The Brain and Creativity
Locked
123
123
 
Administrator
|
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 > [hidden email] > [hidden email] > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ann Racuya-Robbins > <[hidden email]>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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Sure. We could also meet at the Mission Café for lunch Wed,
Thurs or Fri next week would work for me. From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith 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 don’t 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.
============================================================ 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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Ann Racuya-Robbins-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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
"Stupid is as stupid does." -- Forrest Gump.
-- Doug Roberts, RTI International [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: The Wisdom of Crowds posits 4 criteria for a crowd to be "wise": ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Great riff... this is what keeps me on FRIAM despite the potential for
irritation and distraction in equal but generous measures...
Keep on riffing... - 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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-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 |
|
|
"People who wish to analyze nature with a reduced understanding of
mathematics must settle for misunderstanding." - Ken Lloyd ;) > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] 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: The Brain and Creativity
|
|
In reply to this post by Ann Racuya-Robbins-2
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote:
> > I think this creative content emerges from two interacting “facts” > qualities of their experience: > > 1. Some people come to such an acceptance and trust in their own > sensibility, you might say their unique or individual sensibility, > that they use it every day and in everything they do. It becomes the > primary means of problem solving, exploring and celebrating life. > > 2. They receive enough positive acceptance and reinforcement from some > others, even a few, even one other in the world. > > Many people who achieve these two qualities of experience are still > ignored and lost to history. > ============================================================ 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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Kenneth Lloyd
"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: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] 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 ============================================================ 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: The Brain and Creativity
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus,
If all of your email messages and all of your wisdom was always ignored, would that be a problem for you? O Marcus G. Daniels wrote: Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: ============================================================ 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: The Brain and Creativity
|
|
Orlando Leibovitz wrote:
> If all of your email messages and all of your wisdom was always > ignored, would that be a problem for you? I'm just responding to what I understood the proposed scenario to be: "A person develops an internal executive process and communicates it to few other people." So the expectation should be that few people will recognize it, or for that matter even know about it, yes? It wasn't a rhetorical question. In contrast, analysts are trained to share some formal systems, and that has the benefit of facilitating precise communication about a certain set of ideas. As you point out, I think reasonably, some may be limited in their thinking by this indoctrination. I would not be surprised if this is holding back scientific progress. For example, because of fast computers, there is now less practical need to find analytical solutions to problems. A computational approach can be more expedient and more flexible. Marcus ============================================================ 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: The Brain and Creativity
|
|
Marcus,
Thanks. I agree. O Marcus G. Daniels wrote: Orlando Leibovitz wrote: ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Kenneth Lloyd
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 ;)
============================================================ 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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Günther Greindl
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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Orlando Leibovitz
A fellow over on the NCC fell into this for a bit, (as, I think, we all
do from time to time). I liked Baez's comment around the eggs. http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/07/causality_in_discrete_models_o.html#c018025 C Orlando Leibovitz wrote: > Marcus, > > If all of your email messages and all of your wisdom was always > ignored, would that be a problem for you? > > O > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: >> Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: >> >>> I think this creative content emerges from two interacting “facts” >>> qualities of their experience: >>> >>> 1. Some people come to such an acceptance and trust in their own >>> sensibility, you might say their unique or individual sensibility, >>> that they use it every day and in everything they do. It becomes the >>> primary means of problem solving, exploring and celebrating life. >>> >>> 2. They receive enough positive acceptance and reinforcement from some >>> others, even a few, even one other in the world. >>> >>> Many people who achieve these two qualities of experience are still >>> ignored and lost to history. >>> >>> >> Why is being ignored a problem? How could they be recognized? >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 > > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > 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 ============================================================ 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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Orlando Leibovitz
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: [hidden email] ; 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: 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-4
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 <[hidden email]> wrote: Everything we do is only a recombination ============================================================ 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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Günther Greindl
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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 > [hidden email] > > 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: The Brain and Creativity 2
|
|
In reply to this post by Ann Racuya-Robbins-2
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote:
> In fact > even in this friam forum I have felt a kind of ridicule (you don’t 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. I suppose ridicule is being ridiculed in this. [grin] Ridicule seems to me to be just another normal human behavior. I suspect it also extends to other animals, which would mean that ridicule is not necessarily a conscious behavior. Systemically, ridicule is probably a form of inertia. It's true that change is the only constant; but there have to be resistances / impedances, forces that dampen the response to spiky stimuli. Ridicule is one of those forces. Some who are ridiculed turn out to be over-zealous advocates of untested or false conjecture. Some, however, turn out to be rock-solid adherents to and seekers of the truth. But just because some true seekers are ridiculed does not mean that ridicule is not useful and true in its own right. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |