Is there only so much we can imagine?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Is there only so much we can imagine? » Is there only so much we can imagine?

Is there only so much we can imagine?
What is the limit of our minds?

Page: 1 2

Is there only so much we can imagine?

PhilosophyArrow
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 06/25/09 - 09:36 PM: Subject: Is there only so much we can imagine?	#1
I'm new to this site, so please be patient with my reasoning. Constructive criticism is always welcome too. One morning I awoke with a passion to look at everything beautiful. I went online to look up some museums and located some art galleries. Long story short, I was disappointed. Not because of the art, but the averageness of it. Every photo, every scene, every portrait had been done before. There was nothing that stimulated my mind. I know that the universe is infinite, and there are things out there that we have never seen, but why have we not expanded our art to fit the unknown? Perhaps what I'm trying to ask is, are we not able to imagine what we have not seen? Many people can create creatures with scaly torsos and bird beaks, but never have we seen an unknown creation. Is this because we can not see in our mind what we have never seen before? Many children can have nightmares with horrible fears that torture them even when they awaken. Their nightmares exist only because of what their mind has perceived before. Therefore, parents are able to soothe them. However, because we can not imagine new things when we are conscious, does this reach our dreams? Are we imaginatively disabled?

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 185

Posted 06/26/09 - 12:24 AM:	#2
I don’t think we are “imaginatively disabled”, as you put it, we are simply limited by context. The boundaries of what we can imagine are constantly, but slowly, being expanded by everyone but if the process moves too quickly, which does happen, we loose context and the image (or whatever) becomes meaningless (in a figurative way) or abstract. To continue your example: for something to be a monster we have to be able to recognise it as a monster and relate it to our own inner fears to fully appreciate the monsterishness of it. If we are unable to do this (i.e. place it in context) the monster is meaningless to us and looses its power. This rapid expansion of boundaries has happened regularly throughout the ages. It is usually followed by a period of adjustment while society “catches up” by understanding (placing into context) the new ideas. Sometime this is very successful, look at the universal acceptance of Impressionism, other times less so: Dada for example is often misunderstood even in artistic circles.
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 461

Posted 06/26/09 - 12:35 AM:	#3
I guess this begs the question, how close does one look at what they are looking at? Another question would be, what does the observer bring to the experience of perceiving? I find there are as many limitation to the imaginations as there are individuals imagining. I guess now I should ask if there is a "shared imagination"? Experience is from my perspective not "repeatable". The flux of reality pushed forward in "time" and this make every experience new, that is if one care to see it that way. You cannot rewind. "Imaginatively disabled" is a condition more of choice rather than of condition. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 326

Posted 06/26/09 - 03:45 PM:	#4
Consider this thought experiment. Say some Aliens have different sensory system than ours, and they have a sense "ksdjflksdf". If we are to imagine how that's like, how would we do it? Likewise, a blind person would most likely not be able to imagine how seeing is like. They can understand the textbook definition, but they are limited to refer back to the senses they have to understand. Of course, that being said, even if we are limited at some basic levels, some artist does manage to alter their reference quite drastically, to the point where most people cannot distinguish what it is. But such "Creativity" most people don't consider art at all. It would make no sense to anyone who isn't the artist and would look like nothing but a random mess.
Keep it simple.

crepusculum_basium
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/09/09 - 04:34 AM:	#5
In context of the arts, I think the basic problem is that our sense of creativity is limited by the aesthetic sense of the average human being (the point was also noted well by 123savethewhales). The creativity/imagination itself is not limited but most ideas that we could have imagined, we do not because, actually, they are of little beauty/importance to our average sense of perception of what is valid as good or beautiful. Edited by Incision on 07/09/09 - 01:06 PM. Reason: added capitals

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 206

Posted 07/09/09 - 07:38 AM:	#6
I know that the universe is infinite Is it? I read standard theories about how our universe is expanding. Though when I look to my own intuition it would seem otherwise, I will elaborate, lets say I were to take a glass of water and bubbles arose within the water. They are round, spinning, ever in motion. My intuition compares this spherical shape to the planets within the solar system. I then ask myself, why are there no square planets, or rectangular planets furthermore why are there no oblong bubbles or triangular bubbles. Is it because just like the glass the universe is a closed system, and in closed systems the best way for an object to distribute mass is in a sphere? Abiding by others' rules will lead you to believe that the world is made, tested and tried and that there is little left to do. Follow your instincts, not always those of others, and you will be amazed at what your imagination can conjure. Is there only so much we can imagine? No, the imagination is limitless, if you let it be. Edited by Minyun on 07/09/09 - 08:05 AM

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 862

Posted 07/09/09 - 06:00 PM:	#7
Within practical limits, we can only create a finite number of works of art. There are only so many digital images of a fixed size and palette; so many songs of a given set of pitches, length and timbre. A more important limit on creativity, though, is our ability to make sense of those combinations; most possible images and songs would seem random and pointless. To make sense of those possibilities, we generally put many more limits on them: songs might only be in major or minor scales, have only certain chords, etc. We can get more possibilities by expanding the range of things we can interpret.

jsidelko
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 228

Posted 07/09/09 - 08:12 PM:	#8
The human brain has 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion neural connections. Theoretically, the human brain is capable of approximately 9.997190e109999 mental states. This is considerably greater than the number of possible universes allowed by M-Theory (10e500). Therefore there is plenty of room for creating new ideas.
thanatos

ered maks
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/17/09 - 01:44 PM:	#9
Thats right, jsidelko, the only problem is that new ideas newer seem to appear, especially good ones. Making fire was a good idea. Inventing the weel. Written language and printing. The rest of the ideas we have seen in our history are actually very bad!! It seems as this many neurons dont do much at all. I think they are just pulsating peacefully, secretly hoping to be used as toothpaste or something like that...

Cleaver
Don't think of green

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2007

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 68

Posted 07/19/09 - 08:53 PM:	#10
Are we imaginatively disabled? Well sir, actually, I paint with invisible paint that screams originality beyond any bounds of human thought. How dare you call me disabled! I am, of course, joking. Look at this new hope: There is art every- and anywhere. Possibly we are "constrained by context" as Brobard put it. Fret not, my my friend. You have to look far and wide for the art you seek. For in the end, the art that matters most will be the art that speaks to you the most, and possibly you will no longer be concerned with the limitations of our imagination. Is our imagination limited? I would think not, but understand, most of of the art you are seeing in museums is of generally popular art of its time. Also, it is also important to note that our imagination may or may not be limited in the way we or an individual interprets art or art piece.
"The intellect is a cleaver. It discerns and rifts its way into the secret of things." ~Henry David Thoreau

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.