Do You Know What You See

The imagined is what is accessible, it may not be immediately useful but to discredit imagination is to discredit the process of our own growth. Things need to be imagined before they can be comprehended and therefore crystallised into meaningful information. How far you stretch the imagination is ultimately a personal choice, and how well you use it is a matter of creative discipline.


Just to slot that in

 

Guerillabedlam wrote:

From experience I know clearly that dreams have function.

Fine, but you said, "a mind which may be comprised of several different parts; some of which are not readily available to our conscious thought processes". All that the brain retains is conceivably accessable or not worth a second thought. The same is true for reality in general; all that exists is of importance is accessable in some way or another.

I know, all I was saying is that whether we're talking about the subconscious or obscure parts of reality, if we don't have at least some access to them, then they're nonsense - literally, meaning if they can't be accessed through the senses, they're non-sensical.

I think a misnomer is a misuse of language and I think the fact that it's so poorly named refers to how poorly conceived the idea is.

 

Nephila wrote:

Technically, all things imagined have origins from the senses, but when I say something is only imagined I mean that it sensual roots are largely obscured, or in other words is large stretch of the imagination. For example, a Centaur has sensual roots in seeing a human body and a horse's body, but is obscured in that the two never meld together in such a way.

Right, but keep in mind that piling pieces of sensual data on top of each other in a near random manner is not quality creativity. Quality creativity involves an understanding of reality and how it has patterns of various probabilities.

 

It's been consistently shown that this is not so, here is a quick video to demonstrate some concepts which illustrate that all that exists and is potentially important to us is not always readily accessible.

http://youtu.be/JiTz2i4VHFw

 

I didn't say they were readily accessible, I said they were conceivably accessible or accessible in way or another.

 

I initially said readily accessible. I feel you are arguing semantics, regardless of how you want to state it, as the video suggests, the brain does not process all the important information that is available..

 

i really think the central point, is that if everything you think you see, is what someone else told you to expect, then you're really not looking at all.