Who's Mind is it Anyway?

Depends on how you define 'product'. Does your mind produce the thoughts, yes. Does your mind produce the idea, yes. Is the idea necessarily original, no.

If by product you mean something that is original, then I would say that your mind only regurgitates something that has been put into it. Even so, if it is original to you, then I would classify it as a product of your mind. You may have built the product with items (ideas) from others, but you put those ideas together to form something that is new to you.

If by product you mean something at all, I would say that everything you think is a product of your mind, because without your mind producing it, you wouldn't 'know' it, in fact you wouldn't know anything.

(nice intro to the post, by the way)

...it can depend on the quality and consequence of the insight though, if it is higher order reasoning emerging from a convocation of lower order concepts, and truly original higher order reasoning then it's truly inventive...

... so let's assume that it is the case that my mind "produced" something higher order ("truly inventive") ... even if it is a higher order synthesis, is it constrained by the minds of those who have shared their experiences with me as well as being constrained by the conceptual limitations of the many generations of minds responsible for the language I use? ... maybe this is more of a question of the boundary of "mind" ... and let's try an example that is more real-time ... say I actively bounce my insight off of a colleague and her critique informs the refinement of my insight ... her critique now lives inside my brain, but is it of my mind or hers?

If you shared your insight with her, assuming she was able to process your insight (which may not even be truly possible considering the boundaries of language you spoke.. but let's assume for sake of argument that when you share a sentiment it has a possibility of being truly understood), then I'd come to the conclusion that it's now her idea just as much as yours. That is, even if it was original for those moments before you shared, none of that matters now, as you have shared it. It is like a meme spreading - you gain ownership of an idea and should take responsibility of the idea. Regardless who originally thought of said idea, you now have the potential to twist the idea, changing it ever so slightly or drastically as you will, creating an entirely new visual. Her critique, being the parasite that is the meme (idea), is 'living' in both of your minds, each with probable slight variations.

Let's also remember this:"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. "

You provided knowledge. She processed the knowledge. Either of you can actively spread the knowledge, and it would have the ownership of anyone that was able to understand the idea.

Also, there's no way to gauge 'higher level' or 'truly inventive' as you don't really know what people have delved into. Additionally, just because she critiqued doesn't mean she refined. She mutated your original idea - for the better or worse, you don't know. But, I believe it's living in both of your minds (assuming that you adequately processed her critique, otherwise, you would still have your original idea and she would have a mutated version of your idea).

Every idea is influenced by other ideas in some way. Sure, some things we can presume are brilliant, but they will most definitely be linked to something in the person's life, or an idea, however faint. These ideas are linked, even if we can't immediately see the reasoning. We are products of our environment, our time period, the people we know, what we see, experience. This is just my opinion, though, and I'm sure there are others that feel those brilliant ideas should be deemed 'original', and I'll listen. So, with this said, don't immediately point to your idea not being original just because you've refined your idea through the help of others' minds. It's natural and is how many ideas spawn, if not all.

I don't feel this has any relevance with how an idea spreads through the minds of others. The quality of an idea is relative, so would not have bearing on how an idea is spread. So, regardless how much refinement was put into said insight, and regardless how many sources the insight's refinement spawned from, it's still an idea that can be spread... just as any other idea or insight.

A lifetime of experience and reading... I have not even half of a lifetime of either, but I do know that any two people read the same text differently. I also know that any two people experience the same situation differently.

Sure, anything we think or express builds upon what we have learned of others. But our perspective is, necessarily, unique. Not special, mind you, but unique.

paulhanke,

I think in that case, the important fact is that you communicated the idea to her first, and then she responded. Now, in your mind you have: (your concept plus her critique) and the original concept. You would compare the two to establish whether (concept plus critique) is < or > concept. If < you might infer either 1) she didn't understand, or 2) there's something wrong with the concept. If > then the insight is no longer your own.

iconoclast.

... so we've got minds and memes and unique interpretations and concept ownership and ... ... ... and all of these objects at least superficially seem to be continuously changing and/or cooevolving and/or cogs in a larger whole ... thoughts on which one is the correct model? ... heck - have we even really identified the right objects? ...