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 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
Ideas and concepts may not be empirical but our knowledge of them may be said to beobjectiveshared in the sense that we all acknowledge having them and characterize them quite similarly. — BrianW
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
But where did the idea of shapes come from if it was not the study of form in nature? — Devans99
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
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
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
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.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. — andrewk
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
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.Did it just pop into existence, as something experienced, or does it rely on prior experiences? — Metaphysician Undiscovered
Notice, that in your description observing with the senses came after the solution to the problem, not before i — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
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
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
Haven't you ever noticed that artificial things look completely different from natural things? — 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".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
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
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
I thought the last argument was bad, this one's even worse — Metaphysician Undercover
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
[ My highlighting.]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
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
How exactly do our minds differ from computers? — Devans99
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
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
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.