Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

On consilience and literary Darwinism (weblog post)

Expand Messages
  • JT Velikovsky
    Hello All, I just blogged on consilience & LD: http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-71-consilience-is-coming-read-all-about-it/ - any
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 22 11:28 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello All,

      I just blogged on consilience & LD:
      http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-71-consilience-is-coming-read-all-about-it/
      - any feedback, much appreciated... (I may well have missed some key
      texts...)

      best,

      JT

      --
      -----------------------

      JT Velikovsky
      Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
      http://storyality.wordpress.com/

      and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer:
      Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics

      Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/

      Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html

      Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/

      Email: joetv@...
      Also: joetv@...
      Skype: joe.tee.vee
      Twitter: @joeteevee

      Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
      Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
      YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee

      aka: JT Velikovsky
      Research Student & Filmmaker
      Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
      School of Humanities and Communication Arts
      University of Western Sydney

      This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

      If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses
    • tintner michael
      It s a good list, but if you re interested in creativity, you should take into account that the arts represent a very profound challenge to science in its
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 23 2:27 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        It's a good list, but if you're interested in creativity, you should take into account that the arts represent a very profound challenge to science in its current version.  And ultimate consilience will transform both, not just the arts.

        Science believes that life, which includes creativity,  is essentially formulaic and algorithmic - determined by the rules of nature's formulae and algorithms The formal sciences - logic, maths, computer science - on wh. science is based, are all centrally formulaic and algorithmic. The classic example is mathematical calculations - on wh. Turing based the design of the computer.

        But we know that artistic creativity is only formulaic in parts, and as a whole is nothing like mathematical calculations. All creative projects in the arts begin with an idea, not a formula - a rough idea and an otherwise blank page. And you have to come up with further ideas, which may take time and involve many blanks, blocks and false starts  - and many years of labour Algorithmic operations are fluent. Creativity is notoriously the "creative agony" - a struggle. 

        Formulaic operations are formal - there is a formal template to which their products must conform - and they are right or wrong.

        Creative artistic operations are informal/freeform -like freeform verse. There is no formal template, which is part of what makes them so difficult. And they are only good or bad, and there can be "creative differences" as to what is good or bad. And there can be an infinite set of alternative solutions. There are almost infinite interpretations both artistic and critical of Hamlet, for example. None of them is right, only in varying degrees good-and-bad.

        Formulaic operations can only produce old products (2 + 2 are always the same old 4). Artistic, idea-based operations produce new and different products every time. Formula operations obey the rules. Artistic projects delight in breaking them, in being "transgressive".

        In fact, all creative science and technology work on exactly the same principles as the creative arts. Creating a new formula or algorithm is just as tortured as creating a work of art, and nothing like formulaic or algorithmic. New formulae and algorithms are good or bad, not right and wrong.

        Look at the psychology of convergent vs divergent, crystallised vs fluid, tame vs wicked, structured vs unstructured thinking/ intelligence, You'll see a good deal of what I've said, discussed.

        P.S. One could then go on to look at how science views life as an automatic process, fundamentally predictable, whereas the arts depict it as a dramatic business, fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. But this is a short post, not a book...
      • Bill Benzon
        If you re interested in music there s two books you should list: There s my book: William Benzon, Beethoven s Anvil: Music in Mind and Culture (Basic Books
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 23 2:57 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          If you're interested in music there's two books you should list:

          There's my book: William Benzon, Beethoven's Anvil: Music in Mind and Culture (Basic Books 2001)

          And Steven MIthen,  The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body.

          Perhaps the best single EP account of literature is Brian Boyd, On The Origin of Stories.

          BB

          On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:28 AM, JT Velikovsky wrote:

           

          Hello All,

          I just blogged on consilience & LD:
          http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-71-consilience-is-coming-read-all-about-it/
          - any feedback, much appreciated... (I may well have missed some key
          texts...)

          best,

          JT

          --
          -----------------------

          JT Velikovsky
          Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
          http://storyality.wordpress.com/

          and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer:
          Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics

          Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/

          Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html

          Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/

          Email: joetv@...
          Also: joetv@...
          Skype: joe.tee.vee
          Twitter: @joeteevee

          Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
          Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
          YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee

          aka: JT Velikovsky
          Research Student & Filmmaker
          Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
          School of Humanities and Communication Arts
          University of Western Sydney

          This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

          If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
          This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses



        • JT Velikovsky
          Thanks for this Michael, all fascinating - and very thought-provoking..! And - I could be wrong (about: everything) but - let me offer another view, (hopefully
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 23 4:22 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for this Michael, all fascinating - and very thought-provoking..!
            And - I could be wrong (about: everything) but - let me offer another view, (hopefully not too shocking) -
            ...I'm actually convinced: Creativity *is* actually: totally formulaic and algorithmic... (!)
            (Call me a rebel... but -- I tend to find other views on Creativity to be Romantic, ie - an alternative to the rational view of Creativity...)
            ie: I'm currently (just me, personally) convinced, by the scientific research on Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, Simonton, Boden, Koestler ie - `combinatorial creativity', etc) that:

            Artistic creativity is *formulaic - in all parts*, and as a whole is *exactly* like mathematical problem-solving...

            (which - is also, not quite exactly the same as doing arithmetic... ie 2 + 2 = 4 - But then: neither is evolution...
            ie - Evolution is an algorithm, within a complex system - ie ecosystems - and also includes: random variation / (ie random numbers), and then `selection'...
            ie All, much more complex, than: 2 + 2 = [ ] )

            But - by all means Michael - please, do challenge my views...
            (and perhaps, even off-list, in case, nobody else here, is interested in this...)
            (ie - Like anyone, I need all my theories to be rigorously `tested', and, I also hope that Karl Popper would be proud of me...)

            Warmly

            JT

            PS - Here comes the longest PPS in the history of email.

            PPS - Michael - maybe you're the only one still reading this (I hope so), but - this is a complex can-o-worms (Creativity), so here's the shortest way I could explain my view...

            I see all Creativity (scientific, artistic, anything) as: `Creative Problem Finding' & `Creative Problem Solving'...

            And that, the (mental) algorithms used in: a new invention, or a scientist arriving at a scientific theorem - or, an artist `creating' a work of art (eg - a painting, a novel, a film screenplay, a song) all work the same way...
            All are just: problem-solving. (ie - A predictable, algorithmic, and `staged' process.)

            - I think Wallas' 1926 `4-stage model' (which Csikszentmihalyi also expanded to 5 steps, and Bostick collapses into 2 stages, as he calls half of it `Intuition') can be seen as demonstrating, how: all works of creative art (and - all scientific problems) were (and still are) solved...

            (I also find there are a lot of Romantic/Inspirationist myths, around Creativity... - Coleridge and Kubla Khan being one of the best `howlers', in my view...
            but - the Romantics, going back to Goethe, were all pretty good at that `mystical' PR... I'm a `genius' - and it's all very mysterious where my Creativity comes from... the muses, etc etc)

            Certainly - many scientists and artists (including even myself, at times) can, sometimes, receive their problem-solutions from dreams...
            (eg - Kekule: structure of the benzene molecule, etc)...
            Yet - that's also just the unconscious `working the problem', and `illumination' (ie - a creative solution, to the current problem) may equally come, while `daydreaming' - or while doing another unrelated activity... (eg driving, walking, etc)
            But - that's all still part of the same `5-step' algorithmic Creativity formula.
            It's just like: a computer program / algorithm (I'm also a sometimes computer programmer.)

            - I also agree with you - that, there's not always `one solution'... (and, Evolution certainly shows us that)...

            I think Maths is a good example of `not always one solution' (ie - 2 + 2 = 4 - certainly...)
            But, that's also not the `only' solution (as, it really depends what the (Creative) question, was...?)

            - If the question [read: the `Found' creative problem] is: How to add 2 numbers to get 4? - Then: 3+1 will also do the trick, etc...)
            (Or, if the problem was: "What are all the numbers that add up to 4?" I guess, we'd also consider: 1+1+1+0.5+0.5, or even 8 X 0.5, which, I won't turn into a 0.5 +0.5 (etc) sum here - as this PPS is also turning into a book :) ( - sorry)

            I think, with the Arts, and `the creative process', we also tend to forget: the infinite `other answers', that are (or could/would be) equally `right'...?
            (Note how many of Mozart's, Bachs, etc works in one genre/style, sound a lot like, all the others in the same genre/style... all just: `variations on a theme'...)
            There are many right answers to `2 + 2 = [ ] ' 
            Shakespeare could have written Hamlet in various ways - with various things in the story altered, and yet: the story would likely still satisfy.
            (If at the end, a Coda showed that: `Hamlet came out of the near-death coma - and survived the poisoned sword' - and lived-! - Would the play then have bombed?)

            Consider also: What if Shakespeare had reversed some (though not all) of the character roles in Hamlet... (say, his murdered mother's ghost appears, at the start, etc)...
            - How do we know, that, it then mightn't have been: even more popular/beloved/`classic'..?
            (I am thinking now, of Nettle's brilliant analysis of Twelfth Night and Richard III... ie - Shakespeare actually used the exact same `creative formula' in: most of his plays...)

            Or - say, What if Van Gogh in Starry Night, had used a slightly-different colour palette... (- Did it really have to be: exactly those hues? Maybe it could have been way better with slightly different colours? Or even, with just one different colour in there?)

            - Maybe all those classic creative artworks would still be: just as celebrated (and - in fact, maybe both Hamlet and Starry Night are: the `lousiest' creative solutions possible, to those `creative problems' (eg: `How to write a super-gripping thriller Danish-royalty play about over-considering the consequences of Revenge',
            Or
            `How to paint a stunning French city night sky - as seen by someone with epilepsy, syphilis, and synasthesia'),

            But - as they are, they are just, `the best artistic/creative solution' their creators managed to come up with, given their deadlines...?
            ...How would we know?
            (eg: I'd love for someone to unearth an `earlier draft of Hamlet' - that is actually, dramatically & narratively - much `better' than the version that: we currently all `know about' and love.)
             
            As with Maths: a simple problem like `2 + 2 = ?' Actually has: lots of solutions. Depends what the `rules' of the answer are. Could be: `2 + 2 = 0 + the square-root of 16.'
            - If we want the simplest (most elegant) one, certainly: 4.

            What's the simplest (most elegant) way to invent a printing press? (At the time: be called Gutenberg, and combine a wine-press and a coin-punch.)

            Q: What's the simplest way to become a Shakespeare or a George Lucas?
            A: Have loads of people, all constantly combining lots of old ideas, and all practicing their craft, for years - and eventually, one of them will become Shakespeare, and one will `become' George Lucas (with Star Wars etc).

            Also explains `multiples' in science (Wallace and Darwin with evolution, Pascal and Liebniz with calculus)...

            All just: algorithms. Throw enough people at the problem, and sooner or later, one will crack it...
            And their `creative process' (each of the individuals) was: all just using an algorithm. (Note - They may - or may not - have known, they were consciously using it, at the time.)

            I also love Simonton's 4 options for Creativity: Logic, Chance, Genius, and Zeitgeist... (ie - any of them, will do the trick, in Creative Problem-Solving... )
            (`Zeitgeist' explains `art movements'... it also explains Einstein's theory of relativity... and Newton -
            And anyone, combining 2 old ideas... ie "standing on the shoulders of: previous big thinkers"...)

            And - the `Chance' one (from Simonton) - also ties in nicely to evolution...

            -- If you have (say, infinite) random variation, (eg the sun's rays, bombarding all organic life / DNA on Earth, let alone those neutrinos which pass through everything) sooner or later, one of those `chance combination's (a genetic mutation) is better-adapted to: Solving `the problem' (eg: say - existing, and thriving, in the Earth's environment...)

            And - Creativity works the same way: all celebrated geniuses (eg artists) were hugely prolific, and we all ignore - or, forget - (or: forgive) their `crummier'/less interesting works...
            We also forget `all the other guys' who we've sadly never heard of, all the `also-rans' - and instead, the examples of: Shakespeare and Lucas and Mozart all stand way above the others - and then `draw all the PR'... (and they also `keep quiet about their method/s', which when you look very closely, all `follow the algorithm' perfectly.)

            I'm reasonably familiar with much of the literature you mentioned (though, not all the literature, across all those areas... as, people keep writing more books - and, publishing them too fast for me to read...)
            But - reasonably familiar with: Convergent vs Divergent thinking, Crystallised vs Fluid Intelligence, Tame vs Wicked problems (and also, Super-Wicked ones, such as: Climate Change, where time is running out, and we're all also exacerbating the problem, etc), and, `Structured vs Unstructured' thinking/ Intelligence. (And - Gardner's 7 x intelligences, and others...)

            My thinking and research on Creativity is fairly-extensive (but - of course - always open to revision - if, some new and/or radical scientific data comes in, given: Bayes' Theorem, etc)
            Perhaps, if you have a chance, maybe Michael, see Posts #6-#14 here: http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/ (all on: Creativity)...
            It shows (well, roughly) where my thinking on Creativity is at...
            Also, Michael - if you did have a chance, then - I'm quite sure, you would also be able to help identify, anything `key' that, I may have missed...(?)
            ie - Your own knowledge on creativity (and - modes of cognition) certainly sounds pretty deep and extensive...

            And - Thanks again for looking at that other post... Very much appreciated.

            And - sorry for seeming so disagreeable, here (it's not intentional)

            - My own biggest `problem' (now: solved) ...I've been a `creative/artistic professional' for about 20 years (in film, music, games etc) and have only recently found, most of this scientific literature on Creativity... (And: it certainly would have made my working life much easier, to know it all, 20 years ago...)

            I also studied my undergrad degree in Communications, in 91-93... I was given Foucault, postmodernism, Barthes (semiotics), and whole bunch of other random guff (mostly garbage - that will not help a creative professional actually `do' their creative work)...
            And - In the same way Literary Darwinism `sweeps' most of that empty verbiage away (thankfully! ie - Finally! LOL) I find, the scientific research on Creativity (Csiskszentmihalyi, Simonton etc) would really *help* all current undergrads - in all creative fields...

            In fact - I think they should teach: the Systems Model of Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1988, 1996 etc) in primary schools. (4-year old kids would do better finger-paintings)

            Here endeth: the longest PPS in the world...

            But in short, I think Csikszentmihalyi cracked `the algorithms' in Creativity...
            (1) the systems model,
            (2) Flow Theory, and
            (3) the 5 steps in Creativity... (both artistic and scientific)

            (at least - I certainly haven't yet seen, any evidence to contradict it... including: in 20 years of working across a few Creative domains... including, oddly, in computer science... with augmented reality games...)

            Warmly

            JT

            PPPPS - I could be wrong - about all of this.



            On 23/08/2013 7:27 PM, tintner michael wrote:
             
            It's a good list, but if you're interested in creativity, you should take into account that the arts represent a very profound challenge to science in its current version.  And ultimate consilience will transform both, not just the arts.

            Science believes that life, which includes creativity,  is essentially formulaic and algorithmic - determined by the rules of nature's formulae and algorithms The formal sciences - logic, maths, computer science - on wh. science is based, are all centrally formulaic and algorithmic. The classic example is mathematical calculations - on wh. Turing based the design of the computer.

            But we know that artistic creativity is only formulaic in parts, and as a whole is nothing like mathematical calculations. All creative projects in the arts begin with an idea, not a formula - a rough idea and an otherwise blank page. And you have to come up with further ideas, which may take time and involve many blanks, blocks and false starts  - and many years of labour Algorithmic operations are fluent. Creativity is notoriously the "creative agony" - a struggle. 

            Formulaic operations are formal - there is a formal template to which their products must conform - and they are right or wrong.

            Creative artistic operations are informal/freeform -like freeform verse. There is no formal template, which is part of what makes them so difficult. And they are only good or bad, and there can be "creative differences" as to what is good or bad. And there can be an infinite set of alternative solutions. There are almost infinite interpretations both artistic and critical of Hamlet, for example. None of them is right, only in varying degrees good-and-bad.

            Formulaic operations can only produce old products (2 + 2 are always the same old 4). Artistic, idea-based operations produce new and different products every time. Formula operations obey the rules. Artistic projects delight in breaking them, in being "transgressive".

            In fact, all creative science and technology work on exactly the same principles as the creative arts. Creating a new formula or algorithm is just as tortured as creating a work of art, and nothing like formulaic or algorithmic. New formulae and algorithms are good or bad, not right and wrong.

            Look at the psychology of convergent vs divergent, crystallised vs fluid, tame vs wicked, structured vs unstructured thinking/ intelligence, You'll see a good deal of what I've said, discussed.

            P.S. One could then go on to look at how science views life as an automatic process, fundamentally predictable, whereas the arts depict it as a dramatic business, fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. But this is a short post, not a book...

            -- 
            -----------------------
            
            JT Velikovsky
            Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
            http://storyality.wordpress.com/
            
            and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
            Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
            
            Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
            
            Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
            
            Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
            
            Email: joetv@...
            Also: joetv@...
            Skype: joe.tee.vee
            Twitter: @joeteevee
            
            Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
            Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
            YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
            
            aka: JT Velikovsky
            Research Student & Filmmaker 
            Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
            School of Humanities and Communication Arts
            University of Western Sydney
            
            This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
            
            If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
            This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses
          • JT Velikovsky
            Thanks Bill! Warmly JT ... -- ... JT Velikovsky Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst http://storyality.wordpress.com/ and Transmedia
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 23 4:23 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks Bill!

              Warmly

              JT


              On 23/08/2013 7:57 PM, Bill Benzon wrote:
               

              If you're interested in music there's two books you should list:


              There's my book: William Benzon, Beethoven's Anvil: Music in Mind and Culture (Basic Books 2001)

              And Steven MIthen,  The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body.

              Perhaps the best single EP account of literature is Brian Boyd, On The Origin of Stories.

              BB

              On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:28 AM, JT Velikovsky wrote:

               

              Hello All,

              I just blogged on consilience & LD:
              http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-71-consilience-is-coming-read-all-about-it/
              - any feedback, much appreciated... (I may well have missed some key
              texts...)

              best,

              JT

              --
              -----------------------

              JT Velikovsky
              Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
              http://storyality.wordpress.com/

              and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer:
              Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics

              Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/

              Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html

              Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/

              Email: joetv@...
              Also: joetv@...
              Skype: joe.tee.vee
              Twitter: @joeteevee

              Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
              Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
              YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee

              aka: JT Velikovsky
              Research Student & Filmmaker
              Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
              School of Humanities and Communication Arts
              University of Western Sydney

              This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

              If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
              This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses




              -- 
              -----------------------
              
              JT Velikovsky
              Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
              http://storyality.wordpress.com/
              
              and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
              Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
              
              Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
              
              Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
              
              Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
              
              Email: joetv@...
              Also: joetv@...
              Skype: joe.tee.vee
              Twitter: @joeteevee
              
              Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
              Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
              YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
              
              aka: JT Velikovsky
              Research Student & Filmmaker 
              Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
              School of Humanities and Communication Arts
              University of Western Sydney
              
              This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
              
              If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
              This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses
            • Jeff Turpin
              This debate has some history, and probably some deep prehistory (as in unrecorded). One possible way to merge the views is to drop the words all, every, and
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 23 6:19 AM
              • 0 Attachment

                This debate has some history, and probably some deep prehistory (as in unrecorded).  One possible way to merge the views is to drop the words “all, every,” and substitute “most, some.”  Arguing that science is always linearly logical and mathematical will usually draw fire (I work in the sciences, and informed guesses are my favorite part of the process); and arguing that every work of art results from blind inspiration will also usually draw fire (I work in fiction, and formulae are a huge part of the output, albeit with rare but necessary inspiration or intuition). 

                It’s easiest to say that we don’t know everything yet, but I’d add that one job of Lit Dar is to pin down the places where literature is mathematical / formulaic, and many of the creative masterpieces are combinations of formula and inspiration, which can be done in unique ways, but can also be done in time-honored, deeply satisfying ways.  JT is right that a lot of the “creativity” mythology is self-laudatory, a way for poets to pump up their own portfolios.  But I also think that most writers need, and maintain, a certain amount of ignorance about the adaptive functions of their writing, for reasons I don’t yet fully understand.  I suspect the occasional scientist also over-hypes the rational / mathematical aspect of scientific work, for self-serving reasons (almost all of our narratives are ultimately self-serving).  But we’ll figure it out.  Just be patient ;-).  And know the gray areas. jt

                 

                From: biopoet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biopoet@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JT Velikovsky
                Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 6:22 AM
                To: biopoet@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [biopoet] Re: On consilience and literary Darwinism (weblog post)

                 

                 

                Thanks for this Michael, all fascinating - and very thought-provoking..!
                And - I could be wrong (about: everything) but - let me offer another view, (hopefully not too shocking) -
                ...I'm actually convinced: Creativity *is* actually: totally formulaic and algorithmic... (!)
                (Call me a rebel... but -- I tend to find other views on Creativity to be Romantic, ie - an alternative to the rational view of Creativity...)
                ie: I'm currently (just me, personally) convinced, by the scientific research on Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, Simonton, Boden, Koestler ie - `combinatorial creativity', etc) that:

                Artistic creativity is *formulaic - in all parts*, and as a whole is *exactly* like mathematical problem-solving...

                (which - is also, not quite exactly the same as doing arithmetic... ie 2 + 2 = 4 - But then: neither is evolution...
                ie - Evolution is an algorithm, within a complex system - ie ecosystems - and also includes: random variation / (ie random numbers), and then `selection'...
                ie All, much more complex, than: 2 + 2 = [ ] )

                But - by all means Michael - please, do challenge my views...
                (and perhaps, even off-list, in case, nobody else here, is interested in this...)
                (ie - Like anyone, I need all my theories to be rigorously `tested', and, I also hope that Karl Popper would be proud of me...)

                Warmly

                JT

                PS - Here comes the longest PPS in the history of email.

                PPS - Michael - maybe you're the only one still reading this (I hope so), but - this is a complex can-o-worms (Creativity), so here's the shortest way I could explain my view...

                I see all Creativity (scientific, artistic, anything) as: `Creative Problem Finding' & `Creative Problem Solving'...

                And that, the (mental) algorithms used in: a new invention, or a scientist arriving at a scientific theorem - or, an artist `creating' a work of art (eg - a painting, a novel, a film screenplay, a song) all work the same way...
                All are just: problem-solving. (ie - A predictable, algorithmic, and `staged' process.)

                - I think Wallas' 1926 `4-stage model' (which Csikszentmihalyi also expanded to 5 steps, and Bostick collapses into 2 stages, as he calls half of it `Intuition') can be seen as demonstrating, how: all works of creative art (and - all scientific problems) were (and still are) solved...

                (I also find there are a lot of Romantic/Inspirationist myths, around Creativity... - Coleridge and Kubla Khan being one of the best `howlers', in my view...
                but - the Romantics, going back to Goethe, were all pretty good at that `mystical' PR... I'm a `genius' - and it's all very mysterious where my Creativity comes from... the muses, etc etc)

                Certainly - many scientists and artists (including even myself, at times) can, sometimes, receive their problem-solutions from dreams...
                (eg - Kekule: structure of the benzene molecule, etc)...
                Yet - that's also just the unconscious `working the problem', and `illumination' (ie - a creative solution, to the current problem) may equally come, while `daydreaming' - or while doing another unrelated activity... (eg driving, walking, etc)
                But - that's all still part of the same `5-step' algorithmic Creativity formula.
                It's just like: a computer program / algorithm (I'm also a sometimes computer programmer.)

                - I also agree with you - that, there's not always `one solution'... (and, Evolution certainly shows us that)...

                I think Maths is a good example of `not always one solution' (ie - 2 + 2 = 4 - certainly...)
                But, that's also not the `only' solution (as, it really depends what the (Creative) question, was...?)

                - If the question [read: the `Found' creative problem] is: How to add 2 numbers to get 4? - Then: 3+1 will also do the trick, etc...)
                (Or, if the problem was: "What are all the numbers that add up to 4?" I guess, we'd also consider: 1+1+1+0.5+0.5, or even 8 X 0.5, which, I won't turn into a 0.5 +0.5 (etc) sum here - as this PPS is also turning into a book :) ( - sorry)

                I think, with the Arts, and `the creative process', we also tend to forget: the infinite `other answers', that are (or could/would be) equally `right'...?
                (Note how many of Mozart's, Bachs, etc works in one genre/style, sound a lot like, all the others in the same genre/style... all just: `variations on a theme'...)
                There are many right answers to `2 + 2 = [ ] ' 
                Shakespeare could have written Hamlet in various ways - with various things in the story altered, and yet: the story would likely still satisfy.
                (If at the end, a Coda showed that: `Hamlet came out of the near-death coma - and survived the poisoned sword' - and lived-! - Would the play then have bombed?)

                Consider also: What if Shakespeare had reversed some (though not all) of the character roles in Hamlet... (say, his murdered mother's ghost appears, at the start, etc)...
                - How do we know, that, it then mightn't have been: even more popular/beloved/`classic'..?
                (I am thinking now, of Nettle's brilliant analysis of Twelfth Night and Richard III... ie - Shakespeare actually used the exact same `creative formula' in: most of his plays...)

                Or - say, What if Van Gogh in Starry Night, had used a slightly-different colour palette... (- Did it really have to be: exactly those hues? Maybe it could have been way better with slightly different colours? Or even, with just one different colour in there?)

                - Maybe all those classic creative artworks would still be: just as celebrated (and - in fact, maybe both Hamlet and Starry Night are: the `lousiest' creative solutions possible, to those `creative problems' (eg: `How to write a super-gripping thriller Danish-royalty play about over-considering the consequences of Revenge',
                Or
                `How to paint a stunning French city night sky - as seen by someone with epilepsy, syphilis, and synasthesia'),

                But - as they are, they are just, `the best artistic/creative solution' their creators managed to come up with, given their deadlines...?
                ...How would we know?
                (eg: I'd love for someone to unearth an `earlier draft of Hamlet' - that is actually, dramatically & narratively - much `better' than the version that: we currently all `know about' and love.)
                 
                As with Maths: a simple problem like `2 + 2 = ?' Actually has: lots of solutions. Depends what the `rules' of the answer are. Could be: `2 + 2 = 0 + the square-root of 16.'
                - If we want the simplest (most elegant) one, certainly: 4.

                What's the simplest (most elegant) way to invent a printing press? (At the time: be called Gutenberg, and combine a wine-press and a coin-punch.)

                Q: What's the simplest way to become a Shakespeare or a George Lucas?
                A: Have loads of people, all constantly combining lots of old ideas, and all practicing their craft, for years - and eventually, one of them will become Shakespeare, and one will `become' George Lucas (with Star Wars etc).

                Also explains `multiples' in science (Wallace and Darwin with evolution, Pascal and Liebniz with calculus)...

                All just: algorithms. Throw enough people at the problem, and sooner or later, one will crack it...
                And their `creative process' (each of the individuals) was: all just using an algorithm. (Note - They may - or may not - have known, they were consciously using it, at the time.)

                I also love Simonton's 4 options for Creativity: Logic, Chance, Genius, and Zeitgeist... (ie - any of them, will do the trick, in Creative Problem-Solving... )
                (`Zeitgeist' explains `art movements'... it also explains Einstein's theory of relativity... and Newton -
                And anyone, combining 2 old ideas... ie "standing on the shoulders of: previous big thinkers"...)

                And - the `Chance' one (from Simonton) - also ties in nicely to evolution...

                -- If you have (say, infinite) random variation, (eg the sun's rays, bombarding all organic life / DNA on Earth, let alone those neutrinos which pass through everything) sooner or later, one of those `chance combination's (a genetic mutation) is better-adapted to: Solving `the problem' (eg: say - existing, and thriving, in the Earth's environment...)

                And - Creativity works the same way: all celebrated geniuses (eg artists) were hugely prolific, and we all ignore - or, forget - (or: forgive) their `crummier'/less interesting works...
                We also forget `all the other guys' who we've sadly never heard of, all the `also-rans' - and instead, the examples of: Shakespeare and Lucas and Mozart all stand way above the others - and then `draw all the PR'... (and they also `keep quiet about their method/s', which when you look very closely, all `follow the algorithm' perfectly.)

                I'm reasonably familiar with much of the literature you mentioned (though, not all the literature, across all those areas... as, people keep writing more books - and, publishing them too fast for me to read...)
                But - reasonably familiar with: Convergent vs Divergent thinking, Crystallised vs Fluid Intelligence, Tame vs Wicked problems (and also, Super-Wicked ones, such as: Climate Change, where time is running out, and we're all also exacerbating the problem, etc), and, `Structured vs Unstructured' thinking/ Intelligence. (And - Gardner's 7 x intelligences, and others...)

                My thinking and research on Creativity is fairly-extensive (but - of course - always open to revision - if, some new and/or radical scientific data comes in, given: Bayes' Theorem, etc)
                Perhaps, if you have a chance, maybe Michael, see Posts #6-#14 here: http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/ (all on: Creativity)...
                It shows (well, roughly) where my thinking on Creativity is at...
                Also, Michael - if you did have a chance, then - I'm quite sure, you would also be able to help identify, anything `key' that, I may have missed...(?)
                ie - Your own knowledge on creativity (and - modes of cognition) certainly sounds pretty deep and extensive...

                And - Thanks again for looking at that other post... Very much appreciated.

                And - sorry for seeming so disagreeable, here (it's not intentional)

                - My own biggest `problem' (now: solved) ...I've been a `creative/artistic professional' for about 20 years (in film, music, games etc) and have only recently found, most of this scientific literature on Creativity... (And: it certainly would have made my working life much easier, to know it all, 20 years ago...)

                I also studied my undergrad degree in Communications, in 91-93... I was given Foucault, postmodernism, Barthes (semiotics), and whole bunch of other random guff (mostly garbage - that will not help a creative professional actually `do' their creative work)...
                And - In the same way Literary Darwinism `sweeps' most of that empty verbiage away (thankfully! ie - Finally! LOL) I find, the scientific research on Creativity (Csiskszentmihalyi, Simonton etc) would really *help* all current undergrads - in all creative fields...

                In fact - I think they should teach: the Systems Model of Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1988, 1996 etc) in primary schools. (4-year old kids would do better finger-paintings)

                Here endeth: the longest PPS in the world...

                But in short, I think Csikszentmihalyi cracked `the algorithms' in Creativity...
                (1) the systems model,
                (2) Flow Theory, and
                (3) the 5 steps in Creativity... (both artistic and scientific)

                (at least - I certainly haven't yet seen, any evidence to contradict it... including: in 20 years of working across a few Creative domains... including, oddly, in computer science... with augmented reality games...)

                Warmly

                JT

                PPPPS - I could be wrong - about all of this.


                On 23/08/2013 7:27 PM, tintner michael wrote:

                 

                It's a good list, but if you're interested in creativity, you should take into account that the arts represent a very profound challenge to science in its current version.  And ultimate consilience will transform both, not just the arts.

                 

                Science believes that life, which includes creativity,  is essentially formulaic and algorithmic - determined by the rules of nature's formulae and algorithms The formal sciences - logic, maths, computer science - on wh. science is based, are all centrally formulaic and algorithmic. The classic example is mathematical calculations - on wh. Turing based the design of the computer.

                 

                But we know that artistic creativity is only formulaic in parts, and as a whole is nothing like mathematical calculations. All creative projects in the arts begin with an idea, not a formula - a rough idea and an otherwise blank page. And you have to come up with further ideas, which may take time and involve many blanks, blocks and false starts  - and many years of labour Algorithmic operations are fluent. Creativity is notoriously the "creative agony" - a struggle. 

                 

                Formulaic operations are formal - there is a formal template to which their products must conform - and they are right or wrong.

                 

                Creative artistic operations are informal/freeform -like freeform verse. There is no formal template, which is part of what makes them so difficult. And they are only good or bad, and there can be "creative differences" as to what is good or bad. And there can be an infinite set of alternative solutions. There are almost infinite interpretations both artistic and critical of Hamlet, for example. None of them is right, only in varying degrees good-and-bad.

                 

                Formulaic operations can only produce old products (2 + 2 are always the same old 4). Artistic, idea-based operations produce new and different products every time. Formula operations obey the rules. Artistic projects delight in breaking them, in being "transgressive".

                 

                In fact, all creative science and technology work on exactly the same principles as the creative arts. Creating a new formula or algorithm is just as tortured as creating a work of art, and nothing like formulaic or algorithmic. New formulae and algorithms are good or bad, not right and wrong.

                 

                Look at the psychology of convergent vs divergent, crystallised vs fluid, tame vs wicked, structured vs unstructured thinking/ intelligence, You'll see a good deal of what I've said, discussed.

                 

                P.S. One could then go on to look at how science views life as an automatic process, fundamentally predictable, whereas the arts depict it as a dramatic business, fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. But this is a short post, not a book...



                -- 
                -----------------------
                  
                JT Velikovsky
                Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
                http://storyality.wordpress.com/
                  
                and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
                Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
                  
                Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
                  
                Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
                  
                Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
                  
                Email: joetv@...
                Also: joetv@...
                Skype: joe.tee.vee
                Twitter: @joeteevee
                  
                Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
                Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
                YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
                  
                aka: JT Velikovsky
                Research Student & Filmmaker 
                Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
                School of Humanities and Communication Arts
                University of Western Sydney
                  
                This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
                  
                If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
                This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses

              • JT Velikovsky
                All great points JT... (agree with everything you ve said here...) Also - my understanding is - the `informed guesses - are the `Chance part - in Simonton s
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 23 8:11 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  All great points JT... (agree with everything you've said here...)

                  Also - my understanding is - the `informed guesses' - are the `Chance' part - in Simonton's `Creativity In Science' (book)...
                  ie - Given an infinite (or even, a large) amount of `random guesses' - sooner or later: a chimp with a typewriter will type up Hamlet, and, a scientist will find a solution (and, never "the" solution) to: any given problem...
                  - All just: probabilities/the laws of large numbers... (Also - If there was only ever `one solution' in Science, there would never be any Kuhnian paradigm changes... yet, there have been many...)

                  Also, maybe, a thought worth considering: If `every work of art results from blind inspiration', then: How do we explain all `commissioned' artworks..?
                  (including: the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel... which, he apparently totally changed the design for, once he started work on it...)

                  - Anything creative (a film, novel, painting, a dance, a food dish/ie chef-made-meal, etc), with `a fee and a deadline' attached (that wasn't created purely on: speculation / in the creator's own time...) was a result of `inspiration', but - usually had `a set of agreed goals', for the finished work...
                  (Examples would be: all those Mills & Boon/etc Romance novels that are all written to very-detailed formulaic specs: a certain kind of heroine, certain kind of male/love-interest, certain setting, and, now, Dear Romance Author: follow The Marshall Plan!) ie http://themarshallplan.net/ (the novel-writing software, and not the WW2 thing, obviously)

                  But -- there are two (well, at least, two) kinds of Creativity in the Arts: (1) Commercially-Popular creative works - and (2) Critically-acclaimed/award-winning/`classic' creative works (and, in Film - it seems, the two `kinds' very-rarely coincide... see: Simonton's Great Flicks (2011))
                  - Ironically, Shakespeare's works were (1) during his lifetime, and became (2) after he died...

                  In fiction writing, painting, music, etc - `agency and structure' seems the key...? The `structure' are: the formulae (eg say, the heros journey, or the Marshall Plan, or Save The Cat! etc - or the I,IV,V major chord structure & the "Verse-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus" of most rock songs, etc) and the `agency' is the writer's (or musician's etc) "creativity".
                  ie - those `places within the structure' (formulae) where, there are choices to be made, by the creator/artist...

                  You may also be right about this JT:
                  But I also think that most writers need, and maintain, a certain amount of ignorance about the adaptive functions of their writing,

                  But - on the other hand, that's also perhaps, akin to saying:
                  Everyone seemed quite happy, living in the Dark Ages... Until of course, the Renaissance and Enlightenment happened, and, they suddenly realized, just how bad (naive, even) it all was, before...

                  (I am convinced, if writers/artists knew `How Creativity Works' (ie - scientifically, see Csikszentmihalyi `Creativity' 1996, etc), and - were taught it, when young, [including, all the adaptive functions - which can better allow them to `succeed better' / sell more / make a living at it] they could then certainly choose to forget / ignore all that... if they so desired...)
                  But - currently, they don't yet have the choice / `don't yet know, what they're missing out on'...

                  In my view, it's rather the same as suggesting: People are happier, thinking `Creationism satisfactorily explains all Life', yet, without ever knowing about Evolution...
                  (and, all the good that genetic engineering then `unlocks' for us all...)

                  I suppose, all I mean here is: If you are trying to make a living - purely as a `creative professional' - (say: a fulltime screenwriter, or musician, or novelist, painter, actor, etc) and, you have `tools' that can make it easier to succeed... - Why would you ever choose, not to have - and use - the latest tools/technology... that: make your job, so much easier...?

                  (I suppose also - I am not thinking about the many `creative dabblers', say, who write a poem, whenever the whim grabs them... whether it gets published or not... also as: poetry isn't exactly a `fulltime job'... unless you have a `patron' of course..!)
                   
                  Also, I suppose, this will illustrate my point best of all: very recently - this book came out (2013)
                  http://www.amazon.com/The-Screenplay-Business-Creativity-Development/dp/0415613337
                  And - it is *the first book* to integrate the scientific research on Creativity (dating from: 1988...! Why was the wait, so long?) into: the Film Screenplay development process.
                  I believe it is: a Kuhnian paradigm change... (Side note - I'm - supposedly - a `recognized world expert' on screenwriting...)

                  (I've also been a professional film screenwriter for 20 years... And - How I wish this book had been published 20 years ago. - Read it, and you'll understand why. I can't begin to explain the number of times I have sat across the desk from a Film Producer - who has hired me (or a screenwriter friend of mine) to write a film - and yet, the Producer (even at the top of their field) has no idea whatsoever: What Creativity actually is, or How it Works. You have to train them, every time)

                  In fact, some perfect examples are here: http://storynotesfromhell.tumblr.com/ (*language alert)
                  And - to be clear, that process makes it all: a complete nightmare for the creative person, involved :)
                  - There is also a thing called `The Ten-Year Rule' in Creativity: http://creativity.netslova.ru/Ten-year_rule.html
                  So - for a writer (or - any Creative...) to spend ten years - to get to the stage (the professional level), that they can/will be hired by a producer - and then, for that producer to have: no clue, what they're doing...?
                  (Annoying, and deeply-frustrating is a vast understatement :)

                  Anyway... if all that helps explain, where I'm coming from :)

                  Incredibly, the academic domain of Screenwriting is only: 7 years old.
                  See here, for more: http://on-writering.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/2012-words-images-Srn-Academic.html
                  (Mathematics had their first world conference in 1901... See `Hilbert's 23 Problems', etc. That domain is over 100 years old, academically.
                  Psychoanalysis (despite all the mistakes that Freud made, eg `Oedipal' Theory) began meeting in: 1908. Over 100 years old.
                  Screenwriting? Began meeting - academically - in: 2006... 7 years ago.

                  - We're still totally in `The Dark Ages' with Creativity... and, the clouds are - just now - 2013 - beginning to clear...
                  I believe this scientific Creativity research, unlocks many of the `deep mysteries' of all the creative Arts...

                  And - it gets even better - i.e. - bring on the warm, dawning light of: Literary Darwinism. :)

                  Warmly,

                  The `Other' JT

                  Ps - I guess, you can see, at the core of my thinking is this:
                  - If all creative artworks (all novels, films, plays, songs, music, poetry - literature, etc) are `creative', then - `What exactly is: Creativity?'

                  (Answer: See: The peer-reviewed, proven scientific research on: Creativity... )
                  And, thus: see, that `core list' of (scientific) Creativity books, here: http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-71-Consilience-is-coming-Read-all-about-it/
                  ie - Sawyer, and Csikszentmihalyi, Simonton... etc.

                  Also - problematically - whenever I find, I am talking to someone who, havent read those books: yet, thinks they `know' what Creativity is, (and: invariably, everyone actually `thinks' that they do...) - it's a bit like: a Darwinian, talking to a Creationist, who hasn't yet read Origin of Species, nor even, understands (nor - is aware of) any of the key concepts in it...
                  Yet, once you read it (that scientific literature on Creativity), just like Huxley said of Origin - "That's (now, in hindsight) all so patently obvious... why didn't I think of that?"
                  (and, Yet - he didn't... :)

                  - Though, I still could be wrong about everything.




                  On 23/08/2013 11:19 PM, Jeff Turpin wrote:
                   

                  This debate has some history, and probably some deep prehistory (as in unrecorded).  One possible way to merge the views is to drop the words “all, every,” and substitute “most, some.”  Arguing that science is always linearly logical and mathematical will usually draw fire (I work in the sciences, and informed guesses are my favorite part of the process); and arguing that every work of art results from blind inspiration will also usually draw fire (I work in fiction, and formulae are a huge part of the output, albeit with rare but necessary inspiration or intuition). 

                  It’s easiest to say that we don’t know everything yet, but I’d add that one job of Lit Dar is to pin down the places where literature is mathematical / formulaic, and many of the creative masterpieces are combinations of formula and inspiration, which can be done in unique ways, but can also be done in time-honored, deeply satisfying ways.  JT is right that a lot of the “creativity” mythology is self-laudatory, a way for poets to pump up their own portfolios.  But I also think that most writers need, and maintain, a certain amount of ignorance about the adaptive functions of their writing, for reasons I don’t yet fully understand.  I suspect the occasional scientist also over-hypes the rational / mathematical aspect of scientific work, for self-serving reasons (almost all of our narratives are ultimately self-serving).  But we’ll figure it out.  Just be patient ;-).  And know the gray areas. jt

                   

                  From: biopoet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biopoet@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JT Velikovsky
                  Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 6:22 AM
                  To: biopoet@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [biopoet] Re: On consilience and literary Darwinism (weblog post)

                   

                   

                  Thanks for this Michael, all fascinating - and very thought-provoking..!
                  And - I could be wrong (about: everything) but - let me offer another view, (hopefully not too shocking) -
                  ...I'm actually convinced: Creativity *is* actually: totally formulaic and algorithmic... (!)
                  (Call me a rebel... but -- I tend to find other views on Creativity to be Romantic, ie - an alternative to the rational view of Creativity...)
                  ie: I'm currently (just me, personally) convinced, by the scientific research on Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, Simonton, Boden, Koestler ie - `combinatorial creativity', etc) that:

                  Artistic creativity is *formulaic - in all parts*, and as a whole is *exactly* like mathematical problem-solving...

                  (which - is also, not quite exactly the same as doing arithmetic... ie 2 + 2 = 4 - But then: neither is evolution...
                  ie - Evolution is an algorithm, within a complex system - ie ecosystems - and also includes: random variation / (ie random numbers), and then `selection'...
                  ie All, much more complex, than: 2 + 2 = [ ] )

                  But - by all means Michael - please, do challenge my views...
                  (and perhaps, even off-list, in case, nobody else here, is interested in this...)
                  (ie - Like anyone, I need all my theories to be rigorously `tested', and, I also hope that Karl Popper would be proud of me...)

                  Warmly

                  JT

                  PS - Here comes the longest PPS in the history of email.

                  PPS - Michael - maybe you're the only one still reading this (I hope so), but - this is a complex can-o-worms (Creativity), so here's the shortest way I could explain my view...

                  I see all Creativity (scientific, artistic, anything) as: `Creative Problem Finding' & `Creative Problem Solving'...

                  And that, the (mental) algorithms used in: a new invention, or a scientist arriving at a scientific theorem - or, an artist `creating' a work of art (eg - a painting, a novel, a film screenplay, a song) all work the same way...
                  All are just: problem-solving. (ie - A predictable, algorithmic, and `staged' process.)

                  - I think Wallas' 1926 `4-stage model' (which Csikszentmihalyi also expanded to 5 steps, and Bostick collapses into 2 stages, as he calls half of it `Intuition') can be seen as demonstrating, how: all works of creative art (and - all scientific problems) were (and still are) solved...

                  (I also find there are a lot of Romantic/Inspirationist myths, around Creativity... - Coleridge and Kubla Khan being one of the best `howlers', in my view...
                  but - the Romantics, going back to Goethe, were all pretty good at that `mystical' PR... I'm a `genius' - and it's all very mysterious where my Creativity comes from... the muses, etc etc)

                  Certainly - many scientists and artists (including even myself, at times) can, sometimes, receive their problem-solutions from dreams...
                  (eg - Kekule: structure of the benzene molecule, etc)...
                  Yet - that's also just the unconscious `working the problem', and `illumination' (ie - a creative solution, to the current problem) may equally come, while `daydreaming' - or while doing another unrelated activity... (eg driving, walking, etc)
                  But - that's all still part of the same `5-step' algorithmic Creativity formula.
                  It's just like: a computer program / algorithm (I'm also a sometimes computer programmer.)

                  - I also agree with you - that, there's not always `one solution'... (and, Evolution certainly shows us that)...

                  I think Maths is a good example of `not always one solution' (ie - 2 + 2 = 4 - certainly...)
                  But, that's also not the `only' solution (as, it really depends what the (Creative) question, was...?)

                  - If the question [read: the `Found' creative problem] is: How to add 2 numbers to get 4? - Then: 3+1 will also do the trick, etc...)
                  (Or, if the problem was: "What are all the numbers that add up to 4?" I guess, we'd also consider: 1+1+1+0.5+0.5, or even 8 X 0.5, which, I won't turn into a 0.5 +0.5 (etc) sum here - as this PPS is also turning into a book :) ( - sorry)

                  I think, with the Arts, and `the creative process', we also tend to forget: the infinite `other answers', that are (or could/would be) equally `right'...?
                  (Note how many of Mozart's, Bachs, etc works in one genre/style, sound a lot like, all the others in the same genre/style... all just: `variations on a theme'...)
                  There are many right answers to `2 + 2 = [ ] ' 
                  Shakespeare could have written Hamlet in various ways - with various things in the story altered, and yet: the story would likely still satisfy.
                  (If at the end, a Coda showed that: `Hamlet came out of the near-death coma - and survived the poisoned sword' - and lived-! - Would the play then have bombed?)

                  Consider also: What if Shakespeare had reversed some (though not all) of the character roles in Hamlet... (say, his murdered mother's ghost appears, at the start, etc)...
                  - How do we know, that, it then mightn't have been: even more popular/beloved/`classic'..?
                  (I am thinking now, of Nettle's brilliant analysis of Twelfth Night and Richard III... ie - Shakespeare actually used the exact same `creative formula' in: most of his plays...)

                  Or - say, What if Van Gogh in Starry Night, had used a slightly-different colour palette... (- Did it really have to be: exactly those hues? Maybe it could have been way better with slightly different colours? Or even, with just one different colour in there?)

                  - Maybe all those classic creative artworks would still be: just as celebrated (and - in fact, maybe both Hamlet and Starry Night are: the `lousiest' creative solutions possible, to those `creative problems' (eg: `How to write a super-gripping thriller Danish-royalty play about over-considering the consequences of Revenge',
                  Or
                  `How to paint a stunning French city night sky - as seen by someone with epilepsy, syphilis, and synasthesia'),

                  But - as they are, they are just, `the best artistic/creative solution' their creators managed to come up with, given their deadlines...?
                  ...How would we know?
                  (eg: I'd love for someone to unearth an `earlier draft of Hamlet' - that is actually, dramatically & narratively - much `better' than the version that: we currently all `know about' and love.)
                   
                  As with Maths: a simple problem like `2 + 2 = ?' Actually has: lots of solutions. Depends what the `rules' of the answer are. Could be: `2 + 2 = 0 + the square-root of 16.'
                  - If we want the simplest (most elegant) one, certainly: 4.

                  What's the simplest (most elegant) way to invent a printing press? (At the time: be called Gutenberg, and combine a wine-press and a coin-punch.)

                  Q: What's the simplest way to become a Shakespeare or a George Lucas?
                  A: Have loads of people, all constantly combining lots of old ideas, and all practicing their craft, for years - and eventually, one of them will become Shakespeare, and one will `become' George Lucas (with Star Wars etc).

                  Also explains `multiples' in science (Wallace and Darwin with evolution, Pascal and Liebniz with calculus)...

                  All just: algorithms. Throw enough people at the problem, and sooner or later, one will crack it...
                  And their `creative process' (each of the individuals) was: all just using an algorithm. (Note - They may - or may not - have known, they were consciously using it, at the time.)

                  I also love Simonton's 4 options for Creativity: Logic, Chance, Genius, and Zeitgeist... (ie - any of them, will do the trick, in Creative Problem-Solving... )
                  (`Zeitgeist' explains `art movements'... it also explains Einstein's theory of relativity... and Newton -
                  And anyone, combining 2 old ideas... ie "standing on the shoulders of: previous big thinkers"...)

                  And - the `Chance' one (from Simonton) - also ties in nicely to evolution...

                  -- If you have (say, infinite) random variation, (eg the sun's rays, bombarding all organic life / DNA on Earth, let alone those neutrinos which pass through everything) sooner or later, one of those `chance combination's (a genetic mutation) is better-adapted to: Solving `the problem' (eg: say - existing, and thriving, in the Earth's environment...)

                  And - Creativity works the same way: all celebrated geniuses (eg artists) were hugely prolific, and we all ignore - or, forget - (or: forgive) their `crummier'/less interesting works...
                  We also forget `all the other guys' who we've sadly never heard of, all the `also-rans' - and instead, the examples of: Shakespeare and Lucas and Mozart all stand way above the others - and then `draw all the PR'... (and they also `keep quiet about their method/s', which when you look very closely, all `follow the algorithm' perfectly.)

                  I'm reasonably familiar with much of the literature you mentioned (though, not all the literature, across all those areas... as, people keep writing more books - and, publishing them too fast for me to read...)
                  But - reasonably familiar with: Convergent vs Divergent thinking, Crystallised vs Fluid Intelligence, Tame vs Wicked problems (and also, Super-Wicked ones, such as: Climate Change, where time is running out, and we're all also exacerbating the problem, etc), and, `Structured vs Unstructured' thinking/ Intelligence. (And - Gardner's 7 x intelligences, and others...)

                  My thinking and research on Creativity is fairly-extensive (but - of course - always open to revision - if, some new and/or radical scientific data comes in, given: Bayes' Theorem, etc)
                  Perhaps, if you have a chance, maybe Michael, see Posts #6-#14 here: http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/ (all on: Creativity)...
                  It shows (well, roughly) where my thinking on Creativity is at...
                  Also, Michael - if you did have a chance, then - I'm quite sure, you would also be able to help identify, anything `key' that, I may have missed...(?)
                  ie - Your own knowledge on creativity (and - modes of cognition) certainly sounds pretty deep and extensive...

                  And - Thanks again for looking at that other post... Very much appreciated.

                  And - sorry for seeming so disagreeable, here (it's not intentional)

                  - My own biggest `problem' (now: solved) ...I've been a `creative/artistic professional' for about 20 years (in film, music, games etc) and have only recently found, most of this scientific literature on Creativity... (And: it certainly would have made my working life much easier, to know it all, 20 years ago...)

                  I also studied my undergrad degree in Communications, in 91-93... I was given Foucault, postmodernism, Barthes (semiotics), and whole bunch of other random guff (mostly garbage - that will not help a creative professional actually `do' their creative work)...
                  And - In the same way Literary Darwinism `sweeps' most of that empty verbiage away (thankfully! ie - Finally! LOL) I find, the scientific research on Creativity (Csiskszentmihalyi, Simonton etc) would really *help* all current undergrads - in all creative fields...

                  In fact - I think they should teach: the Systems Model of Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1988, 1996 etc) in primary schools. (4-year old kids would do better finger-paintings)

                  Here endeth: the longest PPS in the world...

                  But in short, I think Csikszentmihalyi cracked `the algorithms' in Creativity...
                  (1) the systems model,
                  (2) Flow Theory, and
                  (3) the 5 steps in Creativity... (both artistic and scientific)

                  (at least - I certainly haven't yet seen, any evidence to contradict it... including: in 20 years of working across a few Creative domains... including, oddly, in computer science... with augmented reality games...)

                  Warmly

                  JT

                  PPPPS - I could be wrong - about all of this.


                  On 23/08/2013 7:27 PM, tintner michael wrote:

                   

                  It's a good list, but if you're interested in creativity, you should take into account that the arts represent a very profound challenge to science in its current version.  And ultimate consilience will transform both, not just the arts.

                   

                  Science believes that life, which includes creativity,  is essentially formulaic and algorithmic - determined by the rules of nature's formulae and algorithms The formal sciences - logic, maths, computer science - on wh. science is based, are all centrally formulaic and algorithmic. The classic example is mathematical calculations - on wh. Turing based the design of the computer.

                   

                  But we know that artistic creativity is only formulaic in parts, and as a whole is nothing like mathematical calculations. All creative projects in the arts begin with an idea, not a formula - a rough idea and an otherwise blank page. And you have to come up with further ideas, which may take time and involve many blanks, blocks and false starts  - and many years of labour Algorithmic operations are fluent. Creativity is notoriously the "creative agony" - a struggle. 

                   

                  Formulaic operations are formal - there is a formal template to which their products must conform - and they are right or wrong.

                   

                  Creative artistic operations are informal/freeform -like freeform verse. There is no formal template, which is part of what makes them so difficult. And they are only good or bad, and there can be "creative differences" as to what is good or bad. And there can be an infinite set of alternative solutions. There are almost infinite interpretations both artistic and critical of Hamlet, for example. None of them is right, only in varying degrees good-and-bad.

                   

                  Formulaic operations can only produce old products (2 + 2 are always the same old 4). Artistic, idea-based operations produce new and different products every time. Formula operations obey the rules. Artistic projects delight in breaking them, in being "transgressive".

                   

                  In fact, all creative science and technology work on exactly the same principles as the creative arts. Creating a new formula or algorithm is just as tortured as creating a work of art, and nothing like formulaic or algorithmic. New formulae and algorithms are good or bad, not right and wrong.

                   

                  Look at the psychology of convergent vs divergent, crystallised vs fluid, tame vs wicked, structured vs unstructured thinking/ intelligence, You'll see a good deal of what I've said, discussed.

                   

                  P.S. One could then go on to look at how science views life as an automatic process, fundamentally predictable, whereas the arts depict it as a dramatic business, fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. But this is a short post, not a book...



                  -- 
                  -----------------------
                    
                  JT Velikovsky
                  Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
                  http://storyality.wordpress.com/
                    
                  and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
                  Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
                    
                  Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
                    
                  Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
                    
                  Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
                    
                  Email: joetv@...
                  Also: joetv@...
                  Skype: joe.tee.vee
                  Twitter: @joeteevee
                    
                  Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
                  Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
                  YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
                    
                  aka: JT Velikovsky
                  Research Student & Filmmaker 
                  Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
                  School of Humanities and Communication Arts
                  University of Western Sydney
                    
                  This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
                    
                  If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
                  This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses


                  -- 
                  -----------------------
                  
                  JT Velikovsky
                  Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
                  http://storyality.wordpress.com/
                  
                  and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
                  Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
                  
                  Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
                  
                  Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
                  
                  Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
                  
                  Email: joetv@...
                  Also: joetv@...
                  Skype: joe.tee.vee
                  Twitter: @joeteevee
                  
                  Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
                  Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
                  YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
                  
                  aka: JT Velikovsky
                  Research Student & Filmmaker 
                  Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
                  School of Humanities and Communication Arts
                  University of Western Sydney
                  
                  This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
                  
                  If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
                  This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses
                • JT Velikovsky
                  Hi again Michael I also had a few extra thoughts: / Science believes that life, which includes creativity, is essentially formulaic and algorithmic -
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 23 9:50 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi again Michael

                    I also had a few extra thoughts:


                    Science believes that life, which includes creativity,  is essentially formulaic and algorithmic - determined by the rules of nature's formulae and algorithms The formal sciences - logic, maths, computer science - on wh. science is based, are all centrally formulaic and algorithmic. The classic example is mathematical calculations - on wh. Turing based the design of the computer.

                     



                    While I understand the evolutionary algorithm (ie: gene: selection, variation, and transmission) is formulaic, the `inputs' into that system, are so many...
                    - It's a recursive system/with an algorithm `always running' - that `chews up' almost-countless individuals - and then `spits back out' differences. (ie Variation in individuals).
                    Since that `variation' is random: almost anything can - and does - happen. The environment changes, too... And, has to be adapted to, again...
                    (Lifeforms can - and they do - evolve in all different crazy ways. See: a lemur, a tapir, a capybara, a platypus, and say, a meerkat - all are quite ridiculous... yet: they all clearly `work'.)  


                    I've also blogged here, on how meme (idea) and gene evolution is identical in its algorithm (ie - selection, variation, transmission)
                    Biological Evolution, Cultural Evolution and Creativity in Film

                    http://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/storyality-44-Biological-Evolution-Cultural-Evolution-and-Creativity-Film/




                    But we know that artistic creativity is only formulaic in parts, and as a whole is nothing like mathematical calculations. All creative projects in the arts begin with an idea, not a formula - a rough idea and an otherwise blank page.



                    That's not actually correct...
                    Take a look at: every book by Stephen King - there is a clear formula. (Read his book `On Writing', you'll see he always gets his ideas the same way: "Wouldn't it be funny if...") ie His horror stories always start out as `funny ideas'. (eg Wouldn't it be funny if: a husband had a magic word-processor and could write/`control' his life story in realtime, and `delete' his nagging wife, etc)
                    Look at every Merchant-Ivory film...
                    Look at every Jane Austen novel...
                    Look at every Tarantino movie...
                    Look at every Woody Allen movie, though, note his formula evolved, at least 3 times: the early sketch-comedy films, the middle `serious'/Bergman period, the later sophisticated romcoms. (Yet - all based on his life, pretty much)
                    Look at Picasso's work... (I mean look at all of it... not just the famous ones - see the countless paintings he did, all on one `theme'... a lot of them are garbage)
                    Look at videogames by one particular company. eg Eidos, or Ratbag, or any one company. - Always just a variation, on the same game formula.

                    I could keep going...
                    All: Formulas.
                    All: Algorithms.
                    - That whole Romantic notion of "start with a blank page - and, an idea - and then, struggle to pour your soul onto the page" is a complete myth, in all Creative domains.

                    Most Creative people have about a hundred ideas - sparking, all the time - and, they simply never get the time to fully `write/develop them all up' (as: full novels, etc). - Seriously. Don't take my word for any of this. Check all the evidence for yourself...


                    And you have to come up with further ideas, which may take time and involve many blanks, blocks and false starts  - and many years of labour Algorithmic operations are fluent. Creativity is notoriously the "creative agony" - a struggle.



                    Actually, when you study any and all creative `geniuses' - it's not a `struggle' - at all...
                    - As a contemporary example - again - see Stephen King, who churns out: bestseller after bestseller...
                    See also Tesla, who had over 300 patents...

                    - They didn't struggle at all: that's a Romantic myth - counterproductive propaganda, created by: Romantics, to keep the competition `out of the game'. (Look at how well it's worked!)

                    In Darwinian terms: a simple struggle for (creative) `Life'... eliminate the competition. Feed them counterproductive `creative myths' - that will slow them down, while we get the limited (financial) resources. (eg - publishing contracts, etc)
                    (There are countless other examples... these are just a few very-highly-creative individuals. Shakespeare is another, so is Mozart. They fairly churned stuff out. There really was *no* struggle. It's a myth.)

                    - If you read Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1996) it scientifically demonstrates (with a study of, nearly 100 eminent creatives, eg Nobel prizewinners, etc - including dual Pulitzer winning EO Wilson) that: Creativity works the same - in the sciences as in the arts, and see also Simonton (2004 - on Science - and 2011 - on Film)...
                     

                     

                    Formulaic operations are formal - there is a formal template to which their products must conform - and they are right or wrong.

                     

                    Creative artistic operations are informal/freeform -like freeform verse. There is no formal template, which is part of what makes them so difficult. And they are only good or bad, and there can be "creative differences" as to what is good or bad. And there can be an infinite set of alternative solutions. There are almost infinite interpretations both artistic and critical of Hamlet, for example. None of them is right, only in varying degrees good-and-bad.


                    - I don't agree with any of this. All the scientific evidence is: completely to the contrary to the above..?


                    I also don't agree that, there are infinite interpretations of Hamlet that actually matter. (Sure, everyone thinks that their own personal opinion on Hamlet `matters'...)

                    I am convinced: Shakespeare wrote a play - with Hamlet (and 40 others) - that he felt: would sell tickets in The Globe Theatre, and keep his patrons (and royalty) all happy enough.
                    The Field (the play's audience) just wants a gripping story.
                    If, later - someone (anyone) wants to do infinite: Freudian/Foucauldian/Semiotic/Feminist/etc - interpretations - let them...?
                    (ie - Who cares about any of that? It doesn't solve any problems.)
                     
                    As we know - Shakespeare certainly didn't know any of those theories (as, they didn't exist, formally, when he wrote Hamlet).
                    He knew human nature. - Those paradigms (the Freudian, etc) don't actually address human nature. They address some truly whacky, unrealistic, wild-and-crazy ideas - that won't help anyone write a successful, crowd-pleasing, (timeless) play, just like Shakespeare did, about: 40 times in a row. (ie - 38 plays, right?)


                    All Creative works - whether artistic or scientific - are judged by a relevant Field, (the Audience, including the critics, teachers and industry). Judged "creative": `novel yet appropriate'.

                    - If it goes viral, then it did something (actually - a whole lot of things) really `right'. According to: a whole bunch of rules, algorithms, and formulas. (Including: adapted human predispositions)


                    See film screenwriting, for example: there are about 1000 rules, and about 100 algorithms and about 100 formulas.
                    - If you don't `do' them all: your screenplay won't get financed, and made.

                    A lot of those `rules' are in (free) The Screenwriter's Workbook, here: http://uws.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky/
                    Other examples are: Special and General Relativity theory (in physics), and Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet (in drama)...


                    Also, how much has the novel ever really `changed'? What are the bestsellers? What are the award-winners? All: very much the same. (See James W Hall's book `Hit Lit', 2012)
                    See also this post:
                    Top Ten Common Elements in Best-Seller Novels

                    http://on-writering.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/top-10-common-elements-in-all-best.html



                     

                    Formulaic operations can only produce old products (2 + 2 are always the same old 4). Artistic, idea-based operations produce new and different products every time. Formula operations obey the rules. Artistic projects delight in breaking them, in being "transgressive".

                    In fact, all creative science and technology work on exactly the same principles as the creative arts. Creating a new formula or algorithm is just as tortured as creating a work of art, and nothing like formulaic or algorithmic. New formulae and algorithms are good or bad, not right and wrong.




                    But - If any of that's actually true, then:

                    - How can there be: 30 x things that are all common to the Top 20 RoI Films?
                    See: http://storyality.wordpress.com/ (there is very clearly: a formula there...)

                    and:

                    - How could James W Hall find: 12 x things that the 12 best-selling novels all have in common?
                    http://www.amazon.com/Hit-Lit-Cracking-Twentieth-Bestsellers/dp/0812970950 (again: just a formula / set of algorithms)

                    I also don't believe - at all - that: `Artistic projects delight in breaking rules, in being "transgressive".'
                    ...What `rules' are transgressed, exactly? (Can you give any specific examples?)

                    Anyway, Michael - this is all just my opinion... (I could be wrong...)


                    Warmly

                    The Other JT



                    On 23/08/2013 7:27 PM, tintner michael wrote:
                     
                    It's a good list, but if you're interested in creativity, you should take into account that the arts represent a very profound challenge to science in its current version.  And ultimate consilience will transform both, not just the arts.

                    Science believes that life, which includes creativity,  is essentially formulaic and algorithmic - determined by the rules of nature's formulae and algorithms The formal sciences - logic, maths, computer science - on wh. science is based, are all centrally formulaic and algorithmic. The classic example is mathematical calculations - on wh. Turing based the design of the computer.

                    But we know that artistic creativity is only formulaic in parts, and as a whole is nothing like mathematical calculations. All creative projects in the arts begin with an idea, not a formula - a rough idea and an otherwise blank page. And you have to come up with further ideas, which may take time and involve many blanks, blocks and false starts  - and many years of labour Algorithmic operations are fluent. Creativity is notoriously the "creative agony" - a struggle. 

                    Formulaic operations are formal - there is a formal template to which their products must conform - and they are right or wrong.

                    Creative artistic operations are informal/freeform -like freeform verse. There is no formal template, which is part of what makes them so difficult. And they are only good or bad, and there can be "creative differences" as to what is good or bad. And there can be an infinite set of alternative solutions. There are almost infinite interpretations both artistic and critical of Hamlet, for example. None of them is right, only in varying degrees good-and-bad.

                    Formulaic operations can only produce old products (2 + 2 are always the same old 4). Artistic, idea-based operations produce new and different products every time. Formula operations obey the rules. Artistic projects delight in breaking them, in being "transgressive".

                    In fact, all creative science and technology work on exactly the same principles as the creative arts. Creating a new formula or algorithm is just as tortured as creating a work of art, and nothing like formulaic or algorithmic. New formulae and algorithms are good or bad, not right and wrong.

                    Look at the psychology of convergent vs divergent, crystallised vs fluid, tame vs wicked, structured vs unstructured thinking/ intelligence, You'll see a good deal of what I've said, discussed.

                    P.S. One could then go on to look at how science views life as an automatic process, fundamentally predictable, whereas the arts depict it as a dramatic business, fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. But this is a short post, not a book...

                    -- 
                    -----------------------
                    
                    JT Velikovsky
                    Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
                    http://storyality.wordpress.com/
                    
                    and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
                    Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
                    
                    Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
                    
                    Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
                    
                    Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
                    
                    Email: joetv@...
                    Also: joetv@...
                    Skype: joe.tee.vee
                    Twitter: @joeteevee
                    
                    Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
                    Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
                    YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
                    
                    aka: JT Velikovsky
                    Research Student & Filmmaker 
                    Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
                    School of Humanities and Communication Arts
                    University of Western Sydney
                    
                    This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
                    
                    If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
                    This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses
                  • JT Velikovsky
                    Hi Michael Here s the 10 creative steps/stages that all Creative individuals (in the arts or sciences) have gone through:
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 23 10:40 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Michael

                      Here's the 10 creative steps/stages that all Creative individuals (in the arts or sciences) have gone through:
                      http://storyality.wordpress.com/creative-practice-theory/
                      Notably though, Poetry only takes 2 years to `internalize the domain' - as there are so few `rules'/conventions...
                      (...like Feyerabend said - `anything goes')
                       
                      Also - another great resource is: The Dictionary of Creativity - http://creativity.netslova.ru/

                      Anyway - I'd better stop spamming up the list now... but hope this shows another (ie - scientific) view of Creativity...

                      Warmly

                      JT





                      On 24/08/2013 2:50 AM, JT Velikovsky wrote:
                       

                      Hi again Michael

                      I also had a few extra thoughts:


                      Science believes that life, which includes creativity,  is essentially formulaic and algorithmic - determined by the rules of nature's formulae and algorithms The formal sciences - logic, maths, computer science - on wh. science is based, are all centrally formulaic and algorithmic. The classic example is mathematical calculations - on wh. Turing based the design of the computer.

                       



                      While I understand the evolutionary algorithm (ie: gene: selection, variation, and transmission) is formulaic, the `inputs' into that system, are so many...
                      - It's a recursive system/with an algorithm `always running' - that `chews up' almost-countless individuals - and then `spits back out' differences. (ie Variation in individuals).
                      Since that `variation' is random: almost anything can - and does - happen. The environment changes, too... And, has to be adapted to, again...
                      (Lifeforms can - and they do - evolve in all different crazy ways. See: a lemur, a tapir, a capybara, a platypus, and say, a meerkat - all are quite ridiculous... yet: they all clearly `work'.)  


                      I've also blogged here, on how meme (idea) and gene evolution is identical in its algorithm (ie - selection, variation, transmission)
                      Biological Evolution, Cultural Evolution and Creativity in Film

                      http://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/storyality-44-Biological-Evolution-Cultural-Evolution-and-Creativity-Film/




                      But we know that artistic creativity is only formulaic in parts, and as a whole is nothing like mathematical calculations. All creative projects in the arts begin with an idea, not a formula - a rough idea and an otherwise blank page.



                      That's not actually correct...
                      Take a look at: every book by Stephen King - there is a clear formula. (Read his book `On Writing', you'll see he always gets his ideas the same way: "Wouldn't it be funny if...") ie His horror stories always start out as `funny ideas'. (eg Wouldn't it be funny if: a husband had a magic word-processor and could write/`control' his life story in realtime, and `delete' his nagging wife, etc)
                      Look at every Merchant-Ivory film...
                      Look at every Jane Austen novel...
                      Look at every Tarantino movie...
                      Look at every Woody Allen movie, though, note his formula evolved, at least 3 times: the early sketch-comedy films, the middle `serious'/Bergman period, the later sophisticated romcoms. (Yet - all based on his life, pretty much)
                      Look at Picasso's work... (I mean look at all of it... not just the famous ones - see the countless paintings he did, all on one `theme'... a lot of them are garbage)
                      Look at videogames by one particular company. eg Eidos, or Ratbag, or any one company. - Always just a variation, on the same game formula.

                      I could keep going...
                      All: Formulas.
                      All: Algorithms.
                      - That whole Romantic notion of "start with a blank page - and, an idea - and then, struggle to pour your soul onto the page" is a complete myth, in all Creative domains.

                      Most Creative people have about a hundred ideas - sparking, all the time - and, they simply never get the time to fully `write/develop them all up' (as: full novels, etc). - Seriously. Don't take my word for any of this. Check all the evidence for yourself...


                      And you have to come up with further ideas, which may take time and involve many blanks, blocks and false starts  - and many years of labour Algorithmic operations are fluent. Creativity is notoriously the "creative agony" - a struggle.



                      Actually, when you study any and all creative `geniuses' - it's not a `struggle' - at all...
                      - As a contemporary example - again - see Stephen King, who churns out: bestseller after bestseller...
                      See also Tesla, who had over 300 patents...

                      - They didn't struggle at all: that's a Romantic myth - counterproductive propaganda, created by: Romantics, to keep the competition `out of the game'. (Look at how well it's worked!)

                      In Darwinian terms: a simple struggle for (creative) `Life'... eliminate the competition. Feed them counterproductive `creative myths' - that will slow them down, while we get the limited (financial) resources. (eg - publishing contracts, etc)
                      (There are countless other examples... these are just a few very-highly-creative individuals. Shakespeare is another, so is Mozart. They fairly churned stuff out. There really was *no* struggle. It's a myth.)

                      - If you read Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1996) it scientifically demonstrates (with a study of, nearly 100 eminent creatives, eg Nobel prizewinners, etc - including dual Pulitzer winning EO Wilson) that: Creativity works the same - in the sciences as in the arts, and see also Simonton (2004 - on Science - and 2011 - on Film)...
                       

                       

                      Formulaic operations are formal - there is a formal template to which their products must conform - and they are right or wrong.

                       

                      Creative artistic operations are informal/freeform -like freeform verse. There is no formal template, which is part of what makes them so difficult. And they are only good or bad, and there can be "creative differences" as to what is good or bad. And there can be an infinite set of alternative solutions. There are almost infinite interpretations both artistic and critical of Hamlet, for example. None of them is right, only in varying degrees good-and-bad.


                      - I don't agree with any of this. All the scientific evidence is: completely to the contrary to the above..?


                      I also don't agree that, there are infinite interpretations of Hamlet that actually matter. (Sure, everyone thinks that their own personal opinion on Hamlet `matters'...)

                      I am convinced: Shakespeare wrote a play - with Hamlet (and 40 others) - that he felt: would sell tickets in The Globe Theatre, and keep his patrons (and royalty) all happy enough.
                      The Field (the play's audience) just wants a gripping story.
                      If, later - someone (anyone) wants to do infinite: Freudian/Foucauldian/Semiotic/Feminist/etc - interpretations - let them...?
                      (ie - Who cares about any of that? It doesn't solve any problems.)
                       
                      As we know - Shakespeare certainly didn't know any ofthose theories (as, they didn't exist, formally, when he wrote Hamlet).
                      He knew human nature. - Those paradigms (the Freudian, etc) don't actually address human nature. They address some truly whacky, unrealistic, wild-and-crazy ideas - that won't help anyone write a successful, crowd-pleasing, (timeless) play, just like Shakespeare did, about: 40 times in a row. (ie - 38 plays, right?)


                      All Creative works - whether artistic or scientific - are judged by a relevant Field, (the Audience, including the critics, teachers and industry). Judged "creative": `novel yet appropriate'.

                      - If it goes viral, then it did something(actually - a whole lot of things) really `right'. According to: a whole bunch of rules, algorithms, and formulas. (Including: adapted human predispositions)


                      See film screenwriting, for example: there are about 1000 rules, and about 100 algorithms and about 100 formulas.
                      - If you don't `do' them all: your screenplay won't get financed, and made.

                      A lot of those `rules' are in (free) The Screenwriter's Workbook, here: http://uws.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky/
                      Other examples are: Special and General Relativity theory (in physics), and Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet (in drama)...


                      Also, how much has the novel ever really `changed'? What are the bestsellers? What are the award-winners? All: very much the same. (See James W Hall's book `Hit Lit', 2012)
                      See also this post:
                      Top Ten Common Elements in Best-Seller Novels

                      http://on-writering.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/top-10-common-elements-in-all-best.html



                       

                      Formulaic operations can only produce old products (2 + 2 are always the same old 4). Artistic, idea-based operations produce new and different products every time. Formula operations obey the rules. Artistic projects delight in breaking them, in being "transgressive".

                      In fact, all creative science and technology work on exactly the same principles as the creative arts. Creating a new formula or algorithm is just as tortured as creating a work of art, and nothing like formulaic or algorithmic. New formulae and algorithms are good or bad, not right and wrong.




                      But - If any of that's actually true, then:

                      - How can there be: 30 x things that are all common to the Top 20 RoI Films?
                      See: http://storyality.wordpress.com/ (there is very clearly: a formula there...)

                      and:

                      - How could James W Hall find: 12 x things that the 12 best-selling novels all have in common?
                      http://www.amazon.com/Hit-Lit-Cracking-Twentieth-Bestsellers/dp/0812970950 (again: just a formula / set of algorithms)

                      I also don't believe - at all - that: `Artistic projects delight in breaking rules, in being "transgressive".'
                      ...What `rules' are transgressed, exactly? (Can you give any specific examples?)

                      Anyway, Michael - this is all just my opinion... (I could be wrong...)


                      Warmly

                      The Other JT



                      On 23/08/2013 7:27 PM, tintner michael wrote:
                       
                      It's a good list, but if you're interested in creativity, you should take into account that the arts represent a very profound challenge to science in its current version.  And ultimate consilience will transform both, not just the arts.

                      Science believes that life, which includes creativity,  is essentially formulaic and algorithmic - determined by the rules of nature's formulae and algorithms The formal sciences - logic, maths, computer science - on wh. science is based, are all centrally formulaic and algorithmic. The classic example is mathematical calculations - on wh. Turing based the design of the computer.

                      But we know that artistic creativity is only formulaic in parts, and as a whole is nothing like mathematical calculations. All creative projects in the arts begin with an idea, not a formula - a rough idea and an otherwise blank page. And you have to come up with further ideas, which may take time and involve many blanks, blocks and false starts  - and many years of labour Algorithmic operations are fluent. Creativity is notoriously the "creative agony" - a struggle. 

                      Formulaic operations are formal - there is a formal template to which their products must conform - and they are right or wrong.

                      Creative artistic operations are informal/freeform -like freeform verse. There is no formal template, which is part of what makes them so difficult. And they are only good or bad, and there can be "creative differences" as to what is good or bad. And there can be an infinite set of alternative solutions. There are almost infinite interpretations both artistic and critical of Hamlet, for example. None of them is right, only in varying degrees good-and-bad.

                      Formulaic operations can only produce old products (2 + 2 are always the same old 4). Artistic, idea-based operations produce new and different products every time. Formula operations obey the rules. Artistic projects delight in breaking them, in being "transgressive".

                      In fact, all creative science and technology work on exactly the same principles as the creative arts. Creating a new formula or algorithm is just as tortured as creating a work of art, and nothing like formulaic or algorithmic. New formulae and algorithms are good or bad, not right and wrong.

                      Look at the psychology of convergent vs divergent, crystallised vs fluid, tame vs wicked, structured vs unstructured thinking/ intelligence, You'll see a good deal of what I've said, discussed.

                      P.S. One could then go on to look at how science views life as an automatic process, fundamentally predictable, whereas the arts depict it as a dramatic business, fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. But this is a short post, not a book...

                      -- 
                      -----------------------
                      
                      JT Velikovsky
                      Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
                      http://storyality.wordpress.com/
                      
                      and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
                      Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
                      
                      Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
                      
                      Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
                      
                      Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
                      
                      Email: joetv@...
                      Also: joetv@...
                      Skype: joe.tee.vee
                      Twitter: @joeteevee
                      
                      Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
                      Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
                      YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
                      
                      aka: JT Velikovsky
                      Research Student & Filmmaker 
                      Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
                      School of Humanities and Communication Arts
                      University of Western Sydney
                      
                      This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
                      
                      If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
                      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses

                      -- 
                      -----------------------
                      
                      JT Velikovsky
                      Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
                      http://storyality.wordpress.com/
                      
                      and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
                      Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
                      
                      Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
                      
                      Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
                      
                      Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
                      
                      Email: joetv@...
                      Also: joetv@...
                      Skype: joe.tee.vee
                      Twitter: @joeteevee
                      
                      Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
                      Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
                      YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
                      
                      aka: JT Velikovsky
                      Research Student & Filmmaker 
                      Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
                      School of Humanities and Communication Arts
                      University of Western Sydney
                      
                      This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
                      
                      If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
                      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses
                  • tintner michael
                    Hi JT Thanks for a v. good-natured and detailed reply. But with respect you don t seem to understand algorithms/formulae. They are deterministic -recipes
                    Message 10 of 11 , Aug 24 3:39 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi JT

                      Thanks for a v. good-natured and detailed reply.

                      But with respect you don't seem to understand algorithms/formulae.

                      They are deterministic -recipes basically - they define a limited set of actions on a limited set of objects - and define precisely what must be done.

                      So when an algorithm dictates how to multiply numbers, the machine has no choice - every step of the computation, and every part of the result are defined. If it multiplies 22 * 22 - the first number must be 4 the next must be 8 and the last must be 4. Can you move the numbers around? Can you add another number? Can you decorate the numbers with curlicues? No, no, no. Maths and logic etc are fascistic. 

                      Formulae/recipes define OLD dishes. And those dishes must be just so.  (Even Genetic algorithms are only recipes for mixing recipes). Formulae are rule-bound.

                      If you introduce the slighest new element to an algo or formula, it simply cannot cope. There are sixty years of AI failures/total failure to back this up.

                      The arts are about creating NEW dishes. THERE ARE NO RULES FOR THE NEW.

                      AT ANY POINT.

                      Let's say your artistic project is to write a detective story,  featuring a new kind of serial killer. That's your brief.

                      You play around with an opening sentence -  

                      HE COULDN'T HELP STARING AT THE LIGHT PLAYING ON THE POOL OF BLOOD.

                      What is the next sentence?

                      In formulae and algos, the next sentence/number/action is always defined.

                      In the arts - in the creation of new works - there are a potential INFINITY of next sentences, next parts. Is there any new element you *cannot* introduce into your second sentence?. Quantum mechanics? The price of tampons? How to spell "BLOOD"? etc etc... No there isn't. You have a world of possibilities at your disposal. 

                      You have zero possibilities in a formula/algo.

                      Ditto if you are literally creating a new stew. What can you not introduce - eye of newt, toe of toad? What the hell give it a go.

                      If you are reproducing a recipe and an old dish, you do not have a choice.

                      Creativity - Idea/concept-based, informal/freeform, anarchic, pluralistic (good/bad) production of new courses of action and objects -

                      is the diametric OPPOSITE of

                      Rationality - Formula/algo-based, formal, ordered, "monistic" (right/wrong) production of old courses of action and objects

                      New is the opposite of old/routine.

                      You are not going to produce a single genre of art where there are rules for the first sentence/part, or 2nd... nth.  Period. You are not going to produce a single genre of creativity among billions of contenders where there are rules for the first element.

                      Your contention about algo-based art won't bear the slightest examination - or be supported  by any evidence..(That goes for the various "artistic algos" that reproduce variations on old works of art).

                      P.S.  There is something else v. important you don't understand.  Algos cannot handle IDEAS/CONCEPTS/LANGUAGE. They may appear to at a casual glance, There is no algo that can understand

                      "GO TO THE KITCHEN"

                      *You* understand those concepts -   you know implicitly that "Going to the kitchen" might mean walking, jumping, hopping, crawling, bending double - or whatever it takes to get round an infinity of possible obstacles - and you will have no problem interpreting those concepts in up to an infinity of instantiations.  Algos only know v. specific ways of going anywhere.  Language is fundamentally creative and always open to new interpretations. Algos aren't.

                      So you JT seem to be under a common illusion that a "verbal formula"  such as the one you refer to - INCUBATION - ILLUMINATION etc - constitutes a computational formula/algo. It doesn't. Not remotely.  Concepts/language are open to infinite interpretations. Formulaic/algorithmic elements/variables are not.

                      Hence your v.g./important point about the nature of 2 + 2 =   is not in fact valid here.   As you say, there are in fact infinite solutions to that problem. But NOT for a formula or algo - or any current scientific model of the world.  *Your* mind - a creative mind - can endlessly search for new solutions to that problem - search a world of possibilities. QUATRE, - - - - , l l l l ,  o o o o , - using an infinity of means of representation and numeration. That's because *you* understand "2 + 2"  as *concepts* - open-ended concepts. Algos don't, and can't search widely. They always have a v. limited stock/set of options to choose from -never the wide world.  They cannot endlessly evolve.

                      (That's another point! The arts also stand as contradiction of the idea of evolution by natural selection - they're evolution by human creation - human individuals not just cultures).

                    • JT Velikovsky
                      Hi Michael, This is an excellent and illuminating discussion (I do thank you for it...) You ve raised many points that I hadn t considered before. - But - I
                      Message 11 of 11 , Aug 24 11:45 PM
                      • 1 Attachment
                      • 94 KB
                      Hi Michael,

                      This is an excellent and illuminating discussion (I do thank you for it...) You've raised many points that I hadn't considered before.
                      - But - I also think, we're still `talking across one another' a lot...?
                      I think, many of the actual words, terms and concepts that we're each individually using (eg: `Creativity', in the arts & sciences), are still: incommensurable.

                      - I suspect, we'll probably keep `talking across each other' - until (and, possibly, unless) you've read each book on that `Creativity & Consilience' list:
                      ie - http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-71-Consilience-is-coming-read-all-about-it/
                      - Those are all the definitions/concepts I am using -- whenever I talk about: Creativity, in the Arts/Humanities, and also in the Sciences.

                      (Also - Michael - Can I ask, have you read Creativity, 1996, Csikszentmihalyi?)
                      - That is really the `core' work -- from which, all else flows. (Note also how Simonton also uses the DIFi systems model of Creativity, in the sciences.)

                      So - that's really "the empirical and scientific definition of: Creativity" - in both the arts and sciences.
                      (ie - The `Domain, Individual, Field interaction' systems model of Creativity.
                      - It's a tripartite system (Individual, Field, Domain) - that uses Darwin's evolutionary algorithm: Selection, Variation, Transmission - for both: biology, and culture.)
                      And - I may well be wrong - but Michael, I assume, you may not have read it (Creativity, 1996), or else, I expect, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion, anyway... (?)
                      (Fascinating though it is... and I am not being facetious, nor sarcastic here...)

                      - All I mean is - You still currently seem to have, a very different (and, I suspect, non-scientific) definition of `Creativity' to me...?
                      (I am only ever using the accepted scientific ones, as far as I know.)

                      In your mail below - You seem to conflate what Boden calls p-Creativity (personal Creativity - say, someone making a meal in a `bold' new way, say, mixing odd ingredients) with h-Creativity (historical Creativity, where the Field - as a whole - recognizes the creativity of the person's: idea/process/product/artwork)...

                      ie - All the `classic' novels, films, paintings, scientific theorems, etc - that are the subject of both literary studies, and, the `metasciences' (ie - the history, philosophy, sociology and psychology of science).
                      ie - They are: very different things? (ie: p-Creativity - and h-Creativity). See: Margaret Boden (2003) for more (in that `Consilience' blog post)...

                      Anyway, my more detailed replies are inserted, below...
                      - Hope this clarifies, exactly where I believe, we're `talking across one another'...

                      (Which: is of course, nobody's `fault'. ie - How often, before: any given conversation, do both parties "exchange a list of definitions" ...?) * (see the PS for more)
                      ie - We both use the same word - eg `Creativity' - but, it currently has a totally-different implied meaning, for each of us.
                       
                      (Michael - I'm certainly not suggesting any of your views are actually `wrong', just that, I do think, we are using: very different terms/concepts/definitions.)

                      Warmly

                      JT


                      On 24/08/2013 8:39 PM, tintner michael wrote:
                       
                      Hi JT

                      Thanks for a v. good-natured and detailed reply.

                      But with respect you don't seem to understand algorithms/formulae.

                      They are deterministic -recipes basically - they define a limited set of actions on a limited set of objects - and define precisely what must be done.

                      So when an algorithm dictates how to multiply numbers, the machine has no choice - every step of the computation, and every part of the result are defined. If it multiplies 22 * 22 - the first number must be 4 the next must be 8 and the last must be 4. Can you move the numbers around? Can you add another number? Can you decorate the numbers with curlicues? No, no, no. Maths and logic etc are fascistic.

                      So, the Darwinian `evolutionary algorithm' is:
                      Gene: Selection, Variation, and Transmission.
                      (`Transmission' equates to `heredity') using 3 parts: Organism, Environment, Species.

                      See all these posts, from http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/:

                      On Cultural Evolution – and Memes

                      1. StoryAlity #44 - Biological Evolution, Cultural Evolution, and Creativity: Film
                      2. StoryAlity #45 - On Movie Memes and Memetics (and: How Memes Work)
                      3. StoryAlity #45B - On Tracking Memes in The Meme Pool
                      4. StoryAlity #46 - On Mayans, Memes, Creativity, Darwin and Dawkins
                      5. StoryAlity #47 - Why are some Screenplays/Films more `viral’ Memes?
                      6. StoryAlity #47B - More on Memes & Film (and: 3 solved problems in Memetics)

                      On Holons and Holarchies

                      1. StoryAlity #48 - On Film Holons and Holarchies – and How Holarchies Work
                      2. StoryAlity #49 - On Movie Screenplays, Viral Memes, and Cultural Evolution
                      I tend to think - (maybe) until you have read those posts, (and, you may never get the time) we'll still be conflating, many ideas and concepts...(?)
                      (ie - about: Creativity)


                      Formulae/recipes define OLD dishes. And those dishes must be just so.  (Even Genetic algorithms are only recipes for mixing recipes). Formulae are rule-bound.

                      We're now specifically talking about Creativity in the domain of: Food/Cuisine...

                      So - I think (perhaps) you are conflating the `specific details' of each-and-every recipe with -- the formulae/algorithm behind each recipe.
                      ie - Rather than look at each recipe's `specifics', maybe consider - just how many (types of) meals this formula/algorithm below, now applies to:
                      (and - I am not suggesting it applies to all meals, but - it likely applies to: many)

                      THE `HOT MEAL' ALGORITHM

                      1) Take a serving of protein/s (such as: meat, or nuts, or even artificially-created protein for vegetarians -- or a mix of any and all of these)
                      2) Bake the above protein/s in an oven for [X] time (as a general heuristic: just prior to burning)
                      3) While (1) and (2) are happening, take also a serving of carbohydrate/s (such as: rice, potato, wheat, or other grains, etc etc etc etc)
                      4) Place carbohydrates in boiling water for [X] time (as a general heuristic: just prior to burning)
                      5) Steam some vegetables for [X] time (as a general heuristic: just prior to burning)
                      6) When all 3 of the above consumables are ready, place them all on a plate, in an aesthetically-pleasing manner and garnish with [herbs and spices] (NB - If `Nouvelle Cuisine', then try and make it all look like: a painting)
                      7) Sit at a table and: Consume the above edibles on plate.
                      8) Wash and dry - and store in cupboards - all food-preparation utensils, and plates/cutlery, used in the procedure above. (NB - Makes them all easier to locate, next time)
                      9) If [morning or midday], get back to work... If [evening]: go and watch TV, or read a book, or whatever.
                      10) Repeat above procedure, 3 x times a day. - i.e. If 4 hours have passed since previous execution of all the above steps in order, then: go back to (1)

                      This all comes back to: agency and structure in Creativity...

                      A `Creative' chef (e.g. say: Jamie Oliver) can insert: any manner of `creative' [fresh/new/`original'/odd/unexpected] ingredients into the above algorithm, and: if that specific combination of: proteins, carbs and vegies (and, the "unusual" herbs and spices the "creative" Chef may have chosen) turns out to be: well-liked en masse, due to adapted, evolved, human predispositions - that recipe is suddenly lauded/celebrated as `creative' by The Field. (Either commericially, or critically, or maybe even - both)
                      (ie - the mass `eating-audience' who enjoy eating that particular recipe/dish.)
                      Note that - not everyone in the Field (the `audience'/the world) will like the new dish... (eg - some people are biologically allergic to nuts.)

                      - Do you see what I mean? The above list (recipe formula / structure) is: an algorithm.

                      `Creativity' comes in with: the specific combinations of the variables.

                      ie - The choices (ie agency) made within the algorithm (the `structure') by: the Chef.
                      (This also all applies to: all stories, and fiction literature, and film, and songs, etc etc etc)

                      I am also not suggesting that this algorithm above, applies to `every single meal'...
                      (it completely ignores: breakfast-cereals and cold milk, and, desserts. Also: mid-meal snacks)

                      And - yet - those (`breakfast cereals and cold milk', and `desserts' and `snacks') also all have an algorithm underneath them.
                      (Breakfast cereals are usually carbs; desserts are usually sweet/sugary; snacks are usually high-energy)

                      The only `rule' under each is that: it has to be edible (and not poisonous).
                      I note, there are many other such meal algorithms. Such as: raw dishes. e.g. sushi.

                      Note - If someone (such as the Kelloggs co) inserts a new and "original" breakfast cereal into the domain of: Breakfast, and it is well-liked en masse by the Field (ie - by: people who eat breakfast), that Breakfast Cereal is therefore: Creative.
                      - It solves the `creative problem' of: "What can I eat for breakfast, that is: (1) affordable, (2) vaguely-nutritious, and (3) delicious or at least, edible -- all at the same time?"

                      ...If any of this (above) doesn't make sense, I'd suggest reading: Creativity (1996) by Csikszentmihalyi. And indeed - all those (scientific) Creativity books, on that Consilience blog-list...
                      ie - You may well want to argue with any of the points, made above... but - until you have read Creativity (1996), and all the others in fact - I expect, we'll still be talking at `cross-purposes' here...(?)


                      If you introduce the slighest new element to an algo or formula, it simply cannot cope. There are sixty years of AI failures/total failure to back this up.

                      The arts are about creating NEW dishes. THERE ARE NO RULES FOR THE NEW.

                      AT ANY POINT.

                      So - how do you `explain away' the above?
                      - There are indeed rules/algorithms for: cooking certain types of: hot meals...?
                      (and this applies to: all novels about serial killers too)

                      The `Creativity' (of the creator / `Chef') can be in:

                      (a) choosing odd/weird/new ingredients (variables) in the above algorithm/formula
                      (choosing/creating a new type of serial killer)

                      (b) this also includes -- inventing new ingredients/variables... (eg See those weird `fake nut-meat in a can' dishes, that vegans seem to love. Tastes like peanut-butter mixed with tofu to me.)
                      (inventing a new type of character, maybe a cyborg serial killer. Then again: that was the entire `Terminator' film franchise.)

                      (c) Coming up with a new algorithm... (eg: Maybe - (1) Catch a human, preferably an enemy of the tribe (2) Kill them (3) Eat them raw.) - This was obviously used by many cannibals. Some chimps also catch some monkeys once a year, and devour them, raw. See a doco called "The Demonic Ape". (I certainly don't recommend cannibalism, by the way. Cooked pork is way better...)
                      (see: the Dexter novels (and TV series), where a serial killer is actually the good guy/protagonist)

                      (d) the amount of time each item is cooked for (see: noodles al dente vs. `overcooked', see: `rare steak' vs `well done/charred steak' etc)
                      (How long do you want to spend on each murder, and the investigation of each murder, in your novel? )

                      All Creativity is (scientifically) defined as something that is: "novel [new] yet appropriate [conventional]".
                      So - there are indeed: rules for `the new'...
                      Because - If it is too bizarre/different, it bends/reshapes too many of the the `rules' of the convention.
                      And: will then not be accepted en masse by the field, and -- will therefore, not be viewed as `creative' (but rather, just bizarre, and will be: mostly ignored.)

                      eg: An extreme counter-example is - Imagine, `cooking up' and serving a house-brick on a plate for dinner.
                      - It bends the `rules', that dinner must be (a) edible (b) tasty and (c) nutritious.

                      - It (a cooked housebrick) wouldn't even be p-Creative... (ie - personally Creative).... as its certainl novel (new!), but is not: appropriate. (ie edible, nor tasty)
                      So - it would not likely catch on, en masse, and become `h-Creative' (historically Creative, as judged by The Field, en masse.)

                      Note: the `judgements' of The Field (the Audience), on any creative artifact (eg - film, novel, meal, dance, poem etc) are never: unanimous.
                      - It's basically, a `vote' by the mass audience, every time.
                      Personal tastes en masse - and other (cultural and biological) predispositions, ie - `Human Nature' - always apply to the `vote'...
                      (eg - some people are allergic to nuts; some people simply don't like the colour yellow; some macho guys don't like `chick-flicks'/romance novels, etc)


                      Let's say your artistic project is to write a detective story,  featuring a new kind of serial killer. That's your brief.

                      You play around with an opening sentence -  

                      HE COULDN'T HELP STARING AT THE LIGHT PLAYING ON THE POOL OF BLOOD.

                      What is the next sentence?

                      The next sentence, chosen from an infinite array of possible next sentences, could well be: anything...?
                      But - I don't see why this `line of thought' solves any problems - or, addresses what we're talking about, with Creativity.

                      ie - I could suggest - the next sentence could well be, something perhaps, like:

                      Spring-Heeled-Jack-The-Ripper leaped over the fence away from the pool of blood, the fresh, bloodied corpse of the prostitute who was pregnant with the King's illegitimate child, still gripped tightly under his arm.


                      (ie - See Stephen Knight's theories on `Jack the Ripper', and the resulting comic - and movie - `FROM HELL', etc)

                      So - there you go. This actually satisfies your creative brief...?
                      (I am not aware of any serial killers, prior, that have combined: the two `old'/previous ideas of Spring-Heeled Jack (Google him, he's amazing) and: Jack The Ripper.)
                      But it would remain to be seen if an audience would like (would judge `creative' that `new type of serial killer.' ie a blend of the real-life (Ripper) and supernatural myth, ie `Spring-Heeled Jack')
                       
                      Then again - The Nightmare on Elm St film franchise shows that a `supernatural serial killer' can be incredibly creative (ie - popular). See: Freddy Krueger.
                      As does the Friday the 13th, Halloween and Paranormal Activity series... (All: Top 20 RoI Films)

                      The creative brief itself really needs a lot more parameters/constraints, though...?
                       
                      (1) What literary form is it? is it: Flash fiction (300 words), a short story (say 3000 words), a novel (say 80,000 words) or a movie screenplay (20,000 words), or what?

                      (2) What Genre is it? - Is it a `serious' horror-thriller? (eg like - Jack The Ripper) Or - is it a satire? (eg American Psycho) Or - A black comedy? (eg Dexter) - etc etc etc

                      (3) Who is the Target/Intended/Projected Audience for this story at any rate?

                      (4) (etc etc etc.)
                       
                      So, I tend to feel you have perhaps given an off-topic `example' here...
                      Stories currently don't have a `sentence-by-sentence' heuristic. (- They don't ever need to.)
                      ie - Some authors (eg - Zane Gray) spend a whole page, on a description of just: the physical scene/setting/landscape/environment.
                      Others, spend just a single line/sentence. (Some, even less, eg a few words.)
                      - There is also, no specific `length requirement' in your brief...
                      So - there is indeed, an infinite amount of answers to your question "What is the next sentence?" 
                      Why indeed did you start with that one example above, as the first sentence(?)
                      - There are also, potentially infinite/unlimited `possible first sentences'...
                      See: http://americanbookreview.org/100bestlines.asp
                      ie - There isn't a `clear pattern' in the above first sentences of novels. Nor, does there even need to be?
                      (I do note, a lot of them happen to begin with the word "It" or "I", but - that doesn't seem to matter at all, for all the ones that don't.)

                      But - a story algorithm is such as this:

                      Start:
                      (1) A [Character/s] - has
                      (2) a [Problem/s] - and
                      (3) experiences [Conflict/Obstacles] - in solving it/them (the Problem/s)...
                      (4) A [sacrifice] must be made by the [character/s], that (either):
                      (5) finally, resolves (or - does not resolve)
                      : the Problem/s.
                      - End.

                      So - within that algorithm - you can certainly put your "new idea for a serial killer" brief.

                      And - yes - many infinite possibilities (at the level of the sentence, paragraph and word) always exist...
                       
                      Many of which (when typed up, submitted, approved, and published as a novel) may (or may not) be judged `creative' by the Field (Audience), and then - may indeed go viral in the culture.
                      But - if you want to make the Story (whatever it is) have a greater likelihood/probability of going viral, then: Choose the story/structural elements/algorithms that `adapted human nature' seems to prefer.
                      (You can choose to include any Theme/s you like, but I note, Survival, Reproduction and `Revenge/Retributive Justice' always seem to work, really really well...)

                      But - that all, doesn't address the bigger question:

                      Let's say, you are a novelist (or an aspiring one), and you want to create a creative work, with a memorable `villain/serial killer' horror-genre character in the league of say: `Hannibal the cannibal' (The Silence of the Lambs trilogy), or, Louis from Anne Rice's "Interview With the Vampire" series - or even Stoker's "Dracula", or Shelley's "Frankenstein", or even the Twilight series, etc etc etc. (arguably - the antagonists there are also all `serial' killers)
                      (Note also that Twilight simply combined 2 x old ideas/memes: (1) The romance novel - and (2) the vampire and werewolf novel.)

                      - All original ideas (memes) are just combinations of two old ideas (memes).
                      Sometimes, they go viral in the culture. This is the same as a biological species increasing in population as: it is so well adapted to the environment.
                      (eg say, plagues of rabbits in Australia)

                      So: look at all the ones (novels/serial killer stories) that also went viral historically... and: look for patterns/algorithms underneath.
                      - You will always find them.

                      - You will not indeed find them, at the very-granular level of `the sentence', as you've aimed to illustrate above Michael, with your hypothetical example...

                      But -- you will certainly find them, at the level of `story structure' / `plot beat' figurations...
                      See: many of the articles in ELF, and also Joe Carroll on "Deep Structure".
                      See also - all the `plot story templates' (Snyder, Seger, Vogler, Siegel, etc etc) in The Feature Screenwriters Workbook... They are just formuale/algorithms.

                      Also, Michael I would also suggest - you perhaps could read my blog-posts about holons and holarchies.
                      Any story (novel, short story, film, poem etc) is a memeplex: a hierarchy of ideas.
                      You have `drilled too far down' - down to a `molecular-structure' (to the word and sentence) level, where `the details' of the figurations all appear: random.

                      On Holons and Holarchies

                      1. StoryAlity #48 - On Film Holons and Holarchies – and How Holarchies Work
                      2. StoryAlity #49 - On Movie Screenplays, Viral Memes, and Cultural Evolution

                      Also, a simpler version of the Creative Practice Theory algorithm - is on a single PPT slide, here: (also attached to this email)

                      http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/storyality-69-storyality-theory-20-min-paper-i-and-i-2013/

                      The ten (or eleven, if you’re really lucky) steps, over time, for an individual Person in the domain of Film, are:
                      A person must (be):




                      Compare the above to all `h-creative' creatives (Shakespeare, Mozart, Einstein, Picasso, Darwin, etc etc)

                      Note also that `the 10-year rule' in Creativity is an average -- some people (some historical / h-Creatives) do it in 3 years, some may take 20 years. Or more.
                      (Most people, obviously, never manage it.)


                      In formulae and algos, the next sentence/number/action is always defined.

                      In the arts - in the creation of new works - there are a potential INFINITY of next sentences, next parts. Is there any new element you *cannot* introduce into your second sentence?. Quantum mechanics? The price of tampons? How to spell "BLOOD"? etc etc... No there isn't. You have a world of possibilities at your disposal. 

                      You have zero possibilities in a formula/algo.


                      Michael - You are missing the `level' at which the (Story) algorithms apply...?
                      You need to go much `higher' up the holarchy of the `story structure', than: the level of, the sentence.
                      You need to go to the level of `plot figurations'.
                      eg - The hero's journey monomyth, etc. etc.
                      (See about 20 x Story templates in my Feature Screenwriters Workbook, it also applies to: novels, song lyrics, etc. It's a free 100-page PDF, at: http://uws.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky/)

                      Note that - all the novel bestsellers are examples of the monomyth:
                      http://on-writering.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/top-10-common-elements-in-all-best.html

                      Note also - what the monomyth (potentially) really is:
                      http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-73-The-Heros-Journey-its-not-what-you-think/

                      Ditto if you are literally creating a new stew. What can you not introduce - eye of newt, toe of toad? What the hell give it a go.

                      If you are reproducing a recipe and an old dish, you do not have a choice.

                      You are exactly right...!
                      (as you say: be creative, and try any combination of ingredients, and then: test it out on the Field.
                      The Field / audience will tell you if it works or not, and is therefore "creative" or not.)
                      - All `Stews' also have an algorithm - right? The variables are: the ingredients of the stew.
                      But if you don't follow the `stew algorithm' you won't end up with stew...
                      You will end up with: something else altogether.

                      See my example above for The `Hot Meal' Algorithm...
                      The range of foodstuffs, that can be `inserted' in the 4 x classes of (1) protein (2) carbs (3) vegetables and (4) herbs/spices in the algorithm - results in: a near-infinite amount of combinations and permutations. (With as many basic elements, as there are: edible foodstuffs)

                      Some of these combinations, when eaten by the Field (people), are: vastly more popular than others. (Ergo: creative.)
                      Then we have to ask: So - Why is that?
                      Answer: Adapted human predispositions...
                      (see Pinker on: strawberry cheesecake)



                      Creativity - Idea/concept-based, informal/freeform, anarchic, pluralistic (good/bad) production of new courses of action and objects -

                      is the diametric OPPOSITE of

                      Rationality - Formula/algo-based, formal, ordered, "monistic" (right/wrong) production of old courses of action and objects

                      No?
                      Michael - if you are still under this impression - you do need to read Creativity (1996) by Csikszentmihalyi...
                      Also, read those 2 x Simonton books... (ie Creativity in Science (2004), and also Great Flicks (2011))

                      You may well still choose to disagree with them - but - they have the weight of, a vast amount (and over 30 years) of scientific evidence behind them (on: Creativity).


                      New is the opposite of old/routine.

                      No. You are conflating things here.
                      Creative means: `novel yet appropriate'.
                      `Novel' means new.
                      `Appropriate' means old/conventional/routine.

                      You need a `new' idea in a novel (eg say - a new idea for a `serial killer' villain.)
                      But - the novel will have to follow all the old/conventional/routine `rules/structures/guidelines' for novels - or - it will not be judged creative.

                      How `different/new' are the structures of all serial killer novels?
                      - All are roughly around the same length, and format.
                      - All feature: victims, good guys, cops/detectives/investigators (even `amateur' sleuths) and - the serial killer is usually caught at the end. Right?
                      - Also - they all usually start with: the killer, killing someone. Then a detective is called in.
                      Then: see about 10 x `procedural cop shows' on TV right now (all the CSI's, all the `Law & Order SVUs', etc etc etc)
                      All formulas and algorithms...
                      The creativity comes in the ingredients usually. (The characters.)

                      ie By even suggesting a "new idea for a serial killer", you have alrady just committed yourself to: an algorithm.
                      A serial killer story.
                      Someone (presumably - the antagonist or "predator" archetype, though not necessarily, he could be the protagonist - like Dexter) in your story - now has to kill a whole lot of (or at least more than one) innocent victims.
                      Presumably also - we have to identify with `the good guys' and the detectives solving who the `serial killer' is - and how to stop/catch him.
                      All of that is: very old. Not new at all... (See: `M', the movie for example.)


                      You are not going to produce a single genre of art where there are rules for the first sentence/part, or 2nd... nth.  Period. You are not going to produce a single genre of creativity among billions of contenders where there are rules for the first element.

                      But - I have never said (nor suggested) that, this was indeed the case-?
                      - You seem to have assumed otherwise.
                      We are clearly: talking at cross-purposes, here...?

                      But you are also ignoring cases where: a computer program created a poem - that was then judged `creative' by experts/critics. (Critics who: had no idea, they were being fooled.)
                      (There are many many historical examples of this... if you read deeply in the research on Creativity...)



                      Your contention about algo-based art won't bear the slightest examination - or be supported  by any evidence..(That goes for the various "artistic algos" that reproduce variations on old works of art).

                      It's not `my' contention at all --- it's the accepted facts of the entire scientific Field of: Creativity...

                      So - Michael - I suspect (maybe) you have not read any of those (scientific) Creativity books on that consilience blog-list, or else - you would already know all this...?
                      ie - None of this (about Creativity) is my own contention; none of this is controversial...
                      - It was all accepted (long ago, eg - 1988?) by the academic scientific field of Creativity.

                      As it happens -- I personally, have also had, 20 years, in various fields of Creativity: (films, music, games, novels, short stories, poems, computer science, etc) - and I find that every single claim made by those scientific scholars of Creativity (ie - Csikszentmihalyi, Simonton, Sawyer, Boden, etc) to be totally validated, personally - by the evidence in my own (20-year) personal experience. (Working in many roles including as a professional story analyst for major film studios, etc etc)
                      None of this scientific research on Creativity is contentious -- and nor has it been - for, around 30 years now...?

                      So - please do, read all these books - ie - every word of them, in fact - and then I would certainly be very happy to continue this conversation:
                      http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/storyality-71-consilience-is-coming-read-all-about-it/

                      Currently though, we are: clearly not `on the same page' with Creativity, at all...
                      None of what I am saying is: `my own ideas'... those are the scientific facts... (that, we are currently aware of. Of course, the scientific knowledge will improve, over time.)

                      (Well - all apart from: Creative Practice Theory - as that is indeed my own - and - Prof Csiskzentmihalyi actually has personally congratulated me on that synthesis of 2 x major theories on Creativity...)
                      ie - http://storyality.wordpress.com/Creative-Practice-Theory/
                      (I certainly would have also run it past Prof. Bourdieu as well - but he is, sadly, now deceased...)

                      But note also that both those scholars insist on: empirical and scientific evidence in the Creativity research.


                      P.S.  There is something else v. important you don't understand.  Algos cannot handle IDEAS/CONCEPTS/LANGUAGE. They may appear to at a casual glance, There is no algo that can understand

                      "GO TO THE KITCHEN"

                      Yes there is.
                      - I'm also an occasional Consultant for the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. (http://singularity.org/ ie - Bruce Klein, Ray Kurzweil, and all those guys.)
                      I also have a long history of work in the field of Artificial Intelligence (including, all my videogame work over many years, and also including that I've written many Pandorabot chatbots, etc etc) - And - what you say above is actually wrong...?


                      *You* understand those concepts -   you know implicitly that "Going to the kitchen" might mean walking, jumping, hopping, crawling, bending double - or whatever it takes to get round an infinity of possible obstacles - and you will have no problem interpreting those concepts in up to an infinity of instantiations.  Algos only know v. specific ways of going anywhere.  Language is fundamentally creative and always open to new interpretations. Algos aren't.

                      This statement above is all a bit too `general' to really go into, here...
                      I just suggest: read Margaret Boden on Creativity (2003), she shows how artificial intelligence gives great insight into: How Creativity actually works. (All scientific stuff. Seriously!)


                      So you JT seem to be under a common illusion that a "verbal formula"  such as the one you refer to - INCUBATION - ILLUMINATION etc - constitutes a computational formula/algo. It doesn't. Not remotely.  Concepts/language are open to infinite interpretations. Formulaic/algorithmic elements/variables are not.

                      Michael - you are still conflating the small, `granular detail' -- where randomness emerges - with the `big algorithmic structure'...

                      If it helps - An analogy, in Biology:

                      You are looking at the `organ-structure' of various individual `people' (eg - You are now, comparing several x human hearts, or lungs, or livers - eg the first sentences of novels/stories) and - you are becoming confused when noting that, on a very fine level of detail, they are all: slightly different.
                      ie - Though made of cells (though sentences are made of words) the cells are not all arranged in each organ, in precisely, exactly the same manner (even in identical twins).
                      There are some (or even - many) variations each case.
                      Yet - overall, the organ itself (ie - the heart, the lung, the liver, the brain, etc) performs the exact same function.
                      There is an algorithm (in: DNA) that `tells' a body - how to build these organs and what they need to do.

                      For how that applies to all stories - Please read my blog posts on Holons and Holarchies, above.
                      Note also - Koestler's book "The Act of Creation"... (apart from "The Ghost In The Machine" 1967 where he coined the terms `holon' and `holarchy') - there is much in there you currently appear, not to be aware of...
                      Thus, currently we are talking at cross-purposes. I know you are (clearly) extremely intelligent, but I think you are as yet unaware of some key scientific concepts in Creativity...
                      None of what I say about creativity is my own personal opinion.
                      Everything I say, results from the scientific evidence... (from other authors/scholars of Creativity...)

                      This is the current key problem in the Arts/Humanities: Everyone thinks that their own opinion on Creativity, is what creativity actually is.
                      They are mostly unaware of the scientific truth of what it is.


                      Hence your v.g./important point about the nature of 2 + 2 =   is not in fact valid here.   As you say, there are in fact infinite solutions to that problem. But NOT for a formula or algo - or any current scientific model of the world.

                      Yes there is.
                      We know how ecosystems work, and we also know how the biosphere is composed of ecosystems.
                      There is still chaos theory, and `the butterfly effect' at work in there, so - we can only make broad predictions...

                      But some things we most certainly do know, the algorithms for.
                      And - Creativity is one of them...

                      (I need to note, there is not just one algorithm or system in play in Creativity... All human `systems' are composed of: physical, chemical, biological, psychological, social, cultural, and universal systems. They are all obviously running many algorithms at once...)

                      There is also one other book I recommend: `Fooled By Randomness', by Nassim Taleb.


                       *Your* mind - a creative mind - can endlessly search for new solutions to that problem - search a world of possibilities. QUATRE, - - - - , l l l l ,  o o o o , - using an infinity of means of representation and numeration. That's because *you* understand "2 + 2"  as *concepts* - open-ended concepts. Algos don't, and can't search widely. They always have a v. limited stock/set of options to choose from -never the wide world.  They cannot endlessly evolve.

                      The evolutionary algorithm (selection, variation, transmission) does not evolve.
                      - It is a law, just as there are laws in holarchies. (See the two weblog posts above, on holons)
                      The individuals/organisms within that system (ie: within the 3 parts: organisms, environment, species) clearly do evolve.

                      - If you don't think biology and culture both work via `the evolutionary algorithm', then - how can you explain: the evolution of biology and culture?
                      And also - the emergence of new lifeforms/species, and of scientific knowledge/Kuhnian paradigms?
                      (And, here I mean, using scientific evidence, and not just your own opinion on it)



                      (That's another point! The arts also stand as contradiction of the idea of evolution by natural selection - they're evolution by human creation - human individuals not just cultures).

                      No, this is wrong too...?
                      You perhaps don't understand bio-cultural evolution? (ie Meme-gene co-evolution?)
                      (I am not the first to ever say this...)
                      I'd even recommend, reading all x 70 of my blog posts... http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/

                      At that point, we would no longer be `talking across one another'... (ie - using very different concepts of Creativity - in both the Arts/Humanities and the Sciences...)
                      ie - Everything on the StoryAlity blog is consilient/scientific...
                      - All other theories, in my view, just don't seem to be an accurate reflection of reality, at all...
                      (I don't find any of them as personally-convincing - nor even compelling - as: a Scientific approach...)

                      Hope this clarifies where we're `talking across one another.'
                      (In Simonton's Creativity In Science: Logic, Genius, Chance, Zeitgeist he even notes, one famous instance where Einstein and another scientist were actually `talking at cross purposes' about a scientific theory - and never even realized it... it happens a lot...)

                      Warmly

                      JT

                      * - RE: (How often do people exchange `definitions of key terms', before any conversation?)

                       
                      A Side Note - That might even be quite amusing as a Monty Python style comedy sketch, actually...

                      e.g.: Boy meets girl... Though very physically attracted, before eng

                      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
                    • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.