Can the Human Brain Really Imagine Nothing "Original"?

Let's think, almost everything our brain imagines is a kind of variation of what it has experienced before or it has been developed. Let's examine the situation with the comments of dictionary authors.
Let's start with the detection itself
For individuals who desire to be a kind of god just by thinking, disgrace is just like disgrace that the human brain cannot imagine anything original. the human mind can never imagine something original under any circumstances. it copies or develops the facts it feels permanently with its five sense organs.

that is, if the god exists by thinking only about everything that exists, the individual cannot say: "Then I can be a god too." because it always copies, always plays.

nothing completely original can exist in the mind. I would like to imagine a whole new world, universe, space; there is a sky, earth, atom, air in the place. you will never, ever, ever catch the absolute original. Who knows, maybe if you catch it, you will get rid of the mind of God!
therefore, one cannot be a god. then he starts sympathizing with the immanuel kant he hates. no doubt this is the biggest sign of aging.
Handling the subject in the context of originality
origin, which is the root of the original word, comes from the word oriri as far as I know and with the meaning of being born; It contains the meanings of "innate, inherent" / "innate, inherent".

If you now believe that the stereotypical saying "existence is preceded by essence", if you believe that the essence is also constructed, the origin from the essence will not be a fixed position, it will become a variable and variable point or region. if the essence is eternal and eternal for you, in other words, if you are technically idealistic; "origin" will be a fixed point or region for you.

I want to emphasize the words that I use diligently, a little more so that what I mean is better understood: the expression "point or region" that I constantly use is not random phrases. and, with a little introduction to analytical geometry, I continue with a question like this: plane, space, space-time; Is it to change the axis briefly, to reach the original? otherwise, using a new combination of points not previously defined in these axes to get a new region that has never been defined against the "origin"?

if it is the intervention to change the structure of the axes, which we define with the original, it undoubtedly makes it more difficult to be original; however, if it is a combination of "essential" points that we originally describe, things are changing a little bit more - the possibilities that are infinite for both are ideally located as "hard-to-reach probability", while in the other, all we have to do is " to have a relationship with the self. (how simple it sounds!)

The ability to intervene in the axes makes it necessary to think here by the nature of the axes: can the axes be known (the problem of knowability)? Can the known axis be intervened and changed (efficiency issue)? if we answer "no" to one of these two questions, if we define the original as a modifying effect on the axes, we cannot argue that authenticity is possible; if we answered "yes" to both of them, we can argue that this is possible even if we have defined originality as an axial modifying effect.

No, if we define originality as a new point or combination of points without getting in touch with the axes, the point of gravity shifts more to the relationship with the essence than the axes: is "the origin", whatever, is the "original"? Is the uniqueness, uniqueness aspect, the main feature of the original, the meaning of the use of the original in everyday life? Is it possible that nature from "self" is not unique; if possible, is it born out of "essence" enough to make it original?
For those who do not like those who distribute the word very briefly, I will briefly compile my own answers below and leave them here on the questions I have asked so far; anyway, for those who want to think, the above-mentioned supernatural has been sufficient.

Is "origin" constant or dynamic?
it is dynamic for me; Even if one does not know the existence of a "origin" in its true form, he establishes it as a belief and makes all relevant definitions from it. Even if we cannot have a genuine origin, we will have a dynamic origin because it is agreed upon, and that it changes in parallel with the beliefs.

Could the axes to be defined from these fixed or dynamic origin be known?
in my opinion, at least in its true state, it cannot be known; however, it is possible to believe in the axes that exist in reality, through the origin that exists as a reality. in short form; it cannot be known, but it is believable, and this is sufficient to bring it on.

are the original effects that interfere with these axes and change them; Or can a set of points defined on these axes be originally defined?
I am not going to reject the originality of a set of points that are effective enough to affect the axes; however, this does not eliminate the originality of other sets of essence / origin, in my opinion. both can be described as original. I think I can describe it as a kind of magnetic force: every cluster capable of having a magnetic effect on the axes, whether or not the effect can change the axes, its existence is worth considering; according to me.

For a cluster to be original, is it enough that it comes from "essence"; or should it be unique? Or is it possible that it is not unique?
Although I believe in the uniqueness of those who come from the "essence" as a total, I cannot claim that any "essence" that can manifest in a limited space will be unique; this means that even if the essence is unique, the presentation may not always be unique. however, the fact that this presentation cannot be unique does not harm it to be original; because even though the seal cannot be unique, its potential for change has its uniqueness - a one that cannot be unique for the moment but has the potential to be unique.

To summarize, briefly: what is the "original"?
the original is "born of essence"; I think I can sum it up by saying.
(If I disappoint my friends who are just trying to understand by looking at the end, I'm sorry, but you will have to scramble the text a little bit.)

The response of the determination owner "uncle moss" to this entry
The author "jderuan" touched a very important topic. because in order to falsify this argument, it is necessary to examine the concept of originality. otherwise, neither the chopin's nocturne nor the schrödinger's equations can be described as original.
Mind-creation relationship
One of the subjects that has obsessively occupied my brain for years is the subject of brain and originality. Like everything in the universe, imagination and the human mind are both compounds and matter. the authorized brother of this subject is david hume.

the mind cannot overcome the design of the universe because it is design, almost like a universal constant. Everything he dreams will be the resultant of his impressions. the brain is the same as it sees. It is a good example to imagine aliens in human form. a better example is that the gods always look like humans in terms of image and personality, that this eventually turns to "the god created man in his own image" and the concept of god first emerged from the impression of father and depictions of heaven. this inspiration, inspiration, etc. The words have already been found in the language, but their physical causes are hardly considered. The mental transfer in human history is much harder, shallow, and simpler than the "transformation of things" seems, so it can be painful as you notice.

The act of creating is the oxymoron state. is wrong from the start. In order for the conscious god to create something, he must first create the act of creating. paradox. as if God could create a stone that he cannot lift. If you had a brain that could get information outside of the senses / impressions, you could have acquired the knowledge of the entire universe at once, but again, the information you would have would have been different from the knowledge of this universe. Actually, it would be a different thing, but it would not be material in originality ... at this point we set out to examine the arguments collected under "nothing has been created."
If we take the issue in the context of philosophy?
This is a proposition belonging to the pre-kant period.

immanuel kant discusses the concept of imagination (einbildungskraft) in his critique of his third criticism of judicial ability and completely renews its meaning. Before kant, the history of thought does not recognize a concept like creative imagination. imagination is always treated as a reproductive power. For example, according to David Hume, the function of the imagination is to reproduce sensory impressions and to re-represent it to the mind at any time, even more quietly. With the kant and the third critique that especially the romantics will be admired, the concept of imagination is being transformed by a powerful intellectual revolution. From now on, the imagination will be divided into two; reproductive imagination and schematizing, symbolizing, reflective imagination (schematizing, symbolizing, reflexive imagination) ...

we talked about the function of the reproductive imagination; reproducing sensory impressions. which can be recalled at any time. So what is the function of creative imagination? how does it work? what is his act? The concept of creativity (hence the original concept) takes on a new meaning here. In the romantic period, this was taken as a genius act. it creates nothing from scratch; but it creates unexpected, surprising connections. What does it mean to schematize? what about symbolizing? we cannot even enter the foreground of the complex histories of these concepts starting from kant here. but it is possible to say that these creative processes do not have to start from scratch to be creative: the imaginative imagination works undoubtedly on the given impressions, but it does so in such a way that it creates new connections that have not been discovered before. to schematize is not to establish similarities between shapes, but to discover similarities between relations. The creative imagination power starts from this point and moves towards more abstract, more unique connections. There seems to be no visible connection between the idea of ​​innocence and a white lily at first; but the poetic genius manages to present one through the other. it is the creative imagination that gradually finds a way to symbolize divine idols that have no equivalent in the phenomenal sphere.
The romantics cling to the third critique of kant. There was something in their imaginative imagination that resolved their eternal aspirations. But it was also up to Martin Heidegger to voice conservative emotions that were not happy with this situation. In his book on kant (kant and the problem of metaphysics), he stated that the creative power of imagination does not emphasize the eternity (divinity of mankind) of the human imagination, and that this misunderstanding should be avoided. heidegger does not like the concept of imagination; "Imagination, that stateless power," he said.

the conclusive idea that I came up with from this story is
western europe more or less agreed on a new meaning of the concept of creativity. they accept a more modest, non-scratch concept of creativity and imagination, discovering new connections between existing ones. When they talk about creativity in art or science, they talk about divine creation, not creating anything, but making new discoveries. ex nihilo nihil fit. With this new formulation, European civilization has reached a more humane, humble understanding of creativity, so that it has been able to build a more creative culture.
Previous Post Next Post