The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

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.
Syamsu
Posts: 2570
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 16th, 2018, 6:02 am

Eduk wrote:
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.
It's a matter of logic that agency of a choice can only be identified with a choice. That is what disqualifies agency as being material.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Eduk » October 16th, 2018, 6:48 am

It's a matter of logic that agency of a choice can only be identified with a choice. That is what disqualifies agency as being material.
You have to understand this is your personal interpretation.
Unknown means unknown.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 699
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 16th, 2018, 7:14 am

Syamsu wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 5:10 am
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.
I haven't takeo on any metaphysica position. I just don't find I have the option with many aesthetic choices. There might be a little wiggle room. I can try to find reasons to like something. I can read critique of it and then this sometimes changes my reaction. So, I can choose to experience things that now lead me to have a new aesthetic reactions. But this only is available. And it is not a choice to react differently, it is a choice to have experiences such that the painting elicits a new reaction.
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.
Still not clear. Here it sould like you are saying the choice is about whehter to assert it is beautiful, an interpersonal choice. But I doubt that's what you mean.
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.
Though finding something beautiful is not a choice between to objects. I can find ten in a row ugly. And speaking of ugly, there are some art works I simply cannot choose to find beautiful, and vice versa.

Syamsu
Posts: 2570
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 16th, 2018, 7:16 am

I don't think so. It is crystal clear materialism validates fact, the existence of material things is a fact. Opinion is not validated in materialism.

Syamsu
Posts: 2570
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 16th, 2018, 7:23 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 7:14 am
Syamsu wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 5:10 am
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.
I haven't takeo on any metaphysica position. I just don't find I have the option with many aesthetic choices. There might be a little wiggle room. I can try to find reasons to like something. I can read critique of it and then this sometimes changes my reaction. So, I can choose to experience things that now lead me to have a new aesthetic reactions. But this only is available. And it is not a choice to react differently, it is a choice to have experiences such that the painting elicits a new reaction.
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.
Still not clear. Here it sould like you are saying the choice is about whehter to assert it is beautiful, an interpersonal choice. But I doubt that's what you mean.
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.
Though finding something beautiful is not a choice between to objects. I can find ten in a row ugly. And speaking of ugly, there are some art works I simply cannot choose to find beautiful, and vice versa.
You are just confusing choosing the word beautiful, with choosing to love the way the painting looks, it's a strawman.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 699
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 16th, 2018, 11:54 pm

Syamsu wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 7:23 am
You are just confusing choosing the word beautiful, with choosing to love the way the painting looks, it's a strawman.
I may be doing that. I am trying to understand your position.
If I see the painting, can I choose whether I have a positive or negative aesthetic reaction?

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 699
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 16th, 2018, 11:57 pm

If you are simply saying I get to choose which word I apply to my reaction, I am not sure the importance of this, nor how creationism validates this.

How would it not be validated if, say, the universe always existed, perhaps in some pantheist or panentheist form`?

Syamsu
Posts: 2570
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 17th, 2018, 6:44 am

Yes, making an opinion is just choosing a word. A word which expresses what it is that makes a choice.

Logic requires that the answer to a question about what it is that makes a choice, can only be answered with a choice.

That a word is chosen does not mean words are the only thing chosen. In creationism there are two categories creator and creation, and anything must fit in either category, or it is inconsistent with creationism. Since one can model the universe, therefore the existence of the universe is a fact, therefore the universe must be a creation and not a creator.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 699
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 17th, 2018, 8:39 am

Syamsu wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 6:44 am
Yes, making an opinion is just choosing a word. A word which expresses what it is that makes a choice.
So, it is in the word choice, not in the general reaction one has. One does not choose the batch of emotions and sensations that one indicates on feels by using the word 'beautiful', it is the choice amongst the various related terms for that batch of emotions and sensations. Or?
Logic requires that the answer to a question about what it is that makes a choice, can only be answered with a choice.
If it is to be accurate? I am not sure what this means. Could you give a concrete example - I realize that the beautiful issue may have been that, but perhaps even more specific.
That a word is chosen does not mean words are the only thing chosen.
What else is chosen when in that first seeing a specific Gaughin, I say outloud to my brother who is with me in the museum 'that is beautiful'?
In creationism there are two categories creator and creation, and anything must fit in either category, or it is inconsistent with creationism.
Must fit in one of them or at least one of them or both?
Since one can model the universe, therefore the existence of the universe is a fact, therefore the universe must be a creation and not a creator.
If this sentence is an entire argument I don't think it is a complete argument. One can model things that do not exist. A map of Middle Earth. The anatomy of an alien creature as part of a sci-fi movie preproduction process.

And here again, if this seems like a straw man argument, I am not trying to disprove what you are saying, but rather showing you how what you are saying comes across, so that you can either correct what I am not understanding or then perhaps confirm that I am correct about what you are saying but disagree with my argument. I find your way of presenting ideas as seeming to make leaps, sometimes use language in ways I am not sure is the conventional use of the words and seeming sometimes to be making statements that might not connect with the points I am raising. But I am not sure. I like different approaches and I am interested in the idea that creationism - that is that there is a creator - is somehow deducible, but not in the usual theist approaches to this. But I am, at the same time, finding it very hard to follow. So please treat my posts not as aggressive or dismissive but as me triangulating.

Syamsu
Posts: 2570
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Syamsu » October 17th, 2018, 9:16 am

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation.
An opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Choice is the mechanism of creation, defined as making an alternative future the present.

Accuracy applies to facts not to opinions. President Trump is a nice person. This opinion is valid if it is chosen. Meaning the opinion is invalid if it is forced, including if the opinion is forced by evidence, forced by taste, forced by ideology, forced by upbringing, forced by chemistry in the brain, or forced in any other way whatsoever. One must have the options available nice, and bad, and choose one of them, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

A model of some non existent alien creature, whatever. One can make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the model, therefore the existence of the model is a fact. Things in imagination, you can also make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of them, therefore the existence of them as being fantasies is a fact, therefore they are creations and not creators.

You could devise words which have both subjective and objective parts to them in the definition. So what.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 699
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 24th, 2018, 11:04 am

Syamsu wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 9:16 am
A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation.
An opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Choice is the mechanism of creation, defined as making an alternative future the present.

Accuracy applies to facts not to opinions. President Trump is a nice person. This opinion is valid if it is chosen. Meaning the opinion is invalid if it is forced, including if the opinion is forced by evidence, forced by taste, forced by ideology, forced by upbringing, forced by chemistry in the brain, or forced in any other way whatsoever. One must have the options available nice, and bad, and choose one of them, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

A model of some non existent alien creature, whatever. One can make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the model, therefore the existence of the model is a fact. Things in imagination, you can also make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of them, therefore the existence of them as being fantasies is a fact, therefore they are creations and not creators.

You could devise words which have both subjective and objective parts to them in the definition. So what.
A process note: if you don't quote specific points I made, but rather respond in bulk, it leads to a much less clear discussion. I don't know which parts of what you wrote above are responses to which, if any, specific questions I asked or points I raised. You have repeated your position, but not in any way interacted with my ideas. I have no idea if you have understood what I meant, which points you think you are responding to in a given part of your post, and to respond I must pretty begin again. There are people who respond this way and obvously you are free to, but to me it is a waste of time. I could just as well gone back and read some early post where you formulate your position. Consider that this way of responding comes off as evasive and not able to directly respond to the points I've made or answer the questions I've asked. It is easy to simply restate one's position. It saves one actually interacting with a different mind. I'll leave you to others more patient with this style of responding or 'responding'

User avatar
pumpkinalex
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: October 25th, 2018, 11:35 pm

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by pumpkinalex » October 25th, 2018, 11:42 pm

What kind of fallacy is this?
All A’s are B – Some A’s are C – Some A’s are C
the conclusion just repeats the second premise

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heuristics and Human Creativity

Post by Burning ghost » October 25th, 2018, 11:57 pm

pumpkinalex wrote:
October 25th, 2018, 11:42 pm
What kind of fallacy is this?
All A’s are B – Some A’s are C – Some A’s are C
the conclusion just repeats the second premise
From what I can gather it is an issue with semantics. Syamsu says one things and to our ears it doesn’t mean to us what it means to him. When dealing with time it’s a tricky business.
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply