Thread: Ideas (in relation to strict determinism)

forgetting the fact that all ideas cast here (by your belief) are old hat, unoriginal and have already been answered.......

there are very few new ideas floating around
film plot lines can be broken down into a finite number of categories (I think it's eight, from memory)

Most new things today, are just re-hashed old things
(talking ideas, here, remember)

Name me one new idea within the last 5 years

So, I was having a conversation about free will the other night with one of my good friends. I am strict determinist (everything you have done and will ever do is already determined) while she is not.

Within the construct of the determinable is a commonality of thought with those of a predestination theory. ‘The Alpha, and the Omega -The first shall be last and the last shall be first’

At one point in the discussion, she posed the question, \"where do new ideas come from?\".
This was a question I didn't immediately have an answer for...and I've been looking for one over the past few days, unsuccessfully.

Not all knowledge is contiguous ‘as in a methodology of study’ as most would think but it is dimensional, one must graduate from the one dimension, before entering into the other.

Obviously they must still be contained within the determinist framework, since the only alternative is chaos, so I was wondering if any other determinists here have an ideas on that? Any input would be great.

There are strict requirements which must be met before one can move into the other dimension which is where all new ideas are discovered.

PS. Although it's inevitable that this thread will turn into another debate on free will, please try to contain your arguments for at least a few days so I can maybe get a reasonable response or two.[/quote]

Brady I guess this means you are beginning to understand what I was saying in the other thread about it? Free will (thought/ideas/decision/ect) from your life essence, (being a life princible (decision) from the source of purpose, is co-existing with determinism. As the way it is structured. And I'm glad you finally caught on to the "idea". And thinking about it. Makes me proud of you in fact.

Originally posted by Ynot
there are very few new ideas floating around
film plot lines can be broken down into a finite number of categories (I think it's eight, from memory)

Most new things today, are just re-hashed old things
(talking ideas, here, remember)

Name me one new idea within the last 5 years

Good reply (except for the condescending part). I'm not necessarily talking about meaningful ideas though. The sentence \"jerk chicken ate fried green jerry-laces\" is a new idea, I just came up with it.

I already rode the train of thought you just described, but how, where and when are these ideas combined into new ones?

I'm thinking that there's a basic operation happening in the brain that grab random bits of knowledge and slaps them together. Then another level of pattern recognition basically asks, \"is this meaningful?\". If it is, it gets passed on for further processing.

But that begs the question...what initiates the random grabbing of bits of ideas?

Originally posted by Ynot
forgetting the fact that all ideas cast here (by your belief) are old hat, unoriginal and have already been answered.......

Thanks for your opinion.

Brady I guess this means you are beginning to understand what I was saying in the other thread about it? Free will (thought/ideas/decision/ect) from your life essence, (being a life princible (decision) from the source of purpose, is co-existing with determinism. As the way it is structured. And I'm glad you finally caught on to the \"idea\". And thinking about it. Makes me proud of you in fact.[/b]

Free will doesn't exist. Don't tell me what I do and do not agree with.

Name me one new idea within the last 5 years[/b]

Faith, the other white meat!

what initiates the random grabbing of bits of ideas[/b]

This is really great that you are actually thinking about that.

I say it comes from the life princible. And is an actual quality of life that tunes into the infinite of what is already there, The one source.Us being part of this reality, as we cannot be separate from the source of it, (basic maths) as an individualized entity chooses what it wants from this database of itself. which is in itself the source of purpose which runs everything in existence. Decision is therefore a quality of consiousness and its abilitys span into countless universes of evolution, which eternally build on each other for the foundation of the next great step, in the demensions of consiouness. Free will have been programmed, to exist in the face of determinism, simply because the power that created it could not accept restriction but to move forward eternally. Which is what this is all about, and reality is merely ourself.

Just my thoughts and self contemplation about it. Which can go on and on for a very long time, the rabbit hole doesn't even end.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
I say it comes from the life princible. And is an actual quality of life that tunes into the infinite of what is already there, The one source.Us being part of this reality, as we cannot be separate from the source of it, (basic maths) as an individualized entity chooses what it wants from this database of itself. which is in itself the source of purpose which runs everything in existence. Decision is therefore a quality of consiousness and its abilitys span into countless universes of evolution, which eternally build on each other for the foundation of the next great step, in the demensions of consiouness. Free will have been programmed, to exist in the face of determinism, simply because the power that created it could not accept restriction but to move forward eternally. Which is what this is all about, and reality is merely ourself.

I suppose that's one theory. Get a dictionary will ya?

Ok, I've been smoking for some time, today, but let me take a crack at this one and see if I'm staying on the basic idea of the question.

I'm thinking that there's a basic operation happening in the brain that grab random bits of knowledge and slaps them together. Then another level of pattern recognition basically asks, "is this meaningful?". If it is, it gets passed on for further processing.

But that begs the question...what initiates the random grabbing of bits of ideas? [/b]

These random bits are called schemas, if I'm not mistaken. The bits of information that you spoke of are filed away in your mind like an archive, and these schemas are activated by a single thought. This thought then activates a large number of other schemas that relates to the most recently activated schema. This, in turn, activates a multitude of other schemas that relate to the vast numbers of schemas that were activated by the first.
An example would be: If I were to say the word "Boat," in your mind, this would open up a bunch of schemas that would relate to the word "Boat." You might think of water, or wood because of a wooden boats hull, or a sail, or even seagulls. So many thoughts would sort of 'arm themselves,' if you will. Words and ideas that you once could have not thought about for days, weeks or years, suddenly come rising up to the surface, and sort of paint this web of thoughts that you could put into context with the word "Boat."
This, in a large way, is how our dreams are made. These schemas paint the themes and the timelines of our dreams, in my opinion. This is why so many things that seem so unrelated on a conscious level, seem to mesh so well in a dream, because thought of one thing opens up an entire realm of possibilities to where that single thought could lead. If someone says "Yankee Stadium," obviously the schemas that are activated are going to more than likely overshadow the number mentioned when someone says "Boat." You could think of green grass, the bag that the bases are made of, the Fabric of the bag that the bases are made of, the company that makes the fabric of the bag that the bases are made of, the lights, some snot-nosed kid in the upper-deck driving the old man in front of him crazy, the relationship between that kid's parents, etc, etc....
Logic, I think, is the other "level of pattern recognition" that puts these schemas together and recognizes them to either coincide with your reason for activating the schemas or to not fit and be once again shelved away into your subconscious until, over a period of non-use, you are completely unconscious of anything that reminds you of the word "Boat." That is, until someone says something like "anchor" or even "ocean" and all of those schemas start bubbling to the surface again.

Hope I'm makin sense on this one. 8)

Great post. So basically it's an outside stimuli that initiates the process, it makes pretty good sense now. Thanks for your ideas.

The brain is equipped to take obtained knowledge and form thoughts. New perceptions lead to new thoughts, and memories of old perceptions lead to new thoughts. Memories of old thoughts lead to new thoughts. Old thoughts can be combined to form new thoughts. Etc.

For example, an understanding of flying plus an understanding of driving a car led the writer of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang to write about driving a flying car. That is how creativity works. All of the information and concepts in your brain can be combined to form new information and concepts. Problem solving is an example. Artistic creativity is an example. And it is all bound by the laws of physics to happen the way it does.

"Universal Mind"

All thought is by design, repetitious, to the establishment a set of neural path ways i.e. ‘memories’ within the brain. Dependant upon the recipient’s ability to relate to the establish path way, i.e. ‘memory,’ will in turn allow the mind of the individual to establish more like-kind path ways.

Other, received inner or outer stimuli will also continue to develop the mind-set of the individual, given to the formation of the ability of the individual receive more outer stimuli, then inner, this will constitute the ability of the individual’s ability to believe in the seen rather than the unseen world, the reverse process of receiving more inner stimuli will in turn develop the individual’s ability to believe in a unseen world.

The Rev.

Well, you know the definition of the word original? It's a previously uncreated pattern in any way, shape, or form. With all the factors that swim in the universe, it's no surprise our minds develop new ideas from mundane to hard fact. Our senses continually take in new information, and analyze it both consciously and not.

I have some determinist inside of me, but can't accept merely just one reality once and for all. The future is determined in the sense that the actions preceding them inevitibly would have lead to it anyway...I dub Morpheus' apathetic "What happened happened, and couldn't have happened any other way..."

There is no armor against logic like ignorance

See There is one big flaw in this reasoning.

Think of the idea about. "A car". "Flying". or "TV". and generally all these other inventions which have been created.

Trace the cause of these ideas back to first cause. And if according to the theory above. None of it could exist in the first place. As there would be nothing to draw from to create these ideas. Simple logic.

You cannot get something out of nothing.

So how does any of it exist? Simple. The true nature of time and reality is not as it apears in this lower dimension. This is only one of many dimensions. Reality is structured differently to what it apears here. For not all of its dimensions are revealed. The dimension of "time" is not fully revealed. And so when one trys to understand reality's causes without knowing the true nature of this dimension of time. All ideas are flawed.
Because the cause of all that exists have to be outside linear time altogether.

REason to yourself first cause and you will understand. That it is infinite. And when you relaize this. You realize it cannot be infinite according to time. because of time as we know it does not work that way, it is linear. but you realize there must be a first cause if time is linear, as there is something that begins something. in time. From this you realize there isn't a first cause, there must always be something before it.. And form there you finally conclude that it cannot be that way. Time is not linear.! It did not have a beginning. What did not have a beginning, cannot have time. So our perception of reality is distorted because we imagine time as linear.

That is the great whole in logic when it comes to our perception of time and reality. Few see and understand it. As they are living in this dimension.

The first cause is outside stimuli. Our minds are open systems with information constantly flowing in and out. It simply gets rearranged on the way.

The first cause is outside stimuli.[/b]

This is a great illusion, there is no outside stimuli. All that exists was created by all that exists, and is all that exists. And it cannot be any other way.Think logically.

Lets take this as a parable example.

Entitys in a 2d land would not understand what a sphere is. Explaining it to them would be a difficult task. As they do not know of 3 dimensions. Only 2.

Same with our perception of "time" and "events" and where the cause of "ideas" come from. You can only understand those things entirely from a higher dimension. Where time would be revealed.

make sense?
If u think about this for some time then have decent questions about its logic, then I can't wait to discuss it.

I'm taking that you mean there is only an internal mental reality, and that our external physical world is an illusion. Yes, but only subjectively. When my mind dies (if it does), the universe will cease to exist, but only for me. And I wouldn't really know what it would be for others, if it would go on, I could imagine that it would for me, but that's just me imagining what it would be like in their shoes.

No. NirvanaSeed is talking about singular consciousness, the possibility that all things are connected to the one true Consciousness, and that our physical beings, our sense of self, and all of the inanimate things around us are illusions that are dispersed within the one true Singular Consciousness that makes up the entire multi-verse, for lack of a better term.

And while I understand his view, I think he should refrain from wording his opinion as if it were fact. I know he believes very strongly in his philosophy, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I think it is important for someone answering another's question to be able to discern fact from hypothesis.

This is a great illusion, there is no outside stimuli. All that exists was created by all that exists, and is all that exists. And it cannot be any other way.Think logically.

Lets take this as a parable example.

Entitys in a 2d land would not understand what a sphere is. Explaining it to them would be a difficult task. As they do not know of 3 dimensions. Only 2.[/b]

Let us analyze this analogy further. Entities in a 2d land would not understand what a sphere is, nor could they see a sphere, to have a chance to understand what it is. It would take actual contact with a sphere for them to be able to analyze the sphere and come to the conclusion that they don't understand it. For someone in a 2d land to see a sphere, a 3d land would have to exist elsewhere, for them to come into contact wit the sphere, to see that it is different from their 2d origin. The sphere, itself, would be proof of existence beyond 2d. It would not be open for debate, because there it would be, a 3d object staring right at you. You would have no choice but to understand it, or be perplexed by it.
Singular Consciousness, however, is not so matter-of-fact. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't truth, because I'm very interested in singular consciousness as well, but I think it is important to state that singular consciousness is an Opposing Viewpoint to the idea that thoughts come from the mind of the individual, and that your faith in singular consciousness does not, irrefutably, trump the psychological structure behind Individual Thought. It is nothing more than another possibility, which you can no more prove than disprove.

Oneironaut thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

For someone in a 2d land to see a sphere, a 3d land would have to exist elsewhere, for them to come into contact with the sphere, to see that it is different from their 2d origin. The sphere, itself, would be proof of existence beyond 2d. It would not be open for debate, because there it would be, a 3d object staring right at you. You would have no choice but to understand it, or be perplexed by it.[/b]

The thing is, What I am suggesting is that a 2d dimension cannot come in contact with 3 dimensions. The closest thing seen to a sphere in 2 dimensions is a solid circle emerging, then growing in size then going back to small again. Then disapearing. (circle penetrating 2d dimensions)

Similarily, \"time\" apears to us as linear, moving from one point to the next.
That is time penetrating the dimension. Creating an illusion of past, present, future. In the same way the sphere was self transforming as a circle in the 2d dimension. The circle was not actually growing in size then getting smaller. It was 1 3d object. Time is not actually flowing. It is eternal.

Singular Consciousness, however, is not so matter-of-fact. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't truth, because I'm very interested in singular consciousness as well, but I think it is important to state that singular consciousness is an Opposing Viewpoint to the idea that thoughts come from the mind of the individual, and that your faith in singular consciousness does not, irrefutably, trump the psychological structure behind Individual Thought.[/b]

Another thing is, your consiousness is a individulaized aspect. It is mirrored. It is like in the bible when it was said. Man was made in gods image. They are reflections of the consiousness. Ofcourse you have individual thought. Because the consiousness that you were reflected from also had individual thought.

And these dimensions I also suggest. Your level of aquired mirrored consiousness will determine the dimension in which you reside. A 4d dimension you will not be able to access until your consiousness grows to a point where it is able to see that which the dimension is hiding. Then the consiousness is able to match the vibration of that dimension and so enters it naturally.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying there is people like you and me in a 2d land. That have a life of their own. It was only a example of the levels of consious perception. In reality I have no idea about how consiousness would relate to any lower dimensions or what exackly they would be like. I dont know much about dimensions or the structure of reality in this way. but I'm still using it as a example to get my point across about the cause of "ideas" "decisions" "Creativitys" as it relates to time. Which allows these things to come into existence. The causes behind individual thought I suggest do not come soley from this dimension and so one cannot understand the process of creativity in general. It is particually inappropriate to explain it away with a processes of the brain from outside stimuli. As well as illogical. As the quality of decision, I have already explained is a quality of consiousness itself and its source comes from the structure of the "singular consiousness" as you have described it.


Interesting to note here. That the mayan callender ends at 2012 as the end of time. Which could represent the moving to the fourth dimension in some way. eg "graduation from this dimension?" that could possibly be moving to what we percieve as "christ consiousness"

Some even suggest time has been getting "faster". 24 hours being shorter than it use to be 10 years ago. This could even have something to do with time collapsing as we merge into a 4th dimension?

now these are speculations. But I do believe the highest I understand with all my faith.
until something higher comes along.

Most have herd of the bermuda triangle? and ship and planes disapearing or distorting in time. and strange effects. This could also have to do with a overlapping in the dimensions. Possible even UFO's and other unexplained things, could have something to do with this.

Nicely Done!

Don't get me wrong I am not saying there is people like you and me in a 2d land. That have a life of their own. It was only a example of the levels of consious perception. In reality I have no idea about how consiousness would relate to any lower dimensions or what exackly they would be like. I dont know much about dimensions or the structure of reality in this way. but I'm still using it as a example to get my point across about the cause of \"ideas\" \"decisions\" \"Creativitys\" as it relates to time.[/b]

Nah. I wasn't suggesting that you were saying there are Actually people out there living in a 2d land. Just that a 3d object would have to undeniably exist for a 2d person to ever come in contact with it. Singular consciousness in answering Brady's question is a leap of faith that I'm not yet willing to take. The beginning of "Where does Anything come from?" can be argued into either Singular Consciousness or through Scientific Theory, neither of which can be defined as Fact, so far.

Schemas, on the other hand, exist within consciousness, itself. Without getting into the circular debate of "what created it All," which will probably never be Fully agreed upon, I found it a little more constructive to answer Brady's question starting from the aspect of an Individual Thought. Even the singular consciousness' Knowing can be mapped out as bits of information, creating a mosaic that is "Knowledge of All." Within the "All" are relationships, catagories, likenesses, and basically awareness that certain things have something In Common with something else.

Outside stimuli can be broken down into many things. Free will is often impeded upon by "Outside Stimuli" this is to mean, outside of the individual. Even if the thought originated within the singular consciousness that may or may not exist, its impression upon the individual can make it easy to refer to it as outside stimuli. This technicality is not the issue, however. I think the important thing to realize is how these ideas morph, and are expanded upon by other variables outside the Individual Thought that you admit we all have. As far as those of us in this dimension, and our knowledge thereof, I think that the beginning of an idea stems from outside stimuli of some sort. I think that this is the safest, most compromising way to assess where ideas come from. To speculate on whether or not every thought is a product of Infinite Consciousness and Time Eternal, while possible, is a Faith Based assumption, in my opinion, and while trying to avoid getting into another never-ending thread about whether or not singular consciousness does or doesn't exist, I will only say this: The Bermuda Triangle, though mysterious, is not proof of metaphysical transition. It is intriguing to say the least, but I don't think "Logical" is quiet the word for attributing every unexplained phenomenon to the metaphysical. By all definitions of "logical," I think this would be the opposite. :sweat1:
But of course, "Logical" is a relative term, so to each his own.
We'll just say these are both two good answers to a tough question, and leave it up to Brady to decide which one he finds the most acceptable. 8)

I think this is one of the clearest interpretations of the mind's reaction to inner stimuli I have seen in a long time. As we all know, only that which we allow our mind to receive is the only true reality for us.

Perception is everything!


This temporal conditioning of the mind has limited it to only receiving that which the pre-interpreted stimuli, based upon the conditions of its limited understanding of the inner stimulus. And it will not allow any other stimuli to interfere with this predetermined mind-set. Unless, there is an intervention by the spiritual realm into this interpretive ability of the mind, i.e. faith.

The Rev.

Awaken4e1 wrote:

I think this is one of the clearest interpretations of the mind's reaction to inner stimuli I have seen in a long time.[/b]

Thankya.

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Awaken4e1 wrote:

I think this is one of the clearest interpretations of the mind's reaction to inner stimuli I have seen in a long time.

Thankya. [/b]

I have noticed that you have a very clear understanding of many aspects of the mind and spirit, I feel ya, brua!

Hehe. That comes from ages of listening to those convicted to their opposing viewpoints rip each other's faces off, and then feasting off the carcasses of both sides.
Lol.