should we start training ourselves on how to conceive or imagine?
Everything we imagine or generate in our minds is a product of an already existing element — BrianW
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
But there is much to creativity, and very little to my understanding of it, so.... :wink: — Pattern-chaser
should we start training ourselves on how to conceive or imagine? — BrianW
Everything we imagine or generate in our minds is a product of an already existing element. — 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: — Pattern-chaser
How would we go about this? — JupiterJess
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.. — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — BrianW
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. — BrianW
Yes, we do figure out a lot of new stuff. But, they are only new to us. — BrianW
Mathematics may seem like a new creation until we realise that all of its relations are natural phenomena which could still exist without mathematics. — BrianW
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. — BrianW
Mathematics may seem like a new creation until we realise that all of its relations are derived from natural phenomena which would still exist without our knowledge of mathematics.
David Hume made this argument in his Enquiry concerning human understanding', saying:Everything we imagine or generate in our minds is a product of an already existing element. — BrianW
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 — David Hume
it seems we can't generate a purely abstract idea without drawing on existing knowledge? — Devans99
I think there are genuine new ideas, just not very many of them? — Pattern-chaser
What about Einstein's idea about the relativity of simultaneity? Wasn't this a new idea? — Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry about the incoherent statement. It should have read,
Mathematics may seem like a new creation until we realise that all of its relations are derived from natural phenomena which would still exist without our knowledge of mathematics. — BrianW
That is, instead of imitating nature, we could generate something as unique in its characteristics as if it were a natural phenomenon itself. — BrianW
David Hume made this argument in his Enquiry concerning human understanding', saying:
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 — David Hume
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. — andrewk
Simultaneity of events being dependent on the observer fell out of the maths I think rather than it being a genuine new idea? — Devans99
Can anyone refute this with an example of a genuine new idea? — Devans99
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 — Metaphysician Undercover
I think so. Of course it's very difficult for you to get the idea through to others.So, I think the question still stands, can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc, perhaps even imitate nature? — BrianW
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? — Devans99
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — BrianW
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. — Devans99
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. — Devans99
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). — javra
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
I’m here thinking of the maxim that from nothing comes nothing. — javra
can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc,? — BrianW
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.