Originality

[Andrew Karpinski]

My conclusion, which I will give you in advance, is that their is no such thing as originality. All knowledge is derivative from the observable universe. All ideas are old hat.

All knowledge stems from sensation. This can be indirectly, in the form of inference (I see a fire truck, I realize there is a fire somewhere) but without the sensation, or observation, I would have no knowledge. While an idea may be unique in the sense that a construction from lego is unique in it's form, the basis for it is stolen from the pieces themselves.

The proof for this is in how across all cultures the most fundamental ideas resemble the most fundamental laws of nature and physics. Justice which is an ideal that every culture I have been exposed to practices is really cause and effect in practice. That under x conditions, y happens. This is also the concept of "fair play". Further, perhaps the single most expressed idea of our species is a struggle between good and bad. This is of course paralelled in nature. In life and death. In existance and annihilation. In matter and anti-matter. Even in the wave particle duality of light.

All thoughts and ideas are stolen; weak resemblences of the world we observe.

[surftheiop]

Pretty original idea

[bearly]

please read your offering 10 times. i expect tears of laughter and joy by the 7th reading. otherwise, i shall know you just love to prattle.......b

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
My conclusion, which I will give you in advance, is that their is no such thing as originality. All knowledge is derivative from the observable universe. All ideas are old hat.


[/ QUOTE ]

I found the logical fallacy. Post ergo prompter hoc.
Even if all knowledge is derivative from the observable universe it does not follow that all ideas are old hat. You could have a original idea, that no one had yet derived from the observable universe.

Plastics make it possible.

- Joseph

PS. bearly, why do you post with the intent of concealing your point? Why not just say it?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
All knowledge stems from sensation.
...
All thoughts and ideas are stolen; weak resemblences of the world we observe.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about some of the higher mathematical concepts? Cantor's hierarchy of infinities for example? I dont think you will find these anywhere in the observable world.

[madnak]

You need to do some drugs. It will help.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All knowledge stems from sensation.
...
All thoughts and ideas are stolen; weak resemblences of the world we observe.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about some of the higher mathematical concepts? Cantor's hierarchy of infinities for example? I dont think you will find these anywhere in the observable world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Higher math is based on the basic concepts of the lower mathematical principals. These may or may not be self evident. Talk to DesCartes about it.

I think many math concepts we belive are self evident actually come from observation (ie 2 sticks and 2 sticks make 4 sticks). but I feel that the basic concepts of addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication are probably self evident.

[bunny]

I dont think I understand. Are you claiming that the mathematics of uncountable infinities is based on that of the natural numbers? They seem qualitatively different to me - imo the only thing some aspects of "higher" maths have in common with "lower" maths is method.

[LearnedfromTV]

I dig sweeping generalities. Good show OP.

That said, i have two problems with your thesis. Well, more, but here are two.

One

It is only true to the extent that it is trivial.

Sure, every event, thought, action, and concept is derivative in the sense that it is similar to and influenced by previous events, thoughts, actions, and concepts. And yes, (I key on this because you did - the potential discussion is actually much broader) very different cultures often exhibit similar traits which likely reflect an underlying structure to human behavioral patterns and societal norms.

But - any event is still, fundamentally, a specific occurence at a specific temporal and physical location. A thought in a particular brain, a law made in a particular context. The context of a new event is irreducibly complex, and although each of the strands of that context may resemble strands that led to a similar event in a different time and place, the sum and arrangement of the strands is particular to the new event.

One could argue, as I suppose you are, that the fact that each strand is fundamentally similar to a strand in a previous event-context web is enough to claim "there is no such thing as originality." The problem is that this is only true if you define originality in such a way that, given the rest of your assumptions, it is impossible for originality to exist. This undermines the value of your claim; you've defined a word that is meaningless.

The question becomes: if someone were to come to you and claim some event (or some aspect of some event) was original, and you were to unwrap what they mean by "original" and deconstruct the context of the event, eliminating the aspects of it that were "unoriginal" - would there be any content left at the end? I argue that there would - at the very least, there are aspects of any event that are particular to its location in space and time. More importantly, even if every other aspect of the event mirrors an aspect of a previous event, the confluence of those aspects constitute an event distinct from all previous events. The originality lies in the fact that the strands have never come together in precisely this way before.

Two

The phrase "a struggle between good and bad" is problematic and is an example of a broader problem with your generalization. Good and bad are both words which mask a complex web of meanings. It is certainly not the case that every person, group, culture, nation, etc. has the same understanding of what is good and what is bad. Nor is there simply a disagreement over details or historical circumstance; there are fundamental conceptual differences between "good v. bad" in Athens 430 B.C. and "good v. bad" in twentieth century America. An Athenian looking at the modern American version of justice might, in a particular case, be unable to reconcile the American result with his notion of what justice is.

"Justice" exists in all societies, yes, and the notions those societies have of justice overlap, but they are not identical. With respect to some situations notions of justice can be irreconciliable. You used good v bad as an example of a moral duality that mirrors physical dualities. This is too simplistic because "good" and "bad" are not terms with a single meaning. It is from within the web of complexities in those definitions that the notion of justice in a particular age and place derives its uniqueness. This is only one example, but I believe similar rebuttals can be made across the spectrum of experience that your claim covers.

[bearly]

my posts contain exactly what i intend to say................b