<p>Is this a sentence in Sophie's World?
It is more of an empirical thought. The weird thing about it is it cannot be "empirically" proved, since it's not something material, or can be made materialistic. All that can be done is to discuss about it. I, myself, have thought about it quite a lot, and haven't reached an answer. I cannot disagree nor agree. 
Imagine an artist, of fantasy things. They, let's assume, paint a unique kind of a monster or something, though it's not something they've seen before, i.e. experienced, it is something combined of what they've seen before somehow, somewhere. Yet, that same artist may come up with something never ever existed, nor they've experienced it in any way before, but did imagine it and made a paint from it. 
I haven't been able to go further :D I hope it's helpful.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-03T20:25:47.300Z
And I suggest to ask this question in Philosophy site here, rather than Cognitive-sciences....it'd open an amazing discussion between rationalists and empiricists.
Baka reader
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-03T21:36:56.967Z
It's not of Sophie's world, I thought about it but well... it might be a combination of things I have already experienced! :D // I asked this in here because I wanted to know if it had already been studied from the psychological point of view, but thanks for your recommendation
Felix L.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-06T08:08:00.013Z
Had this thought today too. An empirical answer would be utmost relevant to the qualia debate. BTW, the philosophy SE *does* have the question: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15644/is-imagination-limited-to-what-we-have-already-perceived-with-our-five-senses
Hauke Reddmann
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-03T20:19:25.660Z
2016-01-03T20:19:25.660Z
Baka reader
<p>Many people who have tried psychedelics would probably disagree with that statement based on their experiences alone. There are various such accounts available if you search, such as on <a href="https://www.erowid.org/" rel="nofollow">Erowid</a>. On the other hand, perhaps the statement holds for average persons in "normal" states of mind. From an evolutionary perspective, there would be very little use in imagining things fundamentally different from normal life (or normal reality), so you would expect such experiences to be limited to abnormal states of mind.</p>

<p>To think about this question more philosophically, there are <em>endless</em> possible illogical (or unobserved) "realities" to be envisioned while there are perhaps only a finite number of true realities. This concept is related to the idea that you cannot prove a negative such as "There is no hidden pink unicorn ghost floating above you right now". Because the unobservable possibilities are endless while the observable ones are much more finite, the mind would be at a total waste to spend time processing the unobservable possibilities. This is not to say the mind is incapable of it, but rather that there is strong selective pressure to prevent such processing under normal conditions.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-01T20:44:34.747Z
2016-01-01T20:44:34.747Z
Michael
<p>I would like to know how true is the following sentence:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>One can only imagine combinations of things he has experienced through his senses.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is important to state that this sentence is about imagination, not about thinking boundaries.</p>

<p>As examples: </p>

<ol>
<li>You can think about a universe with 4 dimensions, but you can't imagine it.</li>
<li>You can think about infra-red radiation, but you can only imagine it as a combination of known colors.</li>
</ol>

<cognitive-psychology>
Imagination limits
Felix L.
# Imagination limits

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-12-30)

I would like to know how true is the following sentence:

> One can only imagine combinations of things he has experienced through his senses.

It is important to state that this sentence is about imagination, not about thinking boundaries.

As examples:

1. You can think about a universe with 4 dimensions, but you can't imagine it.
2. You can think about infra-red radiation, but you can only imagine it as a combination of known colors.

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-01-01. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Many people who have tried psychedelics would probably disagree with that statement based on their experiences alone. There are various such accounts available if you search, such as on [Erowid](https://www.erowid.org/). On the other hand, perhaps the statement holds for average persons in "normal" states of mind. From an evolutionary perspective, there would be very little use in imagining things fundamentally different from normal life (or normal reality), so you would expect such experiences to be limited to abnormal states of mind.

To think about this question more philosophically, there are *endless* possible illogical (or unobserved) "realities" to be envisioned while there are perhaps only a finite number of true realities. This concept is related to the idea that you cannot prove a negative such as "There is no hidden pink unicorn ghost floating above you right now". Because the unobservable possibilities are endless while the observable ones are much more finite, the mind would be at a total waste to spend time processing the unobservable possibilities. This is not to say the mind is incapable of it, but rather that there is strong selective pressure to prevent such processing under normal conditions.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-01-03. Score: 1

Is this a sentence in Sophie's World?
It is more of an empirical thought. The weird thing about it is it cannot be "empirically" proved, since it's not something material, or can be made materialistic. All that can be done is to discuss about it. I, myself, have thought about it quite a lot, and haven't reached an answer. I cannot disagree nor agree.
Imagine an artist, of fantasy things. They, let's assume, paint a unique kind of a monster or something, though it's not something they've seen before, i.e. experienced, it is something combined of what they've seen before somehow, somewhere. Yet, that same artist may come up with something never ever existed, nor they've experienced it in any way before, but did imagine it and made a paint from it.
I haven't been able to go further :D I hope it's helpful.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: And I suggest to ask this question in Philosophy site here, rather than Cognitive-sciences....it'd open an amazing discussion between rationalists and empiricists.  
> **username_0**: It's not of Sophie's world, I thought about it but well... it might be a combination of things I have already experienced! :D // I asked this in here because I wanted to know if it had already been studied from the psychological point of view, but thanks for your recommendation  
> **username_2**: Had this thought today too. An empirical answer would be utmost relevant to the qualia debate. BTW, the philosophy SE *does* have the question: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15644/is-imagination-limited-to-what-we-have-already-perceived-with-our-five-senses  

---

