Understandably, this is somewhat a semantic argument. How are we defining thoughts? Let’s start with the traditional humanist argument that would assert humans have unique abilities to reason that separate us from the beasts. We are certainly talking about thoughts that are processed through the conscious mind using language. Using that definition, I need to exclude all the human thoughts that guide our consciousness through habitual actions.

As Beckett wrote, “habit is the chain that ties a dog to its vomit.” And yet we find habits quite helpful. I’m glad to brush my teeth without having to think about it. On the other hand, we could argue there are no such thoughts that do not follow habit’s tongue and groove. No thoughts without the body’s autopoietic drive. That’s possible. I’m certainly more inclined to that view than one that would imagine humans are wandering around as “rational actors” all the time. Though maybe that’s a matter of semantics too. For me, that argument would have to assert that habits are technologies that are fabricated to embed and strengthen acts pre-determined to be rational. And habits can do that, but they can clearly be hijacked so that autopoietic habits are replaced or linked with allopoietic ones.

Thoughts are the mental events that disrupt habits. That is a familiar definition of critical thinking, broadly conceived from Socrates to Zen koans to the world. But it’s not that easy because we have layers of habits that step in when we are disrupted, and again, I’m not saying these things are bad. Families, friends, social media, religion, therapy, mass media: when our lives are turned upside down, when they are disrupted, we have habits for that. It’s probably a good thing because we exist in a mediascape of cognitive dissonance. We have to have habits and support networks. How much time do we spend trying to develop “healthy habits”? Self-help books have topped the bestseller list for decades. And it’s ok to be creatures of habit because, in the end, we are much more like our pets than the demigods of reason imagined in the Enlightenment.

We’re just trying to get to the end of the day after all.

Most of education is learning more complex habits and meta-habits, habitual ways of managing habits. Maybe that’s a kind of thinking? A sanity check on our habits that sorts through the other preset responses we have to life, the habits we don’t usually deploy in a given context, and choose one. This is the difference between the complex and the complicated. A procedure can be complex and routine without problem, but if there are complications, those are problems. If all else fails there’s always extemporaneous invention. We hardly ever get that far. We typically just revert to anger and let that guide us. (We is a pronoun that includes me by the way.)

So thoughts might be glitches or unresolved complications. Sometimes they lead to something useful. Mostly they generate misery until we find solace in a habit. My point is that humans did not evolve for the purpose of this kind of thinking, or any other purpose. It’s just a thing that happens to us, a thing we do, a habit. And when we go back to a looser definition of thought as brain function it works well enough I guess. I mean here we are; you tell me.