ChangelingMay 09, 2020 at 04:269200 views64 comments
Are there any 'new' thoughts? Or is all our thinking made up of reformulations and expropriations of previous minds/thoughts we have come into contact with?
New as in never thought of before? Probably not too many. As to the second question not everyone lives in a modern, connected world. History repeats itself they say. Or if you prefer, great minds think alike.
More broadly speaking. In this day and age of smartphones, constant social media bombardment, casual sex, Uber Eats, and Netflix? Unlikely.
Reply to Professor Death
Interesting, because the answer would be revealed in meliorism. Do you believe that the human experience, as a whole, has [b]actually improved[/b] over human history? Yes, conditions individually improve or worsen but are we still advancing by some measure? If you believe that, then we are capable of prehending new thoughts because the old set didn't work, we had a new thought, and we improved our experience.
Are there any 'new' thoughts? Or is all our thinking made up of reformulations and expropriations of previous minds/thoughts we have come into contact with?
That would depend a lot on what you think a "thought" is. Is there abstract content to thoughts or are thoughts intrinsically linked to a person?
We can talk about "what" we think, so there must be some way we can at least extract some separate content from a thought that we then communicate. And if we're talking about these extracts, there is probably little that is truly original. But then it cannot be too original, because if it were we'd have trouble communicating it. The thought that we extracted the content from might very well have been unique though.
Reappropriation and expropriation are not opposed or antithetical to novelty. The first person who noticed the one or the other aspect of the duck-rabbit brought something new into the world, despite it being already 'there' in some way:
The first chimpanzee to use a stick to catch termites reappropriated what was there to do something new:
Just as one can use an instrument different for a new purpose, so to can thoughts, applied or implicated differently, be new. Arguably, all 'new' thought begins it's life as reappropriation in this way.
Are there any 'new' thoughts? Or is all our thinking made up of reformulations and expropriations of previous minds/thoughts we have come into contact with?
The geniuses and smartypantses give us the new thoughts. We're too dumb to have brand new ones. Thank god for the geniuses and smartypantses.
Mww
1.5k
If every thought is singular and successive, then every thought is new with respect to its time, but not necessarily new with respect to its content.
Thankyouthankyouthankyou....donations gratefully accepted, and will be forwarded to your favorite charity. Honest. Trust me.
I'm willing to trust you and I'd like to donate. But I always do my donations by bank to bank transfer. Just send me your banking info (do it by PM...some of these people may not be as trustworthy as I)...and I'll see to the transfer. Oh...include your social security number in case there are questions.
TheArchitectOfTheGodsMay 09, 2020 at 14:48#4110330 likes
What is the timeframe of your question?
Were there any new ideas the last ten years? the last 25? the last 100?
By new thoughts I assume that you mainly are thinking in the direction of new philosophical thoughts, such as a new definition of what is good and evil, a new compelling reasoning on what we ought and ought not to do, or on how societies should govern themselves, or a new theory of what the universe looks like or the ultimate nature of reality.
There are of course an unknown number of fictional characters which were novel at some point, but owing to their great appeal combined with sheer laziness get reused all over again, such as the kid wizard, the pirate captain, the genius sleuth, the damsel in distress, the evil madman etc. ad nauseam.
In terms of scientific and philosophic ideas, here I would say that the idea of gravity, of physical relativity, the idea of uncertainty, the idea of strings, the idea of multiverses, the idea of reality as a sociological construct, the ideas of democracy and of dictatorship of the proletariat, the idea of scientific positivism, were all novel at some point in history, so there is definitely new thoughts coming along, so the timeframe of your question becomes really relevant to what I would answer.
I personally think new ideas are coming along all the time. I remember in 8th grade I had an idea and voiced it in biology class, that within each atom is contained another complete universe. It may be wrong, but was for me a novel idea, and I certainly didn't pick that up from any TV show or books I had read so far. And youtube and google weren't around at that time.
No. Best we can say is thought is in time, but time itself, if it merely signifies a relation, can have no content of its own. Divisions of time, is still just time.
As long as there is new knowledge there will be new thoughts, so only by knowing all things would we start to run out of new thoughts. If its even possible to know all things, I would guess are pretty far off at this point and the foreseeable future.
Reappropriation and expropriation are not opposed or antithetical to novelty.
Sounds like we can apply the theory of evolution by natural selection to our psychology, as in evolutionary psychology. Just as the theory of the evolution of organisms explains how we have many new species as using existing adaptations in novel ways, or genetic modifications to existing structures that has some effect on the organism's fitness to reproduce, it can also apply to how we learn, or apply and falsify our new ideas.
New ideas pop up almost like random mutations, but it is the filtering aspect of natural selection, of falsifying those mutations/ideas, and keeping what works and abandoning what doesn't is what makes some mutation/idea useful or not.
In order to know whether or not there are any new thoughts, we must first ascertain what counts as a thought to begin with, and then perform some sort of comparison/contrast between different ones, while paying particular attention to a timeline. All thought consists of mental correlations drawn between different things.
If every thought is singular and successive, then every thought is new with respect to its time, but not necessarily new with respect to its content.
Here, the content would be the different things within the correlation. Novel correlations drawn between different things would count as new thought(in terms of content) to the thinking creature despite whether or not someone else had already drawn correlations between those things. Novel correlations drawn between different things that no creature had drawn before would count as "new thought" across the board. New in content not only to that creature, but new in content to any and all creatures.
The invention of anything and everything includes novel thought. That's not put strongly enough. The invention of anything and everything IS existentially dependent upon and also consists - in part at least - of novel thought.
New thought IS completely new correlations being drawn between different things. Whether or not those things already existed in their entirety prior to the correlation does not matter a bit. If that thing is being correlated to anything else by a capable creature, and it is the very first time such a connection has even been drawn, it is a new thought.
Considering the fact, as it appears to me, that countless old problems are yet not solved to the satisfaction of all parties involved, I would say there's no pressing need for new ideas - they would just add to the backlog of uncracked riddles.
That said, the current situation humanity finds itself in isn't one that we could term as favorable - rampant pollution, climate change, overpopulation, etc. have put us in a tight spot with some even suggesting we might have begun an extinction level event. We desperately need new ideas to tackle the colossal problem on our hands. By "new ideas" I don't mean just technological or scientific ones; philosophical ideas - the right ones - do have the power to change people's outlooks and worldviews and that, my friend, can have far reaching effects on politics and business ethics, two key components that have played a role in putting us in this "delightful" state of affairs; perhaps reworking them can save us from disaster.
3rdClassCitizenMay 12, 2020 at 03:45#4120080 likes
I personally think new ideas are coming along all the time. I remember in 8th grade I had an idea and voiced it in biology class, that within each atom is contained another complete universe.
With due respect, that is a very common idea. Also the possibility that our galaxies are like atoms in a larger reality.
By contrast, I have a theory that galaxies are half matter and half antimatter. no one else has ever said that.
In design, innovations can be new. Invention can result in a new device, or new application by assembling existing parts.
Writers don't invent words, yet can create something new with them.
Progressive music attempts to be unique, Blues tries to be predictable and derivative.
Uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean art, and art is not completely objective, beauty "in the eyes of the beholder". Art has a real consensus. Artists tend to recognize quality in the work by other artists.
Anyone can write a poem. Those who write the best poetry more fully understand rhyme, meter, alliteration, form, content, colorful descriptions, etc.
By "new ideas" I don't mean just technological or scientific ones; philosophical ideas - the right ones - do have the power to change people's outlooks
Certainly, in the sciences and math there are lots of new ideas. As new abstract areas of the latter open up new ideas run rampant. But these tend to be very technical and easily misunderstood and misinterpreted by the general public. Look at all the babble about quantum theory. Philosophical ideas about politics and society are more potent. For example, discussions about UBI resonate these days, although the concept is not new. But new environments require new approaches.
What is a thought? In pure sense, there are no new thoughts. They always show up as a combination of signals in the brain that were composed of previous thought. Actually new thought is a different compositiom and form of the other thoughts that already existed.
I caused so much confusion with that sentence. Excuse me. I did not mean that he did not say infinite regress. But that my reply to him contradicted what he said.
What is a thought? In pure sense, there are no new thoughts. They always show up as a combination of signals in the brain that were composed of previous thought. Actually new thought is a different compositiom and form of the other thoughts that already existed.
I stand by this statement. Give me a counter argument.
Understood. They are unacceptable, because they are untenable. This is proven by the fact that they inevitably lead to a reductio ad absurdum.
Turtles all the way down.
God did it.
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Etc.
It neglects the fact that all interactions occur in time, along a timeline of events, which we demarcate in a number of different ways using a plurality of means.
Simply put: If what you say is true, then no thing changes. That's clearly false because it contradicts with what's happened and/or is currently happening. Falsehood is unacceptable.
Dispense with such belief, immediately if not sooner.
Considering the fact, as it appears to me, that countless old problems are yet not solved to the satisfaction of all parties involved, I would say there's no pressing need for new ideas - they would just add to the backlog of uncracked riddles.
I do not understand this logic...
So, given that there are unsolved problems, no need for putting forth new ideas, because that will just add to the problems?
That's rubbish.
Solutions are ideas. Condemning all new ones restricts and/or unwisely limits the breadth of the scope regarding what counts as a solution. If we condemn new thought, we imprison our solutions to only old ideas.
I caused so much confusion with that sentence. Excuse me. I did not mean that he did not say infinite regress. But that my reply to him contradicted what he said.
You're good.
:smile:
I mean, there's plenty of room to build a bridge of mutual understanding.
All the thoughs we had, have and ever will have already existed forever
That is false. It is also a prima facie textbook example of infinite regress. Neither is acceptable and when combined they certainly count as good reason to discard that belief, as it is written.
I in fact, see thoughts as energy and energy was, is and will always be the same. Perhaps this definition is way too basal. But I mentioned that thoughts are electrical signals and neurons just in a different configuration. And that may change, so from this point of view new thoughts are created.
But they are both energy, so they must be the same. I think everything is the same. We are one. We are all the big bang.
This is wrong.
Energy is energy. Flour is flour. Flour is one - of many - necessary elemental constituent of apple pie. All by itself, flour just does not have what it takes to be an apple pie. The same holds good of energy and thought.
This is what the ultimate idea is. And I know that it is very inconvinient if we don't differentiate between things. So I believe they are different but only because we differentiate and conceptualise.
This is what the ultimate idea is. And I know that it is very inconvinient if we don't differentiate between things
What you suggest is the epitome of what counts as being untenable. If you do not draw a distinction between anything, there is no language use. The belief you hold is existentially dependent upon language. Perhaps most importantly... If what you say were true, there could be no such thing as language use.
But there is.
Refraining from drawing any distinction requires an immediate sudden stoppage of all language use. If you acted upon what you espouse to believe, you would have to stop talking, or be guilty of suelf contradiction and/or a performative contradiction...
Using distinctions as a means to demand we stop drawing them.
If the aim is to place equal value upon each individual human, simply because they are human. If it is best to offer all others(strangers, in particular) a certain modicum of respect simply because we are all human, then we can succeed in doing so without neglecting the uniqueness of each and every individual human. The differences can make the world such interesting and sometimes wonderful place.
"All is one" neglects all the differences. "We are all one" may. Some differences ought not be neglected.
No need to concede. I do not disagree with the underlying sentiment of "We are all one", if it is to treat other people in ways that show an underlying priority and/or value has already been placed upon them... simply because they are people. We are all the same in that we are all subject to the individual particular circumstances making up each one of our lives, respectively.
If that is agreeable to you, then we are in agreement. That's the best starting point. A bridge of mutual understanding.
If you mean to say that - based upon the data showing that the universe is expanding like an air balloon - we can confidently surmise that it came from a singularity, or some such. I readily acknowledge and agree that that is a commonly held belief. It is also supported by current observations.
Big Bang requires that the concentration of energy required to produce what is currently within the universe as we know it to 'fit into' an indefinable volume, an immeasurable amount of space-time. Before the event, all of the necessary ingredients for that explosion to happen just come from nowhere.
There aren't any 'new' thoughts. Thought is always 'old'. The 'newness' comes from something else which operates prior to thought.
3rdClassCitizenMay 17, 2020 at 22:31#4136850 likes
If you believe in alien intelligent life, then most technology and advancements in science are not new, just new to Earth.
In the experiment with monkees at the typewriter, one tries to imagine the odds of them accidentally recreating an existing work. A human author runs an infinitesimally small chance of recreating an existing work, but can create new works easily.
By statistics, the monkeys at the typewriters would create an infinite number of valid ORIGINAL novels or manuals before duplicating sn existing one.
Barnes and Noble could sell these monkey books in their own section.
A wonderful idea juxtaposes two great things obsolete from the past apes and typewriters. But how do you cat by author?
3rdClassCitizenJune 21, 2020 at 01:38#4258390 likes
How do I catalog by author books written randomly, or by monkeys? I believe the assembly line than makes some young adult book series has some answer to that.
Comments (64)
More broadly speaking. In this day and age of smartphones, constant social media bombardment, casual sex, Uber Eats, and Netflix? Unlikely.
Interesting, because the answer would be revealed in meliorism. Do you believe that the human experience, as a whole, has [b]actually improved[/b] over human history? Yes, conditions individually improve or worsen but are we still advancing by some measure? If you believe that, then we are capable of prehending new thoughts because the old set didn't work, we had a new thought, and we improved our experience.
That would depend a lot on what you think a "thought" is. Is there abstract content to thoughts or are thoughts intrinsically linked to a person?
We can talk about "what" we think, so there must be some way we can at least extract some separate content from a thought that we then communicate. And if we're talking about these extracts, there is probably little that is truly original. But then it cannot be too original, because if it were we'd have trouble communicating it. The thought that we extracted the content from might very well have been unique though.
The first chimpanzee to use a stick to catch termites reappropriated what was there to do something new:
Just as one can use an instrument different for a new purpose, so to can thoughts, applied or implicated differently, be new. Arguably, all 'new' thought begins it's life as reappropriation in this way.
New stuff is less associated with what humans can create, and think, but more what gensiers can create and think.
New technology may be more about intergrating sense than higher definitions.
A future movie may be just one big interactable, not just full of special effects.
So there is potential for new ideas. It's probably why the big bang happened.
The geniser was an explosives expert, and not an expert of the degrade.
The geniuses and smartypantses give us the new thoughts. We're too dumb to have brand new ones. Thank god for the geniuses and smartypantses.
Ladies and Gentlemen...
...we have a winner!
Nail hit squarely on its head.
With information comes newness
In the current age as such
When learning for the first time
The illusion seems as much
Learning comes yet again
From reading the same thing twice
Time then, must have a meaning
As we are never the same men
Thankyouthankyouthankyou....donations gratefully accepted, and will be forwarded to your favorite charity. Honest. Trust me.
Are you saying thought is time?
I'm willing to trust you and I'd like to donate. But I always do my donations by bank to bank transfer. Just send me your banking info (do it by PM...some of these people may not be as trustworthy as I)...and I'll see to the transfer. Oh...include your social security number in case there are questions.
Hi Professor Death,
What is the timeframe of your question?
Were there any new ideas the last ten years? the last 25? the last 100?
By new thoughts I assume that you mainly are thinking in the direction of new philosophical thoughts, such as a new definition of what is good and evil, a new compelling reasoning on what we ought and ought not to do, or on how societies should govern themselves, or a new theory of what the universe looks like or the ultimate nature of reality.
There are of course an unknown number of fictional characters which were novel at some point, but owing to their great appeal combined with sheer laziness get reused all over again, such as the kid wizard, the pirate captain, the genius sleuth, the damsel in distress, the evil madman etc. ad nauseam.
In terms of scientific and philosophic ideas, here I would say that the idea of gravity, of physical relativity, the idea of uncertainty, the idea of strings, the idea of multiverses, the idea of reality as a sociological construct, the ideas of democracy and of dictatorship of the proletariat, the idea of scientific positivism, were all novel at some point in history, so there is definitely new thoughts coming along, so the timeframe of your question becomes really relevant to what I would answer.
I personally think new ideas are coming along all the time. I remember in 8th grade I had an idea and voiced it in biology class, that within each atom is contained another complete universe. It may be wrong, but was for me a novel idea, and I certainly didn't pick that up from any TV show or books I had read so far. And youtube and google weren't around at that time.
HA!! Excellent.
No. Best we can say is thought is in time, but time itself, if it merely signifies a relation, can have no content of its own. Divisions of time, is still just time.
As long as there is new knowledge there will be new thoughts, so only by knowing all things would we start to run out of new thoughts. If its even possible to know all things, I would guess are pretty far off at this point and the foreseeable future.
A cutting-edge event, that's like mining a rock, is how new stuff is found.
If you could encircle a human with power of some sort for the whole of it's life, would this event produce new data?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the quality of the event.
Sounds like we can apply the theory of evolution by natural selection to our psychology, as in evolutionary psychology. Just as the theory of the evolution of organisms explains how we have many new species as using existing adaptations in novel ways, or genetic modifications to existing structures that has some effect on the organism's fitness to reproduce, it can also apply to how we learn, or apply and falsify our new ideas.
New ideas pop up almost like random mutations, but it is the filtering aspect of natural selection, of falsifying those mutations/ideas, and keeping what works and abandoning what doesn't is what makes some mutation/idea useful or not.
As Mww noted earlier...
Quoting Mww
Here, the content would be the different things within the correlation. Novel correlations drawn between different things would count as new thought(in terms of content) to the thinking creature despite whether or not someone else had already drawn correlations between those things. Novel correlations drawn between different things that no creature had drawn before would count as "new thought" across the board. New in content not only to that creature, but new in content to any and all creatures.
The invention of anything and everything includes novel thought. That's not put strongly enough. The invention of anything and everything IS existentially dependent upon and also consists - in part at least - of novel thought.
New thought IS completely new correlations being drawn between different things. Whether or not those things already existed in their entirety prior to the correlation does not matter a bit. If that thing is being correlated to anything else by a capable creature, and it is the very first time such a connection has even been drawn, it is a new thought.
Period.
That said, the current situation humanity finds itself in isn't one that we could term as favorable - rampant pollution, climate change, overpopulation, etc. have put us in a tight spot with some even suggesting we might have begun an extinction level event. We desperately need new ideas to tackle the colossal problem on our hands. By "new ideas" I don't mean just technological or scientific ones; philosophical ideas - the right ones - do have the power to change people's outlooks and worldviews and that, my friend, can have far reaching effects on politics and business ethics, two key components that have played a role in putting us in this "delightful" state of affairs; perhaps reworking them can save us from disaster.
With due respect, that is a very common idea. Also the possibility that our galaxies are like atoms in a larger reality.
By contrast, I have a theory that galaxies are half matter and half antimatter. no one else has ever said that.
In design, innovations can be new. Invention can result in a new device, or new application by assembling existing parts.
Writers don't invent words, yet can create something new with them.
Progressive music attempts to be unique, Blues tries to be predictable and derivative.
Uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean art, and art is not completely objective, beauty "in the eyes of the beholder". Art has a real consensus. Artists tend to recognize quality in the work by other artists.
Anyone can write a poem. Those who write the best poetry more fully understand rhyme, meter, alliteration, form, content, colorful descriptions, etc.
Certainly, in the sciences and math there are lots of new ideas. As new abstract areas of the latter open up new ideas run rampant. But these tend to be very technical and easily misunderstood and misinterpreted by the general public. Look at all the babble about quantum theory. Philosophical ideas about politics and society are more potent. For example, discussions about UBI resonate these days, although the concept is not new. But new environments require new approaches.
Infinite regress...
Someone, somewhere along the line coins a term, or a begins some new meaning/use of a pre-existing term for the first time...
Exactly everything turns to original state. Or in fact everything already is and will always bs.
Exactly not what I said.
Okay maybe I misunderstood what you meant by infinite regress.
All the thoughs we had, have and ever will have already existed forever?
That's totally what they said. @creativesoul confirm please
I caused so much confusion with that sentence. Excuse me. I did not mean that he did not say infinite regress. But that my reply to him contradicted what he said.
I stand by this statement. Give me a counter argument.
Understood. They are unacceptable, because they are untenable. This is proven by the fact that they inevitably lead to a reductio ad absurdum.
Turtles all the way down.
God did it.
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Etc.
It neglects the fact that all interactions occur in time, along a timeline of events, which we demarcate in a number of different ways using a plurality of means.
Simply put: If what you say is true, then no thing changes. That's clearly false because it contradicts with what's happened and/or is currently happening. Falsehood is unacceptable.
Dispense with such belief, immediately if not sooner.
I do not understand this logic...
So, given that there are unsolved problems, no need for putting forth new ideas, because that will just add to the problems?
That's rubbish.
Solutions are ideas. Condemning all new ones restricts and/or unwisely limits the breadth of the scope regarding what counts as a solution. If we condemn new thought, we imprison our solutions to only old ideas.
:brow:
That seems a bit unwise, to say the least.
You're good.
:smile:
I mean, there's plenty of room to build a bridge of mutual understanding.
That is false. It is also a prima facie textbook example of infinite regress. Neither is acceptable and when combined they certainly count as good reason to discard that belief, as it is written.
I in fact, see thoughts as energy and energy was, is and will always be the same. Perhaps this definition is way too basal. But I mentioned that thoughts are electrical signals and neurons just in a different configuration. And that may change, so from this point of view new thoughts are created.
Good for you. Thought requires more than just energy. Seeing thoughts as energy is akin to seeing flour as apple pie.
Again... electrical signals may be one necessary elemental constituent of all thought, but flour plays the very same role in apple pie.
But they are both energy, so they must be the same. I think everything is the same. We are one. We are all the big bang.
This is wrong.
Energy is energy. Flour is flour. Flour is one - of many - necessary elemental constituent of apple pie. All by itself, flour just does not have what it takes to be an apple pie. The same holds good of energy and thought.
Your beliefs on this matter are the same as mine because they both include energy?
C'mon man. Think about what you're writing.
What you suggest is the epitome of what counts as being untenable. If you do not draw a distinction between anything, there is no language use. The belief you hold is existentially dependent upon language. Perhaps most importantly... If what you say were true, there could be no such thing as language use.
But there is.
Refraining from drawing any distinction requires an immediate sudden stoppage of all language use. If you acted upon what you espouse to believe, you would have to stop talking, or be guilty of suelf contradiction and/or a performative contradiction...
Using distinctions as a means to demand we stop drawing them.
Yeah... no thanks.
I concede. There is actually only one thing to say then: we are all one. We are everyone and no one.
So it's best to conceptualise and differentiate. But in the end I believe we are truly one and the same.
"All is one" neglects all the differences. "We are all one" may. Some differences ought not be neglected.
No need to concede. I do not disagree with the underlying sentiment of "We are all one", if it is to treat other people in ways that show an underlying priority and/or value has already been placed upon them... simply because they are people. We are all the same in that we are all subject to the individual particular circumstances making up each one of our lives, respectively.
If that is agreeable to you, then we are in agreement. That's the best starting point. A bridge of mutual understanding.
Yes, that is exactly right.
Big Bang requires that the concentration of energy required to produce what is currently within the universe as we know it to 'fit into' an indefinable volume, an immeasurable amount of space-time. Before the event, all of the necessary ingredients for that explosion to happen just come from nowhere.
It's magic.
Yeah, I was bringing up arguments that are useless. I am now aware of this. Thanks for making me realise.
Answer: YES - very many
In the experiment with monkees at the typewriter, one tries to imagine the odds of them accidentally recreating an existing work. A human author runs an infinitesimally small chance of recreating an existing work, but can create new works easily.
By statistics, the monkeys at the typewriters would create an infinite number of valid ORIGINAL novels or manuals before duplicating sn existing one.
Barnes and Noble could sell these monkey books in their own section.