Creativity is subjective.

I work as a software engineer and most of my colleagues would be considered highly intelligent, orderly, business folks.

I would challenge anyone to match the creativity of these folks against any artist.

I am sorry its merely a subjective cultural construct where we label artistic pursuits as highly creative and practical pursuits as less creative.

I have also been immersed in the artistic community, as an actor, a singer, and musician I have spent tons of time around artistic people and found that the vast majority of art is a hodge podge of previous concepts brought together with a spin that makes it appear new and unique, which is common to most human endeavors.

Cutting edge technologically sophisticated companies house the worlds most elite creative minds; and in a day to day encounter most people would not go out of their way to label these people as creative.

Cutting edge technology/science requires creativity in a way art never will. To be the first in a new revolutionary design/scientific-method is a challenge that requires hundreds and sometimes thousands of innovations to achieve.

New cutting edge and highly creative art will tend to have at most a handful of new ideas.

So I tend to think its a narrow view that holds the conclusions of the above mentioned research as poignant.

There are no absolutes.

No, the issue is resistance.

I'm well aware of the fact that "working class" people hate the expression "Master/Servant". However, it's taken out of the intended context. I urge you go back and verify:

As you can see, "Master" has nothing to do with the distribution of the material wealth (i.e. poor/rich), but with possession of the intellectual capacity!!!

FORUM RULES

1) Do not attack/slam/insult others. You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS. If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, YOU will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself, defending a friend, etc. are NOT excuses. Violations of this rule are taken very seriously and may result in being banned without warning!

As I mentioned above, I don't think the Congress would approve such a prepostorous budget!!!

just reading this leaves me exhausted and in a desperate need for a shower....

am packing my energy that matters and leaving the arrogant parlaying for the energetic matterless.

What characteristics of you does your spirit contain?

So if Jane = a sum total of Jane like characteristics, to make the whole Jane, then what parts does spirit reflect?

... We don't know what it is yet, but we should be on the lookout for the cause of this coincidence.

Ironically enough one answer covers both questions here...





Conscious correlation.

Sky,

I appreciate your participation here...

Why bow out? Why not show how a decision is required to form the beliefs mentioned earlier by me, or at least logically refute those things?

I understand that you disagree, and do not hold you in a negative light as a result of that, so there is no need to apologize for that. I just do not understand why you disagree other than that disagreement is based upon your belief that a 'decision' is previously required in order for a belief to be able to exist.

...

According to me, people believe different things for different reasons and there are different methods regarding very young children and everyone else for arriving at any particular one. In light of what is being discussed here, I am concentrating on and addressing that which is first believed, and have clearly shown that those first beliefs do not require making a decision. That is not to say that all belief shares the same determining factors. I would agree that some belief requires making a decision, however all beliefs do not share this feature as a requirement.

I apologize for the delay in responding and thank those who have kept the discussion meaningful.



To me there is no such a thing as an unconscious agreement, I believe that that can be logically shown, however at this time I am choosing to not do so. That is not to deny that current experience can (dis)agree with the previously held and currently unconscious elements in one’s belief system, however that is not the same as an unconscious (dis)agreement.

When considering a child who is taking things taught upon faith and faith alone there is no logical reason to believe that that child even has the ability to be able to question the validity of what is being learned unless there is a pre-existing contradictory belief. That questioning/doubting aspect is actually true of everyone. Belief necessarily comes before doubt. All doubt is grounded upon a prior contradictory belief. Now that particular belief could very well be a set of beliefs that corroborate with one another on many levels and I would think that this is most often the case. The point is that this contradiction between what has been previously accepted as true(one’s current belief system) and that which is currently being contemplated may not be consciously recognized in such a way that the child(or person for that matter) can actually ‘put a finger’ on what, how, or why it contradicts. Often one will immediately dismiss something as false without really knowing why that is the case simply because it “feels” wrong. That can be as simple as an unconsciously perceived and correlated contradiction.

Now, the unconscious to me is an extremely complex and integral part of human behavior and thought - including the belief system - and the discussion may benefit from that temporary focus, if for no other reason than to reach a mutual understanding of what I mean when mentioning it. It may not be necessary though.



I would concur that the unconscious elements of the brain/mind do indeed play a daily and constant role in human perception. Therefore, they necessarily affect one’s belief system. I just think that it is inaccurate and therefore unwise to call that mechanism an unconscious agreement. The previous section above has briefly touched upon this idea, and this response addresses it throughout.




I am inclined to agree in part with massage here. One cannot break human perception down like that Sky. There is no such a thing as a single piece of data when talking about human perception, therefore to attempt to reduce it to a single bit(or two) of data is actually meaningless. The sheer amount of different things being simultaneously perceived denies that approach altogether. It inadequately describes what is.



Again, I am inclined to agree in part with massage here as well. In addition to the false number construct of singular pieces of data that was previously mentioned, there is another problem here with the logic. It directly involves the false presupposition that recognition requires decision. It does not. One does not have to ‘decide’ that they are witnessing things which happen on a consistent basis. They just do it. One does not have to ‘decide’ that they are going to make correlations between things, because it is an autonomous feature of being a human. Correlation and associations can be consciously recognized and recorded in one’s memory via our innate sense of logical reasoning prior to a belief system ever being formed and without ‘deciding’ to do such a thing. That is the beauty of logical inference. It does not require that the subject knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily participate - it just happens.



For reasons already mentioned, I would not agree with this claim that a belief system is created by a decision or decisions. There are other necessary contributing factors involved before a decision is made. The above references some of these other considerations. I would completely agree that it can take a conscious and deliberate decision in order to change one’s original or foundational belief system, but not to formulate it.



I would also agree that the unconscious elements do indeed necessarily affect one’s belief system if for no other reason than affecting conscious perception. The depth and breadth of that affect is unknown to me.



A child figures out things like that Sky. It just happens, and it does so without necessarily making a decision. S/he associates things with emotions as well. I would guess that the correlation between something in the world and how that something makes them feel are some of the first associative thoughts.



There are things which we already know that contradict this approach. A child can(and will) associate emotion with any number of things without deciding to be emotional. They simply remember that which caused the emotions and correlate that with how they felt/feel. A child can associate a bottle with food, and can know that s/he is hungry and know that a bottle makes them feel ‘better’ without ever knowing that they know that. It does not require decision making. That comes later.



There are no two bits of information Sky. As massage has mentioned already, that just is not the case with human perception, and that necessarily includes newborns and young children.

Again, the premise is fundamentally flawed.

What we eventually decide to believe, becomes our belief system.