cross-posted
http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34638 (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34638)
i started this thread at Wu-Corp as a response to a thread where i got into a heated discussion about the Qur'an and man's inability to 'meet' any of the 'divine' challenges set forth in the Qur'an
this is the main body of that thread - please to be applying the barstool treatment if applicable
**************************
the idea of 'creating things' came up in that thread
in a mythological concept, we are presented with the idea of live beings raised from dirt - 'created'
but what is creativity really?
what does it mean to create something?
if you write a fictional story in which you 'create' characters and 'create' a universe - how does that differ from what we are currently experiencing?
from a objective perspective, it is not impossible to fathom a narrator in your head, and a story in which you are the main character: "and this is the part of the story when you read that post by LHX"
it is beyond the realm of provability, but it is also beyond the realm of disprovability?
if you create a 'fictional' character, what is his relationship to you?
*********
the rest of the thread has some interesting posts
an awesome webcomic exploring this idea:
http://oneoverzero.comicgenesis.com/d/20000827.html
it's exactly 1000 strips long, if you have time i can recommend anybody to read it.
the author is christian btw, but a smart one (except that he's christian)
nice
i just read the first few and i see where it might be going
page loads slow tho
maybe this mirror is faster?
http://www.undefined.net/1/0/
Quote from: LHX on March 21, 2007, 02:23:22 PM
but what is creativity really?
This question is pretty vague, but to me, creativity sometimes is the combination of two previously uncombined ideas.
Quotewhat does it mean to create something?
This question is borderline meaningless. It means whatever the creator
thinks it means.
Quoteif you write a fictional story in which you 'create' characters and 'create' a universe - how does that differ from what we are currently experiencing?
The created characters are not directly influenced by the non-created universe; the creator's mind acts as a mediator.
Quotefrom a objective perspective, it is not impossible to fathom a narrator in your head, and a story in which you are the main character: "and this is the part of the story when you read that post by LHX"
The narrator you speak of is a reactionary one. In a created story, the narrator, in what ever voice is expressed, is omnicient.
does simply writing down Z^2 + C generate the entire Mandelbrot or Julia fractal?
Gaston Julia investigated the properties of these fractals long before the computing power existed to actually plot them.
i've seen physics students walk around with T-shirts ".. and God said <complicated formula for photons or something>, and there was light"
i also think there is not as much of a link between what is generally understood as "creativity" and "the act of creating something", or at least the poster seems to be reading (imho) too much in the similarity between two words.
I might have just stepped in a puddle of stupid, but I don't see how your first three paragraphs relates to the OP.
ok maybe i was taken too much steps in my mind
the example i gave was a part of a discussion i had with another friend, a long time ago (i may invite him over here as well, once he gets back from Peru the bastard)
it relates because the OP was (partly) about whether by telling a story you create an alternative universe or not.
which is similar to asking whether writing down a mathematical formula implies the graph of it, or the sort of natural phenomenon it describes.
the answer is most probably "no", btw.
in the 1/0 cartoon this issue is addressed when the narrator was accused of being cruel because the characters were suffering (or dying or something), and then the narrator, felt, that, if this was indeed the case he should make up for his sin so he told a story about "the perfect universe in which every living being led perfectly happy fulfilling lives ever after"
on the other hand i might have stepped into that puddle and this was entirely not what the OP was about.
also i understand i'm not particularly helping in applying the barstool, just giving my thoughts
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 02:56:40 PM
The narrator you speak of is a reactionary one. In a created story, the narrator, in what ever voice is expressed, is omnicient.
but it is not beyond imagining a omniscient narrator's voice
(what was that will ferrell movie?)
creation is the act of combining 2 previously uncombined ideas?
but it is not actually the combining that is creativity right? - it is the subsequent 'thing' which emerges that is the creation yes?
From wikipedia:
Quote
Creativity (or creativeness) is a mental process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts, or new associations between existing ideas or concepts. From a scientific point of view, the products of creative thought (sometimes referred to as divergent thought) are usually considered to have both originality and appropriateness. An alternative, more everyday conception of creativity is that it is simply the act of making something new.
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 02:56:40 PM
Quote from: LHX on March 21, 2007, 02:23:22 PM
but what is creativity really?
This question is pretty vague, but to me, creativity sometimes is the combination of two previously uncombined ideas.
Is creativity the ability to combine? It seems that the result is important, so creativity is the ability to create? but then: is getting a child creative? Is creating a hole in the ground, when you fall out of a tree creative?
So I should stop referring to the bathroom as the Cradle of Creativity?
Quote from: Bo on March 21, 2007, 04:32:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 02:56:40 PM
Quote from: LHX on March 21, 2007, 02:23:22 PM
but what is creativity really?
This question is pretty vague, but to me, creativity sometimes is the combination of two previously uncombined ideas.
Is creativity the ability to combine? It seems that the result is important, so creativity is the ability to create? but then: is getting a child creative? Is creating a hole in the ground, when you fall out of a tree creative?
what do you mean by "getting" a child?
you know, when the Stork comes and drops a bundle of joy down the chimney, complete with Owner's Manual and a lifetime supply of disposable diapers.
:lulz:
what, doesn't that happen on your planet?
oh, and
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g115/vexati0n/threadruined.gif)
Back to the idea of combining. So, under the premise that creating is putting 2 previously uncombined ideas together, does that mean that at some point creativity ceases to exist? This of course going under the additional premise that we live in a world of finite resources. But, then again, are ideas a finite source?
questions creating questions ITT
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 21, 2007, 05:07:20 PM
Back to the idea of combining. So, under the premise that creating is putting 2 previously uncombined ideas together, does that mean that at some point creativity ceases to exist? This of course going under the additional premise that we live in a world of finite resources. But, then again, are ideas a finite source?
questions creating questions ITT
heheh I'm going to attempt to type this post without using a question mark.
Referencing the wikipedia entry, I think the creativity is creating a
new association between the new ideas. Since that association itself can be the input for new combinations and associations, we will never run out.
The number of new ideas you could have in 1907 is far less than the number of new ideas you could have in 2007. There are entirely new things (internet, strap-on dildos) to be combined, all of which are the product of older juxtapositions.
in the OP i discussed creating fiction as a form of legitimate creation
so i am thinking it is not finite
because if it is - you just create more space and new things to create/combine
i am becoming less convinced that people 'create' anything physical
it all seems to be a shifting around of matter into a new form
but fiction is a different story
between my ears, i can ressurect the dead and give them cannon arms
But isn't there a limited amount of "stuff" that we can conceive of? Aren't our conceptions fueled by our experiences, the input? Can you create something out of nothing?
I had a hard time responding to this if only because there were sooo many questions in the OP.
First, creativity and creation are the result of an action, a direct action, that identifies something as being MADE out of something else.
Second, in so far as mythology and fiction versus real life, well, I believe that that depends on the beholder. Sometimes you have things happen to you (tragedy, abuse, great good fortune that you didn't work for) that seems so surreal, it's like it's someone else's life. However, you are still experiencing it in real time. Does fiction move on during a lifetime of experience such that it can replace "real life"? Perhaps for some, it does. But I pretty much doubt it for all, since escapism is really sought-after in present day, modern society.
Third, shit, I have none, I think. Maybe later. :lol:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 21, 2007, 05:36:06 PM
But isn't there a limited amount of "stuff" that we can conceive of? Aren't our conceptions fueled by our experiences, the input? Can you create something out of nothing?
Where is this "nothing"?
It seems that conflation alerts are my main role today.
First off, I said in my first response that creation is sometimes the combination of two different ideas.
Because, of course, some people here have mixed up the act of intellectual creation (I wrote a story) and physical creation (I built a house).
yes, the two blend in many interesting ways, but they are essentially different concepts.
I chose to go with intellectual, because that's what I thought LHX was getting at.
And, in response to a previous LHX post, While the physical thing that is made (story, poem, sculpture) is called a "creation", I feel that it is more clearly defined as a communication of a creation. The artist already created it in his mind, and the medium is simply the best way they could let other people know about the creation.
you could say that all creativity is creating something out of nothing, since it's usually the case that an important creation is one that fills a need where currently there is nothing.
Let me try it this way.
We conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly. So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying. Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig. If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept?
But it's always out of SOMETHING, though. Rarely is there NOTHING to begin with. We live in a world full of stuff. Stuff fills our brain, sits on our desks, on our streets, in our brains.
There is no nothing. Ever. Even space is SOMETHING.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 21, 2007, 05:45:23 PM
Let me try it this way.
We conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly. So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying. Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig. If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept?
I would venture a No.
Stop it. "Nothing" is an abstract concept of the abscence of intended things.
Get back to "creativity".
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 05:53:41 PM
Stop it. "Nothing" is an abstract concept of the abscence of intended things.
Get back to "creativity".
Yin, yang, yo.
Bullshit.
That metaphor doesn't even apply.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 21, 2007, 05:45:23 PM
Let me try it this way.
We conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly. So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying. Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig. If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept?
The space shuttle is "flying pork"!
Wokka wokka wokka!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 21, 2007, 05:45:23 PM
Let me try it this way.
We conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly. So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying. Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig. If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept?
I agree with Jenne. No, we couldn't have thought of that, just as King George couldn't have thought up the Goatse man.
Just to tag in a parallel discussion, Terrence McKenna was worried that we
are running out of possible combinations. I mean, at this point every story you've ever heard is just some variation of an older story. Every invention is just an old idea in new clothes. He thought that unless we start coming up with some
truly novel ideas, we're going to hit a brick wall. I disagree, but I thought I should throw it out there.
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 05:56:10 PM
Bullshit.
That metaphor doesn't even apply.
Then why is everyone asking if it's creation if it's out of NOTHING?
That's the whole premise of Creationist Theories on how we came to be.
Sounds ludicrous when put in the human experience paradigm.
As for the creation of fiction out of nothing, I don't think that exists. For you need to know what you are creating and how (words, language, etc.) in order to do it.
While that may be true, it still doesn't explain why you brought up Taoism.
One being the flip side of the other...or having to coincide with the other for the other to exist.
I'm not a beholder of such theory, but that was what seemed to be the theme going at the time. You said to QUIT IT! and I said, well, they're yin-yanging right now. IN the discussion.
To me, it's disingenuous to think you as a human can create something out of nothing.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on March 21, 2007, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 21, 2007, 05:45:23 PM
Let me try it this way.
We conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly. So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying. Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig. If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept?
I agree with Jenne. No, we couldn't have thought of that, just as King George couldn't have thought up the Goatse man.
Just to tag in a parallel discussion, Terrence McKenna was worried that we are running out of possible combinations. I mean, at this point every story you've ever heard is just some variation of an older story. Every invention is just an old idea in new clothes. He thought that unless we start coming up with some truly novel ideas, we're going to hit a brick wall. I disagree, but I thought I should throw it out there.
im sure you will agree that a lot of the solutions to McKennas dilemmas are nothing more than a perspective shift
it possible (probable?) that we already ran out of ideas but only now we are noticing it
the brick wall is something that the individual has to overcome and once enuf individuals overcome it - it will take on the appearance of a civilization-wide phenomenon
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 02:56:40 PM
Quote from: LHX on March 21, 2007, 02:23:22 PM
but what is creativity really?
This question is pretty vague, but to me, creativity sometimes is the combination of two previously uncombined ideas.
Quotewhat does it mean to create something?
This question is borderline meaningless. It means whatever the creator thinks it means.
Quoteif you write a fictional story in which you 'create' characters and 'create' a universe - how does that differ from what we are currently experiencing?
The created characters are not directly influenced by the non-created universe; the creator's mind acts as a mediator.
Quotefrom a objective perspective, it is not impossible to fathom a narrator in your head, and a story in which you are the main character: "and this is the part of the story when you read that post by LHX"
The narrator you speak of is a reactionary one. In a created story, the narrator, in what ever voice is expressed, is omnicient.
You're assuming a lot here, I think, L.
Does creation count as creation if it is done within the methodology of a previous system or school of thought? Or is just application of previous ideas to materials and objects not considered before? Does this mean that creativity comes from creating new forms and methods of style, not in the actual content of what is made?
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2007, 09:16:52 AM
Does creation count as creation if it is done within the methodology of a previous system or school of thought? Or is just application of previous ideas to materials and objects not considered before? Does this mean that creativity comes from creating new forms and methods of style, not in the actual content of what is made?
You might have an important point here. If you're really not adding anything to the methodology, you're doing nothing else then applying the rules. (it takes some talent or insight though to apply the rules in a good way). I think however in practice it is difficult not to add something to a method.
for example: early (say mozart-age) sonata's follow strict rules. At that time there where a lot of composers who just applied these rules and are therefore completely forgotten. only those who added something extra (like mozart himself) are remembered. It is tempting to say that these forgotten composers where much less creative then the remembered ones.
Yeah. I'm trying not to convince myself that I'm right here, but it does seem to be something to consider...obviously, if you combine and play with methodologies, well, then you may be onto discovering some very interesting things...
Quote from: Baron von Hoopla on March 21, 2007, 11:33:10 PM
You're assuming a lot here, I think, L.
You tease. Gimme the follow up, yo!
Quote from: Bo on March 22, 2007, 10:28:54 AM
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2007, 09:16:52 AM
Does creation count as creation if it is done within the methodology of a previous system or school of thought? Or is just application of previous ideas to materials and objects not considered before? Does this mean that creativity comes from creating new forms and methods of style, not in the actual content of what is made?
You might have an important point here. If you're really not adding anything to the methodology, you're doing nothing else then applying the rules. (it takes some talent or insight though to apply the rules in a good way). I think however in practice it is difficult not to add something to a method.
for example: early (say mozart-age) sonata's follow strict rules. At that time there where a lot of composers who just applied these rules and are therefore completely forgotten. only those who added something extra (like mozart himself) are remembered. It is tempting to say that these forgotten composers where much less creative then the remembered ones.
I hate to break out the semantics card, but I think we're reaching the point of figuring out what "creation" is being defined as.
Is it the product of changing one thing into another? That is, I can "create" a pastrami sandwich, but is that being "creative"? I'd tend to think that most people would say there's a difference between how those two uses of "create" are being used.
Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2007, 12:20:01 PM
Is it the product of changing one thing into another? That is, I can "create" a pastrami sandwich, but is that being "creative"? I'd tend to think that most people would say there's a difference between how those two uses of "create" are being used.
Based on the discussion so far I think a definition of creativity must include:
- The creation process is conscious and/or intentional (to rule out accidental creations, which can be fun, but don't seem creative to me)
- The creation must include more then just an application of the methodology would imply (to rule out the pastrami sandwich, unless you do something special with it)
You know? I think this relates to the RAW concept of "information" in a message; that is, the unpredictability of a thing.
Perhaps "Creativity" can be said to be the amount of Information in a "thing", be it an essay, a piece of music, a sculpture, etc.
If it's predictable, it's not very creative. If it's unpredictable, it's highly creative.
And doesn't predictability relate back to order?
o_O
OSNAP.
However, I could see how an immense amount of order can be seen as unpredictable, kind of like if a coin came up heads 200 times in a row, or some of those art installations that seem like it was done by someone with OCD. You start to expect a bit of disorder, and the lack of it becomes unpredictable.
Obviously that would explicitly have to be in a case where disorder was expected due to past experience. Which is true for disorder and order anyway, as proven with creations/patterns that quickly become stale and well recognized.
Yeah, but it can also be a combination of the 2.
I mean, the 12 bar Blues has been around for at least 100 years, but it's what goes on inside of the form that makes it creative.
True. I do feel the time aspect of disorder and order has been really overlooked, however. Its totally essential, since disorder and order are not static properties but are bound in time and subject to change. I'm not sure how to build on that, however.
This is not to put words in your mouth, first of all.
To me, it sounds like you're saying Order + Time = Disorder, and Disorder + Time = Order. Which is interesting.
Let me know if I have my head up my ass, please.
Kind of. Not as such. Thats part of it, certainly. Given enough time, it seems any ordered system will become disordered and any disordered system can be recognized as ordered. If the pattern takes 30 billion years to repeat, its going to look disordered until the point it can be recognized. On the other hand, any ordered system can fall apart as pretty much everything in the Universe is temporary.
Time is an intrinsic factor in how we understand disorder and order. Because these two are not traits in the sense we normally understand them we can only talk about how they are now, or were. If something has no past, it can't be ordered at all and so its naturally going to be disordered. Something I think could probably have a past and be disordered too, but I'm not certain.
This is very on the fly and intuitive thinking here, by the way. So I may be wrong. But I feel its something worth exploring.
I like where you're going with this Time business.
The only way we can judge the predictability of something is to notice what changes over time. If we don't have a past event to compare, it's unredictibility jumps to 100%, which could also be called "meaningless".
This also is touching on the "brain makes patterns" idea. Perhaps the idea of creativity is also related to the amount of patterns a person can identify?
Right now I'm thinking of games of chance, and how because everyone knows such things are determined at random, they would actually freak the hell out if a visible pattern emerged, even though in a truly random system that visible pattern has as much chance of emerging as anything else.
Take lotto. A long-ago friend of mine in Seattle once bought a lotto ticket with the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6. His friend swore up and down that he was a fucking idiot for picking those numbers, because there was no way in hell they'd ever come up. But they could, just as easily as any other selection of six numbers between 1 and 54 you care to make. But can you imagine the massive uproar that would ensue if any state lotto *did* come up 1-2-3-4-5-6. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE RANDOM! WE SEE A PATTERN IN THESE NUMBERS, SO IT CAN'T BE RANDOM!
Disorder that looks orderly...that's giving me a headache. No, wait, it's my sinuses. Nevermind.
Yeah. I'm just not sure how to proceed with it all, to be honest. Like I said, it seems....obvious. Maybe too obvious. But its never discussed. And like I said, I haven't sat down and analyzed it in any great depth either.
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2007, 01:40:38 PM
True. I do feel the time aspect of disorder and order has been really overlooked, however. Its totally essential, since disorder and order are not static properties but are bound in time and subject to change. I'm not sure how to build on that, however.
I think order and disorder are not even welldefined without a notion of time, for indeed the are inherent dynamical properties. For example if I have a photograph of a collection dots nicely ordered in a grid. this however does not tell me that the system is ordered, since all dots could be flying in different directions at different speeds. Order and disorder are defined by the predictability of a system both over space and time.
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2007, 02:10:50 PM
Yeah. I'm just not sure how to proceed with it all, to be honest. Like I said, it seems....obvious. Maybe too obvious. But its never discussed. And like I said, I haven't sat down and analyzed it in any great depth either.
Well, it could have something to do with the common perception of Time as "something else", and almost separate from the Universe.
But modern physics has shown us that 4-dimentional space-time seems to be the best model we currently have, so whenever you talk about a "thing" in the universe, you're automatically talking about time, as well.
Did that make any sense at all?
You could also talk about disorder as the number of degrees of freedom your system has. (and a degree of freedom is then defined as 'a property that can change over time') The more freedom, the more disorder in general. (this is somewhat like an enthropy).
Bo is hitting nails, up there.
i have some catching up to do ITT
Here's the psychological perspective reduced to tard bites.
The article is 10 pages long, and talks about feelings, so I parsed it for you sockfuckers.
QuoteResearch suggests that creative people make more mistakes than their less imaginative peers.
QuoteHumor greases the wheels of creativity. When you're joking around, you're freer to consider any possibility--after all, you're only kidding. Having fun helps you disarm the inner censor that all too quickly condemns your ideas as ludicrous.
QuoteOne of the greatest creativity killers, however, is more subtle and so deeply rooted in our culture that it is hardly noticed. It has to do with time.
Children more naturally than adults enter that ultimate state of creativity called flow. In flow, time does not matter; there is only the timeless moment at hand. It is a state that is more comfortable for children than adults, who are more conscious of the passage of time.
QuoteBrain specialists tell us that the brain-wave pattern of a preadolescent child in the waking state is rich in theta waves. These waves are much rarer in adults, occurring most frequently during the hypnagogic state--a twilight zone bordering on sleep, where dreams and reality mix.
Thus a child's waking consciousness is comparable to a state of mind adults know mainly during these dreamlike moments as they fall asleep. This may be one reason a child's reality naturally embraces the zany and the bizarre, the silly and the terrifying. A child's waking awareness is more open to fresh perceptions and wild ideas.
With puberty, the child's brain changes to resemble an adult's. The theta brain waves and the wildly creative flair of the child begin to fade. Some people. however. continue to tap the richness of theta states later in life. Thomas Edison put the hypnagogic state to work when he was an adult. He had an unusual technique for doing this: He would doze off in a chair with his arms and hands draped over the armrests. In each hand he held a ball bearing. Below each hand on the floor were two pie plates. When he drifted into the state between waking and steeping, his hands would naturally relax and the ball bearings would drop on the plate. Awakened by the noise, Edison would immediately make notes on any ideas that had come to him.
Quote"Creative people are committed to risk. The creative person always walks two steps into the darkness. Everybody can see what's in the light .. the real heroes delve in the dark." -Benny Golson
Source (http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19920301-000031.html)
:boot:
(this is my reply on the entire thread so far, in some sort of order)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 21, 2007, 05:07:20 PM
Back to the idea of combining. So, under the premise that creating is putting 2 previously uncombined ideas together, does that mean that at some point creativity ceases to exist? This of course going under the additional premise that we live in a world of finite resources. But, then again, are ideas a finite source?
even if it were, combinations of finite elements can still be infinite.
for example, you can write an infinite amount of books with our finite 26-character alphabet.
combine this with the shortening/compression power of symbolism, and i don't think there's anything to worry about ;-)
QuoteCan you create something out of nothing?
this is a very different question, compared to the previous creating a new something out of old somethings.
the discussion is a difficult philosophical one. the answer is pretty much "yes". look up "emergence" on wikipedia.
QuoteWe conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly. So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying. Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig. If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept?
yes this is possible. again i refer you to "emergence" on wikipedia.
in this case, the new idea is part of the sum of its elements. "pigs", "flying" leads to "pigs flying". addition. emergence is when the entire combination of a system of elements gives rise to a property that cannot be explained as the sum or difference of its parts.
wikipedia gives an elegant geometric example of two right-angled triangles. one of the properties of these triangles is that they have two sides (also called "orientable"). now, if we use these triangles, play with them and glue them together in the right way, we can create a moebius-strip, which has only one side (non-orientable). this is a new property that emerges from the system, et cannot be explained as the sum or difference of the properties of the triangles themselves.
(weird example, i know, but i thought it was cool)
also i once read about a computer program that was actually being taught how to be creative. it was basically trying out a whole lot of different solutions to a certain problem it was given, but it was guided in its search for optimality by some sort of "novelty" factor, which depended on how "surprising" a certain solution was.
(where "surprising" was defined by how well another computer program was able to predict what the first program was doing, sort-of)
this kinda ties in with that "unpredictability" thing LMNO said RAW talked about.
btw unpredictability, order and "entropy" (not the physical entropy, but the statistical one, how much information does a message carry) are tricky subjects.
on the one hand, white noise carries the theoretical maximum of information and is completely unpredictable, yet it is boring as fuck and not very creative.
and this is where CHAOS ties in, because for something to be "interesting" you need the right balance between order and disorder. just being completely random, or just being ridigly ordered is not enough.
Quote from: triple zero on March 22, 2007, 10:34:55 PM
btw unpredictability, order and "entropy" (not the physical entropy, but the statistical one, how much information does a message carry) are tricky subjects.
on the one hand, white noise carries the theoretical maximum of information and is completely unpredictable, yet it is boring as fuck and not very creative.
and this is where CHAOS ties in, because for something to be "interesting" you need the right balance between order and disorder. just being completely random, or just being ridigly ordered is not enough.
It also depends on how you look at it. From the Fourier (look it up) point of view white noise is the most ordered state you can have. So perhaps something is interesting if it has disorder in any representation?
but your right that it is not just the amount of information that is important; it is the unpredictability of the information.
this is true. i didn't want to mention the Fourier thing though cause i don't know quite what to make of it.
if you have for example some highly compressed data, say an mp3-file, the data itself looks like white noise, but it contains lots of interesting information if you decode it properly. that the Fourier transform dual of this white noise looks boring as fuck ... is in fact not true :D while the magnitude of the Fourier coefficients might be all maxed out, all the information resides in the phase of the coefficients--which still look like white noise BTW.
I just wanted to remind you of the Eristic/Aneristic Illusions.
The above is a perfect example. What we are calling order, or disorder, is dependent upon how the individual is viewing it.
The amount of upredictable things in a message seems to be dependent on what the individual is predicting.
indeed!
so how would that tie in with the information/novelty/surprise == creativity notion?
so basically, creativity is in the eye of the beholder
that eye of the beholder is getting so crowded these days i was wondering if we could cram in any more.. and yes.
This would be a pretty good explaination of cultural trends, and how some genres "resurface" for the young'uns, while the elders think it's shite.
The whole punk/emo thing for example. Those who knew The Clash and Stiff little fingers thought that Green Day sucked, those who were heavy into the DC Dischord scene gagged at MCR, etc etc.
Creativity seems to be a relatively subjective notion. if someone was speaking Chinese to me, the syllables coming out of their mouth would be completely unpredictable. However, if I step back and say, "that sounds like an Asian language," then it's completely predictable to hear a stream of Asian language-type sounds coming from that person.