What is an Original Thought?

[James123]

13 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

How would you describe an insight?

Doesn't associate attachment, past and future, light, for the moment only, 

[Joseph Maynor]

13 minutes ago, James123 said:

Doesn't associate attachment, past and future, light, for the moment only, 

Is this a thought, feeling, intuition, or not even?  

[James123]

36 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Is this a thought, feeling, intuition, or not even?  

No. Differences between thought and insight is,

Hit your head to wall. Then see the pain that arises in moment doesn't associate with past or future.

But, if suffering takes places that a thought.

[Reciprocality]

Can rejection be cause for originality, or can the reason you reject something also be the reason you have an original thought?

Why do you reject certain things at all, and in which contexts? Are there patterns to the rejections, are there patterns to what is rejected? Could these patterns be anything else than an intersection of events, an identification of what is the same between different things?

 

How many terms can be substituted for "rejection" where originality is still necessitated some of the time? Is this list of substitutions exhaustive, invariant under any change of environment or discourse? If so, what is this nebulous principle pertaining to all these? 

You may propose some specified intentionality as that principle, is there anything that could substitute for that? If not, what is the intentionality necessary to produce original thought independently of whether it does so through whatever can substitute for rejection (if the situation were such that your mind can not naturally allow you to think of anything that can substitute for rejection such to achieve originality then shouldn't this be quite telling as to what originality essentially is?)?

[Reciprocality]

Is the next natural question ..

Do we reject others, why so? Could we do so without it accompanying the unique self?

 

And is the natural antimony following therefrom, this?

Either we can both be original but must remain in the unique self-construct, or be unoriginal and achieve a state of no self?

[LastThursday]

@Butters the obvious question is what do you mean by original?

A thought can be the an arrangement of previous experiences in a new way, like a small pink elephant. That would be original in some way.

A thought could be of a person you've never met before, the idea of a person is not original, but the particular manifestation is.

But to be truly original the thought would have to be of something not in your experience. But then, how would you be able to interpret it if you have no prior experience to base it on? Maybe you'd say it was a "mystical experience", I don't know.

[cetus]

@Butters "I Am" -then all the trouble started. 

[Leo Gura]

I've had all sorts of thoughts no one has had.

Like Alien Love.

[Joseph Maynor]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I've had all sorts of thoughts no one has had.

Like Alien Love.

 

What do you think about the no separate self neo-advaita thought?

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

What do you think about the no separate self neo-advaita thought?

Would perhaps be more appropriate to ask Phill "The Thief" Nahm what he thinks about that, you're asking the wrong cult leader🤣

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What do you think about the no separate self neo-advaita thought?

I think it is lame.

[Joseph Maynor]

7 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Would perhaps be more appropriate to ask Phill "The Thief" Nahm what he thinks about that, you're asking the wrong cult leader🤣

I already know "his" answer.  

[Someone here]

49 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I've had all sorts of thoughts no one has had.

Like Alien Love.

And how did you know what an alien is or what love is in the first place if not from others ?

You can coin original complex concepts that no one has coined before but the complex concepts must be made from simpler concepts preexisting in your mind which are absorbed from others and not original. 

How do you thought up something from scratch ? 

Not possible. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Someone here

[Someone here]

@NewKidOnTheBlock Gesundheit, confirmed.  😘

[Carl-Richard]

We first have to distinguish between constructing something from the ground up completely vs using an existing structure and deducing new patterns or connections (synthesis).

Here is a map of the complexity of your cognition (each level contains the next):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277962409_Stage_of_development_and_million_dollar_per_year_earning_from_sales
 

0-6 are virtually always not original, because they concern movements, vocalizations, letters, simple words and sentences, and constructing these from the ground up are very impractical because you tend to learn a language from birth anyway (and much faster than when you're older) and also it takes a lot of work to construct new forms of these things and use them in a way that makes sense (essentially a new language).

7-12 are more where "original thinking" can occur for most people. But notice this is no longer purely "ground up", unless you take a lot of care to deconstruct various stories, concepts, systems, words (but that is still not completely ground up either, but reasonably), down to around 4 as far as intellect is concerned. Indeed the thinking is more synthetic and connective, rather than ground up, but the syntheses and connections can be original in that nobody has made them before.

That said, original thinking at level 12 is actually quite rare, because you have to actually construct a whole new system, and that's not simple (it might look something like this). 

Original thinking at 13-16 are essentially reserved to hyper-geniuses who construct entire new fields of study or grand theories (e.g. Newton, Einstein). Concepts or systems connecting systems ("meta-systematic", level 13) that are genuinely original are also exceedingly rare. Your best shot at this is probably by constructing your own original systems and then seeing the connections between those systems, but this is of course a lot of work, a bit the same problem as constructing 0-6 from the ground up.

The type of original thinking Leo espouses is putatively more ground up (focus on deconstructing existing frames and becoming intellectually sovereign), while the type that maybe a leading scientist or academic philosopher can engage in (moving the existing fields forward by seeing new connections and possibilities) is more synthetic. Leo cannot do something like this for example (talking about merging Markov blankets and other analogous concepts with Integrated Information Theory, some time in the future), but he talks about other things.
 

So all in all, when it comes to original thinking, you run into a trade-off (in terms of time and resources) between constructing things from the bottom up and seeing connections between existing structures. Essentially nobody is "truly original", but some can be comparatively more original, and usually at the levels 7-12 (because the higher you climb, or lower you climb, the more extraordinary you have to be).

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Someone here said:

How do you thought up something from scratch ? 

It doesn't need to be.

You are focused on the wrong aspect of originality. Rather than focusing on how nothing is original, you can be busy being original and improving the world.

Edited 16 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It doesn't need to be.

You are focused on the wrong aspect of originality. Rather than focusing on how nothing is original, you can be busy being original.

I'm disappointed.  Leo the whole discussion is what exactly is "original ".  I understand what you mean ..some thoughts are more original than others relatively ..I grant you that . Like when  Einstein discovered  General relativity that was original but he built on the already existing laws of physics that objects tend to act according to inertia and there is gravity and that gravity is a curve in the spacetime etc .

Any thought that pops in your head must be limited to what you've already experienced in the "real world " . You can imagine a pink elephant with three tits and a four eyes or alien love but these are comprised from things you've already encountered in the real world .

I guess to be 100% original it has to be the first thought ever or the first being that existed Ever.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Someone here said:

alien love but these are comprised from things you've already encountered in the real world .

No. Alien Love is unimaginable by humans. It's a totally new thing. Just because I use common words to communicate it doesn't mean it is just a simple combination of two known ideas.

A seahorse is not the same thing as a sea + a horse. A black hole is not just a black-colored hole.

Edited 16 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. Alien Love is unimaginable by humans. It's a totally new thing. Just because I use common words to communicate it doesn't mean it is just a simple combination of two known ideas.

A seahorse is not the same thing as a sea + a horse. A black hole is not just a black hole.

You're saying the thing which is described via limited language(which don't give it justice )isn't the label itself but it is the thing itself which is being labelled ? That's kids play .I understand that but that's really not what's being discussed though . 

[Eskilon]

I dont think something truly original can be thought. Everything is dependent upon everything else. 

Maybe if time travel exist we can witness something someone has constructed that is completely outside our comprehension.

Like imagine we going back in time and showing the greeks a smartphone. They will not even understand what they are seeing, not a single possibility of grasping without help.

Edited 16 hours ago by Eskilon