There are additional factors at play: - If it isn't eaten, it goes to waste. In other words, both money and effort are lost. We should focus our energy on whoever offers the least resistance. 🙂 - If he refuses to eat what I prepared, it means he is being difficult, because there is no excuse for disliking my cooking. 😠
Their parents lived through the Great Depression, and those lean years stayed with them forever. 😳 We need to make sure our kids eat their fill while food is actually available, because who knows what tomorrow looks like.
louiskrstic, I appreciate the unique perspective, but as you noted, this isn't quite suited for Psychology. This discussion would be more appropriate for Alternative. I will refrain from debating whether creativity stems from spiritual whispers from higher dimensions. At this stage, we aren't investigating the origin of original thought; our current focus is determining if such a mechanism even exists and, if so, its intensity. Should we conclude that it does exist (though current findings offer little encouragement), we will examine its properties from a scientific standpoint rather than a spiritual one.
Rachel Williams18 said:Except it isn't just a feeling. Humans actually tame these insanely powerful, fundamental forces of nature. We harness gravity, play around with magnetism, nuclear force... I could go on forever. Today, we have the power to wipe out the entire planet, build virtual worlds, create AI, and even peer into events happening way outside our own galaxy—stuff at distances that are honestly hard to wrap your head around.
Humans rule this planet, and honestly, without being fake-modest, we can say we are the ruler of whatever space we find ourselves in. That power is undeniable, no matter how we choose to use it.
Our physical size compared to the mind-blowing vastness of space and the raw strength of the forces running the show doesn't change the fact that evolutionary progress is moving forward. Because humans long ago blew past the limits of their environment—which, logically, should have kept us stuck just surviving on basic instincts. "More, stronger, better" is also a natural force, deeply rooted in some mystical, spiritual level of being. Out of all the forces in the known universe, that one is truly the biggest, because it breaks every boundary, growing faster and faster with no beginning and no end...
Way too abstract. You can't really see that through actual facts.
Flawed analysis. Look, humans learn and move forward through experience. First, they saw the power of fire in nature—maybe after some lightning strike set a forest ablaze. Over time, they got a better handle on that force and learned how to use it. It wasn't some sudden "eureka!" moment where an idea just popped into someone's head... the process of mastering fire took years, centuries, maybe even eons. Before anyone ever took flight, they spent ages watching birds. All the great inventors pulled their inspiration and knowledge from what they observed around them, from nature itself.
Look, I just can't get behind that. Seriously. Give me even one actual, relevant example where some guy supposedly invented "something massive" without having a deep grasp of the knowledge passed down before him... or without just straight-up copying nature itself. Like, seriously? You've got those massive Encyclopedia Britannica volumes on the history of science right there—it's all laid out perfectly in order. We're talking everything from guys using animal bones as clubs to landing on the moon, high-tech robotics, splitting atoms, and all that crazy stuff. It's all connected!
I cannot agree with this. Please provide a relevant example where someone invented something massive without having a solid grasp of previous knowledge or without mimicking nature. You have an excellent resource like the "history of science" encyclopedia, which provides a clean chronological definition of progress, ranging from animal bones used as weapons to space travel, advanced robotics, and nuclear fission.
I am highlighting the post by Horz, which argues right from the start that we are arriving at the conclusions regarding the analysis of human creativity.
I would also highlight the post from hollowtrucker77:
hollowtrucker77 said:I assume you're familiar with the concept of reverse engineering?? 🙂 It’s easy for us to look back and trace the development of the hammer, but being on the other side of that timeline... Man, the wheel—people saw round rocks rolling downhill and went, "Hey, that's useful." Fire? Lightning hit a tree somewhere and boom. The spear? Some guy was running from a predator and tripped onto a sharp branch... But being at the very start of that process—to see, to conclude, to experience that moment where a revolutionary concept suddenly crystallizes in your mind... that is almost incomprehensible, especially when hunger is your constant companion and death is a frequent visitor.
hollowtrucker77 makes a valid observation regarding how difficult it is to discover something new. I can offer a comparison to learning, which isn't difficult at all. We are built with a massive capacity for learning, and it happens naturally. There are people who speak many languages, possess broad educations, and are experts in one or more highly complex fields. One shouldn't overlook social skills, physical coordination, and many other competencies that the human mind masters with incredible ease. Furthermore, we can fairly estimate the effort required to learn something both before and after the fact. The effort required to discover something, however, seems relatively small once the discovery is made, yet prior to the discovery, it can appear massive and insurmountable. And indeed it is, otherwise we would be just as proficient at discovery as we are at learning.
I agree that the Patent Office should be abolished, though my reasoning differs from what is being discussed here. 😬 It is confusing. From one angle, it seems incredibly difficult to generate a truly new insight—perhaps we lack any innate creative power at all. Yet, from another, we have invented so much and rightfully take pride in it. However, the gap between modern innovation and creativity 50,000 years ago is massive. This supports the idea that creativity isn't an inherent human trait, but rather a byproduct of our environment. While we owe much to discoveries like electricity and radio waves, it seems impossible to have reached them until previous breakthroughs brought us within arm's reach. 🤔 In other words, these advancements might simply be the result of recognizing the known within the unknown, rather than a sudden leap of pure creativity. 🤷
hollowtrucker77, I find your point quite intriguing. 😁 It would be fascinating to step back 150 years. Back then, it was considered madness to suggest anything heavier than air could fly, despite the constant presence of birds and insects fluttering all around us. 😕 Looking at this, it seems our creative capacity mirrors that of zebras and antelopes, even following our recent leaps in science, art, and technology. It suggests that generating a truly novel insight is incredibly difficult, perhaps even impossible, unless one combines existing ideas. If it truly is impossible, we certainly won't grasp concepts we haven't encountered. Yet, such a conclusion feels bleak, as it imposes a heavy limit on human creativity.
I give humanity credit for everything we have built, but I am increasingly convinced that we aren't gifted with the ability to invent anything out of thin air. Rather, creativity stems from the complexity of the environment we recognize; humans simply recombine what they perceive, thereby expanding the complexity of the known world.
I shall attempt to approach the concept of the creative moment from this perspective. It has already been demonstrated that a hammer can be developed without any direct application of creativity. Furthermore, it can evolve without the intervention of free will, driven instead by the creative power of nature. Individuals possessing a more efficient hammer will have more energy available to escape lions; consequently, over several generations following the emergence of a superior tool, they will achieve dominance because the lions will effectively weed out those using less efficient hammers from the environment. At first glance, this appears to be a flaw in logic, as the use of a hammer is not a genetic trait and therefore should not be subject to natural selection. However, the utility of a tool possesses characteristics similar to genes—specifically replicability (for a deeper understanding, I direct the reader toward memetics). Due to the mechanism of mimicking what we observe in our surroundings, if more efficient hammers exist in the environment, we will naturally gravitate toward using them. For this same reason, we often find that a jeweler's son becomes a jeweler far more frequently than he becomes a cobbler or a ballet dancer. Thus, lions can drive the evolution of the hammer, much like they drive the evolution of a gene complex. From this, it follows that nature would develop the hammer without any input from human creativity. To offer some arbitrary figures: if those using a more efficient hammer have even a 1% higher survival probability during an encounter with a lion, this effect would accumulate over hundreds or thousands of generations until the superior hammer prevails. Nature could potentially create a hammer with a handle in, say, 300,000 years. Nature is considered creative because it possesses the mechanism of natural selection, which, in this instance, favors the more efficient tool. If we reverse this logic and apply it to humanity, we can postulate that humans will also be creative if they possess the tendency to prefer a more efficient hammer. In other words, if a person has an inherent drive to utilize the more effective tool, then they are creative in the same sense as nature, and their creativity will accelerate the evolution of the hammer. Should we discover that the hammer is indeed evolving faster than nature could manage on its own, it would indicate the existence of a creativity that does not belong to the environment, but must be human creativity. Now, is it reasonable to expect that a human would prefer a more efficient hammer? I cannot say for certain; perhaps one tries one, then tries another, and eventually realizes it is simply more comfortable to use the one that requires less effort to crack the same amount of walnuts, or something to that effect. 😕 I understand that the force of habit makes change difficult, but really, how much mental effort is required to realize that Hammer A is more comfortable than Hammer B, making it desirable to use it more often? It seems to me we expend an equal amount of mental effort when we start scratching ourselves where it itches. 😕
@Harold Cruz8: I don't think we're quite on the same page. It seems you're viewing an "original thought" through the lens of copyright, which wasn't my intention. I considered using the term "creative thought," but I decided against it. We simply don't understand the mechanics of how insight is formed—we don't know if its nature is creative, if it produces white noise, or if it can be destructive. I chose "original" because such a thought originates; it creates a new understanding. This differs from "unoriginal" thoughts, which merely process concepts from one's environment. In this context, it isn't about being the first person in history to conceive of something. It is about whether the idea originated within you, rather than you simply recognizing something from your surroundings—hearing, seeing, or reading it—and thus "copying" what originated outside of yourself. As for the other point, I agree with the stance that everything exists in nature and we are merely exploring and discovering it, but that is beside the point here and falls outside the realm of psychology.
@hollowtrucker77: True. Perhaps I am overlooking how difficult it is to reach a new realization when you are on "the other side." I also failed to account for the living conditions of people in early American history 🙈. When I try to visualize it, it truly seems incredibly difficult. But "seeming" is not enough for me; I want to know exactly how difficult it is. What we have discussed so far doesn't rule out the possibility that coming up with something entirely new might actually be impossible. That thought bothers me.
briskpuma23, it is possible, yet not certain. It is less about what was realized and more about the methodology used. I am attempting to distinguish between merely absorbing one's surroundings and a cognitive process that transcends simple absorption—one that is creative and capable of producing an insight unattainable through mere observation alone. We have yet to determine if such a "creative" mental process even exists; we just managed to invent a hammer without anyone exercising true creative thought. Perhaps we could create the Mona Lisa in a similar fashion, though I cannot say for sure. 🤷
Harold Cruz8, I didn't quite follow you there. 🤷 "original thought" is simply a term I've roughly defined for the sake of this discussion. It is entirely possible that we don't possess a single thought that meets this definition, just as it is possible that all thoughts satisfy it. I chose the name specifically to emphasize the creativity inherent in such thinking. If a thought produces an understanding that no one else perceives, it deserves to be called original. An example would be the Galilean heliocentric system, presented to a society dogmatically committed to geocentrism, where deviating from the norm was considered heresy. Whatever the specific thought was that led to the Galilean insight regarding the universe, it belonged to him and was birthed in his mind; hence, my use of the term "original thought."
Something that would fail to meet this group definition would be a thought implanted by someone like Dr. Goebbels (if a lie is repeated a thousand times...). There is no need to delve into the mechanics of how things actually function right now. My sole interest is to gauge a sense of human potential—the inclination to think like Galileo versus the opposite (if such a thing exists)—to think like a dogmatist.
Rachel Williams18, I view original thought through the lens of creativity, as I believe creativity itself serves as proof of an original idea. It functions much like viral RNA replication. If the copying process were perfect, we would be stuck with the exact same viral strain forever. The emergence of new strains proves there must be a mechanism beyond simple duplication—in this case, the introduction of errors during replication. I wouldn't categorize this under philosophy, though. My goal isn't to philosophize, but to reach scientific understanding. I don't see how I've fallen into a tautology, other than perhaps embracing temporary contradictions to facilitate dialectical progress. I don't believe art and science are mutually exclusive. Both are rooted in creativity, which is the human capacity to perceive what does not yet exist and bring it into being. An artist paints what they have envisioned; a scientist subjects that vision to rigorous peer review. Both are manifestations of mental labor. The pursuit of understanding how the mind works has long since moved beyond the realm of philosophy and into the domain of science. That is why I am here; I am not looking for philosophy, but for answers.
Yes, I have read about him before; Empedocles was quite profound. His reasoning offers a sharp, direct insight into the origins of species. 👍 However, Charles Darwin identified the mechanism of natural selection, which represents an original advancement over Empedocles. 🙂
briskpuma23, my goal is to reach some level of understanding regarding the relationship between human creativity on one hand and the absorption of existing ideas on the other. Thus far, we have largely demonstrated that creativity is not a genetic trait, meaning it isn't inherent to the human condition. It appears to be born from more complex cognitive processes—the kind we don't engage in while hunting for food or fleeing from lions. We have shown that the creativity of early humans was rather scarce, if not nonexistent. In truth, we haven't even reached a satisfying answer as to what creativity actually is, or if it truly exists—that is, whether those who create are genuinely creative.
I would also welcome input from an expert on this topic who might shed light on our capacity for creativity. Or perhaps just a link to share.
I will attempt to trace the development of a hammer without relying on creativity. Essentially, a person holds a stone in their hand, carrying it around just to crack walnuts. Fifty thousand years pass before they realize they don't need to hold the stone directly; they can hang it from a necklace to crack them. Then, twenty thousand years later, someone playing around realizes they don't have to take off the necklace, squat down, and smash nuts like an idiot; they can simply unclip the necklace and swing it like a yo-yo while standing tall like a gentleman. After another twenty-five thousand years, someone plays with the detached necklace by threading a stick through the loop, discovering that using a stick allows them to crack nuts while lying on the ground. Finally, fifty-two thousand years later, someone notices that if the stick is thick enough to fit perfectly through the hole, it creates a rigid body with the stone—essentially, a handle. And there we have it... This is a story about the evolution of the hammer, but also about a complete lack of creativity in humanity. 😠
Can we truly say that humans are this way? That we lack the capacity for original thought—the ability to imagine a better hammer without first utilizing a better hammer? 😵
I find such a conclusion difficult to accept. As an engineer, I must be creative. If you give me something to improve, I will improve it. If you give me a problem to solve, I will solve it. I employ various methods to gain insight into a solution, moving from a vague understanding at the start to a fully realized solution. It is true that I often solve problems that have already been solved because I lack the time to search for the existing answer, finding it faster to develop my own. While the mental processes I use are learned engineering techniques, I believe original thought must be present in that process; otherwise, progressing from a problem to a solution would be nearly impossible. These cavemen spent centuries developing a hammer. 😬
Furthermore, I have experienced several "eureka" moments. They feel exactly how Archimedes is described when he jumped out of his bathtub—a moment of incredible luck, pride, and pure exhilaration from gaining new insight. This wasn't merely absorbing taught information; it was the creation of insight.
Rachel Williams18, I find your perspective quite compelling; in fact, I tend to lean in that same direction. New insights primarily emerge from the slow evolution of existing knowledge rather than sudden "eureka" moments (and yes, I am aware that the history of science often allows us to trace discoveries this way). But that is precisely the point: humans are not particularly adept at experiencing true eureka moments. It seems we are exceptionally well-equipped to absorb and process information from our surroundings, which is a legacy of our species. Sudden breakthroughs, or the act of true creation—not delving into the potential mechanisms behind them just yet—are not typical for humans, and I wonder how capable we actually are of achieving them. By the way, we have drifted slightly toward discussing eureka moments as if we were only talking about inventions and scientific discoveries. The concept I termed "original thought" would encompass any personal creation, including artistic expression, or even those breakthroughs that involve reinventing the wheel. While the term is broad and difficult to define, I believe we can recognize it intuitively. It describes a situation where someone who has spent their entire life using a hammer and watching others work suddenly conceives of a way to make a better hammer. It would be truly tragic if such an idea never occurred to them, and if the entire advancement of the hammer, and everything else, was merely the result of accidental improvements accumulating over time. Furthermore, we should dismiss the story of Archimedes' eureka moment as a mere fairy tale; we ought to demonstrate the incremental ideas that eventually led to the principle of buoyancy.
hollowtrucker77, I agree. Creativity requires leisure time, when a person can contemplate things beyond immediate necessities, such as eating or fleeing from a predator. However, this confirms that creativity is the product of an active thinking process, rather than a component of genetic inheritance.
slywolf45 said:Exactly. The theory is that there was some sort of arrangement with the specialists to frame it as a drug issue. And apparently, they were all disciples of the Gruden school of thought, given he openly argues that homosexuality should be treated. Why on earth are you acting surprised?😕
Quincy:
Alright, but what about society at large? Her classmates, her teachers?
They would have had to know she was perfectly fine—that she hadn't fallen in with a bad crowd or started using substances. Would it really be that easy for a student to just vanish from school because she was institutionalized under those pretenses? Would nobody ask questions or react, even by calling the police? In reality, the only people who showed even a shred of basic human decency or social responsibility were members of lesbian advocacy groups. How convenient.👍 (The lawyers and journalists only showed up later, driven by their usual agendas).
I have to admit, parts of this story don't quite add up for me either. But surely those hospital employees weren't fired and replaced just because of a documentary and some unproven allegations? Or were they? I honestly don't know.🤷
I am not necessarily shocked by this specific instance. In fact, I am familiar with similar cases involving even darker motives and consequences. However, I am highlighting the details that require further clarification, because the need for explanation builds up as the story progresses, until the narrative no longer feels credible to me.
I have to admit that the story has some holes in it. But were those people from the hospital really replaced and fired just because of a documentary and something unproven? Or were they? I don't know.🤷
It wouldn't be the first time; the same pattern exists throughout the entire system, starting with the federal government. Too much negative publicity leads to shifts for the well-connected and terminations for those who aren't. What actually happened isn't important. In truth, we don't want it to matter. 😬
slywolf45 said:But that’s not the issue here; it's because she's a lesbian. And as a convenient cover story, they claimed she was using drugs.
Quincy:
How is it possible that this girl didn't have anyone close to her—members of LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, relatives, friends, even neighbors—who would have stepped up to fight for her release if she was actually sent to an asylum while perfectly sane?
I know for a fact that if something like this ever happened to me, my relatives wouldn't give a damn. Seriously. Everyone is out for themselves these days; it's all about self-preservation. People love to gossip, sure, but actually lifting a finger to help? That requires effort most people aren't willing to expend.
If the core of this story is that her parents told the family she was committed because of drug use and whatnot, the relatives almost certainly believed them over her. After all, they're the parents, and she's just some kid who "fell in with the wrong crowd" and started using. People simply don't care about others anymore. Kudos to the rare exceptions, though.
It is possible, but that would imply several other things. The professionals tasked with her "treatment" would have had to determine she wasn't using drugs as claimed, nor showing any signs of addiction. They would have had to intentionally hospitalize her knowing homosexuality was the sole issue, and they would have had to orchestrate a cover-up by signing a false diagnosis. I am not saying it is impossible, but these details accumulate into a highly improbable scenario. If we view her story through the lens of attitudes toward HOMOSEXUALITY, sudden gaps appear and the narrative becomes quite unbelievable.
Quincy:
I know for a fact that if this happened to me, my relatives wouldn't give a damn. Seriously. Everyone looks out for themselves; nobody cares about anyone else. Gossiping is fine, but lifting a finger? That takes effort.
If the emphasis here is that her parents told her relatives she was in a mental ward due to drugs, those relatives likely believed them over her. After all, they are the parents, and she is just some kid who fell in with the wrong crowd and started using. People simply don't care about others these days. Credit to the exceptions.
Fine, but what about her social circle, schoolmates, or teachers? They surely must have known she was fine—that she hadn't fallen into bad company or started using drugs. Would it really be that easy for a student to just stop showing up to school because she was institutionalized under those pretenses? And would no one ask questions or react, even by calling the police? In reality, the only people who showed any level of humanity or social responsibility were members of lesbian advocacy groups. How convenient.👍 (Lawyers and journalists arrived later, driven by their usual motives).
hollowtrucker77, that sounds reasonable and makes sense. I would agree that once the local bears and lions disappeared, the evolutionary pressure vanished, leading to a degradation of our genetic base; essentially, we have become more foolish and ill-equipped, and there is no one left to correct us. However, this implies that primitive survival in the wild maintained a high level of human creativity. This contradicts the fact that humans lived exposed to predators like bears and lions for millions of years without developing any effective means of protection. Human creativity during that era could not have been high; once the concepts of tools, weapons, or fire were discovered, they spread rapidly because they were so useful. The fact that we survived for millions of years without them suggests those ideas simply did not occur to people.🤷 To me, it seems that creativity cannot be a genetic trait—if it were, we would have to find evidence of it in the ancestors from whom we inherited it.
We consider humans more intelligent than animals, possessing mental capacities far beyond them. Speech, abstract reasoning, technology—these define us. At times, it feels as though we have grabbed fate by the reins, establishing ourselves as a unique species: creators and rulers over nature.
Conversely, psychology views the human psyche through two lenses: genetic inheritance and learned behavior. Regarding learning, we acquire knowledge through experience, meaning we absorb whatever we encounter. In this context, I want to introduce the concept of "original thought," which I will attempt to clarify, as it is something I am curious about.
Unlike simply adopting what already exists, true insights occasionally emerge. These are breakthroughs like mastering fire, or the use of tools and weaponry. The first person to conceive of such things could not have observed them beforehand. It was not programmed into their genes. They simply thought, and they realized. They did not copy an existing insight; they created a new one. I would argue that such moments are what make us creators. Without them, we are merely blank slates upon which the environment can write anything, potentially leading to total indoctrination (Goebel's successes serve as a known example supporting this view). Now, I am interested in this human creativity we take such pride in. Truly, we enjoy countless blessings today—the fruits of human genius—and we can trace their development through written history over the last few millennia. Writing allowed us to accumulate all this progress across generations, moving from very simple lives to our modern era in just a few thousand years. One might assume humans are highly capable of "original thought" given how much has been achieved in such a short span. However, if we expand the timeline to several million years since the first human appeared, we see that over those millions of years, humans did not invent fire, weapons, agriculture, or anything else that significantly improved life 😕 There were thousands upon thousands of generations of people born, living, and dying without anyone ever conceiving of anything new. 😕 Based on this, one might say that humans are actually quite incapable of "original thought." Indeed, looking back at recorded history, the knowledge that accumulates is largely learned through experience; "original thought" is only required when creating entirely new knowledge, which is relatively rare considering the number of people and the length of their lifespans.
This is what puzzles me—how capable is a human, truly, of creating or independently gaining new insights? Currently, I have the impression that we are not particularly gifted in this ability. Even my own life experiences suggest that most people are simply dullards who lack the capacity for independent thought. 👎