Nope, not me… I’m still trying.

  • nef@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    By that definition no human has ever had an “original” thought.

    • ehpoliticalOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Not true… every thought had to have been thought for a first time by someone, just not by us (it seems).

      • nef@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        it includes absolutely nothing that’s already familiar to you

        I truly do not believe that any thought exists without context, if you can find any examples I would be happy to be proven wrong.

        • ehpoliticalOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Well, every single thought had to have been thought a first time by someone, no?

          • nef@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            Sure, but by your definition any thought containing any kind of language would not be “original” because it requires familiarity with the language.

            • ehpoliticalOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Now you’re breaking off into something else that fascinates me… symbolism as a highly efficient method of communication. If you test yourself, you’ll find it takes less time for your brain to process symbols than spoken words… and there’s a very short amount of time in there where your brain understands what it’s looking at without the need of any other language other than symbolism.