How is imagination an irrational process?

Perhaps you are referring to the distinction between objective and subjective, but then that is not the same thing as rational and irrational. Categorically different really.

That would be a great question for you to answer. No, I am not referring to objective and subjective.

Imagination is very often slapped down by the rational mind and made into a dirty word.

'God' blesses a rational imagination.

Well I love fiction, all kinds really, I tend to think about it like this, an irrational story line is one that is incomprehensible, a rational one wholly intelligible, both can be amazingly imaginative.

I think good fiction needs a balance of being close enough to make good sense, and not to close to mess with the flow. hehe.

I think most of life is the same, none of us can be professors of everything, so we have to settle for a threshold of accuracy.

The nice thing about beliefs is that they are easily changed if one has the will.

I use to believe wood peckers where irreducibly complex.

:- )

Really? I've never witnessed this, ever, period.

What I have witnessed is: "mistaking imagination for reality" being smacked down...which is appropriate.

Imagination (recognized as imagination) is awesome - and, as you say, necessary for advancement.

Maybe you are not very imaginative.

I have heard, so many times, the word "imagination" used in a very condescending manner.

Here are some of the remarks:

"Oh that's just your imagination playing tricks on you."
"Don't let your imagination run away with you."
"Don't listen to him/her, she has a very wild imagination."
"You are just imagining things."

That is what I mean by using the term like a 'dirty' word. Its dirty because it is condescending and dismissive.

Yes, this is exactly my point. In all four of those cases, the phrase may be appropriately used for a person who mistakes imagination for reality. None of those statements is an attack against imagination itself - only against the misunderstanding of imagination.

Having a vivid and active imagination doesn't require one to become confused about reality.

I've done a good deal of designing, of various kinds, in my life - and I usually draw heavily on imagination for the creation of the design - never have I let that imagination 'run away with me', 'play tricks on me', become 'wild', nor lead to believing in unreal things.

Other people do have these problems, and the problem isn't in their imagination itself, but in how they relate to their imagination.

I tend to agree with massage here regarding the view of imagination, and redonkulous makes some very concise points as well.

If an imagination is 'unchecked' by rational thinking and behavior, the result can become personal delusion. So, it is not that imagination itself is 'bad' in any way, it is more like that an imagination which is thought of as though it were reality/actuality can be bad. To me, that highlights the need for one to be able to consistently make accurate conscious correlations. It also tends to show the importance inherently contained within one's own belief system, because it is that that often overrides one's ability to recognize the truth value in and of a contradictory observation.

Hence, the important relevence of our knowing that we could be mistaken in our beliefs.

I beg your pardon, guys, but you don't seem to comprehend what Jeannie is talking about: IMAGINATION is not REASON!

Where would Humanity be without a completely unreasonable -- unconstricted by rules -- IMAGINATION?!!!

A long long time ago, there lived a strange fellow -- referred to by everybody as a "DELUSIONAL DREAMER and LUNATIC" for his UNreasonable thinking... You see, all day long he was drawing something and even constructed some strange wooden models...
He had a dream:_____HE WANTED TO FLY!!!
(The crazy nut's name was Leonardo DaVinci) * * *

Another crazy nut you might've heard about -- a forefather of the modern science, who's gone completely mad and delusional -- had to be burnt at the stake because of his 'unchecked' and irrational thinking and behavior:
he dared challenge the established belief, suggesting our planet is not the centre of the universe, but is circling around the Sun!!!
(That crazy nut's name was Galileo Galillei) * * *

Certainly, the Scientific Method is the most efficient way of driving the progress. However, the most ingenious and original discoveries have been achieved by THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX -- the essence of IMAGINATION!!!

It can also be reality that is simply unbelieved by the person making the statements. That is because it is a judgement call. Are they the authority on reality? Or is it just their opinion that the person is mistaking something unreal for real? And if so, why would they blame "imagination?"




I never said it did.


How can you be so certain that you do not believe in unreal things?

Do you think that "imagination" can cause hallucinations?

I have a lot of imagination but I can't make myself have a hallucination. And yet I have a relative who is having real hallucinations. (And she has very little imagination.) She is just old and lonely and watches television too much. She insists the people on the television are talking directly to her and she sees them walking around in her house. She does not have a tumor that they could find... she seems to be okay, no infections.

When I speak of imagination I am talking about a creative spark. I am not talking about delusion or hallucinations. So the remarks above should not use the word "imagination." They should use some other word. By using this word in that manner, they are using an almost sacred and 'magic' power (imagination) as a dirty word.

Probably to avoid saying "hallucination" or "delusion."

I just tell my relative that what she is seeing is not real, and that it is an hallucination. I would never blame her hallucinations on her "imagination." I have too much respect for IMAGINATION.

These comments are outside the scope of your earlier claim about imagination and rationality.




I didn't say that I don't believe in unreal things, I say that when I am deliberately using my imagination, I know that I am doing so and thus don't mistake this for reality.

I believe that everyone is at least somewhat delusional, and some people are far more so than others.



The way I use these terms, I have used my imagination to have apparently sensory experiences much like hallucinations. I do think that a failure to keep imagination in perspective is one of many things which can lead to a loss of grounded-ness in reality.



Neither of these surprises me, as the potential for a relationship between two things doesn't require a necessary relationship.




Yeah, cliches suck for a variety of reasons - its not an evil conspiracy, its a function of literacy and historical language usage. The people using those cliches have already given up on a precise and specific investigation/commentary, as evidenced by the very fact that they are using a cliche to begin with.




There may be specific examples of people you've known who have this as a motivation - but as far as 'why the cliche uses imagination not delusion', I think this explanation is unlikely. The real reason is probably more mundane...like, maybe cliches tend to use words that are in more common usage.



Its starting to sound like you may have a strong bias in this area, and that part of that bias may be the desire to not contaminate the label used for this "sacred spark" with anything negative.

Perhaps the inclinations to imagination are not so sacred, nor inherently pure, perhaps they can lead to insanity.

I believe John Nash said that his insanity arose from the same part of this mind from his mathematical brilliance, and that he had to learn how to discriminate between the two.

Perhaps imagination (which are actually thoughts) does create "reality" after all, and if they (thoughts) can lead to hallucinations and delusional beliefs, how do we know, (other than by rational thinking and agreement,) what is real and what is unreal? (of course this is an entirely different subject... WHAT IS REAL. We have discussed that subject before on this club... almost to death. LOL

But perhaps that means that rational thinking is somehow linked directly to .. agreement.


Quote:


I did not say that you said you don't believe in unreal things. BUT you did claim that you don't let imagination run away with you or play tricks on you or lead you to believe unreal things.



My response and question to you is: "How do you know that you do not believe in unreal things?"

***

(To the person having the hallucination, it seems real to them.) It is only by rational thinking and agreement that we determine it is not real. I determine the subject is hallucinating because rationally, I know that the people she sees in her house are not really there. (I.E. Obama, and Opra and the olympic team players etc.)

Rather than dismiss her hallucinations by saying to her, that it "is only your imagination." (which is misusing the term imagination) I am inclined to believe that there is some kind of yet undetected deterioration in her brain that is causing her hallucinations.

It would appear that all the posts about evidence are debating about: skepticism about whether this all a dream, whether what counts as evidence has to come before or after the event to be gauged as real, whether subjective evidence can stand in the place of objective evidence.

firstly, i suggest that what we call reality, ie physical, the mind and the rest, is actually real: i imagine that no power who wanted to fool humanity about whether or not this is real would allow us to question whether th is real.

secondly, it follows that evidence will be post factum: we try to work out only the past, not the present or future (its for this reason that jesus didn't perform miracles for the devil: if the devil didn't realise that this is all a miracle, it couldn't appreciate one of jesus').

Thirdly, because reality is a tautology, there is no objective evidence.

Of course imagination creates reality - through decisions and actions.

For those that think that imagination creates reality through non-physical mechanisms.... it just might be that they've let their imagination run away with them.



The grammatical structure & content of your question suggests that you presuppose that I know that I do not believe in unreal things.




Yes, it sounds likely that there is a deterioration of her brain which is causing hallucinations. In casual everyday speech, its fair to say this is 'only her imagination', since it involves "the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the sensse", or a "creation of the mind". To say its 'only' her imagination is not to deny that it is hallucination, but to deny that it is real.

Because you made the statement that you did not let your imagination lead you to believe 'unreal' things.

My question still remains unanswered.

How do you KNOW you do not do this?

If you were to believe in an 'unreal' thing, you would think of it as 'real.' Therefore, you would not know that you believe in an 'unreal' thing.

If you read back through the thread, you will see that until now, your question had remained un-asked. You kept asking me how I knew that I did not believe in unreal things - you never asked me how I knew that I did not allow my imagination to lead me to believe in unreal things.

To keep it in context, I was discussing situations in which I used my imagination for designs. It is easy to keep ones imagination from leading to a belief in unreal things in those circumstances - there is imagination, there is abstract design, there is a physical presentation of that design, and there is the final physical creation. If you will step back from the point that you are trying to make, and think about this, I think you will see that it is not hard to keep reality and imagination separate in these circumstances. How often does a mentally stable architect become confused between their models, prints, or ideas - and an actual building?



Sadly, there are people out there for whom this is common. Once they believe in something, they stop questioning it. You are right that those people will never learn that the unreal things they believe in are not real.

JB:

I have often read your personal regard for imagination. I, much like you, hold the imagination in high regard, however there is a key difference in our meanings. That difference *is* the necessary distinction between imagination and ideas. Imagination alone does nothing. Unrealistic imagination does worse than nothing. Realistic imagination opens doors of *possible*opportunity.

The difference between a possible idea and an impossible one is had and identified by an assessment of it's rationality. Being rational wholly depends upon being reasonable. Being reasonable wholly depends upon being logically possible, according to what is already known.

Yeah, JB, you better stick to what is already known! Otherwise, you may end up just like Galilleo Galillei -- burned at the stake!

Gallileo knew what others did not, so your response and consequently your argument as well...

falls apart at the seams.

Thankfully our knowledge base is no longer constrained by such religious ideology.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that we cannot be sure of what is "already known".

This has been vividly shown through our own science and mathematics. The most blatant example is the logic associated with the geometry of spacetime. For many centuries men thought that spacetime had a "flat" geometry. But those "logical" conclusions were based on unproven premises that were merely assumed to be true. Eventually mankind realized that if we change what we accept as premises we can build several different types of geometries. Spherical and hyperbolic geometries are accepted today as commonplace. Yet, the "logic" hasn't changed. All that changed are the unprovable premises. All those geometries are equally "logical".

We now realize that all three of these types of geometries actually exist in "reality" depending on where you are in the universe and how spacetime is behaving at that location.

So "logic" is a totally undependable concept in and of itself, for it is always dependent upon premises that can never be known with any degree of certainty.

Moreover, there may even be other geometries that we haven't even yet imagined simply because we haven't yet imagined the premises that they might require.

So it's utterly senseless to even speak about the importance of "logic" when logic is a total slave to unprovable and unknowable premises. In fact, much of science and mathematics stands on foundations of totally unprovable premises. Therefore their logical conclusions cannot be anymore solid than the unknowable premises upon which they stand.

Logic is basically useless as a philosophical tool since the premises upon which it stands can never be known with certainty. All you need to do is change a premise and all the logical conclusions change like dominoes. Yet the foundational premises can never be known to be true. Thus logic can never be relied upon to reveal truth.

So to constantly harp on the importance of logic is to reveal a total ignorance of its structure and limitations. No on can say what's *possible* or impossible until they know the truth of the premises. But no one can know the truth of the premises. So to worship logic is to worship an illusive God.

It's a false God no different from the mythological ones.

You may as well worship Zeus as to worship logic.