How does creatively help us survive? — TiredThinker

There’s been a lot of discussion in this forum about creativity, but more often in the sense of art, which I presume were not talking about here, nor do I want to.

How does creativity help us survive? Somehow I think it’s bigger than helping us survive. It’s that we are creative creatures and that’s why we’re here and not a footnote in history.

Edit: it seems a bit like asking how does breathing help us survive?

what aren't the purposes of creativity? — TiredThinker

Asking questions that imply everything has to have some robotic animalistic purpose, for one.

How does creatively help us survive? — TiredThinker

How doesn't it. The world wasn't formed from a cloud of space debris fully furnished with Tesla cars and reclining sofas now was it? We didn't emerge from the murky primordial ooze with iPhones and Apple Smartwatches in hand now did we?

I imagine TiredThinker was hoping for a bit more than that. It’s still possible to discuss what exactly this creativity is.

Edit: Does it help us find knowledge or only reinterpret it?

I suppose. Kind of like asking how does light illuminate a dark room, really. He answered his own question. Inventiveness. Doing something not known before that solves some sort of problem or produces some sort of benefit. If I put Cherry Coke into a diesel engine, wow that's never been done before. That's creative, I suppose. But it doesn't do anything. But. Now if I put vegetable oil into the engine, it works. Neat! If I decide to drink some and vomit onto a blank canvas, that's creative. It might just be a near-uniform blob that does little to the observer. Maybe it happens to be projectile and manages to capture a unique shape and form on the canvas that is interesting/captivating to the mind/interesting to look at. Creativity absent of tangible benefit seems to be subjective in nature.

Creativity absent of tangible benefit seems to be subjective in nature. — Outlander

That’s a very good point I think, and most discussions get bogged down by subjectivity.

Does it help us find knowledge or only reinterpret it? — TiredThinker

Making use of fire; Is that new knowledge or is it just reinterpretation? Or are they the same? Striking a flint to get a sharp edge: knowledge or interpretation?

It seems to me to be interpretation. But I don’t know what to call the step before lighting a fire or striking a flint.

How does creatively help us survive? — TiredThinker

Creativity is pursued for its own sake. Otherwise, what's the point? It has no 'survival advantage' whatever, and to seek it is to miss the point. It's like the person who has a beautiful artwork but whose only concern is how much it's worth.

Once man had witnessed the results of his creative act then the act had an intent, he could apply that act over and over. Then it was given a purpose. Obviously, in the beginning, that purpose was to benefit man.

Yes, we moderns love to collect so-called primitive art and some of it attracts huge selling prices (although much of the more contemporary tribal art is created to make money, and also to preserve the culture) but tribal people had no notion of 'art for art's sake'.

This is what creative is. Yes, no?

“think in the abstract and form images of realities that are not present “ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/

Creativity is increasing awareness, connection and collaboration.

If I decide to drink some and vomit onto a blank canvas, that's creative. — Outlander

Make sure it's not red wine because that's been done before. I've seen some pretty colourful margaritas. Maybe try it more than once, with the same canvas, and different coloured margaritas each time. A visual beauty with a nasty smell!

I have no idea what creativity is.

have no idea what creativity is. — creativesoul

This is what creative is. Yes, no?

“think in the abstract and form images of realities that are not present “ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/ — Brett

Well if this is right (maybe it’s not) then I would think it’s, dare I say it, an essential act of our survival. The fact that it went on to appear as writing, painting or dancing in today’s world is neither here nor there, art being a subjective matter.

Sure. Some folk can imagine things being different than what they think they already are, or what they are.

Others just start doing stuff without having some complete picture already in mind.

Wouldn't you say?

Do we need iphones to survive?

Nah. Androids are just fine. Lol. Ask around, you might be surprised on what the consensus is.

When designing an experiment in science I assume we might use creativity to find new ways to get to the facts. Otherwise we might be limited to very direct methods which might be a brick wall?

But then because it's science the data must be measured objectively and not creativity?

Is there a time when knowledge itself can't be reached without using the creative mind even if the information isn't invented?

What are the purposes of creativity, and what aren't the purposes of creativity? Creativity is basically taking things that are objectively known and combining them abstractly into original intangible concepts or tangible objects, often times when those things are relatively unlike one another? How does creatively help us survive? Does it help us find knowledge or only reinterpret it? — TiredThinker

Creativity in humans may be merely a more highly developed form of evolutionary Adaptability, which allows animals to survive and reproduce. If so, it's primary purpose is to out-live the less-adaptable competition. But humans have taken that competitive trait to a higher level. In animals, most of their creative acts are genetically inherited. They follow a trial & error heuristic that seem erratic, but increases their odds of finding food or sex or power,

Humans, though, pass on their Memes via learning (imitation) and by exploration (heuristic). Yet, mere novelty may or may not give you an edge . So, the new creation must have some practical advantage. In any case, the basic purpose of creativity is to get a leg-up on the uninspired competition for : a> not just survival, but thrival, in the rat-race of modern life ; b> to move-up in a social system, or c> to simply follow your urges & ambitions. When everyone else is following the old tried & true path, creative people take the untrod path to novelty -- opening new fields for exploration. Sometimes in humans, arbitrary creativity is done for no practical purpose, but simply or its own sake : the enjoyment of novelty. Instead of mundane adaptivity, we call it "Art" : new ways of looking at the world. :smile:

Adaptability and evolution :
The capacity of organisms to respond in their own lifetimes to new challenges in their environments probably appeared early in biological evolution. At present few studies have shown how such adaptability could influence the inherited characteristics of an organism's descendants
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ADAPTABILITY+evolution

Is Creativity Learned or Inherited? :
Many people debate over if creativity is inherited or learned, but it's actually both. Creativity is “technically” inherited, but by everyone. ... In fact, a widely cited study by George Land found that children are born creative but lose their creativity as they transition through life and into adulthood.
https://www.transformationmarketing.com/is-creativity-learned-or-inherited/

Creativity itself has no purpose. But those who create usually do.

Creativity itself has no purpose. But those who create usually do. — jgill

Does creativity come before the act?

Does creativity come before the act? — Brett

Existing in some sort of abstract Platonic fashion? I would say, no. And you and others might say, yes. It's an argument devoid of substance IMO.

“think in the abstract and form images of realities that are not present “ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/[/quote]

My reference is from one of three intellectual faculties we have. The other two are categorise and reason.

Thinking in the abstract “enables us to anticipate future events and plan future actions.”

So I’m looking at that as the creativity that comes before the act.

So "coming before" simply refers to the existence of a certain piece of biological or mental machinery, which I would not consider creativity itself. Similarly, the ability to solve problems becomes "problem solving" before the act of problem solving.


"think in the abstract and form images of realities that are not present"

And "thinking in the abstract" doesn't necessarily lead to an act of creativity. I speculate that mostly it does not and is merely unproductive daydreaming. Am I thinking in the abstract when I contemplate mathematics? Does "abstract" mean non-physical? Am I thinking in the abstract when I imagine vanishing abruptly and re-appearing somewhere else? "images of realities" is pretty broad I guess.

And "thinking in the abstract" doesn't necessarily lead to an act of creativity. — jgill

True. But a creative act won’t happen without it.

What are the purposes of creativity, — TiredThinker

Why should it have a purpose?

Teleological thinking. Again, the misapplication of a notion leads to lots of philosophical noise.

And "thinking in the abstract" doesn't necessarily lead to an act of creativity.
— jgill

True. But a creative act won’t happen without it. — Brett

An act is not recognised as ‘creative’ until an abstract thinker attributes intentionality - but the act still happens.

That’s interesting. We survive because we’re creative. Creativity just happened, in its most basic form, as did opposable thumbs. From then on the actions and the result led to even more complex thought experiments leading to more life changing actions.

I’m assuming for a while there were completely original actions based on those thoughts. Then there were reinterpretations of those existing ideas. It leads me to wonder if we have long passed the point of originality and even reinterpretation and are now just shuffling the deck around.

An act is not recognised as ‘creative’ until an abstract thinker attributes intentionality - but the act still happens. — Possibility

Do you mean by “abstract thinker” another person or the person carrying out the act?. So unless there is a perceived connection between the creativity and the action then the act is random or meaningless.

Edit: so monkey see and monkey do is not creative.

An act is not recognised as ‘creative’ until an abstract thinker attributes intentionality - but the act still happens — Possibility

Not necessarily, if I am interpreting what you are saying correctly. My own experience in mathematics belies this statement. I have had ideas pop into my head without having primed myself by thinking about a subject; the ideas then have been recognized as creative - but without intentionality.

Can we say for sure that anything exists that doesn't serve some purpose?