|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2005 : 23:17:41
|
For all those who read my previous, rather ingnorant rant, I have switched sides when it was discussed thoroughly and discovered that I had it backwards. Please read and discuss, this is the beginning of the thought process.
Science and Creative, which may appear to some as a dichotomy, but to many science is nothing without creativity. Define creativity: The ability to use your imagination to create something. Define imagination: The ability to think creatively. What is creative, to some an art peice may appear creative, to others not:
Where the quiet weepings of a willow pass you by
Mending broken hearts of men who dreamt to fly,
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up.
Pondering the secrets contained within pandora's box,
Tempting men who find it without keys or locks,
For a moment we shimmer like the sun on open water
Time remembers philosophers whose thoughts speak from the grave,
And seldom forgets the men who were brave,
In death we see how our innocence was a folly and a virtue.
Ces't la vie, live and let live, rip out my heart and die another day
The arguments differ. Each one is unique to the person, thus it cannot be defined by a standard. Creative can be nothing.
Science is something. It can be defined by a standard. This is being read on a monitor. The monitor can be touched. Everyone thinks of a monitor when you say the word. It exists.
Creative can be nothing, but science is something. It inherently possesses creative qualities because the creative is the root of science.
Creative can turn nothing into something, and something to nothing e.g., ""does this text exist?" One can answer no and believe it, a creative property. I believe that science, using evolution as an example, cannot turn nothing into something, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Albiet science can be creative in the process of interaction of molecules and CREATE life. This is the fundamental arguement in which came first, science or creativity. In my attemtps to explain the matter, I concluded that science is law dependent, and thus could not have created the opposite of law, creativity. The belief that science came first is an argument made by a creative person. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Until humans came along I was ignorant and believed that WE inspired creativity. Thus how could science, a material process without creativity, binary in nature, evolve to include creativity? This was my enigma. Science cannot change laws, but creativity can MAKE laws. Nothing can create something, something can't create nothing.
**This is just written and unreviewed I don't know what to think of it, lemme know.*
|
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 23:43:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe that science, using evolution as an example, cannot turn nothing into something, energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Seems to me that you've mixed up "natural laws" with science - the description and explanation of "natural laws". It is not science that performs natural selection - it merely describes it to explain the diversity of life. If that's what you mean??? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 00:13:15 [Permalink]
|
{quote}
Seems to me that you've mixed up "natural laws" with science - the description and explanation of "natural laws". It is not science that performs natural selection - it merely describes it to explain the diversity of life. If that's what you mean???
[/quote]
I suppose thats a good clarification. Science cannot be separated from creativity is the argument, science is a form of creativity. Natural laws is what creativity made to create solid matter. But what drives evolution, natural laws or is there a creative force present that makes for so much diversity? How does brain enable mind may be a more clear example of creativity present in a state of natural law. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 00:59:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Natural laws is what creativity made to create solid matter.
I take it all of this is just an attempt to try to show the existence of a "creator" - an intelligent designer if you wish. Ie, creativity makes laws makes matter. Of course, then, creativity had to make the creative creator in the first place (and so on ad infinitum). Where does that leave your argument? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 02:40:29 [Permalink]
|
ASR has a nasty habit of using words in a way that don't mean the same thing that they do to everyone else. I suspect "creativity" is another example of this. It seems as if he is using it to mean both a descriptive category and as a creative force separate from sentient individuals. Think of the Greek muses...
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/30/2005 02:43:05 |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 10:29:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
ASR has a nasty habit of using words in a way that don't mean the same thing that they do to everyone else. I suspect "creativity" is another example of this. It seems as if he is using it to mean both a descriptive category and as a creative force separate from sentient individuals. Think of the Greek muses...
I don't think of creativeness as a force separate from sentient life, but rather inexplicably bound to all life. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 10:43:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I take it all of this is just an attempt to try to show the existence of a "creator" - an intelligent designer if you wish. Ie, creativity makes laws makes matter. Of course, then, creativity had to make the creative creator in the first place (and so on ad infinitum). Where does that leave your argument?
The argument is that creativity can be nothing and become something. No universe - absolutely nothing present. Nothing becomes something, some kind of sentience or just becomes a force that can create physical matter eventually. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 10:47:26 [Permalink]
|
Ok, other than making my head spin, what is the point?
Science is a manifest of creativity. Painting, singing, doing digital photomanipulations of your sister, is all creativity. Creatively solving problems is a strong evolutionary advantage - think about ravens that learn how to break eggs, monkeys that learn how to fish insects, raccoons that learn all kinds of tricks to invade your home...
I'll go out on a limb and say the raven using stones to break an egg is a form of primitive, animal science. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 11:07:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How exactly does creativity go about making something? You seem to be trying to use it as a noun.
What evidence is there that requires the existence of a "creative force"? As far as I know, there are currently no problems with evolutionary theory, which only uses natural forces.
I am using creativity as a noun. It is something. If evolution was strictly a material process how did the concept of beautiful develop? An ant must burrow a tunnel, but which direction does it carve? It is this inherent creativity that defies evolution as a strictly material process since you are saying it only uses natural laws and thus must adhere to principles. i.e. energy cannot be created nor destroyed, natural laws dictate that it is impossible to create something out of nothing and turn something into nothing. Yet our minds do not function in this matter. Just because it took sentient life to recognize creativity as a concept does not mean that creativity did not exist before our time. We know that creativity has always existed because it is nothing, but the physical world has an age. It is this that leads me to believe creative existed first and gave birth to natural laws. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 11:46:47 [Permalink]
|
Oh, crap here we go again...
quote:
I don't think of creativeness as a force separate from sentient life, but rather inexplicably bound to all life.
Creativeness is bound to all life?
What the hell is that suppose to mean?
quote:
Albiet science can be creative in the process of interaction of molecules and CREATE life.
Science is a field of study, how the hell can it be creative?
quote:
We know that creativity has always existed because it is nothing
quote:
Science cannot change laws, but creativity can MAKE laws.
Is english your first language?
In your language,
Does science = nature?
Does creativity = A sentient God?
If I substitute those words your text is a little more understandable.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 11:46:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
If evolution was strictly a material process how did the concept of beautiful develop? An ant must burrow a tunnel, but which direction does it carve? It is this inherent creativity that defies evolution as a strictly material process since you are saying it only uses natural laws and thus must adhere to principles.
What I think you mean by "creativity" is randomness. Randomness does indeed act on strictly material processes in unusual, unpredictable, and impressive ways. While natural laws are responsible for the general configurations of things, this randomness is responsible for the particular shape an ant's burrow takes, the particular shape of a tree's root system, the particular shape of a mountain range. It acts upon life and non-life equally.
quote:
Just because it took sentient life to recognize creativity as a concept does not mean that creativity did not exist before our time. We know that creativity has always existed because it is nothing, but the physical world has an age. It is this that leads me to believe creative existed first and gave birth to natural laws.
In the very earliest history of our Universe, the Plank epoch, all four fundamental forces were unified and elementary particles did not exist. Randomness and order were birthed together, one did not spring from the other. Indeed, it makes no sense to speak of one without the other as a reference.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 12:02:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Science and Creative, which may appear to some as a dichotomy, but to many science is nothing without creativity. Define creativity: The ability to use your imagination to create something. Define imagination: The ability to think creatively.
You have a problem with definitions, BTW.
With a little replacing, you get "creativity: The ability to use your ability to think creatively to create something."
Which sounds like a pretty horrible definition...
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 11/30/2005 12:03:45 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 13:59:00 [Permalink]
|
Creation ex nihilo = Creativity ex nihilo = (Creation=Creativity)?
You are totally confusing/confused. Your argument is that creativity=nothing=something (?). Is there any point to this apart from "new age flummery"? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
