Creativity happens on the border between the internal and the external

Then I would be anxious to hear your account. — unenlightened

As we were saying, part of consciousness is responsive and part is creative. If we try to model reality, then the model must precisely "reflect" reality. But the creative aspect adds things which are not there, made up things, artificial things, imaginary things. If these imaginary things get into the model, they are fictions, making the model wrong in respect to those fictions. That is what I think "the present" might be, such a fiction, something imaginary, created, which has gotten into the model.

You've said consciousness is "in the present". I dispute this, saying "the present" may be a fiction, created by the imagination. So the challenge for me is to remove "the present" from the model, while maintaining an adequate model. What I think is that consciousness is in the future and the past. Part of it consists of anticipations toward the future, and part of it consists of memories of the past. When we reflect on the activities of consciousness, as you are doing in this thread, we apprehend a substantial difference between the future and past, so we imagine a division between these two. Just like I insisted that we ought to maintain, in principle, a division between the responsive (related to the past), and the initiative (related to the future), you appear to insist on a division between past and future. This imaginary division between future and past inclines one to assume "the present".

That is what I think is wrong with your model of conscious. Consciousness is really composed of elements which are related to the past, and elements which are related to the future. So I think consciousness is "in" the past and "in" the future, both at the same time. It appears like you apprehend a clear and crisp division between future and past, which you call "the present". And, assuming that nothing can cross this boundary, to exist in both the future and past at the same time, because that would be contradictory, you locate consciousness "in" the boundary, "in the present".

My opinion, is that this fictitious "present" you (or whomever lent you this idea) have created, will give you endless problems for your model. You will never be able to fit consciousness into reality, because reality consists of future and past times, and you have created an unreal, imaginary "present" where you locate consciousness. So your model allows that consciousness is completely removed from reality, by placing it in a fictitious, imaginary "present", permitting you to say that consciousness is anywhere, or everywhere, as you do in this passage:

When a blind man feels his way with a stick, his consciousness is in the curb he feels, at the end of the stick, in the hand holding the stick, in the brain modelling the environment, and the feet propelling him and confirming his model. When an earthbound astronomer uses the Hubble telescope his consciousness is amongst the stars just as much as it is in his head. Or to put it better - consciousness is not located, because it is virtual. — unenlightened

I have to confess I am struggling to relate this to my experience at all.

Consciousness is really composed of elements which are related to the past, and elements which are related to the future. So I think consciousness is "in" the past and "in" the future, both at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

The first sentence makes perfect sense to me, the second seems bizarre. Elements related to the past are memories and knowledge, and these I associate with things I encounter - the overflowing bin I didn't empty yesterday, the tree I remember standing last time I passed, that has or hasn't blown down in a storm, the photo of the kids when they were little, those amazing dinosaur footprints. Sometimes I 'relive the past' and sometimes it is very vivid - lifelike. But it is never as lifelike as living; memories of hot summers in the South of France do not keep me warm in the Welsh winter. All these things are related to the past, but all are present to me, and that is why I can talk about the past at all.

The idea of consciousness being in the future is even more odd. I am tempted to ask, if yours is there, if you could let me have next week's lottery numbers. Memories and knowledge of the past lead me to model the future - the daffodils are in flower, spring is coming again. My pension is due next week, the government is usually pretty reliable. But I do not become conscious of these things themselves ( as distinct from the ideas that I have relayed here), before they happen. I cannot spend next week's pension today, or bathe in the spring sunshine.

The best sense I can make of it is that you are speaking as thought and in a thought world, because in the thought world, the model world, time has exactly that property, the model can be run forwards or backwards, restarted, altered, relived, and so on. One has equal access to every moment at any moment. But the painful frustrating world I live in does not afford that freedom; the compensation though is that it is real, not thought.

The best sense I can make of it is that you are speaking as thought and in a thought world, because in the thought world, the model world, time has exactly that property, the model can be run forwards or backwards, restarted, altered, relived, and so on. One has equal access to every moment at any moment. — unenlightened

Well, isn't this the point? You are talking about consciousness. What is consciousness other than "the thought world"? You dismiss my description of consciousness by saying that I am talking about the thought world. What sense does that make? Consciousness is the thought world.

I have to confess I am struggling to relate this to my experience at all. — unenlightened

I expected you to say something like this, so I am not surprised. The fact is, that I have reflected on this matter many times, and I just cannot determine the reality of the present. If I try to pinpoint it by saying "now", it is into the past by the time I have said it. If I think of a future time, and expect to say it is present, when it arrives, I have the same problem. It disappears into the past by the time it even arrives. I can't find a real present because anything which I think might qualify as 'the present" always disappears into the past.

So it appears to me, like my consciousness has been deceived into believing itself to be in the present. People like you have probably told me that I am "in the present", and I have been inclined to believe that without giving it any real thought, when this is really an illusion, because when I reflect on it I realize that there is no present. "The present" is a product of the imagination. Your consciousness is not in the present, the present is in your consciousness, as a product of your imagination.

My pension is due next week, the government is usually pretty reliable. But I do not become conscious of these things themselves ( as distinct from the ideas that I have relayed here), before they happen. I cannot spend next week's pension today, or bathe in the spring sunshine. — unenlightened

How can you say that you are not conscious of your pension when you are talking about it? These things you say don't make sense. Of course you can spend your pension before you receive it, that's what credit is for. You speak as if there is a point in time, like noon next Friday when prior to that time you have no money, and posterior to that time you have money. Suppose this is really the case, how does that point in time become "the present". As soon as it gets here, that point which you receive money is in the past Now it is in the future, and when it comes it will be in the past. It will never be at the present. "The present" is only in your mind. All these things around you, in "the real world", are either in the past or the future. So if you are in the real world, you are in the past and in the future. You are not in the present, the present is in you, as a product of your imagination.

See, you are telling yourself, that you are living in the present, when in reality all the occurrences you relate to are either in the past or in the future, and this idea of "the present" is just something you've made up to help you understand the difference between things which have already occurred and things which have not yet occurred.

But the painful frustrating world I live in does not afford that freedom; the compensation though is that it is real, not thought. — unenlightened

I think you are trying to give to consciousness something which is not proper to it. You say that the frustrating world you live in is real, and not just thought. But how could this frustrating world be part of your consciousness except through thought? You appear to be saying that there is some part of consciousness which is other than thought, and this is the real frustrating world, when in reality that thing you call the real world is not part of consciousness at all, and that's why it's so frustrating.

Well, isn't this the point? You are talking about consciousness. What is consciousness other than "the thought world"? You dismiss my description of consciousness by saying that I am talking about the thought world. What sense does that make? Consciousness is the thought world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I think this is the point of disagreement. I say I am conscious of the thought world, and I am conscious of the physical world, you say you are the thought world, and (I presume,) are conscious of the physical world. I'm not sure there is anywhere much left to go with this. Is there an experiment or an argument that would decide it?

Well, I wouldn't say "I am the thought world", I would say "consciousness is the thought world". So I would agree with you that I am conscious of both the thought world, and of the physical world, just like you say. But "conscious of the thought world" is very similar to "self-conscious". It is really nothing more than being conscious of my own consciousness.

I wouldn't say "I am consciousness" because I recognize that there is a significant part of my being which doesn't appear to be part of my consciousness. There are activities of my being which do not seem to enter into my consciousness, the unconscious part of me.

Where we seem to disagree is in how we relate to the presence, of our conscious being. You say that your consciousness is "in the present", explaining that there is a "present" in the physical world around you, which you are a part of. I am saying that there is only a future and past in the physical world around me, and "the present" only exists within my consciousness, as a thought.

However, I do recognize that if there is a substantial difference between future and past, then I ought to allow that there is actually a present in the physical world as well, to substantiate this difference. So the experiment, or demonstration which would settle this would be a demonstration which would indicate whether or not there is a real difference between past and future in the physical world.

.

I wouldn't say "I am consciousness" because I recognize that there is a significant part of my being which doesn't appear to be part of my consciousness. There are activities of my being which do not seem to enter into my consciousness, the unconscious part of me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you talking about unconscious thought, or more bodily processes? Usually, as you seem to suggest, people talk about self-consciousness in terms of being aware of thoughts, but do not talk about self-consciousness in terms of being aware of having an erection or a sore thumb. They identify as having a body, and being a mind. This is largely unchanged by the idea that the mind extends beyond what is conscious. And in such case, I would expect you to say, if not 'I am consciousness', then something like 'I am the mind of which I am incompletely conscious'. Which is to locate oneself as an inner world, in the body but other than it.

So the experiment, or demonstration which would settle this would be a demonstration which would indicate whether or not there is a real difference between past and future in the physical world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then a glance at this thread should convince you. You can readily scroll back and look at all the past posts, but where the future posts will be is blank.

Are you talking about unconscious thought, or more bodily processes? Usually, as you seem to suggest, people talk about self-consciousness in terms of being aware of thoughts, but do not talk about self-consciousness in terms of being aware of having an erection or a sore thumb. They identify as having a body, and being a mind. This is largely unchanged by the idea that the mind extends beyond what is conscious. And in such case, I would expect you to say, if not 'I am consciousness', then something like 'I am the mind of which I am incompletely conscious'. Which is to locate oneself as an inner world, in the body but other than it. — unenlightened

I think of my "self" as every part of me, my mind and body, not just mind. So if I say "I have a body", I mean that my body is part of me. But by saying "I have a body" I am implying that I am more than just a body. The problem I find, with talking about being aware of, or conscious of, different parts of the body, is that there are many parts which one is not aware of. I know I have lungs, kidneys, and liver, and I am to some extent aware of my lungs when I think about my breathing, but I don't think that I can say that I am aware, or conscious of my kidneys. Perhaps if something went out of order, like your example of a sore thumb, I might become aware of my kidneys, or even other types of changes might attract my attention like the case of an erection. That's probably why I can say that I'm aware of my lungs, because they are making changes. And I can be aware of my heart because it is beating.

This brings up a point of interest for me. How is it that I can know about a whole lot of internal parts, like intestines and such, yet I can't really say that I am consciously aware of them? It seems strangely contradictory that I could say I know about my duodenum, but I am not conscious of it. Am I using "conscious" in a bad way? Or am I really conscious of my duodenum, but not directly conscious of it?

In any case, it doesn't seem appropriate to locate my consciousness as my "inner world", because I know that so many inner parts escape my consciousness. I think I'd prefer to locate my consciousness as my "outer world", because being conscious describes more accurately how I relate to things other than me. So long as the things inside me are working properly, they escape my consciousness, because the problems which I need to think about, are mainly coming at me from outside.

Then a glance at this thread should convince you. You can readily scroll back and look at all the past posts, but where the future posts will be is blank. — unenlightened

That's an interesting way of putting it. But how do I know that the future posts are not out there, and I just can't see them? When I scroll back, I am not really seeing the posts in the past, I am seeing the past posts in the present. I cannot see the future posts in the present, so you think that this amounts to a substantial difference between past and future.

I'd agree with that, but where does this leave the future? The past is out there, and I can scroll back, or see evidence of what happened. You think that consciousness is "in the present", and I think that the present is "in consciousness". It appears like we would need to determine where the future is to resolve this.

How is it that I can know about a whole lot of internal parts, like intestines and such, yet I can't really say that I am consciously aware of them? It seems strangely contradictory that I could say I know about my duodenum, but I am not conscious of it. Am I using "conscious" in a bad way? Or am I really conscious of my duodenum, but not directly conscious of it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well it's all hearsay isn't it? I have no direct evidence that I have a brain and not a spaghetti monster in my head. But then it is only hearsay that Australia exists. I just assume people are not making up all this stuff. So the candle of consciousness doesn't even light up the whole candle, and certainly not the whole of the inside of the candle, let alone the rest of the world. And all the rest is stories... All I know about the duodenum is that it gets ulcers. I assume I have one because the story is that we all have the same complement of bits, but if you cut me open and fished it out, I wouldn't recognise it, and if I did feel it, I would have no idea that that is what I was feeling.

All of which goes to say that to a huge extent, what I think I am is a story I have been told.

When I scroll back, I am not really seeing the posts in the past, I am seeing the past posts in the present. I cannot see the future posts in the present, so you think that this amounts to a substantial difference between past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, exactly. I am not seeing the past, I am seeing in the present the marks of the past. The thread I can see now is a (transform by electro-magic of a) record on some hard drive created by our interactions in the past, and the memories I have of our interactions are similarly a (rather vaguer) record in my alleged brain. This all being 'received wisdom'.

You think that consciousness is "in the present", and I think that the present is "in consciousness". It appears like we would need to determine where the future is to resolve this. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you put it that way, It seems not so much of a disagreement. Especially because I would rather say, 'The present is consciousness, consciousness is the present'. It is the 'place' where all posts are created. I think this perspective works for most of the theories of time; presentism, obviously, but even a fully determined block universe, in which life is read-only. The future is there and the past is there in the book/block, but I (and the remote hard drive) haven't read the future and have read the past, at any arbitrary 'present' moment.

All of which goes to say that to a huge extent, what I think I am is a story I have been told. — unenlightened

Yeah, so that's the point, we seem to say "I am conscious of X", using "conscious of" in a number of completely distinct ways. And that difference is evident, and sometimes confusing here at TPF. Sometimes I might use "conscious of" to include all those stories I have been told, without even questioning the truth of some of them. But other times I might use "conscious of" to refer strictly to things which I am immediately aware of through my senses.

When you put it that way, It seems not so much of a disagreement. Especially because I would rather say, 'The present is consciousness, consciousness is the present'. It is the 'place' where all posts are created. — unenlightened

I think that this is an over simplification now, to say "the present is consciousness". If we look back to what you were saying about modeling reality, I think that "the present" within consciousness is part of a model. So the question for me was, if the present is part of the model of reality, then what aspect of reality is it a reflection of. And I was trying to answer this as the division between past and future. But your example made me think that maybe the future is not even part of reality at all. Where are the posts of the future? Maybe the future is completely imaginary.

I cannot say that I am conscious of the future, in the sense that I use "conscious of" to refer to what I am immediately aware of through my senses. However I am conscious of the future in the sense that I know about it through stories. And, I think that I am conscious of the future in another sense of "conscious of". I am aware of things that are imminent, and I anticipate them without referring to stories. I am not immediately aware of these things through my senses, nor am I aware of them through stories, but I am still conscious of them, in another sense of "conscious of".

Sometimes I might use "conscious of" to include all those stories I have been told, without even questioning the truth of some of them. But other times I might use "conscious of" to refer strictly to things which I am immediately aware of through my senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well in this context, we want to be very general and inclusive, and that presents a problem, that we are trying to account for life the universe and everything in a way. Certainly I want to include the immediacy of the senses, but even there, they are bound up with memory. The green verticality I see over there - memory and understanding is involved in being able to say 'it is a poplar tree reflected in a lake'.

Without memory and interpretation, the visual sensation is meaningless; it acquires meaning in relation to remembered experience, learned stories, models of world and self. I have been emphasising the sensory, because philosophy tends to neglect it's importance, and because my claim is that it is prior to what one might call the inner life, because all these stories, including the one we are building here, must enter through the senses.

I hope my story makes sense. I've been told it is nonsense in this thread.

It is nonsense if it does not accord with the senses. If it does not accord with other stories we might have heard, then it might be that those stories don't quite make sense. So if it is non-story, I don't mind too much, but if it is non-sense I'm in trouble. So immediately, most of my senses slot easily into a story of my familiar home my laptop, my favourite site, and my focus is on this new post that is trickling out as I type. All the background readily 'fits' the story of my life - the story makes sense of the senses. Where I have to pay attention, is to making sure if I can that the story I am telling of the nature of consciousness also makes sense of the senses.

All day long, I'm seeing, hearing, touching, etc, and importantly, acting -typing, walking, carrying, eating, etc. At the end of the day, I seek out a place that is dark, quiet, and lie down for preference on something soft enough that I can hardly feel my own weight. And just to be on the safe side, I close my eyes. Then, if the stories don't insist on telling themselves, I go to sleep.

And of course, that little story is told from memory, because actually, I'm still typing.

I think that this is an over simplification now, to say "the present is consciousness". If we look back to what you were saying about modeling reality, I think that "the present" within consciousness is part of a model. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is where we get into the realm of strange loops. I'm going to stick by my story, that the immediacy of the senses is the present, and is at least the constant companion of consciousness, without which it becomes at best, weird and dreamlike. But of course I am presenting a model to you in which "the present" plays a prominent part. But "the present" is not the present. Perhaps I can illustrate this, by projecting my story forwards.

I am still typing, but when I have finished this post, and my glass of wine, I will go to bed as described above, and sleep. I will get up tomorrow about 8AM, and have a coffee and...

I roll the story forward into the future, based on memories of other days. The train timetable does the same thing, and when there is unforeseen snow, or a crash, or a terror alert, the timetable becomes wrong. The future is always a story that becomes true or false - later - when the senses confirm or disconfirm it. That's my story, anyway. I think the same process, non-verbally, accounts for the anticipation involved in, say, catching a ball. One learns, and gets better at it.

so what you're basically saying is thought is time?

I wouldn't be the first to say that. But it is a bit misleading, as slogans tend to be. The past is recorded in rock sediments the deep past in the microwave background, so I cannot say that time is not physical in the sense that the past leaves a clear trace on the present world. And it is the same kind of trace that the past leaves in our memories and on our hard drives.

But psychologically, it is the entrance of memory actively into present thought that gives us a sense of time. There is a peculiar, rare illness where the ability to lay down new long term memories is lost quite suddenly. In such cases psychological time stops on the day the ability is lost, and although they retain the earlier memories, and short term memory, so that they can talk, as far as they are aware, no time has passed or will ever pass. They think forever, that it is June 5th 1973, or whatever, and if you explain to them, they do not remember you or what you said five minutes later.

So in that sense thought is time, but also geology is time regardless of thought.

(I do hope people can make sense of the way I am playing with the different senses of 'sense' in this thread.)

When I fall asleep, psychological time stops, but physiological time continues. When I awaken, I have to look at the clock, or where the sun is in the sky to reconnect the two times. And then there are those occasions when I'm not sure what day it is.

Without memory and interpretation, the visual sensation is meaningless; it acquires meaning in relation to remembered experience, learned stories, models of world and self. I have been emphasising the sensory, because philosophy tends to neglect it's importance, and because my claim is that it is prior to what one might call the inner life, because all these stories, including the one we are building here, must enter through the senses. — unenlightened

I agree that all of the stories enter through the senses, but don't you think that there is a part of consciousness which is not a story? What about instinct and intuition? Things come to consciousness through these sources, and I don't think that this is a story, nor do I think that what comes to consciousness from intuition and instinct, comes through the senses.

Let's go back to the difference between a simple reaction, and a creative response. If all aspects of consciousness were simply reactions to what the senses were perceiving, there'd be no creative element. So we can appeal to that inner element, instinct and intuition, to account for creativity within responses. My question is, why would you give priority to the stuff which enters through your senses, over the inner element, when the inner element must give us the capacity to make sense of what enters through the senses?

It is nonsense if it does not accord with the senses. If it does not accord with other stories we might have heard, then it might be that those stories don't quite make sense. So if it is non-story, I don't mind too much, but if it is non-sense I'm in trouble. So immediately, most of my senses slot easily into a story of my familiar home my laptop, my favourite site, and my focus is on this new post that is trickling out as I type. All the background readily 'fits' the story of my life - the story makes sense of the senses. Where I have to pay attention, is to making sure if I can that the story I am telling of the nature of consciousness also makes sense of the senses. — unenlightened

Here is the issue, expressed in this passage here. If you could not make sense of what your senses are doing, what they're giving to you, all of your sensations would be nonsense. And it is the inner world, of instinct and intuition which allows for that making sense. Of course we find out that the more we make sense of things, the more capable we become at making sense of things, and this is very evident in "the stories", where we increasingly learn to understand the language, as we learn the language. But I think that there must first be an inner capacity to make sense of things, and this inner capacity allows us to construct things from what we perceive with the senses. That is why I would rather place the "inner" aspect of consciousness as prior to the sensing aspect.

All day long, I'm seeing, hearing, touching, etc, and importantly, acting -typing, walking, carrying, eating, etc. At the end of the day, I seek out a place that is dark, quiet, and lie down for preference on something soft enough that I can hardly feel my own weight. And just to be on the safe side, I close my eyes. Then, if the stories don't insist on telling themselves, I go to sleep. — unenlightened

See, even here you speak of the stories "telling themselves", and this is the creative role of the inner element of consciousness. It's very evident in dreaming. This type of thing, dreaming, calls into doubt the idea of the priority of the sensory experience. Yes, it is very true that the inner element makes use of sensory input in this dreaming, but this is from memory, and the inner aspect is actively creating a world, without the active sensory input. Now dreaming itself is not actually consciousness, but the inner activity which is responsible for dreaming may be prior to the sensory activity, only producing consciousness when the two are united.

This is all relevant to your notion of "present", and my question of where is the future. I find that I can only relate to the future through the inner element of creativity. I have no relation to the future through my sensory experience. I must be creative with my memories of sensations, in order to construct a future.

Now it is fairly uncontroversial to say that the external world - the coffee, the armchair, etc is not conscious, not the location of awareness, but only the content, the provocation.

It is rather more radical though to claim that the internal world, memories, models, thoughts, are not conscious either, but are also only more contents and provocations. — unenlightened

The internal world prevents one from being awake, it is akin to dreaming.

Now dreaming itself is not actually consciousness, but the inner activity which is responsible for dreaming may be prior to the sensory activity, only producing consciousness when the two are united. — Metaphysician Undercover

Most dreaming is the result of disorder in the brain, and disorder comes from the ego

Dreaming is a disorder? I thought it was completely normal and necessary.

I agree that all of the stories enter through the senses, but don't you think that there is a part of consciousness which is not a story? What about instinct and intuition? Things come to consciousness through these sources, and I don't think that this is a story, nor do I think that what comes to consciousness from intuition and instinct, comes through the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well yes I do. There is a point at which I step back from scientism, and even philosophism, and resort to mysticism. One might say that the whole human, as a general form that has this connection to the world through senses and a propensity and capacity to form narratives from the interactions of memory and senses, comes from the 'static' (in relation to the individual) memory of DNA, an evolutionary memory. So the first story is written in the body and brain, and tells the story of the story-teller. That is instinct and intuition as I see them, and nothing mystical there.

But I think that there must first be an inner capacity to make sense of things, and this inner capacity allows us to construct things from what we perceive with the senses. That is why I would rather place the "inner" aspect of consciousness as prior to the sensing aspect. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is when you use the words 'capacity', 'freedom', and 'creativity' that I start to reach my mystical singularity, where stories must end as explanations, and where they come from. Everything one can know, everything one can grasp, everything that makes sense, comes from the past, and this is the physicalist story that is all stories - almost. But we know, as part of that story, that the past is inadequate to the future; we know too that the emptiness of the vacuum is seething with activity.

So there is a capacity, an emptiness, that is capable of originating the new at any moment, and there can be no explanation of it, because an explanation would relate it to the past and it is new, original. Not the capacity is new, it is always there, but what comes from it comes from nothing, and that is what makes it original and creative. It is not thought, not memory, not sensation, though it functions through all of these. Let's call it 'consciousness', as it appears in humans.

No the I is the nexus of disorder, dreaming is the brain's attempt at rectification of this disorder

No the I is the nexus of disorder, dreaming is the brain's attempt at rectification of this disorder — JJJJS

Aren't "nexus" and "disorder" mutually exclusive, making this statement contradictory?

I mean nexus as in the centre of something

So how would disorder have a centre?

The centre of disorder is the I

It is when you use the words 'capacity', 'freedom', and 'creativity' that I start to reach my mystical singularity, where stories must end as explanations, and where they come from. Everything one can know, everything one can grasp, everything that makes sense, comes from the past, and this is the physicalist story that is all stories - almost. But we know, as part of that story, that the past is inadequate to the future; we know too that the emptiness of the vacuum is seething with activity.

So there is a capacity, an emptiness, that is capable of originating the new at any moment, and there can be no explanation of it, because an explanation would relate it to the past and it is new, original. Not the capacity is new, it is always there, but what comes from it comes from nothing, and that is what makes it original and creative. It is not thought, not memory, not sensation, though it functions through all of these. Let's call it 'consciousness', as it appears in humans. — unenlightened

Let me explore this "mystical singularity", will you? Consider the word "original". Something original, as you use the word, is something new, created, something which comes from nothing. Also, there is another sense of "original" which signifies going back to the beginning, the very first. Do you see, that despite very different meanings, there is a similarity here, because they both refer to something coming from nothing, a first.

However, "original" in the sense that you used it isn't really something coming from nothing, because creating something new is a matter of turning to the inside, the intuition and instinct, and using that part of one's consciousness to create something new. It's what you described already, the imagination. And if it's not coming from nothing, it's coming from that evolutionary memory within, what you referred to as DNA. So this directs us back toward "original" in the sense of the very first. In a way then, to create something "original", to be productive in this way, to produce something out of nothing, is to turn toward "the original", which is the coming into being of life and DNA in the first place.

But this idea of a first, a something coming from nothing seems rather repugnant to me. It seems unreasonable to me, to think that something could come from nothing. That's why when you described being creative, and original, as producing something from nothing, I turned to the inner instinct and intuition, imagination, to say that it didn't really come from nothing. So when I turn to the evolutionary memory, the DNA, and think about the first, the original life on earth, I don't think of this as something coming from nothing.

The centre of disorder is the I — JJJJS

But how could there be a centre of disorder? Only specific ordered forms actually have a centre. Disorder could not have a centre, and to refer to a centre is to say that it isn't really disorder. So it would be contradictory to say that disorder has a centre because giving it a centre is to give it some order.

Can we separate the I from the apparent "disorder" which surrounds it? The I is not part of the disorder then, it is a little piece of self-determined order in the midst of disorder. Since it is surrounded by disorder, it apprehends itself as in "the centre". But isn't this a kind of delusion, to apprehend oneself as the centre?

But isn't this a kind of delusion, to apprehend oneself as the centre? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah it is, hence the inherent disorder

But the disorder is not in the "I", which is the self-determined "order", it surrounds the "I". The delusion is in thinking that the I is the centre of the disorder. It is delusional to think of the I as part of the disorder, as its centre, because this is to claim that the disorder has an order (a centre).

But the disorder is not in the "I", which is the self-determined "order", it surrounds the "I". — Metaphysician Undercover

The I being self-determined sounds like a contradiction..

It's not the "I" which is self-determined, but the order is self-determined by the I. Have you never thought that the reason you are an orderly person is because you order yourself? It might be contrary to what you believe, but I don't see how that it is contradictory.

It's not myself that brings order; that would be intelligence.

But this idea of a first, a something coming from nothing seems rather repugnant to me. It seems unreasonable to me, to think that something could come from nothing. That's why when you described being creative, and original, as producing something from nothing, I turned to the inner instinct and intuition, imagination, to say that it didn't really come from nothing. So when I turn to the evolutionary memory, the DNA, and think about the first, the original life on earth, I don't think of this as something coming from nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is certainly an odd notion I have, but there is a logic that I find persuasive. If something 'comes from' somewhere, it is not new, but merely a rearrangement and continuation of the old; this is the dictatorship of the reasonable, and it governs much of our lives, and much of the universe. But if that is all there is, then it seems to me there can be no freedom, one is reduced to a cog in the deterministic machine. DNA arises from the shuffling of the molecular cards, man arises from the shuffling of the genetic cards, and the theory of relativity arises from the shuffling of the conceptual cards. It leaves consciousness without any function, because choice and decision has to presume freedom.

So it seems to me that even if it is not true, the story we tell of ourselves must necessarily include our freedom, and freedom means unconditioned by the past, just as determined means determined by the past. It's curious how a discussion of consciousness involves these other philosophical strands of time and determinism...