That I find is a very good question! Can any question be answered by just yes, or no. Maybe! Computers seem to do that very well.

If there are yes or no answers to most philosophy questions, it does not mean that we are able to know them with certainty. The most obvious example here is the question of life after death. That is really a yes or no, more or less, but it is simply that we don't know for certain while we are alive. I don't think that the computers can even help us, except providing a search engine of books and articles.

The way in which ideas began as instincts and became more sophisticated is interesting. Of course, it does still leave questions about the where these stemmed from, such as whether there are objective archetypes behind the underlying ideas, even at the instinctual level. In evolutionary terms it could be biologically based but it becomes more complex when it is about the ideas which emerged in civilisation and philosophy.

The suggestion you make about the importance of a marriage between rationality and instincts raises some important areas for considering too. How do we balance these on a personal and collective level ?, I would say that it is not easy to achieve balance.

I do have an interest in Nietzsche's writings, but I have to admit that when I read them I get caught up in their literary merits and sometimes lose focus on the actual arguments he is proposing. I also believe that Nietzsche struggled deeply and became unwell mentally. I am not sure what happened to him eventually and not sure if he committed suicide.I might be wrong in thinking he did, but I definitely remember reading about his tortured life.

I am extremely influenced by Jung and he spoke of the importance of integrating bodily sensations, emotions, rationality and intuitions in order to achieve wholeness. I do believe that there has been some academic debate on the dialogue between the ideas of Nietzsche and Jung. This is an area I find interesting and would like to read more on in the future.

But I do think that if the balance is not right people get sick emotionally and mentally. I would say that cultural progress has probably gone too far towards Apollo rather than Dionysus. In particular, I think that life has become too pressured. In the last five years , I have thought that this was happening more and more, especially in the workplace. I felt that something was going to break and it has done, because now we have the pandemic. But I believe that there were many signs of collapse before.

One aspect which I do wonder about at times is whether the pandemic has occurred as an evolutionary balancing factor. Perhaps, the planet as a living system could not sustain the lifestyle which the developed nations have become accustomed to for much longer. Obviously, the pandemic doesn't provide long term solutions to problems, such as oil, but it may have been about a breaking point having been reached. Of course, I realise that I may be trying to see meaning in events which may be random and not connected.

Change dictates that novelty must always exist. Consider yourself as a prime example. The insights and awareness of each individual is unique because there is never nor will there ever be, spatially And temporally, another you. You are a new phenomenon to the universe -that will only occur once.
However our similarities ... the human condition... is something we all share; our common emotions, desires, dreams, ambitions, anxieties fears and insecurities.. these things have been in the past and will likely be again in the future due to that which makes a human “human”.

So as for original thought, despite our likeness you provide the world with original thought every day. That is your persona. It cannot be substituted/ replaced.

I agree that you cannot speak of that which you do not already know but that is not to say that these things that are already known cannot be mixed and amalgamated into something unique. If we couldn’t think Independently then self expression, art, discovery and innovation could not be possible.

Consider hydrogen and oxygen. They are separate molecules with unique properties but when combined ... water is formed... which has a combined property unlike that of it’s components. The same is true of human experience. We take from the knowledge of others but how we apply this information is always different. Even if only in a slightly nuanced novel form.

New stories will always be shared, new ideas regarding how to manipulate and utilise the reality presented to us will always be undertaken.but they will likely have a similar vein because we are the same species; we require the same needs as one another.

By assuming a logic that everything is already thought of then the arrow of time would Fail as direction comes from having point A a starting position and point B the destination. If the beginning and destination are ultimately the same thing then progress does not happen.

I had.. what I believe to be.. an original idea 30 years ago.. and spent many more years developing it.. and seeking evidence.. But I constantly having this nagging idea.. someone else must have thought of this... I mean.. it seems so obvious.. what with the idea of an underlying unity.. a oneness.. being the foundation of everything.. being common knowledge in our times.... How else could we describe THE ONENESS.. apart from using a field concept? In religion they can use the GOD symbol to represent the infinite and eternal.. which is nicely poetic.. but just does not fit in with acceptable science concepts..

Anyway.. This is my idea.. putting it concisely.. without the evidence I have acquired.. PLEASE.. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS A SIMULAR IDEA.. I would be interested in comparing them.. According to my reasoning.. all the diverse fields we discover in physics.. are simply diversifications in the Primary Field..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion.. what still seems to be missing in physics is a concept of a Primary Field that connects everything together.. so we have a ONENESS.. instead of division. It is our brain that divides everything into parts.. and makes artificial separations.. that do not exist in nature. This PRIMARY Field could serve as a theatre.. for the multiverse to exist in (That is if the multiverse exists.. of course). It also seems probable that when a universe pops into existence..it borrows its energy from the Primary Field and the energy gradually returns by means of entropy. We might speculate.. that most of the Primary Field consists of energy in a dormant (or potential) state. AND.. This is the reason physics cannot detect it... and therefore labels it - NON EXISTENT.

Nevertheless.. it would seem EVERYTHING that exists is simply an activity in the Primary Field... including OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. Physics is the science that detects and describes this activity.. as waves, and particles. Material things have a beginning and an end.. but the Primary Field has no beginning and no end because it is not subject to space- time.. yet it exists both outside.. and inside.. space-time... It is therefore both.. TEMPORAL as well as... INFINITE & ETERNAL

This quote below is Einstein speaking to Schwinger.. (one of the founders of quantum field theory).. about what he saw as a problem of having six quantum fields…. instead of just ONE... - (Primary Field)

“This is indeed a beautiful theory, but it seems there are six separate fields – four force fields and two matter fields. As you know, my hope was to find a single field that comprises all forces and matter. This theory of yours does not meet that objective.”

-

I have a few interesting ideas. But it is really hard, as an unemployed 40 year old with no life prospects, living in his parents' basement, to motivate myself to research them. Not only that -- I don't have access to academic databases, only what I can find publicly available in college libraries.

Because I basically have nobody to really explore my ideas with in depth, they remain abstract and underdeveloped. I have joined philosophy clubs but it isn't like I can get anyone to read my essays. Everyone wants to talk about Kant or Zizek or something like that.

But why SHOULD I share my ideas with anyone? If I did have a good idea, it would just be stolen.

I would encourage you to think about exploring your ideas which you have not shared, especially as you feel that you have "no prospects'.

Unfortunately, if we don't share our ideas they remain trapped in our heads. I remember a college tutor saying that idea don't exist if they are not communicated and I thought this was going too far, but I could see his point.

I do believe that we have to find the right arena to share, but sometimes, life involves taking risks. Obviously, we have to weigh them up and you are entitled to keep your ideas to yourself, but oneday you might look back with some what if questions.

duplication of another's view — Jack Cummins

Multiple Discovery

Nietzsche became a drooling potato. He didn’t commit suicide.

I think there are only so many fundamental ideas.
But an infinite potential for combination of ideas.

Obviously a big topic of epistemology, but my short note on the topic related to your allusion to postmodern is that pomo social construction which is an individual transcendent or dialectical relation to society possibly creates an unlimited potential for ideas. If you just look at sort of surprising concepts behind short videos posted to social media there is unlimited nuance to the ideas for these clips. This is pomo because each individual goes against expectation of the original template but has an opposing idea which is not diametrically opposed but sufficient to revolutionize each concept. The clips just serve as an example of a rapid pomo phenomenon, but this type of thing will occur in other domains like college term papers or in the potentially infinite multiplicity of billions of people reacting to the boundless multitude of nuanced social situations that occur each moment without record.

The idea of multiple discovery, as shown in the link is important because it may be that the truly important ideas arise in the understanding of many disciplines rather than any one alone. This may be in connection with systemic understanding, even if a 'theory of everything'. is not possible.

I am afraid that the accounts which I have read of Nietzsche's death have been blurry. I have been left with a muddle of his death as involving organic factors and the existential struggle. The complex tension of this may apply to the life struggle of Nietsche, but also be relevant to that of human beings, but as subjects struggling with suffering, as sentient beings grappling with meaning and ideas.

As my former boss was wont to say, on every occasion, "we all have 100 billion neurons." His message in a nutshell: If Einstein could do it, so can anyone else! Our brains are practically identical.

It may be about brainstorming and finding new ways of focusing, and even alternative ways of seeing and perception. The lens through which we see may change on account of the ideas which are developed. The philosophy of idealism or realism, for example, may alter everything just as the camera did. So, both thought and the sensory basis of perception may alter the way in which all aspects of life are observed or understood conceptually.

Freddy's "madness" drove his idiosyncratic philosophical genius rather than the other way around. Don't believe the pop psych hype! :smirk:

The question may be what role do neurons play? I am sure that it is significant, but what is the relationship between neuroscience and ideas. What is intuition and imagination and can they be traced back to the physical wiring of the brain and the human imagination?

what is the relationship between neuroscience and ideas. — Jack Cummins

Same as "the relationship between" particle physics and chocolate frosting. It's a category mistake to (causally) relate them. :roll:

The question may be what role do neurons play? I am sure that it is significant, but what is the relationship between neuroscience and ideas. What is intuition and imagination and can they be traced back to the physical wiring of the brain and the human imagination? — Jack Cummins

We're entering into uncharted territory mon ami! Hic sunt dracones. I plucked the low hanging fruit as you can see.

:zip:

As far as I see it, so many do try to look to neuroscience, as if it is 'chocolate frosting'. It does raise big questions about causation. Some may get carried away with the novelty of ideas to thre point where it glosses over the surface so much. The understanding may require greater analysis and that may be where philosophy will remain important in sifting through and making sense of it all, as an elimination of potential nonsense.

It may go back to the issue of the red zones or 'philosophical dangers'. The new may be forbidden territory and feared. On the hand, it may be about exploration and experimentation. Some ideas may be found accidentally and in wandering into uncharted ideas, even to the point of getting lost, or what my mother accused me of, 'going off the planet.' However, if one stays safe in the boxes of tradition what is the scope for innovation and discovery?

I'll get back to you Jack.

That's fine, because the thread which I wrote a long while ago popped up out of the blue again. Perhaps, it is time for me to explore new and original ideas...Keep well, and try not to overthink, because that may be what I do.

Best wishes,
Jack

Philosophy concerns ideas. Neuroscience concerns ideation. I see how the latter might inform the former but not the other way around.

That is the complexity of it and I am rather amazed when some people seem to see neuroscience as a form of replacement of philosophy. I am not trying to exaggerate, but the emphasis on science, especially in understanding consciousness, almost seems to regard philosophy like an appendix, as if it is some outdated add on aspect to consciousness. It is as if thought itself is not seen as the basis, even though concepts are based on ideas, which cannot be reduced to matter.

I am rather amazed when some people seem to see neuroscience as a form of replacement of philosophy — Jack Cummins

I would have thought this was similar to evolutionary science replacing philosophy for many others. Isn't this just how dominant narratives in the current era have unfurled?

Theorizing "consciousness" is scientific problem and not only, even principally, a philosophical question because philosophy lacks means for empirically investigating and explaining phenomena and thereby only examines – interprets – ideas. I don't see neuroscience as "a form of replacement for philosophy" but rather as a transformation of speculative ideas about "consciousness" into an experimental research program about the neurological substrate of phenomenal metacognitions. Philosophy remains both the midwife and critical interpreter as well as beneficiary of the sciences, IMO

It may go back to the issue of the red zones or 'philosophical dangers'. The new may be forbidden territory and feared. On the hand, it may be about exploration and experimentation. Some ideas may be found accidentally and in wandering into uncharted ideas, even to the point of getting lost, or what my mother accused me of, 'going off the planet.' However, if one stays safe in the boxes of tradition what is the scope for innovation and discovery? — Jack Cummins

Danke for reminding me of red zones (in philosophy). AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY sign on the fence or a :death: DANGER! CLASS I TOXIN! on the book cover - ideas that can cause revolutions, memes that can cause devastating pandemics (re index librorum prohibitorum). Strict control of ideas is practised especially by authoritarian regimes (re thought police); I don't blame 'em though for the simple reason that it's a do/die situation.

ophim;477191"]
My thinking is that ideas are a consequence of perspectives and myths rather than things that simply occur to you, because of reasoning, knowledge accruement, or some rare special trait. Most people share similar worldviews, perspectives, and myths, most of the ideas that can be born out of the major worldviews, perspectives, and mythological structures to the western science and philosophy have come and gone. It's time we have new paradigms, perspective shifts, and myths and then ideas will spring fresh again for a time and then the creativity will wane once again, until another new cultural period occurs that results in new paradigms, perspectives shift, and myths.

It may be that it is hard to find ideas which do not occur in relation to ideas that have gone before. There is the question of how Infinite are aspects of thoughts, images and concepts, to make them so exclusive as to have never been tapped into by any other minds. Thoughts and ideas may evolve, be recycled and occur in crossovers of conceptual thinking. The basic mythical structures may remain and be brought forth in new innovations.

The ongoing aspects of innovation may be essential to creativity and philosophical possibilities. Without this there may be a crisis of culture, equivalent to that of ecology and climate change. The loss of potential original ideas may signify what the postmodernists describe as the 'end of history', as history is not just facts but the underlying framework of interpretation, which is an ongoing conceptual and mythical narrative in the making.