Metacognition: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Metacognition » Metacognition

Metacognition

cam875
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 30, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 10/30/09 - 05:28 PM: Subject: Metacognition	#1
Hi, I am new here and have just recently begun to excericse my interest in philosophy by learning about different philosophies of truth, and reality and have a few questions regarding the ideas behind metacognition(thinking about thinking). Accepting metacognition seems to imply that it is possible to basically become completely self aware of your own thought which at first glance seems like a pretty common notion which should be accepted. But after I thought about it for a while it seemed almost like a contradiction that a process such as thinking could be applied to thinking itself. This almost seems like the comparison of a computer processor analyzing its very own process. Personally I think the idea of metacognition isn't so much as thinking about ACTUAL thinking but rather thinking about an idea of thinking. Basically saying that metacognition is no different then thinking about typing on this forum as it is thinking about thinking. Could it be that we merely think about what our idea of our thought process is and in fact never think about what actual thinking is? Is that a viable argument? Any advice on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2129

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:19 PM:	#2
cam875 wrote: Could it be that we merely think about what our idea of our thought process is and in fact never think about what actual thinking is? Welcome to PF. Basicallly your question seems to be: How can we arrive at truth (about reality/the world)? (Here I am assuming a correspondence theory of truth). It could be that what we think about is connected to reality in the way that we think it is, or it could be that what we think about is not connected to reality in the way we think it is. How could we tell? As Kant said, we can never know the Ding an Sich (thing in itself), all we have access to is phenomena, not noumena. The best we can hope for is that our ideas, models, concepts of the world all cohere to provide a reliable and consistent picture, but we have no infallible way of knowing whether this picture corresponds to the actual state of affairs. Edited by reincarnated on 10/30/09 - 06:25 PM
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

stax
The daedal philosopher.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: A transcendental plane of reality, Australia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 36

Posted 10/30/09 - 07:51 PM:	#3
cam875 wrote: Hi, I am new here and have just recently begun to excericse my interest in philosophy by learning about different philosophies of truth, and reality and have a few questions regarding the ideas behind metacognition(thinking about thinking). Accepting metacognition seems to imply that it is possible to basically become completely self aware of your own thought which at first glance seems like a pretty common notion which should be accepted. But after I thought about it for a while it seemed almost like a contradiction that a process such as thinking could be applied to thinking itself. This almost seems like the comparison of a computer processor analyzing its very own process. Personally I think the idea of metacognition isn't so much as thinking about ACTUAL thinking but rather thinking about an idea of thinking. Basically saying that metacognition is no different then thinking about typing on this forum as it is thinking about thinking. Could it be that we merely think about what our idea of our thought process is and in fact never think about what actual thinking is? Is that a viable argument? Any advice on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Meta-cognition would deal with the way in which we think. Essentially you're saying, from what I can tell, that meta-cognition is nonsensical insofar that we cannot think about our mental states. I would argue that your analogy is incorrect, due to the fact that a computer is not sentient, but it also fails to the fact that it cannot think, but also because it can present the 'processes' going on within it. Thinking about thinking, I believe is non-nonsensical because we have a distinct faculty in our mind that allows us to assess our own mental states, retrospectively or otherwise. Now for example you may reflect on a technique of learning that you have used, you may reflect on the mental states you experienced due to that method of learning, and how you can think next time to change those mental states (for example, positive thoughts/self talk). By doing that you are thinking about the way your mind was thinking, which is the definition of meta-cognition, so therefore it is possible. Yes, you can only think about the idea of thinking, but I believe it is not possible a priori, because you must possess the knowledge and thus the nature of thinking to assess how you have thought. And I would be extremely skeptical about assessing others' metacognition, because you are not experiencing their qualia, you do not have access to their behaviour which could arise from different mental states from which you believe they could arise from. Your point about assessing meta-cognition as an idea is totally implied, I believe, because you, when doing the assessing can only be doing it in your mind, and it must be in retrospect or derived a posteriori, so the mental representation of that metacognitive thought would be mental, and thus could not be material. Edited by stax on 10/30/09 - 08:59 PM
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer "To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." Ludwig Wittgenstein "Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open." Ludwig Wittgenstein

Randomized
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 30, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 10/30/09 - 08:43 PM:	#4
New here as well, and a great question to open a thread cam875! cam875 wrote: But after I thought about it for a while it seemed almost like a contradiction that a process such as thinking could be applied to thinking itself. This almost seems like the comparison of a computer processor analyzing its very own process. Stax gives an excellent example of self-talk and reflection on mental states. I would like to add a suggestion that you consider metacognition more than just an analytic. If I am thinking about thinking, is that the same as observing, postulating, or realizing? If yes, then it goes a step beyond being merely an analytic process and provides some sort of actualized progress beyond the parameters of the original thought; something a computer cannot do.

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 264

Posted 10/31/09 - 04:09 AM:	#5
We don't really think about thinking directly. Rather, we think about the reflection of our thinking. It is kind of like looking at your reflection in the mirror. You see only asecondary impressions when you try to examine your thoughts. Its like trying to observe yourself without a mirror.
thanatos

cam875
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 30, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 10/31/09 - 06:01 AM:	#6
very interesting responses, my analogy with the computer was meant to be taken something like this. If an extremely powerfully computer had the correct sillicon circuitry to analyze its own computational states and methods, we could agree that it would be because parts of the circuitry were connected to the other parts of the circuitry in such a way as to allow the part of the circuitry to analyze the other part basically. But It is quite obvious that the circuitry just like our bio-chemical circuitry is in fact very limited. It would only be able to analyze as much as it itself is wired to which is definitely not the whole picture. It may be practically good at it but compared to us and our understanding of its circuitry it would be quite primitive. Could that be a way to look at conciousness, as the measure of how good you are at thinking about your perception of thinking? Could this explain that maybe simpler organisms with simpler neuro-circuitry could in fact be not concious or only a little and that in fact we could become more concious?

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 10/31/09 - 08:01 AM:	#7
How can one think about thinking when you'd have to think first, and then think about that thinking later? I mean, how can you think about thinking as you are doing that thinking? Can you think and think about that thinking, while thinking that thinking? The way I'm imagining this right now is this: I am thinking. I am thinking (about my thinking) while I am thinking. And that seems to me like a very hard task, to say the least. Though I've never tried to think about thinking as I am thinking... Right now, I'm asking myself, "Can I think about A and think about B at the same time?" Though I've found that there is a difference between thinking A and then thinking about my thinking about A, and thinking about A and thinking about my thinking about A at the same time. It appears to me that I cannot think about my thinking of an apple as I am thinking of an apple. But it's easy for me to think of an apple and then think of my thinking of an apple after. Edited by NothingtoSay on 10/31/09 - 05:00 PM

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 287

Posted 11/01/09 - 12:01 PM:	#8
But perhaps we don't actually think of the process of thinking or the idea of thinking. For the core subjects of thought seem to have different effects on those processes than I thought they did. If I think of love. And then think of thinking of love, what am I thinking of? See, I'm confused when it comes to thinking of thinking of love. Because it seems to me that there'd be no difference between thinking of thinking of love and thinking of thinking of rocks. But I'd say that maybe the difference, if there is any, would be due to the core subject of thought (love, for example, in thinking of thinking of love). It seems to me that thinking of thinking of love would differ from thinking of thinking of rocks due to love being different from rocks; rocks, for example, would have a specific process of thought in our minds, I think, and love would have a different process of thought--The process of thought differs depending on whatever I'm thinking of. As thinking in thinking of sex would differ from thinking in thinking of war strategy, due to the core subjects being different. Though I think similarity should be considered here… but I haven’t looked into it. So do I think about my process of thought? I don't think so. Because it seems to me that processes of thought differ (some way or the other) depending on core subjects of the thoughts. Perhaps there are different types of thought processes that are used for different subject? I’m not having a hard time imagining that the thought process of thinking of numbers is different from the thought process used for thinking of food. Though I’m having doubts about whether thought processes actually differ all that much from the subjects… I'm wondering this because it seems to me that I'm actually having a hard time differentiating between thinking of love and thinking of thinking of love. Though I have a lot of doubts regarding my observations, I like this topic, and wish to continue looking more into metacognition.

stax
The daedal philosopher.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: A transcendental plane of reality, Australia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 36

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:34 AM:	#9
cam875 wrote: very interesting responses, my analogy with the computer was meant to be taken something like this. If an extremely powerfully computer had the correct sillicon circuitry to analyze its own computational states and methods, we could agree that it would be because parts of the circuitry were connected to the other parts of the circuitry in such a way as to allow the part of the circuitry to analyze the other part basically. But It is quite obvious that the circuitry just like our bio-chemical circuitry is in fact very limited. It would only be able to analyze as much as it itself is wired to which is definitely not the whole picture. It may be practically good at it but compared to us and our understanding of its circuitry it would be quite primitive. Could that be a way to look at conciousness, as the measure of how good you are at thinking about your perception of thinking? Could this explain that maybe simpler organisms with simpler neuro-circuitry could in fact be not concious or only a little and that in fact we could become more concious? It can only be done in a reflective way, a posteriori. You can only think about the way you have THOUGHT (note: past tense). You have to have experienced mental states in order to evaluate them, and think about WHAT caused the thinking. If you're arguing about not being about to think about thinking while thinking, well I agree with you there; because you can't be thinking A and B at the same time. Your analogy fails, as nothing can be exactly analogous to the human brain- it is far too complex, and you can't represent qualia. The computer is limited because it is only wired to an extent were a certain amount of information can be programmed in. I would also contend that by asking the question 'can we think about thinking?' shows that you are thinking about thinking already, as you are assessing mental states reflectively and literately being meta-cognitive already. You are, by acknowledging its existence, and thinking on the topic, displaying behaviour of meta-cognition. For example: You ask; 'can we think about thinking about politics?' (which is essentially your question, just really specific) Now reflectively one can think back, and assess the cognitive processes, the moods/emotions or the other mental states they were in while thinking about politics. Now this person would be retrospectively assessing what, in their memory, they were thinking at the time they were thinking about politics. E.g. I was really sad about 9/11, so I thought the Patriot Act was a good idea, it would protect my freedom, et cetera. (1) I've assessed mental states. (2) This is a posteriori. (3) I've thought about those mental states, and the way they affected my thinking at the time. (1),(2) & (3) All satisfy the criteria for meta-cognition; one can think about thinking. This example can then be transferred to any topic, including the cognition of mental states in the purely raw form.
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer "To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." Ludwig Wittgenstein "Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open." Ludwig Wittgenstein

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.