Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Ridiculous! grin But just because some true seekers are ridiculed does not mean that ridicule is not useful and true in its own right. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Everything we do is only a recombination or reuse of already existing tools, techniques or substances. Even creative insights only rely on already existing thoughts and ideas. What was special about Einstein and Newton was perhaps that they were visionary: they were able to recombine and synthesize things which were not fully established. Enough knowledge had accumulated and was waiting for a new synthesis, but it was available in easy accessible form. Newton applied differential calculus to astronomical objects although he was just inventing it (together with Leibniz), and it was very hard at that time to get reliable astronomical data. Einstein applied differential geometry to cosmic scales although it was not fully formulated. A scientist who discovers a new theory is similar to a CEO who founds a new company. A scientist must feel which theory will become important (if he doesn't know them all), und must be able to apply a theory although it is not yet fully formulated. A CEO must be able to see or sense the future. He must feel which market, product or subject will become important. Usually successful CEOs or scientists are just lucky, being at the right place at the right time. Time says Every time a seismic shift takes place in our economy, there are people who feel the vibrations long before the rest of us do, vibrations so strong they demand action - action that can seem rash, even stupid. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992927-2,00.html -J. - Original Message - From: Orlando Leibovitz To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 I agree with the conclusions of the article and with your analysis. We all (most of us) have sudden insight from time to time. What I want to know is where the really original, genius type insight comes from. What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
To prevent that the creativity discussion drowns in the archives of the FRIAM mailing list, I have added a page about creativity with the article from Orlando, some thoughts of Günther and the definition from Larry to the Wiki: http://sfcomplex.org/wiki/Creativity -J. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Jochen - Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we are all barking up the same tree. What I wrote is an essay about creativity of the projected mind. My more original contribution, forthcoming, is about the use of Google (or other similar engines) to extend creativity beyond traditional capabilities. - Larry On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Jochen Fromm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everything we do is only a recombination or reuse of already existing tools, techniques or substances. Even creative insights only rely on already existing thoughts and ideas. What was special about Einstein and Newton was perhaps that they were visionary: they were able to recombine and synthesize things which were not fully established. Enough knowledge had accumulated and was waiting for a new synthesis, but it was available in easy accessible form. Newton applied differential calculus to astronomical objects although he was just inventing it (together with Leibniz), and it was very hard at that time to get reliable astronomical data. Einstein applied differential geometry to cosmic scales although it was not fully formulated. A scientist who discovers a new theory is similar to a CEO who founds a new company. A scientist must feel which theory will become important (if he doesn't know them all), und must be able to apply a theory although it is not yet fully formulated. A CEO must be able to see or sense the future. He must feel which market, product or subject will become important. Usually successful CEOs or scientists are just lucky, being at the right place at the right time. Time says Every time a seismic shift takes place in our economy, there are people who feel the vibrations long before the rest of us do, vibrations so strong they demand action - action that can seem rash, even stupid. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992927-2,00.html -J. - Original Message - From: Orlando Leibovitz To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 I agree with the conclusions of the article and with your analysis. We all (most of us) have sudden insight from time to time. What I want to know is where the really original, genius type insight comes from. What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Orlando, But aren't you and Jochen talking about insight here as if it were just some diffusion process of echoes of other things, rather than a synthetic event, and so leaving the core question of what the heck is making the echoes around here unaddressed? Ann's comment that even simple things display the use of real genius sometimes seems more like the kind of relevant question about things not immediately obvious that would lead to understanding why insight changes the world so completely we are left to see it as having been inevitable. After important new insights develop it sort of erases the world without them. I made the radical leap to seeing that systems don't follow rules but make them when observing that every convective air current develops as a uniquely individual cell, each burrowing another hole to provide an inventive shortcut for their gradients. There's nothing present but a uniform compressible fluid and some diffuse heat and presto, a profusion of unique individual forms. That the 'new field' of studying how individual events of all forms develop, starting from that observation, was and remains largely wide open is a matter of some historical interest, maybe, but it seems to me that the simple kind of observation I started from could have been among the earliest discoveries of science and not delayed. That nature does everything individually and things develop where they occur, is actually kind of obvious, though still a struggle to think about because we're not trained to. It's quite readily observable in the smoke curls rising above a campfire, for example, that each 'breakout' curl develops on its own, and around a campfire is where people have been gathering to sit and think in an open way about the universe for many thousands of years. If our minds are just some kind of photo plate waiting to be stamped by the swirling world around us, why wouldn't the principle that nature develops everything individually where it occurs have gotten stamped in our minds somewhat sooner? I'd say discovery is a mix of things, like cultural developments coming to a head, schools of thought running into dead ends, things 'hidden in sight' and creative invention. At the time I was just bumming around wondering, along with everyone else at the time, what the limits of growth were anyway, and just happened to try to make sense a great profusion of simple forms that demonstrated it over and over. Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Günther Greindl Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:07 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 Hi, Orlando here, What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? I guess the time is just ripe (viz.: enough knowledge has accumulated and is lying around for a new synthesis) at certain moments for intelligent guys to have insights. If it hadn't been Einstein or Newton, then it would have been another bright person 5 years later. The intelligence of these people in relation to other people is usually overrated. See this lovely post by Eli Yudkowsky on OB about Einstein, the village idiot, and _real_ superintelligences: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/my-childhood-ro.html Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Günther, it == The Crowd. Sorry, was attempting an argument against the strawman view that the crowd needn't listen, but got caught up in the overpith. Carl Günther Greindl wrote: Carl, Carl Tollander wrote: Cosmic Pez Dispenser I like that picture :-)) situated, as you say. Any of these players, in a different milieu or time would have different insights, but insights they would have. Agreed. engineered itself to listen. The argument that insights will happen anyway in effect says it doesn't have to. What do you mean by this? insights happen anyway = thats why they don't? I think I am misunderstanding you. Cheers, Günther FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Orlando, Orlando Leibovitz wrote: essential. In this regard I am quoting Martha Graham to Agnes De snip I think they apply to scientific creativity but I'm not sure. What a wonderful quote, thanks!! And yes, I absolutey believe that good science should be conducted in this way too. Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Günther Greindl Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:07 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 Hi, Orlando here, What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? I guess the time is just ripe (viz.: enough knowledge has accumulated and is lying around for a new synthesis) at certain moments for intelligent guys to have insights. If it hadn't been Einstein or Newton, then it would have been another bright person 5 years later. The intelligence of these people in relation to other people is usually overrated. See this lovely post by Eli Yudkowsky on OB about Einstein, the village idiot, and _real_ superintelligences: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/my-childhood-ro.html Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
I agree that the intelligence of these people in relation to other people is usually overrated. I would take this a bit further...I would say that the intelligence of most people is grossly underrated. I think the mindset that is looking for insight in a few of us is missing the vast amount of insight available everywhere and all the time. I am reminded a bit of how some races were not considered to be good athletes when they weren't allowed to compete in the first place. Or that for white women exercise was bad for their health because they weren't strong enough. I guess for black and brown women working in the fields from dawn to dusk didn't have that problem. Today our blindspots are a bit different but there none the less. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Günther Greindl Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:07 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 Hi, Orlando here, What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? I guess the time is just ripe (viz.: enough knowledge has accumulated and is lying around for a new synthesis) at certain moments for intelligent guys to have insights. If it hadn't been Einstein or Newton, then it would have been another bright person 5 years later. The intelligence of these people in relation to other people is usually overrated. See this lovely post by Eli Yudkowsky on OB about Einstein, the village idiot, and _real_ superintelligences: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/my-childhood-ro.html Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Couldn't disagree more. Examples of why, in my opinion, the aggregate assessment of human intelligence is highly inflated: 1. Bush. Elected. Twice. (Florida vote count issue notwithstanding). 2. Americans continuing to buy fuel hogging cars even after the warning supplied by the mid-70's oil crises, which gave clear indication of the impending global oil supply/demand tip-over point which we are now seeing. The ensuing 30 years between then and now could have intelligently been spent planning to prevent today's current oil market crises. 3. General Motors, Ford: Instead of planning for the inevitable evolution of the petroleum-based market pricing realities, they continued along their stupid short-sighted plan of producing the fuel hogs that their stupid customers craved, instead of planning ahead for today's market, in which GM lost more than $15 billion this year. Ford was right behind, losing $9 billion. There is now serious talk of GM facing bankruptcy as a direct result of their less-than-intelligent management leadership. 4. The Democratic party. 5. The Republican party. 6. Congress. 7. White supremacists. 8. Jerry Fallwell. 9. Jerry Fallwell's followers. 10. Fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, Mormon: doesn't matter) I could go on, but it would be stupid to do so... -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ann Racuya-Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: II would say that the intelligence of most people is grossly underrated. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
I think being able to use mathematical symbology on the friam would be wonderful but not if the syntax is not pliable to speak in new ways. “One man’s rigor is another man’s mortis” Bohren, Craig F. and B. A. Albrecht (1998). Atmospheric Thermodynamics. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: I agree here againthe possibility of ridicule and being willing to be considered a fool are involved in original insight (creativity). In fact even in this friam forum I have felt a kind of ridicule (you dont know anything about mathematics) when I am making a point or something similarand being encouraged to shut up and raising laughter (at me not with me). I am somewhat grizzled from experience so I expect this from time to time. But why are those who do this doing it? What is gained? I think being able to use mathematical symbology on the friam would be wonderful but not if the syntax is not pliable to speak in new ways. And yes I invent constantly in every language I am able to. Think of people whose jobs and families well being depend on being well thought of by others. How much ridicule can they stand. Not much. Ann - I, for one, applaud your willingness and ability to take the dismissal and/or ridicule that comes with this situation. It has allowed your voice to be heard by at least a few. The fact that you have been able to avoid "going away mad" has helped open a door, albeit small, between two traditionally polarized communities (factions?). The sfComplex's mission includes opening this door, even if many of us on one side of it are not well equipped to deal with what is on the other side, or what might come through it. If it were easy, it would already have been done. I don't know that I can begin to answer some of your questions, explicit or implicit, but perhaps we can start some kind of dialog in the subset of the community that is not having allergic reactions to your thoughts and words. I have been speaking with Mary-Charlotte Domandi (CC:ed here), from KSFR, who has good experience in interviewing and interpreting amongst people and communities across a wide range. I would like form a series of presentations and panel discussions that might give you and others more like you, a forum at the Complex where your ideas and thoughts are welcomed and discussed in the same manner as many of the more specific technical topics are presented. Perhaps we can meet in-person at the Complex with Mary-Charlotte and others like myself who are more able to hear what you are trying to say, to get the dialog started and get something more formal started. FRIAM/sfComplex - I also invite others on FRIAM to contact me and/or Ann directly if you can hear what she is trying to converse with us about and are interested in participatin. I think Ann's point of view is easy for this community to dismiss, but I also think there are very important aspects of it that we need to hear if we want the conversation to be as broad and meaningful as it can be. - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Precisely, who is the man here which is the rigor which is the mortis? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 12:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 I think being able to use mathematical symbology on the friam would be wonderful but not if the syntax is not pliable to speak in new ways. One man's rigor is another man's mortis Bohren, Craig F. and B. A. Albrecht (1998). Atmospheric Thermodynamics. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
The Wisdom of Crowds posits 4 criteria for a crowd to be wise: http://tinyurl.com/mbmnb Diversity, Independence, Decentralized, Mechanism for aggregation. -- Owen On Aug 1, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Couldn't disagree more. Examples of why, in my opinion, the aggregate assessment of human intelligence is highly inflated: 1. Bush. Elected. Twice. (Florida vote count issue notwithstanding). 2. Americans continuing to buy fuel hogging cars even after the warning supplied by the mid-70's oil crises, which gave clear indication of the impending global oil supply/demand tip-over point which we are now seeing. The ensuing 30 years between then and now could have intelligently been spent planning to prevent today's current oil market crises. 3. General Motors, Ford: Instead of planning for the inevitable evolution of the petroleum-based market pricing realities, they continued along their stupid short-sighted plan of producing the fuel hogs that their stupid customers craved, instead of planning ahead for today's market, in which GM lost more than $15 billion this year. Ford was right behind, losing $9 billion. There is now serious talk of GM facing bankruptcy as a direct result of their less-than-intelligent management leadership. 4. The Democratic party. 5. The Republican party. 6. Congress. 7. White supremacists. 8. Jerry Fallwell. 9. Jerry Fallwell's followers. 10. Fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, Mormon: doesn't matter) I could go on, but it would be stupid to do so... -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ann Racuya-Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: II would say that the intelligence of most people is grossly underrated. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Sure. We could also meet at the Mission Café for lunch Wed, Thurs or Fri next week would work for me. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 12:36 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Cc: Mary-Charlotte Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: I agree here again the possibility of ridicule and being willing to be considered a fool are involved in original insight (creativity). In fact even in this friam forum I have felt a kind of ridicule (you dont know anything about mathematics) when I am making a point or something similar and being encouraged to shut up and raising laughter (at me not with me). I am somewhat grizzled from experience so I expect this from time to time. But why are those who do this doing it? What is gained? I think being able to use mathematical symbology on the friam would be wonderful but not if the syntax is not pliable to speak in new ways. And yes I invent constantly in every language I am able to. Think of people whose jobs and families well being depend on being well thought of by others. How much ridicule can they stand. Not much. Ann - I, for one, applaud your willingness and ability to take the dismissal and/or ridicule that comes with this situation. It has allowed your voice to be heard by at least a few.The fact that you have been able to avoid going away mad has helped open a door, albeit small, between two traditionally polarized communities (factions?). The sfComplex's mission includes opening this door, even if many of us on one side of it are not well equipped to deal with what is on the other side, or what might come through it. If it were easy, it would already have been done. I don't know that I can begin to answer some of your questions, explicit or implicit, but perhaps we can start some kind of dialog in the subset of the community that is not having allergic reactions to your thoughts and words. I have been speaking with Mary-Charlotte Domandi (CC:ed here), from KSFR, who has good experience in interviewing and interpreting amongst people and communities across a wide range. I would like form a series of presentations and panel discussions that might give you and others more like you, a forum at the Complex where your ideas and thoughts are welcomed and discussed in the same manner as many of the more specific technical topics are presented. Perhaps we can meet in-person at the Complex with Mary-Charlotte and others like myself who are more able to hear what you are trying to say, to get the dialog started and get something more formal started. FRIAM/sfComplex - I also invite others on FRIAM to contact me and/or Ann directly if you can hear what she is trying to converse with us about and are interested in participatin. I think Ann's point of view is easy for this community to dismiss, but I also think there are very important aspects of it that we need to hear if we want the conversation to be as broad and meaningful as it can be. - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: Precisely, who is the man here which is the rigor which is the mortis? It's possible to program a computer in English. It's also possible to make an airplane controlled by reins and spurs. John McCarthy, Father of Artificial Intelligence, Professor Emeritus Computer Science Stanford University FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Stupid is as stupid does. -- Forrest Gump. -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Owen Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Wisdom of Crowds posits 4 criteria for a crowd to be wise: http://tinyurl.com/mbmnb Diversity, Independence, Decentralized, Mechanism for aggregation. -- Owen On Aug 1, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Couldn't disagree more. Examples of why, in my opinion, the aggregate assessment of human intelligence is highly inflated: 1. Bush. Elected. Twice. (Florida vote count issue notwithstanding). 2. Americans continuing to buy fuel hogging cars even after the warning supplied by the mid-70's oil crises, which gave clear indication of the impending global oil supply/demand tip-over point which we are now seeing. The ensuing 30 years between then and now could have intelligently been spent planning to prevent today's current oil market crises. 3. General Motors, Ford: Instead of planning for the inevitable evolution of the petroleum-based market pricing realities, they continued along their stupid short-sighted plan of producing the fuel hogs that their stupid customers craved, instead of planning ahead for today's market, in which GM lost more than $15 billion this year. Ford was right behind, losing $9 billion. There is now serious talk of GM facing bankruptcy as a direct result of their less-than-intelligent management leadership. 4. The Democratic party. 5. The Republican party. 6. Congress. 7. White supremacists. 8. Jerry Fallwell. 9. Jerry Fallwell's followers. 10. Fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, Mormon: doesn't matter) I could go on, but it would be stupid to do so... -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ann Racuya-Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: II would say that the intelligence of most people is grossly underrated. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
People who wish to analyse nature without using mathematics must settle for a reduced understanding. - Richard Feynman FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
People who wish to analyze nature with a reduced understanding of mathematics must settle for misunderstanding. - Ken Lloyd ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rikus Combrinck Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 3:43 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 People who wish to analyse nature without using mathematics must settle for a reduced understanding. - Richard Feynman FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
People who wish to analyze nature without the ineffable must settle for the understandable. Orlando Leibovitz Ken Lloyd wrote: People who wish to analyze nature with a reduced understanding of mathematics must settle for misunderstanding. - Ken Lloyd ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rikus Combrinck Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 3:43 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 People who wish to analyse nature without using mathematics must settle for a reduced understanding. - Richard Feynman FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Orlando Leibovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.orlandoleibovitz.com Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
While I am a big fan of Richard Feynman and a mathematician at heart (and physicist by training), I have to note: "People who limit their apprehension of nature to that which can be analyzed by mathematics must settle for misapprehension" - Steve Mathematics is for those who are bad at Gambling "People who wish to analyze nature with a reduced understanding of mathematics must settle for misunderstanding." - Ken Lloyd ;) "People who wish to analyse nature without using mathematics must settle for a reduced understanding." - Richard Feynman FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Hi, Orlando here, What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? I guess the time is just ripe (viz.: enough knowledge has accumulated and is lying around for a new synthesis) at certain moments for intelligent guys to have insights. If it hadn't been Einstein or Newton, then it would have been another bright person 5 years later. The intelligence of these people in relation to other people is usually overrated. See this lovely post by Eli Yudkowsky on OB about Einstein, the village idiot, and _real_ superintelligences: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/my-childhood-ro.html Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Not sure that the Cosmic Pez Dispenser of Picassos would have produced a similar Guernica painting five years later. Insights are historically situated, as you say. Any of these players, in a different milieu or time would have different insights, but insights they would have. This doesn't say anything about mapping propensity to insight to some average relative intelligence (as if it were measurable by one scalar or located in one place). Even the village idiot has a good day now and then; it's just that the crowd (or what we call The Crowd) hasn't engineered itself to listen. The argument that insights will happen anyway in effect says it doesn't have to. C. Günther Greindl wrote: Hi, Orlando here, What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? I guess the time is just ripe (viz.: enough knowledge has accumulated and is lying around for a new synthesis) at certain moments for intelligent guys to have insights. If it hadn't been Einstein or Newton, then it would have been another bright person 5 years later. The intelligence of these people in relation to other people is usually overrated. See this lovely post by Eli Yudkowsky on OB about Einstein, the village idiot, and _real_ superintelligences: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/my-childhood-ro.html Cheers, Günther FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
Orlando here, In addition to intelligence I think there are other personality traits involved in original insight (creativity). It seems to me one must accept the possibility of ridicule and be willing to be considered a fool. Pursuit of personal expression at all cost seems to be essential. In this regard I am quoting Martha Graham to Agnes De Mille. Her words, for me, touch on artistic creativity. Or at least partially explain what enables it. I think they apply to scientific creativity but I'm not sure. MARTHA GRAHAM TO AGNES DE MILLE There is a vitality, a life force, a quickening that is translated through you into action and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and will be lost. The world will not have it. It is not your business to determine how good it is nor how valuable it is nor how it compares with other expressions. It is your business to keep it yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open. You do not even have to believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep open and aware directly to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open. No artist is pleased. There is no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is only a queer, divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive. It may be so that insights are historically situated and the time is just ripe and if it is not this person it will be another but does this explain why Einstein perceived E=MC2 and not Poincare'. The Yudowsky post is wonderful. O Carl Tollander wrote: Not sure that the Cosmic Pez Dispenser of Picassos would have produced a similar Guernica painting five years later. Insights are historically situated, as you say. Any of these players, in a different milieu or time would have different insights, but insights they would have. This doesn't say anything about mapping propensity to insight to some average relative intelligence (as if it were measurable by one scalar or located in one place). Even the village idiot has a good day now and then; it's just that the crowd (or what we call The Crowd) hasn't engineered itself to listen. The argument that insights will happen anyway in effect says it doesn't have to. C. Günther Greindl wrote: Hi, Orlando here, What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? I guess the time is just ripe (viz.: enough knowledge has accumulated and is lying around for a new synthesis) at certain moments for intelligent guys to have insights. If it hadn't been Einstein or Newton, then it would have been another bright person 5 years later. The intelligence of these people in relation to other people is usually overrated. See this lovely post by Eli Yudkowsky on OB about Einstein, the village idiot, and _real_ superintelligences: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/my-childhood-ro.html Cheers, Günther FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Orlando Leibovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.orlandoleibovitz.com Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2
It's finding a deeper impasse. I think. Many deep impasses are 'hidden in sight', and it takes an ability to stop and wonder about what everyone else is apparently skipping over to catch them, the ability to see things 'oddly' out of place is one way I see it. Like, why is everyone proposing new ways to accelerate resource consumption as the way to solve the accelerating shortfalls due to resource exhaustion? It's a kind of an obvious question, that apparently everyone thinks someone else must have answered so it can't be 'important' to ask themselves... phil From: Orlando Leibovitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity 2 Orlando here, I agree with the conclusions of the article and with your analysis. We all (most of us) have sudden insight from time to time. What I want to know is where the really original, genius type insight comes from. What is it that allows Newton or Einstein or Picasso to see something essential that no one has seen or understood before? O Phil Henshaw wrote: On reading Lehrer's article I'm impressed how far the neuroscience is getting, as well as pleased that the direct imaging of the physical process of 'sudden insight' seems to correspond so closely to what I described based on the necessities of developmental processes in general.That all reports seem to agree, as Lehrer described Jung-Beeman's observations, that the 'trick' to sudden insight seems to be to thoroughly explore a question and come to a real impasse in thinking first, reducing your question to a complete unknown, and then defocus your attention and let the parts of the brain that are more widely connected go to work on their own. The particular observation that a few seconds before the 'ah ha' moment there is a sharp increase in 'gamma rhythm', thought to indicate the 'binding' of neurons into a new network, and associated with a particular location. perfectly describes the emergence by developmental growth of a new complex system observable in the animated buzz of local neural activity required to create a MRI blood flow hot spot. Then. on making the missing cognitive connection across the impasse resolved, our mind says Oh sure,.. that should have been obvious all along. What's so odd is that we should so depreciate the value of the major preceding effort and value of reducing the problem to an impasse in the first place, though. That's what seems to me to precisely locate where we then needed to switch to freely searching the universe of our experience in order to make the missing connections. and a perfectly good reason once resolved to suddenly make a huge amount of sense and give unusual immediate satisfaction. No if we could only do that with the glaring contradictions of the world around us. Phil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:24 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity The study of individual events is of the accumulative creative processes of development. I'm not sure what makes us think creativity happens in a 'flash' without preceding and following long chains of accumulative development, but it's an illusion that it happens bye itself.Maybe the appearance that the flash of insight or creativity happens 'out of the blue' comes from how exploratory processes follow a path that then telegraph where they're headed once they take off, and then getting there is experienced as a sudden confirmation, having the whole path culminate in an instant, or something like that. There are moments where the excitement level rises sharply, for sure, but invariably that is based on a rather long accumulation of digression and digestion, to then also invariably be followed by a rather long accumulative process of completion and connection.There's no reason the middle point should get the credit in my book.The ah ha instant is only a little pleasant flashing thing in the middle of long and complex history of groping around and asking the unanswered questions.Without those fore and aft parts of the exploratory process there'd be nothing to break through and produce the flash as far as I can tell. As to the creative content that you see displayed in the culmination of works of genius, how a scientist's questions or a painter's every brush stroke vibrate with their whole way of seeing the world, you got me. I don't know how that works. Phil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orlando Leibovitz Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] The Brain and Creativity The July 28 2008 issue of the New Yorker contains an article titled
