/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12524089

383KiB, 1000x667, ideas.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Is there such a thing as an original idea?

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 10:25:12 2020 No.12524089 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12524100 >>12524102 >>12524722 >>12524870

Is every idea we ever think of just something we've experienced before via our senses and merging of different ideas that exist?
Are our senses the foundation of all our ideas? The axioms we live by, if you will, and think by?

An original idea, is by definition, an idea that is not derived from something else, but if we all depend on our senses and experiences to come up with ideas, and is the basis we build our subjective experience upon, then there is no such thing as an original idea. Is there?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO originality.png, 34KiB, 1620x155

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 10:30:39 No.12524100 Report

Quoted By: >>12524114 >>12524139

>>12524089
Not science, or mathematics, this is epistemology, which is a school within philosophy. As such, this post belongs on /lit/.
However, there is a serious error in the consideration of this question: Definitions.
>Picture related is an actual definition of originality.
As you can see, it is a definition that is context dependent, and differs in accordance with sociocultural aspects. As such, this question as no one "Truth", but various contextualized approximations of the truth.
In short? It's a pointless question, without a definitive answer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 10:31:52 No.12524102 Report

Quoted By: >>12524139

>>12524089
>standing on the shoulders of giants
clown ass thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 10:36:44 No.12524114 Report

Quoted By:

>>12524100
>*... question as no... -> ... question has no...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 10:46:14 No.12524139 Report

Quoted By: >>12524149

>>12524100
There is a huge error in your assumption. Original idea is not the same as originality.
An idea is known, original is what matters, and it is defined as I did. Not derived from another source.
You can't just wave your arms around and define a separate thing.
An original idea is not the same as original work. Two different aspects.
It even says
>[citation needed]
on wiki for the definition of originality.

>>12524102
Who are you even quoting?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO pistol_go_bang.jpg, 42KiB, 289x285

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 10:49:45 No.12524149 Report

Quoted By: >>12524188

>>12524139
Listen here, philolet, an original idea and original work both share the same property of originality, originality is what makes them original, so no it still applies.
Also, there are several different definitions of originality, based upon the context, this is what makes the question a pointless question, because it is contextual. There is NO ONE TRUTH:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality
Note the different contexts. This is epistemology, not science or mathematics, and it is a poorly thought out question. There are individual answers, based upon the context.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 11:04:28 No.12524188 Report

Quoted By: >>12524211

>>12524149
>Listen here, philolet, an original idea and original work both share the same property of originality, originality is what makes them original, so no it still applies.
And then says
>Also, there are several different definitions of originality, based upon the context, this is what makes the question a pointless question, because it is contextual.
Amazing.

We are not talking about the property. I already defined the context.
What is the context of my question then? Reread my OP and spell it out for me.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO confused.jpg, 6KiB, 243x207

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 11:16:20 No.12524211 Report

Quoted By: >>12524307

>>12524188
That's my point, your question doesn't have a strict context. What do you mean by originality? Solely within your "definition" of originality? If so, what makes an answer applicable outside of your definition, outside of this thread? It's pointless, because the context only applies within this thread. What's the point in that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 11:52:05 No.12524307 Report

Quoted By: >>12524579

>>12524211
It's a universal context using the definition of original as defined by the word standing by itself. Not derived from anything. Do I have to spell out everything for you, retard?

Read my post!
>we all depend on our senses and experiences to come up with ideas
>is the basis we build our subjective experience upon
Oh, wow! What is the context? I wonder what it could possibly be!

I don't give a shit about original art or original inventions. I am not talking about any of that shit. They are ultimately an expression of compilation of experiences and preexisting ideas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 13:02:12 No.12524511 Report

Quoted By:

I don't think it is a binary thing. You can have degrees of originality. Nothing may be absolutely original, but I don't see why something can't be approaching it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 13:34:21 No.12524579 Report

Quoted By: >>12524705

>>12524307
No, it isn't. The concept itself, the very concept, is contextual.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 14:28:47 No.12524705 Report

Quoted By: >>12524792

>>12524579
>Original: not derived from anything
At least in this context.
>Idea: Something, such as a thought or conception, that is the product of mental activity.
What more context do you need?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 14:37:36 No.12524722 Report

Quoted By: >>12524839

>>12524089
99% of people are INCAPABLE of original thought.
>Is every idea we ever think of just something we've experienced before via our senses and merging of different ideas that exist?
No. Mathematics is not experienced through the senses unless you broaden the definition of a sense to the point of high ambiguity.
>An original idea, is by definition, an idea that is not derived from something else
Nobody defines an original idea that way. Original ideas HAVE To be derived from something else. The originality comes from the derivation being highly indeterministic, unconventional and insightful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 15:05:19 No.12524792 Report

Quoted By: >>12524839

>>12524705
There we go, that's all I wanted from you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 15:21:20 No.12524839 Report

Quoted By: >>12524863 >>12528049

>>12524722
>No. Mathematics is not experienced through the senses unless you broaden the definition of a sense to the point of high ambiguity.
Mathematics is based on existing ideas. We had to define numbers to count and trade. It is fundamentally derived from senses and experiences.

>Nobody defines an original idea that way.
I am not talking about the cool original idea that is basically just an idea that is missed by the people around you, or the consequence of other ideas.
I am talking universally. An idea not derived from anything.

>>12524792
Honestly, kys. It was self-evident.
I literally defined the word and you jumped and said that you can't define it because an original art also uses original in a different meaning.
Fucking kys. I fucking swear. I can't believe you just fucking spent the past several hours just trolling me while I am trying to explain that contextually, my use of original is correct. I can't believe you are that dumb that I had to realize you were just dismissing my definition for this shit detour, this has to be dedicated trolling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 15:24:28 No.12524848 Report

Quoted By: >>12524858

oh boy a semantics thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 15:29:21 No.12524858 Report

Quoted By: >>12524863

>>12524848
I know, I fucking hate that guy. My question was clear as day, but he had to be that guy.
Original idea was just so much of a problematic word for him he had to take me down this route.
I fucking swear he was doing it on purpose. No way he is this retarded.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO derrida.jpg, 179KiB, 700x1018

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 15:31:42 No.12524863 Report

Quoted By: >>12524894

>>12524839
>>12524858
Do you really want me to come back in here and dump Derridean deconstructionism all over your nice little assumptions? Because I fucking will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 15:33:32 No.12524870 Report

Quoted By: >>12524894

>>12524089
To further add to your thoughts, think of what constitutes objects/idea/thing/persons/etc. Everything is made of parts, all parts are made of parts. There is no "thing" that can stand on it's own existence, this every thing is dependent upon another thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 15:46:25 No.12524894 Report

Quoted By: >>12524898 >>12524934

>>12524863
No, I've had enough. Will not reply to you anymore. In retrospect, was kinda funny, but still pissed. Congrats, you win.

>>12524870
The Unmoved Mover?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 15:49:30 No.12524898 Report

Quoted By:

>>12524894
>Congrats, you win.
Most gracious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Dec 2020 16:03:53 No.12524934 Report

Quoted By: >>12527163

>>12524894
>First cause
Junk. If you need to break causality to make another set of causality work, why use causality in first place?

More likely causality is broken, but not the way you suggest. You can break it by following through the original causality. That gives us infinite regress. That's no better than go nonsense, but we're now in same absurd conclusion. However it might be more likely to be infinite regress than an external agency simply because 1 less assumption required.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 31 Dec 2020 02:40:25 No.12527163 Report

Quoted By:

>>12524934
>Junk. If you need to break causality to make another set of causality work, why use causality in first place?
Yeah, that's just special pleading.

>That gives us infinite regress. That's no better than go nonsense, but we're now in same absurd conclusion. However it might be more likely to be infinite regress than an external agency simply because 1 less assumption required.
I agree. Unless there is a valid reason that it cannot infinitely regress, there is no other better assumption.

CHRONOS

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 6em2g6kxeaj51.jpg, 56KiB, 720x960

CHRONOS Thu 31 Dec 2020 06:46:24 No.12528049 Report

Quoted By:

>>12524839
But anon, in what context do you mean original? The answer to your question would be contextually dependant.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches