Ancient Greek notions of "creativity" lacked any sense of egocentric novelty. To 'create' was to 'remember'. This was grounded in the more general philosophy that denied the possibility of "something-from-nothing."
In my Design Thinking book, there is a large section about this and about who "creation" is akin to midwifery, assisting something to express itself. Just as a midwife lacks "authorship" of a baby, so too do all "intellectuals" lack authorship of novel, innovative, or creative work— despite the boilerplate prefacing every Ph.D. thesis. davew On Tue, Jan 9, 2024, at 10:28 AM, glen wrote: > https://www.science.org/content/article/billionaire-launches-plagiarism-detection-effort-against-mit-president-and-all-its > > https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4392624-new-york-times-chatgpt-lawsuit-poses-new-legal-threats-to-artificial-intelligence/ > > I just can't help but analogize between Intelligent Design and these > arguments of ownership/novelty of [ahem] "content". It all feels like > the argument from design to me. For a paywalled for-profit like the NYT > to go after a for-profit like OpenAI and a rapacious > <https://www.thenation.com/article/society/william-ackman-harvard-donor/> > billionaire to go after prestige-mongering elite institutions seems > like a clear instance of elite overproduction > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction>. And to have it > all leveraged on the fantasy fulcrum of novelty and ownership is making > my head spin. > > But deep down, there's something to be said about intuitionism. At our > last salon, someone asked how much ontological status we might give to > stories about the Astral Plane. My answer derives entirely from what > little I know about intersubjectivity and cross-species mind reading. > If there is a commonality to nootropic or psychonaut experience, it > derives from our common *structure*, including whatever deeply > historical things like genetic memory that may (not) exist. > > It's fine to give lip service to intellectual humility. But such > rhetoric can't persuade ... uh ... "people" like Ackman. Surely ... > surely people like that are smart enough to grok things like gen-phen > maps, robustness and polyphenism, etc. Right? And if they do get it, > then we grass tufts can go on about our work, trying to be open, accept > and apply credit and blame to the best of our abilities and ignore > these fighting elephants. Right? > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
