Ben: To publish your ideas
in academic journals, you need to ground them in the existing research literature, not in your own personal introspective observations.
Big mistake. Think what would have happened if Freud had omitted the 40-odd examples of slips in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (if I've got the right book!) The scientific heavyweights are the people who are heavily grounded. The big difference between Darwin and Wallace is all those examples/research, and not the creative idea.
And what I didn't explain in my simple, but I believe important, two-stage theory of creative development is that there's an immense psychological resistance to moving onto the second stage. You have enough psychoanalytical understanding, I think, to realise that the unusual length of your reply to me may possibly be a reflection of that resistance and an inner conflict. The resistance occurs inpart because you have to privilege a normally underderprivileged level of the mind - the level that provides and seeks actual, historical examples of generalisations, as opposed to the normally more privileged level that provides hypothetical, made-up examples . Look at philosophers and you will see virtually an entire profession/field that has not moved beyond providing hypothetical examples. It's much harder to deal in actual examples/ evidence - things that have actually happened - because they take longer to locate in memory. You have to be patient while your brain drags them out. But you can normally make up examples almost immediately. (If only Richard's massive parallel, cerebral computation were true!)
But BTW an interesting misunderstanding on your part is that evidence here means *introspective* observations. Freud's evidence for the unconscious consisted entirely of publicly observable events - the slips. You must do similarly for your multiple selves - not tell me, say, how fragmented you feel! Try and produce such evidence & I think you'll find you will rapidly lose enthusiasm for your idea. Stick to the same single, but divided self described with extraordinary psychological consistency by every great religion over 1000's of years and a whole string of humanist psychologists including Freud, - and make sure your AGI has something similar.
P.S. Just recalling a further difference between the original and the creative thinker - the creative one has greater *complexes* of ideas - it usually doesn't take just one idea to produce major creative work, as people often think, but a whole interdependent network of them. That, too, is v. hard.
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=73122427-f045c6
