Thread: No Such Thing As An Original Thought?

You can absolutely have an original thought, but there would be no way of explaining an original thought to others unless it was expressed as the combination of others ideas that already exist in the common stock of societies knowledge. Hence, thoughts cannot enter the social stock of knowledge without first being decribed in terms of other thoughts. For example, Lets say that a person, Bill, has a completely original thought that is unrelated in any way to existing thoughts. How would Bill tell his friend, Sally, about this if not in terms of other thoughts that where in the domain of some collectively shared, pre-existant, knowledge? There would be no way to transmit this idea to Sally, and thus no way for this idea to enter the common stock of knowledge unless it where communicated as some sort of combination of already existing ideas. To go a bit further, even Bill must think of his thought as being the product of pre-existing thoughts. Hence, the original thought is modified in a dialectic fashion into a mere combination of existing thoughts, even in Bills own mind. For example:

Lets say in Bill and Sally's universe there are no canoes. No one has ever seen a canoe or heard of a canoe.

Bill conceives of the idea of a canoe - Bill remembers the idea interms of the combination of several existing ideas - i.e. Log, hollow, float, Bill communicates idea to Sally. Sally concieves of a new idea for a metal canoe - iron + canoe = boat

In this fashion, new ideas are communicated to society and become part of societies stock of knowledge where they are then available to be combined to describe other new ideas. This is evident in the structure of language (words are comprised of several roots as anyone who as studied etymology can attest to ) as well- something which I think is self evident & I don't really have the energy to explain in this post.


Forgive my grammer & spelling erros - I am above both of them

But clearly that process must have a bedrock. What are these thoughts, and how do they emerge and spread?

The example you gave seems pretty clearly equivalent to the idea of a canoe, rather than a dialectic reduction. Is there truly such a thing as an original thought 'unrelated in any way to existing thoughts'? It's hard to see how a thought can have meaning without reference to others.

Do you have any thoughts on the mechanism by which original thoughts emerge?

Welcome to DV.

I guess they can't be completely original because we can only extract the contents of thoughts from our experience of reality and imagination, but those contents can be connected in surprisingly original and beneficial ways. Although, I do have a feeling virtually completely original thoughts are possible, even if they do have to stem from previous thoughts.

I suspect that many of my dreams are original thoughts. While not all the elements in the dream are native to only my experience it's the combination of visuals and elements that make them original.

Think of it in the same way that every single human on the planet is unique and no two are exactly alike. Sure, we all have carbon and oxygen in us, we all bleed red and we all eat and poop but that doesn't cause each of us to be unoriginal.

Thoughts are the same.

All thoughts are 100% original, even if they're the exact same words and in the exact same order as a predecessor. The universe is being born in the moment, and everything in the moment remains completely unique. It's only when we interpret things by comparing them to others and categorizing them that they become unoriginal, but the unoriginality is merely a construction of the mind, the actual thought/object remains unique.

OP, what you're saying is as true as it is irrelevant to the conversation. The conversation is taking place within and with reference to the dualistic nature of linquistic thought. By stepping beyond that, you're essentially short circuiting the conversation and hence ignoring the interesting ideas that could come out of it.

While you are borrowing previously created words in order to formulate opinions, this doesn't mean the opinion is unoriginal. That's like saying there's no such thing as an original snowflake. While the variations are subtle, and often vary so subtly the words are all the same, intention is something unique to each human being in each situation. To believe the thought is anything less than completely unique and irreplaceable simply because it borrows a previously created code for proper communication is like saying you don't own a painting because paint was invented already.

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the words you're saying mean? If so perhaps you could explain how they pertain to the conversation.

Originally Posted by ElsiaStar

sorry if this seems a little confusing...

If you think about it... there is really no such thing as an "original thought."

It's impossible to think of a completely new thought that doesn't in any way relate to any thought/idea/thing that has been thought of before.

There are so many things that we can't even think about because we can't even imagine them because no one had ever thought of them before. It's impossible to think of something completely new. For example, someone might think of a flying car. That's not a new idea because we already have cars and airplanes. Nothing is a NEW thought, technically.

It seems impossible to think of something completely new because we can't wrap our heads around anything that we can't even imagine. We can only think about things that we know about.

Even the guy who came up with the idea of making the first car didn't have an original idea because a car is made from resources from our planet Earth. I'm talking about a COMPLETELY original idea/thought that doesn't relate to our planet or anything that already exists.


I don't know.. I just found this to be interesting.

I was responding to this. Does that help you?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I was responding to this. Does that help you?

Never mind about the "you're getting smarter". Do I seem less condescending now?

Considering you just successfully earned yourself the first ever membership on my ignore list, no.

Originally Posted by Xei

But clearly that process must have a bedrock. What are these thoughts, and how do they emerge and spread?

The example you gave seems pretty clearly equivalent to the idea of a canoe, rather than a dialectic reduction. Is there truly such a thing as an original thought 'unrelated in any way to existing thoughts'? It's hard to see how a thought can have meaning without reference to others.

Do you have any thoughts on the mechanism by which original thoughts emerge?

Welcome to DV.

Xei I think you raise a very good point. In my previous post, my intention was to describe the differences between different types of thoughts as well as the way in which they are transmitted between individuals and society. For the purposes of this conversation I think there would be perhaps 2 different kinds of thought. the first we can call subjective thought and the second objective thought. here is a description of those kinds of thoughts as I see them

1) Subjective thoughts (Aka individual thoughts- these are original thoughts) - These are unique and original thought objects that are had / experienced by all individuals that are created via sensual perception. These are the building blocks for more complex thoughts, Examples could include: a granite stone, a blueberry, a mountain stream, a black bear, a warm breeze, (objective thoughts as experienced by the individual would also be included in this catagory as they are viewed through a unique and subjective lens by individuals). What makes subjective thoughts unique is the detail that surrounds them in the mind if the individual. Individuals do not simply think about a given object, they interperate that object in a unique way based on their unique past experiences and also the subjective nature of sensory experience itself (there is a large body of research supporting the subjectivity of sensory experience for those that are interest) . These interpretations are unique and original for everyone and are rich with emotional content in many cases. subjective thoughts can never be fully described by language. The example below illustrates only part of the difference between subjective / objective thoughts.

For example, to an individual a blue berry is not just a blue berry. A blue berry is the delicious refreshing snack that they on one memorable occasion during childhood when they hiked through the Alaskan wilderness past a granite filled mountain stream where there was a summer breeze and they saw a black bear. For another individual a blueberry is something that is tasty when baked in a muffin and they sometimes by one on their way to work before hopping on the subway.


2) Objective thoughts: These are subjective thoughts that have been stripped of their subjective detail. Thus objective thoughts (generic, unoriginal thoughts) are comprised of stripped down subjective thoughts (which are quite original and unique and incapable of being communicated to others). language systems enable these to become quite complex.

Your mention of bed rock thoughts is a good point too. I believe what you are asking is tantamount to how languages develop. I think someone with a background could do a better job describing that process. But i imagine begins with extremely simple forms of communication used to convey very basic, possibly apriori ideas (pain, pleasure and their derivatives) food, shelter, basic commands, domination / submission. The kinds of things that many animals, including humans, are capable of communicating. The combination of these base ideas enables more complex ideas and the combination of those ideas enables even more complex ideas and so on. maybe something like that?

What do others think?

Originally Posted by ElsiaStar

If you think about it... there is really no such thing as an "original thought."

A number of years ago, can't seem to recall when, I came to a realization that I have never had an original thought. What's up with that? As I looked around, I couldn't seem to find any one else that has either. I'm not that well read nor an historian by any stretch, but this absent ability seems to go way back through history in all civilizations. What I do know is this;
We used to have freedom but the surveillance state is corralling everyone into a prison planet.
We used to have liberty but everyone is being taxed into servitude.
We've been taught we have free will but when a choice becomes actionable, it is based on our knowledge, emotion and perception of the environment around us.

I also understand we are all connected spiritually to each other and to this universe we exist in. Few people know this and seek more enlightenment while most ignore their spiritual connection and the rest condemn seekers in one way or another for whatever agenda they align themselves to.

There exists beings with telepathic abilities so powerful they can make you not see what is around you and/or make you see things that are not there at all. They can stop you from hearing what is being said to you and/or make you hear anything they choose. The only way to defend an attack on your mind in this manner is to be grounded in your perception of what is physical and what is spiritual and the state of your knowledge and awareness limits your perception. Beyond this, tools and methods have been developed and employed to entrain anyone's brain for manipulating emotions as well as implanting messages. Becoming sensitive and avoiding these tools and methods is the only defense.

When someone conceives an idea worth exploring, then realizes they do not have the words to express it, sketching the idea on whatever canvas is available is the next logical method of communication. I earnestly desired to uncover why I never had and cannot seem to produce an original thought and my curiosity has led me here that I may post what I found thus far?

Ecclesiastes reached the assessment that 'All is vanity and there is nothing new under the sun.' which is stating the topic of this thread - that there is no such thing as an original thought. Humm. The Gospel from the apostle John starts with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD." That is the only accurate expression depicting original thought I am aware of. I also found the only method publicly known to effectively interact with that GOD and possibly experience an original thought with/through IT is to exercise and emulate the teachings of Jesus Christ which most anyone can do, and His teachings do not harm children or incite them to do harm as opposed to the curriculum in many classrooms today.

So, how far are you willing to venture to experience and communicate an original thought? Your choices are not an act of free will but are a proclamation of your very being. Having to make a choice between life or death is not free will and nearly every choice we make will ultimately lead to a life or death outcome. Jesus Christ did not have any free will during his life. Neither do we.

I am seeking any suggestion that will aid me in my journey to accomplish an original thought (besides ingesting ayahuasca but that is on my bucket list). Posts before mine appear superficial to me except #30. I believe it will be through a dream one will occur and I hope that with the information and techniques to experience a WILD learned here, this engagement will yield something worth sharing.

I think. Therefore, I am. Anyone needing an explanation to any statement in my post, please do the research - the truth is out there. Thank you in advance.

I first came across this idea reading Byron Katie's "Loving What Is" during a concentrated portion of my self-help journey during high school about a decade and a half ago. She says "there are no new thoughts," and that's why we should not be too attached to our own.

Ever since we were babies, we mimicked our parents in every way, starting with the facial expressions, then sounds with the mouth, etc..so why not have this happen with our feelings, and other less tangible yet real happenings inside of our bodies? Psychic phenomena has its fair share of skeptics, including me in the past, but it was just fear that I used to help my mind not be convinced of that stuff...but one should not depend too much on the secrets of the natural universe without considering the numerous dimensions that extend beyond the third. We are Super Mario characters compared to the beings that really have the knowledge.

Anyway, thanks for reading. Good to be back.

This is often used in conjunction with discussions of art and originality in art. It's often claimed that there is no original art, and that all art is derived from another artist. For a while, I thought the idea of no originality made sense.

But then I discovered that originality truly exists.

My example is the song Risen by Terry A. Davis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmjU-6tkEc8

Terry A. Davis was a gifted computer programmer, who was also insane, and devoted much of his life to programming an operating system he believed was designed by God Himself. His method of communicating with God involved random number generation through computers. His music was an extension of his belief that he could communicate with God, and he used a hymn writing tool he programmed to randomly generate melodies, or in his words, he had God write the melodies for him.

So there we have an example of originality in art. Many of Terry's hymns are not derivative of other songs because they are random in origin, arising spontaneously from a series of randomly generated numbers.

Building on this, this makes the first time someone listens to a TempleOS melody original thought, as no one has thought of that melody before, and the melody is totally unique and is not derived from any prior thought. So original thought is indeed possible through random generation.

Why does originality matter though? Someone brought up in isolation of art and then exposed to a derivative work might, after all, experience a prior work as being influenced by the latter if they could not establish a time-line for these works.

I don't know. Some of my co-workers might argue that some of the ridiculous shit that comes out of my mouth sometimes no one else ever would have thought of.

A computer program can only execute the instructions that have been given it. To write a program that allows the program to create programs will only produce jibberish after awhile unless clearly defined walls are inserted in the original program and never violated. Structuring code is a learned talent and reveals the extent of ones brain damage when practiced

"Nothing new under the sun"

I see it like this:

We exist in the eternal timeless now, everything to ever exist or be experienced, every possible potentiality all exists in the now, in this continual moment right here, right now. Think of it this way, if you were God, if you were infinite, eternal and all that is, you could create every possibility ever possible and have it all existing in just one single moment in time. In a way, we are god incarnate having a personal experience across multiple timelines, realities and perspectives. This is the truth and has taken me many years, possibly lifetimes to figure out. Nothing left to do now but enjoy the ride and whatever comes next.

We only really go into the future or past, in our mind, in our imagination or memory, but in reality everything happens in the present now. Anything we experience, can only occur in the present moment, we can think about the future or past but only experience the moment we are in at any given point in time. The only way to overcome this, would be experiencing a future or past event within the imagination or memory, within a dream or astral projection experience.

So yes, no original thought left, because everything to ever be thought of, has been thought of already. Alpha and Omega, and everything in between, everything is in the all, and the all is in everything.

I just had a very vivid 3d wide awake LD experience and it went like this:


voice: Suffer what the Father gives you!
me: Great! Just what I wanted to live for.

Therein lies the sin of Cain?
Am I beyond grace?
I know You love me.

I think God is the most awesome shit to ever come into existence!

Someday I hope to experience an original thought.

And share it.

That's the top of my bucket list, anyway.

Do we really need to experience the climax to know that this is all for real?

I've been a disciple of Jesus since I was six, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
Or maybe it does, thanks to You!
Have you ever had an original thought?
Prove it! Declare it and it will be proven not


... stay tuned for the next exciting episode!!

(I'm almost ready, whenever that'll be)

There was a time when the Internet was inconceivable. And yet, someone thought of it for the first time. Its creators might have been inspired by technological advances—or even by natural changes in the environment and the abilities of certain lifeforms!—but the thought to devise something new that never existed before (at least on this planet) was truly unique, and therefore, original.

Originally Posted by Summerlander

There was a time when the Internet was inconceivable. And yet, someone thought of it for the first time. Its creators might have been inspired by technological advances—or even by natural changes in the environment and the abilities of certain lifeforms!—but the thought to devise something new that never existed before (at least on this planet) was truly unique, and therefore, original.

The Internet is nothing more than the physical manifestation of telepathy, an extension of the telephone, a tool to aid the handicapped.

In November of 1973, (I was 19) I made a request directly to God for a network platform that anyone could access at any time they chose so that when they were ready, they could find His Word and the teachings of His Son, Jesus. That was long before personal computers. We were still using rotary phones! I had no direct knowledge that the internet was already under construction and has been since before WWII.

The U.S. Patent Office is full of original ideas - that's why it's there - but everyone of those patents is like a branch on a tree, not a snow flake. If you find a snow flake in that pile, please make it known. The only published depiction of an original thought I am aware of is found in John 1 - In the beginning was the Word...

Nice try Summerlander!

Originally Posted by LDyogi

The Internet is nothing more than the physical manifestation of telepathy, an extension of the telephone, a tool to aid the handicapped.

What quote is the from?


As you might expect for a technology so expansive and ever-changing, it is impossible to credit the invention of the internet to a single person. The internet was the work of dozens of pioneering scientists, programmers, and engineers who each developed new features and technologies that eventually merged to become the “information superhighway” we know today.

Long before the technology existed to actually build the internet, many scientists had already anticipated the existence of worldwide networks of information. Nikola Tesla toyed with the idea of a “world wireless system” in the early 1900s, and visionary thinkers like Paul Otlet and Vannevar Bush conceived of mechanized, searchable storage systems of books and media in the 1930s and 1940s. I think there is a network before that though.

This is like trying to figure out what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Even ants have probably better networking than humans do.

Originally Posted by LDyogi

The Internet is nothing more than the physical manifestation of telepathy, an extension of the telephone, a tool to aid the handicapped.

What quote is that from?

I wasn't aware I was quoting anyone - that's my perception. Do you know the limits of telepathy? I don't. Especially after experiencing telekinesis through remote viewing. Scary stuff. How would you go about controlling your thoughts if every single thought was actionable?
I tried enforcing the rules of "Simon Says" with that. It doesn't work. Not for long anyway.

As for which came first - the chicken or the egg?

It was the egg which was created - usually explained as "by God" which makes perfect sense IF you understand "God". MOST people don't. And that also explains why other than realizing that you've never had an original thought, how difficult it is to experience an original thought.

My observation is that a lot of people confuse cognitive ability as being original thoughts