Human Creativity and Imagination

[Samadhi23]

Ta Lu

Samadhi23

Ta Lu

there's no limit, there is only the staleness of ideas when humans decide to say "hey lets remake old ideas" but not really revamp it.

Can you think of a single example - in your life, in history, whatever - that would demonstrate this lack of a limit then?

every day I am at this job. They require me to have a degree. Yet I have nog uses it and and suggestion to innovate or enhance ha been shot down. Limit it not just on the individual themselves but on the individual by others. The simple phase "you can't. We can't do that or because we've always done it this way or protocols do not allow us to do it that way."

That is true but completely off topic to what I am driving towards.

If there are not OUTSIDE deterrents to your imagination, is it unlimited? If so, please give an example? If not, then what are your thoughts on Plato's Forms or Natural Law?

[Mookimi]

Being able to conceptualize something with no correlation may not be the best way to describe creativity and imagination. As others have said, we have the potential to rearrange information absorbed over the course of a lifetime and produce an output as an artistic expression. From birth we are like a sponge; it is impossible to draw from nothingness since it is an absence of anything. It is not a limitation to conceptualize using existing information in our heads but may be the only way we know how.

We cannot imply that creativity and imagination is the ability to form an idea from absolutely nothing. Hm. This reminds me of conservation law in physics.

However!

That is not true for nature. You have probably heard the phrase, "No two snowflakes are the same." It seems that nature may be able to create something from nothing since it does not require input to produce a unique output. Nature's creations are driven more or less by purpose and the building blocks are so mind-boggling that it does seem to have no correlation. Ah, the mysteries of life.

---

Instead, should unlimited creativity and imagination of the human mind be proven by the simple test of whether something is unique in the known world? If that were the case, would it not be fair to say that, any creation by two or more individuals is proof of unlimited creativity and imagination, since no single individual could have possibly produced the same outcome on their own?

If ten people came together and drew a line on a random spot on the floor would the combined output not constitute a creation from nothing?

Something to think about.

[Armchair Academic]

Suicidesoldier#1

Kyojy

As a scientifically minded individual, it's very clear that there is a limit to imagination. We have a finite brain, contained in a finite volume comprised of finite neurons. From this, we naturally can conclude that there are only a finite number of configurations that these neurons can be in, and thus, a finite number of ideas that can be expressed by even the entire collective of humanity put together. This is more of a natural limitation governed by physical laws, and probably not the philosophical inquiries that you were looking for.

What about the fact that our brain changes over time and is imperfect; the synapses between brain cells could be different as well. xp

While our brains do change with time and such, there is only a finite amount of time as we currently understand it. Even though the number of ideas we can physically express over time is astronomically large, it is still limited. Even if our brains were capable of new changes and thoughts given every passing planck second, there are still a finite amount of these fundamental time units. Perhaps I am being too literal, but at least in a physical sense, there is indeed a natural limit to the human imagination.

[Armchair Academic]

Samadhi23

Kyojy

As a scientifically minded individual, it's very clear that there is a limit to imagination. We have a finite brain, contained in a finite volume comprised of finite neurons. From this, we naturally can conclude that there are only a finite number of configurations that these neurons can be in, and thus, a finite number of ideas that can be expressed by even the entire collective of humanity put together. This is more of a natural limitation governed by physical laws, and probably not the philosophical inquiries that you were looking for.

You seem to be correlating a specific brain configuration to a specific idea, but the brain really doesn't store data like that. For example, both Bob and Jane might have a brain configuration in their right anterior lobe which we would describe as an ABFAE configuration. Bob and Jane might also witness the same event. However, Bob might use his ABFAE configuration to store that information; while Jane might be using ABFAE to store something else and so uses DAFAE instead to store that event. And that's before neuroplasticity comes into play.

I'm still with you on the premise, just not sure we can use this description as the proof of it.

I do understand what you are saying, but I am more being a literal stickler, if you will. Even if a brain the size of the universe existed, the properties of that brain are still finite (volume, density, mass, configuration). Jane and Bob, despite using the same configurations or different ones, will witness the same even from different vantage points, and thus always have a slightly different interpretation of these events. You can take into account their vantage points, and then (in theory) place each of them at every possible location in the universe for viewing said events. Eventually, after every possibility is exhausted, they will both, in their respective minds, come to every single possible conclusion about that event.

Now, after doing this, Jane and Bob may still have differing views yet. However, the amount of differing in there views is still finite; you could not get them to come up with any more novel views from which to differ with one another. Complete said theoretical experiment for all 7 billion people on planet Earth, and you would indeed come up with a large number of possible views for any one given event, but a large number is still not infinite. You could have all 7 billion humans view every single event to come from every possible way of viewing every event and you would still only come up with a finite number of interpretations for every single given event viewed from every single possible vantage point. Like I said, I am being particularly picky, but I think in the strictest sense, there is a limit; not that we'll ever reach it, or anything like that.

[Samadhi23]

Very good ideas sir; thank you.

Mookimi

Being able to conceptualize something with no correlation may not be the best way to describe creativity and imagination. As others have said, we have the potential to rearrange information absorbed over the course of a lifetime and produce an output as an artistic expression. From birth we are like a sponge; it is impossible to draw from nothingness since it is an absence of anything. It is not a limitation to conceptualize using existing information in our heads but may be the only way we know how.

Love the thoughts. It still doesn't let us out of the potential conclusions of the "do see" model, however. Even if the only true limitation is one of our knowledge; then that still leaves us with how did we get knowledge of certain concepts that don't appear in nature. Even if we hold this as our chosen theory, the results still seem to support something like Natural Law or Plato's Forms as a necessary ingredient.

Mookimi

We cannot imply that creativity and imagination is the ability to form an idea from absolutely nothing. Hm. This reminds me of conservation law in physics.

However!

That is not true for nature. You have probably heard the phrase, "No two snowflakes are the same." It seems that nature may be able to create something from nothing since it does not require input to produce a unique output. Nature's creations are driven more or less by purpose and the building blocks are so mind-boggling that it does seem to have no correlation. Ah, the mysteries of life.

At least in this example, however, there is input (fluctuations of temperature and humidity as the flake is forming). That said, I think the direction you are heading here is a good one. Just not sure if it is enough in and of itself to not rely on the "do see" conclusions at some point in the process.

Mookimi

Instead, should unlimited creativity and imagination of the human mind be proven by the simple test of whether something is unique in the known world? If that were the case, would it not be fair to say that, any creation by two or more individuals is proof of unlimited creativity and imagination, since no single individual could have possibly produced the same outcome on their own?

If ten people came together and drew a line on a random spot on the floor would the combined output not constitute a creation from nothing?

Something to think about.

I think the only way to utilize this frame of thought is to mix abstraction levels. Like we can look at the physical level, and (assuming pens for the writing utensil) this would clearly not be a creative process because we are merely moving ink from pens to the floor. Or if we look at it more abstractly, we can accept the random creation at the end as something, but then that something is in turn the product of the ten randoms involved. It seems to only really work as a proof if we skip from "there is nothing" to "there's this" without involving the intermediary steps or otherwise acknowledging the jump in levels.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Kyojy

Suicidesoldier#1

Kyojy

As a scientifically minded individual, it's very clear that there is a limit to imagination. We have a finite brain, contained in a finite volume comprised of finite neurons. From this, we naturally can conclude that there are only a finite number of configurations that these neurons can be in, and thus, a finite number of ideas that can be expressed by even the entire collective of humanity put together. This is more of a natural limitation governed by physical laws, and probably not the philosophical inquiries that you were looking for.

What about the fact that our brain changes over time and is imperfect; the synapses between brain cells could be different as well. xp

While our brains do change with time and such, there is only a finite amount of time as we currently understand it. Even though the number of ideas we can physically express over time is astronomically large, it is still limited. Even if our brains were capable of new changes and thoughts given every passing planck second, there are still a finite amount of these fundamental time units. Perhaps I am being too literal, but at least in a physical sense, there is indeed a natural limit to the human imagination.

But it's potentially unlimited; granted there's a given time frame to be creative, but there aren't limits to what we can do in that time. xp

[ErroneousPsyche]

Samadhi23

ErroneousPsyche

I would say we are limited in that our individual pieces of knowledge can only be made up of things that we experience. However, the way we can rearrange things is nearly unlimited. Take, for instance the unicorn. Each piece is part of something real and known, but the whole is something new

limited input; unlimited output.

Yeah so far that seems to be the best conclusion I can reach as well.

Not sure if you are familiar with Plato's Forms or the idea of Natural Law; but those are actually the meat of what I'm getting at. Do you accept one of those (or something similar) as the origin on some of our ideas? If not, how do you reconcile them?

I think Plato's forms are completely backwards. We don't call something a chair because of some innate chairness but because it correlates to a collection of things we have called chairs. The forms follow the categorical functions that we find most useful.

I definitely don't agree with the argument that our ideas are striving to match some idealized and perfect form. We see and experience things that are, in our minds, broken down into the most basic parts and concepts that then can be connected and recombined in various ways. Some of which are useful, some aren't. Practical experience teaches how to filter then and use then to our advantage. Some people are better at connecting disparate concepts then others. And, crap, I don't have time to sit and write this... will try to comment more later.

[Daecron]

Yes because when your brain gets to the top your skull grows and so smart brains can get infinite.