Heuristics and Human Creativity

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Burning ghost » October 15th, 2018, 5:49 am

Brief Intro to thread

This post is inspired by Syamsu’s posts. I have not been able to understand their perspective but looking at the difficulty with which such obvious, yet obscure, ideas have been expressed I hope to open up the discussion further regarding how we “view” the world and causality in general (“view” being an inappropriate term if I say we “view causality”!)

As some of you likely know I have an interest in Husserl’s ideas. Given that Syamsu is expressing a need for us to take “subjectivity” more seriously I guess anyone who knows anything about Husserl can see why I see familar territory here - Husserl being someone whom aimed to understand “subjectivity” in order to understand objective science more thoroughly. A task he never viewed as having a end or solution (something he was quite opposed to.)

Anyway, to quote Syamsu and look at what interests me (if no one else?):
The philosophy underlaying ... is very simple, and very useful. It is based on dualism, two categories which comprise all of reality.

category 1: what chooses, spiritual domain, subjectively identified resulting in opinions

category 2: what is chosen, material domain, objectively measured resulting in facts

In organizing all things you know about, you should ask yourself, does it belong in the box of things that choose, or does it belong in the box of things that are chosen? Love, hate, God, fear, pleasure, pain etc. would all belong in the box of things that do the job of choosing. They are all things which take care of it that in the moment a decision turns out A instead of B, or viceversa.

All things in this box can only be known to exist by choosing they are there. So if you want to find out if somebody has love in their heart or not, then you provide for yourself the alternatives that this person has love, and doesn't have love, and then in the moment you choose an alternative. For this choosing to be meaningful it has to be somewhat sophisticated. What you cannot do is reach a conclusion about the spiritual domain based on evidence. That is because evidence forces you to a conclusion, destroying the freedom neccessary to form an opinion.
Of course there are many questions embedded within this. We could ask what “choice” means in this sense, and/or what is meant by “spiritual domain”, and/or question the implied “agent” in the “choosing.”

Underneath this I cannot see a way we can escape the problem of word meanings here and how best to frame them without getting too distanced from the thought under scrutiny. Also, I want to steer as much as I can from the confusion of “free will” - simply because this term is often used in specifc contexts and therefore means utterly different things to different people!

So three things to clarify:

1) “choosen” and the “chooser”

The human agent chooses what to do. Once they choose,they both understand the repercussions of their choice, understand the reasoning for their choice, and may even reveal other choices they didn’t see at the time. Being as limited (stupid) as we are we also fall into the belief of seeing the action as the cause for what comes after. As an example of this I may sit down and then it starts to rain - logically speaking it is a quite valid supposition to say that it started to rain because I sat down; and in actuality there is no know way to prove this one way or the other givn that we cannot set up the exact same circumstances again and remain standing to supposedly “stop it from raining”.

This should be reasonably common knowledge I hope. Many psychological experiments have shown how children will copy every action of the adult order to replicate the same outcome (even when several steps in the process are utterly redundant in regards to the outcome.) So if someone performs a “rain dance” to make rain fall it may be coincidence, or it may be person (if repeatedly successful) subconsciously read certain environmental cues and made a reasonably good prediction (humidity levels, wind speed, cloud formations, animals migrationary patterns, vegetation, and all other manner of things.)

What we can see here at least is the affect of choosing. If we choose to believe what appears to be true given our current knowledge we choose to deny alternative possibilities and possibly believe in things that are redundant. To look back at Galileo many simply refused to believe his evidence over the word of Aristotle - this is the fallacy of appeal to authority over evidence.

An aside (A COMPLICATED ONE!): The “agent”/“chooser” is necessarily an independent body acting in the world regardless of whatever possible/likely existence there is. To return briefly to the idea of “free will” it is fundamentally a fault to assume lack of choice in a world that we have an understanding of via causal relation. This difficult point is likely the very heart of what Syamsu finds willing to accept - and so do I. As a meaningful argument it is to argue for a meaningless world adn therefore to dispute one’s own position - it is an adherence to an absolutism view that sees nihilism as the highest philosophical principle in denial of its proposition and all propositions (including denial.)

2) “spiritual domain”

This term I can only interpret in two ways. The first being “metaphysical” (which to me means no more than that which currently lies beyond our immediate physical understanding - such as gravity and matter, yet they are placeholders that allow us to create measurements and frame some broad underdtanding of phenomenon. The second is more easily accessible to my vocabulary, that is the “domain of the mind” (of psychology).

To return to Syamsu’s words:
category 1: what chooses, spiritual domain, subjectively identified resulting in opinions

category 2: what is chosen, material domain, objectively measured resulting in facts
My interpretation here would be:

Category 1: the individual, free thinking, exploring existential being.

Category 2: the proposed heuristic, applied and contrasted, trial and error in limited bounds.

The individual, as a individual, must necessarily “exist” and by “existing” must necessarily apply oneself to the questions we’re surrounded by to understand the implicit known existence of the self (this is where some may wish to splice in Heideggerian views, and to some extent I do not deny the use in doing so to sketch out the question of our very being even though it is constantly falling away from us as we grasp at it - or rather that this very “grasping for” is the “essence” of being; as clumsy and incomplete as that sounds it is more of a limitation of language and not really one open to “discussion”)

Then we apply something of our experiental being through some heuristic (arbitrary to some degree or another) and watch it develop into whatever form it does in a quasi passive/active sense; meaning our subjective thoughts are always omnipresent regardless of the objective boundaries we set out - for our investigation or merely as a failing of belief in the method of approach in use.

There is always the danger/boon of psychological fixatedness - the double-edged sword if being right for the wrong reasons, and/or wrong for the right reasons. We’re always bound by the limitations we dictate to ourselves or those surrounding us immediately (same thing really!)

3) “causality”

This is communication. This is knowledge. This is language. This is existence. This is how we frame our exploration of the world, the world, and the self. Any presumed “beyond causality” is simply a misuse of language. This shouldn’t be mistaken as a disbelief in something “existing” beyond causality, only that the term “existing”, in the sense we know it (the only sense we have of it applicable to meaningful communication) is causally bound as are all items of human discussion.

Some could perhaps talk of the mathematical world as being non-causal. True enough in a metaphorical sense. Yet we can only know of the “mathematical world” through physicalistic causal experience. Any idea of the underlying abstract “existing” in a “prior to” sense is simply beyond our current capacity to articulate or imagine - it is a definite impossibility yet not one that I would suggest cannot be overturned (and I a not being contrary here because I mean this in such a way as to suggest there is some unknown possibility yet to surface in our conceptual framework that could deny the current impossibility.)

People are only foolish because they are fooled by words. Words are not foolish.
AKA badgerjelly

Syamsu
Posts: 2569
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 15th, 2018, 11:02 am

Cause and effect, which you are apparently hung up on, belong together. There exists neither a cause without an effect, nor an effect without a cause.

If I choose to fire a gun, I am responsible for the effects. So a cause is chosen together with the effect. That is how cause and effect, force, combine with choice, freedom, in one conceptual scheme.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Burning ghost » October 15th, 2018, 12:16 pm

Yes, and I am not saying anything opposed to your above post. If you thought I was I have no idea why given that you’ve repeated what I said only in a more simplistic form - I at least attempted to venture into areas where language tends to become more suspect than useful so maybe it seemed like I was suggesting something else.
AKA badgerjelly

Syamsu
Posts: 2569
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 15th, 2018, 12:35 pm

You seem to be saying that everything is cause and effect, while it is just only force.

And you also don't appreciate the simplicity of creationism in validating fact and opinion. Now we can say, using creationism, the earth is round (fact), and the earth is beautiful (opinion). That's great that both opinion and fact are validated in one conceptual scheme. It's great that we can use the word great, that we are philosophically justified in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, forming opinions.

In stead of the hellhole meanspirited atmosphere provided by materialism and postmodernism. Were opinion is left out altogether, or it is in an intractible mess with fact. That's not great. That's very bad. Universities, colleges, atheists, communists, socialists, materialists, postmodernists etc. are steeped in evil, for not straightforwardly accepting the validity of opinion.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 517
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 15th, 2018, 12:41 pm

Syamsu wrote:
October 15th, 2018, 12:35 pm
You seem to be saying that everything is cause and effect, while it is just only force.

And you also don't appreciate the simplicity of creationism in validating fact and opinion. Now we can say, using creationism, the earth is round (fact), and the earth is beautiful (opinion). That's great that both opinion and fact are validated in one conceptual scheme. It's great that we can use the word great, that we are philosophically justified in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, forming opinions.

In stead of the hellhole meanspirited atmosphere provided by materialism and postmodernism. Were opinion is left out altogether, or it is in an intractible mess with fact. That's not great. That's very bad. Universities, colleges, atheists, communists, socialists, materialists, postmodernists etc. are steeped in evil, for not straightforwardly accepting the validity of opinion.
I'm all for supporting the subjective. One thing I have trouble understanding in your schema is that you say Creationism validates opinion.

Just to triangulate: creationism, for you, means that the universe was intentionally created. It is not Christian creationism per se or any specfic intelligent design theory. Or?

Now what you say that creationism validates opinion, it does not mean that it validates any particular opinion, since these vary radically. Even the example that the earth is beautiful is likely not shared by everyone.

So could you explain what this validates means.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Burning ghost » October 15th, 2018, 12:52 pm

Syamsu -

I will quite openly say that “facts” and “opinion” are complimentary. I accept that someone can listen to a piece of music or look at a picture and see beauty where another person doesn’t. In this case neither is “wrong” about how they feel, and even though they “see” the same material item, they cannot seriosly be said to “SEE” the same item in the same way. Obviously our “subjectivity” makes a huge difference, and how we see appeal here and repulsion there flavours our options and decisions.

No one would ever deny this, yet I am sure everyone can argue for one more than the other (and they should) in order to further explore other possible perspectives we’re currently closed off from. Who wouldn’t love the opportunity to view the world through a childs eyes again and experience a “horse” or “music” for the first time? To watch their favourite film for the first time again?

If someone denies someone else’s opinion then that is plain silly. It is as silly as someone expecting someone to agree with their opinion without questioning it at all. For me it is the inherent “questioning” that is at the heart of human creativity - and it needn’t be a “worded” experience, merely an openness to what oies immediately “in front” of us.
AKA badgerjelly

Syamsu
Posts: 2569
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 15th, 2018, 4:20 pm

What are you talking about? Subjective opinion is a creationist concept, creationism is almost universally denied in academics. The European Union expressly denies creationism. The US courts forbid the teaching of creationism. The concept of free will is also systematically undermined in academics, which is essential to subjectivity. Emotions are objectified in neurology. Whole countries of millions have academics based materialist ideologies in which there is no room for opinion. Belief in God is also objectified, evidence is demanded.

And from my own experience on the internet I can say subjectivity is not accepted as valid. There are about 20 million people on the internet talking about validating fact, the scientific method, and 1 person who validates subjectivity.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 15th, 2018, 4:33 pm

Syamsu wrote:
October 15th, 2018, 4:20 pm
... creationism is almost universally denied in academics.
It's talked about for what it is worth; nothing.
The European Union expressly denies creationism.
I would not have thought it bothered. Please demonstrate where is "denies" it!
The US courts forbid the teaching of creationism.
regrettably this is not the case. But since it is not science it is not taught in science classes.
The concept of free will is also systematically undermined in academics, which is essential to subjectivity.
Complete rubbish. Much time continues to be wasted on the ideas, as well as much ink continues to be spilt about it, especially in philosophy classes.

Emotions are objectified in neurology. Whole countries of millions have academics based materialist ideologies in which there is no room for opinion. Belief in God is also objectified, evidence is demanded.

And from my own experience on the internet I can say subjectivity is not accepted as valid. There are about 20 million people on the internet talking about validating fact, the scientific method, and 1 person who validates subjectivity.
You seem confused about these ideas.

Syamsu
Posts: 2569
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 15th, 2018, 4:35 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 15th, 2018, 12:41 pm
Syamsu wrote:
October 15th, 2018, 12:35 pm
You seem to be saying that everything is cause and effect, while it is just only force.

And you also don't appreciate the simplicity of creationism in validating fact and opinion. Now we can say, using creationism, the earth is round (fact), and the earth is beautiful (opinion). That's great that both opinion and fact are validated in one conceptual scheme. It's great that we can use the word great, that we are philosophically justified in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, forming opinions.

In stead of the hellhole meanspirited atmosphere provided by materialism and postmodernism. Were opinion is left out altogether, or it is in an intractible mess with fact. That's not great. That's very bad. Universities, colleges, atheists, communists, socialists, materialists, postmodernists etc. are steeped in evil, for not straightforwardly accepting the validity of opinion.
I'm all for supporting the subjective. One thing I have trouble understanding in your schema is that you say Creationism validates opinion.

Just to triangulate: creationism, for you, means that the universe was intentionally created. It is not Christian creationism per se or any specfic intelligent design theory. Or?

Now what you say that creationism validates opinion, it does not mean that it validates any particular opinion, since these vary radically. Even the example that the earth is beautiful is likely not shared by everyone.

So could you explain what this validates means.

Validation of opinion: An opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Example: "I find this painting beautiful". The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will (it is chosen). The opinion it is ugly could also have been chosen, and would be equally valid. The word "beautiful" identifies a love for the way the painting looks as agency of the choice to say it is beautiful.

Validation of fact: A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation.
Example: "There is a mangotree by the river". The words essentially provide a 1 to 1 corresponding model of said tree, forced by evidence of such.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2797
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Burning ghost » October 15th, 2018, 4:45 pm

Syamsu -
What are you talking about? Subjective opinion is a creationist concept, creationism is almost universally denied in academics.
Everyone has “subjective opinions” so what you say here makes no real sense to me (subjectively speaking.) So I don’t see how you csn say “subjective opinion” is a “creationist concept.” Does that mean only creationists can have subjective opinions? Or any opinions?

Creationism is universally denied because there is no evidence to back up the opinion other than scripture - I am assuming you’re talking about the world being created in seven days and the age of the Earth.

What no one denies is that your opinion differs from mine. I accept that your subjective opinion of the world is what it is. I may question it and you may question my subjective opinion too. You may present evidence that I don’t find convincing and I may present evidence that you don’t find convincing.

Opinion and fact are a extention of cause and effect. We have opinions and over time we develop facts. Sometimes our opinion of something contiinues undisturbed by the experiential facts of being, sometimes they don’t.

Without a doubt across the course of history we’ve seem repeatedly that some firmly held beliefs have been framed with a kind of “factual certainty”, yet we all know deep down that what appears certain today may well be uncertain tomorrow - the only overriding factor of this is when we use logic because the rules of abstract mathematics are universal, our understanding of geometry progresses but doesn’t alter. The proportions of a circle or triangle don’t change - those are the basis of the concept of “certainty” just like we cannot have an “opinion” about basic arithmetic (1+1=2 always!)

Your opinion about the history of the Earth or universe holds up based on your understanding of the evidence presented/known/understood. If it is different to mine I am not going to say your opinion is useful or futile because I believe your opinion matters.
AKA badgerjelly

Eduk
Posts: 2065
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Eduk » October 16th, 2018, 3:43 am

According to Google subjective as a word was popularised by Kant around 1803. Creationism is somewhat harder to pin down as you hide what kind of creationism it is that you preach but according to Google 1856 was the first recorded usage in a letter to Darwin which kindly asked him to stop doing science and progressing knowledge.
By the way. You don't seem to realise this but all scientists use the word subjective.
Unknown means unknown.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 517
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 16th, 2018, 4:20 am

Syamsu wrote:
October 15th, 2018, 4:35 pm
Validation of opinion: An opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Example: "I find this painting beautiful". The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will (it is chosen). The opinion it is ugly could also have been chosen, and would be equally valid. The word "beautiful" identifies a love for the way the painting looks as agency of the choice to say it is beautiful.
So you are saying that I choose to like Gaughin's Tahiti paintings and do now have my own particular taste? IOW I see one of these, and I could go either way, I could say that's ugly or that's beautiful, and I decide, not based on my reactions or built in preferences, that I am going to consider it beautiful, and then, after the decision, I experience it that way?

How did creationism validate this?

What are the steps in the validation process?

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 517
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 16th, 2018, 4:53 am

I suppose as a follow up question - it would seem to mean I could decide to find something ugly that I currently consider beautiful. Is that the case?

Syamsu
Posts: 2569
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 16th, 2018, 5:10 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 4:20 am
Syamsu wrote:
October 15th, 2018, 4:35 pm
Validation of opinion: An opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Example: "I find this painting beautiful". The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will (it is chosen). The opinion it is ugly could also have been chosen, and would be equally valid. The word "beautiful" identifies a love for the way the painting looks as agency of the choice to say it is beautiful.
So you are saying that I choose to like Gaughin's Tahiti paintings and do now have my own particular taste? IOW I see one of these, and I could go either way, I could say that's ugly or that's beautiful, and I decide, not based on my reactions or built in preferences, that I am going to consider it beautiful, and then, after the decision, I experience it that way?

How did creationism validate this?

What are the steps in the validation process?
Yes you have the option available to say that Gaugin is ugly, and generally would be aware of this option, regardless that you choose the opinion it is beautiful. You just have to explain taste in terms of free will, and not in terms of mechanical force.

No you don't only experience the beauty after you chose the opinion it is beautiful, the experience of the beauty is in the agency of the choice to say it is beautiful.

Validation is only about that it works without logic error.

Essentially this is about how agency of a choice can be identified. Logic demands that agency of a choice can only he identified with a choice. If B is chosen over A, then the question what made the choice turn out B, can only be answered with a choice between X and Y, where either X or Y is equally valid.

If you posit a factual material X as what made the choice turn out B, then you obtain the logic that X forced B, and that the choice could not have turned out A. So that is a logic error of contradiction, a contradiction between a choice being free and forced.

Eduk
Posts: 2065
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Eduk » October 16th, 2018, 5:23 am

Syamsu. Materialism doesn't refute choice or free will. Please stop posting like it does.
Consciousness is not understood. Therefore it is not understood.
Unknown means unknown.

Post Reply