There is some Russophobia in this thread. — Wallows


If the attitude within the Russian leadership is that we are "the enemy", then "Russophobia" is justified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I think it would be. But (in my view), the new 'truth' (i.e. lies) comes out of the West, not Russia. Presidents Bush and Blair introduced the concept of defining truth by constant repetition, although they were just completing what had gone before. Now 'experts' are treated with contempt, and truth is something you create by repeating your own beliefs over and over, ignoring any factual objections that may be offered.

I propose the mechanism of innovation in every field is mis-remembering. — Sim

For creative thinking the replication and divergence caused by the error could best be described as being a process similar to mis-remembering. Though I would hold the process is guided by our conscious mind.

This just applies to creative thought I would hold all creative thought requires this two step replication and alteration process. — Sim

There are two issues here. First you offer memory problems as the source of creative thought. Then you characterise creativity as a conscious process.

I spent my professional career as a designer (of firmware), and this is very much a creative occupation. From this perspective, I can assure you that my experience is not that the creative process is conscious; quite the opposite. And there is a lot more to creativity than merely memory problems.

Finally, I dispute your conclusion that creativity is merely randomness, based on a faulty memory. If it was, most creative 'solutions' would not be solutions at all. Evolution only works because many millions of random mutations are tried out in reality, and the inappropriate ones (i.e. nearly all of them) are rejected (the affected subjects die). Creativity is more targeted than random.

When I read "enlightenment" - I didn't think yoga. I thought political system based on science and rationality. — karl stone

enlightenment would be to accept that science describes reality — karl stone

Really? Then you are not using the term "enlightenment" as it is commonly (exclusively?) used to describe this Eastern religio-philosophical concept, are you? Enlightenment has little or nothing to do with politics, science, rationality, or even reality (in the scientific sense), as I understand it. :chin:

When religion is discussed on the forum, it’s generally in reference to Christianity — gnat

Yes, white, male, Christian, Western techno-capitalist is quite a few ruts to be in, all at the same time! :wink: :smile:

1. If selfishness exists, a person cannot reach enlightenment. — gnat

...

to reach enlightenment, a soul must act selflessly — gnat

This seems problematic to me. For a start, are "selflessness" and "selfishness" synonymous here, for you
seem to be conflating the two? :chin:

I am in the process of writing an essay on the impairment of theory of mind in schizophrenic patients, and the connections it has to the personal subpersonal divide. I was advised to look at the upshots this empirical evidence may suggest about the divide itself, but I am unsure about which stance I can take in order to defend a solid thesis. Should I talk about how the divide is necessary in and of itself, or try to posit that the personal cannot exist without the subpersonal (ie their relationship is causal)? Any suggestions? — rei

I'm not sure if this is any help:

In the autistic community, much is said of non-autistic people waxing lyrical about autism. They never consult with autistic people. So what can they really know or learn from texts? Perhaps this also applies to patients with bipolar disorder too? In which case, you could talk to patients, and find out from them what you want to know? :chin:

The value of an idea is in its usefulness, not in its novelty. — Pattern-chaser

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. — Ikolos

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:

Nothing can deliver objective knowledge to humans, nothing at all. — Pattern-chaser

To answer “nothing can...objective knowledge.”

That statement could only be credible if you were to comprehensively deny the possibility of the unknown and predicate the statement upon those terms. — Dan84

???

I assert "the possibility of the unknown", as humans cannot knowingly possess objective knowledge (except that Objective Reality exists; we can know no more of it than this).

The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life. — Janus

Nothing can deliver objective knowledge to humans, nothing at all. The question really is what sorts of knowledge do you place value upon? Not all knowledge is scientific fact....

What about the identification of new axioms of infinity in mathematical logic? Do you consider them new or just derived from the preceding ones? — Ikolos

To be quite honest - who cares? The value of an idea is in its usefulness, not in its novelty.

So inspiration seems to be providing those new links (via deduction or whatever). — Devans99

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 have the same basic drivers as a bonobo; we both seek physical/emotional pleasure and shun physical/emotional pain. — Devans99

The latter may be true, but the former does not follow from it.

:up:

That's because you seem unable to move beyond that which can be "deduced/adduced". — Pattern-chaser

How else do we derive new knowledge? It seems its always via links to existing knowledge (and ultimately to our senses). — 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.

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. — 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.

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? — Devans99

That's because you seem unable to move beyond that which can be "deduced/adduced".

No, we can't. "Good" and "evil" are subjective value judgements. For example, what's good for a bonobo might be evil for you; i.e. they're relative and contextual too. Also, pleasure cannot be mathematically compared to pain.

You're wrong because your reasoning is not, and cannot be, justified. You have made a list of incorrect (unjustified) assertions, then derived from them an unjustifiable conclusion. That's why you're wrong.

Good > evil? Don't be silly. :roll: The ">" sign only applies to quantities that can be numerically compared. Good and evil cannot be so enumerated.

There is nothing subjective about it at all. Good>Evil. It's just math. — Devans99

No, I'm sorry, it isn't. Your 'proofs' are nothing but a list of dubious (i.e. unjustified) assertions, leading to an unjustifiable conclusion. :roll:

No more wearing masks can be a challenge in this parade called "life". — Wallows

:up: :smile: Yes, ask an autist, for whom 'masking' has a special meaning. :wink: For us, no masking means being outcast, but let's not get sidetracked by the challenges autists face. :wink:

I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge. — Janus

There are surely many obstacles on the path to enlightenment. But, whatever enlightenment actually is, I am confident that it isn't "objective". :chin:

Computers can't generate truly original information so why should we be able to? — Devans99

Because we have mental abilities that computers don't? :roll:

the question remains 'is it possible to have a truly original thought?' — Devans99

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:

Training to conceive... — BrianW

My own lifetime of experience in a creative profession tells me that "conception" can't be taught. I am open to learning otherwise...? :chin:

I think creation of 'new' ideas is more like filling in links. We start with an existing idea (which can be traced back to our senses) and what we create is the link to a new idea, via deduction/induction. — Devans99

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.

Each sensation is distinct, particular, and unique, due to the changing nature of the world which we sense. Therefore a thought which is derived from a sensation, is necessarily a truly original thought. — Metaphysician Undercover

This, and your associated posts, sum it all up very nicely. :up: Well said. :smile:

So an act of creativity was inspired by something. This doesn't take away its uniqueness, does it?

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? — BrianW

To your final question: no, no, a thousand times no! :smile: [See my previous reply for my reasons why.]

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? — Devans99

[ My highlighting.]

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:

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: — Pattern-chaser


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? — BrianW

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:

it seems we can't generate a purely abstract idea without drawing on existing knowledge? — Devans99

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.]

As for carnivorous animals; I think we should cull them all — Devans99

Including humans? :chin:

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. — BrianW

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 deny that more radical transformations do, rarely, take place, but I don't believe they can reliably be achieved by any deliberate form of disciplined search. — Janus

[My highlighting.]

I wonder if it simply depends on the nature of your search, i.e. how you search. :chin:

Can anyone think of a perspective that makes life/reality or the world a moral and desirable state of affairs? — Andrew4Handel

I wonder why you want to judge the world, instead of living in it? So, in answer to your question, a non-judgemental perspective is what you're after, by the sound of it.

↪Pattern-chaser
I am putting you on my "Smart List" for now. — hks

If you have an ignore-list, I think it would suit us both better if you put my name there.

I like to discuss philosophy with all kinds of people. Good luck! :up:

The problem is we have incompatible beliefs and desires... — leo

The problem then is, how can we all agree on whether it is an urgent problem that we ought to all tackle together now? — leo

To me the root problem again is fear... — leo

I think the problem is bigger than all these, but simpler too. Over the generations, but more especially in recent times (say since 1970), we humans have taken and consumed more and more - far too much more - from an ecosystem that can't bear the weight of our depredations. And because we won't give up the luxury we live in, or even slow down the trend toward even more luxury, we have a huge problem that we are too selfish to fix. And now it's too late....

The science is clear. Without rapid cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, climate change will have increasingly destructive and irreversible impacts on life on Earth. The window of opportunity for action is almost closed. Link to entire article. — WMO

Try again. — hks

So new, and already a Mod. :chin:

Examples of empty names are; Santa Claus, Harry Potter, and Pegasus. [...] Yet, those empty names don't refer to any person or object in the world. — Posty McPostface

Harry is an idea, and an idea is a real, if non-material, object in the world, n'est ce pas?

obfuscation is OK for poetry — Devans99

They had changed their throats and had the throats of birds. (link to original) — W. B. Yeats

This is obfuscation? :chin:

↪Pattern-chaser
Exactly! Thank you. — hks

Your concern for my philosophical mental hygiene is touching, but I shan't be needing it again, thank you.