<p>Allow us to include within the term "learning" the absorption of information, which contributes to creation of neural pathways within the brain. Admittedly, this is a rather liberal use of the term, "learning".</p>

<p>Human thought is an emergent behavior of the brain, which begins once sufficient neural pathways have formed. Therefore, we "learn" before we think, and such learning allows the brain to follow its natural course in creating the emergent behavior of thinking. This is very subtly different from saying that we "learn to think".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T22:14:54.307Z
2015-12-01T22:14:54.307Z
John Yetter
<p>That is obviously depends on how one defines <em>learning</em> and <em>thinking</em>.</p>

<p>We need to learn how to walk, but do you know of any non-handicap 6 year old who didn't manage to?</p>

<p>Similarly, newborns' nervous system in neither fully 'formed' nor in full swing (for a very good reason), so they aren't exactly thinking like an adult and they need, at least, some stimuli to develop such ability - but again, show me a non-handicap adult who doesn't think.</p>

<p>Thinking in itself can be defined in different ways, involve levels and abilities.</p>

<p>I guess you can say that learning (a change in behaviour or beliefs) is a necessity for thinking, but it isn't voluntary - we are pretty much biologically destined to think, and in normal circumstances <strong>can't help it</strong>.</p>

<p>So if I understand you question alright, it is an innate ability.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T01:03:27.983Z
But any adult who doesn't think or walk would be called handicapped, so by definition we can't "show" you an able adult who doesn't walk or think. Also, you claim the answer will depend on definitions, and then forget about it. I think you're really onto some stuff here, and I would like to ask you to elaborate on the definitions you're using and the ideas behind the claimed biological destiny.
Dror Speiser
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T01:31:03.837Z
@DrorSpeiser, these are valid points, but my answer was to match the informal style of the question. I suspect that if I'm to seriously delve deeper into definitions it'll be the Vienna circle all over again. To give one example, and without thinking about it too much, my (cognitive) definition of learning would be "The internal perception or external observation resulting from a change in plasticity". Is this what you are after? I'd be happy to elaborate if you give me a few more pointers as to what's unclear.
Izhaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T01:41:51.873Z
The handicapped business is a guard against less common cases, and the biological destiny is to say that an organism formed by the instructions of a human DNA, and fed with sensory input our environment provides, would end up thinking - our brain and body are formed to have such function and we cannot help it, much as a typical fish cannot help laying eggs.
Izhaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T02:06:55.713Z
What you say about DNA and sensory input only replaces one question by another, namely, why does DNA and sensory input make thinking unavoidable? And again you are in the by-definition error zone: a typical fish *is* one that lays eggs. Beyond the fallacy and the misdirection, references and commonly used terms would allow the OP and others to continue reading. As you mentioned yourself, the Vienna circle has already thought and learned lots of stuff, so why invent the wheel?
Dror Speiser
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T02:21:14.993Z
@DrorSpeiser, I feel we are a bit on polars here and unsure as to how we can converge. Thinking requires recursive processes and abstraction capabilities, which are facilitated by cyclic networks, demonstrated to have an advantage processing complex inputs. Such mechanism (evidently) gives an organism unprecedented evolutionary advantage. Out DNA is an evolutionary consequence and no network is capable of adapting to, or surviving within its environment without input and output terminals to it.
Izhaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T02:46:27.520Z
We are indeed on polars. If thinking is required to demonstrate an advantage in processing complex inputs - then it does not *evidently* give an organism unprecedented evolutionary advantage, but it does so *by definition*. Essentially, the problem in all your arguments is the same: you want to say that humans think *by definition* as an answer to "is thought innate", but you won't say it explicitly. Why not? It's a great answer!
Dror Speiser
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T03:04:30.367Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/32338/discussion-between-dror-speiser-and-izhaki).
Dror Speiser
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T00:15:31.883Z
2015-12-01T00:15:31.883Z
Izhaki
<p>Do we need to learn to 'think' or is it an ability that we are born with? By 'think' I mean neurons firing in a certain way to provide useful information (although since I am not strong in this subject, this may make no sense). </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-30T15:41:02.087Z
Something to think about which might highlight the terminological problems with this question (yet [suitably answered imho by John](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/12727/21)): _Do you need to be able to 'think' in order to 'learn'?_
Steven Jeuris
<cognitive-psychology><cognitive-neuroscience><thought>
Learning to think?
Quantum spaghettification
# Learning to think?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-11-29)

Do we need to learn to 'think' or is it an ability that we are born with? By 'think' I mean neurons firing in a certain way to provide useful information (although since I am not strong in this subject, this may make no sense).

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, cognitive-neuroscience, thought

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Something to think about which might highlight the terminological problems with this question (yet [suitably answered imho by John](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/12727/21)): _Do you need to be able to 'think' in order to 'learn'?_  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-12-01. Score: 1

Allow us to include within the term "learning" the absorption of information, which contributes to creation of neural pathways within the brain. Admittedly, this is a rather liberal use of the term, "learning".

Human thought is an emergent behavior of the brain, which begins once sufficient neural pathways have formed. Therefore, we "learn" before we think, and such learning allows the brain to follow its natural course in creating the emergent behavior of thinking. This is very subtly different from saying that we "learn to think".


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-12-01. Score: -1

That is obviously depends on how one defines *learning* and *thinking*.

We need to learn how to walk, but do you know of any non-handicap 6 year old who didn't manage to?

Similarly, newborns' nervous system in neither fully 'formed' nor in full swing (for a very good reason), so they aren't exactly thinking like an adult and they need, at least, some stimuli to develop such ability - but again, show me a non-handicap adult who doesn't think.

Thinking in itself can be defined in different ways, involve levels and abilities.

I guess you can say that learning (a change in behaviour or beliefs) is a necessity for thinking, but it isn't voluntary - we are pretty much biologically destined to think, and in normal circumstances **can't help it**.

So if I understand you question alright, it is an innate ability.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: But any adult who doesn't think or walk would be called handicapped, so by definition we can't "show" you an able adult who doesn't walk or think. Also, you claim the answer will depend on definitions, and then forget about it. I think you're really onto some stuff here, and I would like to ask you to elaborate on the definitions you're using and the ideas behind the claimed biological destiny.  
> **username_3**: @DrorSpeiser, these are valid points, but my answer was to match the informal style of the question. I suspect that if I'm to seriously delve deeper into definitions it'll be the Vienna circle all over again. To give one example, and without thinking about it too much, my (cognitive) definition of learning would be "The internal perception or external observation resulting from a change in plasticity". Is this what you are after? I'd be happy to elaborate if you give me a few more pointers as to what's unclear.  
> **username_3**: The handicapped business is a guard against less common cases, and the biological destiny is to say that an organism formed by the instructions of a human DNA, and fed with sensory input our environment provides, would end up thinking - our brain and body are formed to have such function and we cannot help it, much as a typical fish cannot help laying eggs.  
> **username_4**: What you say about DNA and sensory input only replaces one question by another, namely, why does DNA and sensory input make thinking unavoidable? And again you are in the by-definition error zone: a typical fish *is* one that lays eggs. Beyond the fallacy and the misdirection, references and commonly used terms would allow the OP and others to continue reading. As you mentioned yourself, the Vienna circle has already thought and learned lots of stuff, so why invent the wheel?  
> **username_3**: @DrorSpeiser, I feel we are a bit on polars here and unsure as to how we can converge. Thinking requires recursive processes and abstraction capabilities, which are facilitated by cyclic networks, demonstrated to have an advantage processing complex inputs. Such mechanism (evidently) gives an organism unprecedented evolutionary advantage. Out DNA is an evolutionary consequence and no network is capable of adapting to, or surviving within its environment without input and output terminals to it.  
> **username_4**: We are indeed on polars. If thinking is required to demonstrate an advantage in processing complex inputs - then it does not *evidently* give an organism unprecedented evolutionary advantage, but it does so *by definition*. Essentially, the problem in all your arguments is the same: you want to say that humans think *by definition* as an answer to "is thought innate", but you won't say it explicitly. Why not? It's a great answer!  
> **username_4**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/32338/discussion-between-dror-speiser-and-izhaki).  

---

