In praise of ideas

[snowymountains]

7 hours ago, Taomeow said:

Briefly.  According to gestalt theory, the brain, presented with complex input of multiple elements, incomplete pictures, fragments, parts, etc., will attempt to simplify it by subconsciously organizing the parts into a structured system that creates a whole.  The brain is always busy seeking structure and patterns -- that's how we learn to navigate any complex environment.  An open gestalt is one where this hasn't been accomplished, and it's a kind of constant irritant to the mind, whether conscious or unconscious.  The idea of how to complete the pattern is germinating, but there's no guarantee it will emerge.  If the brain, presented with the right amount of information, manages to establish the right connections ("right" for the task of organizing the elements into a coherent structure, not in the sense "right" vs. "wrong"), it connects the parts that are present, fills in the missing parts, cuts off the unnecessary elements, and creates a unified whole.  This reduces complexity, carves out a finite thing of meaning from an infinite pool of noise, and closes the gestalt.   

 

Correct, though it doesn't establish what is an idea.

 

❤️ Gestalt and it's a fantastic fit for those who practice Zen and probably Taoism too. It's a shame it was thrown under the bus as a modality because it's harder to collect systematic evidence.

[snowymountains]

9 hours ago, Apech said:

Just to get back on topic.  I think we have established through the variety of examples that perception is not the dull thing that is usually presented.  But then whay exactly - and I mean exactly, precisely is an idea?

 

Can anyone give me a definition?

 

Well an idea can be many things, it can be eg a creative solution to a problem or it can be something that has been suggested. it could be expressed visually or as an (internal) verbal thought.

 

If what you had in mind is thoughts that seem to come out of nowhere, these are organised in many levels, eg automatic thoughts, intermediate assumptions, core beliefs/cognitive schemas - at least as far as the parts of the mind which can in principle come to awareness are concerned.

 

It's also true that cognition impacts everything, affect and behaviour. Cognition is super important.

 

Perception is slightly different as a concept, it's about how we filter an experience, often through thoughts we have in our minds ( that we may not necessarily be aware of - but can in principle become aware of). And here is where practices like insight meditation shine, in that they train us to observe thoughts and keep some distance.

 

In terms of philosophies one may keep a distance from their thoughts a la Buddhism or , when this is needed, to restructure them a la stoicism. Therapeutically the fist is done in ACT and the later in 2nd wave CBT. Someone who practices insight meditation and reads Marcus Aurelius is building impressive skills on that matter.

Edited June 14 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

Btw Buddhism too has some techniques for cognitive restructuring, it's not limited to distancing, eg in the vitakkasanthara sutta,  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html , though not as extensive as the stoics.

Edited June 14 by snowymountains

[Apech]

10 hours ago, Taomeow said:

Briefly.  According to gestalt theory, the brain, presented with complex input of multiple elements, incomplete pictures, fragments, parts, etc., will attempt to simplify it by subconsciously organizing the parts into a structured system that creates a whole.  The brain is always busy seeking structure and patterns -- that's how we learn to navigate any complex environment.  An open gestalt is one where this hasn't been accomplished, and it's a kind of constant irritant to the mind, whether conscious or unconscious.  The idea of how to complete the pattern is germinating, but there's no guarantee it will emerge.  If the brain, presented with the right amount of information, manages to establish the right connections ("right" for the task of organizing the elements into a coherent structure, not in the sense "right" vs. "wrong"), it connects the parts that are present, fills in the missing parts, cuts off the unnecessary elements, and creates a unified whole.  This reduces complexity, carves out a finite thing of meaning from an infinite pool of noise, and closes the gestalt.   

 

In this model where do the ideas of 'pattern' and 'whole' come from?

 

 

[Apech]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

A drop of condensed unconscious meditation .

 

I like this definition - although I would say 'a drop of condensed spirit'.

[Apech]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Well an idea can be many things, it can be eg a creative solution to a problem or it can be something that has been suggested. it could be expressed visually or as an (internal) verbal thought.

 

This is more about how we use or experience ideas than what they are.

 

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

If what you had in mind is thoughts that seem to come out of nowhere, these are organised in many levels, eg automatic thoughts, intermediate assumptions, core beliefs/cognitive schemas - at least as far as the parts of the mind which can in principle come to awareness are concerned.

 

I didn't particularly have those things in mind.  Perhaps a good question would be where we get perfect geometry from - for instance the idea of a sphere, where all the points on the surface are equidistant from the centre.  I think this is particularly interesting because in reality such a shape or object with such a shape cannot precisely exist (only in approximation) even though we quite happy withh the idea of it.  The same would be true of the right angle and so on.  How, if it has never been possible to produce such a thing did the idea of it arise?

 

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

It's also true that cognition impacts everything, affect and behaviour. Cognition is super important.

 

Perception is slightly different as a concept, it's about how we filter an experience, often through thoughts we have in our minds ( that we may not necessarily be aware of - but can in principle become aware of). And here is where practices like insight meditation shine, in that they train us to observe thoughts and keep some distance.

 

In terms of philosophies one may keep a distance from their thoughts a la Buddhism or , when this is needed, to restructure them a la stoicism. Therapeutically the fist is done in ACT and the later in 2nd wave CBT. Someone who practices insight meditation and reads Marcus Aurelius is building impressive skills on that matter.

 

That's a different discussion - for now I just want to establish what ideas actually are given their importance (or even their rejection by our non-conceptual friends).

 

 

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

This is more about how we use or experience ideas than what they are.

 

 

I didn't particularly have those things in mind.  Perhaps a good question would be where we get perfect geometry from - for instance the idea of a sphere, where all the points on the surface are equidistant from the centre.  I think this is particularly interesting because in reality such a shape or object with such a shape cannot precisely exist (only in approximation) even though we quite happy withh the idea of it.  The same would be true of the right angle and so on.  How, if it has never been possible to produce such a thing did the idea of it arise?

 

 

That's a different discussion - for now I just want to establish what ideas actually are given their importance (or even their rejection by our non-conceptual friends).

 

 

 

This can be a broad and interesting topic, unfortunately I don't have time to contribute over the next days.

 

But (for next week!) what is your description of an idea then?

 

As you mention a perfect sphere , two things come to mind when I read it, one angle is that this is an adjustment of a memory of an image a sphere ( adjusted in that it becomes perfect in our minds ), the other is a more archetypal dimension, along with he lines of platonic forms, jungian archetypes etc

[forestofclarity]

Any definition will arguably too limited, too expansive, or rely on unacceptable premises. 

But to play along, I would offer than an idea is a thought or set of thoughts that are representational. 

 

 

[Salvijus]

On 2024-06-14 at 1:19 AM, Apech said:

But then whay exactly - and I mean exactly, precisely is an idea?

 

Can anyone give me a definition?

 

Mind has an ability to fragment and compartmentalize reality. Mind fragments reality first into concepts, then out of concepts it creates ideas, theories, thought forms etc. 

 

Simply put it's a mental construct born out of fragmentation. 

 

Edited June 15 by Salvijus

[Taomeow]

On 6/14/2024 at 3:33 AM, Apech said:

 

In this model where do the ideas of 'pattern' and 'whole' come from?

 

 

 

In that model the ideas of pattern and whole come from the way our brains work, notably the discovery of the "predictive" neurons in communication with "current reality" neurons.  The older models assumed that the brain 1)gets input from the environment, 2)then produces a response.  Turns out it's not that simple.  "Predictive" neurons get there first: they anticipate, forecast, produce "ideas" of what reality outside is like at a given moment.  (Reality inside the body is also "outside" the brain, so to predictive neurons it doesn't matter which reality, "ours" or "the world's" they are assessing -- they treat both as the "outer reality.")  The "current reality" neurons that get actual in-the-moment input get in touch with predictive neurons (which somehow get there first!), and the brain/mind compares the information and comes up with an assessment of how well the actual input matches the prediction.  That's the millisecond within which the "current reality" neurons and "predictive" neurons fire lightnings at each other ("brainstorm") and either establish that both are right, both are wrong, or one is right and the other is wrong.  The idea is born.  It's the outcome of comparing "outer reality" and predictions of what it might be like and getting an image/thought/solution/understanding/quest, whatever.  An outline, a shape of things to come that appears rooted in reality rather than in mere fantasy.

 

In the taoist model, "In Heaven, images are born, on Earth they take shape."  Interestingly, neuroscientists sometimes call the predictive neurons "upper" and the "current reality" ones, "lower."  An idea is a cooperation between "upper" and "lower," between heaven and earth, that produces something that wasn't there before they got in touch.  Or as a taoist might put it, "before yang embraced yin."   

 

Nature patterns itself on communication between heaven and earth, above and below, inner and outer, yang and yin.  Patterns are derived from the tao, "tao patterns itself on itself/nature/its own nature" (tao fa ziran).  "Whole" in the taoist model would be too long of a tangent.  In the gestalt model, there's principles, numbering six if I remember correctly, that are to be observed for there to be wholeness.  (They can be illustrated visually -- which is why gestalt in design is somewhat easier to grasp and agree with than, e.g., in gestalt psychology.)       

[Nungali]

On 6/14/2024 at 8:35 PM, Apech said:

 

I like this definition - although I would say 'a drop of condensed spirit'.

 

Thanks ... now I would arrange it as spirit was the mist that entered the unconscious , the unconscious 'swirled it around ' and then 'drops' formed out of it and 'rained' into the conscience .

 

... or sumpfin like that .

[Nungali]

On 6/14/2024 at 8:48 PM, Apech said:

...  Perhaps a good question would be where we get perfect geometry from - for instance the idea of a sphere, where all the points on the surface are equidistant from the centre.  I think this is particularly interesting because in reality such a shape or object with such a shape cannot precisely exist (only in approximation) even though we quite happy withh the idea of it.  The same would be true of the right angle and so on.  How, if it has never been possible to produce such a thing did the idea of it arise?

 

There  ^  you have it  !  The thing was there first , our 'ideas' uncovered it , they didnt create it .

 

They exist in the 'ideal world' , when we bring them into the real world they are often imperfect .

 

Looks like we are back to 'The Theory of Forms'   ?

[snowymountains]

On 16/06/2024 at 1:28 AM, Nungali said:

Looks like we are back to 'The Theory of Forms'   ?

 

Which is very interesting and maybe will never be solved as a question. From the ancient times you had people who preferred stoicism, which is more practical, others who preferred Plato.

[Apech]

38 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Which is very interesting and maybe will never be solved as a question. From the ancient times you had people who preferred stoicism, which is more practical, others who preferred Plato.

Solvet et coagula