We as sentient beings not only discover possibilities but actualize realities — javra
...any act of abstract "creation" (prior to the act of realizing the idea in some concrete medium)... — Pfhorrest
Surely every possibility is already possible, right? There is some (infinite) set of things that are possible, and by discovering that something is possible, we don't thereby become the cause of its possibility; it was already a possibility, we just found it among that infinite set of possibilities.
What I say "idea" here I'm talking about roughly a picture of some way that things might be; a possible state of affairs. All of those possible states of affairs, those ideas that could be had, are already possible; when we "come up with" an idea, we may feel as though we're inventing something, but as the thing we're "coming up with" is just a possibility, and all the possibilities were already possible, then really we've just discovered something. — Pfhorrest
This thus blurs the lines between "making" and "finding" something, between "invention" and "discovery". I'm not saying there's only one and not the other; I'm saying there really isn't any difference between them when you get down to it. — Pfhorrest
I'm contesting the seemingly common notion that such mental creativity can only come from sort of non-deterministic process, the likes of which for instance could not possibly ever be programmed into an AI. — Pfhorrest
What you're talking about is trivially true and I'm not contesting it at all. — Pfhorrest
There is a sense to be made of the difference between the abstract content of an idea and the concrete having of an idea by a person. [...] I’m only taking about the content of the ideas, — Pfhorrest
What I say "idea" here I'm talking about roughly a picture of some way that things might be; a possible state of affairs. All of those possible states of affairs, those ideas that could be had, are already possible; when we "come up with" an idea, we may feel as though we're inventing something, but as the thing we're "coming up with" is just a possibility, and all the possibilities were already possible, then really we've just discovered something. — Pfhorrest
As I said before, I’m not saying that ideas are only discovered not invented, but that there is no sense to be made of any distinction between discovery and invention. — Pfhorrest
It would be possible in principle to set out on a deterministic process of mechanically identifying every possible idea, — Pfhorrest
I'm contesting the seemingly common notion that such mental creativity can only come from sort of non-deterministic process, the likes of which (for instance) could not possibly ever be programmed into an AI. — Pfhorrest
I'm arguing that abstract creation is indistinguishable from discovery, — Pfhorrest
The "concrete having of an idea by a person" is not relevant to whether ideas are discovered or invented? — Luke
those possibilities aren't "out there" somewhere to be discovered [...] Sure you could say someone discovers novel ideas in themselves — Janus
Consider the creativity of conspiracy theories for example. They are often very creative and irrational explanations for some event or phenomenon. I think this is the issue with AI being creative. AI’s must follow a code; their programming — Pinprick
To me, discovery means not changing whatever it is you found. So like you say, part of creativity is simply finding an unusual idea and expressing it, but if someone finds two ideas, and then combines/synthesizes them to form a new idea, that seems different than just discovery. — Pinprick
The "concrete having of an idea by a person" is not relevant to whether ideas are discovered or invented?
— Luke
Only the distinction between that and the content of those ideas is not relevant. Of course any idea is had by someone, but bringing that up has nothing to do with where the contents of those ideas “comes from”. I’m just saying that distinguishing between “coming from the person” (invention) and “coming from the world” (discovery) makes no sense when were talking about ideas; they amount to the same thing. — Pfhorrest
Consider just things like numbers, even just the counting numbers. There are an infinite quantity of counting numbers: 1, 2, 3, etc forever. There will always be some number in that series that nobody has counted up to yet, that nobody has had any reason to instantiate in any concrete way. Does that mean that such a number doesn't exist yet? — Pfhorrest
It seems you are attempting to re-define invention as discovery, i.e., to assert that any case of invention is actually a case of discovery. I doubt you would agree to the reverse: that any case of discovery is actually a case of invention, as this would imply, e.g., that Wiliam Herschel "invented" Uranus, or that Californians "invented" the gold in them thar hills — Luke
What similar algorithm exists in order for us to "discover" the supposedly pre-existing ideas of the Mona Lisa or the toaster? — Luke
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.