creativity

[~son~of~random~]

I have been splitting my mind over this question lately, and was wondering what my fellow totseans would make of it.

Ok do you guys think it is possible to create something new that has not been perceived before. For example, in chemistry, when you mix two chemicals together and you get a new chemical. You determine the identity of the new chemical by knowledge of the previous two. Do you think (metaphorically speaking) it is possible to create a perceptibly new chemical without knowledge of the original two chemicals.

Like a whole new smell or color or concept.

To achieve originality should one must create with another dimension in mind? Like for instance. There is standard two dimensional and there is three dimensional and so on and so fourth.

What about the religions and beliefs that could not of possibly been imagined my the finite human mind?
Would it not be comprehensible?

Again this is just a theory. I have refined and condensed this over these last few weeks. Any further apparent flaws in my theory's logic?

[Ron Smythberg]

Originally Posted by ~son~of~random~

I have been splitting my mind over this question lately, and was wondering what my fellow totseans would make of it.

Ok do you guys think it is possible to create something new that has not been perceived before. For example, in chemistry, when you mix two chemicals together and you get a new chemical. You determine the identity of the new chemical by knowledge of the previous two. Do you think (metaphorically speaking) it is possible to create a perceptibly new chemical without knowledge of the original two chemicals.

Like a whole new smell or color or concept.

To achieve originality should one must create with another dimension in mind? Like for instance. There is standard two dimensional and there is three dimensional and so on and so fourth.

What about the religions and beliefs that could not of possibly been imagined my the finite human mind?
Would it not be comprehensible?

Again this is just a theory. I have refined and condensed this over these last few weeks. Any further apparent flaws in my theory's logic?

I think new chemicals are possible and from my basic understanding of chemistry there is a possibility of discovering new chemicals (I suppose in space).

Smells and colors though are restricted by spectrums that have already been identified.


I dont understand what your definition of creativity is, but if you see things mathematically, nothing is "new", but is just another combination of numbers.


TBH, these thoughts and ideas your having are really a waste of time. You wont get anywhere talking about this crap, we are just to primitive.

[alooha from hell]

Originally Posted by Ron Smythberg

TBH, these thoughts and ideas your having are really a waste of time. You wont get anywhere talking about this crap, we are just to primitive.

you cannot say for certain that we are "primitive" because what exactly are you comparing humans too? we only know life as it is on earth: we could, at this moment in time, be the most advanced living thing in the universe.

[nshanin]

New chemicals are discovered by IR, NMR, GC-MS, and various spectroscopies. You can take a totally random, thousand-atom molecule and give its precise structure despite not knowing where it came from. You're going to need a new analogy.

The imagination is infinite; whether or not the product corresponds to "reality" is another issue. It depends on your (the?) metaphysics. Are there things that are outside the imagination? Certainly, but ultimately as computing power increases (the brain is just a collection of connections), the amount of creative thought available will approach infinity. Will we ever reach it? No, but who would care at that point? Even now it's not totally depressing to see that your creativity is limited, few people (outside of totse, of course) want to take psychedelics solely to enhance their creative capacity, so while there will never be a full spectrum of possibilities (the same way the mentally disabled can't conjure things that we can creatively, in this case we're just disabled and the infinite is the neurotypical), this never-attaining situation won't be a hindrance to... well, anything.

[Ron Smythberg]

Originally Posted by alooha from hell

you cannot say for certain that we are "primitive" because what exactly are you comparing humans too? we only know life as it is on earth: we could, at this moment in time, be the most advanced living thing in the universe.

I am not comparing all humans. I am saying that the people in this forum are primitive. Name one person on totse with a PHD. If you did I am sure you are lying.

Personally I know advanced beings (they are human) and they probably have the mental faculties to approach problems like this. I am not yet ready to tackle these concepts, but I am being trained and I will attain this power eventually.

Unfortunately 90-95% of people who come and write on this forum are lacking in intelligence, the OP has demonstrated his own primitiveness, and your inane and redundant "counter argument" also suggests you are missing a few screws up there.

So next time before you make a reply make sure to double-check you actually understand what it is you are replying to. Lose the haughty smugness and perhaps you may learn something, although I presume that is unlikely.

[The Methematician]

^^^a prime example of a primitive primate....

[alooha from hell]

Originally Posted by Ron Smythberg

I am not comparing all humans. I am saying that the people in this forum are primitive. Name one person on totse with a PHD. If you did I am sure you are lying.

Personally I know advanced beings (they are human) and they probably have the mental faculties to approach problems like this. I am not yet ready to tackle these concepts, but I am being trained and I will attain this power eventually.

Unfortunately 90-95% of people who come and write on this forum are lacking in intelligence, the OP has demonstrated his own primitiveness, and your inane and redundant "counter argument" also suggests you are missing a few screws up there.

So next time before you make a reply make sure to double-check you actually understand what it is you are replying to. Lose the haughty smugness and perhaps you may learn something, although I presume that is unlikely.

after admitting your own ignorance in the subjects of philosophy, cultural practices, social norms, historical debate, war, and sociology, who are you to say that the people who post in this forum are lacking in intelligence?

[Slaughterama]

Originally Posted by Ron Smythberg

Lose the haughty smugness and perhaps you may learn something, although I presume that is unlikely.

Lol, funny you should say that after you write one of most smug posts I've ever seen.

[Manorexia]

Originally Posted by Ron Smythberg

I am not comparing all humans. I am saying that the people in this forum are primitive. Name one person on totse with a PHD. If you did I am sure you are lying.

Personally I know advanced beings (they are human) and they probably have the mental faculties to approach problems like this. I am not yet ready to tackle these concepts, but I am being trained and I will attain this power eventually.

Unfortunately 90-95% of people who come and write on this forum are lacking in intelligence, the OP has demonstrated his own primitiveness, and your inane and redundant "counter argument" also suggests you are missing a few screws up there.

So next time before you make a reply make sure to double-check you actually understand what it is you are replying to. Lose the haughty smugness and perhaps you may learn something, although I presume that is unlikely.

Your post is flawed. From primitiveness and PhDs to the supposed prerequisites for considering philosophical intangibles, you're speaking of them all in concrete terms when in reality they don't need to be and aren't. Mental primitiveness isn't as easily discernible as you would like to think and isn't commonly defined in either absolute or easily classifiable terms as degree or grade. Smart people, or the mentally "advanced," don't always go to college, and there are plenty in college whose eventual monetary motivations betray their intelligence.

A PhD isn't some magical piece of paper that instantly imparts knowledge and doesn't represent any sort of special mental faculty save to say that the recipient applied their preexisting abilities to gain qualification in a specific field. This isn't to say that there aren't qualities inherent in some people that make them better or worse at pursuing questions like the one ~son~of~random~, but it doesn't have to be some esoteric topic preserved for investigation by an elite group.

Of course, not everyone is capable of pondering certain philosophical quandaries, and not everyone has to. For some, a question as posed by the O.P. is meaningless; it has no use in their lives, and thus would be worthless to ponder. For others, it helps them to continue their intellectual pursuit, possibly for some utilitarian purpose or possibly just for the sake of knowing.

Those who will ask the questions will ask because it is important to them. They seek an answer because it would be useful to them, even if not to others. Despite your opinion of the OPs question, it is no reason to tell him that he is not "advanced" enough to find an answer that will, for him, be truth enough for his purposes. To do so merely squelches the intellectual speculation that you yourself are supposedly in training for and wish to propagate with said training.

[Moonius]

I drew this for you




It didn't work


I drew this too, it almost belongs here



And this is cool too