Can An Original Thought Exist?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Novalis, Nov 26, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Darwin was mainstream.....Hubble was mainstream....Curie was mainstream...Meitner was mainstream.....Feynman was mainstream.....Maxwell and Faraday were mainstream.......Fermi, Szillard Roentgen and Bequeral were all mainstream.
    All the others I mentioned were mainstream.
    You are sprouting bullshit as usual.
    All had hypothesis that had to run the mainstream gauntlet...all their hypothesis were accepted as legitimate, evidenced supported and predicitve....All became well known theories.
    Again, you speak nonsense.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Darwin and Hubble were mainstream , come on I know better than this
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    No you dont.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

    Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect hismedical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge (Christ's College) encouraged his passion for natural science.[11] His five-year voyage onHMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell'suniformitarian ideas, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.[12]

    Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife andfossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection.[13] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority.[14] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.[15]Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[7] In 1871 he examined human evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.[16]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

    Just because his theory of Evolution copped a fair bit of flack due to the church, does not mean he was not a mainstream scientists.....He was, and after his theory ran the gauntlet, it was accepted.

    Edwin Hubble:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble
    His studies at the University of Chicago were concentrated on mathematics and astronomy, which led to a bachelor of science degree in 1910. Hubble also became a member of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity. He spent the three years at The Queen's College, Oxford after earning his bachelors as one of the university's first Rhodes Scholars, initially studying jurisprudence instead of science (as a promise to his dying father),[14] and later added literature and Spanish,[14] and earning his master's degree.[15]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble


    Now please explain to me how the hell you believe they were not mainstream....Or better still, show me some evidence pointing to them as non mainstream scientists.
    You certainly are over the top delusional when it comes to the question of mainstream scientists.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    you have based your argument on education

    this has nothing to do with what I'm trying to get across

    all came to a conclusion that was outside the education they were given

    Tesla had a very good education as well but he as others went beyond what he was taught , to form original ideas

    and they were not mainstream
     
  8. Novalis Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    We live in a world where an original idea can simply not exist. Ideas do not come from nowhere, they are spawn in the mind..the imagination; and since we know so little about that realm, we can only try to derive some sort of understanding as to where the imagination comes from. I personally view the imagination the same as I view dreams. Dreams are images that come from your experiences, everything you dream is a past experience recycled and turned anew, so why not the imagination?
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    But surely, anyone who sees something that has never been seen before is likely to have an original thought, are they not?

    For example, new species are being discovered in Europe at a rate of ~700/yr. When a botanist or zoologist examines one of these, are not their thought about the new specimen original? After all, no one has thought about them before.

    Now I admit that these thoughts may be original only in the trivial sense that the thought: "Hmm, this beetle's front leg is very similar to a such-and-such" may have previously been had in relation to a different species of beetle, but strictly speaking it is an original thought, surely?
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    So because we know little about imagination , you assume that original thought can not exist ...

    How does one have a original thought with no imagination ...?
     
  11. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    Have you read "Thought as a System" by David Bohm? If not, you might be interested in reading it.
     
    Novalis likes this.
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Without the very first invention of say the telescope Hubble wouldn't have come up with his ideas. So to say he was mainstream would not be absolutely true for he needed the telescope to develop his ideas.

    We always have to revert back to whoever started the discipline or things associated with it to get to the truth of who was the originator of many ideas. Then there are things that aren't associated with what the invention first started out as and then we get a mutation of that original idea.
     
    Novalis likes this.
  13. Novalis Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    It wasn’t the thought that was original, it was the analysis process. Perhaps the manner in which they studied the new specimen was done in a specific fashion to cater to the animal’s unique needs, but the method they went about doing this would have been by using new techniques that were built upon older versions.

    For example: if we stumbled upon a new breed of wolf, sure we would examine the species in a new fashion, but we would do this by calling upon previous research. Even if the animal was so outlandishly strange, we would still use tried methods of examination until we classified the animal.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2014
  14. Novalis Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    The ideas we envision in our minds (imagination) are a reflection of our day to day lives…what we’re exposed to, so they can't be original.

    Well, you can’t have an original thought unless you were present at the very beginning of things, and even that is pushing it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2014
  15. Novalis Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    Where do you stand on this?
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    I thought you might say that. But, in that case, are we not into a continuum of originality, whereby there are varying degrees of originality in each thought?

    If so, then it seems to me your original question is rendered a bit moot, isn't it?
     
  17. Novalis Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    Which I have stated above in previous answers; originality can only exist in the very beginning, otherwise everything is just a product of influence. There are no varying degrees, only two categories: that of which is truly original or first (this could only exist in a prehistoric scenario) and that of which is not(everything that comes after) By saying that there are varying degrees to originality, you are in fact rendering the word obsolete, because anything that follows the first ever initial idea is just influence and no longer original.

    New concepts can be created, but it's foundations will always be traced back to previous discoveries.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    It's a point of view, I suppose. I don't find it very helpful though, I must admit.
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Boy if I have heard that once I have heard that a thousand times.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Novalis likes this.
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    I disagree

    Prehistoric was also based on knowledged gained from the enviroment , hence original thought can't even begin in this time period

    Further , prehistoric thought is limited to their knowledge at that time

    All thinking has some back ground knowledge on which to draw from

    Hence original thought comes from those which have come before and always will

    But original thought exits and will always exist in those that think differently upon the current thinking in any time period
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If the goal is money, fame, prestige and/or social acceptance, originality needs to remain marginal and extrapolated from current thought. One cannot have to much departure from what the herd already knows or the herd will get spooked. If you wish to publish in science journals you can't be so original you have zero references. The system will not accept that much original. There is a bias against original based on primitive fear of novelty. By staying connected the fear is less.

    If money, fame, prestige and acceptance are less important, as you create, you can break away from the herd's collection of ideas, since you are not motivated by herd validation. The problem this creates is if the idea is good, the herd will become spooked, if you then seek validation. The reason is ,you will need to enter their box from the outside; illegal alien stopped at the border. The net effect is true originality has always been there, but it often locked in prison or kept outside, so an illusion is created that all has to be connected (or else). One needs to aware of social magic tricks to force the herd to walk one way.
     
  22. Novalis Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    You contradicted yourself twice.

    If original thoughts come from preceding ideas, then it's impossible for anything ever to be original.
    I think we should develop a new word for innovative ideas and inventions, because simply stating that the next big thing is 'original' is
    false. It's a linguistic problem I feel.

    Influenced Innovation.
     
  23. Novalis Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    Interesting. I feel like it's a fear of accepting the ordinariness of human capability that most people cannot seem to grasp. This society is infatuated with being perceived as something distinct and other. If we can undo the negative connotation of the words plain, ordinary, and inauthentic, then perhaps we can focus on other important things that will advance the species.
     

Share This Page