Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Leeanne
Joined: 10/14/2005
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?Page 2 of 2    (1, 2)
I have a very creative mind. I can look at something and figure out how it's made - go buy the supplies - put it together and it's often close to the original - or similar - sometimes better. I go with a friend of mine to the thrift shops - see something and I can plan a whole childrens program around it (we work as child care supervisors/educators). People often say how did you come up with that?!?!
For as long as I can remember my mind has worked that way. I was never taught these things - although my Dad was creative mechanically and with wood work. My Mom was so NOT creative! There were no people in my life to show me how to be creative!
I do know that I get sudden bursts of creativity - or dream of creative things - then I get up the next day and put together what I dreamed of! I have gotten up on the middle of the night to make things I have in my mind - 'cause if I don't get them out - I can't sleep! I really cannot draw or paint - but I have often had dreams of things I would love to draw and when I try - it comes out great. However if I try at other times - aside from when I get the 'urge' - it's crap!

OK with that said........ I really think that we may have lived past lives - where our ideas begin and in our present lives - we build on those thoughts and expand on the things we have already started. We have innate intellect - experiences we have had in past lives! Our thoughts may not be our own - but thoughts shared in past lives - derived from experiences and teachings of the past!
 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 15
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 11/23/2008 1:36:38 AM
I really have no clue where creative thoughts come from. Constructive is easily a clever working of things you know, but those ones that don't follow any of your personal bank of knowledge escape my understanding. Though I do have one theory on it: When you put together a bunch of random numbers coming from the same random number algorithm on a computer, you get a noticeable pattern after a certain amount of time. I think the creative ideas may be our brains equivalent to that sort of calculator behavior, except that it can recognize when it's developing a pattern and put it into form based on talents and skills.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 1/28/2013 3:43:36 AM
I thought I came up with an original term for where knowledge comes from, I call it Ekawa. (turns out this term has been used but I did not know this until the internet and it doesn't have the same meaning I applied).

My term Ewaka means a compilation of information from ALL senses. The senses included in Ekawa are; sight,touch,smell,hearing,taste and the sixth sense instinct. Using them all creates a 7th sense, which I call perfect sense. This 7th sense can be said that it is not from just us because we have not "found" the 6th sense instinct-yet. I believe that it is available and is what we may call pheromones now and these pheromones are like a fine "dust' that we absorb through our skin.

So, in conclusion and back to your post: Do all original thought/ideas come from a universal bag, aka the ether?

Yes, because thoughts are formed using all information, but only if we count in the 6th sense instinct that is only available to those of us who are willing to absorb from others through touch (easily) or by proximity and risk "contamination" of "our" thoughts, ego thoughts. This sixth sense we must add to our mix to form the 7th sense, prefect sense.

The universal bag or ether IS us and the only part of it that comes from outside, is from you. (info absorbed from another, that tells us something, that I call instinct).

 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 1/28/2013 10:08:38 AM
Does it count as an original thought if it's a thought compiled from a mix of senses that have never been mixed in such a way before? Isn't it considered an original until , if ever, it gets repeated?

Have humans even been around long enough to go through all the possibilities long enough for that repetition to be likely? I doubt it.

Will the 7th sense, perfect sense, be able to make the quantum leap to other realms? Be absorbed by other entities? Why not? there are no boundaries.

Can this then be called the 8th sense, a common sense, available to all in the form of an original thought that knows no boundaries and represents MORE than the sum of all possible combinations because of it's constant flow? Does this infinite thought deserve the definition of original thought now that it is constant in it's inconsistency?

How can it be called anything else but original now? How can it be measured to be copied, it has no beginning and no end, it is energy-like and has lost any ability to be stilled. It has a life of it's own now. It is life.
 RussArtLover
Joined: 5/13/2010
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 1/28/2013 10:45:20 AM
I read somewhere that the Eye was evolved from a single brain cell. So it loosely makes sense that we have billions of brain cells looking at each other for ideas. Hey you, what ya thinkin? I think you should stop looking at me like that. And so on, until they agree to see things the same way thereby forming a type of hive sight that we call an idea.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 21
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 1/28/2013 12:38:25 PM



Pondering the source of an original idea is like argueing over which came first? The chicken or the egg.


Not quite. It is clear that most ideas come from relating sets of facts and filling one or more sets with one or more additional facts but, this is not always the case. There is a superb documentary on inventions through history made by the BBC named "Connections" conceived and narrated by James Burke. To describe it as superb does not give it due credit. That documentary shows how most inventions stem from interconnections and how some are true original thought.



I'm inclined to say instead that there are no original ideas and what we regard as original is instead an old idea with new terms or way of expressing it.


That is usually the case but, there are plenty of exceptions.



Most of the "thinkers" will have read a lot, so the chance they then came up with something original is very unlikely.


Again, usually the case. Bright people with fantastic memories (e.g, Leonhard Euler) could see the gaps and fill them. The filling of the knowledge gaps is a very common source of new knowledge and, possibly the most common incentive to seek knowledge. This way supports your view.



Even Einstein built upon those who came before, and without their contributions never would have added his own.


Einstein is an excellent example of someone who broke ground using original ideas. One of those original thoughts is what led Einstein to the Special Relativity Theory. It was not based on prior knowledge.

Einstein's original thought was "If I were looking at myself in a mirror and traveling at, or close to, the speed of light, would my face be reflected in the mirror ?". That question was not triggered by similar work or research. In the quest for his answer he did use Galileo's Principle of Relativity but, his question did not originate from Galileo's work or anybody else's as far as anyone knows.

Sort of an aside, Einstein played the violin and when faced with challenging situations he could not see the answer to, he'd start playing the violin. Einstein reported that some epiphanies came to him while playing the violin. fMRI studies have shown that playing an instrument activates various areas of the brain which are not used in the normal analytical process. This might explain why music can lead to a different and structurally enhanced way of thinking resulting in a Eureka moment. It seems that Einstein experienced it.

The person with the most amazing "stash" of original thought is Leonhard Euler. The first step in many of Euler's proofs is simple, yet so amazingly original that it leaves the brightest mathematicians wondering "how did he think about doing that?". Euler's leaps in thinking were so wide that more than one mathematician has jokingly stated "it really makes you wonder if the man was from a different planet". Superstring theory stems from and is entirely based on solutions to Euler Beta functions.

One true story that gives some idea of the intellectual powerhouse Euler was is his work on Amicable numbers. He received a letter from another mathematician pointing out that since the Greeks, mathematicians had only been able to find 3 amicable numbers. A few days later, Euler responded to the letter, apologizing for the delay because he had been rather sick, with a formula to find such numbers along with 58 new numbers. In 2 or 3 days while sick, Euler had come up with a formula and found almost 20 times more amicable numbers than all the mathematicians put together had been able to find in over 2000 years. He also worked on other problems in the meantime.

Evariste Galois is the author of group theory, a brand new area of mathematics at the time, totally unrelated to anything in the past. He wrote the entire treatise on group theory in one night, in great hurry, before attending a duel in which he knew he would be killed (and he was). In one short night, Evariste Galois gave more original thought and mathematics than the majority of mathematicians produce in their lifetime.

As you asserted, most knowledge, inventions and discoveries rest on the work done by others. However, there are some truly gifted people that discover brand new continents of knowledge for others to subsequently explore.

 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 22
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 1/29/2013 3:54:15 AM
a place? dunno but it takes a critical mass to form before word spreads.... even if it's done without words.
100 monkeys

there are highly advanced ruins in several places in the world.... which are under water. are we really so confident that we're the most highly civilized to come so far? maybe all these "new" ideas aren't so new after all?
 Back.up
Joined: 1/7/2013
Msg: 23
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 1/30/2013 12:47:30 AM
ok, I do not agree with Socrates (who I think was Plato) on all that much but didn't he suggest ideas/inventions are not created, they are 'discoverfed'. Adding yeast to bread has always made it rise, it just sat there until someone realised it - someone discovered it.

We can discover things after investigation or by accident but it was always there. Incidently, I think this is evidence of God.

Descartes - I think therefore I am, profound in this context.
 J_bird61
Joined: 10/22/2011
Msg: 24
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 1/30/2013 8:02:45 PM
I think these ideas/discoveries come from Divine Mind, I guess.

I have noticed, I have to be open minded - not all ideas are connected to others and sometimes going over and over the old ideas in an effort to "figure it out" is the downfall of trying to come up with a new/different/creative answer.
I've found when you get the thought - to let new ideas come that are not related to the others- is when one will. And it is just like a light bulb and thrilling and relieving at the same time. Creation.

I'm more Art than Science - Science is like this as well but it definitely seems to need to run or tag all the evidence into revelation, where Art doesn't need to build upon previous facts to be viable.
And I also think this idea stuff is interconnected with our evolution.
 for4rums_loner_here
Joined: 1/29/2013
Msg: 25
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 2/1/2013 6:10:13 PM
" Every story can be broken down into one of the 9 basic tales that are all across mythological history. "

I thought there were 11 of these categories.

I discussed this at my bridge club some decades ago, and some people insisted there were only 8 categories, while a well-stack blonde went on to say that in fact there are 27 such categories.

One thing is for sure: stories are probably not "broken down" into categories, but rather "slotted into categories" or "classified into types".
 for4rums_loner_here
Joined: 1/29/2013
Msg: 26
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 2/1/2013 6:24:02 PM
"Einstein's original thought was "If I were looking at myself in a mirror and traveling at, or close to, the speed of light, would my face be reflected in the mirror ?". That question was not triggered by similar work or research."

You can't exactly be so very categorical about this.

Einstein had to know what speed was, what light was, and what a mirror was, to come up with this question.

So his "new" idea was not born in a total vacuum, with no previous thoughts that his idea rested on.

Indeed, he did have in the least these three ideas to have conceptualized well, before the question arose.

Now you can say, "yes, but these are trivial details, not germain to the genius of his idea". To that I say, "how do you separate the originator triggers that are important and essential, from those that are not important or not at all that important to come up with a new idea?"

My objection is of course to the notion that creative ideas are conceived in an intellectual vacuum. That is not so. And once you admit that all new and original ideas are dependent, to at least some extent on at least some prior knowledge, then I contest that you or anyone else can tell the triggering ideas and slot them into classes that make the thinker's idea more or less or totally original.

There is no measure of such influence of old ideas on new ideas. All attempts to create such a measure is going to end up in failure.

"Evariste Galois is the author of group theory, a brand new area of mathematics at the time, totally unrelated to anything in the past. He wrote the entire treatise on group theory in one night, in great hurry, before attending a duel in which he knew he would be killed (and he was). In one short night, Evariste Galois gave more original thought and mathematics than the majority of mathematicians produce in their lifetime."

I never read the said work by Galois. I hold it possible, though, and likely more probable than not, that Galois ideas did not originate in one evening, but he had been thinking along the lines of group theory, and he ONLY wrote it in one night, because he did not want to waste his valuable ideas by dying with them.

What I mean is that he WROTE it in one night, but perhaps he did not create all the ideas in that night, but over some time prior to that time.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 27
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 2/1/2013 9:58:25 PM




Einstein had to know what speed was, what light was, and what a mirror was, to come up with this question.


1. Light isn't work or research done by anyone. Day vs night gives an intuitive idea of what light is, additionally, to this day, no one yet knows _exactly_ what light is. 2. The objection to the mirror is hollow, he could have been looking at the reflection of his face on a pond of water, therefore inventing a mirror in order to conceive his question isn't necessary. 3. Speed, isn't an invention either. Observation of naturally moving objects make it obvious that some objects travel faster than others which is the concept of speed.

However, you likely have a valid point as far as Einstein Special Theory of Relativity goes. In order to ask the question he asked himself, he had to know the speed of light was not instantaneous; he knew that because it was established 200 years prior. Had he not known it was _not_ instantaneous, he may not have asked himself the question. After rethinking it, I believe you do have a valid point, though for a reason which is different than those you stated.



I hold it possible, though, and likely more probable than not, that Galois ideas did not originate in one evening, but he had been thinking along the lines of group theory, and he ONLY wrote it in one night, because he did not want to waste his valuable ideas by dying with them.


Indeed, he didn't think it all that night. I cannot be absolutely certain but, one good indicator that his ideas were original is that even some of the most brilliant mathematicians of the time considered his works "incomprehensible" (comment from stuff he had submitted while alive.). It probably didn't help either that Galois wasn't the best at explaining what he was thinking, he had the habit of assuming mathematicians could follow his _very_ wide steps (not so!).

Here is a better example of original thought:

Archimedes was asked by the king of Syracuse to verify that a gold crown he had commissioned was indeed made of pure gold. This request led Archimedes to figure out that pure gold would displace a specific amount of water which would be different than the amount displaced by any alloy. There was no prior research or invention helping to conclude that. A scale was not a factor because the differing weights can be felt from holding the objects (additionally measuring the weights isn't even necessary -- only mass). The bathtub isn't relevant either because natural water containers of all sizes exist in nature. These are the only two things needed. Archimedes realized every material has a unique density (the epiphany) determined by the relation of weight to volume, followed by a way of determining the differential in density, which would imply an alloy instead of a pure material. (from his subsequent law of buoyancy.)

From Archimedes again, he devised a way of calculating Pi and the circumference of a circle by inscribing polygons and circumscribing polygons. In doing so, not only did he provide a method to calculate Pi to any desired level of precision, he also had established the principles of differential calculus (way before Newton). It is also obvious he realized the circumference is the limit of the inscribed polygon's perimeter when the number of polygon sides tends to infinity (since that is what he was looking for, with both, the inscribed and circumscribed polygons).

More from Archimedes, during the siege of Syracuse, he devised all kinds of war contraptions, many of which had never been dreamed of before, to make the Romans' life miserable.

There are definitely completely original thoughts but, those are few and far between compared to thoughts and inventions derived from prior knowledge. Original ideas seem to come to those people who perceive their environment with greater depth or, in different ways than other people.

 for4rums_loner_here
Joined: 1/29/2013
Msg: 28
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 2/2/2013 5:28:18 AM
""""""There are definitely completely original thoughts"""""

I dare you to give me just one instance of an original thought. By that I don't mean solely an idea that had not been thought of before, but an idea that had not been thought of before, and has no dependence on other ideas that came before -- it has no dependence at all on any preceding ideas, knowledge and concepts that had come before. That is, I dare you tell me an original idea that is a new idea, and it needs nothing from past established knowledge to make the idea get born in the creative mind of a man or a woman.

By prior knowledge, by established knowledge, I mean anything that is part of the knowledge base of the creative brain of the creative mind of this creative person.

I contest you because I claim you can NOT name even one such original idea.
 for4rums_loner_here
Joined: 1/29/2013
Msg: 29
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 2/2/2013 5:50:00 AM
""""""""""""""Einstein's original thought was "If I were looking at myself in a mirror and traveling at, or close to, the speed of light, would my face be reflected in the mirror ?". That question was not triggered by similar work or research."


1. Light isn't work or research done by anyone. Day vs night gives an intuitive idea of what light is, additionally, to this day, no one yet knows _exactly_ what light is. 2. The objection to the mirror is hollow, he could have been looking at the reflection of his face on a pond of water, therefore inventing a mirror in order to conceive his question isn't necessary. 3. Speed, isn't an invention either. Observation of naturally moving objects make it obvious that some objects travel faster than others which is the concept of speed. """""""""""""""""

Speed is research. It is true that moving objects exist, but speed requires computation. If it required computation, it has to be a concept made by a mind which is capable of FIRST knowing what numbers are and how they behave, and THEN applying the physical evidence of movement to arrive at the concept of speed.

So speed, as such, is a researched phenomenon, inasmuch as animals can know movement only, but can't enumerate the size of speed. They know which animal moves at a higher speed and which at a lower speed, but they can't tell how long exactly it will take for the fox to catch the rabbit. Humans can.

Regarding the mirror: You said he was looking in a mirror. I did not get that out of the air. Was he looking at a pond? No. He was looking in a mirror. And mirrors that appear in nature in bathrooms of human habitats have gone under research. Manufacturing. There is a way of making glass, and there is a way of making pane glass. etc.

But these are not my kind of objections. My objections came from the fact that what was called "similar work or research" is basically something that leads into a human's knowledge of his environment. "Work" and "research" means by the original quote "academic work" and "published academic research", but to me mental work and research is that, without needing to be academic. For instance, a little child may be throwing objects out of his walker. He researches how his strength affects to object to fly, and then how the object flies: how far, taking what path in its flight.

This is research to me. Not only the Newtonian dissertation on acceleration, inertia, and gravitational pull. Along with speed and displancement.

In this sense, my sense, a mirror is a researched object during the development of all humans. And it is a large part of other, academic research too, for instance mirroring has been a large part in designing optical and radio telescopes, as well as designing relflective surfaces, lamps, focussed beams, and even lazers.

---------------

Just saying.

What I meant by research and previous work, was that all our knowledge that we have stored individually in our individual minds is a matter and result of work and research, albeit not necessarily academic.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 30
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 2/2/2013 9:46:31 PM




Speed is research. It is true that moving objects exist, but speed requires computation.


Not so. You are confusing a qualitative fact with the quantification of the fact. It can easily be observed that two objects are moving at different speeds relative to another object (an observer for instance). This requires no computations at all, nor any research. What requires computations is the quantification of speed as a magnitude relative to another object arbitrarily chosen as static.

What I proposed about Einstein is flawed because it depends on knowing light isn't instantaneous. That fact requires research, it is not directly observable. The invention of mirrors has nothing to do with Einstein's question because the question can just as well have occurred in his mind by looking at his reflection in a naturally occurring body of water. This clearly establishes the question to be independent of the invention of mirrors.



He researches how his strength affects to object to fly, and then how the object flies: how far, taking what path in its flight.


With that statement you are equating trivial observations with research. Hardly the same thing. It doesn't take research to notice that there is daylight but, it does take research to know that light isn't instantaneous. You've simply greatly overextended the meaning of research to include trivial observations obtained from our senses.

I've already provided examples of original thought and ideas not based on prior bona-fide research. Many of Archimedes' thoughts and ideas were original. The fact that those ideas where the result of observations from the environment does not make them unoriginal. The environment provides behavior to observe, it does not provide ideas nor knowledge (which you seem to be claiming it does, hence nothing is original.)



all our knowledge that we have stored individually in our individual minds is a matter and result of work and research, albeit not necessarily academic.


That's rather obvious. It should also be obvious that just because our knowledge is the result of work and research, it doesn't mean some of that knowledge isn't original. The realization and conceptualization of previously unrealized behavior of our environment is what makes them original.

 for4rums_loner_here
Joined: 1/29/2013
Msg: 31
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 2/2/2013 10:32:06 PM
""""""""""""With that statement you are equating trivial observations with research. Hardly the same thing. It doesn't take research to notice that there is daylight but, it does take research to know that light isn't instantaneous. You've simply greatly overextended the meaning of research to include trivial observations obtained from our senses.""""""""""""

You are essentially right about this: you are saying that the amount of effort put into analyzing an observed phenomenon is what raises an observed idea into a researched finding.

I agree.

But I also maintain that there is no magic formula that can be applied to decide which of two analyses near the borderline between "observation" and "research", that fall close to each other is trivial observation, and which is research.

I mean, it's easy to see that a rock does not live, and easy to see that a man is a life-form, but it's not easy to see whether a virus is a life form or just a huge mofo of a molecule.

But I agree, I concede here, to your point, that it is the amount and effort needed to conquer the hardship of realizing what is the common rule between observations, and that this amount of analysis is what can be used to separate trivial observations from original discoveries and creation of new stuff.

-------------------

That said, I maintain that speed is more than trivial observation. A child knows that a hare moves faster than a tortoise, yet the child, if he or she is young enough, can't conceptualize that speed is defined as displacement over time.

If you ask a kid of, let's say five years of age, what is speed to you? He will not know how to answer you. Speed needs to be taught in school. It is an original idea that is given to students, spoon fed, or rammed down their throats, depending on how the student relates to physics problems. People every year (young people, kids) sweat over which train gets to Chicago first, the one from Denver, CO, going at 80 mph, or the one going from Toulouse, TX, at 120 mph.

Therefore speed is computational; it is known to all animals that one can move faster than another, but yet speed is not a concept they employ in doing so.

Your other argument was that just because "The environment provides behavior to observe, it does not provide ideas nor knowledge" which is another argument for "speed" being an idea that had been someone's original idea. We can observe, even a fox can observe, which of two things move faster, and man can predict more things from that, since we have the computational model of speed, not just "how fast".

So Einstein did employ another of original ideas, in creating his original idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i can't see now that I said that original ideas don't exist and can't be borne or created in a man's or in a woman's mind.

You claimed, and I quote, "(which you seem to be claiming it does, hence nothing is original.)".

I don't remember saying that there are no original ideas; I said, I think, but can't check because I am on the edit screen, that original ideas never are created in a vacuum of knowledge. This I still maintain as true.

As such, I am not sure if I cited the examples of "speed, mirror, light" in the example of Einstein's first original question that eventually lead him onto the path of the theory of relativity, as examples of preexisting theories, ideas, original ideas.

But I could have said that the "mirror, light, speed" were preexisting ideas, preexisting findings of other, prior research. If I did, I apologize, I misspoke. I meant to say, instead, that Einstein used some pre-existing knowledge. Maybe I said, "he must have known what light, speed, and mirrors are or do." Somewhere along the line I must have said preexistent ideas, or theories, because otherwise we would not have this argument. Again, I can' t check mid-stream of writing this very post now anything for exact wordage.

But in the example I meant to say, and I admit i have or could have misspoken, so it was not worded to mean what I meant. What I meant was that original ideas are not born in a vacuum, without prior art or prior knowledge of something else. They are still original, but they are not "truly" original, as they did not come ex nihil; they definitely need something else, some knowledge, that can be manipulated to come up with original ideas.
 for4rums_loner_here
Joined: 1/29/2013
Msg: 32
Do all original thoughts/ideas come from a universe bag, aka the ether?
Posted: 2/2/2013 10:54:20 PM
"""""""""""""Einstein's original thought was "If I were looking at myself in a mirror and traveling at, or close to, the speed of light, would my face be reflected in the mirror ?". That question was not triggered by similar work or research."""""""""""""

Aha. Now I kind of realize why I raised my objection.

You brought in the idea with "previous similar work or research".

This is what confused me.

Some similar work or research is not excursive to creating another original idea. An original idea can be formed by reading previous research, and by not reading or knowing the findings of previous similar research.

You seem to value those original ideas as "more original" that do not have any bases on ideas already researched in the field, over those "less original" ideas that have based their findings on knowledge of previous literature and then further analyzing it.

In essence you are saying that those who create a new paradigm in thinking are more original thinkers than those who only come up with that kind of original idea that perfect or make better an already existing paradigm.

Well, then.

I was confused, because to me even seeing an object fall as a child is research.

You put a cat in a basket and walk around with it in a room with no vertical lines in the room (table legs, corners of walls, etc.) for six weeks after the cat is born, and the cat afterward will never recognize vertical lines. It will constantly bump into tables, walls at corners, etc.

Similarly, I am quite sure this is the case with humans as well, or something similar; we need to conduct our own personal "research" and come up with our own individual "aha" findings, each of us, all by ourselves, and nobody else can give his knowledge to us later if we miss it at a stage when we must essentiate the knowledge by ourselves.

This can't be proven by experimenting, since that would be considered too cruel an experiment on human subjects.

If it is true, however, then I insist that throwing a toy from a walker by a two-year old is not merely trivial observation, but essential learning and enough analysis is going on in his brain to classify the process as "creating an original thought". The thought is not original to mankind, but he can't get it any other way, but by creating an experiential set-up for himself, observe, analyze, and come up with conclusions on his own. Should he fail to do so at that age, nobody can tell or teach him later what he missed learning then.

In fact, I could see an analysis of psychological observations, where in the thesis would be "babies who don't throw objects have the same propensity to learn physics concepts with as much ease as those babies who indeed did throw objects from their walkers". Maybe even the number of times the throw is attempted is significant. I don't know.

So if this test finds a correlation of high physics aptitude to the number and keenness of throwing objects and observing their flight by babies, which is determined to be more than can be explained by chance (by using the chi-squared method on calculating the "hits" expected and "hits" actual to arrive at the determinant coefficient that the Chi square test needs).

Whew, a lot of words. Anyway, my point is that I would not dismiss a baby throwing stuff out of his walker as something that is not research.

And if that is research, because it needs observation and analysis, then almost all learning, even as trivial as telling night from day, can be called research, because a lot of learning in the development of a human is based on forcing the human to establish more and more new paradigms. New paradigm and its realization, acceptance and mastery, is hardly distinguishable from academic research, in fact, the only differentiation is the degree of complexity applied to creating and mastering the new paradigm.

JESUS I talk a lot.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >