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
The Eureka Hunt: Why Do Good Ideas Come To Us When They Do. See
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/28/080728fa_fact_lehrer
for an abstract.
Although the article talks about human insight I think it touches on
human creativity. I am interested in anyone's description (definition)
of creativity and a comparison of creativity in art and science. I
would also appreciate any thoughts about the creative differences
and/or similarities that may exist in different cultures.
My own feeling is that creativity, for example, in visual art and in
theoretical physics contains the same attributes. Einstein was as much
an artist as a physicist. I realize theoretical physics must deal with
the "real world" but the process of original discovery seems the same
to me.
O
--
Orlando Leibovitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.orlandoleibovitz.com <http://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
--
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
