33
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
33 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
28551 readers
1024 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
From your responses to others' comments, you're looking for a "thought" that has absolutely zero relationship with any existing concepts or ideas. If there is overlap with anything that anyone has ever written about or expressed in any way before, then it's not "100% original," and so either it's impossible or it's useless.
I would argue it's impossible because the very way human cognition is structured is based on prediction, pattern recognition, and error correction. The various layers of processing in the brain are built around modeling the world around us in a way to generate a prediction, and then higher layers compare the predictions with the actual sensory input to identify mismatches, and then the layers above that reconcile the mismatches and adjust the prediction layers. That's a long winded way to say our thoughts are inspired by the world around us, and so are a reflection of the world around us. We all share our part of this world with at least one other person, so we're all going to share commonalities in our thoughts with others.
But for the sake of argument, assume that's all wrong, and someone out there does have a truly original, 100% no overlap with anything that has come before, thought. How could they possibly express that thought to someone else? Communication between people relies on some kind of shared context, but any shared context for this thought means it's dependent on another idea, or "prior art," so it couldn't be 100% original. If you can't share the thought with anyone, nor express it in any way to record it (because that again is communication), it dies with you. And you can't even prove it without communicating, so how would someone with such an original thought convince you they've had it?
You've got it. I don't think I was clear enough asking the question. Might have done better asking if anyone's ever imagined anything that's never been imagined by anyone else before in any shape or form... I don't know. Funny, not even sure how to pose the question so it's clear. I tried reasoning along similar lines as you, and ended with the conclusion that every thought must have been thought for a first time by someone... we just got here after the fact. And those thoughts, once original, have all followed us into the present... which tells us it's indeed possible to communicate entirely original thoughts. So, what do you think?
The problem with that reasoning is it's assuming a clear boundary to what a "thought" is. Just like there wasn't a "first" human (because genetics are constantly changing), there wasn't a "first" thought.
Ancient animals had nervous systems that could not come close to producing anything we would consider a thought, and through gradual, incremental changes we get to humanity, which is capable of thought. Where do you draw the line? Any specific moment in that evolution would be arbitrary, so we have to accept a continuum of neurological phenomena that span from "not thoughts" to "thoughts." And again we get back to thoughts being reflections of a shared environment, so they build on a shared context, and none are original.
If you do want to draw an arbitrary line at what a thought is, then that first thought was an evolution of non-/proto-thought neurological phenomena, and itself wasn't 100% "original" under the definition you're using here.
Very interesting. So to be sure I'm understanding you, let's suppose what you're saying here is bang-on... wouldn't that mean we are each and all followers by nature and can't be anything but?
I think that's overly reductionist, but ultimately yes. The human brain is amazingly complex, and evolution isn't directed but keeps going with whatever works well enough, so there's going to be incredible breadth in human experience and cognition across everyone in the world and throughout history. You'll never get two people thinking exactly the same way because of the shear size of that possibility space, despite there having been over 100 billion people to have lived in history and today.
That being said, "what works" does set constraints on what is possible with the brain, and evolution went with the brain because it solves a bunch of practical problems that enhanced the survivability of the creatures that possessed it. So there are bounds to cognition, and there are common patterns and structures that shape cognition because of the aforementioned problems they solved.
Thoughts that initially reflect reality but that can be expanded in unrealistic ways to explore the space of possibilities that an individual can effect in the world around them has clear survival benefits. Thoughts that spring from nothing and that relate in no way to anything real strike me as not useful at best and at worst disruptive to what the brain is otherwise doing. Thinking in that perspective more, given the powerful levels of pattern recognition in the brain, I wonder if creation of "100% original thoughts" would result in something like schizophrenia, where the brain's pattern recognition systems are reinterpreting (and misinterpreting) internal signals as sensory signals of external stimuli.
This is seriously fascinating to me. I kept this bit to myself because I didn't want it to affect people's answers, but the thread is old enough now... my question and its answer arose from my religious beliefs, and here you are arriving at the same answer scientifically, that we are all followers by nature.
It eventually occurred to me after hearing the word "sheep" thrown around enough times that I've never met a person so original that they follow nothing and no one. Being told, for example, that I'm incapable of rational, intelligent, independent thought (because of my religious beliefs) by people who believe themselves to be superior critical thinkers... when the very idea of "critical thinking" was originally born from the mind of Socrates... another mere man, as fallible as any other, who himself believed he was guided by an inner voice that he alone could hear. So we religious folk are commonly ridiculed for aspiring to follow God by people who follow a mere man that, by today's definitions, would be diagnosed a schizophrenic. I do love irony, seriously, I really do.
To be clear, I've been debating religion with people for a very, very long time, so none of this upsets me in the least... I just find it all extremely fascinating.
Anyhow, the conclusion I eventually reached is that there's very real danger in denying our own nature as followers, because that's when we open ourselves fully to the risk of blindly following anyone and anything.
Ah, I think I misread your statement of "followers by nature" as "followers of nature." I'm not really willing to ascribe personality traits like "follower" or "leader" or "independent" or "critical thinker" to humanity as a whole based on the discussion I've laid out here. Again, the possibility space of cognition is bounded, but unimaginatively large. What we can think may be limited to a reflection of nature, but the possible permutations that can be made of that reflection are more than we could explore in the lifetime of the universe. I wouldn't really use this as justification for or against any particular moral framework.
Ok, thanks for taking the time, I enjoyed chatting with you.