# The role of imagination in forming new ideas



## The Backward OX (May 14, 2010)

In another thread, Baron implied that new ideas are formed, out of nothing, by one’s imagination.

Do you believe that 'out of nothing' is the only way ideas are created? 

I get my ideas by joining together parts of two or more existing ideas to form a new one, which in my opinion is quite different to using one's imagination to form something 'out of nothing'.

I’m wondering if the two different ways may have differing consequences, as far as a work of fiction is concerned. For example, is it possible that the work produced by an imagination-driven writer might have greater page-turning appeal? 

Could you give that some thought, and then tell me what you've come up with?


----------



## Sigg (May 14, 2010)

I don't believe it's possible to have an idea "out of nothing". If it feels that way, it's because you don't exactly what things led to the new idea. But all semantic nit-pickiness aside, I am generally pretty aware of where my ideas come from, as in I am able to say "Oh well I saw this show, and read that book and like the idea of this... and that's how I ended up with the plot of my story." A lot of people call them 'sparks', and when i get a set of sparks that fit together, i make a story out of it.

For example, on my laptop I have a whole directory of little notes, like if I come across an interesting article or concept on wikipedia, or something is just a phrase that I think sounds cool. Then sometimes I sift through those notes or sparks and see if I can combine any into a story.

I think a lot of people do something similar


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 14, 2010)

I'm trying to come up with anything OTHER than imagination that forms new ideas, but just can't.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 14, 2010)

Lin, I was zeroing in on the 'out of nothing' part of it. That's what I find hard to comprehend. And I'm also curious about the comparitive fiction-writing skills of a person lacking imagination.


----------



## moderan (May 14, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> comparitive


gotcha


----------



## Futhark (May 14, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> I get my ideas by joining together parts of two or more existing ideas to form a new one, which in my opinion is quite different to using one's imagination to form something 'out of nothing'.



Ox, I think I see what you're getting at. You're talking about synthesis:  combining two or more existing ideas into a new, but still derived, idea. When people say that they get their ideas "out of nothing" I believe that they are simply unaware of the synthesis going on behind the scenes. That is really the only way humans _can_ make new discoveries. We build on what came before. All of nature works the same way.

Okay, I'm gonna leave before I start waxing poetic.


----------



## Blood (May 14, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Lin, I was zeroing in on the 'out of nothing' part of it. That's what I find hard to comprehend. And I'm also curious about the comparitive fiction-writing skills of a person lacking imagination.


Cast all aside and write.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 15, 2010)

moderan said:


> gotcha


'Sfunny. I looked at that too. Then I said, "No, comparison's spelled with an i, it's gotta be right." 
English, grrr.


----------



## moderan (May 15, 2010)

Comparatively speaking, no. It happens to the best of us.


----------



## Patrick (May 15, 2010)

You're taking Rob a bit literally aren't you, Ox? The basic point is that you don't need to see something happen in order to imagine it, hence my Superman example in the other thread. Information is the key thing. You can put data together in different ways to come up with something new. You can't act on a sum of data that equals 0. That's illogical, but the best imaginations can make something unique out of familiar concepts, and some of those go on to become popular and are used by others, some even become cliches. "Out of nothing" just seems a bit silly to me. I mean, whence come thoughts? And don't say the neocortex, it's not as simple as that.


----------



## Foxee (May 15, 2010)

Haven't there been threads identical to this one before from you, Ox? Seems to be a reoccurring theme.


----------



## moderan (May 15, 2010)

...maybe you can get some from here:
http://www.houseofideas.com/
Probably not from here:
http://www.thehouseofideas.net/
Possibly here:
http://www.houseofideas.cc/
Dunno about this one:
http://www.houseofideas.us/
Your best bet might be from here-they've billed themselves as "The House Of Ideas" since 1964:
http://marvel.com/


----------



## spider8 (May 16, 2010)

The only way I could imagine something out of nothing would be if I had a muse. There is no such thing as nothing. My whole life's experiences, which includes experiences of my imagination at play, has a say in what I can now imagine. But I _could_ say I imagined something out of nothing, but that would only be to save me lecturing someone on how my mind works.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (May 16, 2010)

I think everyone uses synthesis, OX, aware or not. 

Personally, I'm pretty aware of what's being synthesized to form my ideas. I could probably explain it in minute detail, as long as the idea wasn't so old as to have absorbed its roots.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 20, 2010)

Foxee said:


> Haven't there been threads identical to this one before from you, Ox? Seems to be a reoccurring theme.


Clearly you either didn't bother to absorb the OP or you absorbed it and totally misunderstood it.


----------



## NathanBrazil (May 20, 2010)

*


----------



## Mike C (May 20, 2010)

What's the actual issue? That ideas can't come from nothing, or that synthesising an idea from various inputs doesn't require imagination?

Either way (and both, I think, are possible) you can't do it without that imaginative leap.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 20, 2010)

NathanBrazil said:


> *


You dirty rotten scoundrel. After thinking about your post for an hour or so I came up with a witty rebuttal. And before I got it posted you got cold feet. That's my trick ...


----------



## The Backward OX (May 20, 2010)

Mike C said:


> What's the actual issue? That ideas can't come from nothing, or that synthesising an idea from various inputs doesn't require imagination?
> 
> Either way (and both, I think, are possible) you can't do it without that imaginative leap.


 
The actual issue is that Baron inferred ideas can be created without those various inputs, and I called him on it. Of course, he may not have realised he said it, but say it he did, and it's wrong, wrong, wrong. Which of course in my eyes also makes you wrong as to your first hypothesis.


----------



## Mike C (May 20, 2010)

So I can't sit staring into space and have a sudden epiphany? 

Sometimes ideas come from hard work. Sometimes they come unbidden. You're wrong, Ox, unless you're going to reason that maybe my epiphany is the result of subconscious synthesis, and therefore the wildest, wackiest ideas are still the result of some kind of manufactured thought process.

And, aside from the fact that you like creating a cat/pigeon interface, does it even matter where ideas come from, as long as they come?


----------



## Bourbon (May 20, 2010)

Is anyone going to mention the collective unconscious? Can I do it? 

What about the collective unconscious, Oxling? What if all the ideas are just sitting there, like big fat worms, and we don't need imagination...just a long thin beak to pierce the leathery layers of self-doubt between us and it? 

Imagine...I mean...get your beak round that, Oxicrom. All those free ideas, just waiting to be written, if only you believed...


----------



## The Backward OX (May 20, 2010)

I would dearly love to see a thread about the collective unconscious. I fear, and more's the pity, it might be beyond the scope of many here.


----------



## Baron (May 20, 2010)

I'd say there's a great deal of collective unconsciousness here.


----------



## JosephB (May 20, 2010)

Bourbon said:


> What about the collective unconscious, Oxling? What if all the ideas are just sitting there, like big fat worms, and we don't need imagination...just a long thin beak to pierce the leathery layers of self-doubt between us and it?



Hello, Bourbon!

I think it takes more that. You can't filter it and put it all together without imagination. As my dear old dad used to say when I was throwing ideas at him -- "I see a lot of bricks, but I don't see what the building looks like."


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 20, 2010)

Well, there's also a lot of uncollected consciousness out there.


----------



## Foxee (May 20, 2010)

I've tried bringing things back from the unconscious (no idea if it was collective or not...I was asleep at the time) and ended up with weird images like two guys driving a prototype rocket car across the salt flats and they must have been going fast because the one guy's head was one fire.*


*Edit: but in a good way. He didn't look bothered by it but seemed a lot more concerned about the stopwatch.


----------



## JosephB (May 20, 2010)

I'm disappointed, Foxee. I tried to wring some sort of innuendo from that, but nothing came to mind.


----------



## Bourbon (May 20, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Hello, Bourbon!


Hi there Joe. How you doing?


> "I see a lot of bricks, but I don't see what the building looks like."


If you look closely, the potential for the building and all other possible buildings is intrinsic to the nature of each and every brick. 

Another way of looking at it could be.... in a universe where every outcome is possible, yet only exists on a probability wave until a specific outcome is forced into concrete existence by observation, all we need to do is look at the coffee table and say 'behold my awesome work of genius' and there it'll be, a pristine hardback, complete with reviews and party invites...

And now to stare at a goat.


----------



## Foxee (May 20, 2010)

JosephB said:


> I'm disappointed, Foxee. I tried to wring some sort of innuendo from that, but nothing came to mind.


 Tell me about it. It might make a cool poster, though.

Bourbon...stare at a goat?


----------



## JosephB (May 20, 2010)

Foxee said:


> Tell me about it. It might make a cool poster, though.



Actually Foxee, this did come to mind -- the Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here" album cover:









Bourbon said:


> Another way of looking at it could be.... in a universe where every outcome is possible, yet only exists on a probability wave until a specific outcome is forced into concrete existence by observation, all we need to do is look at the coffee table and say 'behold my awesome work of genius' and there it'll be, a pristine hardback, complete with reviews and party invites...



I read that -- and then I had to take a nap.

And I'm fine. How about yourself?


----------



## The Backward OX (May 20, 2010)

Foxee said:


> Bourbon...stare at a goat?


 
Burb'll forgive me, I'm sure, for inbutting. We go back a way.

It beats me how you ever manage to write anything. Where's your curiosity button?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats


----------



## Foxee (May 20, 2010)

Beats me how I was supposed to know it was a book, Ox. Thanks, though.


----------



## moderan (May 20, 2010)

It was a book? I thought 'twas a movie. You're not supposed to beats you, Foxee, you're supposed to beat OX. Your cudgel is at the front desk. You left it in the coffee room.


----------



## Foxee (May 20, 2010)

Oh, ty, Mod, I wondered where I left that. So there's a whole movie about men staring at goats?


----------



## moderan (May 20, 2010)

Apparently. I was so put off by the title that I never bothered to find out what the film was about.


----------



## NathanBrazil (May 20, 2010)

It's got Kevin Spacey.  It must be good.


----------



## Foxee (May 20, 2010)

I dunno, Nate, he doesn't look all that happy about it.


----------



## NathanBrazil (May 21, 2010)

lol -

But it's Kevin Spacey.  He's da bomb.  Has he ever been in a movie you didn't like?


----------



## moderan (May 21, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 21, 2010)

Foxee said:


> Beats me how I was supposed to know it was a book, Ox. Thanks, though.


 
You weren't supposed to know it was a book, but you _are_ supposed to be curious. I didn't know it was a book either, but I did know how to type the word "stare" into my browser.


----------



## moderan (May 21, 2010)

I find most people curious.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (May 21, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> You weren't supposed to know it was a book, but you _are_ supposed to be curious. I didn't know it was a book either, but I did know how to type the word "stare" into my browser.



Curious... I would have typed it into a search engine.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 21, 2010)

search engine schmearch engine, what's the difference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche


----------



## moderan (May 21, 2010)

Oxen are curious as well.


----------



## Bourbon (May 21, 2010)

Foxee Loxey... the Military's secret interest in psychic phenomena was very interesting. I believe they had some success with remote viewing before they were found out, embarrassed, and pretended the X-Files never existed....

Remote viewing relies on accessing the collective unconscious, where all knowledge and memory lies... in some kind of equalibruim state, outside the system... whacky stuff...so whacky it almost makes sense...

Oxenticles...by all means butt in, my friend. You are the source of much wisdom.

Where's Malone? He likes this kind of stuff.

And hey Joe, if you think having kids is mind blowing...one of mine just had one of their own... now I know what a Russian Doll feels like....


----------



## The Backward OX (May 21, 2010)

Bourbon said:


> Where's Malone? He likes this kind of stuff.


He got into a self-inflicted huff, and vanished.


----------



## Bourbon (May 21, 2010)

Aw, no way. Can't I turn my back for five minutes?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (May 21, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> search engine schmearch engine, what's the difference?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche



A search engine is a website hosted on the net.  A browser is an application running off of your computer.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 21, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> A search engine is a website hosted on the net. A browser is an application running off of your computer.


 
That's what I said. "Typed it into my browser." I don't have the net sitting on my desk.


----------



## NathanBrazil (May 21, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> That's what I said to my browser.  And I still don't have the net sitting on my desk.  Phooey.


----------



## MrSteve (May 23, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> A search engine is a website hosted on the net.  A browser is an application running off of your computer.



Of course, many browsers now have search boxes built in to them, even though they run through the intermediary of a search engine to deliver the results. Ultimately, however, you can type your search string, literally, in to the browser.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 23, 2010)

MrSteve said:


> Of course, many browsers now have search boxes built in to them, even though they run through the intermediary of a search engine to deliver the results. Ultimately, however, you can type your search string, literally, in to the browser.


You'll never convince Illy. Anyone who can be uncertain about their own gender for years can't be expected to know search engines from browsers.:tongue:


----------



## moderan (May 23, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> That's what I said. "Typed it into my brow." I have Athena sitting on my desk.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 23, 2010)

I do, too





Jealous?


----------



## moderan (May 23, 2010)

Nice. Did her feets go where Venus de Milo's arms went?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (May 23, 2010)

MrSteve said:


> Of course, many browsers now have search boxes built in to them, even though they run through the intermediary of a search engine to deliver the results. Ultimately, however, you can type your search string, literally, in to the browser.



I certainly can, and then it dumps me on the bing search engine, which I hate.  

Anyway, I seem to have bumped us offtrack.  My apologies.


----------



## moderan (May 23, 2010)

Google Chrome doesn't take you to Bing. Just sayin'


----------

