Asklemmy

42520 readers

851 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If you were asked to think of something you never thought of before, what would be the most reliable way to do it? (lemm.ee)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When I read about how most of our thoughts are repetitive, I wondered if it would be possible for us to have a thought that is completely new or original by will. Is there some way we can have unique thoughts whenever we wish to?

Please note that this question does not focus on our brain's mental capacity or free will to be able to think of something original. You could think of it something like asking you to paint something original; I am not asking if you are even able to paint in the first place, but instead how you would paint it if you could.

Also you should ideally be able to think of something new completely by your own in your consciously aware and normal self, without relying on external factors like taking inspiration from your surroundings or words from a recent/ongoing conversations, looking at the content open in your device, using any drugs or consumables, being affected by strong emotions etc.

Edit: Elaboration in last paragraph

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Also you should ideally be able to think of something new completely by your own, without relying on external factors like taking inspiration from your surroundings or words from a recent/ongoing conversations, looking at the content open in your device etc.

If it could be expressed in existing ways, would it still count as entirely new or unthought of?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think that is a linguistic question ultimately. You could take potentially utter a new sentence never before uttered even with the top 10 most used words in a language.

That is one of the most significant things about the human being. Actually I am quite surprised when people come with definitions for human nature eg. fundamentally good, fundamentally evil, homo sapiens, homo faber, etc. that the linguistic potential to turn a small set of things into infinity is often ignored. No other animal can think and speak like we do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not necessarily, note that I wrote, "expressed in existing ways" and not, "spoken/written in existing ways". Expression itself has a greater breadth than language alone, e.g. movement, drawing/painting, instrumental music arrangements, etc.

It includes language, absolutely, but it is not limited to language, which makes for a more challenging question imo. If not expressed in existing ways, it would meet the criteria of entirely new and unthought of, presumably, but it would also likely fail to be recognized as an expression at all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Fair point but I think then it just expands the consideration from linguistic (which is already more than spoken or written, it also covers signed, whistled, drummed, danced, in one case I heard about -- eye movement) to semiotic.

load more comments (2 replies)