The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

Limits of Imagination

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2102
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by Felix » July 5th, 2018, 7:09 am

The question is if anyone feels their imagination capable of forming an idea that has not compounded, transposed, augmented or diminished materials afforded them by the senses and experience?
Forming one, no. Having one, yes, but it would be inexpressible.

OP = Original Post.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 185
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by Mosesquine » July 5th, 2018, 7:13 am

mr533473 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 6:44 am
Mosesquine wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 6:41 am



'The OP' is an abbreviated expression of 'the original post'. It's a commonly used term on the web. You are not qualified, it seems, to participate in discussion on the community online.
Oh, that's a shame, where do I go to get my qualification?


You can get your qualification by pulling a trigger of a gun towards your head. :)

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2102
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by Felix » July 5th, 2018, 7:23 am

I would think that would permanently disqualify him from participating in online discussions....
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
mr533473
Posts: 59
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by mr533473 » July 5th, 2018, 7:27 am

Mosesquine wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 7:13 am
mr533473 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 6:44 am


Oh, that's a shame, where do I go to get my qualification?

You can get your qualification by pulling a trigger of a gun towards your head. :)
I see where you're going with that, you're trying to say I should shoot myself. That's funny, but if I was to pull the trigger of a gun towards my head it wouldn't work. See, if the gun is pointed at me, pulling the trigger toward myself wouldn't do a thing. I would actually have to pull the trigger away from myself in order to shoot in my direction. When you write "by pulling a trigger of a gun towards your head" it reads like you're confused beyond what caused you to attempt suggesting such a stupid thing. You're actually confused in how to suggest it. Still, it's little bit funny.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 185
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by Mosesquine » July 5th, 2018, 7:31 am

mr533473 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 7:27 am
Mosesquine wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 7:13 am



You can get your qualification by pulling a trigger of a gun towards your head. :)
I see where you're going with that, you're trying to say I should shoot myself. That's funny, but if I was to pull the trigger of a gun towards my head it wouldn't work. See, if the gun is pointed at me, pulling the trigger toward myself wouldn't do a thing. I would actually have to pull the trigger away from myself in order to shoot in my direction. When you write "by pulling a trigger of a gun towards your head" it reads like you're confused beyond what caused you to attempt suggesting such a stupid thing. You're actually confused in how to suggest it. Still, it's little bit funny.


Or maybe, you can get your qualification by cutting your own neck by a sharp knife with an accurate way of beheading. :)

User avatar
mr533473
Posts: 59
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by mr533473 » July 5th, 2018, 7:57 am

Mosesquine wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 7:31 am
mr533473 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 7:27 am


I see where you're going with that, you're trying to say I should shoot myself. That's funny, but if I was to pull the trigger of a gun towards my head it wouldn't work. See, if the gun is pointed at me, pulling the trigger toward myself wouldn't do a thing. I would actually have to pull the trigger away from myself in order to shoot in my direction. When you write "by pulling a trigger of a gun towards your head" it reads like you're confused beyond what caused you to attempt suggesting such a stupid thing. You're actually confused in how to suggest it. Still, it's little bit funny.


Or maybe, you can get your qualification by cutting your own neck by a sharp knife with an accurate way of beheading. :)
That does seem like an easier option and as you say, accurate.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 185
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by Mosesquine » July 5th, 2018, 8:13 am

mr533473 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 7:57 am
Mosesquine wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 7:31 am




Or maybe, you can get your qualification by cutting your own neck by a sharp knife with an accurate way of beheading. :)
That does seem like an easier option and as you say, accurate.


One more option that you can get your qualification is, somewhat more difficult, that Conor McGregor butchers your body. :)

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1249
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by RJG » July 5th, 2018, 8:52 am

RJG wrote:Not only can we not create/form 'something' (a thought/idea) from 'nothing' (from non-existent experiential material), but we can't even create/form 'something' from 'something'!!!
mr533473 wrote:I ask then, who constructed that sentence?
I suspect my physical (non-conscious) body. (...via automatic bodily reactions).

RJG wrote:Creating/forming a thought (or idea) is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. -- It is not logically possible to 'create' a thought without first 'experiencing' it. And once it is experienced, then it is too late to create it!
mr533473 wrote:So when I pose the idea of a feathery umbrella running though burning astroturf on five of it's seventeen little toes purely for the sake of this argument I am not in fact compounding prior experience by way of ideas and imagination?
Correct. You did not consciously form this new experience (imaginary thought).

You only became aware of it 'after' it popped into your head, not before! It was created 'prior' to your conscious awareness of it.


mr533473 wrote:"The question is if anyone feels their imagination capable", you seem to feel yours is incapable (maybe even non existent). While for very different reasons, I too am yet to identify any imagining which has not compounded, transposed, augmented, diminished etc. materials afforded them by my senses and experience.
Aren't you just 'presuming' this formation (capability of forming)? Or did you actually experience the forming of this new thought/idea?

What I mean, is that, you know that you have experienced those past experiences (building blocks/materials), and you experienced the new thought/idea, but do you ever remember experiencing the "forming" itself? If not, then aren't you just assuming that it was 'you' that built this new thought/idea?

User avatar
mr533473
Posts: 59
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by mr533473 » July 5th, 2018, 9:22 am

RJG wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 8:52 am
RJG wrote: Aren't you just 'presuming' this formation? Or did you actually experience the forming of this new thought/idea?

What I mean, is that, you know that you have experienced those past experiences (building blocks/materials), and you experienced the new thought/idea, but do you ever remember experiencing the "forming" itself? If not, then aren't you just assuming that it was 'you' that built this new thought/idea?
I experienced the forming of this idea in so far as... I formed this idea. It didn't just pop into my head, I deliberately of my own accord (not the honda) compounded materials afforded to me by past senses experience (I even switched the number of toes and set the astroturf on fire after replacing what was going to be a lampshade with an umbrella). What I formed was all me... why I formed it is a different story. You play a role in that, as I formed it to respond to your saying "forming a thought (or idea) is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY" which is a thought you formed after compounding materials afforded to you by past experience. You win though, yours is more absurd than mine.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1249
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by RJG » July 5th, 2018, 12:28 pm

533473 wrote:It didn't just pop into my head, I deliberately of my own accord (not the honda) compounded materials afforded to me by past senses experience (I even switched the number of toes and set the astroturf on fire after replacing what was going to be a lampshade with an umbrella).
What is more accurate...
A. You experienced the actual switching of the number of toes, -OR-
B. You experienced the thoughts of switching the number of toes?

A. You experienced the actual burning the astroturf, -OR-
B. You experienced the thoughts of burning the astroturf?

Does the 'experiencing' of thoughts mean that you...
A. 'created' the thoughts, -OR-
B. 'experienced' the thoughts?

Remember: EVERYTHING that we experience (including every micro thought in the "deliberation" and "imagination" process) is still just an 'experience' (an effect)! It is impossible to ever experience a causer (...cuz if we did, it would then be an experience/effect!). Causers can only be presumed to exist, as we have no means to ever experience one.

We are experiential beings and therefore can only experience 'effects', and never the 'causers' themselves.

User avatar
mr533473
Posts: 59
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by mr533473 » July 6th, 2018, 8:11 am

RJG wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 12:28 pm
533473 wrote:It didn't just pop into my head, I deliberately of my own accord (not the honda) compounded materials afforded to me by past senses experience (I even switched the number of toes and set the astroturf on fire after replacing what was going to be a lampshade with an umbrella).
What is more accurate...
A. You experienced the actual switching of the number of toes, -OR-
B. You experienced the thoughts of switching the number of toes?

A. You experienced the actual burning the astroturf, -OR-
B. You experienced the thoughts of burning the astroturf?

Does the 'experiencing' of thoughts mean that you...
A. 'created' the thoughts, -OR-
B. 'experienced' the thoughts?

Remember: EVERYTHING that we experience (including every micro thought in the "deliberation" and "imagination" process) is still just an 'experience' (an effect)! It is impossible to ever experience a causer (...cuz if we did, it would then be an experience/effect!). Causers can only be presumed to exist, as we have no means to ever experience one.

We are experiential beings and therefore can only experience 'effects', and never the 'causers' themselves.
A, A, and B. Now, you probably think this proves some point but the options are far from exhaustive. They just bully me into selecting what you want by only giving me two options. Given we are talking about the imagination and you make one of the two options the experience of "actual burning astroturf" there's no real choice in the matter.. so yeah out of what there is choice of.. A, A, and B are "most accurate" but not conclusive.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1521
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by Consul » July 6th, 2018, 10:59 am

* There's a distinction between doings (actions) and mere happenings (events).

* There's a distinction between active consciousness/experience and passive consciousness/experience.

* There's a distinction between voluntary, deliberate imaginings/thinkings and involuntary, spontaneous ones.

* There's a distinction between the conscious processes which are our imaginings/thinkings and the non-/pre-conscious neural processes resulting in or underlying our imaginings/thinkings.

Is imagining/thinking something I do or something that just happens to me?
Well, both cases actually occur: there are both active, deliberate, voluntary imaginings/thinkings and passive, spontaneous, involuntary ones. In fact, one episode of imagining/thinking can be partly active and partly passive.

"We sometimes decide on what to imagine…; we form intentions to imagine this or that and carry them out. Imagining is sometimes deliberate. But not always. Often we just find ourselves imagining certain things. Our fantasizing minds stray, seemingly at random, without conscious direction. Thoughts pop into our head unbidden. Imagining seems, in some cases, more something that happens to us than something that we do. Like breathing, imagining can be either deliberate or spontaneous.

The line between deliberate and spontaneous imaginings is not sharp. Varying degrees and kinds of control may be exerted over what (and whether) we imagine. And both deliberate and spontaneous imaginings are often combined in a single imaginative experience. A chain of imaginings begun deliberately almost always develops further on its own. One who decides to imagine a bear will find himself imagining a bear of a certain sort—a large, ferocious grizzly pacing back and forth, for instance. Elaborations of what we imagine deliberately occur spontaneously."


(Walton, Kendall L. Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. pp. 13-4)

"To anyone who reflects on his conscious experiences, there is an obvious distinction between the experience of voluntary intentional activity on the one hand and the experience of passive perception on the other. I do not suggest that this is a sharp distinction, because there is a voluntaristic element of perception and there are passive components of voluntary action. But there is clearly a difference, for example, between voluntarily raising your arm as part of a conscious act, and having your arm raised by someone who triggers your nerve connections. This distinction is well illustrated by the researches of the Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield. Penfield found that by stimulating the motor cortex of his patients, he could cause their limbs to move. The patient invariably said, “I didn’t do that, you did it.” In this case, the patient has the perception of his arm moving but he does not have the experience of voluntary action. The basic distinction is this: in the case of perception (seeing the glass in front of me, feeling the shirt against my neck) one has the feeling, I am perceiving this, and in that sense, this is happening to me. In the case of action (raising my arm, walking across the room) one has the feeling, I am doing this, and in that sense, I am making this happen. It is experience of voluntary action, more than anything else, that gives us the conviction of our own free will, and any account of the mind has to confront this experience."

(Searle, John R. Mind: A Brief Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. p. 142)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1521
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by Consul » July 6th, 2018, 11:58 am

In the philosophy of mind, it is certainly a centrally relevant question whether all mental occurrents—that is, not only all sensings and feelings, but also all thinkings and imaginings—are passions rather than actions. ("Passion" in the old philosophical sense of "non-action" = "a state of being acted upon or affected by something".) If this question is answered in the affirmative, then there is no (intentional) mental action, and all thinkings and imaginings are wholly passive experiences and thus mere happenings rather than doings. And then a (so-called) thinker or imaginer is nothing but a passive recipient of subconsciously and involuntarily produced thoughts or mental images.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1249
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by RJG » July 6th, 2018, 1:21 pm

mr533473 wrote:A, A, and B. Now, you probably think this proves some point but the options are far from exhaustive. They just bully me into selecting what you want by only giving me two options. Given we are talking about the imagination and you make one of the two options the experience of "actual burning astroturf" there's no real choice in the matter.. so yeah out of what there is choice of.. A, A, and B are "most accurate" but not conclusive.
You missed my overriding point. It doesn't matter whether you picked A, B, C, D, or Z, or any other experience of your choosing. An experience is an experience.

"Everything that we experience, is still just... an 'experience'." -- RJG

Let this statement sink in a bit to grasp its full meaning. - If everything that we experience is still just an experience, then all we can do is just experience 'experiences', and nothing more!

So, in reality, we are just the 'experiencers' of our bodily actions/movements, and not the "conscious causers" (that we have been indoctrinated to believe) of said bodily actions/movements. Not only that, but the conscious causation itself is self-contradictory (not logically possible).


Consul wrote:* There's a distinction between doings (actions) and mere happenings (events).

* There's a distinction between active consciousness/experience and passive consciousness/experience.

* There's a distinction between voluntary, deliberate imaginings/thinkings and involuntary, spontaneous ones.

* There's a distinction between the conscious processes which are our imaginings/thinkings and the non-/pre-conscious neural processes resulting in or underlying our imaginings/thinkings.
Yes. Correct. One is possible. The other is not.

Consul wrote: Is imagining/thinking something I do or something that just happens to me?
Well, both cases actually occur: there are both active, deliberate, voluntary imaginings/thinkings and passive, spontaneous, involuntary ones.
Not so. Incorrect. -- ALL experiences are passive (one-way happenings), and therefore only 'one' case is possible.

Consul wrote:... In fact, one episode of imagining/thinking can be partly active and partly passive.

"We sometimes decide on what to imagine…; we form intentions to imagine this or that and carry them out. Imagining is sometimes deliberate."
Not so again. -- We don't/can't "form intentions", ...we can only "experience intentions".

Consul wrote:"To anyone who reflects on his conscious experiences, there is an obvious distinction between the experience of voluntary intentional activity on the one hand and the experience of passive perception on the other.
Although we may experience the (so-called "intentional") 'urge' to do something, this does not mean that we somehow consciously 'caused' this urge PRIOR to our experiencing of it.

Furthermore, it is logically impossible to do something "intentionally". "Intentional" is self-stultifying. - One cannot “intend” anything without there existing the prior “intention” to do so, making the term itself self-contradictory, or self-stultifying.

In other words, although we may 'experience' urges (called "intentions"), we certainly cannot 'intend' (cause) our intentions!
Last edited by RJG on July 6th, 2018, 1:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1249
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Limits of Imagination

Post by RJG » July 6th, 2018, 1:32 pm

Consul wrote:...then there is no (intentional) mental action, and all thinkings and imaginings are wholly passive experiences and thus mere happenings rather than doings. And then a (so-called) thinker or imaginer is nothing but a passive recipient of subconsciously and involuntarily produced thoughts or mental images.
Bingo. ...as this is the ONLY logical possibility.

Post Reply