We Don't Create, We Synthesize
I'm referring to ideas and concepts.
Everything we imagine or generate in our minds is a product of an already existing element.
For example, a unicorn - a horse with a horn in the front of its head. Neither the horse nor horn is a new creation.
While it is easy to relegate conception and imagination to the realm of chaos or fancy, there seems to be a certain kind of methodology through which the process undertakes. Not only is conception a mere montage of mental objects/subjects, it also seems to include the significance or value to which the objects/subjects are imbued. What I'm saying is that, there seems to be a back story for every concept, a why, how, what, when, where, etc.
Also, forward thinking seems to rely on how closely our conception relates to our perception of reality or phenomena. The closer the points of interaction between our concepts and our perception of reality determines to a large part our advancement of knowledge. For example, over the years, the closer our conception of the atom has been in relation to perceptible phenomena, the better our understanding became of the atom, and consequently, of phenomena. Also, the closer our concept of light, the photon in particular, has been to perceptible traits of light, the better our understanding has become.
So, my question is,
By training, I mean something better regulated than mere flights of fancy, perhaps, a system of practice with better utility for the overall mental process.
I feel like conception could be a key factor in improving our knowledge and alleviating our uncertainty of reality especially if we could learn the fundamental principles of mind while we're at it. Training to conceive seems to me just as much a discipline in attention/focus and, also, by learning to assign or determine meaning, we may get the opportunity to understand the 'purpose of meaning'.
Share your thoughts on this, please.
Everything we imagine or generate in our minds is a product of an already existing element.
For example, a unicorn - a horse with a horn in the front of its head. Neither the horse nor horn is a new creation.
While it is easy to relegate conception and imagination to the realm of chaos or fancy, there seems to be a certain kind of methodology through which the process undertakes. Not only is conception a mere montage of mental objects/subjects, it also seems to include the significance or value to which the objects/subjects are imbued. What I'm saying is that, there seems to be a back story for every concept, a why, how, what, when, where, etc.
Also, forward thinking seems to rely on how closely our conception relates to our perception of reality or phenomena. The closer the points of interaction between our concepts and our perception of reality determines to a large part our advancement of knowledge. For example, over the years, the closer our conception of the atom has been in relation to perceptible phenomena, the better our understanding became of the atom, and consequently, of phenomena. Also, the closer our concept of light, the photon in particular, has been to perceptible traits of light, the better our understanding has become.
So, my question is,
should we start training ourselves on how to conceive or imagine?
By training, I mean something better regulated than mere flights of fancy, perhaps, a system of practice with better utility for the overall mental process.
I feel like conception could be a key factor in improving our knowledge and alleviating our uncertainty of reality especially if we could learn the fundamental principles of mind while we're at it. Training to conceive seems to me just as much a discipline in attention/focus and, also, by learning to assign or determine meaning, we may get the opportunity to understand the 'purpose of meaning'.
Share your thoughts on this, please.
Comments (86)
I believe you are correct; our minds seem to link existing concepts and map concepts across domains rather than creating new concepts.
I tried to think of a counter-example. What about God? Perhaps we pick up the concept from our earthly father and project it into the spiritual domain. The spiritual is largely a human invention though but perhaps we have just cross-domain mapped existence into the realm of the dead and come up with the concept of the spiritual?
And my question is: do you think you understand the process of creation, and imagination, well enough to map out such a "system of practice"? My personal view is that you don't, as demonstrated by your question, and by the way you express it. But there is much to creativity, and very little to my understanding of it, so.... :wink:
I don't understand it either but intuitively it feels like a network of concepts. We draw links between existing concepts to create 'new ideas'. Like I've just done; taken a concept from computing and linked it to the concept of the mind. All new information comes in via our senses I think; it seems we can't generate a purely abstract idea without drawing on existing knowledge?
How would we go about this?
I disagree. If this were the case, then nothing new could have ever been thought up. But clearly subjects like mathematics demonstrates that all sorts of new stuff is thought up all the time. Also, consider dreaming. I don't know about you, but in my dreams I see all sorts of new things which are clearly not a synthesis of existing elements from my memory. They are new creations..
I think our conception of God is largely defined by the limits we attribute to ourselves. For example, omni-potence/science/presence is in comparison to the relative power, intelligence and presence we possess.
Personally, I'm not adept at the processes of mind but I'm trying to figure out whether it could be a valid course of investigation. For example, science has its methods of investigating dark matter/energy. However, the basic hypotheticals of what or how they could be are based on mental conceptions which are adequately informed and guided by reason and empiricism. Therefore, though it's a venture into the unknown, every step forward seems to be grounded in a high degree of probability if not certitude.
I'm just wondering whether we could do the same and come up with a way in which our imaginations could contribute to the knowledge we already possess instead of largely being relegated to the domain of fiction.
Is it possible to determine how to give utility to our processes of conception/imagination?
I think, first, we imitate the already existing methodology used in scientific investigations. This is because, fundamentally, they are based on utility and are directed to or validated by empiricism. For example, how science investigates the unknown. It begins with the known, then formulates patterns of association with as little deviation as possible from the known mean. In this way, whatever is achieved, has a higher probability of manifesting empirically than otherwise. An example of this would be our ideas of mutants or enhanced humans. Some of those ideas are based on improved natural mechanisms already manifest in humans such as body-builders who can lift 1000 pounds by using certain enhancements.
Anyway, my aim is to question the significance of such a progression. I am in no way qualified to determine such a system of practice. I would just like to hear what your thoughts are on this and what possible ramifications could arise if conception was, to a degree, made scientific?
Yes, we do figure out a lot of new stuff. But, they are only new to us. Mathematics may seem like a new creation until we realise that all of its relations are natural phenomena which could still exist without mathematics. Even the symbols used in mathematics themselves seem to be derived from observed phenomena though over the years they have been refined into higher levels of simplicity or complexity depending on their application.
I don't know much about dreams but I think that it's impossible for them to contain elements which are not borrowed from memory or derived from perception. To me, even the fantastic in dreams seems just as much a montage of objects/subjects of our perception as well as other already formed concepts.
I wonder how we first perceived of the spirit world, the world after death. We would have no first hand knowledge of that, but I guess we just took as an example of everyday life and mapped that idea into the new domain of after death. How did we come to think of what happens after death? Survival is our number one instinct and is programmed into us so I guess its just a natural link to make.
There is nothing new under sun the old saying goes.
I grant this as minimally being an accurate generality, but believe that when two or more distinct concepts become synthesized this will in and of itself create a new distinct concept—one which is itself other than the parent concepts, so to speak.
To analogize these mental events with more tangibly physical events: two people, via their gametes, will synthesize into an offspring. The baby, throughout the span of its life, will be utterly other in relation to its two biological parents—yet it was only the product of a physiological synthesis between the unique physiologies of the two parents.
As this physical baby is “new to the world” so then can ideas and concepts strictly obtained via the successful synthesis of other ideas and concepts be new to the world. Given this train of reasoning, in so synthesizing, we then engage in acts of creation as pertains to new ideas and concepts.
Don't you think that some people figure out stuff that's new to everyone? What about Einstein's idea about the relativity of simultaneity? Wasn't this a new idea?
Quoting BrianW
How does this make sense to you? Mathematics is relations which could exist without mathematics. What's that supposed to mean? Mathematics could exist without mathematics? How is this supposed to imply that mathematics actually could exist without mathematics?
Quoting BrianW
Just because you think that it's impossible for dreams to contain elements not borrowed from memory, doesn't men that this is the case. I've had a lot of dreams, and I'm very sure that there are a lot of elements there which didn't come from memory or perception. Why do you think that this is impossible? Have you no imagination? Suppose an artist takes a canvas and paint, and produces a piece of art. Would you think that all the elements which the artist produces on the canvas must represent something the artist has already sensed? Why can't the artist create something new, like an abstract work?
I'm not denying the fact of new representations. For example, a new model of a car is still just a car. A new-born human is just a human. By creativity, I mean generating a distinct concept which can be characterized independently of its source material. This is why I consider most creations as a synthesis. However, admittedly, you're right, they're just as much creations.
It seems to me that, outside of nature, there's very little 'pure' creativity, so to speak. Even the mechanism of human reproduction is not distinctly generated by our mental capabilities. The whole process works in the same way it does for most animals and only because it is a part of nature.
So, I think the question still stands, can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc, perhaps even imitate nature?
Sorry about the incoherent statement. It should have read,
I think mathematics is a way of expressing our concepts, ideas, etc, without the bias of how they are generated. So far, as I've seen from my experience, most of what we call creative is largely a combination of imitation and synthesis of elements borrowed from nature or the laws of nature. I'm not against referring to such as creations, but I wonder whether by developing a discipline in creativity, we can better understand how nature does it and perhaps, maybe someday in the future skip the middleman. That is, instead of imitating nature, we could generate something as unique in its characteristics as if it were a natural phenomenon itself.
So, is it possible to create a phenomenon so distinct as to be indistinguishable from natural phenomena? And, to arrive at such capabilities, shouldn't we train our creative abilities of conception/imagination?
David Hume made this argument in his Enquiry concerning human understanding', saying:
[quote=David Hume]We shall always find, that every idea which we examine is copied from a similar impression. Those who would assert, that this position is not universally true nor without exception, have only one, and at that an easy method of refuting it; by producing that idea, which, in their opinion, is not derived from this source[/quote]
His notion was that every new idea is a connection between other ideas. eg a flying horse puts together the ideas of a bird and a horse. Strangely, he then went on to suggest that the notion of a 'missing colour blue' is an idea that is not just a connection between existing ideas. Nobody can work out why he did that, and personally I don't agree that it is a new idea.
I wonder if it is just the case that many ideas have already been created, and the space for new ones is limited? I think there are genuine new ideas, just not very many of them? :chin: [And therefore the vast majority of ideas are not original, as you say.]
I've been trying to think of an example of a genuine new idea and have failed so far.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Simultaneity of events being dependent on the observer fell out of the maths I think rather than it being a genuine new idea?
Zero came from consideration of emptiness. Infinity from consideration of the very large.
Can anyone refute this with an example of a genuine new idea?
I still don't think I agree with you. Suppose someone observes some natural phenomena and creates some ideas concerning these phenomena. In a sense, you can say that the ideas are "derived" from that phenomena, but the person does not take elements from the observed objects and use those within the mind, to produce something. The person creates representations, images and symbols, and creates something from this. We cannot properly say that representations are taken from, or "derived" from the observed objects because they are more like symbols, signs and images created to represent what was observed, That's how memory works through representation.
This separation between what was observed, and the memory of it, is the separation that Kant refers to, which makes direct realism unappealing. It is also this separation which supports dualism, and it doesn't suffice to just dismiss the separation because we don't like dualism. The separation is very real and must be explained, and understood.
Quoting BrianW
But isn't imitation itself the creation of something new? The imitation is not the thing imitated, it is distinct. Where does it come from? The imitation does not come from the thing imitated, it comes from the desire to imitate. So it is a false proposition, or false representation, to say that the imitation is derived from the thing imitated.
Quoting andrewk
There is a real problem with the argument that all ideas come from other ideas, and that is the infinite regress in the existence of ideas. This is very similar to the problem Plato approached in the Meno, I believe it was, which is represented today as the theory of recollection. It was argued that all knowledge consisted of elements recollected from before. So learning something new is simply a case of recollection of things from previous lives. The glaring problem is the infinite temporal regress of existence of ideas. But assuming this infinite regress as the accurate understanding, is what supports the Platonic notion of eternal ideas.
Now, we know that human beings and thinking life forms have not been around forever, so we cannot support this notion that new ideas are just a new arrangement of older ideas. If thinking beings came into existence, then the ideas which they think must come into existence as well, or else we'd have ideas prior to thinking beings. So it makes no sense to say that ideas just come from other ideas because of that infinite regress, and the fact that thinking beings came into existence, in time.
Quoting Devans99
"Fell out of the math"? Don't you mean that understanding the math fostered the generation of this idea?
Quoting Devans99
There is no need to produce a "genuine new idea" to refute this notion. All we need to do is to refer to the temporal infinite regress of ideas, I've explained above. If every new idea requires an old one prior to it in time, then since we have ideas now, existing, there could be no prior time without any ideas. Now, if we insist on this position, we have to account for the existence of ideas prior to the existence of thinking beings, because the thinking beings necessarily got their ideas from prior ideas. This would force us into some sort of Platonic realism.
But I think we pick up ideas from our senses. The first ideas would have been about things around us. The idea that a certain berry tastes good would come from our senses. We would then have maybe observed a peanut plant with our senses and cross domain mapped the idea 'tastes good' into the domain of peanuts. So all ideas have an eventual heritage to ideas deduced from our senses?
It's evident in the reaction we have when we see something totally new: we'll say it is "like this or that". In order to describe something we need to use descriptions that others understand. And in ideas and concepts this is even more obvious. If there emerges a totally new ideology in the 2070's the new ideology wouldn't open us as to those that understand in the future what it is about.
Quoting BrianWI think so. Of course it's very difficult for you to get the idea through to others.
The system is actually simple: first you are familiar with concepts or ideas for some certain field. Then you come up with a new concept / idea. Then you doublecheck the literature and everything that someone hasn't already come up with the idea. Now if that new concept or idea would be also useful, then you have really made it.
Do the ideas exist within the objects that we sense, and we "pick up" the ideas from the things through sensation? Or, are the ideas created in the act of sensing, so that the ideas are distinct from the object sensed? I think that the latter is the case, and it is foolish to think that we pick up ideas from the objects sensed.
How could ideas be "deduced from our senses'? Senses cannot deduce. Nor can senses produce ideas. ideas are required for deduction, so we cannot say that deduction is responsible for creating the primitive ideas. If some form of logic were responsible for creation of the primitive ideas it would be more like induction or abduction. Maybe some primitive logic could work with images from memory, or something like that, to produce ideas from something which is not actually ideas.
The thing to remember though, is that the images, and memories created by a mind are distinct from the objects which are remembered or represented by the memories. So basing ideas in a more primitive mental activity doesn't get us past the problem that I'm presenting, and that is that the things within the mind are distinct from the things sensed. The things within the mind therefore cannot be said to be created from, synthesized from, or in any way consisting of the things sensed.
Sorry I mean ideas are inspired by our senses. Maybe the wheel is a good example. Presumably the idea came about from seeing how circular things roll in nature. Stones and such perhaps. So it's the image of a round stone rolling which creates the idea of 'round' and 'rolling' in the mind.
So our senses map to neutrons in the mind somehow. The visual ideas of 'round' and 'rolling' appear in the mind. These ideas are then cross domain mapped to domain of tools/handycraft where the anonymous inventor of the wheel has his idea.
The thought of a hovercraft came to mind. At some last point in history the idea/concept of a hovercraft was not present—though cars, airplanes, and helicopters were (haven’t done my research but I presume something along these lines). Then, right after this period, the idea/concept of a hovercraft became present. A hybrid idea of something between cars and helicopters that then holds the capacity to engage in a hovering sort of flight. As ideas go, it would be, when allegorically expressed, a new species of idea: neither car, nor airplane, nor helicopter.
I’d also like to add that I’m quite certain that our unconscious minds think, and—as an example—in so doing, that they sometimes synthesize concepts just right, subsequent to which the new ideas are kicked up into consciousness, thereby producing eureka moments which we term moments of inspiration of insight.
So this process of creating new ideas is not always—maybe not typically—something which we as conscious egos do ourselves. Come to think of it—if I remember my history right—the theory of relativity was reputedly first conceived during a dream of sleep, this according to Einstein. (If wrong, may I be corrected.) Hence, not by the awoken conscious ego but by the unconscious mind’s thoughts while the total being was sleeping (though dreams are to me a complex subject when it comes to experience and awareness—we as egos are after all aware of our dreams while dreaming).
Currently, it seems to me that you might be asking too much from the notions of creation and creativity. I’m here thinking of the maxim that from nothing comes nothing.
If you don’t intend this maxim, then how would any creation not be accomplished via use of something that previously is/was? [To try to avoid questions regarding metaphysical implications, I for one uphold that the beginning of being is unknowable to us beings, period.]
I still think that this expresses a gross misunderstanding of inspiration. An individual living human being, as a composite 'whole", with a multitude of experiences, creates the idea of 'round' within one's mind. It is not the image of a round stone rolling which creates this idea.
Quoting Devans99
Again, I think that this expresses a gross misunderstanding.
Quoting javra
For a long time, I've known that my most creative, and inspirational time of day is first thing in the morning. More recently, I've come to realize that a lot of my most creative ideas are derived from things which have come from dreams, though I previously didn't recognize where the creative ideas came from because I didn't remember them as coming from dreams, I just had these ideas in the morning. A few times now, I've awoken with ideas that have come directly from dreams, remembered from the dreams and recognized as useful, I've transferred them into actual useful creative ideas.
Yea, dreams are a very interesting field of study I for the most part consider so far unexplored. Freud I think ruined it for a great portion of people; then again, I’m not big on Freud. Many in the field believe that dreams have an important role in the formation of long-term memories*; and, as we all know, lack of sleep can be devastating to the psyche (if not eventually lethal). Though I don’t look upon him (or anyone) as being without faults, I do like certain aspects of Hume’s notion of self as mind. In particular, that of it being a commonwealth (I’ll here skip my partial disagreements with his same stance). When we’re awake, this commonwealth—imo—becomes relatively unified at a conscious level in mostly undifferentiable ways; although there are things such as a conscience or pangs of emotion we sense affecting us that occasionally directly evidence to us the commonwealth that is; but most of this commonwealth enters into what we term the unconscious (again, imo) when we’re awake. But in dreams, the commonwealth becomes apparent to us, taking the form of dreamt entities which often hold their own agency in addition to ideas which we there are exposed to via symbolism. Yea, the nature of dreams is an interesting subject to explore—especially since a significant amount of our novel ideas as humans come from dreams.
I can relate, btw. (wanted to say something in addition to this)
* a link to back up that statement: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dream-catcher/201602/are-dreams-required-memory
But where did the idea of shapes come from if it was not the study of form in nature?
This thread is long and no-one has yet come up with a single undeniably original idea which lends a lot of weight to the OP opinion.
Thanks guys for the feedback.
Quoting javra
This is true. Something must be conceived from something.
Let's not get caught up in how we categorize phenomena (this is my fault for including that controversial statement) and focus more on the question at hand, which is, can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc,?
Some would say we don't need to learn because the process is inherent in our minds. But, I find it to be too crude and ill-governed as it is presently and I wonder if we could develop it further into a scientific process that can be designated as creation or conception?
Can we take the little we know of this mental process and develop it into a scientific discipline?
Sure, we can teach and learn how to generate ideas. We do that all the time in the arts. We teach music composition, creative writing, visual arts, etc., and part of that is teaching how to generate material, how to get past writer's block, etc.
Aren’t ideas and concepts by their very nature not empirical? This in the modern sense of the word, where empiricism is understood as all experience strictly obtained via the physiological senses. (Lock, Hume, etc. I believe often interpreted “empirical” in ways far more similar to what we’d intend by “experiential”—which ideas and concept are, for we know of them via our direct awareness/experience.)
Given that ideas and concept are not empirical, it’s hard to [s]see[/s] understand how one could make a scientific discipline for their empirical study.
As to learning to be more creative, two ideas: a) practicing the allegorical muscle of imagination by more actively imagining things in general and b) (this, to me, given certain assumptions I partially addressed in a previous post) improving one’s total mind’s capacity of creativity by learning how to ask of oneself questions regarding (and with sincere intent to discover) things that are relatively uncertain, abstract, and/or as of yet unknown. Sort of tangentially, one practice I’ve heard of, for example, is that of writing down question to oneself prior to going to sleep, this with the apparent expectation that answers to these questions might be discovered during dreams. Haven’t done this myself though.
The various arts sure are close enough to creative endeavours. But, I'm talking about the process of creation itself. Learning arts doesn't teach you the creation process comprehensively, for example, how would learning music teach you about painting? What I'm trying to understand is if we could make creation a scientific discipline such that no matter the field of art or science, one could create whatever they desired without the current limitations.
Ideas and concepts may not be empirical but our knowledge of them may be said to be [s]objective[/s] shared in the sense that we all acknowledge having them and characterize them quite similarly. Considering they are a significant part of our experiences, perhaps we could deal with them more intelligently and seek to understand them further especially in how and why they come to be.
You mean just abstracting it so that the techniques could apply to anything? Sure. That would be easy enough, and it's been done to some extent. For example, with the old "Creative Whack Pack," which was inspired by Brian Eno's "Oblique Strategy" cards.
:grin: I like that. Objectivity as the quality of being impartially shared between/among all--rather then the property of physicality as it applies to physical entities (which are themselves, after all, impartially perceived by all in the same way, here roughly speaking).
Quoting BrianW
I very much agree that we should. Yet, again, because they are not something perceived via our physiological senses, I rather envision this investigation occurring via science accordant philosophy. This rather than through strict use of science itself.
Well, consider this. We do see a wide variety of shapes in nature, but when we go to make a shape, drawing or something, we never exactly replicate a natural shape. It may be that sometimes we might try to replicate a shape, but more often than not we are attempting to create a shape which is useful for some reason.
Now think of "the right angle" for example. We do not find right angles existing in nature. The ancient Egyptians found that the right angle was very useful to produce parallel lines in order to layout and divide plots of land, so they developed a system for creating right angles. Later, Pythagoras developed the mathematics required to produce a right angle. The right angle was created, it was not found in nature.
So it seems to me that the idea for different shapes is developed from a need to produce these shapes for pragmatic purposes, not from studying these shapes in nature. After we learn how to produce and define various shapes, we might look for them in nature, but we would have to have already developed the shape prior to looking for it, in order to know what we are looking for.
Quoting Devans99
If the Op is not refuted by my earlier argument, and you really need an example for rebuttal, try the "right angle" then.
Quoting BrianW
The process is often called "intuition". You'll find a brief discussion in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics on whether intuition is innate or learned. He seemed to conclude that it was a combination of both, but also indicated that he didn't think that it was very important to answer this question, only that it is important to recognize the role of intuition within knowledge. But if intuition can be learned, as you suggest, then we might develop a discipline toward cultivating it.
Well the problem is that we see angles in nature, some larger than 90 degrees some smaller. Arriving at the right angle is just a matter of interpolation between two pre-existing concepts derived from our senses.
No, as I explained above, arriving at the right angle was due to the necessity of creating parallel lines to survey plots of land. It has nothing to do with finding the mean between obtuse and acute angles, these angles are defined by the right angle, not vise versa.
We would naturally divide things up into squares of rectangles as those shapes fit together flushly without any wasted space. So we would probably arrive at the right angle as part of the solution to the question 'how do we divide these fields up efficiently?'. So we solved that problem and observed with our senses part of the solution to the problem was the right angle?
Yes I wouldn't support that argument. I think the notion is that ideas are either things we have directly experienced - like a colour - or a combination or relation between things we have experienced. With that approach the grounding that ends the regress is the ideas that have been directly experienced.
At first blush, such a perspective appears to downplay the significance of inventions that are considered epoch-making, such as the wheel or electricity. But on further reflection I find they remain just as impressive as before. The brilliance is in seeing a potential useful relationship between two or more things that were observed in completely different contexts and nobody had ever thought of as in any way related before.
For example, somebody has observed rocks rolling down a hill and people walking across the land and then had the brilliant idea that maybe we could use that rock-downhill type of motion (rolling) as a way to transport people and burdens - then voilà we have wheels and carts. Next they observe how strong oxen are and how much strength it takes for people to pull the new carts, and they get the idea of using the oxen to pull the cart.
I wonder what it would mean to directly experience an idea. This, what you say here, might provide the appearance of a resolution to the infinite regress, but I think it's just an appearance because it doesn't really say where the idea came from. Did it just pop into existence, as something experienced, or does it rely on prior experiences? What does that really mean, to be a thing, like an idea, which was experienced?
Quoting Devans99
Notice, that in your description observing with the senses came after the solution to the problem, not before it. This is the way that science works as well. The mind comes up with the ideas which solve the problem, and empirical observation confirms that the problem has actually been solved.
The idea of the right angle is not created directly by the mind; the mind first solves the problem of how to divide the fields, then observes that the result contains a new idea; the right angle.
So it seems in addition to synthesising new ideas from existing ideas, we can also observe new ideas that fall out of mental constructions. But a mental construction is really just picturing something from nature in our mind, so I'm still not convinced we are capable of a truly original thought.
What is it about this experience which would warrant it being called a "direct experience"? You describe numerous past experiences These would be remembered and therefore not direct, at the time of creating the idea. You also describe an act of noticing similarities. Would this be the "direct" part of the experience, which constitutes the existence of the idea?
So for instance, at the time, after numerous encounters with rocks, when the person sees a rock and is able to say instantaneously, "that is a rock", would this instantaneous recognition qualify as a "direct experience". Or, is it the thinking which is going on around the third or fourth time, in which the person is comparing similarities which qualifies as "direct experience". Perhaps both? If the idea consists of "direct experience", then it doesn't consist of the past memories, being synthesized, it consists of the activity which compares and associates past memories.
Quoting Devans99
Doesn't this describe the mind directly creating something, though you are saying that it isn't a direct creation? At one time, there was a problem which existed, and there was no such thing as "the right angle" at that time. Some minds resolved the problem by coming up with a new idea "the right angle". Surely this is a description of the mind creating a new idea, "the right angle". The problem was solved by creating the idea. On what basis would you say that this is not a case of the mind creating an idea?
Quoting Devans99
Why are you going back to this refuted premise? We've just agreed that the mind came up with the right angle not by picturing something in nature, but by solving a problem. And now you've gone back to re-state this refuted premise that mental construction is just picturing something from nature. Haven't you ever noticed that artificial things look completely different from natural things? So it is impossible that mental construction is just picturing things from nature.
When I think of dividing a field, I start to think of shapes in my mind. Where did the shape ideas come from if not from my senses? We find approximate right angles in nature so the idea could have come from our senses too.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Artificial things tend to be inspired by things from nature.
Is a computer capable of truly original thought? I would say no. The outputs of the computer are determined by the inputs and logic. The logic can only deduce new ideas from existing. So the output is determined by the input. We are like computers. Our inputs determine our outputs. When we create 'new' information we use deduction/induction to turn old information into new. So there seems to be no purely new information that does not trace its heritage back to old information and eventually to our senses (our inputs using the computer analogy).
A computer has memory but that can only be filled via inputs.
We can drop the term 'direct' if that is seen as an obstacle. It does no work in the sentences where I used it. I suppose I may be guilty of tautology, as where somebody says "I'll meet you at nine am tomorrow morning".
Quoting Devans99
Sorry Devans99, but that's an extremely lame argument. You asked for an idea of something, which does not exist in nature, and I gave you one. Now you say that the example is no good because there could be approximations to this idea in nature. But an approximation is not the same thing, so your argument fails. We have the conception of a perfect circle, but there are no perfect circles in nature. That's the difference between the ideal, (perfection), and what exists in nature (the imperfect). Your position is hopelessly untenable, because I just need to offer as an example, the idea of the ideal, perfection, and clearly this is not something existing in nature. And the fact that the ideal must be absolutely perfect and in no way an approximation, indicates that the ideal cannot be derived from approximations.
Quoting Devans99
Wow, I thought the last argument was bad, this one's even worse. A computer is not capable of original thought. We are like computers. Therefore we are not capable of original thought.
How exactly do our minds differ from computers?
I've been thinking about this since you posted, trying to work out how to respond. You seem to want to place creativity under the control of "reason and empiricism". :gasp: Creativity is, or can be, disruptive. It sometimes (often? always?) breaks the rules. Creativity creates something new, something that may not conform to what is currently orthodox. It is intrinsically uncertain, in that respect.
Looking at it from a different perspective, creativity is partly or wholly down to our unconscious minds, and you seem to want to bring it under conscious control. It is my understanding that this is impossible, although I would be interested to hear, from you, or from any Zen Masters that may be passing by, how I am mistaken in this....
Your suggestion seeks to bring creativity under control (!!!) by stopping it from being, er, creative. If you suggested bringing flight (as in 'birds') under control, by making it exclusively ground-based and ground-bound, I would be no more surprised than I am now.
Imagination is all about "fiction", something invented or created that is different from that which has previously existed. I spent my professional life as a designer of firmware, an occupation that is strongly creative, although more constrained than (say) Tracey Emin's work. I was presented with a problem that had not been solved (otherwise we would have adopted the existing solution), and it was my job to create a solution. Such solutions are not deducible from what currently exists; creativity steps outside of deduction, induction, and "reason and empiricism". There is no "certitude" associated with it. Creativity embraces - must embrace - chaos, randomness and disorder, to some degree; that's what it is, and that's what it does. :wink:
Not sure we need to. Isn't the arithmetic concept of zero (above) a new and unique idea? Admittedly, it's been around a while now, but when it was conceived...? :chin:
To your final question: no, no, a thousand times no! :smile: [See my previous reply for my reasons why.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0#History
So zero may have been inspired by nothing (IE that space).
IE one not inspired by any other earlier thought/observation.
Mind is a property of a living being, a computer is an inanimate object
Quoting Devans99
I answered this already with deductive logic. Let me repeat it clearly:
P1, If all thoughts are inspired by earlier thoughts, then since there are thoughts now, it would be the case that there has always been thoughts.
P2, Thoughts are a property of living beings.
P3, There has not always been living beings.
C1 from P2, P3, There has not always been thoughts.
C2 from P1 and C1, Not all thoughts are inspired by earlier thoughts.
Quoting Devans99
By observation, I meant derived from our senses.
So you mean inspired by an earlier thought or sensation?
Nothing comes from nothing. "Original" does not mean that it came from nothing, that would be nonsense.
So its the deduction/induction is new and the premise always traces back to our senses?
But it's not possible to deduce/induce something from nothing. So an idea without a premise is impossible?
This, and your associated posts, sum it all up very nicely. :up: Well said. :smile:
You discount creativity, then? New ideas, even if they aren't truly original, as discussed, cannot be derived by deduction or induction. Creativity includes an element of chaos, randomness and disorder, and its output cannot always be understood in the logical/rational terms you present.
My own lifetime of experience in a creative profession tells me that "conception" can't be taught. I am open to learning otherwise...? :chin:
Of course it's possible. If it was not, there would never have been any original thoughts. But there have been many of us, over many millennia, having thoughts, so many common thoughts have been thought before. Therefore original thoughts are less common now, than earlier on, when fewer thoughts had already been thought. And yet there are still original thoughts out there, waiting for someone to think them. :wink: Aren't I just stating the obvious here? :chin:
No-one so far has managed to come up with an example of a truly new idea; IE something that does not trace it's heritage to an old idea or observation.
As I said above, I believe we are like computers. A certain input generates a certain output. Computers can't generate truly original information so why should we be able to?
Because we have mental abilities that computers don't? :roll:
Us: senses->logic-> action
Everything we can deduce/adduce is from our senses. Our memory is filled with things deduced from our senses. I don't see where 'original thoughts' can come from?
Thanks P-c.
That's because you seem unable to move beyond that which can be "deduced/adduced".
How else do we derive new knowledge? It seems its always via links to existing knowledge (and ultimately to our senses).
I'm not saying its abduction/deduction only that we use, but whatever we use (heuristics etc...) it seems to take existing ideas as input.
Quoting Devans99
According to the definition of "deduce" and "original", you cannot deduce anything original. If C can be deduced from A and B (previously-known facts), then C follows directly from A and B, logically and unavoidably. So I don't think we could make a case for C being original.
Quoting Devans99
Even this is not an issue. If we take existing ideas that are, at our current state of knowledge, unrelated, and we establish an unexpected (but useful! :wink:) connection between them, that connection is new and original.
I agree the connection is new. But the existing idea traces its heritage to an older idea or directly to our senses. So inspiration seems to be providing those new links (via deduction or whatever).
As we have already demonstrated, new things cannot be deduced, because things that can be deduced from facts we already have, are not new, they are derived. But the thought that resulted from that "inspiration" (or vice versa, I'm not sure :smile:) is an original one.
I understand your point of view and am partially supportive of it. However, I'm still thinking,
By learning the many rules and directives which are governed by reason, we unwittingly also realize how to exceed those limits. However, even when we exceed the limits, we still find ourselves withing certain other limits. As chaotic or random as we like to think the creative process can be, I think it is still largely constrained within certain bounds of reason. Sometimes the only evidence for this is found in the purpose of a creation's existence or in its inherent utility. The specific conditions or character of a creative endeavour may determine it to be less random than we often suppose.
I don't know, even though creativity seems to work in the subconscious planes of our minds, there seems to be, at least, mental guidelines which the process follows. There seems to be something common, reliable and replicable about our creative process that makes it less random or chaotic.
I must also concede that, as confounding as I find creativity to be, I have not given any reason why it could be scientifically reprogrammed. So, perhaps, mine is purely a mental exercise. Though... (something puzzling about it which I can't seem to put my finger on)
From https://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-steps-creative-process-model-10338.html
5 STEPS IN THE CREATIVE PROCESS MODEL
Creativity does not just happen. It is a cognitive process that produces new ideas or transforms old ideas into updated concepts, according to Brussels Free University psychology professor Liane Gabora. Scientists such as Jacques Hadamard and Henri Poincaré studied the creative process and contributed to the Creative Process Model, which explains how an individual can form seemingly random thoughts into an ideal combination or solution, according to the website The Information Philosopher.
Preparation
During the preparation step of the creative process model, an individual becomes curious after encountering a problem. Examples of problems can include an artistic challenge or an assignment to write a paper. During this stage, she may perform research, creates goals, organize thoughts and brainstorm as different ideas formulate. For example, a marketing professional may prepare for a marketing campaign by conducting market research and formulating different advertisement ideas.
Incubation
While the individual begins to process her ideas, she begins to synthesize them using her imagination and begins to construct a creation. Gabora states that during this step, the individual does not actively try a find a solution, but continues to mull over the idea in the back of her head.
Illumination
As ideas begin to mature, the individual has an epiphany regarding how to piece her thoughts together in a manner that makes sense. The moment of illumination can happen unexpectedly. For example, an individual with the task of putting together an office party may have an idea for a theme while driving home from work.
Evaluation
After a solution reveals itself in an epiphany, the individual then evaluates whether the insight is worth the pursuit. He may make changes to his solution so it is clearer. He may consult with peers or supervisors regarding his insights during this step before pursuing it further. If he works with clients, he may seek a client’s input and approval before moving on to the next step.
Implementation
The implementation of an idea or solution in the creative process model is when an individual begins the process of transforming her thoughts into a final product. For example, during this step, a painter may begin outlining shapes on a canvas with charcoal before applying oil paints to the medium. According to Gabora, an individual may begin this step more than once in order to reach the desired outcome. For example, a graphic designer may open a new digital canvas if he did not have the scale calculated correctly on a previous work, and he will continue to implement his ideas and make adjustments until he reaches a pleasing final product.
References (3)
1. Cogprints.org; Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Creative Process; Liane Gabora; 2002
2. Dictionary of Creativity; Stages of the Creative Process; Eugene Gorny; 2007
3. The Information Philosopher: Jacques Hadamard
Hope this helps.
Hume does not say that would be a NEW idea, but that it would not correspond to an effective sensation. Thus, being an exception to his established general law that: every idea has a correspondent sensation.
The funny thing here is, that much later(calculus, set theory; then labbra calculus) it emerges that the concept of a function as correspondence presupposes concepts(specific domain and codomain).
What about the identification of new axioms of infinity in mathematical logic? Do you consider them new or just derived from the preceding ones? And what about theorems?
I like the «inspiration arises from thought» scenario.
To be quite honest - who cares? The value of an idea is in its usefulness, not in its novelty.
Not at all: the possibility of deriving something effectively is what distinguish what we know and what we can not say we know. If your contention were true there would be no criteria to establish in which direction orientates a research with uncertain results, except on some kind of unspecified usefulness.
Furthermore, you're hiding something: if an idea is useful, and if we rest on usefulness alone, there is no other way than casual discovery to search for another, because we may rely on the first occurring useful idea. Using this kind of reasoning, only casualty, and not reasoning, would have been the source of discovery such as calculus(which deepest origin is: how to calculate the area of a circle), its application to physics and the incredible development of technology.
Explicitly you are saying, that(and this is so disputable) we CLASSIFY ideas on the criterion of their usefulness, which, in this case, is COMPARATIVE criterion not a GENERATIVE, as I requested you to give your account on.
Explicitly, I am saying that the value of an idea lies in its utility. Nothing you have said impinges on that statement, as far as I can see. You made no "request", only gave an example, and asked a question, which I answered. :roll:
The generation of new ideas and the discovery of technology is a kind of harmonious union between mind and nature.
I recently had a dream wherein I saw objects existing in multiple circular chambers. They would move so each object could exist next to each other object. Than a voice said something like "this is how the mind works." Its cycles within cycles, synthesis.
I think the discovery of electro-magnetism is a prime example of how unity or synthesis results in new scientific findings.
It really is a clear way of looking at it. Creativity is synthesis.
We create through synthesis.