Epistemology

[Xenocrates]

If someone has an idea, but they die before they can communicate or record it in any form, does it mean that the idea ceases to exist?

[nuhsenutten]

maybe not ....maybe we will be able to (someday) using the same technology you mentioned that is used to move body parts after death...we will be able to read the mind after death....think of the crime solving capabilities of such a device........

[tiffany]

law of the consevation of energy: Energy is niether created or destroyed but transferred,,and the same goes for the idea.

[tiffany]

the idea still exists after he dies.

[ramesh]

It's like RAM in a computer. Only alive while the current is flowing through it.

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro NSN

The two things are mutually exclusive. Electricity to animate a cadavre doesn't animate the thoughts that it once had when alive. So the question is, which comes first, the thought or the existence of a concept?

:icon_arro tiffany

So can we safely deduce that nobody actually learns anything?

:icon_arro ramesh

Consider the Egyptians. They died without preserving how the pyramids were built. We could technically achieve the same goal, without looking at their blue prints and with greater efficiency. Don't you think?

[tiffany]

seeing as money is acquired, knowledge is acquired, not made.

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro Tiffany

I like the way you think. :icon_mrgr So I guess the next logical question is:

If a tree falls in a forest, but nobody hears it fall, does the tree exist?

[ramesh]

:icon_arro ramesh

Consider the Egyptians. They died without preserving how the pyramids were built. We could technically achieve the same goal, without looking at their blue prints and with greater efficiency. Don't you think?
But the two do not equate....we may be able to build better or worse pyramids, but not because of some telekenetic transferrence of ideas, but because we have gone to school and learnt the mathematics of building pyramids after others looked at the pyramids and tried figuring out how it was done. Remember, no one knows exactly how they were built. There has been much speculation, even recently about the method(s).

Ideas are not tangible externally until expressed in a communicable format - words, writing, etc.
A tree is already in a tangible format. It falls whether anyone does/doesn't see, hear it fall.

[Xenocrates]

Fair enough. But there doesn't have to be a telekinetic transferrence of any kind. If the pyramids were built on mars, would it be unreasonable to assume that we would not be able to reverse engineer and recontruct pyramids of our own?

[ramesh]

Fair enough. But there doesn't have to be a telekinetic transferrence of any kind. If the pyramids were built on mars, would it be unreasonable to assume that we would not be able to reverse engineer and recontruct pyramids of our own?But those are not the Martian's ideas we would have...they would be our own. We imagine the past. Also, the pyramids, whether built on Mars, Earth or on Andromeda 3 are another tangible form of an idea - a visible one. The idea didn't totally die with them, they expressed it in a tangible format - visual.

[Xenocrates]

But those are not the Martian's ideas we would have...they would be our own. We imagine the past.

- What if our pyramids achieve the same functions that those on Mars did?


Also, the pyramids, whether built on Mars, Earth or on Andromeda 3 are another tangible form of an idea - a visible one. The idea didn't totally die with them, they expressed it in a tangible format - visual.

- Excellent point. :eusa_clap But what if we made our own pyramids, in lieu of any knowledge that they existed elsewhere in the galaxy in other advanced civilizations, would the "pyramid" idea still be exclusively ours?

[nuhsenutten]

in that case xeno we didnt know they existed and therefore would think that the idea was exclusively ours until proven otherwise......

[Xenocrates]

But would we be right in assuming that the idea is exclusively ours in the first place? On what basis did we come to that conclusion?

[ramesh]

- What if our pyramids achieve the same functions that those on Mars did?You are speaking of coincidental ideas then? Just because some kid bounces a ball in Jamaica and discovers it bounces back and then later another kid in China bounces a similar ball doesn't mean the two incidents were related.


But what if we made our own pyramids, in lieu of any knowledge that they existed elsewhere in the galaxy in other advanced civilizations, would the "pyramid" idea still be exclusively ours?
Then it becomes a "local" idea, local to each set of people. Both had similar ideas, but at different points of their evolution not because the newer one got it from the older one, but a similar set of circumstances evolved.

[nuhsenutten]

remember science class .....we hold something to be true untill we find something that disproves said theory


same conceept here ....we hold the rights to the idea untill we find that it existed before we tought of it

[Xenocrates]

But guys, if it is indeed possible that someone else could think of it, how can we claim ownership of the idea? Did we create the idea or did we discover it?

[ramesh]

But guys, if it is indeed possible that someone else could think of it, how can we claim ownership of the idea? Did we create the idea or did we discover it?
Here's where you can get into a copyright muddle: who originally thought of the idea? Since that cannot be offered with certainty, mankind has developed other methods of claiming ownership. That's the reason for patents and copyright. Ideas have to be submitted to a central authority for approval and whoever gets to the door first is declared the winner.

It may not be just and may not be fair, but it's the only method that is halfway feasible.

[Xenocrates]

But the copyright authority can't prove without a doubt who really had dibs on the idea... Hence our dilemma.

Does the qualitative nature of an idea depend on the thinker? In other words, if some French guy didn't come up with the idea for a motor vehicle, would somebody else have eventually figured out how to build one?

[nuhsenutten]

i c we on the same page here ramesh

[Temptress]

We are recognized for making a discovery when it has been registered. It’s a race whoever was the first to get a patent is recognized as the inventor.

[nuhsenutten]

we may never know for sure..., but mayb someone else did ......mayb the french guy got his inspiration from someone ......

[Gwadinka]

Discover...because the human mind, although the differences of culture and whatever, is ceaselessly having ideas that have already been thought of. The fact that there is no proof of the actual preexistence of this idea in History does not prove a single thing.
Take philosophy for example, how can you explain that Saint Augustin has made a whole and complex theory about time before knowing that Oriental thinkers had already followed the same path of thought and established the same result and theory that him?

[Xenocrates]

Well there ya go. We can't state with absolute certainty who the owner of the idea is. The mere fact that an authority has to be setup to make a time based differentiation proves that fact.

Therefore, it is impossible that an idea resides with someone. If a comet destroyed that planet on which pyramids originated, those particular pyramids would cease to exist - but does that mean that someone else wouldn't have thought of the idea of a 4 sided triangle?

[Temptress]

Does the qualitative nature of an idea depend on the thinker? In other words, if some French guy didn't come up with the idea for a motor vehicle, would somebody else have eventually figured out how to build one?

Its possible that others had the same concept but there's no way to tell for sure. In the history of inventions they leave out the part saying X in Spain was working on the concept as well. So we are left to speculate and assume.....

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro Temptress

Excellent! Therefore, it proves, unequivocally that an idea is not qualitatively dependent on one person - amirite?

[Temptress]

:icon_arro Temptress

Excellent! Therefore, it proves, unequivocally that an idea is not qualitatively dependent on one person - amirite?

I share the same opnion. We can not prove without a doubt that the Wright brothers were the only people in the world that dreamt about flying.

[Nastro]

Ah bwoy...you must be my friend.

ok first lets look at it technically/logically.....

If I type a letter for my boss in Microsoft Word , the power goes out and I lost what I typed forever, does the letter still exist? No. Did it exist? Yes. Can someone else who was not there when it was typed substantiate that it had existed No.

Individual idea is lost with death.


Philosophically....

This is similar to the question posed by Sir Alexander Graham Bell who asked "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make any sound?" In such senario, since there is no actual physical observation (proof) to substantiate actual existence, we can presume that it ceases to exist.

Unless we opt to make inferences (as someone made earlier) such as ideas or person is a form of energy and energy cannot be destroyed but be transformed from one form to another. To make this assumption is to also say that no one else is dead as this rule cannot only apply to one person. Which would mean, if discovered it would be possible to re-create everybody or everybody's idea that has ever existed since the beginning of time. Until such can be attempted at least once, or backed by even inferential proof, is null, void and non-existent , just like the idea that died with that man unless created by another individual.

(we must also consider that it is possible for two different person to create the same idea. The idea may not be original to the world but maybe to that person as internally the are the creators of the result of that thought)

[Xenocrates]

In such s(c)enario, since there is no actual physical observation (proof) to substantiate actual existence, we can presume that it ceases to exist.

- By this, am I to presume that there has to be some kind of empirical evidence of the existence of a thing to qualify it as have ever had existedl? In other words, if the dinosaurs' bones didn't survive, would the dinosaurs still have existed? Is their existence based solely on whether or not we recognize proof of their existence?

For may I posit, that just because I don't believe that Aliens exist, it doesn't mean that they don't. Concordantly, I may subjectively believe that God exists, when it is possible, that he might not.


To make this assumption is to also say that no one else is dead as this rule cannot only apply to one person. Which would mean, if discovered it would be possible to re-create everybody or everybody's idea that has ever existed since the beginning of time.

- Not necessarily. The same amount of energy that existed in the universe at its inception is the same that exists today. People who cease to exist, merely have their matter and energy transformed from a kinetic back to a potential state. The essence of their existence is not forgotten by the universe. For it is still so, that the essence of people who are yet to exist, also exists right now.


Until such can be attempted at least once, or backed by even inferential proof, is null, void and non-existent , just like the idea that died with that man unless created by another individual.


- So therefore, you are in support of empirical proof. So why do engineers prepare for unknown situations when designing crafts of transport, even though they may not have seen, recorded, or experienced situations which would require certain safety features in a craft?


...we must also consider that it is possible for two different person to create the same idea. The idea may not be original to the world but maybe to that person as internally the are the creators of the result of that thought...

- Then I have a 64 million dollar question for you: Does an idea require a thinker to give it existence?

[Nastro]

Many of you say Xen's tend to be derivatives of the philosophy "I think therefore I am". Let me say why.


In other words, if the dinosaurs' bones didn't survive, would the dinosaurs still have existed? Is their existence based solely on whether or not we recognize proof of their existence?
If we follow the notion that is presented here, it is safe to say that we can believe in absolutely anything we want as long as we think of it. No proof needed!

With that I must disagree. There is physical proof and there is inferential proof. Any inferential proof that is used to substantiate something must be verifiable by physical evidence. This in itself will provide many cases where the results may be false.


Not necessarily. The same amount of energy that existed in the universe at its inception is the same that exists today. People who cease to exist, merely have their matter and energy transformed from a kinetic back to a potential state. The essence of their existence is not forgotten by the universe. For it is still so, that the essence of people who are yet to exist, also exists right now.
ok Great!!! - I use an egg to bake a cake is it still an egg? No but the total amount of energy in the cake includes that of the egg (chemical), less the kinetic energy that was given off when mixing.

This to say that the although the total sum may be the same, the object(s) are unique and had not existed previously. Another example is that I just thought of some characters...

"1mdonahuhvnahlkejiuvnsapei0985370wene23ne3;23n."

is this an orignal idea of characters...yes to me... I just thought of it. Could it have existed before, yes. Am I aware of it? No. So until otherwise PROVEN is this my idea Yes.

Just like the man who died. His idea did exist but no one was able to observe it as his idea. He died and whatever happened - happened. IT NO LONGER EXISTED AS HIS IDEA. Can you look at the cake from my previous example and point out the egg. No, as a matter of fact the only reason you can even assume that an egg is in it is because you were GIVEN that idea ;)


My answer to your 64 million question is.........................
No. An idea does not require a thinker to exist - It requires a thinker to be acknowledged as existing. ;)

[nester-san]

No. An idea does not require a thinker to exist - It requires a thinker to be acknowledged as existing

Me likee!!

There is a theory, I forget what it is called, that Major things happen because they are suppposed to happen, kinda like fate.

The Internet NEEDED to be created at the precise time and day that it was.

If Newton's mom died in childbirth, or he was blind and saw no apple, we would still be where we are today, because at that particular single point Newtonian physics needed to be created. Whether it would be called Newtonian Physics or not is immaterial, his theories/ideas would be around today.

Remember T3, where the Supercomputer machine uprising had to take place?
In the original, it was because of a paradox, where the Terminator sent back in time's CPU was reverse engineered, in T3 it was due to a virus thing on the internet.

It had to happen, so stop worrying, the robot uprising will happen :-)

[Xenocrates]

No. An idea does not require a thinker to exist - It requires a thinker to be acknowledged as existing. ;)

- THANK YOU! That's all I wanted to hear. Just like the pyramids that we spoke of before, it would have been invented anyway. Even if that French car maker hadn't thought of building the first automobile, automobiles would have been invented ANYWAY...

The point is, ideas exist on their own. People don't create ideas, they discover them. Nobody has ever truly invented anything. They merely discovered a concept which is essentially as old as the universe itself. The mere fact that two people can "have" the same idea, alludes to the fact that ideas exist as a part of the universe itself. Each idea humans have today is based on re-engineering older ideas.

If we managed to develop dark matter powered space vessels, it is highly likely we will come across other races in the universe who have developed space faring vessels as well. Heck, that's the underlying premise behind Star Trek isn't it?

When a tree falls in the forest, whether or not we hear it, it still exists. It's only a matter of when it will be discovered. We have to make the differentiation between knowledge and the total smogasboard of all things which exist, but are yet to be discovered.

[AngelsKiss]

An idea is nothing more than a thought, a concept. Without human it is nothing, hence the reason why it is said that people create or conceive them.

An idea by itself doesn't exist unless it is in someone's mind, it must be conceived. It's not like the wind where you can feel it but can't see it.

This does not mean that 2 or more person won't have the same idea or thought.


Just like the pyramids that we spoke of before, it would have been invented anyway.

Yes it would have been invented because someone would thought of it. As long as there are people, there will always be thoughts/ideas.

[AngelsKiss]

BTW I just read some of the thread after responding and from what I see, people are confusing 2 issues:

1) Can an idea exist without a person? The answer is no because an idea like I said is nothing but a thought which requires a thinker...being the human. An idea or thought is what gives birth to an action.

2) Who is the the creater or originator of the idea. Again as I pointed out 2 or more person can conceive an idea or a thought. However, it is generally acknowedge that the person who put the thought into action first is the creator. An idea or a thought is of no use if all we do with it is think about it.

[nester-san]

Again as I pointed out 2 or more person can conceive an idea or a thought. However, it is generally acknowedge that the person who put the thought into action first is the creator. An idea or a thought is of no use if all we do with it is think about it.

No, it means you have the patent or copyright (more accurately the right to make full usage of it, for profit or otherwise)

What then by your definition is an idea?

Otters been using stones to crack open shellfish long before humans did, so does that mean because they are not human, the first human to do it is the creator?, or would it be the otter ?

Remember the joke about the infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters eventually churning out all the great books of literature?

The monkeys are not actually discovering anything, However, at the precise moment when one monkey incedentally creates Romeo and Juliet simply means that it was time for Romeo and Juliet to exist.

We can think, and based upon stimulus, pre-existing discovered ideas, need for a particular solution, we discover what needed to be discovered at the moment when it's discovery was nescessary.

Animal behavior, or instinct has to have origins, in the case of the otters, one otter millions of years ago had the idea (which was floating around undiscovered) to do it, "use rock on shellfish=food" as an idea had been discovered.

[AngelsKiss]

No, it means you have the patent or copyright (more accurately the right to make full usage of it, for profit or otherwise)


By patenting or copyrighting it you are putting it in motion or action. You cannot just go to the patent office and say I have an idea for a plane and get it copyrighted. You have to provide them with the schematics


What then by your definition is an idea?

As I said an idea is a thought.


Otters been using stones to crack open shellfish long before humans did, so does that mean because they are not human, the first human to do it is the creator?, or would it be the otter ?

Yes the otters may have done this long before humans, however, is this an idea or an instinct? I would say this is more instinct than thought.

We all have an innate ability to do things which do not necessarily requires thought. The same applies to animals. This innate ability varies, however, the more we can expand on this innate ability through thoughts/ideas the better we can survive and grow as human beings.

It's is our thought process that helps define us as individuals. From our ability to think comes our thoughts/ideas which can be turned in to actions or left to die.

[nester-san]

By patenting or copyrighting it you are putting it in motion or action. You cannot just go to the patent office and say I have an idea for a plane and get it copyrighted. You have to provide them with the schematics

That is exactly wht you did say!


However, it is generally acknowedge that the person who put the thought into action first is the creator.

Did you know as far I can remember, the minute you type a book it is copyrighted ?

I was simply saying that putting an idea into motion just gives you the legal right, if you choose to pursue it, of being the only person who can legally profit from the discovery.



Yes the otters may have done this long before humans, however, is this an idea or an instinct? I would say this is more instinct than thought.

Yes, but where did the Instinct come from ?

What made the FIRST otter decide to hit a shellfish with a stone ?

Definition of thought from answers.com:
"That which exists in the mind as the product of careful mental activity"
http://www.answers.com/thought&r=67

Your carefull mental activity might be "how do I solve for x"
My daughters carefull mental activity might be "I want that shiny thing"
An otters carefull mental activity might be "this has food, how do i get it out"

I do not need to know the physics behind using a rock to open shellfish.

I may however have seen a rock fall and kill a dinosaur, and by association, which would be relatively "carefull mental activity" try it out on a smaller scale with the shellfish.

As a result of pre-discovered ideas, we know even if we had never seen an otter do it that by applying enough force to the shellfish with anything denser we will open it, otters don't know that, because rocks worked for the first one who did it, and it worked for them all since then.

btw, as a note they are the few other mammals other than primates to use tools, not just rocks!

[AngelsKiss]

That is exactly wht you did say!

Did you know as far I can remember, the minute you type a book it is copyrighted ?


Nester...I am not sure what you are saying here, you kinda lost me:) By typing the book you have put it in action. The idea would be that you want to write the book and possibly the story behind the book. Until you actually write the book, it is only an idea or a thought.


Your carefull mental activity might be "how do I solve for x"
My daughters carefull mental activity might be "I want that shiny thing"
An otters carefull mental activity might be "this has food, how do i get it out"

What this suggest is that the otter is capable of mental activity...how much is actual thinking activity or an inate instinct to know that what to do is what we need to figure out. However, even if the otter is capable of thinking it would still lead to the point that ideas are born of thought, the ability to think even if it's from an animal.

However, ont he topic of instinct even though there is some mental activity, it doesn't mean that you think about it. It just means that somewhere on a deep level you are aware..yes it is a mental activity.

E.g.... some one points a gun and shoots at you, you may not even think about the fact that you have to get out of the way. You just know you have to move, yes it's some form of mental activity that causes you to dive for cover.

The idea would come from you expanding on that....the capability to think about what happened and from that an idea is born which leads you to think that ducking for cover won't always work. You need some thing else, hence the kevlar vest, etc.

[nester-san]

Actually, what I was disputing was when you said
Without human it is nothing, hence the reason why it is said that people create or conceive them.

I was simply hoping you did not mean ONLY humans can think.

As far as ideas go, because you do not put an idea in motion, it loses none of it's potency.

Remember, the conclusion I came to it that ideas are basically points in time where something that needs to be discovered becomes discovered.

Who does it, and what they do with it is immaterial.
As you say, the pyramids would be built anyway, I agree!
We are all on the same page, but what I disagree with is that an idea has a creator.
If you wiped out the first civilsation before the pyramids, they would still exsist, because that was the time for the discovery of the pyramids.

[AngelsKiss]

disagree what I disagree with is that an idea has a creator.

Ok fair enough. The question I ask though is how does an idea come about? How do we have a thought without a living thing to think about it. Are we then saying that if there were no living thing in the world we would still have ideas?

[AngelsKiss]

As far as ideas go, because you do not put an idea in motion, it loses none of it's potency.


Unless it is a bad idea that will not serve mankind in a positive manner, if no one puts it into action it does loses it's potency. If it's only a thought locked away in the mind, however many minds, what purpose does the idea serve?

[nester-san]

Are we then saying that if there were no living thing in the world we would still have ideas?

Yup, I do think so, we just wouldn't have thought to bring them into our realm of existence.



If it's only a thought locked away in the mind, however many minds, what purpose does the idea serve

Which I why I say ideas are not creations of man, because it is impossible to lock away an idea.

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

Let me jump in here.

I do not believe that any idea is exclusive to any person, group or race.
Case in point; Alexander Bell beat "whats his name" to the telephone because he registered the patent first.
The idea for a particular technology, philosophy or whatever in most cases is a matter of a natural progression, us moving from one level to the next one. Ideas are most times based on the influences of the sum collective of our experiences, driven by necessity (mostly)and what we have learned from those before us, as well as what we have learned from animals, insects and the rest of nature.
It is not uncommon for two people or a group of people to have the same idea independently of each other.

Is it plausible that an idea and by extention a conscious thought is a tangible entity/quantity/muse? Which floats around our conscious reality, waiting for the most fertile and receptive mind(s) to propogate.
It is an interesting concept, I'll definetly have to put some thought in that one.

Izemi-Clem

[ramesh]

The thing is that some people do not realise that there are different types of truth:

Absolute truth: Actual events, whether seen, heard, recorded or not. These things actually happened and are incontrovertible.

Percieved truth: This is per case or localised. Percieved truth will change from person to person, locality to locality, religion to religion, race to race and in divisons among each of those. It cannot be quantifid in any way because it depends mainly on information gathered which may depend on too many factors.

Faith: A mixture of the above two but with a much higher conviction.

[Xenocrates]

Interesting points made so far:


...2 or more person can conceive an idea or a thought...

- What does that tell you about the very nature of an idea? Isn't it that it is an immaterial thing, that thrives independent of the existence of a thinker? For if two people can discover the same idea, independent of each other, then it would be fallacious to assert, that the idea has a creator. Creation implies instantiation, predication and subsequence.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that the idea has a first discoverer?

For if the idea was indeed created, then it would be impossible for a second person to have come up with that same idea, independently of the person who thought of it first. Wouldn't you agree?


The question I ask though is how does an idea come about?

- NOW we're getting somewhere! :eusa_clap This is the crux of epistemology. If no one actually creates an idea, from whence does it exist? To answer this question, I pose an even tougher question to the board:

Is there a difference between Knowledge and Ideas?

:icon_arro Nester-san

Does instinct really involve thinking? There's no evidence in animal behaviour which suggests that what they do in nature is learned. This is why animals can be trained to do things outside of their natural instinctive niche. Animals can think, but what they do by default doesn't require much thinking. They're essentially organic robots reacting to their environment. Don't you think?

[AngelsKiss]

:icon_arro Nester...I see your point but I disagree. Unfortunately there isn't anyway we can prove your theory, at least not that I am aware of.




- What does that tell you about the very nature of an idea? Isn't it that it is an immaterial thing, that thrives independent of the existence of a thinker? For if two people can discover the same idea, independent of each other, then it would be fallacious to assert, that the idea has a creator.

No all it says that 2 or more people are capable of thinking the same thought.


Creation implies instantiation, predication and subsequence.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that the idea has a first discoverer?

Again no, an idea without action is nothing, just a thought locked away in one or more persons head. It serves no purpose when it's lock away.

Secondly, anyone could then claim to be the creator or the first person to have thought or the idea so to speak. How then we do determine who was the first person.

This argument about which comes first is like the situation of the chicken and the egg, with the exception that the chicken and the egg are both tangible.

Ideas or thoughts are intangible seeds of action. They are useless until they are put into action, whether it is verbally shared or developed for use.

We have gone through thousands of years without an idea being put forward, that are now just coming about. Take medicine for example, it's only now that we are able to cure some illnesses. To me this suggest that if the idea was just out there floating around some one should have discovered it before now. As a matter of fact, it's only now that we are able to diagnose some illness. The idea wasn't just floating out there, it took years for mankind to develop based on observation, experience and most importantly the power to think.

If ideas are just thoughts and thoughts are borned by thinkers, then to me it stands to reason that some living organism is required to have ideas. Only living organism whether animal or human is capable of thinking.

[AngelsKiss]

Is there a difference between Knowledge and Ideas?


Knowledge is also about new discoveries. However the difference between knowledge and an idea is that knowledge is also learned or better yet shared ideas.

The commonality between the two is that they both requires some form of mental action.

Knowledge like an idea is of no use if it is not used. If I know how to cure cancer but do not use that knowledge, whether by sharing it or acting on it, its of no use to anyone. Again it's locked away in those minds never to see the light of day until there is some else who is able to conceive the thought and who is willing to share it.

[Xenocrates]

To me this suggest that if the idea was just out there floating around some one should have discovered it before now.

- So, effectively you're saying that even if an idea is conceptualized, if the thinker doesn't create some record of it, the idea ceases to exist forever?


Knowledge is also about new discoveries.

- Aaaah! But how can you discover something that doesn't exist?

[AngelsKiss]

- So, effectively you're saying that even if an idea is conceptualized, if the thinker doesn't create some record of it, the idea ceases to exist forever?
No what I am saying is that if it is not put into action it is useless.

As long as there are living organism capable of thinking, ideas will come forward. However, it takes a certain kind of thinker or circumstances to bring forth certain types of ideas, especially since ideas are usually born of some form necessity or observation.


Aaaah! But how can you discover something that doesn't exist?

Through mental action, the power to think and reason, again as I pointed out much of which is based on nessesity and observation.

It's not something you just pluck from the air.

[nuhsenutten]

i think xeno has some little things in his head..when they pick up on the slightest fragment of an argument GOTCHA!!!!!:hyper:

the idea dosent exist till it is thought of but once it is thought of and a process to demonstrate such or record the idea is begun , its a discovery

[Xenocrates]

No what I am saying is that if it is not put into action it is useless.

- Whether or not it is used is quite probably irrelevant. I seek to prove that it exists, whether or not someone recognizes that it exists (hence a thought) which would then lead to the creation of Knowledge, which is the assimilation of an idea. Comparatively, wisdom, is the exercise of Knowledge - isn't it?

For if a comet destroyed the earth, all human knowledge of the universe would cease to exist. But as you said:


...especially since ideas are usually born of some form necessity or observation...

- ...which would imply that the basis for the existence of an idea would continue to exist, irrespective of whether or not someone recognizes it. Isn't that a rational deduction?


It's not something you just pluck from the air.

- Are you sure? Many ideas were quite literally plucked from the air! The Air Ballon, Controlled Flight, Oxidation - I could go on!

Do you agree that every observation is based on some ostensible proof?

[AngelsKiss]

- Whether or not it is used is quite probably irrelevant.

It is relevant in that if it is locked away then it serves no purpose. Ideas or thoughts should mean something.


...which would imply that the basis for the existence of an idea would continue to exist, irrespective of whether or not someone recognizes it. Isn't that a rational deduction?

Exist where? In thin air? If ideas are just thoughts and thoughts are born by thinkers, shouldn't it stand to reason that ideas require some living organism capable of thinking?


- Are you sure? Many ideas were quite literally plucked from the air! The Air Ballon, Controlled Flight, Oxidation - I could go on!

Now you are being facetious :)


Do you agree that every observation is based on some ostensible proof?

So having said that, how do you prove an idea can exist without a thinker?:)

Here is where ideas does exist without a "thinker" being either the human, animal or ordinary living organism. If you do believe in a supreme being who is capable of anything. Then yes ideas can exist on "their own" without people or animals. Yet it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it still required a supreme being.

[ramesh]

1. I turn on my calculator (the calculator is "born")
2. I do some calculations.
3. I turn off the calculator (the memory "dies") - The calculations performed are now gone, useless to any other calculator.

For me to get the same ideas on another calculator, I would have to duplicate the steps or get a more efficient calculator and reduce the steps.

[Xenocrates]

It is relevant in that if it is locked away then it serves no purpose. Ideas or thoughts should mean something.

- The meaning of the idea is relative to the observer. The meaning of an idea does not justify its existence. Remember, men observed the solar system and once thought (incorrectly) that the Sun revolved around the earth! The idea is an observable phenomenon, whose interpretation (meaning) will vary depending on the observer.


If ideas are just thoughts and thoughts are born by thinkers, shouldn't it stand to reason that ideas require some living organism capable of thinking?

- That's like saying that a swimming pool is not a swimming pool until somebody swims in it! The final cause of an idea is dependent on it's interpretor. But it doesn't mean that the idea can't exist without interpretation.


Now you are being facetious :)

- :p


So having said that, how do you prove an idea can exist without a thinker?:)

- Simple. Here's a hierarchy of epistemology:

Idea - Any ostensible phenomenon in the universe.
Thought - The cognitive processing of an idea.
Knowledge - The assimilation, implementation & documentation of thought
Wisdom - The practical application of knowledge.


If a comet were to destroy the earth tomorrow morning, items 2 - 4 would instantly cease to exist. But item #1 would continue to exist, irrespective of whether or not a thinker exists to give it subjective interpretation. Wouldn't you say?


If you do believe in a supreme being who is capable of anything. Then yes ideas can exist on "their own" without people or animals. Yet it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it still required a supreme being.

- This is part of the reason why it is a logical fallacy to assert that there is no God. But that's another thread. Even if one doesn't believe in a particular personification of God (as per the Bible or Quran per se), it would still present the problem of infinite regression, if there is no first cause, or first mover. This would - in the platonic sense - be the instantiator and purveyor of all conceivable things.

But I dare say, from a practical perspective, it is the observable Universe which is the instigator of all thought - isn't it?


For me to get the same ideas on another calculator, I would have to duplicate the steps or get a more efficient calculator and reduce the steps.

- Will 1 + 1 still = 2 if the earth and all mankind is destroyed?

I somehow missed this little gem:


...the idea dosent exist till it is thought of but once it is thought of and a process to demonstrate such or record the idea is begun , its a discovery

- If that is indeed true my friend, on what is a thought based? :icon_mrgr

[AngelsKiss]

- The meaning of the idea is relative to the observer. The meaning of an idea does not justify its existence. Remember, men observed the solar system and once thought (incorrectly) that the Sun revolved around the earth! The idea is an observable phenomenon, whose interpretation (meaning) will vary depending on the observer.
Point taken. I put that baldy so I won't bother to get into this.



- That's like saying that a swimming pool is not a swimming pool until somebody swims in it! The final cause of an idea is dependent on it's interpretor. But it doesn't mean that the idea can't exist without interpretation.

A swimming pool is a tangible thing and idea is not until it is shared in some format. It just exist in someone's mind.


-- Simple. Here's a hierarchy of epistemology:

Idea - Any ostensible phenomenon in the universe.
Thought - The cognitive processing of an idea.
Knowledge - The assimilation, implementation & documentation of thought
Wisdom - The practical application of knowledge.


Hence the reason why I say that it exist without people but only because there is a supreme being. Without a supreme being or some living entity there is nothing.


If a comet were to destroy the earth tomorrow morning, items 2 - 4 would instantly cease to exist. But item #1 would continue to exist, irrespective of whether or not a thinker exists to give it subjective interpretation. Wouldn't you say?

Same answer relating to a supreme being applies .


- This is part of the reason why it is a logical fallacy to assert that there is no God. But that's another thread. Even if one doesn't believe in a particular personification of God (as per the Bible or Quran per se), it would still present the problem of infinite regression, if there is no first cause, or first mover. This would - in the platonic sense - be the instantiator and purveyor of all conceivable things.

Call it whatever you which but it all boils down to the same thing a supreme entity. The reason why I didn't use the argument of a supreme entity before is because I know there are nonbelievers.

Without some form of living organism ideas do not exist.


But I dare say, from a practical perspective, it is the observable Universe which is the instigator of all thought - isn't it?

And within the universe are living thinking organisms.

[AngelsKiss]

- Will 1 + 1 still = 2 if the earth and all mankind is destroyed?

It exist in that there is a supreme being. However, if there is no supreme being and the earth was formed based on the scientifc theory out there then no it does not exist because there is no one there to think about it muchless use it. In effect that idea would have died with mankind.

Not unlike Ramesh's theory of volatile RAM.

[ramesh]

- Will 1 + 1 still = 2 if the earth and all mankind is destroyed?Ah, but 1 + 1 = 2 is an idea that has to be taught to us everytime a new individual starts school. We (as individual beings) didn't know this fact until taught to us on a local (individual) level. However, the group idea is prevalent because someone discovered this (a long time ago), perhaps died with out revealing it to anyone (this also may have occurred many times over millenia or not), then someone had the idea and communicated it with others. The idea then pervades through society and becomes a general tenet.

Please see my earlier thread on Borg and collective thought and knowledge. ;)

[Xenocrates]

A swimming pool is a tangible thing and idea is not until it is shared in some format. It just exist in someone's mind.

- True, but an idea (technically, a thought) is not spawned without some kind of observation. Without observation (which is not limited to sight, btw), no thought would exist. There has to be some instigator for a thought. Men didn't get the idea to invent tools until they observed the physical forces of their environment. The concept of using a tool for doing a task more efficiently was always there. It just had to be discovered.

Similarly, the Cosine of 0 will always be 1, whether or not we have a calculator to provide empirical evidence of such. Likewise, a swimming pool is still a swimming pool - whether it is filled with water and swimmers or not. The fact that water can be swam in is exclusive to the existence of an artificial container designed specifically for such a purpose.


Without a supreme being or some living entity there is nothing.

- Perhaps, but we don't need to prove God's existence to prove that ideas are universally independent of thinkers. In fact, ontologically, we couldn't prove that the universe exists unless there was an autonomous maker!


Without some form of living organism ideas do not exist.

- All ideas are contained in the universe itself. Don't agree? Then here's another million dollar question:

How do we "come up" with ideas? :icon_mrgr

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro Ramesh

Do you realise that this:


Ah, but 1 + 1 = 2 is an idea that has to be taught to us everytime a new individual starts school.

and this:


...someone discovered this (a long time ago), perhaps died with out revealing it to anyone (this also may have occurred many times over millenia or not)

...are mutually exclusive?

1 + 1 = 2 doesn't have to be taught. It would have been discovered sooner or later. No calculator required. ;)

[acidblade]

lawd unno a confuse me, mi a come out ya

[AngelsKiss]

- True, but an idea (technically, a thought) is not spawned without some kind of observation. Without observation (which is not limited to sight, btw), no thought would exist. There has to be some instigator for a thought. Men didn't get the idea to invent tools until they observed the physical forces of their environment. The concept of using a tool for doing a task more efficiently was always there. It just had to be discovered.

It's not just about observation, it's a bout need too. People get the idea from realising they need a better way to carry out an activity. This idea improve over time with other building on the original idea. If the idea existed out there then we wouldn't need people to keep building on it, we would just pluck the best of the idea out of the air so to speak with out going thru the various stages. E.g. communication.



- All ideas are contained in the universe itself. Don't agree? Then here's another million dollar question:

How do we "come up" with ideas? :icon_mrgr

I don't know if I consider this a million dollar question since as far as am concern ideas are usually borned from necessity or observation or a combination of both. All it requires is a living organism capable of thought.

[AngelsKiss]

1 + 1 = 2 doesn't have to be taught. It would have been discovered sooner or later. No calculator required. ;)

It has to be taught to others by the person who discovered it. Not everyone is interested in developing or discovering new ideas.

From there other will take it and develop it even further. This is why ideas require a thinker to create them, develop and build on them. If ideas existed with out living organism I would want to think that there would be someone who is capable of immediately bringing forth the best of the lot immediately without any development over thousands of years.

In other words we would just jump right into developing the internet as a means of communication with out having to go from walking from Kingston to Mobay, to some form of motor vehicle to the telephone/telegraph to the internet.

[Xenocrates]

It has to be taught to others by the person who discovered it.

- Then how would you explain two people having the same idea independently of each other?


Not everyone is interested in developing or discovering new ideas.

- That doesn't mean no one would be interested to. ;)

[AngelsKiss]

- Then how would you explain two people having the same idea independently of each other?

What is there to explain? We have already said 2 or more persons can have the same idea. The difference is what they do with it. It's like having seeds, you either plant them so they grow into trees or you keep them and do nothing with them until they rot and disappear.


- That doesn't mean no one would be interested to. ;)

I wasn't implying that either, I said not everyone not all :)

[Xenocrates]

What is there to explain?

- You said that the idea of 1 + 1 = 2 has to be taught to someone else. I'm saying that it doesn't, which proves that ideas and discoverers are mutually exclusive of each other. ;)

[nuhsenutten]

the fact of the matter is simply an idea isnt just floating around .......it needs some thing to create it .....human... alien or supernatural........

no idea can exist without a being to create it ...........after it is thought created if the source dies without creating a record of that idea the idea is dead untill something else thinks of it

[nester-san]

no idea can exist without a being to create it ...........after it is thought created if the source dies without creating a record of that idea the idea is dead untill something else thinks of it

On that Creation/Originator note, I believe as most people seem to so far that ideas are eternal, ie. started the same time as creation.

Ok, my belief is that ideas have a time when their discovery becomes nescessary, and nothing will stop them from being discovered. Pyramids/wheel/fire/Nuclear fusion/Romance.. etc

My Million Dollar question is= assuming that the above is true :
a) Ideas were created at the same time as the universe, or have pre-dated the universe.
b) Ideas have to be discovered.

What determines when an idea is discovered?
Universal lottery?
Accident?
Divine Plan ?

[tiffany]

But guys, if it is indeed possible that someone else could think of it, how can we claim ownership of the idea? Did we create the idea or did we discover it?
no one created the the idea, everything that exists is a concept, it is just that we acknowledge them or convert them in a recognizable way. And i reiterate, knowledge isn't created or destroyed, but converted.

[Xenocrates]

...it needs some thing to create it...

- Does it really? Can you think of one idea that isn't based on some observable component of the universe?


What determines when an idea is discovered?

- According to Chaos Theory, we live in a giant mechanized universe populated by inumerable, finite automatons. Thus everything that happens, happens exactly the way it was supposed to happen in a cosmic cross-subsequence of cause and effect. Therefore, every idea that is discovered, is discovered exactly when it was supposed to have been discovered. There are no accidental leaps in technological evolution.


no one created the the idea, everything that exists is a concept, it is just that we acknowledge them or convert them in a recognizable way. And i reiterate, knowledge isn't created or destroyed, but converted.

- I could not have said it better myself. :eusa_clap

[Cheeky]

If someone has an idea, but they die before they can communicate or record it in any form, does it mean that the idea ceases to exist?

No, the idea ceases.
At death the dust returns to the earth as it was-the spirit or breath of life returns to God who gave it; the intelligent part of human beings ceases to operate.


law of the consevation of energy: Energy is niether created or destroyed but transferred,,and the same goes for the idea.

I beg to differ. You cannot use life and energy in relation to one another. This is something so delicate no science theory would ever seek to explain simply becuase God is the founder of ideas and thoughts. Infact He tells is in the bible found clearly in Ps 146:3:

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earh; in that very day his thoughts perish"

[Xenocrates]

...the intelligent part of human beings ceases to operate...

- But the concepts on which his thoughts were based do not. The universe would have to cease to exist for that to happen.


simply becuase God is the founder of ideas and thoughts. Infact He tells is in the bible found clearly in Ps 146:3:

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earh; in that very day his thoughts perish"

- You're missing the point. A human thought is a process that is spawned by the observation of an ostensible phenomenon. Even if the thought ceases, the phenomenon continues on immortal. That's why other people can concieve of the same phenomenon long after the death of someone who thought of it first. This because the source of its conceptualization is a function of the universe itself, and is not bound to the mortality of the human mind.

[nester-san]

According to Chaos Theory, we live in a giant mechanized universe populated by inumerable, finite automatons. Thus everything that happens, happens exactly the way it was supposed to happen in a cosmic cross-subsequence of cause and effect. Therefore, every idea that is discovered, is discovered exactly when it was supposed to have been discovered. There are no accidental leaps in technological evolution

Thats what I said!!, thats what I believe in too.

[Cheeky]

- But the concepts on which his thoughts were based do not. The universe would have to cease to exist for that to happen.



- You're missing the point. A human thought is a process that is spawned by the observation of an ostensible phenomenon. Even if the thought ceases, the phenomenon continues on immortal. That's why other people can concieve of the same phenomenon long after the death of someone who thought of it first. This because the source of its conceptualization is a function of the universe itself, and is not bound to the mortality of the human mind.


Thanks for your views::) , but Im still obligated to my opinions.
First of all, human thoughts are similar, there is no great "phenomenon". When someone dies thoughts just simply cease; backed up by the Creator of us. Refering to the text mentioned about, thoughts perish when one dies. This proves the fact that thoughts indeed cease or are bound to the mortal, but after death thoughts fade. Therefore, if thoughts fade the is clear that thoughts are not a phenomenon. Thoughts do not float around after death. (It goes back to God. Just how the spirit doesnt float around, unfortuately lots of ppls think.):eusa_snoo Its just happens that there is a similarity with human thoughts. There is nothing so spectacular about this concept. As I reiterate, we think alike even after death becuase humans are alike: we are bound to think alike. Scienctist can only speculate this with their "phenominal theories" but God tells us it [/B]perishes.[/B]

[Xenocrates]

Cheeky my dear, you're still not following me. Answer me this:

What inspires a thought? Think about this one carefully.

[ramesh]

The "ideas cannot be destroyed" thought depends on there being an actual "soul" that cannot be destroyed.but transferred from one form to another. Religions thrive on the belief of the "undying soul", that our bodies are just "shells" for these "ghosts".

Now it depends on your beliefs, so really it is up to the individual what they wish to believe.

[Xenocrates]

Not necessarily. None of these things require a thinker to exist. They require a thinker to recognize them. But recognition does not equate to existence.

If you believe that ideas are dependent on a thinker, then it would be the same as conceeding that you don't exist, because some guy named George in England is not conscious of the fact that you exist.

Existence and recognition are mutually exclusive.

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

I can overstand where you are all coming from but consider this, it is said "I think therefore I am" and it follows because our thoughts and everything we conceive are all part of our consciousness.
An idea from what I have gathered from this thread is perceived as an entity all by itself, it's qualities are what is being discussed, it has not been clearly defined but certainly it cannot be any more than it is, which is as I see it "a function of consciousness". Whether it exist outside of our consciousness is neither relevant nor can it be proven, what is plainly obvious is that an idea needs consciousness to exist; our consciousness.

LIFE - CONSCIUOSNESS - IDEAS

Think of the above as a triangle one cannot exist without the other, conscious beings think and express ideas, some beings are more productive than others, take away one and you will not have the others. An idea unless expressed by itself cannot exist outside a conscious being unless it is expressed by another conscious being.

To suggest that our fertile minds have been seeded with ideas and thoughts that have been out there since the begining of time takes away from our idiviuality and the fact that we exist as totally independent beings.
And if indeed such a suggestion is indeed a fact, then it holds true that we all have pre-ordianed destinys and we are all mindless robots carrying out preprogrammed functions.

Izemi-Clem

[Xenocrates]

And if indeed such a suggestion is indeed a fact, then it holds true that we all have pre-ordianed destinys and we are all mindless robots carrying out preprogrammed functions.

- Brilliant deduction. Brilliantly articulated mate. Awesome. :eusa_clap

However, do you believe that is the case, that our destinies are pre-ordained and that we're nought but automatons in a mechanized universe?

[AngelsKiss]

-However, do you believe that is the case, that our destinies are pre-ordained and that we're nought but automatons in a mechanized universe?

If our lives are pre-ordained then we shouldn't complain about any thing that happens to us or others since we have no control over who we are.

For example, we all complain of criminals and how they behave....so if we are robots going through the paces then we cannot be blamed for their actions. If you believe in a supreme being who created us then the Supreme Being is to be blamed.

Having said that I don't believe we are robots going thru life. What I do believe is that we have the power of choice to be whatever we so choose.

Much of what happens to us may seem like destiny but what it really boils down to is the choices we make or the choices of the people around us which we may have or not have control over.

Who we are is based on the choices we make starting with our mind from where our thoughts comes which are seeds of actions and the impact those actions have on us and our environment in general.

[Bahama Mama]

If someone has an idea, but they die before they can communicate or record it in any form, does it mean that the idea ceases to exist?



No. As I see it, ideas are not single and isolated entities, but are the result of the collective thoughts and actions of many. The word idea is not singular if one chooses to look at it a deeper and more abstract level. An idea is the integrated products of 'cause and effect' over the many generations, which can and has resulted in some viable and highly useful products like electricity, telecommunications, the internet, etc. etc. No one human being in my opinion, can be the sole vessel for an idea, because that what they think is a novel thought was brought about by the thoughts, ideas, and actions of many others before them,and will continue on with others after they have passed. If they die before they record their 'idea' in some tangible form, there are random others whose own thoughts and actions (deliberate or not) will more than likely lead to the same conclusion, particularly if the 'idea' has great intrinsic value.

This world would not be as advanced in technology, medecine, the arts, etc. if ideas so easily succumbed to human mortality. Ideas must remain immortal for our own advancement and that of the future generations. Our collective human curiosity, experimentation, and necessity for advancement I think ensures that an idea will never die.

[AngelsKiss]

With all that has been said let me ask this question then:

If the world meaning all living things were to die and every technology was to disappear and if after all that, the world started over again, where do you think those new people would be. Would they be able to pick up where we left off technologywise, bearing in mind there is nothing for them to follow from the previous world or would they have to start all over?

Would they be advance in their thinking or would they have to start from a primitive stage?

[Bahama Mama]

With all that has been said let me ask this question then:

If the world meaning all living things were to die and every technology was to disappear and if after all that, the world started over again, where do you think those new people would be. Would they be able to pick up where we left off technologywise, bearing in mind there is nothing for them to follow from the previous world or would they have to start all over?

Would they be advance in their thinking or would they have to start from a primitive stage?


Necessity, curiosity, and experimentation will ensure that 'ideas' will spring forth in such a situation. And like the previous world, will churn and develop from generation to generation. Just like the previous world, they would have to start out from some 'primitive' state, but will advance over the generations, if man still has his mental capabilities.

[AngelsKiss]

Necessity, curiosity, and experimentation will ensure that 'ideas' will spring forth in such a situation. And like the previous world, will churn and develop from generation to generation.
Yes but where will they start? At the beginning like or will they be some able to continue where we left off?

[Bahama Mama]

Yes but where will they start? At the beginning like or will they be some able to continue where we left off?


Okay I see what you are getting at. If they had absolutely no knowledge of the previous world, or nothing to make inference to, then just like the previous world, they would have to progress from a beginning like state. In this case, they would probably have to depend on their physical environment to cultivate ideas. That is assuming they are mentally equipped like the previous humans to advance. In this siutuation, they should still be able to cultivate collectively the same ideas as in the previous world, and by the same means. As such the 'idea' wouldnt die.

[Xenocrates]

AngelsKiss mentioned some important points worth addressing:


If our lives are pre-ordained then we shouldn't complain about any thing that happens to us or others since we have no control over who we are.

- That's the same thing as saying:

"Since God already knows my destiny, and I serve God, then I don't have to do anything, since God will automate my actions."

Can you spot the fallacy of this statement? No?

The fallacy is implied in the fact that we also know the mind of God - which is impossible, since that would mean that we are just as powerful as God. This is easily disproved by the fact that we're mortal.

Concordantly, knowing the mind of God would allow us to also see future events before they happen. The only reason why God can "See" the future, is because the universe is a cosmic wound-up clock, with inumerable "gears", "flywheels" and "springs" we collectively call "automatons". Each automaton is engaged in a never-ending cycle of cause and effect, just like the gears, flywheels and springs inside a clock. Thus, our universe is mechanised one, which provides the capacity for "foresight", since the interworkings of each automaton will produce an expected result.

Only one who can see all of the automatons and their many-to-many relationships (which number into trillionth degree of factorials) could be qualified to say "well since everything is predestinated, I don't have to do squat". As mortal beings, we are barely aware of less than 1 trillionth of all the automatons in our environment that affect us - which is why the average person believes in "choice".

Viewing the universe at a microscopic level, we will see "choice", each person making a decision and thus "directing" their lives. Viewing the universe at a macroscopic level, we see "cause and effect" and "choice" disappears. For at the macroscopic level, we will realise that choice is nothing more than an effect, which had it's own cause, which now becomes a cause to a new effect. You still with me?

We don't have to fully understand all of the relationships of every automaton to each other to realise this simple paradox. But, this is why, even if the entire planet were to be destroyed by some cataclysmic event (say a comet slams into this planet), even though all of the knowledge of every human being would cease to exist, the inspirations for that knowledge would not. This is why this:


Would they be advance in their thinking or would they have to start from a primitive stage?

- Is an EXCELLENT question! :eusa_clap

If our knowledge were erased from this universe and the cycle of creation were to start anew on a different planet, so long as the number of automatons which affect that planet are similar to those that affect our own, we would STILL develop to a similar level of technological evolution, quite probably in the EXACT same time period that it took us to get where we are today. No technological innovation happens until the precise time it was supposed to happen.

Why?

Because we live in a mechanised universe.

Our thoughts and ideas are influenced by ostensible phenomenon (i.e. permanent elements in the universe which can be demonstrably proven - like mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology). In fact, so long as our mechanised universe is not destroyed, our thoughts, hopes and aspirations are expendible. Because our assimilation of what we see in our universe is nothing more than our interpretation of what we understand. Our interpretation of a thing doesn't define it.

What we understand may cease to exist, but the inspiration for that understanding does not. This is why two people can have the same ideas, and why both Andromedans and Humans may conceive of something as a Pyramid. The concepts that inspire these creations are timeless and universal. So even if the Egyptians didn't build pyramids, somebody else would have, because the idea of a 4-sided triangle is a function of the universe, not the function of someone's mind.

[nuhsenutten]

there is only one problem i see with ur post xeno..........u base it on a theory as no one has yet to see the universe in a macroscopic sense........

there may b one or more theories on this whole existence of idea .....so who is to say which is right?

[Xenocrates]

there may b one or more theories on this whole existence of idea .....so who is to say which is right?

- The theory is based on demonstrable evidence. Ask yourself this question:

Is there anything that occurs in the universe that is truly random? In other words, it happened spontaneously with no cause whatsoever?

[nuhsenutten]

well ok then ...

but if that is the line of reasoning ....then the universe essentillay has no beginning and no end..........it has and will be around for ever......it was never created it just existed

[nuhsenutten]

i think im beginning to see where the whole existence of idea thing comes from

[Xenocrates]

but if that is the line of reasoning ....then the universe essentillay has no beginning and no end..........it has and will be around for ever......it was never created it just existed

- Look at it this way, the design of the universe is the embodiment of all possible ideas. What we know is entirely based on empirical observation. Without that observation, we would know of and think of nothing. Every human mind starts as a completely blank slate. What that mind conceives of, is based on its observation of its environment (i.e. the universe). The mind might die, but the environment does not. The environment is the inspiration for what exists in that mind.

This is the essence of the relationship between the knowledge of simulacra (in this case, all human minds) and the universe itself. The universe is the master and teacher of all simulacra. Simulacra are not designers, but rather, students of the magnificent universe. ;)

To suggest that an idea dies with simulacra, would suggest that simulacra were the designers of the universe. The universe is the ultimate purveyor of all truths.

[nuhsenutten]

just found a forum dedicated to some crazy level of physics......:icon_eek:

they have a whole section just for Epistemology

[Xenocrates]

Yes, it is quite a fun topic. There are a slieu of other topics being discussed on another forum dedicated to Philosophy. They have a whole forum dedicated to Epistemology as well.

In case you haven't Google'd or Dictionaried it by now, Epistemology is the study of the theory of Knowledge, or "how we come to know" stuff. Pretty deep. :)

[nuhsenutten]

gonna do some reading on this topic and get back to it tomorrow ...;)

[tiffany]

Thanks for your views::) Refering to the text mentioned about, thoughts perish when one dies. This proves the fact that thoughts indeed cease or are bound to the mortal, but after death thoughts fade. [/B]perishes.[/B]
The ideas do not perish, the person perishes, so he/she is no longer able to translate them into 'thoughts'. Thoughts are the acknowledgement of ideas, the ideas still exists after the individual dies, they are just no longer thoughts.
Thank you.

[Xenocrates]

Hey, you're pretty sharp Tiff. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I could have worded it so simply and succinctly. Nice. http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/xenocrates/Smilies/thumb.gif

[nester-san]

The ideas do not perish, the person perishes, so he/she is no longer able to translate them into 'thoughts'. Thoughts are the acknowledgement of ideas, the ideas still exists after the individual dies, they are just no longer thoughts.
Thank you.

Ideas do not originate from people, so that is not properly stated. Thoughts are the way we interact/intersect with the Universe on a higher level.

[Nastro]

The ideas do not perish, the person perishes, so he/she is no longer able to translate them into 'thoughts'. Thoughts are the acknowledgement of ideas, the ideas still exists after the individual dies, they are just no longer thoughts.
Thank you.

Absolutely.


The confusion really lies between highlighting an Idea separate from and Individual idea. Let me show you.

Lets say Nuhsenutten came up with the cure for aids - say the cure is "eating straw". It works. He begins to get famous in this country for this. After one year it is found that persons in the Philipines have been using the process of eating straw to cure aids for years, long before Nuhsenutten knew anything. Whose idea is it ?

Think of an idea which is not associated with anybody? Difficult isn't it. Most idea's that we know, become known to us because someone is discovered / acknowleged and/or understood it before and presented it to the public or to you specifically. These acknowledged ideas can be considered individual idea's as we can all associated them with someone.

Ideas itself are concepts of life. These are always existing. Whether acknowleged or not.

----

Here is a twist.

Could say... Bluetooth technology be discovered in just after Noah and his family came off the ark? Highly unlikely - so when was this idea CREATED!!??

Man I love this.

[nester-san]

That does NOT mean the idea didn't exist!!

It simply means that Noah was not capable of discovering the idea, because other things which needed to be in place (global communication, computers, electricity, physics etc) where not yet discovered, and he died of old age!!

If Noah lived till infinity, and was the thoughtfull type, I put forward that eventually he would have discovered bluetooth more sooner than later too!!

[tiffany]

Ideas do not originate from people, so that is not properly stated. Thoughts are the way we interact/intersect with the Universe on a higher level.
When did i say that ideas originated from people?

[Purple Queen]

As Nastro said:
Ideas itself are concepts of life. These are always existing. Whether acknowleged or not.



Could say... Bluetooth technology be discovered in just after Noah and his family came off the ark? Highly unlikely - so when was this idea CREATED!!??

Man I love this.

The idea always existed,it just was not discovered back then.The creation of the idea is independent of it's existence.

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail


The ideas do not perish, the person perishes, so he/she is no longer able to translate them into 'thoughts'. Thoughts are the acknowledgement of ideas, the ideas still exists after the individual dies, they are just no longer thoughts..

Nicely put Tiffany


Ideas do not originate from people

NOT GOOD ENOUGH Nester-San !!
You have made these statements without providing us with anything substantial to base your claim, even if it is all hypothetical there must be something logical to develop your argument.
What is your definition of an idea? Where does it come from? Does it need consciouness at all?


The idea always existed,it just was not discovered back then.The creation of the idea is independent of it's existence.
Today 10:36 AM


More empty statements!
And where is your proof of it's everlasting existence? What consciouness is responsible for its creation? And what determines when and to whom these ideas are passed to us? In what state does it exist?

Ideas I believe are the sum collective of our consciouness; they are the supposedly logical calculations of all the possiblities we know of, based on what has been learned by us. As far as we are able to compute the various permutations and combinations of what is possible and not possible, along with the resources available to us will determine if and when these ideas are brought into physical and theoretical existence.

I can't wait to hear your IDEAS on this :)

Izemi-Clem

[nester-san]

Ideas I believe are the sum collective of our consciouness; they are the supposedly logical calculations of all the possiblities we know of, based on what has been learned by us. As far as we are able to compute the various permutations and combinations of what is possible and not possible, along with the resources available to us will determine if and when these ideas are brought into physical and theoretical existence.

That assumes that if humanity did not exist there would be no ideas. In the MANY previous post before I have stated where I think ideas come from.

Everything is discovered because it was supposed to be discovered when it was discovered, which is why some stuff like Post-it notes and Velcro and Teflon seem to be "accidental".

The Universe/Creation is watching, taking care of the Pounds while the pence take care of themselves.

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail


On that Creation/Originator note, I believe as most people seem to so far that ideas are eternal, ie. started the same time as creation.
Ok, my belief is that ideas have a time when their discovery becomes nescessary, and nothing will stop them from being discovered. Pyramids/wheel/fire/Nuclear fusion/Romance.. etc

Nester you have not developed your reasoning as to why you believe this is so, but fine there is no arguing with what you believe.

That assumes that if humanity did not exist there would be no ideas. In the MANY previous post before I have stated where I think ideas come from.

The only man-sumption (assumption) I've made is that an idea needs consciouness to be recognized, any form of consciouness.

We can think, and based upon stimulus, pre-existing discovered ideas, need for a particular solution, we discover what needed to be discovered at the moment when it's discovery was nescessary
Debatable, the implementation of an idea is realised when it is successfully demonstated and by extension the aptitude and resources available to the developer(s)/inventor(s)at the time. If the above were true then we would have developed the cure for the plague and leprosy years ago, foregoing the deaths of millions in earlier centuries.
Oppurtunity, knowledge and ability feeds and fulfills the desire to provide what is necessary.

According to Chaos Theory, we live in a giant mechanized universe populated by inumerable, finite automatons. Thus everything that happens, happens exactly the way it was supposed to happen in a cosmic cross-subsequence of cause and effect. Therefore, every idea that is discovered, is discovered exactly when it was supposed to have been discovered. There are no accidental leaps in technological evolution
Which is exactly what it is, a theory, a theory does not imply it is a fact unless it can be proven without a doubt and it stands that a theory can be replaced if another more plausible theory comes along.
Every belief we have stands vulnerable to being replaced unless it is a proven absolute.

Look at it this way, the design of the universe is the embodiment of all possible ideas
That says it all, the possiblilty of something existing does in no way at all means that it does exist.

Izemi-Clem

[Cheeky]

Cheeky my dear, you're still not following me. Answer me this:

What inspires a thought? Think about this one carefully.

Ok, a thought is inspired by your beliefs, your opinions, or even society. Carefully thought of, Im still sticking with my beliefs. We just have different opinions on this and thats fine.:icon_lol:

[Purple Queen]

More empty statements!
And where is your proof of it's everlasting existence? What consciouness is responsible for its creation? And what determines when and to whom these ideas are passed to us? In what state does it exist?


To think is to exercise one's mental powers;to create or work on ideas in the mind.

Consciousness is the state of knowing about something.

An idea is a thought,concept,or image actually or potentially present in one's mind.

Doesn't that imply that ideas exist independent of the mind? That's why more than one person may share the same idea BUT it is unlikely that both will act on the same idea.

A classroom with 40 students...the teacher asks a question...10 students share the same consciousness,but only 1 student shares it with the teacher...that one student will be credited,not the other 9 :eusa_thin :)

[Cheeky]

The ideas do not perish, the person perishes, so he/she is no longer able to translate them into 'thoughts'. Thoughts are the acknowledgement of ideas, the ideas still exists after the individual dies, they are just no longer thoughts.
Thank you.

You are welcome! :eusa_danc I guess we are obligated to our opinions, but this source did not just arrive from my head or from some great therotical philosophical book, it came straight from the Bible; if u want to debate that, then thats up to you. You can clearly read it for yourself which clearly speaks about the perishing of thoughts the text can found on pg 8 mess. #71........................ Thanks for your point of view.

[Xenocrates]

Which is exactly what it is, a theory, a theory does not imply it is a fact unless it can be proven without a doubt and it stands that a theory can be replaced if another more plausible theory comes along.

- Forgive me for not clarifying. It is my fault you didn't overstand. ;) So allow me to clarify, in order for the board to appreci-love this scientific jargon:

Chaos Theory consists of several theorems for other sciences all based on the tried and true premises of deterministic cause and effect. Chaos Theory covers a broad range of mathematical sciences which examine absolute determinism from what appears to be chaos (new thread on this topic coming soon). They all involve a lot of HIGH level mathematics. Chaos Theory is not so much a "Theory" as it is a School of Thought - a science if you will (inasmuch as physics, chemistry & biology).

Someone who studies chaos theory is first a mathematician. However, a Chaos Theory expert is known as a Chaotician. They focus primarily on laws of integrals, differentials and equations. All of these are ostensible phenomenon (meaning, they can be proven thru practical demonstration). Chaoticians constantly examine "What if" scenarios in major projects and make compensations for the unpredictable (i.e. compensating for Murphy's Law).

For Example: It was chaoticians who first calculated that the burning of fossil fuels caused the Greenhouse Effect.

Hopefully, now you have a better understanding of my usage of the expression "Chaos Theory". ;)


That says it all, the possiblilty of something existing does in no way at all means that it does exist.

- That's besides the point. The point is that while our thoughts are our own, the ideas upon which they're based, are not. If there was no universe, we would not exist, and thus no thought would have occurred in the first place. A thought is based on observation of universal phenomena. Those phenomena are timeless functions of the universe itself, and are not a function of the human mind. Everything men think of and do, is based on empirical observation.

Proof: Can you name ONE creation of man that is NOT based on observation? ;)


Ok, a thought is inspired by your beliefs, your opinions, or even society...

- You're still not getting it hun. What inspired your beliefs or your opinions? Were they spawned just out of thin air or are they based on something that existed before you had a belief, opinion or lived in any society?

I guarantee you, that if you examine ANY of your beliefs or opinions, that you'd realise that they are based on something you learned. There's no such thing as autonomous knowledge. Nothing you know was not taught to you in some way or form.

When you die, your thoughts will perish, but the ability of another person to have the SAME thoughts, the SAME beliefs or the SAME opinions as yourself is not eliminated, so long as the ideas upon which they're based still exist in the universe. There is no psycho-kinetic transfer of ideas. You can learn what I know, not because I can teach it to you, but rather, because you can see it for yourself.

In fact, teaching someone is the same thing as causing them to recognize the existence of an idea that you've already recognized. Think about it. ;)

[tiffany]

-

When you die, your thoughts will perish, but the ability of another person to have the SAME thoughts, the SAME beliefs or the SAME opinions as yourself is not eliminated, so long as the ideas upon which they're based still exist in the universe. There is no psycho-kinetic transfer of ideas. You can learn what I know, not because I can teach it to you, but rather, because you can see it for yourself.

In fact, teaching someone is the same thing as causing them to recognize the existence of an idea that you've already recognized. Think about it. ;)
:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

:icon_arro Jian Xeno

Yes mi Lion, your clarifications are well overstood and deeply appreci-loved.
Bless.

The term "Chaotician" brings Steven Hawkins to mind, to think I was giving actuarians with physics degrees credit for all these calculations.
However please remember that both Newton and Einstien (to name a few) have had their equations modified in light of modern obesrvations and discoveries which were not available to them, so the equations and formulas in the Chaos Therom are just as vulnerable, which all makes for a more predictable and safer world (I would imagine).

I must admit, while I'm not comfortable with this part of your quotation

A thought is based on observation of universal phenomena
The entire quotation has held me in deep pensive thought and still does.
Admittedly I'm impressed with this direction of thought, in my mind it implies an "explicitly deliberate design" of the universe and to myself the implications are endless.
I'll leave it right here, as this might not be the place and time to discuss it.

Izemi-Clem