windowlikcer said:

OrgoneConclusion said:

Yes, I already know you are clueless what a theory is. Don't have to keep hammering your ignorance home. It is quite apparent.

---

A theory within philosophy is not so rigorous as you are making it seem. Any opinion can be a theory within philosophy. He's talking about novelty and you're stuck on the words he's using because you seem to have confused scientific terminology with philosophy. Just making his thoughts harder to grasp through all your bullshit semantics.

---

Repertoire89 said:

If you're suggesting that evolution continues beyond the animal kingdom, and into consciousness itself, then this is an idea I've settled on awhile ago. Its a common theme in mysticism

---

fireworks_god said:

hTx said:

Nature-novelty is beyond our control. It is the universe in raging chaos. The reminder that we are human. The supernova of stars, fusing elements into novel elements. Novel arrangements of elements into molecules led to the universe as we know it. Novel arrangements of molecules led to DNA. Novel interactions of DNA led to the human being, and every known living thing on the planet. Etc, Etc. It should not be hard to see that nature-novelty is the driving force of the universe.

Self-novelty is contained within nature-novelty (as we are natural, afterall)and has to do with us and how we respond not only to nature-novelty but the former novel creations of those before us. Newtonian physics, a novel theory, was recreated by another novel theory, Einsteins theory of relativity. I'm not saying what Newton contributed to physics wasn't great, it was a great novel contribution in its time.

---

Firstly I appreciate very much the spirit with which you're presenting and formulating your ideas here.

I think that I'd point out that, with the way you're describing these two contrasting categories of novelty, nature-novelty and self-novelty, the defining characteristic that determines how a particular phenomenon is categorized would be the amount of control a person has over how that novelty manifests, yet I see it not as being a matter of whether or not one has control over the result, but rather the degree to which one has influence over the result, with a display of novelty being referred more to as nature-novelty with the amount of influence one would have over it decreasing, and it being referred to more as self-novelty as the amount of influence one has over how it manifests increases.

I'd think in these terms because the degree to which an individual could potentially influence what would otherwise be considered "nature-novelty" could be much more significant, and likewise the degree to which an individual's influence over their own response, their "self-novelty" as it were, could variably be considerably diminished. An individual could in effect be a "self-novelty seed" that, from within itself could unravel an influence over the rest of reality that could dramatically change what would have otherwise been considered strictly "beyond our control". And, likewise, larger forces from within reality could align themselves in such a way so as to dramatically narrow the realm of influence an individual could have, practically dictating their choices to such a degree that it wouldn't even be what we normally would have considered to be a volitional response.

More broadly, I'd posit that "novelty" itself would basically refer to a change. I prefer to think strictly within the framework of change because I personally find the concept of novelty in regards to this matter to obscure the true dynamics of how reality manifests itself. Every aspect of reality exists in a state of continual change. Perhaps from a certain vantage point a lot of that change presents itself as having a high degree of similarity amongst itself, yet it's still different, it's still new, it's still changing. As every aspect of reality is continually interacting with every other aspect of reality, the nature of that interaction determines just how similar or dissimilar that change in that given instance will appear.

Personally I don't hold to a dualistic conceptualization of types of change, I strictly see change itself and observe how it manifests itself. I think you're close to this anyhow as you recognized that what you refer to as "self-novelty" is contained within "nature-novelty". I don't think it's contained within it however, I think it's the same thing, only with the aspects of reality that more directly pertain to "us" being highlighted by us and treated distinctly.

---

Kickle said:

hTx said:

...[omitted, pointless]... Novelty always leads to the next step. Novelty is absolutely essential towards the evolution of our understanding. With new events comes history. With new events should come new understanding. Naturally occurring events that are outside of our control (volcanoes, meteors, weather, etc) which happen seemingly at random are responsible for keeping the novelty. Original and creative thought is novelty that is within our control. For the sake of keeping it simple, lets call the first nature-novelty and original and creative thought self-novelty.

Nature-novelty is beyond our control. It is the universe in raging chaos. The reminder that we are human. The supernova of stars, fusing elements into novel elements. Novel arrangements of elements into molecules led to the universe as we know it. Novel arrangements of molecules led to DNA. Novel interactions of DNA led to the human being, and every known living thing on the planet. Etc, Etc. It should not be hard to see that nature-novelty is the driving force of the universe.

Self-novelty is contained within nature-novelty (as we are natural, afterall)and has to do with us and how we respond not only to nature-novelty but the former novel creations of those before us. Newtonian physics, a novel theory, was recreated by another novel theory, Einsteins theory of relativity. I'm not saying what Newton contributed to physics wasn't great, it was a great novel contribution in its time.

Self-novelty increases with keen observation of nature-novelty. You know what Einstein and Newton had in common? They observed...They realized nature-novelty and got with the new. They began to think, independently and creatively, they unlearned what they "knew" and thought creatively about the problems they were observing. All of human history is recorded novelty of ever increasing complexity. I will postulate that when novelty is suppressed in a society (new technologies, new ideas, new anything that threatens said society), then corruption has taken over.
The philosophy is simple. Think independently and creatively, do new things, have new experiences..seek out the novel. Start creating. Any intelligent fool can memorize someone elses theorems on life, it takes an entirely different fool to come up with something novel.

---

Wait... wait... wait...

you're telling me that nature-novelty is uncontrollable
and self-novelty is a byproduct of nature-novelty
but for some reason I have to forcefully make self-novelty happen?
as if nature-novelty wasn't already producing it?

I think you're a little lost on your thinking but maybe I just don't get it\
why would I need to do anything?
and how could anyone repress it?

are you under the impression that everyone can be Einstein or something?

---