Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Can we create, or think about, anything without prior, external input?
To me it seems like all we can do is combine or extrapolate things we have experienced before.
Shakespeare couldn’t have invented the stories he has if he had been born blind, deaf and mute on a remote island. The stories he wrote (in his real life) would not simply have sprung up inside of his head in such completely different circumstances, would they?
Nor could he have written stories involving the Internet or Audi A8s.
So aren’t our thoughts totally dependent on what we experience? If we don’t experience certain things then we simply can’t think about these things or invent things based on those experiences. Ideas don’t just come out of the blue. At least not in the sense of totally original ideas that are not based on prior input.
Or let’s take the example above a step further: let’s image a blind, deaf and mute child is getting raised in isolation from day one, strapped to a bed and fed through tubes. What could this human being actually think about? What ideas could he or she have?
Or let’s take the example above a step further: let’s image a blind, deaf and mute child is getting raised in isolation from day one, strapped to a bed and fed through tubes. What could this human being actually think about? What ideas could he or she have?
Whatever the thoughts, you can rest assured they won’t be pleasant.
In the total isolation experiments baby monkeys would be left alone for three, six, 12, or 24[3][4] months of “total social deprivation.” The experiments produced monkeys that were severely psychologically disturbed. Harlow wrote:
No monkey has died during isolation. When initially removed from total social isolation, however, they usually go into a state of emotional shock, characterized by ... autistic self-clutching and rocking. One of six monkeys isolated for 3 months refused to eat after release and died 5 days later. The autopsy report attributed death to emotional anorexia. ... The effects of 6 months of total social isolation were so devastating and debilitating that we had assumed initially that 12 months of isolation would not produce any additional decrement. This assumption proved to be false; 12 months of isolation almost obliterated the animals socially ...[5]
Or let’s take the example above a step further: let’s image a blind, deaf and mute child is getting raised in isolation from day one, strapped to a bed and fed through tubes. What could this human being actually think about? What ideas could he or she have?
Whatever the thoughts, you can rest assured they won’t be pleasant.
In the total isolation experiments baby monkeys would be left alone for three, six, 12, or 24[3][4] months of “total social deprivation.” The experiments produced monkeys that were severely psychologically disturbed. Harlow wrote:
No monkey has died during isolation. When initially removed from total social isolation, however, they usually go into a state of emotional shock, characterized by ... autistic self-clutching and rocking. One of six monkeys isolated for 3 months refused to eat after release and died 5 days later. The autopsy report attributed death to emotional anorexia. ... The effects of 6 months of total social isolation were so devastating and debilitating that we had assumed initially that 12 months of isolation would not produce any additional decrement. This assumption proved to be false; 12 months of isolation almost obliterated the animals socially ...[5]
Poor monkeys ...
I’m still interested though in what thoughts or ideas such a child (as described above) could have since there is virtually NO sensory input at all?
And so would you agree that we can’t create, or think about, anything without prior external input?
I’m still interested though in what thoughts or ideas such a child (as described above) could have since there is virtually NO sensory input at all?
I suspect that’s something you’ll never find out.
And so would you agree that we can’t create, or think about, anything without prior external input?
Your example is not one of complete sensory depravation. You also present the subject as a child but do not mention the age of the child, so it will already have had some cognitive development. Since you’re asking me if I agree, I assume you’ve already decided that’s the case. I really don’t know. I doubt it would be able to ‘create’ anything.
Surely, there will be a physical and emotional component going on of some sort, this would start in vitro. There will be physical development of the brain and neural activity, probably too an inner audio stimulus of ‘tinnitus’, and any other variants such as inner temperature changes would alter the external temperature controls, thereby introducing stimuli. I imagine any ‘thoughts’ without language would be experienced on an emotional level similar to an infant. Other than that, I wouldn’t venture to guess. When will you start your experiments?
But my point was that we can’t think about stuff we haven’t experienced before. Would you agree with that?
Well, I would only go so far as to say that any ‘thoughts’ would not be translated or associated with language and symbolism that give it meaning. It would be more stimulus-response activity on a physical level. But I don’t know. It’s a reasonable assumption. I would imagine the brain will have atrophied without the necessary input.
But my point was that we can’t think about stuff we haven’t experienced before. Would you agree with that?
Well, I would only go so far as to say that any ‘thoughts’ would not be translated or associated with language and symbolism that give it meaning. It would be more stimulus-response activity on a physical level. But I don’t know. It’s a reasonable assumption. I would imagine the brain will have atrophied without the necessary input.
But I’m not just referring to the extreme example of that isolated child. I’m referring to all of us. Can we create, or think about, things without having experienced these things first?
But my point was that we can’t think about stuff we haven’t experienced before. Would you agree with that?
Well, I would only go so far as to say that any ‘thoughts’ would not be translated or associated with language and symbolism that give it meaning. It would be more stimulus-response activity on a physical level. But I don’t know. It’s a reasonable assumption. I would imagine the brain will have atrophied without the necessary input.
But I’m not just referring to the extreme example of that isolated child. I’m referring to all of us. Can we create, or think about, things without having experienced these things first?
If observing someone else’s ‘experience’ doesn’t count as ‘experiencing it’ yourself, then yes.
But I’m not just referring to the extreme example of that isolated child. I’m referring to all of us. Can we create, or think about, things without having experienced these things first?
NASA would really like to have an anti-gravity spacecraft. Is such a thing possible? Impossible? Will a series of future discoveries eventually allow someone to make the final leap and create it? Why not do it now? After all, we can think about it. But, I suspect I’m missing what you really mean.
But I’m not just referring to the extreme example of that isolated child. I’m referring to all of us. Can we create, or think about, things without having experienced these things first?
NASA would really like to have an anti-gravity spacecraft. Is such a thing possible? Impossible? Will a series of future discoveries eventually allow someone to make the final leap and create it? Why not do it now? After all, we can think about it. But, I suspect I’m missing what you really mean.
How can you know what “anti-gravity” is except by extension of what gravity is? You can define it as the opposite of gravity since you already know what gravity is. (btw it’s impossible by everything we know, gravity has only ever attracted things together (of course, you could use other forces like electromagnetic to cancel out the force applied by gravity—that isn’t actually anti-gravity though)).
Or let’s take the example above a step further: let’s image a blind, deaf and mute child is getting raised in isolation from day one, strapped to a bed and fed through tubes. What could this human being actually think about? What ideas could he or she have?
The child would think about whatever thoughts could arise from the sense of heat, cold, vibrations, smell and touch. I imagine that the child would also develop a sense of self, even if it might be a bit distorted. Feelings, like happiness and anger would be there. Every sensory input would then be a building block for the mind. Take away all sensory input and you will not have a living human, but a corpse. You might as well then ask how to paint a painting without brushes, colors and canvas.
Then take away the body, you say, place the brain in a life supporting jar. Then, I assume, it would do nothing(or repeat signals over and over), because it’s purpose, taking input and giving output back to the body, would have been taken away. The self, again I assume, would be gone. Can the self exist without input, without defining it’s place in relation to everything else? I don’t know, but think that; No, it can’t.
Remember that before we had this wonderful thing called imagination, creativity or deep thought, we ate, slept/rested and procreated. These were the things our ancestors thought about. All that you see around you right now, the computer screen, this text you read, your clothes, the sound of the TV, are based on a very young(only millions of years old), originally secondary function of the brain. Originally, perhaps, a mutation. It has developed to work in other ways than to find something to eat, a safe place to sleep and a partner to have sex with. I may be completely wrong of course. I am, after all, a web designer and not a scholar of the mind or human history.
If you are curious on the workings of a sense deprived mind, read Helen Kellers book, ‘The World I Live in’.
But my point was that we can’t think about stuff we haven’t experienced before. Would you agree with that?
Well, I would only go so far as to say that any ‘thoughts’ would not be translated or associated with language and symbolism that give it meaning. It would be more stimulus-response activity on a physical level. But I don’t know. It’s a reasonable assumption. I would imagine the brain will have atrophied without the necessary input.
But I’m not just referring to the extreme example of that isolated child. I’m referring to all of us. Can we create, or think about, things without having experienced these things first?
If observing someone else’s ‘experience’ doesn’t count as ‘experiencing it’ yourself, then yes.
Observing someone else’s experience is an experience too though! So wouldn’t the answer then have to be ‘no’?
But I’m not just referring to the extreme example of that isolated child. I’m referring to all of us. Can we create, or think about, things without having experienced these things first?
NASA would really like to have an anti-gravity spacecraft. Is such a thing possible? Impossible? Will a series of future discoveries eventually allow someone to make the final leap and create it? Why not do it now? After all, we can think about it. But, I suspect I’m missing what you really mean.
Yes, you are. What I was wondering about is if we could ‘find ideas or thoughts inside of ourselves’, independently of external input. To me it seems impossible. Everything we think about is, or new things we create are, based on stuff we have experienced before.
Or let’s take the example above a step further: let’s image a blind, deaf and mute child is getting raised in isolation from day one, strapped to a bed and fed through tubes. What could this human being actually think about? What ideas could he or she have?
The child would think about whatever thoughts could arise from the sense of heat, cold, vibrations, smell and touch. I imagine that the child would also develop a sense of self, even if it might be a bit distorted. Feelings, like happiness and anger would be there. Every sensory input would then be a building block for the mind. Take away all sensory input and you will not have a living human, but a corpse. You might as well then ask how to paint a painting without brushes, colors and canvas.
Then take away the body, you say, place the brain in a life supporting jar. Then, I assume, it would do nothing(or repeat signals over and over), because it’s purpose, taking input and giving output back to the body, would have been taken away. The self, again I assume, would be gone. Can the self exist without input, without defining it’s place in relation to everything else? I don’t know, but think that; No, it can’t.
Remember that before we had this wonderful thing called imagination, creativity or deep thought, we ate, slept/rested and procreated. These were the things our ancestors thought about. All that you see around you right now, the computer screen, this text you read, your clothes, the sound of the TV, are based on a very young(only millions of years old), originally secondary function of the brain. Originally, perhaps, a mutation. It has developed to work in other ways than to find something to eat, a safe place to sleep and a partner to have sex with. I may be completely wrong of course. I am, after all, a web designer and not a scholar of the mind or human history.
If you are curious on the workings of a sense deprived mind, read Helen Kellers book, ‘The World I Live in’.
But doesn’t this confirm that we can’t create anything truly original by ourselves? We are always reliant on external input (whatever kind of sensory experience)? It’s impossible for us to imagine an elephant with wings without having encountered the concepts of elephant and wings first.
But doesn’t this confirm that we can’t create anything truly original by ourselves? We are always reliant on external input (whatever kind of sensory experience)? It’s impossible for us to imagine an elephant with wings without having encountered the concepts of elephant and wings first.
Yes, it is my understanding that output (an original thought) can not be made without input (The senses in humans). No input, no output. You need a canvas and a medium if you are to paint a painting. You need something to work with and work on. The brain works, simplified, as a computer, yes? If you had no input, keyboard, mouse, touch, the computer would do nothing. Just sit there collecting dust.
However, we might look at this the wrong way. The definition we are talking about can be wrong. How can anything be a “state of not being a derivative of anything else”? Perhaps originality can only work/exist if it works like evolution. Dogs, for example,(the original thought in this case) couldn’t just appear out of nowhere. You can’t make a dog today if there were no wolves to begin with. Give a computer to a 2300 BCE farmer and he would call it an original device, impossible for him to even imagine. It’s material, it’s functions, all alien. It would be a state of not being a derivative of anything else, to him. However, the predecessor to the computer, the abacus, he would understand. Go back even further and we find the predecessor to the abacus. Counting on the fingers perhaps.
So it could be that originality can not just happen, but must develop over time. Originality then, is not born in a single point in time, but over a period of time, and can not be made in any other way. So when someone says that a thing is original, they are only talking about a snapshot in time of the development of the thing. This snapshot compared with other snapshots looks original, because it doesn’t look like any other snapshot.
I think the definition of the “Original” we are talking about should be “A state of not being a clear derivative of anything else”. The world is based on evolution or ‘change over time’, if you will. Nothing exist that is not a derivative of something else, or so I understand it, anyway.
The Cambridge definition is better IMO: Original - “The quality of being special and interesting and not the same as anything or anyone else”
So yes, we can create something original, but not without it being a derivative of something else. The less clear the derivative of the thing is, the more original we will think it is.
