To me, asking if there is an original idea, is a bit like looking for the big bang: the place where something comes from nothing.
But everything in this world, philosophical, natural, artistic, mathmatic, seems to come from combinations of things. We wouldnt call Water unoriginal for containing oxygen, somehow we put this value on originality though, in human realms.
Perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage to pursuing orginality in an effort to advance the species at great speed?
Gary, there definitely was an advantage "back in the day" - a small handful of human beings likely took some pretty big risks to come up with these innovations, probably using divergent thinking to apply something from one area to another.
There's also just messing something up and then having that turn into art, something I think we experienced a bit together whenever we were brainstorming new songs that weren't quite written. Being sloppy has some advantages, and staying loose helps me be receptive to possible connections I might not otherwise see.
See? And how much wood can ChatGPT chop, compared to a handaxe?
I like the "circles of competence" notion. I enjoy moments where I might be reading an article or book about a new topic and suddenly have an "Aha" moment where something in it overlaps with my current knowledge and paints a more complete picture.
These are special moments. I almost always get these moments from very diverse sources, and I use a lot of mental analogies to make wisdom from one arena make sense in another.
Watch him effortlessly synthesize knowledge across various domains. Marvel as he prolifically produces vast volumes of text on a daily basis. Be amazed as he demonstrates comprehension of many different topics.
It could be said that prior to the emergence of Quantum understanding as signalled by Einstein's famous E=MC2 equation no truly original ideas about the nature of what we are as human beings and the nature of Reality ever appeared in the Western world trapped as it was in the foot notes to Plato paradigm, and more recently since the European Renaissance left-brained thinking as described in The Master & His Emissary.
Curiously enough (but not really) it was the artists who began to explore the paradoxical nature of Quantum Reality.
Visual art is of course an exercise of right-brained "thinking".
You don't think Newton's equivalence of heavenly bodies with earthly bodies was insightful and original? I don't know if I agree with that.
I also think about the brilliant polymathic thinkers of the medieval Islamic world in particular, and I think there was a great deal of truly insightful thinking going on (assuming mass/energy equivalence is profound, unique, and insightful as well).
To me, any kind of simplification (as Newton did with gravity), of classifying two things as one actual thing, is important, unique, and profound in the history of ideas.
This makes me think of two different times in college. One semester I was taking both Art Appreciation and Survey of Civilization at the same time, and it was awesome the way the two courses intersected, and made them both more interesting as a result. The art class was actually harder than the history class, even though I typically like art but not history. But it was super cool taking them together. Even so, I ended up having to withdraw before finishing the semester, and couldn't sell the books back. I came back to school a little while later and had to retake courses to build my GPA back up. This time I took Survey of Civ at the same time as Ancient World Lit, and that was even better! Again, both courses were enhanced by one another, and actually helped me enjoy classes that I was only taking cos I had to. I never retook Art Appreciation, so I was stuck with the book, and kept it a long time because I actually liked it. Anyway, I don't really know if this directly relates to your article as much as I think it does, but it's what I thought of when reading it. Great stuff, keep up the good work!
Same. I loved the history part of art, oddly enough, but the analysis was a pain. I'm like, can't I just enjoy its beauty without having to breakdown the artists motives and use of shading and color? But yeah, having those subjects intersect so well definitely broadened my interests.
Kristen, you reminded me of those days - of analyzing the artist's intention and the time in which they lived, so we could understand why their work came about. You might really enjoy learning about Orozco if you're not already familiar - he was one of the most fascinating artists for me during my art history days, and I was drawn to his social commentary in particular: https://goatfury.substack.com/p/orozco
I asked the question a year ago about whether AI could be creative. In ends up answering your question on whether there are new ideas as well. Long story short... kind of... but it's complicated.
Sorry I don't have more time to dive in deeper. I'm pretty much always near the limits of my bandwidth on a given day, but glad I could hop in for a bit!
I've always loved what Sir Newton said about standing on the shoulders of giants... :-)
Your cousin!
To me, asking if there is an original idea, is a bit like looking for the big bang: the place where something comes from nothing.
But everything in this world, philosophical, natural, artistic, mathmatic, seems to come from combinations of things. We wouldnt call Water unoriginal for containing oxygen, somehow we put this value on originality though, in human realms.
Perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage to pursuing orginality in an effort to advance the species at great speed?
Gary, there definitely was an advantage "back in the day" - a small handful of human beings likely took some pretty big risks to come up with these innovations, probably using divergent thinking to apply something from one area to another.
There's also just messing something up and then having that turn into art, something I think we experienced a bit together whenever we were brainstorming new songs that weren't quite written. Being sloppy has some advantages, and staying loose helps me be receptive to possible connections I might not otherwise see.
Always great to hear you weighing in! <3
See? And how much wood can ChatGPT chop, compared to a handaxe?
I like the "circles of competence" notion. I enjoy moments where I might be reading an article or book about a new topic and suddenly have an "Aha" moment where something in it overlaps with my current knowledge and paints a more complete picture.
These are special moments. I almost always get these moments from very diverse sources, and I use a lot of mental analogies to make wisdom from one arena make sense in another.
Andrew Smith: The Human Version of ChatGPT.
Watch him effortlessly synthesize knowledge across various domains. Marvel as he prolifically produces vast volumes of text on a daily basis. Be amazed as he demonstrates comprehension of many different topics.
Find him here, on Substack!
Come one, come all!
Psh. ChatGPT is the artificial version of Andrew Smith!
That guy can shoot lightning bolts from his eyes.
I heard he has a polar bear carpet at home, but the bear isn't dead - it's just afraid to move.
I think Chuck Norris once challenged Andrew Smith to a game of chess and Andrew won in one move.
Norris legit has a black belt in BJJ, for what it's worth. If nothing else, he's a consistent and dedicated martial artist!
It could be said that prior to the emergence of Quantum understanding as signalled by Einstein's famous E=MC2 equation no truly original ideas about the nature of what we are as human beings and the nature of Reality ever appeared in the Western world trapped as it was in the foot notes to Plato paradigm, and more recently since the European Renaissance left-brained thinking as described in The Master & His Emissary.
Curiously enough (but not really) it was the artists who began to explore the paradoxical nature of Quantum Reality.
Visual art is of course an exercise of right-brained "thinking".
http://www.artandphysics.com
You don't think Newton's equivalence of heavenly bodies with earthly bodies was insightful and original? I don't know if I agree with that.
I also think about the brilliant polymathic thinkers of the medieval Islamic world in particular, and I think there was a great deal of truly insightful thinking going on (assuming mass/energy equivalence is profound, unique, and insightful as well).
To me, any kind of simplification (as Newton did with gravity), of classifying two things as one actual thing, is important, unique, and profound in the history of ideas.
This makes me think of two different times in college. One semester I was taking both Art Appreciation and Survey of Civilization at the same time, and it was awesome the way the two courses intersected, and made them both more interesting as a result. The art class was actually harder than the history class, even though I typically like art but not history. But it was super cool taking them together. Even so, I ended up having to withdraw before finishing the semester, and couldn't sell the books back. I came back to school a little while later and had to retake courses to build my GPA back up. This time I took Survey of Civ at the same time as Ancient World Lit, and that was even better! Again, both courses were enhanced by one another, and actually helped me enjoy classes that I was only taking cos I had to. I never retook Art Appreciation, so I was stuck with the book, and kept it a long time because I actually liked it. Anyway, I don't really know if this directly relates to your article as much as I think it does, but it's what I thought of when reading it. Great stuff, keep up the good work!
I think it relates quite a bit, and that sort of learning is exactly what I enjoy the most! That crossover gives you so much insight.
Also: I loved my art history classes!
Same. I loved the history part of art, oddly enough, but the analysis was a pain. I'm like, can't I just enjoy its beauty without having to breakdown the artists motives and use of shading and color? But yeah, having those subjects intersect so well definitely broadened my interests.
Kristen, you reminded me of those days - of analyzing the artist's intention and the time in which they lived, so we could understand why their work came about. You might really enjoy learning about Orozco if you're not already familiar - he was one of the most fascinating artists for me during my art history days, and I was drawn to his social commentary in particular: https://goatfury.substack.com/p/orozco
Thanks, I'll give it a read!
New ideas are rejected by the present.
1. They are uncomfortable.
2. They don't give "us" what we want.
3. They are expressed for a future that must acquired the taste for them.
Ergo, the comforting, but wrong, wins on in the short term.
I know you did not ask for it but I am telling you anyway.
From Africa. But the same pattern is every where. Sorry if I did not make this clear my fault.
On another note: my Sci-Fri story will be finished at 18:00.
I asked the question a year ago about whether AI could be creative. In ends up answering your question on whether there are new ideas as well. Long story short... kind of... but it's complicated.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/can-ai-be-creative
In fact the early hominids knew when the best areas were. They planned with tools to make other tools. I have some early American examples.
Early hominids from America?
Ian, I just checked out your piece on Anthropomorphizing dogs. It's good! I like it.
Sorry I don't have more time to dive in deeper. I'm pretty much always near the limits of my bandwidth on a given day, but glad I could hop in for a bit!