1. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #106810 by Dr Patrick on January 3, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Reply to post 168

Wooter

Thank you for your praise on my calculation. I'm sorry it upset you so much that you were driven to posting without thinking.

Do you really think atheists spend any of their time (never mind 18 months) "stirring up amino acid soup to wait for a protein to pop up"?

Multiple choice questions:

1. You really think meat, ie muscle, turns into ears, eyes, lungs etc?

Do you? I mean, really?

2. Looks like your cosmology and physics knowledge is on a par with your biology.

3. Same as 2, with the added observation that a creator who made all the other planets that can't maintain life is a bit slipshod.

Yeah Wooter, your questions are enough for any logical person.

I know other people here have asked you to stop posting, but please continue, you are a great advert for atheism.

2. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105904 by Dr Patrick on January 2, 2008 at 5:33 am

In regard to the above post (50).

There is a significant difference. Assuming you have free will and being wrong does not negatively impact your life in any way (at least, I can't think of a downside).

Assuming god exists and being wrong, however, leads to a waste of life:

If a person spends an average 2 hours a week contemplating god (pray, church, general musings etc) and is lucky enough to live to 85 they have wasted a full year of their life. And that's a year without sleep, so about 18 months awake, dedicated to an non-existant sky fairy.

And that is just on the level of the (possibly moderate) individual and not factoring in the impact they may have on others.

3. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104963 by Dr Patrick on December 30, 2007 at 7:09 am

Digitalia

I think your 3rd part is an emergent result of the first two, but does a valuable job of highlighting their value.

Before specialisation, a male was the best hunter and that was it. There was only one way to provide.

Specialisation meant a specific skill could outweigh brut force and a spear maker could access more food than some of the better hunters.

This would provide inspiration for all the sub-par hunters to find a specialty of their own.

This also raises an interesting issue as to whether our big brains drove specialisation or vice versa.

4. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104960 by Dr Patrick on December 30, 2007 at 6:54 am

Phil Rimmer

In today's society, sure, marketing is everything. But in the case of the first spear maker, I would imagine all the hunters had spears and knew what they were for. The breakthrough came when the talented spear maker swapped his spears for meat rather than hunting himself.

IE: creativity providing sustenance without the energy outlay of hunting.

As for PLAY, I would say that pretty much sums up the process of my 2nd part. Testing solutions against none critical problems.

But calling it play, doesn't explain why we have the urge to play, which is what I've tried to do.

I agree totally that the opportunity for free time that surplus wealth provides makes a huge difference for progress, but it still doesn't answer why we bother.

The quest for specialisation (identifying new specialties and succeeding at it) is the same thing as creativity, and specialisation is how we have flourished as a species.

5. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104939 by Dr Patrick on December 30, 2007 at 4:54 am

Just a guess, but maybe a single Darwinian explanation is not possible. Maybe it is more a case of Darwinian explanations.

Creativity arguably comes in two parts:

1. Succeeding at a given task not directly related to survival.

2. The seeking out of new tasks.

So a two part solution may provide an answer.

1. An instinct to increase our standing within a group (and the associated sense of achievement) must be a valuable survival trait for a tribal species such as ours.

Building on this foundation, one of the easiest ways to gain status is specialisation. Which is as true today, as it was when the first human found he had a knack for making the best spears.

This gives success at abstract actions a survival value.

2. Being the first spear maker is good, being the second, not so much. Survival of the fittest kicks in once more and both suffer due to the competition within the newly founded sub-tribe.

But if that second spear maker, instead makes huts or catches fish, he becomes the default alpha male in a sub-tribe of one.

So the inquisitive seeking out of new creative avenues (specialisation) also carries a value to survival.