View Poll Results: Do you think that you have ever had one?
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll
Original Thoughts
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,929
Likes: 769
From: Clifton, VA
Originally Posted by ralper,Nov 17 2005, 09:53 PM
Matt,
I'm a bit confused. In your post right before this (and the sentence quote above) you say that using something that already exists in a way not thought of before could be considered an original thought. Yet, when Bill described his idea of a beer and hot dog bar you said it wasn't original because beer and hot dogs already exist.
Also, in a prior post I asked why an improvement can't be an original idea. you answered because the "technology already exists". But here you're suggesting that you can use something that already exists.
I'm not sure I understand the differences that make these original thoughts sometimes and not original thoughts sometimes. Please explain.
I'm a bit confused. In your post right before this (and the sentence quote above) you say that using something that already exists in a way not thought of before could be considered an original thought. Yet, when Bill described his idea of a beer and hot dog bar you said it wasn't original because beer and hot dogs already exist.
Also, in a prior post I asked why an improvement can't be an original idea. you answered because the "technology already exists". But here you're suggesting that you can use something that already exists.
I'm not sure I understand the differences that make these original thoughts sometimes and not original thoughts sometimes. Please explain.
The key words that you overlooked in this was "one could argue". If one goes back to my original post I would argue (as you did) that once someone thinks of a "root" thought that everthing else is building blocks off of that thought.
Does that make it any clearer?
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,897
Likes: 1
From: Cherry Hill, NJ
I have to agree with Rob. We need to better define 'original thought'.
I think there are people like Nikola Tesla, Richard Feynman, etc, who were just incredible original thinkers, to my mind.
See http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html , for example.
I'm a big Feynman fan, and this was a great biography: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067974704...283155&v=glance
There are also people who may not be original thinkers, but have taken ideas and expanded on them with great success. I like to put Bill Gates in this category - he may not have invented DOS, but he sure knew how to market it!
I think there are people like Nikola Tesla, Richard Feynman, etc, who were just incredible original thinkers, to my mind.
See http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html , for example.
I'm a big Feynman fan, and this was a great biography: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067974704...283155&v=glance
There are also people who may not be original thinkers, but have taken ideas and expanded on them with great success. I like to put Bill Gates in this category - he may not have invented DOS, but he sure knew how to market it!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
On the other hand one could argue which one had the orignal thought? That when Friederich Miescher discovered DNA in the 19th century, but it was not until 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered that it was not necessary to look at the whole strand to positivitly identify someone.
Watson and Crick discovered the molecular structure of DNA and base pair rules by utilizing the discoveries, technology and ideas of others. It was still no small feat and they were later awarded the Nobel for their accomplishments.
They also proposed the idea that base pair sequences were the basis of the genetic code, but I don't recall the mention of using those sequences to identify individuals. The focus of much of the research at that time was on protein synthesis, as specific gene sequences had not yet been discovered.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 33,171
Likes: 1,639
From: Randolph, NJ
Yes it does, thank you.
I have to tell you that given the narrowness of original thought, I'd much rather be the promoter or entrepreneur than the original thinker. It seems to me that they are the ones we have to thank, and, they are the ones who make all the money.
I have to tell you that given the narrowness of original thought, I'd much rather be the promoter or entrepreneur than the original thinker. It seems to me that they are the ones we have to thank, and, they are the ones who make all the money.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,929
Likes: 769
From: Clifton, VA
Originally Posted by ralper,Nov 18 2005, 08:46 PM
Yes it does, thank you.
I have to tell you that given the narrowness of original thought, I'd much rather be the promoter or entrepreneur than the original thinker. It seems to me that they are the ones we have to thank, and, they are the ones who make all the money.
I have to tell you that given the narrowness of original thought, I'd much rather be the promoter or entrepreneur than the original thinker. It seems to me that they are the ones we have to thank, and, they are the ones who make all the money.
And can appreciate that thought.I was just trying to make a point that we are maybe not as creative as we think we are. It is kind of like Maislows theory in reverse. If one traces ideas backwards it distills down to a few basic fundamental "original ideas" that were thought of long ago.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 65,403
Likes: 4,684
From: Smalltown
Originally Posted by matt_inva,Nov 18 2005, 08:19 PM
And can appreciate that thought.I was just trying to make a point that we are maybe not as creative as we think we are.
To the three people that answered YES to this poll.
