Everything we imagine or generate in our minds is a product of an already existing element — BrianW

I believe you are correct; our minds seem to link existing concepts and map concepts across domains rather than creating new concepts.

I tried to think of a counter-example. What about God? Perhaps we pick up the concept from our earthly father and project it into the spiritual domain. The spiritual is largely a human invention though but perhaps we have just cross-domain mapped existence into the realm of the dead and come up with the concept of the spiritual?

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:

But there is much to creativity, and very little to my understanding of it, so.... :wink: — Pattern-chaser

I don't understand it either but intuitively it feels like a network of concepts. We draw links between existing concepts to create 'new ideas'. Like I've just done; taken a concept from computing and linked it to the concept of the mind. All new information comes in via our senses I think; it seems we can't generate a purely abstract idea without drawing on existing knowledge?

How would you go about this?

should we start training ourselves on how to conceive or imagine? — BrianW

How would we go about this?

Everything we imagine or generate in our minds is a product of an already existing element. — BrianW

I disagree. If this were the case, then nothing new could have ever been thought up. But clearly subjects like mathematics demonstrates that all sorts of new stuff is thought up all the time. Also, consider dreaming. I don't know about you, but in my dreams I see all sorts of new things which are clearly not a synthesis of existing elements from my memory. They are new creations..

I think our conception of God is largely defined by the limits we attribute to ourselves. For example, omni-potence/science/presence is in comparison to the relative power, intelligence and presence we possess.

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?

How would we go about this? — JupiterJess

I think, first, we imitate the already existing methodology used in scientific investigations. This is because, fundamentally, they are based on utility and are directed to or validated by empiricism. For example, how science investigates the unknown. It begins with the known, then formulates patterns of association with as little deviation as possible from the known mean. In this way, whatever is achieved, has a higher probability of manifesting empirically than otherwise. An example of this would be our ideas of mutants or enhanced humans. Some of those ideas are based on improved natural mechanisms already manifest in humans such as body-builders who can lift 1000 pounds by using certain enhancements.
Anyway, my aim is to question the significance of such a progression. I am in no way qualified to determine such a system of practice. I would just like to hear what your thoughts are on this and what possible ramifications could arise if conception was, to a degree, made scientific?

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

Yes, we do figure out a lot of new stuff. But, they are only new to us. Mathematics may seem like a new creation until we realise that all of its relations are natural phenomena which could still exist without mathematics. Even the symbols used in mathematics themselves seem to be derived from observed phenomena though over the years they have been refined into higher levels of simplicity or complexity depending on their application.
I don't know much about dreams but I think that it's impossible for them to contain elements which are not borrowed from memory or derived from perception. To me, even the fantastic in dreams seems just as much a montage of objects/subjects of our perception as well as other already formed concepts.

I 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 wonder how we first perceived of the spirit world, the world after death. We would have no first hand knowledge of that, but I guess we just took as an example of everyday life and mapped that idea into the new domain of after death. How did we come to think of what happens after death? Survival is our number one instinct and is programmed into us so I guess its just a natural link to make.

There is nothing new under sun the old saying goes.

I'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

I grant this as minimally being an accurate generality, but believe that when two or more distinct concepts become synthesized this will in and of itself create a new distinct concept—one which is itself other than the parent concepts, so to speak.

To analogize these mental events with more tangibly physical events: two people, via their gametes, will synthesize into an offspring. The baby, throughout the span of its life, will be utterly other in relation to its two biological parents—yet it was only the product of a physiological synthesis between the unique physiologies of the two parents.

As this physical baby is “new to the world” so then can ideas and concepts strictly obtained via the successful synthesis of other ideas and concepts be new to the world. Given this train of reasoning, in so synthesizing, we then engage in acts of creation as pertains to new ideas and concepts.

Yes, we do figure out a lot of new stuff. But, they are only new to us. — BrianW

Don't you think that some people figure out stuff that's new to everyone? What about Einstein's idea about the relativity of simultaneity? Wasn't this a new idea?

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

How does this make sense to you? Mathematics is relations which could exist without mathematics. What's that supposed to mean? Mathematics could exist without mathematics? How is this supposed to imply that mathematics actually could exist without mathematics?

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

Just because you think that it's impossible for dreams to contain elements not borrowed from memory, doesn't men that this is the case. I've had a lot of dreams, and I'm very sure that there are a lot of elements there which didn't come from memory or perception. Why do you think that this is impossible? Have you no imagination? Suppose an artist takes a canvas and paint, and produces a piece of art. Would you think that all the elements which the artist produces on the canvas must represent something the artist has already sensed? Why can't the artist create something new, like an abstract work?

I'm not denying the fact of new representations. For example, a new model of a car is still just a car. A new-born human is just a human. By creativity, I mean generating a distinct concept which can be characterized independently of its source material. This is why I consider most creations as a synthesis. However, admittedly, you're right, they're just as much creations.
It seems to me that, outside of nature, there's very little 'pure' creativity, so to speak. Even the mechanism of human reproduction is not distinctly generated by our mental capabilities. The whole process works in the same way it does for most animals and only because it is a part of nature.

So, I think the question still stands, can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc, perhaps even imitate nature?

Sorry about the incoherent statement. It should have read,

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.

I think mathematics is a way of expressing our concepts, ideas, etc, without the bias of how they are generated. So far, as I've seen from my experience, most of what we call creative is largely a combination of imitation and synthesis of elements borrowed from nature or the laws of nature. I'm not against referring to such as creations, but I wonder whether by developing a discipline in creativity, we can better understand how nature does it and perhaps, maybe someday in the future skip the middleman. That is, instead of imitating nature, we could generate something as unique in its characteristics as if it were a natural phenomenon itself.

When I say that by creativity I mean generating a distinct concept which can be characterized independently of its source material, I refer to something like an animal, in the sense of, the animal kingdom. While an animal is composed of the same basic organisation which is fundamental to everything else, let's call them atoms in this case, the distinct characteristics which make them animals begin at a further degree of complexity. By this I mean genetics. The genetic material of animals, being protein in nature, is already a few degrees more complex in scale and structure than the atoms. So while the atoms may be part of the fundamental make-up, the animal character seems to rely on the more complex configuration of genetic material for its expressions. This is the perspective I have when I refer to creativity or creations.

So, is it possible to create a phenomenon so distinct as to be indistinguishable from natural phenomena? And, to arrive at such capabilities, shouldn't we train our creative abilities of conception/imagination?

Everything we imagine or generate in our minds is a product of an already existing element. — 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.

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.]

I think there are genuine new ideas, just not very many of them? — Pattern-chaser

I've been trying to think of an example of a genuine new idea and have failed so far.

What about Einstein's idea about the relativity of simultaneity? Wasn't this a new idea? — Metaphysician Undercover

Simultaneity of events being dependent on the observer fell out of the maths I think rather than it being a genuine new idea?

Zero came from consideration of emptiness. Infinity from consideration of the very large.

Can anyone refute this with an example of a genuine new idea?

"Synthesizing" is what creating something is.

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

I still don't think I agree with you. Suppose someone observes some natural phenomena and creates some ideas concerning these phenomena. In a sense, you can say that the ideas are "derived" from that phenomena, but the person does not take elements from the observed objects and use those within the mind, to produce something. The person creates representations, images and symbols, and creates something from this. We cannot properly say that representations are taken from, or "derived" from the observed objects because they are more like symbols, signs and images created to represent what was observed, That's how memory works through representation.

This separation between what was observed, and the memory of it, is the separation that Kant refers to, which makes direct realism unappealing. It is also this separation which supports dualism, and it doesn't suffice to just dismiss the separation because we don't like dualism. The separation is very real and must be explained, and understood.

That is, instead of imitating nature, we could generate something as unique in its characteristics as if it were a natural phenomenon itself. — BrianW

But isn't imitation itself the creation of something new? The imitation is not the thing imitated, it is distinct. Where does it come from? The imitation does not come from the thing imitated, it comes from the desire to imitate. So it is a false proposition, or false representation, to say that the imitation is derived from the thing imitated.

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

There is a real problem with the argument that all ideas come from other ideas, and that is the infinite regress in the existence of ideas. This is very similar to the problem Plato approached in the Meno, I believe it was, which is represented today as the theory of recollection. It was argued that all knowledge consisted of elements recollected from before. So learning something new is simply a case of recollection of things from previous lives. The glaring problem is the infinite temporal regress of existence of ideas. But assuming this infinite regress as the accurate understanding, is what supports the Platonic notion of eternal ideas.

Now, we know that human beings and thinking life forms have not been around forever, so we cannot support this notion that new ideas are just a new arrangement of older ideas. If thinking beings came into existence, then the ideas which they think must come into existence as well, or else we'd have ideas prior to thinking beings. So it makes no sense to say that ideas just come from other ideas because of that infinite regress, and the fact that thinking beings came into existence, in time.

Simultaneity of events being dependent on the observer fell out of the maths I think rather than it being a genuine new idea? — Devans99

"Fell out of the math"? Don't you mean that understanding the math fostered the generation of this idea?

Can anyone refute this with an example of a genuine new idea? — Devans99

There is no need to produce a "genuine new idea" to refute this notion. All we need to do is to refer to the temporal infinite regress of ideas, I've explained above. If every new idea requires an old one prior to it in time, then since we have ideas now, existing, there could be no prior time without any ideas. Now, if we insist on this position, we have to account for the existence of ideas prior to the existence of thinking beings, because the thinking beings necessarily got their ideas from prior ideas. This would force us into some sort of Platonic realism.

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

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?

Humans look for and notice patterns. That's what we are wired to do.

It's evident in the reaction we have when we see something totally new: we'll say it is "like this or that". In order to describe something we need to use descriptions that others understand. And in ideas and concepts this is even more obvious. If there emerges a totally new ideology in the 2070's the new ideology wouldn't open us as to those that understand in the future what it is about.

So, I think the question still stands, can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc, perhaps even imitate nature? — BrianW

I think so. Of course it's very difficult for you to get the idea through to others.

The system is actually simple: first you are familiar with concepts or ideas for some certain field. Then you come up with a new concept / idea. Then you doublecheck the literature and everything that someone hasn't already come up with the idea. Now if that new concept or idea would be also useful, then you have really made it.

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

Do the ideas exist within the objects that we sense, and we "pick up" the ideas from the things through sensation? Or, are the ideas created in the act of sensing, so that the ideas are distinct from the object sensed? I think that the latter is the case, and it is foolish to think that we pick up ideas from the objects sensed.

How could ideas be "deduced from our senses'? Senses cannot deduce. Nor can senses produce ideas. ideas are required for deduction, so we cannot say that deduction is responsible for creating the primitive ideas. If some form of logic were responsible for creation of the primitive ideas it would be more like induction or abduction. Maybe some primitive logic could work with images from memory, or something like that, to produce ideas from something which is not actually ideas.

The thing to remember though, is that the images, and memories created by a mind are distinct from the objects which are remembered or represented by the memories. So basing ideas in a more primitive mental activity doesn't get us past the problem that I'm presenting, and that is that the things within the mind are distinct from the things sensed. The things within the mind therefore cannot be said to be created from, synthesized from, or in any way consisting of the things sensed.

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

Sorry I mean ideas are inspired by our senses. Maybe the wheel is a good example. Presumably the idea came about from seeing how circular things roll in nature. Stones and such perhaps. So it's the image of a round stone rolling which creates the idea of 'round' and 'rolling' in the mind.

So our senses map to neutrons in the mind somehow. The visual ideas of 'round' and 'rolling' appear in the mind. These ideas are then cross domain mapped to domain of tools/handycraft where the anonymous inventor of the wheel has his idea.

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

The thought of a hovercraft came to mind. At some last point in history the idea/concept of a hovercraft was not present—though cars, airplanes, and helicopters were (haven’t done my research but I presume something along these lines). Then, right after this period, the idea/concept of a hovercraft became present. A hybrid idea of something between cars and helicopters that then holds the capacity to engage in a hovering sort of flight. As ideas go, it would be, when allegorically expressed, a new species of idea: neither car, nor airplane, nor helicopter.

I’d also like to add that I’m quite certain that our unconscious minds think, and—as an example—in so doing, that they sometimes synthesize concepts just right, subsequent to which the new ideas are kicked up into consciousness, thereby producing eureka moments which we term moments of inspiration of insight.

So this process of creating new ideas is not always—maybe not typically—something which we as conscious egos do ourselves. Come to think of it—if I remember my history right—the theory of relativity was reputedly first conceived during a dream of sleep, this according to Einstein. (If wrong, may I be corrected.) Hence, not by the awoken conscious ego but by the unconscious mind’s thoughts while the total being was sleeping (though dreams are to me a complex subject when it comes to experience and awareness—we as egos are after all aware of our dreams while dreaming).

Currently, it seems to me that you might be asking too much from the notions of creation and creativity. I’m here thinking of the maxim that from nothing comes nothing.

If you don’t intend this maxim, then how would any creation not be accomplished via use of something that previously is/was? [To try to avoid questions regarding metaphysical implications, I for one uphold that the beginning of being is unknowable to us beings, period.]

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

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.

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

Again, I think that this expresses a gross misunderstanding.

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

For a long time, I've known that my most creative, and inspirational time of day is first thing in the morning. More recently, I've come to realize that a lot of my most creative ideas are derived from things which have come from dreams, though I previously didn't recognize where the creative ideas came from because I didn't remember them as coming from dreams, I just had these ideas in the morning. A few times now, I've awoken with ideas that have come directly from dreams, remembered from the dreams and recognized as useful, I've transferred them into actual useful creative ideas.

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

Yea, dreams are a very interesting field of study I for the most part consider so far unexplored. Freud I think ruined it for a great portion of people; then again, I’m not big on Freud. Many in the field believe that dreams have an important role in the formation of long-term memories*; and, as we all know, lack of sleep can be devastating to the psyche (if not eventually lethal). Though I don’t look upon him (or anyone) as being without faults, I do like certain aspects of Hume’s notion of self as mind. In particular, that of it being a commonwealth (I’ll here skip my partial disagreements with his same stance). When we’re awake, this commonwealth—imo—becomes relatively unified at a conscious level in mostly undifferentiable ways; although there are things such as a conscience or pangs of emotion we sense affecting us that occasionally directly evidence to us the commonwealth that is; but most of this commonwealth enters into what we term the unconscious (again, imo) when we’re awake. But in dreams, the commonwealth becomes apparent to us, taking the form of dreamt entities which often hold their own agency in addition to ideas which we there are exposed to via symbolism. Yea, the nature of dreams is an interesting subject to explore—especially since a significant amount of our novel ideas as humans come from dreams.

I can relate, btw. (wanted to say something in addition to this)

* a link to back up that statement: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dream-catcher/201602/are-dreams-required-memory

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

But where did the idea of shapes come from if it was not the study of form in nature?

This thread is long and no-one has yet come up with a single undeniably original idea which lends a lot of weight to the OP opinion.

Thanks guys for the feedback.

I’m here thinking of the maxim that from nothing comes nothing. — javra

This is true. Something must be conceived from something.


Let's not get caught up in how we categorize phenomena (this is my fault for including that controversial statement) and focus more on the question at hand, which is, can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc,?

Some would say we don't need to learn because the process is inherent in our minds. But, I find it to be too crude and ill-governed as it is presently and I wonder if we could develop it further into a scientific process that can be designated as creation or conception?

Can we take the little we know of this mental process and develop it into a scientific discipline?

can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc,? — BrianW

Sure, we can teach and learn how to generate ideas. We do that all the time in the arts. We teach music composition, creative writing, visual arts, etc., and part of that is teaching how to generate material, how to get past writer's block, etc.