How important are inner thoughts or feelings and emotions in the world?

[Pizzabeak]

Could mental images have an important role in reality? I think some people might be dyslexic so their reading or writing might not resemble right syntax. Different people's thought processes are supposed to be varying in vivid image generation. I heard some people might have trouble picturing things like scenery such as maybe a cow jumping over a moon. How much would this affect reality or can people comment their ability to do so? Would different mental processing power affect work output?

It could be related to idealism, where everything is just in someone's head. Therefore it'd take more work to integrate any optimal reality into technology. The future is supposed to, maybe, get faster because Moore's law and the exponential increase of any eras approaching. As a person, you have a choice. It's little more than advanced instinct.

 

[MayaRefugee]

Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles output quality music with mental pictures of their environment devoid of literal visual input.

Beethoven, late in his life, outputted good music with mental pictures of what he was doing devoid of literal input from his ears.

How you get to a result or particular "output" has infinite possibilities, the nature of things with a desire to bring about certain results is to find a way - the value of emotion and inner thought to a particular way that is found to yield certain results will be instrinsic to each individual system being analysed.

Sportspeople are known to be highly superstitious when it comes to replicating results so you could argue that they need to have certain emotions and inner states prevalent to bring about the results they bring about but not all of them are like this.

Ultimately, manifesting "results" in the physical realm depends more on the laws of physics but in saying this this would imply that a process like playing a song could be roboticised and be done just as well. If it could be the "X-Factor" that comes from the variants introduced by a human playing it, under the influence of their inner thoughts and emotions, would not exist - for some this might be a good result for others not so.

 

[Cognisant]

Knowledge: You can't write a program if you don't know how to code.
Willpower: How many hardships/failures can you endure and keep trying?
Disposition: In a fight would you be willing to gouge someone's eyes out?

None of these things influence reality directly but they influence how you interact with reality, if you have a bubbly disposition people will like you, if you have strong willpower life's challenges won't seem so challenging, if you're very knowledgeable you can avoid pitfalls other people aren't aware of and take advantage of opportunities that other people either don't notice or can't access.

Would different mental processing power affect work output?

Telling someone that they're intelligent can make them lazy or give them the confidence to be more ambitious, likewise telling someone they're stupid can cripple their confidence or encourage them to strive harder out of spite, so I think one's disposition is far more influential than one's intelligence.

 

[The Grey Man]

According to Kant, mental images do not merely play an important role in the world, but the world is a mental construction out of the material of sensory impressions. It is not by accident that he called the faculty whereby diverse sense-impressions are synthesized into a single object the imagination (Einbildung). This attribute-substance relation of sensory impressions to an object is recapitulated by the relation of the objects to the unity of apperception (like nested arches in a Gothic portal), the original Cartesian "I think", so that all knowledge is, as you say, just in someone's head.

However, this is not to say that all knowledge is subjective in character, for to do so would be to overlook the inestimable contribution of Locke in distinguishing between objective knowledge and subjective knowledge, and to succumb to all-too-fashionable epistemological nihilism of the late, decadent cultural epoch in which we find ourselves.

Kant inherited Locke's distinction between the primary and the secondary qualities of an object, which appears in his doctrine as the distinction between objective perception and subjective sensation. The former includes the object's form and position in space and motion with respect to time (causality; natura naturata), the latter its colour, sound, coarseness, smell, taste, and all those attributes which individuate it from the others, and which may further be deemed manifestations of action (natura naturans) as a "differences that make a difference", to use that very happy saying of Gregory Bateson. Primary qualities are qualities of nature, secondary qualities those of the soul, that substance of substances. Tertium non datur.

I believe that the only way to expand our knowledge intellectually is through the synthesis of objective and subjective knowledge, which is why I have much patience for dual-aspect system builders like Spinoza and Schopenhauer and little patience for the insipid scholasticism of academic "philosophy", which denies the possibility of objective knowledge with its right hand while repudiating tradition and affirming philistinic populist values with its left.

 

[lightfire]

Could mental images have an important role in reality? I think some people might be dyslexic so their reading or writing might not resemble right syntax.

Dyslexia is a learning disorder, but I think I know what you're getting at. I don't think it is idealism vs realism, but it can also be right brain vs left brain.

Different people's thought processes are supposed to be varying in vivid image generation. I heard some people might have trouble picturing things like scenery such as maybe a cow jumping over a moon. How much would this affect reality or can people comment their ability to do so?

I've wondered about how thought processes have an impact on perception of the world and asked a couple of people:

- One engineer (a realist) said his perception of the world is linear. There is an end and a beginning, there is a solution to every problem. He's in engineering management, yet when it comes to things like interior decoration he is clueless.

- Another engineer (an idealist) said, he looks at life's choices just like how he approaches the coding world. He appreciates art a degree more than the other engineer.

Would different mental processing power affect work output?

I like what Cognisant said:

Telling someone that they're intelligent can make them lazy or give them the confidence to be more ambitious, likewise telling someone they're stupid can cripple their confidence or encourage them to strive harder out of spite, so I think one's disposition is far more influential than one's intelligence.

Work output starts with prioritization of it. With a world of different styles of thinking, their will be various types of work output. But really that depends on whether you're lazy or not.

It could be related to idealism, where everything is just in someone's head. Therefore it'd take more work to integrate any optimal reality into technology. The future is supposed to, maybe, get faster because Moore's law and the exponential increase of any eras approaching. As a person, you have a choice. It's little more than advanced instinct.

Speaking of idealism. I look at idealists more as the type who visualize how a world should be, fantasize about it a little too much, float in the clouds a bit too long, and are in constant disappointment that reality does not conform to their ideal world views.

Realists on the other hand, are often the one's who are bitch slapping the idealists, bringing their heads out of the clouds, planting their feet firmly onto the ground, and saying "yes your dreams are nice, but these are the facts that we need to work with".

Both types are important to the world I guess.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Mental images are real too.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

According to Kant, mental images do not merely play an important role in the world, but the world is a mental construction out of the material of sensory impressions. It is not by accident that he called the faculty whereby diverse sense-impressions are synthesized into a single object the imagination (Einbildung). This attribute-substance relation of sensory impressions to an object is recapitulated by the relation of the objects to the unity of apperception (like nested arches in a Gothic portal), the original Cartesian "I think", so that all knowledge is, as you say, just in someone's head.

However, this is not to say that all knowledge is subjective in character, for to do so would be to overlook the inestimable contribution of Locke in distinguishing between objective knowledge and subjective knowledge, and to succumb to all-too-fashionable epistemological nihilism of the late, decadent cultural epoch in which we find ourselves.

Kant inherited Locke's distinction between the primary and the secondary qualities of an object, which appears in his doctrine as the distinction between objective perception and subjective sensation. The former includes the object's form and position in space and motion with respect to time (causality; natura naturata), the latter its colour, sound, coarseness, smell, taste, and all those attributes which individuate it from the others, and which may further be deemed manifestations of action (natura naturans) as a "differences that make a difference", to use that very happy saying of Gregory Bateson. Primary qualities are qualities of nature, secondary qualities those of the soul, that substance of substances. Tertium non datur.

I believe that the only way to expand our knowledge intellectually is through the synthesis of objective and subjective knowledge, which is why I have much patience for dual-aspect system builders like Spinoza and Schopenhauer and little patience for the insipid scholasticism of academic "philosophy", which denies the possibility of objective knowledge with its right hand while repudiating tradition and affirming philistinic populist values with its left.

AFAIK, objective knowledge isn't denied by the majority of philosophers at least in analytical circles. And most aren't epistemological nihilists either.

 

[The Grey Man]

AFAIK, objective knowledge isn't denied by the majority of philosophers at least in analytical circles. And most aren't epistemological nihilists either.

You're quite right, objective knowledge isn't denied by the majority of philosophers in analytic circles. The epistemological nihilism to which I was referring is the relativism popularized by deconstructionists, those corrupt heirs of the continental tradition who attempt to discredit human reason, often with the aim of stultifying opposition to their own authoritarian ideologies, and are more likely to heed the words of statists and power-worshipers like Hegel and Nietzsche than serious metaphysicians like Kant. Analytic philosophy is hardly better, as it is mostly paralyzed by scholastic quibbles and offers no credible alternative to the dogmatic "theory" and "criticism" promulgated by many university professors not just in academic philosophy, but in the humanities in general.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

AFAIK, objective knowledge isn't denied by the majority of philosophers at least in analytical circles. And most aren't epistemological nihilists either.

You're quite right, objective knowledge isn't denied by the majority of philosophers in analytic circles. The epistemological nihilism to which I was referring is the relativism popularized by deconstructionists, those corrupt heirs of the continental tradition who attempt to discredit human reason, often with the aim of stultifying opposition to their own authoritarian ideologies, and are more likely to heed the words of statists and power-worshipers like Hegel and Nietzsche than serious metaphysicians like Kant. Analytic philosophy is hardly better, as it is mostly paralyzed by scholastic quibbles and offers no credible alternative to the dogmatic "theory" and "criticism" promulgated by many university professors not just in academic philosophy, but in the humanities in general.

A quote from Walden

There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers.

www.goodreads.com