The human mind is incapable of a truly original thought.

[Real_Magi]

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.

I think that it strongly suggests that there never really was a "first" in the way that we perceive the word.

The idea that time is simply a measurement of our planets revolutions around the sun and has no bearing on a quantum/scientific/philosophical level is an idea that has always intrigued me and it coincides with the idea that we are not capable of true originality perfectly.

At the most basic level, all of existence is "one" in the sense that it is comprised of the same substance. Could this mean that all of the beings in all of existence aren't actually singular entities like they perceive, but rather one tiny aspect of a collective consciousness? From this perspective, it is easy to see how, not only is true originality impossible, but "first" or "last" truly doesn't exist outside of what we perceive with our basic physical senses.

This could also mean that absolutely anything you can think of is actually "real" somewhere in the universe, and even if you were to somehow think of something you hadn't thought of before, does the thought breath life into itself and somehow come into existence simply because it was conceived? Or perhaps it already existed and you were able to momentarily perceive its happening because of that "oneness"?

 

[BEER]

Fifth grade philosophy for the win.

TS didn't want an intelligent discussion. He wanted people to disagree so that he could flex his intellectual muscle in telling them that they're wrong.

Every thought since the dawn of time has come from environment and education. TS knows this.

So, you can say "well, somebody imagined a dragon at some point! surely that thought was original!"

TS can rebut with something along the lines of "he must have seen a lizard, and imagined it much larger".

"Well, Led Zepplin made some incredibly original music!"

"They just put together chords and progressions that someone before them had."

"Well, what about the people who originally did?"

"They based it off of what they've previously heard."

And so on and so forth.

People can absolutely have original thoughts and ideas. But TS wants to break it down and not allow room for that at all. Originality isn't the conceptualization of a single original idea. It's doing something with what you have that no one else has.

 

[Real_Magi]

TS didn't want an intelligent discussion. He wanted people to disagree so that he could flex his intellectual muscle in telling them that they're wrong.

Every thought since the dawn of time has come from environment and education. TS knows this.

Well that's your opinion. I actually wanted to see what others would deduce from such a perspective. I know what I can deduce from it, but I am truly interested in what others might deduce from it. Isn't that what a forum is for?

 

[Josh]

Well that's your opinion. I actually wanted to see what others would deduce from such a perspective. I know what I can deduce from it, but I am truly interested in what others might deduce from it. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Explain to me what you have deduced from such a perspective. Try as best as you can to make it look like math. I'm being serious.

 

[JonesBones]

Just because you were the first to do something doesn't make it original. If I were the first person to stub my toe and feel pain, would that make me original? No, it just means I had the luxury of existing first and feeling the sensation. Originality is not merely the absence of replication in this case.

His critique, if I understand it correctly, is that unless you invented the medium itself, you can't claim to be truly original in that medium. Unless you invented the words, you can't claim to have a truly original story. It is nitpicking and overly reductionist but true when defined that way.

 

[BEER]

Well that's your opinion. I actually wanted to see what others would deduce from such a perspective. I know what I can deduce from it, but I am truly interested in what others might deduce from it. Isn't that what a forum is for?

I can pretty much deduce from the following that you were ready to shoot down any rebuttal to your "theory":

Even before that the combustion engine was simply a matter of harnessing that which has been around since the beginning of time -- fire.

Instead of recognizing that there has actually been an original thought in the last few hundred years, you shoot it down and chalk it up to "fire existed, so the combustion engine isn't real".

A forum is for discussing and debating. I'm not a complete idiot, despite popular belief. I'm stating my observation just the same way you stated "yours".

 

[MortalWombat]

Well that's your opinion. I actually wanted to see what others would deduce from such a perspective. I know what I can deduce from it, but I am truly interested in what others might deduce from it. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Stop using the word "deduce". Please. What you're doing is the precise opposite of "deduction".

 

[Real_Magi]

Explain to me what you have deduced from such a perspective. Try as best as you can to make it look like math. I'm being serious.

Why would I make it look like math? Look at the top of the page and that is along the lines of the mental road I travel down when I think of this, but it includes other factors as well. Like I said, I'm interested in the opinion of others on the subject.

You guys are on the war path for some reason, rather than even discussing anything.

 

[MortalWombat]

Fun fact. Humans started using wheels several thousands of years after they started making plates and pots and growing plants.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

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.

What I am getting at is that there would have still had to be the first person or people to draw on a wall. The idea would have had to occur to them to do it. Where is this natural idea to "draw on shit" coming from ?

Even now kids draw on walls, without being prompted to, or seeing somebody do it. The idea just seems to come to them and suddenly they are drawing squiggly lines on a newly painted wall.
If these actions can be explained through evolutionary psychology then we would still be stuck with the same problem. Where did the thought to draw on things come from in the first place?

I guess the question could be expanded to a "why is there something rather than nothing" question. I am trying to take that question to show that there must have been the initial original thought from which all thoughts are rooted in.

The problem with what I am stating is that I cannot provide any evidence of a first thought.

This is sounding very similar to the first cause argument.

 

[Kamishiro Yuu]

As a counter-point to this idea that there can be nothing truly original: Language itself is something that is reborn every time we speak. We attempt to create a metaphor for something that can not be accurately translated into something tangible or truly (in the sense of completeness) understandable. Ultimately, Language is the one thing that is original to each and every creature. We all take it and create our own, with exact meaning being obscured (if it's not truly impossible to make explicit.)

In other words, this thread is self-defeating, bro.

 

[Bolshevik***]

i guess it depends on what you consider "original". if you're stating that you can't come up with something new because it will just be a modification of something that already exists, or an amalgamation of separate things that already exist, well d'uh. obviously no one is going to create something out of nothing.

however, i think saying that we're not capable of something original is taking it a bit too far. yes, it's true that whatever you may invent or create could have been thought up, and made by anyone at anytime, because the parts for it were always there, but that doesn't mean that you didn't think of it on your own.

 

[lewisll]

Interesting. I would agree TS, the universe is just a chain of events. To think original you have to be able to think outside this universe. The starting point for that is to have a tabula rasa with no outside stimulus, but even then i don't think we'd be able to come up with an original idea. Any thought that we'd have would come out of the state/attributes of our being which is of this universe. Our brains have not yet evolved to have an original idea. Maybe there will come a time where our brains will be evolved enough and we'll be able to create universes, like this, and be "god". To have an original idea is to be "god" imo.

 

[JonesBones]

What I am getting at is that there would have still had to be the first person or people to draw on a wall. The idea would have had to occur to them to do it. Where is this natural idea to "draw on shit" coming from ?

Even now kids draw on walls, without being prompted to, or seeing somebody do it. The idea just seems to come to them and suddenly they are drawing squiggly lines on a newly painted wall.
If these actions can be explained through evolutionary psychology then we would still be stuck with the same problem. Where did the thought to draw on things come from in the first place?

I guess the question could be expanded to a "why is there something rather than nothing" question. I am trying to take that question to show that there must have been the initial original thought from which all thoughts are rooted in.

The problem with what I am stating is that I cannot provide any evidence of a first thought.

This is sounding very similar to the first cause argument.

Because, as the TS stated originally, thoughts are based on sensations. And since nobody invented the sensation, they are just natural physiological processes which we are confined to and have no say in, they can't said to be original to that person. They are universal. The urge or idea to paint on a wall, like all other thoughts, is based on on such sensation.

 

[Real_Magi]

Instead of recognizing that there has actually been an original thought in the last few hundred years, you shoot it down and chalk it up to "fire existed, so the combustion engine isn't real".

Holy fuck, I'm getting damn sick and tired of explaining the same simple thought process over and fucking over. If you're not going to read through the thread or even actually think, then I'm not going to respond to you. This is the last troll I respond to.

Fire, been around forever. Man discovers how to build a fire. He then starts using it for simple things, cooking, smelting metals, etc.. He then discovers how different materials yield different types of flame. Some are explosive. These explosive substances give a person the idea to try and harness its energy. The first combustion engine is designed to use gun powder in the 1600's but is never actually built. The idea was incredibly simple. It wasn't even capable of continuously running as the person would have had to constantly monitor the engine and pack it with gun powder. There is no practical use seen in the invention and it fades into obscurity.

In the 1800's the idea is explored again and the designer is able to design an engine with a spark system for ignition that is capable of running continuously. From there the engine evolves even further into what we use in our modern setting.

 

[Josh]

Well that's your opinion. I actually wanted to see what others would deduce from such a perspective. I know what I can deduce from it, but I am truly interested in what others might deduce from it. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Explain to me what you have deduced from such a perspective. Try as best as you can to make it look like math. I'm being serious.

Stop using the word "deduce". Please. What you're doing is the precise opposite of "deduction".

Hey man, don't spill the beans, I'm trying to get some fun out of this.

 

[Real_Magi]

As a counter-point to this idea that there can be nothing truly original: Language itself is something that is reborn every time we speak. We attempt to create a metaphor for something that can not be accurately translated into something tangible or truly (in the sense of completeness) understandable. Ultimately, Language is the one thing that is original to each and every creature. We all take it and create our own, with exact meaning being obscured (if it's not truly impossible to make explicit.)

In other words, this thread is self-defeating, bro.

Yes because our basic instinct to communicate with each other by using our physical senses is certainly original...

lol

 

[BEER]

Holy fuck, I'm getting damn sick and tired of explaining the same simple thought process over and fucking over. If you're not going to read through the thread or even actually think, then I'm not going to respond to you. This is the last troll I respond to.

I can do a chain from The Doors to the first instrument ever documented in recorded history.

It doesn't mean The Doors weren't an original band. You're trying way too hard, and that's noticeable when you start name calling. I've never trolled this forum, but simply offered my observation.

That's what a forum is for, right?

 

[MortalWombat]

Hey man, don't spill the beans, I'm trying to get some fun out of this.

Listen, we are one, and as such, anything I do is what you do is what we all do. Take some responsibility for your actions.

 

[JonesBones]

As a counter-point to this idea that there can be nothing truly original: Language itself is something that is reborn every time we speak. We attempt to create a metaphor for something that can not be accurately translated into something tangible or truly (in the sense of completeness) understandable. Ultimately, Language is the one thing that is original to each and every creature. We all take it and create our own, with exact meaning being obscured (if it's not truly impossible to make explicit.)

In other words, this thread is self-defeating, bro.

That is true that language has turned thought and sensation into something that it wasn't before. But the fact remains that complex, "super ideas" can be reduced to more basic ideas, which are not original. So while the particular arrangement is original, the parts on their most basic level are not.

Even the most complex philosophical statements can be reduced to basic animal cries.