I once thought I thought, but I thought I thought, I did not think.

Now, I think I thought, whereas previously I thought I thought.

“‘S’cuse me, while I kiss the sky.”

I thought I thought, but thinking, I thought I didn’t.

Did I think, or did I think I thought? Am I thinking?

I think I thought, but not thinking I thought I think but didn’t.

I didn’t think I thought, but wondered if I was thinking. So I thought I thought. But thinking I thought not. Now, I merely think I think.

When I once thought I thought, I know now I think I think. However, I once thought.

I think, I thought, I ought, I naught, eye naught, eye ought, aye ought, I ought, aye naught, eye naught, I ought, I naught.

Pardon me… the dog is chasing its tail, and the tale says I think I must join.

Anthony, the man “doth protest too much, methinks.”

]]>I looked up null hypothesis, and one definition I found was that if you have a hypothesis and you do research to test your hypothesis you have to acknowledge that any relationship you see in your research that might support your hypothesis is one that could have happened by chance. Thus in order to prove that the relationship you see is not just a matter of chance you have to compare it to the null hypothesis, which an assertion that is the opposite of your hypothesis, and demonstrate that the null hypothesis is likely wrong. The idea being that if you can’t prove the null hypothesis wrong, then the data of the research can be used to support either hypotheses (your initial hypothesis, and the null hypothesis) which would indicate that the relationship your seeing is random. (by the way, thanks for introducing me to this concept and prompting me to research it; it’s an interesting concept)

So, given the above, it wasn’t clear to me if you are saying that I have made a hypothesis and have yet to support it by addressing the null hypothesis, or if you are making an hypothesis, and are acknowledging at the same time that it is not yet valid until the null hypothesis has been addressed. As far as I can tell, I have not yet made a hypothesis about the nature of thinking, but rather just presented a question, and tried to identify what I see as potentially problematic in resolving the question. On the other hand, it strikes me that all you said above could have been about the problem of randomness, which is an interesting concept and problem in-and-of itself, but again I am not sure what you are saying about randomness and the inquiry into thinking.

As far as using the microscope, and as you specifically say, using the objective to examine the clip or stage, I certainly agree that we can and have analyzed our thinking, but this is not quite what my question is intending to pose, and I assume responsibility for people not quite getting at what I am getting at, because, honestly, I am still trying to identify the specifics of what I am trying to get at, and I think this accounts for the openness of the meaning of my question. All this, however, is good from my perspective, because it is forcing me to tighten up on what my question specifically is, and the formulation of a good question is often a major part of good thinking. So, I think I am inquiring about our ability to understand the phenomena of thinking as a whole, and within that I am wondering about the relationship of our thinking to the world or reality. And, the thing that is tough about the attempt to examine this relationship is that it seems to require us to look at our thinking as one object in relationship to another object, but the fact is our thinking can’t be presented to us just as an object, since it is itself the subject involved in the process of examining the relationship.

]]>That’s almost what you’re describing.

Essentially when you ask about self-examination, that is akin to the observation one would expect when observing and inquiring about the pigmentation of dark-skinned folk. It ain’t white – at least the norm is not.

But before I continue, let me first share about the null hypothesis. Essentially, that statistical supposition states that any observations made in a study will not differ from a random sample and any suppositions or hypotheses made about such a group would not significantly differ from any testing or sampling of that group, and further, that any differences would be purely random, and due to sampling error, for which there is no correlation to account for the difference.

Get it? (I made an “A” in statistics.)

Perhaps more succinctly, “The null hypothesis, denoted by H0, is usually the hypothesis that sample observations result purely from chance.”

The Alternative hypothesis is “that sample observations are influenced by some non-random cause.”

Analogously it’d be like observing 100 black folks and finding dark-pigmented skin. You’d expect it. However, there’d be variations in pigment tone, ranging from blue-black to milk-chocolate, even to tan or white. The majority would, however, be similar to each other. (Remember the bell curve, and that 95% of all observations will fall between ±2SD of the n?)

Similarly, it’d be almost akin to asking ‘how many times would we observe the X+Y=M before it would not yield M? (Your astute readers will recognize chromosomes).

X+Y always = M

X+X always = F

Any observed differences are attributable to external influences, for the formula remains the same.

How does this relate to your question?

Before I proceed, let me ask you this: Have you ever used the microscope? Your question would seem to imply that you have not -though I’m certain you probably have. Ever used an oil microscope? How many times have you ever goofed off and used the objective to view the clips or any part of the stage? My personal favorite was the stereoscope microscope.

Therefore, the microscope CAN be used to examine itself. Can it examine all of itself? Yes. Albeit certain parts would have to be placed under the objective.

And your question about objectivity is good.

But again, let me ask you if you’ve ever been a little boy. Of course, the answer is yes.

So then you know about little boys – right? And, you also know about raising children… for you too were raised.

Your questions are related – insofar as I sense – mathematically related. Where is the norm? How do I know if I’m correct? How can I account for differences? These are all questions that can be addressed mathematically. It’s called “Statistics.”

Occasionally, we need help from external sources. That’s an important aspect of our humanity – community – for which we were designed. As well, it’s an important aspect of our relationship to the Almighty.

]]>As another point of clarification, I am not asking if we can do an anatomical study on the brain. I know that has been, and is being done. Instead, I am asking can we examine what the brain supposedly produces, which is consciousness. Can we use consciousness to directly examine consciousness as such?

]]>Is it Possible to examine ones self? Is that what your asking?

Are you asking Is it possible to think about how we think?

Damn this is really making my head hurt because i am first trying to understand the question.

What say you blue?

]]>