attitudes. He held still with quiet happiness because his brother had said that he would return. He was prepared to wait, without moving, without doing anything, for several years. — Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

The Hopis had held a rain dance Sunday, calling on the clouds - their ancestors - to restore the water blessing to the land. Perhaps the kachinas had listened to their Hopi children. Perhaps not. It was not a Navajo concept, this idea of adjusting nature to human needs. The Navajo adjusted himself to remain in harmony with the universe. When nature withheld the rain, the Navajo sought the pattern of this phenomenon - as he sought the pattern of all things - to find its beauty and live in harmony with it. — Tony Hillerman, Listening Woman

Harvest what you grow
There’ll be so much to show
And you will have everything you need
(Like you need anything else) — Rabbit, in Sing A Song With Pooh Bear

Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? — Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 6: 25-30

A condition of complete simplicity (Costing nothing less than everything) — T.S. Eliot: The state of being a Christian

You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometime,
you just might find
you get what you need. — The Rolling Stones

Chapter 10 of The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint Exupery, is a lesson in Taoism. He is obviously familiar with the Tao Te Ching. Very nice work.

I think it was made for tv, and you might be thinking it was an episode or two. Awesome scene, where he meets Po for the first time:
https://youtu.be/tuoyeNqRI8A

Maybe my favorite moment in the Tao Te Ching is the beginning of Verse 37 (Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English translation):

Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone. — Lao Tzu

I was a huge fan of the Kung Fu movie and tv show and Ursula K Le Guin's Earthsea books for many years. Then, for reasons I don't remember, I thought I should take a look at the Tao Te Ching. I was stunned and thrilled to see where so much of Kung Fu and Earthsea came from. Some of it is quoted in Kung Fu, particularly by Masters Po and Kwan.

Turns out Le Guin wrote her own version of the TTC. Not a translation, because she didn't know Chinese. But she owned many translations, and wrote what it meant to her.

in my view he doesn't wrestle with the question of ipseity, the nature of subjective awareness as such. — Wayfarer

So then he doesn't get specific. Which sounds something like in there neighborhood of vague to me. Anyway, I have Mind in Life. I hope to get to it soon.

We have much in common physiologically speaking. I seems to me that the greatest divergence consists in the ways we each interpret the general nature of experience. — Janus

I think we have at least a couple of major differences. Going back to an earlier conversation, I can definitely look at something, and be aware that I'm looking at it, at the same time. I can talk about my awareness of looking at it, and anything else about it, and I will still notice if something blocks my vision of the thing, moves it, throws paint on it... I wouldn't see it move or change if I was not still looking at it while discussing my awareness of looking at it.

If you cannot do that, then we are very different.

I think it's a vague way of approaching the issue, and I think it has to be. Part of what Nagel was saying is that we can't understand what it's like to be a bat. We're too different to even pretend we can imagine being a bat.

But we can still consider whether there's anything it's like. As opposed to what it's like to be a rock. There's nothing it's like to be a rock. Who thinks a bat's subjective experience is as absent as a rock's?