The human mind is incapable of a truly original thought.

[Real_Magi]

It just seems incredibly narrow.

Fairies, Dragons, Elves and Leprauchans are not considered original ideas because animals already exist. You could probably even say Germ theory wasn't an original idea using this logic.

You're practically reducing the definition of originality to complete bare bones where its not even useful.

Electron theory was also not original because matter existed and someone just imagined matter was really tiny.

Its just ridiculous in my opinion.

You have just succeeded in logically explaining why such a view point is realistic, then claimed that your opinion is that it's ridiculous.

 

[MortalWombat]

We can deduce that whilst pot can stimulate creativity, it can also lead to some really dead-end thoughts.

 

[Real_Magi]

Ah, philosophy! The art of sitting back and watching other people live life! Am I being serious?

It's quite obvious that you don't actually understand philosophy.

Philosophy is the art of a truly deductive thought process. This is why we should actually teach how to think deductively in public schools.

You remind me of someone who takes his dirt bike out to the local track, tells the guys riding it that the jumps are small, then never even unloads his bike.

 

[Josh]

It's quite obvious that you don't actually understand philosophy.

Philosophy is the art of a truly deductive thought process. This is why we should actually teach how to think deductively in public schools.

Hehehehe. Quite obvious indeed. You must be a wizard. I don't know how I've managed to fumble my way through life thus far with such a sub-standard thought process.

 

[Real_Magi]

Hehehehe. Quite obvious indeed. You must be a wizard. I don't know how I've managed to fumble my way through life thus far with such a sub-standard thought process.

A philosophical perspective isn't required to live a rewarding life. Neither is a scientific understanding, a positive attitude, a well paying and enjoyable job, or even above average intelligence. In fact, intelligence rarely affects much, in this monetarily driven world ambition seems to affect social status more than anything else.

 

[IamJames]

Hehehehe. Quite obvious indeed. You must be a wizard. I don't know how I've managed to fumble my way through life thus far with such a sub-standard thought process.

Most people fumble through life with semi-retarded thinking skills. Not trying to start anything with you, but that is a pretty weak point.

 

[MortalWombat]

For what it's worth, blind people have been able to "see" with their backs in place of retinas using machines that represent visual pixels by pressing on the back. The visual cortex lights up during this, if I remember correctly.

This isn't to answer the original question, just interesting.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Great post Magi.

Its incredible the amount of people that cannot understand the fact that new ideas are generated from older ideas.

If there is something that has been invented or thought of without having evolved from previous ideas I would like to hear it.

The question I really struggle with is where did the first ideas for anything come from. Am I wrong in thinking there had to still be a first person to think of an idea? For example art on cave walls. It is possible there was someone who first thought "I am going to draw a buffalo on this cave wall" Or is it possible there was some kind of collective thought that drove people to simultaneously act in a similar manner?

If we can answer those questions, it would greatly advance our understanding of the nature of thought.

 

[Josh]

A philosophical perspective isn't required to live a rewarding life. Neither is a scientific understanding, a positive attitude, a well paying and enjoyable job, or even above average intelligence. In fact, intelligence rarely affects much, in this monetarily driven world ambition seems to affect social status more than anything else.

Sorry, let me be more blunt. A 'truly deductive thought process' requires no philosophy to develop or hone.

 

[Josh]

Most people fumble through life with semi-retarded thinking skills. Not trying to start anything with you, but that is a pretty weak point.

My 'weak point' included the statement 'you must be a wizard'. You must not be a wizard.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Sorry, let me be more blunt. A 'truly deductive thought process' requires no philosophy to develop or hone.

Analyzing the method of deduction is a branch of philosophy. Not that you need a philosophical background to deduce properly, but it helps.

 

[thechoice2]

we can test this:

place newborns in a completely isolated, quiet and dark room for 20 years.

after that see how they develop-what kind of ideas they have and such. of course they wouldnt be able to speak bc theyve been isolated for so long.

what do you guys think?

PS im bored and sleepy

I think they'd die of starvation/dehydration.

 

[TeTe]

I agree TS. Also, the human mind is also incapable of multitasking.

As much as women think they're special because they think they can, studies show that the human mind cannot focus on two different thoughts simultaneously.

So while you can juggle different tasks at once, you can't carry them out at the same time. Besides, people who claim that they act busy and never really accomplish much in the end.

 

[Josh]

I think they'd die of starvation/dehydration.

This man here should be in charge of the children.

 

[IamJames]

My 'weak point' included the statement 'you must be a wizard'. You must not be a wizard.

Umm what? lol. So?

 

[GSPOAB]

The question I really struggle with is where did the first ideas for anything come from. Am I wrong in thinking there had to still be a first person to think of an idea? For example art on cave walls. It is possible there was someone who first thought "I am going to draw a buffalo on this cave wall" Or is it possible there was some kind of collective thought that drove people to simultaneously act in a similar manner?

If we can answer those questions, it would greatly advance our understanding of the nature of thought.

Easy. God told them to do it. What now, playa?

 

[JonesBones]

Great post Magi.

Its incredible the amount of people that cannot understand the fact that new ideas are generated from older ideas.

If there is something that has been invented or thought of without having evolved from previous ideas I would like to hear it.

The question I really struggle with is where did the first ideas for anything come from. Am I wrong in thinking there had to still be a first person to think of an idea? For example art on cave walls. There had to be someone who first thought "I am going to draw a buffalo on this cave wall"

If we can answer those questions, it would greatly advance the study of the nature of thought.

They aren't generated from older ideas. These ideas can pop up independently across many different people who have never had contact. The reason they aren't original is because the elementary stuff they are made up of, sensations and language, is not original. Kind of like how a painting can't be original because all the constituent parts, color, already existed. It is the base materials that aren't original. The medium isn't original.

Drawing shit on objects is not original because it is a natural thing that happens. You don't have to see somebody else do it.

 

[Josh]

Analyzing the method of deduction is a branch of philosophy. Not that you need a philosophical background to deduce properly, but it helps.

Analyzing deduction is a philosophical act. Deducing itself is not. And as to whether a philosophical background helps, well, in my opinion it hurts as often as it helps.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Analyzing deduction is a philosophical act. Deducing itself is not. And as to whether a philosophical background helps, well, in my opinion it hurts as often as it helps.

We'll have to respectfully disagree on that one.

You could similarly say that I don't need to be a scientist to do an empirical investigation.

 

[Josh]

We'll have to respectfully disagree on that one.

You could similarly say that I don't need to be a scientist to do an empirical investigation.

I could say that, and I would be correct.

Paranoid academia, why are you so territorial?