khuram

Archive for the ‘Ideas Theory’ Category

About compound ideas or invalid ideas etc.

What is Idea? And can Animals have any Idea?

Posted by khuram on January 27, 2007

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.

Idea is our anticipation that something can be done or can be better done in this or that way. Usually before having an idea, we are having a problem. Initially, the solution to that problem is unknown. Then it happens that at once some pertinent way-out is realized. The so realized way-out may or may not be the accurate solution to the original problem. But in any case, the same realized way-out is the “idea”. So wrong ideas are also included in this definition of “idea”. The problem can be a practical matter or can be some theoretical issue. Most ideas are basically analogical conclusions. I have explained this point in my article on the topic: “Compound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas”. More generally, the term “idea” or “ideas” is used to denote contents of any thought.

Can animals have any idea?

Animals can be trapped into certain problems. Thorondike’s experiment on a cat is one such example where cat was trapped into a problem that it had to find the way-out to escape itself from cage. In fact that cat really managed to find out the right way-out. But still I do not consider finding out of this right way-out as any idea. Cat, here, had not got any idea at all. It was due to just trial and error process. Even those wrong efforts that were performed by cat before finding the right way-out were not the result of any idea. Those efforts were just disorganized, random and haphazard in nature. In this way, I think it wrong to assume that ordinary animals can have any idea. But for the case of certain monkeys and apes, I can accept the existence of some basic forms of “ideas” in them as along with some other abilities (which I am not going to mention here because I do not possess any experimental proof), they can get the idea of making simple tools etc.

Posted in -Home-, Human Mind Vs Animal Mind, Ideas Theory, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Theory of Knowledge | 2 Comments »

Comound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas:

Posted by khuram on August 20, 2006

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
Note: My this article should be read in the light of Section-II and III of David Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”.

These two sections can be seen on this link

Comound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas:

Some ideas that do not correspond to any real entity may be imaginable, for example, the idea of a ‘Golden Mountain’ or the idea of a ‘Flying Horse’ etc. We cannot consider these types of ideas as invalid just because of having no existence of their corresponding real entity in the identified world. There are some other ideas, however, which also do not correspond to any real entity but the nature of these ideas is such that these ideas cannot be imagined in visualized form. The examples of these kinds of ideas include ‘impossible figures’ for example, a ‘square circle’ or a ‘circular straight line’ and other self contradictory concepts like as ‘weak powerful’ etc. These kinds of ideas are among the examples of invalid ideas.

Whatever we can imagine in the form of mind image, we can draw it on paper as well (i.e. in more general terms, whatever is imaginable in the form of mind image, can be translated into man made products. There are certain restrictions also; for example humans can imagine other unseen humans so those unseen humans are capable to be made into man made physical statues or sculptures etc. but humans cannot give real life to those self-made sculptures etc.) depending on our drawing abilities. But whatever we cannot imagine in the form of mind image, we cannot draw it on paper even if we are a drawing expert. For example, we cannot draw impossible figures on paper because we cannot imagine these figures in the form of mind image. It means that whatever we see in drawings is imaginable because drawings take input only from external world objects and imagined objects, and all the external world objects are also imaginable.

We can form the ‘idea’ of self contradictory (impossible) figures in our mind but we cannot ‘imagine’ these impossible figures in the form of mind image. So we can conclude that these types of ‘impossible figures’ cannot exist in the external world because all the external world objects are imaginable so if some ‘object’ is not capable to be imagined it means that the ‘object’ does not represent any real entity which exists in external world. The ‘impossible figures’ cannot have any real existence not just because these are un-imaginable; the ultimate reason for this fact is that impossible figures are actually self-contradictory concepts. The impossible figures are self-contradictory by their definition. For example, when we say ‘square circle’, we are talking of such a figure which comes up to the definition of a ‘square’ and at the same time, also comes up to the definition of a ‘circle’. The concept of a ‘square circle’ is self-contradictory because an object which comes up to the definition of a ‘square’, at the same time cannot come up to the definition of a ‘circle’. Since this concept is self-contradictory, so it cannot have any real existence. Since it is self-contradictory and since it cannot have any real existence, so it also cannot be imagined in the form of a mind image. Another interesting result of this discussion is that it also means that whatever we can imagine in the form of a mind image cannot be a self-contradictory concept because if it were a self-contradictory concept, then we would not be able to imagine it in the form of mind image. However this fact cannot lead us to the conclusion that all the un-imaginable concepts have to be self contradictory also. There may exist, certain pure abstract concepts which may be other than self-contradictory ones and at the same time, which cannot be imagined in the form of mind image. So it is not necessary that all the un-imaginable ideas have to be self-contradictory or invalid. It should be noted here, that what we cannot imagine in the form of mind image, although, it cannot exist in external world but still it can have existence in our mind in the form of an invalid idea. Invalid ideas, in this context, are considered as those ones that cannot correspond to any real entity in the universe. There is another class of ideas, as previously also have been described, that, although, may not correspond to any real entity of the identified world, but either these ideas may have their corresponding real entity present in some still un-identified world or these ideas can be translated into real physical entities through human efforts i.e. in the form of man made products. The examples of this class of ideas include ‘Golden Mountain’ and ‘Flying Horse’. Now these kinds of ideas either may have their corresponding real entity present in some un-identified world, for example it is not impossible (i.e. it may be possible) that any ‘Golden Mountain’ may have real existence in some un-identified world or even if not, then still humans can ‘manufacture’ golden mountains in the form of toys or in some other form of art.

Ideas that do not have or even cannot have the existence of corresponding real entity in the universe, do have their existence in our mind because after all these are ‘ideas’ of our mind. As per this information, we cannot claim, however, that our minds are able to ‘create’ such ideas that have no corresponding real entity present in the real universe. Just consider the nature of both types of such ideas i.e. first that do not have corresponding real entity present in the identified world but the possibility exists that their corresponding real entity may have real presence in some un-identified world and secondly that cannot have the existence of the corresponding real entity in any part of the real universe. The examples of first type of these ideas include ‘Golden Mountain’ and ‘Flying Horse’ etc. whereas the examples of second type of such ideas include ‘impossible figures’ like as ‘square circle’ and ‘circular straight line’. Note that all these examples fall in the category of ‘compound ideas’ in the case of both types of ideas and, in the category of ‘compound imagination’ in the case of only first type of these ideas. A ‘compound idea’ or a ‘compound imagination’ is one, which consists of more than one component ideas. For example, in the case of the idea of ‘Golden Mountain’, in fact two separate ideas which are the (i) idea of ‘golden’ and (ii) the idea of ‘mountain’, have been ‘compounded’ into a single ‘compound idea’ of a ‘Golden Mountain’. Now just consider that both the components of this compound idea or imagination which are (i) idea of ‘golden’ and (ii) the idea of ‘mountain’ separately have the existence of their respective corresponding real entities in the identified world. It is only the particular ‘arrangement’, in the form of this ‘compound idea’ i.e. the idea of ‘Golden Mountain’, which may not have the existence of its corresponding real entity in the identified world. Actually human mind can create nothing by its own efforts or abilities. Mind, however, can get information from the external world and then can put various sets of information into a verity of very nice and refined ‘arrangements’ in the form of ‘compound ideas’ or even in the form of ‘compound imaginations’. These ‘arrangements’ may or may not have the existence of their corresponding real entities in the identified world or even in the whole real universe. If such an ‘arrangement’ (other than a self-contradictory arrangement) has no existence of the corresponding real entity, then this ‘new arrangement’, in fact is a ‘new idea’. Previously this particular arrangement had no existence of its corresponding real entity but now possibility exists that, as a result of this ‘new idea’, which has been formed inside of a human’s mind, that human may translate this newly formed idea into a real entity in the form of some ‘new’ man made product. We already know that new idea formation is basically an analogical process. In a simple idea generation process, first of all we identify or detect some ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ between two real or imagined entities. It means that we establish ‘analogy’ between those two entities. Then we mentally apply the attributes of one of the entities on the other one. In this way actually a ‘new arrangement’ of already existing ideas is formed inside mind whose components, usually are; (i) one of the entity itself and (ii) the attribute of the other entity. This process can be explained with the help of following diagram.

Entity – 1

Entity – 2

[A]

[A1](a1)

Step – 1

 

Entity – 1

 

 

 

 

[A](a)

 

 

 

 

Entity – 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A1](a1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\__ (a1) __/

copy of (a1) is
going to attach with Entity – 1’s [A] … when it shall be attached to [A], it
would become (a), instead of original (a1)

 

Step – 2

Here, in the first step, we form analogy between entity-1 and entity-2 because both entities are ‘similar’ (i.e. not same) in ‘A’ and ‘A1’. Then, in the second step, we mentally apply the attribute ‘a1’ of entity-2 on entity-1. Note that when we actually ‘attach’ the attribute ‘a1’ with the entity-1, this attribute automatically becomes compatible with entity-1 and so becomes ‘a’ i.e. now, after having been applied to entity-1, it is no more ‘a1’ (which was compatible with ‘A1’) but has become ‘a’ (which is now compatible with ‘A’). This fact has been further explained in another appropriate section of this thesis. In this way our mind has formed a ‘new arrangement’, which is ‘Aa’ in this case. We did not have this particular arrangement in our mind previously. So we can consider this new arrangement i.e. ‘Aa’ as a new idea also. We already had ‘A’ in our mind but previously we were unable to make it as ‘Aa’. To make ‘A’ as ‘Aa’ only has become possible when new information i.e. ‘A1a1’ has come to our notice and we have made the analogy as described above.

Now let us consider the idea of ‘Golden Mountain’ to be a ‘new idea’. In this case an analogy between an ordinary golden object and a mountain is established. Then the ‘golden’ attribute of that ordinary golden object has been applied to that mountain and so we have got the new idea of ‘Golden Mountain’. In the whole process of the formation of this new idea, we actually do not detect that we are applying the golden attribute of some other object to a mountain. What we can detect is only that we just ‘got’ a new idea i.e. the idea of a ‘Golden Mountain’. But why we do not or cannot detect the whole underlying process? It is due to the fact that mental analogical process of applying attributes of one of the entity to another is different from physically applying one entity’s attributes to another. For example, if we physically apply golden color to a mountain, we have to physically ‘paint’ the whole mountain with golden color and the whole process may take several months for its completion. The process shall be initiated by first ‘painting’ a particular portion of the mountain with the golden color. This may be considered as the first phase of the whole process. After the completion of this first phase, we shall see only a particular portion of that mountain to be golden in color. After the completion of second such phase, a relatively greater portion of the mountain will be ‘seen’ as golden and after some months when the final phase shall be completed, the entire mountain would have become a ‘Golden Mountain’. The process of mentally applying the golden attribute to an imaginary mountain is very much different from this physical process. The mental application of the golden attribute to the imaginary mountain neither has any initiating point nor it is to be completed step wise in a series of successive phases. For example, in order to imagine a ‘Golden Mountain’, you just close your eyes and ‘see’ a mind image of a ‘Golden Mountain’. Here you do not need to ‘manually’ apply the golden attribute to the imaginary mountain. The golden attribute, in a ‘visual form’, is at once applied to the imaginary mountain. While imagining a ‘Golden Mountain’, it is not that you first imagine an ordinary mountain and then you ‘at once’ apply the golden attribute to that ‘ordinary mountain’. In this case, in fact, you, right from start, imagine a mountain, which is not an ordinary one but is a ‘Golden Mountain’. This extraordinary capability of our minds does not let us detect the whole underlying process of the application of the attributes of one entity upon other in the idea generation process. We only detect that a new idea has been generated. Actually, right from the start of the process, i.e. instantly, we conceive the final results of the process either in the form of a newly conceived concept or in the form of a mind image. This newly conceived concept or mind image in fact, is a new arrangement of different pieces of information that either already existed in mind or we currently have received from the external world through the process of sense perception. In the process of idea generation, we do not manually put (Note: actually we also can ‘manually’ put different pieces of information into a new arrangement in our imagination, if we want) those different pieces of information into a new arrangement. The ‘new arrangement’ is made at once and automatically, i.e. without any manual effort. Our minds, instantly, can form a variety of new arrangements of different pieces of information. The quality of these instantly formed new arrangements is very much refined due to the fact that the different pieces of information that have been put into a new arrangement, lose their separately identifiable identity because those different pieces of information have been ‘diffused’ into an independently identifiable new arrangement. So we cannot ‘feel’ that the ‘new idea’ is just a very refined arrangement of already existing pieces of information. We only ‘feel’ that a new idea has been ‘clicked’ in our mind. As has been described previously that in a new idea (e.g. an imaginary new object like as ‘Golden Mountain’), different pieces of information are ‘diffused’ into a separately and independently identifiable new arrangement. This point needs further elaboration. In compound imagination such as ‘Golden Mountain’ or ‘Flying Horse’ etc. two or more different concepts are ‘fused’ into a single concept. In fact, each other’s attributes are exchanged i.e. both entity’s attributes are applied to each other in such a way that the original concepts become untraceable to our conscious mind. Now mind is conscious of only the independently identifiable ‘new arrangement’. Compound imaginations are not self-contradictory. By definition, it is not impossible for a mountain to be made of gold. Golden mountains do not exist in nature but it does not mean that this sort of mountains cannot exist in nature. Whatever physically exists in nature is imaginable (except those physical objects whose component objects (ideas) not yet been perceived – in this case when we shall perceive those component objects then that physical object also shall become imaginable) and whatever imaginable, having no corresponding physical existence, is physically existable. Self-contradictory physical objects cannot exist and also cannot be imagined but self-contradictory ideas (descriptive) can exist in mind. The potential possible exception to the ruling that self-contradictory ideas cannot have real existence may be the behavior of elementary particles as suggested by the quantum physics. Quantum physics says that elementary particles are both matter and waves. To be, for a particle, both matter and wave at the same time seems a self contradictory physical thing. Are matter and wave opposite concepts? The answer to this question is outside the scope of our present discussion. The answer to this question can be sought from nuclear scientists and let us ‘assume’ for our discussion to continue that matter and wave may, in fact not be the opposite concepts and the matter may actually be a ‘freeze’ form of waves etc. On the basis of this ‘assumption’ we can stay on our ruling that self-contradictory concepts cannot have any real physical existence.

The example of ‘Golden Mountain’ is simple one. Human mind is capable of instantly forming very complicated new arrangements of already existing sets of information. These new complicated arrangements can also be imagined as mind images. In this way mind can ‘create’ very complicated images. If this sort of images has been formed in the mind of a good artist, that artist then can draw those complicated new images on paper or canvas etc. So by looking at very complicated piece of art, in fact we are looking at such a new mind image, which has been translated into a physical piece of art by a good artist. The point which needs to be emphasized here is that if we analyze even a very complicated such piece of art, we shall find that the ‘complicated piece of art’ is, in fact a very much refined arrangement of already existing simple pieces of information. So what our mind ‘creates’ in this way is a ‘compound idea’ or a ‘compound imagination’. The elements of both ‘compound idea’ and ‘compound imagination’ already had their existence. The already existed ideas just have been ‘compounded’ into a new arrangement. Our mind, therefore, creates nothing. It only arranges and re-arranges the information which comes from memory and sense perception in ordinary course of the process of idea generation. This discussion implies that our minds are just unable to conceive any new thing, whether in the form of a new concept or in the form of a new mind image unless and until all the components of that new concept or new mind image are fully traceable to our previously held or currently perceived stocks of information. Process of dreaming is also explainable in same manner. Most of the contents of our dreams can be considered as the excellent examples of mental diffusions of different component sets of information into independently identifiable compound ideas. For example once I ‘saw’ in my dream, one of my friends telling me those things which actually should have been told to me by another friend of mine because those things actually were known to that other friend only. In this dream, actually the attributes of second friend were ‘diffused’ with the personality of the first friend. I can quote another real example out of my dreams in order to better explain the process of mental diffusion of different component sets of information that can result in a whole new and rather strange type of experience that we usually get in our ordinary dreams. Once I found myself swimming inside ocean water, in a dream. I could ‘see’ a big ship moving in front of me so that the lower portion of ship which was inside water was visible to me. I also could see a number of kangaroos (i.e. Australian animals) who were ‘running’ beneath the lower portion of that ship. This was really a strange and a whole ‘new’ experience that I got in that dream. The contents of this dream apparently can be seemed to be completely outside the scope of any of my previous real experience. First of all I am not as good swimmer as can ‘swim’ inside of ocean water. Secondly I never have seen (up till now) any ocean in my real life so the experience of observing ‘inside’ of ocean water is simply out of question. Also I never saw any ship (i.e. its upper or lower portion) in my real life. I never went to Australia and I never saw any kangaroo whether standing or running before me. It is also quite impossible for kangaroos to run inside of ocean water. So the contents of this dream may seem to be completely outside the scope of not only my personal experience but can also be considered quite impossible to be observed in a real life situation. A simple analysis of this ‘strange’ dream however can show that all the contents of this dream were actually completely traceable out of my previous experience or previous stocks of information. I already had seen ‘inside of ocean water’ in many television programs. I also had seen lower portion of big ships in various television programs and feature films etc. Similarly I can remember that I really saw a number of kangaroos that were running (but on ground), also in some television program. So actually, all of those different entities were just ‘diffused’ into that particular ‘strange’ arrangement of already existing sets of information, which I experienced in that dream. And why I found my own self ‘swimming’ inside the ocean water? It was due to the fact that actually I was feeling cold while during sleeping, at that time. We know that feeling warmth or cold is a form of sense perception. We also have seen, in the ‘sequence of thought’ section, that sense perception, in whatever form ‘interrupts’ the sequence of our thought. This ‘sense perception’ actually not only interrupts the sequence of our thought but it can interrupt the sequence of our dreams as well. In fact sense perception can change the overall ‘story’ of our dream events. I can elaborate this fact with the help of analyzing another of my dreams. Once I was driving motorcycle in my dream because I was very much fond of driving motorcycle in those days. What I observed in that dream was that the sound of running motorcycle was gradually becoming louder and louder. The sound finally became too much louder and noisier that I woke up. I realized, after having woke up that it was not the sound of motorcycle which was becoming louder and louder. Actually a person, outside in the street was shouting with louder and louder voice. I could ‘perceive’ that noise even during sleeping. This ‘perception’ then interrupted the ‘story’ of my dream events in the above-mentioned way. We however shall further explain this fact i.e. how the processes of sense perception operates while during sleeping and just how so ‘perceived’ data is incorporated into already progressing sequence of dream events, later on in this section and also in other appropriate sections of this work. Here it seems worthy to mention that the ‘sequence of dream events’ also follows the same pattern as that of ‘sequence of thought’. So whatever series of ‘events’ we observe in our dreams, one ‘event’ shall be followed by only that next ‘event’ which would have some relationship of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ with the previous ‘event’. And this fact can be easily explained with the help of previously stated example of my dream where I saw myself swimming inside of ocean water. I saw myself swimming inside of ocean water due to the involvement of sense perception during my dream because I was feeling cold while during sleeping. The lower portion of the big ship had the relationship of ‘association’ with the ‘inner side of ocean water’. The ‘inner side of ocean water’ also had the relationship of ‘association’ with the television programs. The running kangaroos had the relationship of ‘similarity’ with the ‘inner side of ocean water’ because just like the ‘inner side of ocean water’, it also had the relationship of ‘association’ with television programs. It is also important to consider that some of those ‘events’ also must have the relationship of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ with that particular setup of my own ‘sub conscious’ mind that I had at that time. Sequence of ‘dream events’ can also be elaborated in same manner in case of that other dream where I experienced sound of running motorcycle to become louder and louder as a result of involvement of sense perception. In this case the actual noise that was made by the person outside in the street had the relationship of ‘similarity’ with the sound of running motorcycle which I was already experiencing during the course of that dream. The actual noise made by the real person, on the basis of ‘similarity’ with the sound of running dream motorcycle was incorporated in the dream which I was already experiencing in such a way that the actual noise automatically became compatible with the already progressing sequence of dream events. It means that actual noise of that shouting person ‘diffused’ with the ‘sound’ of that running dream motorcycle thus resulting in a separately identifiable noise which appeared to me, during the course of that dream, as quite a strange form of sound of a running motorcycle which was becoming louder and louder in a strange and in an un-controllable manner. In this way sense perception really interrupted the sequence of my dream but in a different manner in which this sense perception normally interrupts the sequence of conscious thought. It is important to highlight that this explanation of sequence of dream events should not be considered as giving the same results as were suggested by Sigmund Frued when he described the un-conscious processes of mind because according to him un-conscious processes (like as dream ‘events’) are governed by different laws than to ordinary mind processes. According to his explanation, “under the influence of the unconscious, thoughts and feelings that belong together may be shifted or displaced out of context; two disparate ideas or images may be condensed into one” (MS Encarta Encyclopedia). In my opinion, there are no different laws than to ordinary mind processes, which can exclusively govern the un-conscious mind processes such as sequence of dream events etc. and so in my opinion, un-conscious mind processes are governed by the same principles, which also control the ordinary mind processes. Frued could not detect the presence of same principles in un-conscious mind processes because actually he was un-aware of the principle of mind which is the identification (or detection) of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ before co-relating different sets of information whether in ordinary mind activities or in un-conscious mind processes. Frued was un-aware of the principle that governs ordinary such mind processes as ‘sequence of thought’, then how he could decide that un-conscious mind processes such as ‘sequence of dream events’ are to be governed by different sort of principles? We however shall thoroughly analyze what were considered the underlying ‘principles’ of mind processes by Frued in some other section of this thesis. Here however we shall describe one important difference between ordinary mind processes and those un-conscious mind processes such as ‘sequence of dream events’ etc. Before describing that difference let us emphasize that it is not a ‘principle difference’. The principle for the ordinary mind processes and that of un-conscious mind processes is the same which is the identification of, or detection of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ between different sets of information before co-relating those different sets of information in whatever form. The only difference between conscious mind processes and un-conscious mind processes, which is not the difference in ‘principle’, is that we can make better judgment about the ‘valid’ similarity or association between different sets of information in our conscious mind activities whereas we lose much of our this judgment ability during the course of un-conscious mind activities. So in my dream, if I see one of my friends telling me those things, which should have been told to me by another friend of mine, here the ‘principle’ of identification of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ is still at work even during the dream. The only fault, in this case is that the things, which are to be told to me, have been ‘invalidly’ associated with a different friend of mine. During my conscious mind processes, I would ‘validly’ associate those things with the right friend because I would have my judgment abilities about identifications of ‘valid’ association in a proper functioning form at that time. I usually would lose my this ability during my un-conscious mind processes so my mind, during that time, can present to me various invalidly associated sets of information in a way that I may remain unable to detect the invalidity in them because during the course of un-conscious mind processes, I would not have my abilities to make judgments about to decide the validity or invalidity of associated sets of information in proper functioning. So the only major difference in the conscious and un-conscious mind processes is the presence of judgment ability to decide about the validity or invalidity of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ between various sets of information in proper functioning. During the conscious mind processes, this ability is usually present in proper form whereas during un-conscious mind processes, we lose much of this ability.

There is another point, in the position taken by Frued, which needs to be analyzed in somewhat detail. Again refer to his explanation of un-conscious mind processes which states that; “under the influence of the unconscious, thoughts and feelings that belong together may be shifted or displaced out of context; two disparate ideas or images may be condensed into one”. Here Frued thinks that two disparate ideas or images can be condensed into one only due to the influence of unconscious because according to him different sort of principles than to the ordinary mind processes governs un-conscious mind activities. I have concluded that according to Frued, two disparate ideas or images can be condensed into one, only due to the influence of unconscious because if unconscious is to be governed by different sort of principles than to the ordinary mind processes then what results are given by unconscious, we should not expect that the same results also can be given by ordinary mind processes because ordinary mind processes would have to be governed by the ‘ordinary’ principles and so we cannot expect that those ‘ordinary’ principles can give the same results which are given by ‘special’ principles that govern only the un-conscious mind processes. So we should not expect, according to Frued’s explanation of unconscious that two disparate ideas or images can be condensed into one as a result of ordinary conscious mind activities. It means that according to Frued’s explanation, we cannot imagine any ‘Golden Mountain’ as a result of any of our conscious effort because in a mind image of a ‘Golden Mountain’, in fact two disparate images are condensed into one and this is exactly what is possible only under the influence of unconscious, according to him. But if we can imagine a ‘Golden Mountain’ through our ‘conscious’ efforts, then our conclusion would be that not only ‘unconscious’ but ‘conscious’ mind processes also can condense two disparate ideas or images into one and so finally we would conclude that unconscious mind processes are governed by the same principles which also govern the ordinary conscious mind activities. And since we can really imagine a ‘Golden Mountain’ through our conscious efforts so we can conclude that un-conscious mind activities really are governed by the same principles which also govern the ordinary conscious mind activities.

Similarly the first phrase of Frued’s explanation which states that; “under the influence of the unconscious, thoughts and feelings that belong together may be shifted or displaced out of context”, also needs to be properly analyzed. We have seen in one of the example of my dreams where one of my friends was telling me those things which should have been told to me by my another friend, that thoughts and feelings which belong together may really be shifted or displaced out of context because in this case the things which were to be told to me actually ‘belonged’ to the second friend but during the dream i.e. under the influence of unconscious, those things really ‘displaced’ out context and became ‘associated’ with a different person. We are to analyze Frued’s this ‘claim’ that it happened due to the ‘influence’ of unconscious which is governed by some ‘special’ principles which are not applicable to the case of ordinary conscious mind processes. We have to see that whether we can, through our conscious efforts, ‘displace’ two related ideas out of context or not. Obviously we can do it. I can, for instant, consciously ‘imagine’ one of my friends telling me those things, which should have been told to me, by another friend of mine. So by imagining this sort of thing, actually I am consciously doing that sort of thing, which is possible, according to Frued, only under the influence of unconscious. And note in this case that okay I can ‘displace’ some otherwise actually related ideas out of context through my conscious efforts but when I do it consciously, I am aware that I am ‘invalidly’ displacing the related ideas out of context. It is so because my abilities to make judgments about ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ of the ‘associated’ or ‘disassociated’ ideas would be at work in proper order, during the course of my conscious mind activities. So the only major difference between conscious and un-conscious mind activities is the presence of judgment abilities about to decide ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ in the ‘similarities’ or ‘associations’ between different ideas during conscious mind activities and the absence of these abilities during the course of un-conscious mind activities. The question arises here is that why we lose this judgment ability during the course of our un-conscious mind activities? We know that our sequence of conscious thought is governed by the principle of identification of ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas to those ideas that constitute our present conscious mind. We also know that there may be many ideas, which usually are ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ with the ideas of our conscious mind. Under the influence of un-conscious, actually our mind automatically brings some of those ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas as next ideas of our conscious mind. During the course of conscious mind activities, on the other hand, we have somewhat ‘conscious’ control over to bring only the specific ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas, out of many others, to our ‘conscious’ mind as the ‘next’ ideas of our conscious mind. This form of ‘conscious control’ is determined by such factors as ‘future expectations’, ‘wishes’, ‘pleasures’ etc. This ‘conscious control’ can also be considered as the ‘willful’ control over the sequence of conscious thought. Having ‘willful control’ over to decide which ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas are to become the ‘next’ ideas of our conscious mind, we become able to decide about the ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ in the ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ between different ideas. Under the influence of un-conscious, we do not possesses this ‘conscious’ or ‘willful’ control over to decide which ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas, out of many, are going to become ‘next’ ideas of our that ‘conscious’ mind which is operating under the influence of un-conscious. Due to the absence of our ‘conscious control’, what ideas shall become the next ideas of our that ‘conscious’ mind which is operating under the influence of un-conscious shall be determined by the same factors i.e. ‘future expectations’, ‘wishes’, ‘fears’, ‘pleasures’ etc. but in this case this sort of ideas shall automatically i.e. without our conscious and willful check, become the ‘next’ ideas of the proceedings of our un-conscious mind activity. Since the conscious or willful ‘check’ is missing in this case, it means that there is missing of judgment ability about to decide the ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ of similarity or association between various ideas. In this way our un-conscious mind usually presents to us many invalidly associated ideas or images just due to the missing of our willful control over to form valid associations between various ideas.

We have seen previously in the example of my dream where the voice of a shouting person was quite strangely converted into the sound of a running motorcycle. Can it be considered such a kind of mind activity which is not possible to occur during the course of ‘conscious’ mind activities? In my opinion, this kind of mind activity is also not any such thing, which is quite impossible to occur during the course of conscious mind activities. We can consciously ‘perceive’ different meaningful images in many otherwise actually meaningless patterns. For example many meaningless patterns of clouds in the sky may appear to us as images of various animals or as the images of some other physical objects etc. This phenomenon occurs due to the particular nature of the functioning of our perception system. Due to this particular nature of the functioning of our perception system, our mind tends to assign the most closely ‘similar’ meanings to those otherwise meaningless patterns. In this way we can consciously ‘perceive’ a whole different thing from the actual thing that was brought to the notice of our senses. In the example of this dream, due to same reasons as explained for the case of conscious experiences, my mind, during the course of that dream, just assigned the most closely ‘similar’ meanings to otherwise quite un-understandable noise. The actual noise was quite un-understandable to me at that time because I was sleeping at that time. The most close ‘similar’ meaning of that otherwise un-understandable noise was the ‘sound’ of running motorcycle because I was ‘driving’ a motorcycle, at that time, in my dream. Therefore in my opinion, un-conscious mind processes are not governed by any different principles then to the ordinary mind processes and the only difference is the lack of judgment ability to decide ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ in ‘similarity or association between different ideas, during the course of un-conscious mind processes and the absence of this judgment ability is due to the absence of our willful control over the sequence of flow of ideas under the influence of un-conscious mind processes. Mind can create nothing either during the course of conscious mind activities or during the course of un-conscious mind activities. Mind however can arrange or re-arrange already existing information during the course of both conscious as well as un-conscious activities. This sort of newly formed arrangement may not have the existence of corresponding real entity in the universe. So finally we can say that ideas that do not have the existence of corresponding real entity cannot be considered as the ‘creation’ of mind just because of having no existence of their corresponding real entity.

The ideas that have no existence of corresponding real entities and which are other than self-contradictory ideas should be considered valid ideas because these ideas can be translated into man made products. There are other reasons also why we should not consider these ideas to be invalid just because of having no existence of the corresponding real entity. For example these ideas can be considered valid because these can be imagined in the form of mind images. The possibility also exists that any real ‘Golden Mountain’ may have physical existence in some un-identified world.

Invalid ideas are only those;

i. That cannot be imagined in the form of mind image and so cannot be translated into even man made products. Here, a point should be noted that there are certain pure abstract ideas, which cannot be imagined in the form of mind image, but still we cannot consider this type of un-imaginable ideas as invalid. For example we cannot consider all the metaphysical ideas as invalid just because we cannot imagine those metaphysical entities in the form of mind image. This provision of the invalidity of ideas is applicable only to the case of those ideas, which are in fact; compound ideas of such component ideas, which are ordinary ‘visible’ material objects. In this case, in fact, the component ideas are not only visible material objects but these component ideas also can be successfully imagined in the form of mind images. So the component ideas are valid ideas. It is only the particular arrangement of these valid ideas, in the form a ‘compound idea’ which we should consider invalid idea due to our inability to imagine this ‘compound idea’ in the form of mind image. The class of these un-imaginable things, which represent impossible figures or other self-contradictory ideas, cannot have their real existence even in the un-identified world. Their possible existence is only in the form of invalid and un-imaginable ideas inside the mind.

ii. Those ideas which, when put to practical application, cannot give the expected results in a real situation. It must be noted however, that in the case of these kinds of invalid ideas, we can get desired or expected results in an ‘imagined situation’, but we cannot get the expected results in a real situation due to the scientific invalidity of these types of ideas. The examples of these types of invalid ideas include all forms of magic and other superstitious ideas. These types of invalid ideas are ‘situational’ in nature. For example in the case of a situational magical idea (i.e. superstitious idea) in which the magician gets the idea of killing an enemy by lets say, destroying the statue of that enemy. In this case the magician may successfully ‘kill’ that enemy by using this method in an ‘imagined situation’ but in a real situation, that enemy cannot be killed in this way due to scientific invalidity of such a superstitious idea. Other examples of these types of invalid ideas may include invalid practical new ideas. For example, in ordinary work processes even a scientist can get such a practical new idea which can be proved a failure on its practical application. Some new business ideas based on wrong information and calculations also seem valid but these ideas fail on their practical application. Actually these were also invalid ideas. It has been stated previously that a magician who tries to kill an enemy by destroying the statue of that enemy, shall not be able to do so in a real situation due to the un-scientific nature of this idea. This idea, in its pure form, can be considered un-scientific but this same idea can be put into successful real application in certain particular situations. Suppose that the ‘enemy’ is a superstitious person and he believes that he would die if the magician destroy his statue. In this particular situation, this ‘un-scientific’ idea gets the potential of its possible successful application. The possibility exists, in this case that the magician would successfully kill the enemy by just destroying the statue of the enemy and then by just informing the enemy, in some indirect way that his statue has been destroyed during the magical process. The enemy can really die in this case. Here, actually an ‘un-scientific’ idea has been applied in a ‘scientific’ manner by manipulating the superstitious psychology of the enemy. This idea was physically un-scientific but psychologically, the same idea is ‘scientific’ as well as ‘valid’. There are real historical examples available, where physically un-scientific ideas were successfully applied by the prominent political leaders due to the psychological implications of those ‘invalid’ ideas upon the illiterate masses. For example, Mahatama Gandhi, a prominent historical political leader really applied physically invalid ideas successfully. His non-violence movement, which was physically invalid idea in fact, upon its practical application, gave him the expected or desired results. In this case, actually, Mr. Gandhi’s successful application of his non-violence principle, (that appears to be scientifically invalid idea) was due to the fact that this principle was applied keeping in view the psychology of people. So if scientifically invalid ideas successfully mould the behavior of people due to the psychological application of those invalid ideas upon illiterate people, then expected or desired results i.e. to control the behavior of illiterate people for the achievement of certain goal, can successfully be taken even though the idea (i.e. in physical terms) was invalid. In this case, the desired results are successfully taken because the idea was valid in psychological terms. So physically invalid ideas can be valid in psychological terms. We also can conclude that an idea may both be correct as well as incorrect i.e. correct in terms of psychological application and incorrect in terms of physical application. The final result of this discussion would be that we should consider situational ideas as invalid only if these ideas whether physically or psychologically applied, cannot give the desired or expected results, in a real situation.

So the first type of invalid ideas, as has been mentioned above, are simply un-imaginable but the second type of invalid ideas are imaginable and can give the desired or expected results in an imagined situation. These second type of ideas are invalid because they cannot give the desired or expected results in a real situation. These ideas, however can be (but un-successfully) put to practical application in a real situation. The only thing is that the desired or expected results cannot be taken in the real situation. The desired results cannot be taken but actually, even the unsuccessful attempt to practically implement these types of invalid ideas, can affect the material world negatively or positively. For example if a superstitious person wants to get some desired result lets say he wants a good crops in his agriculture land. He invalidly thinks that this objective can only be achieved if he kills any un-known person. Now suppose that he actually kills an un-known person but he does not get the desired results. In this case the desired result, although have not been taken but the material world however has been affected in a negative way i.e. an innocent person has been unduly killed. Now suppose that after killing that un-known person, the superstitious person also gets the desired results. In this case, in fact the desired result has been obtained not because the un-known person was killed; the successful desired results in this case are taken due to other objective scientific reasons, which may still be un-known to that superstitious person. So he can still think that the desired results have been taken due to the practical implementation of that idea of killing an un-known person.

It is also important to remember that scientifically invalid ideas shall remain invalid even in the un-explored parts of our Universe. It however, can happen that we mistakenly may treat scientifically invalid ideas as valid ones or vice versa. In this type of situations, it seems that we are bound to treat or consider our selves right in our views about such an idea. This kind of situation only can be corrected when as a result of any new information that we may get, our mistake comes to our notice and we up-date our understanding so as to bring it to the conformity with the reality. The only need in this regard is that we should keep this factor in mind for our existing views and so therefore we should respond positively towards the sources of new information.

Posted in -Home-, Ideas Theory, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Theory of Knowledge | 7 Comments »