CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Psychology › Original thought

Original thought

Started by Zachary Mendoza2 · · 👁 7 views · 36 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Zachary Mendoza2fadedtrucker4hollowtrucker77Rachel Williams18Harold Cruz8Morgan Bishop4briskpuma23Joseph Peterson6Linda Taylor11Jacob Johnson56
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#21 ·
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.
Harold Cruz8 Harold Cruz8 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Nov 2010
#22 ·
You can call your thought "original" all you want, but honestly? It doesn't even count unless you actually find a way to make someone else understand what you're talking about!
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#23 ·
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.
briskpuma23 briskpuma23 Active Member
83 messages
joined Mar 2012
#24 ·
Then there's that moment when you realize something about someone in your circle that nobody else has ever mentioned—and you realize it’s an original thought.
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#25 ·
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. 🤷
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#26 ·
Zachary Mendoza2 said: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.

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.
Harold Cruz8 Harold Cruz8 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Nov 2010
#27 ·
@Zachary Mendoza2
So you're basically claiming that an "original thought" is something totally unprecedented—like, nobody ever even dreamed of it before, let alone pulled it off, right?
If that's your angle, I get where you're coming from, but honestly, I’m sticking to what I said in my first post: the whole concept of an "original thought" existing on its own is kind of a myth. Everything in the universe is already out there just waiting to be found; someone just has to stumble upon it, which means nothing is actually being "created" from scratch. Human intellect and consciousness are just tools we use to uncover what's already present. You aren't building anything new with your brain; you're just acting like a cosmic detective. 🤷 I mean, if you somehow managed to uncover something that had never been touched by a human mind before, then maybe, just maybe, you could call it that. But let's be real, the whole argument is so incredibly stretched that it barely makes sense at all...

What I was trying to get at in my second post was this: if you manage to learn something or grasp a concept entirely on your own, without anyone else feeding it to you or influencing your perspective, and then you can explain it clearly to someone else, then yeah, you can rightfully claim that as your own idea, your own thought... 🤷
👋
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#28 ·
@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.
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#29 ·
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. 😕
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#30 ·
Have you ever actually laid eyes on an antelope or a zebra wielding a hammer, even if it was some sort of primitive version??
The thing is, they’re still being hunted down by lions and just about everything else today—and that includes us too.
🙂
Humans are the ones who brought creativity to the table, the ones responsible for all those breakthroughs regarding how we use wheels, fire, hammers, and blades, regardless of the fact that those shapes and phenomena would have existed in nature even without our interference.
Furthermore, it was humans who cooked up the whole concept of "ownership," which led to us seizing territory, defending it, farming it, and reshaping it to suit our own specific whims and requirements.
Still, it’s much easier to just dig a burrow or throw together a shack than to sit around patiently waiting for nature to decide to open up a cave for you.
😉
And so, it becomes this endless cycle where one thing pulls the next along.
The sheer necessity for food drove the invention of tools, and those tools didn't just provide sustenance; they bought us the time needed to sit back and dream up, then test out, entirely new concepts.

On the flip side, let's say you suddenly had a vision for an anti-gravity device.
The real question is whether you'd actually be capable of building it and getting it into widespread use, even if it were a staggeringly useful invention and a truly original thought.

Or, to look at it another way, imagine if you—or any of us, given how brilliant and capable we consider ourselves to be—were tossed straight into the conditions where our ancestors weren't just surviving, but actively fighting for their spot at the top of the food chain.
It would be pretty interesting to see how "simple" and "easy" everything would feel to us back then.
😉
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#31 ·
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.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#32 ·
Well, I don't think it’s quite that black and white; we actually possess certain intuitive faculties—abilities to perceive or at least conceptualize and estimate what else might exist out there—it’s just that we can't always provide the mathematical proof for it immediately.
Take electricity, radio waves, or even radiation, for instance; those are solid examples.

On the flip side, much like the old notion that the finest art is forged through suffering, creativity often springs from a place of intense necessity.
Even a simple hammer wouldn't have been invented if there wasn't a fundamental need for one.
🙂
And if my memory serves me right, some guy back in the 14th century actually argued that patent offices should be abolished entirely because everything had already been invented.
I can only imagine how much he would have stirred up trouble in today's world.
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#33 ·
🤣

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. 🤷
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#34 ·
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.
Linda Taylor11 Linda Taylor11 Active Member
58 messages
joined Jan 2009
#35 ·
Zachary Mendoza2 said: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. 👎

I guess I’ll just say that it seems to me like most big breakthroughs were basically done by lone wolves. The masses, man... they just seem like this mindless, conformist machine that dulls everything down and exists just to exist. Everyone is so obsessed with fitting in at any cost, and once fitting in becomes the whole point, it’s pretty hard to come up with an original thought from that.

Plus, that ability to have an original thought gets totally choked out by the sheer amount of info we’re fed constantly. We just take it all for granted, soaking up pre-packaged data and processing it without really giving anything back. 😉 It’s always about grabbing knowledge just for the sake of it, but hardly anyone ever stops to ask what they’re actually gonna do with it. Like, how do you even turn it into something useful? 🙂
Jacob Johnson56 Jacob Johnson56 Member
16 messages
joined Aug 2010
#36 ·
Zachary Mendoza2 said: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. 👎

I might be stepping outside of psychology here. But here it is:

It’s best to view a person as consciousness in a constant state of maturing or expanding. A consciousness that grows through life experiences, slowly recognizing new needs and possibilities.

I won't beat around the bush. I'll be direct. Mendeleev brought the periodic table to life because he saw it in his dreams. That system was refined later.
The question is: Who gave it to him, and how?

Kekile had a vision of a snake swallowing its own tail. That gave him the idea that the benzene molecule has a ring structure—which is true.

Again, the question remains: Who gave him that vision?

The inventor of the photocopier experimented with countless powders and failed every single time until one day he heard a voice: Try graphite powder! He tried it and succeeded.
Who whispered that solution to him?

Tesla had visions that he simply materialized in this world.
Who gave him those visions, and from where?

Do I even need to mention the composer who, despite being deaf, heard the most magnificent music, which he then transcribed to leave behind something to uplift and inspire humanity?
How did a deaf man hear music?

There are endless examples like this.

If we want to see the truth without exhausting ourselves, we have to realize that a human is primarily a spiritual being. A Soul. As such, it is a multidimensional being. Because of that, depending on their level of consciousness, they can simply bring down new knowledge from higher levels of reality into all areas of life. Quite simply, a person doesn't invent anything out of thin air; they just bring it down from higher realities.
Zachary Mendoza2 Zachary Mendoza2 Active MemberOP
92 messages
joined Jul 2010
#37 ·
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.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads