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

Aren’t ideas and concepts by their very nature not empirical? This in the modern sense of the word, where empiricism is understood as all experience strictly obtained via the physiological senses. (Lock, Hume, etc. I believe often interpreted “empirical” in ways far more similar to what we’d intend by “experiential”—which ideas and concept are, for we know of them via our direct awareness/experience.)

Given that ideas and concept are not empirical, it’s hard to see understand how one could make a scientific discipline for their empirical study.

As to learning to be more creative, two ideas: a) practicing the allegorical muscle of imagination by more actively imagining things in general and b) (this, to me, given certain assumptions I partially addressed in a previous post) improving one’s total mind’s capacity of creativity by learning how to ask of oneself questions regarding (and with sincere intent to discover) things that are relatively uncertain, abstract, and/or as of yet unknown. Sort of tangentially, one practice I’ve heard of, for example, is that of writing down question to oneself prior to going to sleep, this with the apparent expectation that answers to these questions might be discovered during dreams. Haven’t done this myself though.

The various arts sure are close enough to creative endeavours. But, I'm talking about the process of creation itself. Learning arts doesn't teach you the creation process comprehensively, for example, how would learning music teach you about painting? What I'm trying to understand is if we could make creation a scientific discipline such that no matter the field of art or science, one could create whatever they desired without the current limitations.



Ideas and concepts may not be empirical but our knowledge of them may be said to be objective shared in the sense that we all acknowledge having them and characterize them quite similarly. Considering they are a significant part of our experiences, perhaps we could deal with them more intelligently and seek to understand them further especially in how and why they come to be.

The various arts sure are close enough to creative endeavours. But, I'm talking about the process of creation itself. Learning arts doesn't teach you the creation process comprehensively, for example, how would learning music teach you about painting? What I'm trying to understand is if we could make creation a scientific discipline such that no matter the field of art or science, one could create whatever they desired without the current limitations. — BrianW

You mean just abstracting it so that the techniques could apply to anything? Sure. That would be easy enough, and it's been done to some extent. For example, with the old "Creative Whack Pack," which was inspired by Brian Eno's "Oblique Strategy" cards.

Ideas and concepts may not be empirical but our knowledge of them may be said to be objective shared in the sense that we all acknowledge having them and characterize them quite similarly. — BrianW

:grin: I like that. Objectivity as the quality of being impartially shared between/among all--rather then the property of physicality as it applies to physical entities (which are themselves, after all, impartially perceived by all in the same way, here roughly speaking).

Considering they are a significant part of our experiences, perhaps we could deal with them more intelligently and seek to understand them further especially in how and why they come to be. — BrianW

I very much agree that we should. Yet, again, because they are not something perceived via our physiological senses, I rather envision this investigation occurring via science accordant philosophy. This rather than through strict use of science itself.

But where did the idea of shapes come from if it was not the study of form in nature? — Devans99

Well, consider this. We do see a wide variety of shapes in nature, but when we go to make a shape, drawing or something, we never exactly replicate a natural shape. It may be that sometimes we might try to replicate a shape, but more often than not we are attempting to create a shape which is useful for some reason.

Now think of "the right angle" for example. We do not find right angles existing in nature. The ancient Egyptians found that the right angle was very useful to produce parallel lines in order to layout and divide plots of land, so they developed a system for creating right angles. Later, Pythagoras developed the mathematics required to produce a right angle. The right angle was created, it was not found in nature.

So it seems to me that the idea for different shapes is developed from a need to produce these shapes for pragmatic purposes, not from studying these shapes in nature. After we learn how to produce and define various shapes, we might look for them in nature, but we would have to have already developed the shape prior to looking for it, in order to know what we are looking for.

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. — Devans99

If the Op is not refuted by my earlier argument, and you really need an example for rebuttal, try the "right angle" then.

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? — BrianW

The process is often called "intuition". You'll find a brief discussion in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics on whether intuition is innate or learned. He seemed to conclude that it was a combination of both, but also indicated that he didn't think that it was very important to answer this question, only that it is important to recognize the role of intuition within knowledge. But if intuition can be learned, as you suggest, then we might develop a discipline toward cultivating it.

If the Op is not refuted by my earlier argument, and you really need an example for rebuttal, try the "right angle" then. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well the problem is that we see angles in nature, some larger than 90 degrees some smaller. Arriving at the right angle is just a matter of interpolation between two pre-existing concepts derived from our senses.

No, as I explained above, arriving at the right angle was due to the necessity of creating parallel lines to survey plots of land. It has nothing to do with finding the mean between obtuse and acute angles, these angles are defined by the right angle, not vise versa.

We would naturally divide things up into squares of rectangles as those shapes fit together flushly without any wasted space. So we would probably arrive at the right angle as part of the solution to the question 'how do we divide these fields up efficiently?'. So we solved that problem and observed with our senses part of the solution to the problem was the right angle?

the argument that all ideas come from other ideas — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I wouldn't support that argument. I think the notion is that ideas are either things we have directly experienced - like a colour - or a combination or relation between things we have experienced. With that approach the grounding that ends the regress is the ideas that have been directly experienced.

At first blush, such a perspective appears to downplay the significance of inventions that are considered epoch-making, such as the wheel or electricity. But on further reflection I find they remain just as impressive as before. The brilliance is in seeing a potential useful relationship between two or more things that were observed in completely different contexts and nobody had ever thought of as in any way related before.

For example, somebody has observed rocks rolling down a hill and people walking across the land and then had the brilliant idea that maybe we could use that rock-downhill type of motion (rolling) as a way to transport people and burdens - then voilà we have wheels and carts. Next they observe how strong oxen are and how much strength it takes for people to pull the new carts, and they get the idea of using the oxen to pull the cart.

Yes I wouldn't support that argument. I think the notion is that ideas are either things we have directly experienced - like a colour - or a combination or relation between things we have experienced. With that approach the grounding that ends the regress is the ideas that have been directly experienced. — andrewk

I wonder what it would mean to directly experience an idea. This, what you say here, might provide the appearance of a resolution to the infinite regress, but I think it's just an appearance because it doesn't really say where the idea came from. Did it just pop into existence, as something experienced, or does it rely on prior experiences? What does that really mean, to be a thing, like an idea, which was experienced?

We would naturally divide things up into squares of rectangles as those shapes fit together flushly without any wasted space. So we would probably arrive at the right angle as part of the solution to the question 'how do we divide these fields up efficiently?'. So we solved that problem and observed with our senses part of the solution to the problem was the right angle? — Devans99

Notice, that in your description observing with the senses came after the solution to the problem, not before it. This is the way that science works as well. The mind comes up with the ideas which solve the problem, and empirical observation confirms that the problem has actually been solved.

Did it just pop into existence, as something experienced, or does it rely on prior experiences? — Metaphysician Undiscovered

I would guess the latter. A person sees rocks on several occasions, notices the similarities, and forms an idea of a rock, say starting after the third or fourth sighting and solidifying at about the tenth sighting.

Notice, that in your description observing with the senses came after the solution to the problem, not before i — Metaphysician Undercover

The idea of the right angle is not created directly by the mind; the mind first solves the problem of how to divide the fields, then observes that the result contains a new idea; the right angle.

So it seems in addition to synthesising new ideas from existing ideas, we can also observe new ideas that fall out of mental constructions. But a mental construction is really just picturing something from nature in our mind, so I'm still not convinced we are capable of a truly original thought.

I would guess the latter. A person sees rocks on several occasions, notices the similarities, and forms an idea of a rock, say starting after the third or fourth sighting and solidifying at about the tenth sighting. — andrewk

What is it about this experience which would warrant it being called a "direct experience"? You describe numerous past experiences These would be remembered and therefore not direct, at the time of creating the idea. You also describe an act of noticing similarities. Would this be the "direct" part of the experience, which constitutes the existence of the idea?

So for instance, at the time, after numerous encounters with rocks, when the person sees a rock and is able to say instantaneously, "that is a rock", would this instantaneous recognition qualify as a "direct experience". Or, is it the thinking which is going on around the third or fourth time, in which the person is comparing similarities which qualifies as "direct experience". Perhaps both? If the idea consists of "direct experience", then it doesn't consist of the past memories, being synthesized, it consists of the activity which compares and associates past memories.

The idea of the right angle is not created directly by the mind; the mind first solves the problem of how to divide the fields, then observes that the result contains a new idea; the right angle. — Devans99

Doesn't this describe the mind directly creating something, though you are saying that it isn't a direct creation? At one time, there was a problem which existed, and there was no such thing as "the right angle" at that time. Some minds resolved the problem by coming up with a new idea "the right angle". Surely this is a description of the mind creating a new idea, "the right angle". The problem was solved by creating the idea. On what basis would you say that this is not a case of the mind creating an idea?

So it seems in addition to synthesising new ideas from existing ideas, we can also observe new ideas that fall out of mental constructions. But a mental construction is really just picturing something from nature in our mind, so I'm still not convinced we are capable of a truly original thought. — Devans99

Why are you going back to this refuted premise? We've just agreed that the mind came up with the right angle not by picturing something in nature, but by solving a problem. And now you've gone back to re-state this refuted premise that mental construction is just picturing something from nature. Haven't you ever noticed that artificial things look completely different from natural things? So it is impossible that mental construction is just picturing things from nature.

Doesn't this describe the mind directly creating something, though you are saying that it isn't a direct creation? At one time, there was a problem which existed, and there was no such thing as "the right angle" at that time. Some minds resolved the problem by coming up with a new idea "the right angle". — Metaphysician Undercover

When I think of dividing a field, I start to think of shapes in my mind. Where did the shape ideas come from if not from my senses? We find approximate right angles in nature so the idea could have come from our senses too.

Haven't you ever noticed that artificial things look completely different from natural things? — Metaphysician Undercover

Artificial things tend to be inspired by things from nature.

Is a computer capable of truly original thought? I would say no. The outputs of the computer are determined by the inputs and logic. The logic can only deduce new ideas from existing. So the output is determined by the input. We are like computers. Our inputs determine our outputs. When we create 'new' information we use deduction/induction to turn old information into new. So there seems to be no purely new information that does not trace its heritage back to old information and eventually to our senses (our inputs using the computer analogy).

A computer has memory but that can only be filled via inputs.

What is it about this experience which would warrant it being called a "direct experience"? You describe numerous past experiences These would be remembered and therefore not direct, at the time of creating the idea. — Metaphysician Undercover

We can drop the term 'direct' if that is seen as an obstacle. It does no work in the sentences where I used it. I suppose I may be guilty of tautology, as where somebody says "I'll meet you at nine am tomorrow morning".

When I think of dividing a field, I start to think of shapes in my mind. Where did the shape ideas come from if not from my senses? We find approximate right angles in nature so the idea could have come from our senses too. — Devans99

Sorry Devans99, but that's an extremely lame argument. You asked for an idea of something, which does not exist in nature, and I gave you one. Now you say that the example is no good because there could be approximations to this idea in nature. But an approximation is not the same thing, so your argument fails. We have the conception of a perfect circle, but there are no perfect circles in nature. That's the difference between the ideal, (perfection), and what exists in nature (the imperfect). Your position is hopelessly untenable, because I just need to offer as an example, the idea of the ideal, perfection, and clearly this is not something existing in nature. And the fact that the ideal must be absolutely perfect and in no way an approximation, indicates that the ideal cannot be derived from approximations.

Is a computer capable of truly original thought? I would say no. The outputs of the computer are determined by the inputs and logic. The logic can only deduce new ideas from existing. So the output is determined by the input. We are like computers. Our inputs determine our outputs. When we create 'new' information we use deduction/induction to turn old information into new. So there seems to be no purely new information that does not trace its heritage back to old information and eventually to our senses (our inputs using the computer analogy). — Devans99

Wow, I thought the last argument was bad, this one's even worse. A computer is not capable of original thought. We are like computers. Therefore we are not capable of original thought.

I thought the last argument was bad, this one's even worse — Metaphysician Undercover

How exactly do our minds differ from computers?

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:

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:

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.]

We adopted the base 10 positional system some time back and we used to leave a space where zero would appear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0#History

So zero may have been inspired by nothing (IE that space).

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

No, but the question remains 'is it possible to have a truly original thought?'

IE one not inspired by any other earlier thought/observation.

How exactly do our minds differ from computers? — Devans99

Mind is a property of a living being, a computer is an inanimate object

No, but the question remains 'is it possible to have a truly original thought?'

IE one not inspired by any other earlier thought/observation. — Devans99

I answered this already with deductive logic. Let me repeat it clearly:

P1, If all thoughts are inspired by earlier thoughts, then since there are thoughts now, it would be the case that there has always been thoughts.
P2, Thoughts are a property of living beings.
P3, There has not always been living beings.
C1 from P2, P3, There has not always been thoughts.
C2 from P1 and C1, Not all thoughts are inspired by earlier thoughts.

But P1 does not hold; some thoughts are inspired by our senses.

I was following what you stated:

No, but the question remains 'is it possible to have a truly original thought?'

IE one not inspired by any other earlier thought/observation. — Devans99

By observation, I meant derived from our senses.

So you mean inspired by an earlier thought or sensation?

Yes. Going back to the computer analogy, our senses are the only input mechanism we have so all information must ultimately be traced back to something from our senses.

Consider this Devans99. 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.