Imagination encircles the world.

[s1eep]

Do you believe that imagination encircles everything, and thus, anything that someone says, can be easily defeated with a bit of imagination? I guess to make it a bit clearer for you: anything you say has imagination surrounding it; this is also represented by the fact that the rest of the body which enforces your statements, is an accomplice of the statement, as well as other things like dictionaries or references; including things like sexual desires, emotions; beyond the words you say is always yourself and you may be judged more accurately; I could mention that you were educated or socially conditioned--I'm not saying this is a bad thing but it's an example of a judgement I can make that is conversation-breaking. It can be again represented by the fact my voice (i.e. the sound that it makes) is accepted by everything; I could refer to any moment with a simple grunt or howl. The many ways to represent imagination encircling things shows imagination in itself. Okay, so do you believe this?

What are your thoughts on what I have asked you?

Edited October 2, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

 

Do you believe that imagination encircles everything, and thus, anything that someone says, can be easily defeated with a bit of imagination?

 

How would you "defeat" a statement that is factually true?

[Strange]

 

Do you believe that imagination encircles everything

 

I'm not sure what that means. Imagination is in your head. How does it "encircle" anything?

 

 

What are your thoughts on what I have asked you?

 

Incomprehensible. Or, at least, I can't imagine what it means. (See what I did there.)

[s1eep]

 

How would you "defeat" a statement that is factually true?

I could respond with a lie and say that it's equal, in value, to truth, and thus void your statements (without insulting, truly) 'progression' toward the foundation to the point I brought up...

I could respond with the fact that your true-statement is never actual truth it's personal truth;

I could go deeper into your statement and take your emotions into consideration, and judge your character.

There are many things I can respond with...

 

I'm not sure what that means. Imagination is in your head. How does it "encircle" anything?

 

 

Incomprehensible. Or, at least, I can't imagine what it means. (See what I did there.)

You can't understand the semantics without stopping at each word, dividing between our two perspectives, and appealing with a third-party which supports that you check the definitions correlate with dictionary definitions; we have evolved a sense of the world. What, you think you're right? So you can just spread your confusion and weakness? You don't even attempt to progress. All this nihilism annoys me.

 

Imagination may be in the head, but it came from that which was out of the head...

 

From the big bang, everything has had imagination-potential (the potential to one day create or be with an imagination). This means imagination is within it all together, the universe is not completely void of imagination, it's an imagination-maker.

 

Is imagination more like the universe or the word and definition for imagination?

 

Well... I think I'm on to something here...

Edited October 2, 2014 by s1eep

[Strange]

 

What, you think you're right? So you can just spread your confusion and weakness?

 

Man, I just asked a question ....

[s1eep]

 

Man, I just asked a question ....

 

I am annoyed by nihilism

 

Anyway, the other things I said?

 

How would you "defeat" a statement that is factually true?

Provide me with a factual statement that is true.

[/backslash/]

Assuming that this is true (which I do not believe):

Everything has imagination-potential.

[Avalanche2001]

Your theory is paradoxical to itself, and therefore is equal to nothing by the logic of the quantum equation m-n+(i-n). Your input is greater than the output, which is equal to negative zero, so your theory is completely invalid.

[/backslash/]

Your theory is paradoxical to itself, and therefore is equal to nothing by the logic of the quantum equation m-n+(i-n). Your input is greater than the output, which is equal to negative zero, so your theory is completely invalid.

I'm not sure if this is the right process, but however you got your conclusion, you hit the nail on the head.

[s1eep]

I'm not sure if this is the right process, but however you got your conclusion, you hit the nail on the head.

I don't truly believe he hit the nail on the head, and this wasn't really a theory it was meant to be for philosophical and scientific discussion.

 

Since the day I posted this, I've found better ways to explain.

 

Such as, when I say imagination encircles everything, I recently found that, I really mean our imagination encircles everything, as if we are, above, through mental ability, other natures, that we can, by just looking at a plant or something, create an image of the plant in our minds; no need for any doctrine or in-depth knowledge about the subject, just it's sensed individuality. So, we comprehend these things, without the worded science of today.

 

Anyway, it's not stupid, I'm referring to something found through the observation of nature that I can't quite explain with words right at this second.

[/backslash/]

I'm sorry, but this is really not a better explanation at all.

Edited October 5, 2014 by /backslash/

[s1eep]

I'm sorry, but this is really not a better explanation at all.

Well this isn't enough of a counter to mean anything...

 

Hmmm.

 

I will one day prove this (I strive to, anyway).

 

Well, it seems as if the discussion isn't going anywhere, I will probably take my leave for another few months (if I don't get banned before then) after today.

 

“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

― Albert Einstein

Edited October 5, 2014 by s1eep

[Strange]

Such as, when I say imagination encircles everything, I recently found that, I really mean our imagination encircles everything, as if we are, above, through mental ability, other natures, that we can, by just looking at a plant or something, create an image of the plant in our minds; no need for any doctrine or in-depth knowledge about the subject, just it's sensed individuality.

 

It sounds as if by "imagination encircles everything" you simply mean that we can imagine anything (whether we have seen it or not).

 

Is that roughly right?

 

So, we comprehend these things, without the worded science of today.

 

And that is the problem. Imgaining something is not comprehending it. People have imagined all sorts of false beleifs about things before. (Like imagining that because the leaves of lungwort look a bit like lungs, it must be good for respiratory disease. It isn't.)

 

We can also imagine things that don't exist.

 

Anyway, it's not stupid, I'm referring to something found through the observation of nature that I can't quite explain with words right at this second

 

It may not be stupid but you are not explaining it well. When asked to clarify what something means (e.g. "imagination encircles" then you insult the questioner or go off on a tangent).

 

If you are unable to explain it well, then I suspect you do not understand it well. You just have a vague idea you are trying to put into words. You need to clarify the idea in your own mind before you can explain it to anyone else.

 

Otherwise it just comes across as: "You know, I've got this idea and it's like, you know, and then, well, you get what I mean, I mean everything, you know".

Edited October 5, 2014 by Strange

[s1eep]

 

It sounds as if by "imagination encircles everything" you simply mean that we can imagine anything (whether we have seen it or not).

 

Is that roughly right?

 

 

And that is the problem. Imgaining something is not comprehending it. People have imagined all sorts of false beleifs about things before. (Like imagining that because the leaves of lungwort look a bit like lungs, it must be good for respiratory disease. It isn't.)

 

We can also imagine things that don't exist.

 

 

It may not be stupid but you are not explaining it well. When asked to clarify what something means (e.g. "imagination encircles" then you insult the questioner or go off on a tangent).

 

If you are unable to explain it well, then I suspect you do not understand it well. You just have a vague idea you are trying to put into words. You need to clarify the idea in your own mind before you can explain it to anyone else.

 

Otherwise it just comes across as: "You know, I've got this idea and it's like, you know, and then, well, you get what I mean, I mean everything, you know".

I'm not as science-literate as you, and I was hoping that friendly co-operative discussion would lead to maybe someone more knowledgeable, making a nice addition, or making sense out of the chaos I wrote.

 

If you follow my semantics but are given full freedom to change them to make sense, can you? If not, then, agreed, I will come back when I can explain it scientifically.

Edited October 5, 2014 by s1eep

[Strange]

I'm not as science-literate as you, and I was hoping that friendly co-operative discussion would lead to maybe someone more knowledgeable, making a nice addition, or making sense out of the chaos I wrote.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with being science literate - you just need to explain your idea better.

 

If you follow my semantics but are given full freedom to change them to make sense, can you?

 

That is what I tried to do but you have totally ignored it. Let me try again:

 

It sounds as if by "imagination encircles everything" you mean that we can imagine or visualise anything we have seen.

 

Is that roughly right?

[s1eep]

 

I don't think it has anything to do with being science literate - you just need to explain your idea better.

 

 

That is what I tried to do but you have totally ignored it. Let me try again:

 

It sounds as if by "imagination encircles everything" you mean that we can imagine or visualise anything we have seen.

 

Is that roughly right?

Yes---we can imagine real concepts, that are imagination, simply by sensing them.

 

EDIT: But my view has changed since the original post.

Edited October 5, 2014 by s1eep

[Ophiolite]

I'm not as science-literate as you, and I was hoping that friendly co-operative discussion would lead to maybe someone more knowledgeable, making a nice addition, or making sense out of the chaos I wrote.

 

If you follow my semantics but are given full freedom to change them to make sense, can you? If not, then, agreed, I will come back when I can explain it scientifically.

In summary:

You had a really vague idea.

You are unable to express with clarity what this idea is.

You want other people to invest time and energy to make sense of your idea.

When some members attempt to do so you are rude to them.

 

Do you have many friends?

[MigL]

Now that's what I call 'hitting the nail on the head'.

[hoola]

s1eep...I can relate to the "imagination encircles the world" idea with "illogic is a by product of the universe". I see the universe as consisting of a physical reality composed of logical information, and a sort of "dark logic" (illogic) that exists due to the underlying mechanism of reality, similar to the "junk dna" idea as regards to our own composition. I see that sentience is the ability to access that illogic which presents itself as data scripts of various levels of rational impossibilities, but nonetheless, constitute valid information. The free will to imagine anything, then to "cancel" it with a sort of negating thought doesn't seem really to apply, as both forms of information are "out there" to be accessed. Once the thought the individual "wills" into existence is not going away, as math doesn't "go away", despite another thought to the contrary, (and both were there all along anyway). Both were expressed in the underlying math of reality, along with countless similar variations both "pro and con" . I see the illogical component of "math as reality" the source of our supposed "free will", which allows an upper limit to what can be actualized in the mind of sentient beings. If math doesn't describe it (yet) you can't even imagine it. This also implies that if you have a truly novel thought, the pre-existing math describing the thought is "disovered" and nothing is "invented" by you, not that you shouldn't be very pleased with the experience (but curb your enthusiasm). This is also saying the imagination is very vast and we will never run out of things to think of...I see the process of math continuing, allowing an ever expanding, but never infinite library with which to choose thoughts from...and physically observable in the expansion of the universe in the continuing logical informational content of the common source of both families of data...I see the endless attempt to compose new music a subconscious attempt to actually express something not "pre-described" by the mathematical object of reality, with a truly novel thing that exists outside the bounds of our universe's well of illogic. The muse of creativity...

Edited October 6, 2014 by hoola

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Ophiolite,

 

Parts of your last post (especially the last question) added nothing to the conversation, and can easily be seen as insulting. Please don't post such phrases.

[Le Repteux]

Hi everybody,

 

I think that imagination, which I link to consciousness, is the result of a random process going on endlessly in the mind, and if I apply that principle to matter, then yes, imagination is everywhere since random processes are everywhere.

[Strange]

I think that imagination, which I link to consciousness, is the result of a random process going on endlessly in the mind, and if I apply that principle to matter, then yes, imagination is everywhere since random processes are everywhere.

 

If you link imagination to consciousness, then I don't see how you can say imagination is everywhere as there is no evidence that, water, say is conscious.

 

Then you say it is the result of random processes "in the mind" but then apply that to random process outside the mind.

 

Finally, you claim that random processes are everywhere. But, outside of certain quantum phenomena, there is little or no randomness in the world. And even truly random processes like radioactive decay average out at the large scale so that we can quantify things like half-life, build nuclear reactors, etc.

 

So ... not convinced, I'm afraid.

[Le Repteux]

Hi Strange,

 

From a human viewpoint, or at least from mine, random processes are those who affect us without us being able to anticipate them: whether they happen too fast or too slow, or whether there is too much complexity. Lately, we discovered that particles had random activities: is that randomness due to them being too fast for us to be able to anticipate their moves? Is it due to a complexity phenomenon?

 

From their own viewpoint, are the atoms able to anticipate anything that happens around them? Small things, big things, complex things?

 

Inversely, are all the galaxies able to anticipate what an atom is doing in one of them? Or to anticipate what far away galaxies are going to do?

Edited October 20, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

That is the difference between not being able to predict behaviour (even in principle) in deterministic systems and non-deterministic behaviour.

 

As far as we know, quantum level effects, like when a particular atom will decay, are genuinely random; i.e. with no cause.

 

Galaxies and atoms can't anticipate anything.

[Le Repteux]

To me, for the moon and the earth to be able to keep the right orbital trajectory, thus to respect the law of gravitation, means that they can anticipate what each other is going to do while using a late information, because it takes time for the information to travel back and forth between the two. Nevertheless, they still keep the right speed and the right direction for their trajectory to be stable. What do they do when meteors add mass to them? They change something in order to be able to stay in orbit, but they do so before this information has time to get to the other body, which reacts exactly the same way.

 

This is exactly what we do when we meet other people: we change something in order to be able to cope with them, but we never know what to change because we cannot predict their reactions, so we go randomly until we find the right way, but since we all change constantly, we never see the end of it.

 

If we can't see the end of it, why would the atoms or the galaxies be able to?

Edited October 20, 2014 by Le Repteux