If it is derived, I'd say it is not truly original.

Nothing comes from nothing. "Original" does not mean that it came from nothing, that would be nonsense.

So I think creation of 'new' ideas is more like filling in links. We start with an existing idea (which can be traced back to our senses) and what we create is the link to a new idea, via deduction/induction.

So its the deduction/induction is new and the premise always traces back to our senses?

But it's not possible to deduce/induce something from nothing. So an idea without a premise is impossible?

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

This, and your associated posts, sum it all up very nicely. :up: Well said. :smile:

I think creation of 'new' ideas is more like filling in links. We start with an existing idea (which can be traced back to our senses) and what we create is the link to a new idea, via deduction/induction. — Devans99

You discount creativity, then? New ideas, even if they aren't truly original, as discussed, cannot be derived by deduction or induction. Creativity includes an element of chaos, randomness and disorder, and its output cannot always be understood in the logical/rational terms you present.

Training to conceive... — BrianW

My own lifetime of experience in a creative profession tells me that "conception" can't be taught. I am open to learning otherwise...? :chin:

the question remains 'is it possible to have a truly original thought?' — Devans99

Of course it's possible. If it was not, there would never have been any original thoughts. But there have been many of us, over many millennia, having thoughts, so many common thoughts have been thought before. Therefore original thoughts are less common now, than earlier on, when fewer thoughts had already been thought. And yet there are still original thoughts out there, waiting for someone to think them. :wink: Aren't I just stating the obvious here? :chin:

You discount creativity, then? New ideas, even if they aren't truly original, as discussed, cannot be derived by deduction or induction. Creativity includes an element of chaos, randomness and disorder, and its output cannot always be understood in the logical/rational terms you present — Pattern-chaser

No-one so far has managed to come up with an example of a truly new idea; IE something that does not trace it's heritage to an old idea or observation.

As I said above, I believe we are like computers. A certain input generates a certain output. Computers can't generate truly original information so why should we be able to?

Computers can't generate truly original information so why should we be able to? — Devans99

Because we have mental abilities that computers don't? :roll:

Computer: input -> logic -> output
Us: senses->logic-> action

Everything we can deduce/adduce is from our senses. Our memory is filled with things deduced from our senses. I don't see where 'original thoughts' can come from?

Thanks P-c.

Everything we can deduce/adduce is from our senses. Our memory is filled with things deduced from our senses. I don't see where 'original thoughts' can come from? — Devans99

That's because you seem unable to move beyond that which can be "deduced/adduced".

That's because you seem unable to move beyond that which can be "deduced/adduced" — Pattern-chaser

How else do we derive new knowledge? It seems its always via links to existing knowledge (and ultimately to our senses).

I'm not saying its abduction/deduction only that we use, but whatever we use (heuristics etc...) it seems to take existing ideas as input.

That's because you seem unable to move beyond that which can be "deduced/adduced". — Pattern-chaser

How else do we derive new knowledge? It seems its always via links to existing knowledge (and ultimately to our senses). — Devans99

According to the definition of "deduce" and "original", you cannot deduce anything original. If C can be deduced from A and B (previously-known facts), then C follows directly from A and B, logically and unavoidably. So I don't think we could make a case for C being original.

I'm not saying its abduction/deduction only that we use, but whatever we use (heuristics etc...) it seems to take existing ideas as input. — Devans99

Even this is not an issue. If we take existing ideas that are, at our current state of knowledge, unrelated, and we establish an unexpected (but useful! :wink:) connection between them, that connection is new and original.

f we take existing ideas that are, at our current state of knowledge, unrelated, and we establish an unexpected (but useful! :wink:) connection between them, that connection is new and original. — Pattern-chaser

I agree the connection is new. But the existing idea traces its heritage to an older idea or directly to our senses. So inspiration seems to be providing those new links (via deduction or whatever).

So inspiration seems to be providing those new links (via deduction or whatever). — Devans99

As we have already demonstrated, new things cannot be deduced, because things that can be deduced from facts we already have, are not new, they are derived. But the thought that resulted from that "inspiration" (or vice versa, I'm not sure :smile:) is an original one.

I understand your point of view and am partially supportive of it. However, I'm still thinking,

What is it that is known, sometimes even learnt, that makes a person adequate at formulating solutions?

By learning the many rules and directives which are governed by reason, we unwittingly also realize how to exceed those limits. However, even when we exceed the limits, we still find ourselves withing certain other limits. As chaotic or random as we like to think the creative process can be, I think it is still largely constrained within certain bounds of reason. Sometimes the only evidence for this is found in the purpose of a creation's existence or in its inherent utility. The specific conditions or character of a creative endeavour may determine it to be less random than we often suppose.

I don't know, even though creativity seems to work in the subconscious planes of our minds, there seems to be, at least, mental guidelines which the process follows. There seems to be something common, reliable and replicable about our creative process that makes it less random or chaotic.

I must also concede that, as confounding as I find creativity to be, I have not given any reason why it could be scientifically reprogrammed. So, perhaps, mine is purely a mental exercise. Though... (something puzzling about it which I can't seem to put my finger on)

Here is one of the more common steps thought to be key to the creative process. Various investigators seem to have different ideas though they seem to match in terms of sequence.

From https://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-steps-creative-process-model-10338.html


5 STEPS IN THE CREATIVE PROCESS MODEL

Creativity does not just happen. It is a cognitive process that produces new ideas or transforms old ideas into updated concepts, according to Brussels Free University psychology professor Liane Gabora. Scientists such as Jacques Hadamard and Henri Poincaré studied the creative process and contributed to the Creative Process Model, which explains how an individual can form seemingly random thoughts into an ideal combination or solution, according to the website The Information Philosopher.

Preparation
During the preparation step of the creative process model, an individual becomes curious after encountering a problem. Examples of problems can include an artistic challenge or an assignment to write a paper. During this stage, she may perform research, creates goals, organize thoughts and brainstorm as different ideas formulate. For example, a marketing professional may prepare for a marketing campaign by conducting market research and formulating different advertisement ideas.

Incubation
While the individual begins to process her ideas, she begins to synthesize them using her imagination and begins to construct a creation. Gabora states that during this step, the individual does not actively try a find a solution, but continues to mull over the idea in the back of her head.

Illumination
As ideas begin to mature, the individual has an epiphany regarding how to piece her thoughts together in a manner that makes sense. The moment of illumination can happen unexpectedly. For example, an individual with the task of putting together an office party may have an idea for a theme while driving home from work.

Evaluation
After a solution reveals itself in an epiphany, the individual then evaluates whether the insight is worth the pursuit. He may make changes to his solution so it is clearer. He may consult with peers or supervisors regarding his insights during this step before pursuing it further. If he works with clients, he may seek a client’s input and approval before moving on to the next step.

Implementation
The implementation of an idea or solution in the creative process model is when an individual begins the process of transforming her thoughts into a final product. For example, during this step, a painter may begin outlining shapes on a canvas with charcoal before applying oil paints to the medium. According to Gabora, an individual may begin this step more than once in order to reach the desired outcome. For example, a graphic designer may open a new digital canvas if he did not have the scale calculated correctly on a previous work, and he will continue to implement his ideas and make adjustments until he reaches a pleasing final product.

References (3)
1. Cogprints.org ; Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Creative Process; Liane Gabora; 2002
2. Dictionary of Creativity; Stages of the Creative Process; Eugene Gorny; 2007
3. The Information Philosopher: Jacques Hadamard


Hope this helps.

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

Hume does not say that would be a NEW idea, but that it would not correspond to an effective sensation. Thus, being an exception to his established general law that: every idea has a correspondent sensation.

The funny thing here is, that much later(calculus, set theory; then labbra calculus) it emerges that the concept of a function as correspondence presupposes concepts(specific domain and codomain).

As we have already demonstrated, new things cannot be deduced, because things that can be deduced from facts we already have, are not new, they are derived. But the thought that resulted from that "inspiration" (or vice versa, I'm not sure :smile:) is an original one. — Pattern-chaser

What about the identification of new axioms of infinity in mathematical logic? Do you consider them new or just derived from the preceding ones? And what about theorems?

I like the «inspiration arises from thought» scenario.

What about the identification of new axioms of infinity in mathematical logic? Do you consider them new or just derived from the preceding ones? — Ikolos

To be quite honest - who cares? The value of an idea is in its usefulness, not in its novelty.

Not at all: the possibility of deriving something effectively is what distinguish what we know and what we can not say we know. If your contention were true there would be no criteria to establish in which direction orientates a research with uncertain results, except on some kind of unspecified usefulness.

Furthermore, you're hiding something: if an idea is useful, and if we rest on usefulness alone, there is no other way than casual discovery to search for another, because we may rely on the first occurring useful idea. Using this kind of reasoning, only casualty, and not reasoning, would have been the source of discovery such as calculus(which deepest origin is: how to calculate the area of a circle), its application to physics and the incredible development of technology.

Explicitly you are saying, that(and this is so disputable) we CLASSIFY ideas on the criterion of their usefulness, which, in this case, is COMPARATIVE criterion not a GENERATIVE, as I requested you to give your account on.

The value of an idea is in its usefulness, not in its novelty. — Pattern-chaser

Not at all: the possibility of deriving something effectively is what distinguish what we know and what we can not say we know. If your contention were true there would be no criteria to establish in which direction orientates a research with uncertain results, except on some kind of unspecified usefulness.

Furthermore, you're hiding something: if an idea is useful, and if we rest on usefulness alone, there is no other way than casual discovery to search for another, because we may rely on the first occurring useful idea. Using this kind of reasoning, only casualty, and not reasoning, would have been the source of discovery such as calculus(which deepest origin is: how to calculate the area of a circle), its application to physics and the incredible development of technology.

Explicitly you are saying, that(and this is so disputable) we CLASSIFY ideas on the criterion of their usefulness, which, in this case, is COMPARATIVE criterion not a GENERATIVE, as I requested you to give your account on. — Ikolos

Explicitly, I am saying that the value of an idea lies in its utility. Nothing you have said impinges on that statement, as far as I can see. You made no "request", only gave an example, and asked a question, which I answered. :roll:

I thought I'd add some thoughts to this discussion.

The generation of new ideas and the discovery of technology is a kind of harmonious union between mind and nature.

I recently had a dream wherein I saw objects existing in multiple circular chambers. They would move so each object could exist next to each other object. Than a voice said something like "this is how the mind works." Its cycles within cycles, synthesis.

I think the discovery of electro-magnetism is a prime example of how unity or synthesis results in new scientific findings.

It really is a clear way of looking at it. Creativity is synthesis.

I think your phrasing is a bit off:
We create through synthesis.