The origin creativity is in the mind itself. It is what it is involved with throughout its existence. Spiritual creativity, or art as a self-expression, would be one form of creativity that seeks to externalize that which is inside. Most children do it as a matter of growing up, but both spirit and creativity are suppressed throughout one's years in most educational system. It is only afterwards that the fearless seek it out again and begin to rediscover it.

I understand the evolutionary benefits of finding symmetrical faces and strong colors aesthetically pleasing — Daniel Sjöstedt

I wish you hadn't written this. Do you suppose Stephen Hawkins will survive longer than the scientists who promote such silliness?

It would be simple enough if it were just an ordinary survival mechanism — Daniel Sjöstedt

Life is far far more interesting than just survival, a silly, noxious theory that unfortunately refuses to die thanks to our education system. Life is about discovery and beauty is indeed in the eyes of the beholder. Beauty is something we feel and touches us and is current for everyone. But this isn't going to stop some scientist from trying to prove otherwise. Got to make a living somehow.

I was a consultant.

Once you begin mixing art, with audience, with money, it becomes something else. Some mashing of lots of things. I keep my art simple. I create and I learn. For me it is the same with all of my pursuits. I don't do it for others, I do it for myself.

If I want to make money by pleasing others, that is what I do. At this point, I am no longer doing that. Even with Tai Chi, I only teach it for free. No pollution.

Something for every career artist to read. What people like matters when trying to develop a career in any profession.

You keep replacing "work matters" with "please others". — Noble Dust

In practice, they become equivalent. It matters to someone if they like it, and you have to figure out what they like and please them. That's what salesmanship is all about.

I spoke to fairly successful artist last week as he explained to me how he chooses his latest color palette based upon what is in vogue. He knows how to sell.

Maybe it would be worth wild to explore the idea of what pleasing others means in this context. — praxis

I spent my whole career doing this. Basically it is figuring v out what people want and v giving it to them - in my case confirming their views. It is an interesting skill, but nothing to do with artistic expression. More psychological in nature. Can't please everyone though, but some people try awfully hard.

If an artist decided that what they want to learn is how to please others, then that is what they will learn. Nothing wrong with that. That's what it takes to make money in any business. It is just different from self-expression.

One learns.

Expression is the act of revealing the inner creative self. I enjoy my art and it really doesn't matter to me if others do it don't.

Absolutely. I am basically doing that now. I create to express and learn, not to please or get validation. The two approaches are in opposition to each other. One has to choose.

One way to perceive death is a state of renewal.

We go to sleep each night without any intention and we wake up without intention. It is cyclical, and sleep can be considered a period of renewal. Similarly, with death, we wipe the slate clean, as we do v with each new game we play. We start each game with the skills that we have learned but we have an opportunity to apply these skills to a new game, or a new canvas.

Death in such a manner can be viewed as a new canvas.

There is always dissenting opinions. Unfortunately, such opinions are usually suppressed in science and dissenters ostracized until there is overwhelming evidence to force a change. This is where Kuhn hit it right.

Even if that audience is only you. — Noble Dust

This is my audience, and all I care about is my experience as I continue to create and learn. The search for validation always pollutes the artistic experience.

Probably the first word was Mama.

It is an interesting story. As you pointed out, your husband was surprised and so were you. There were changes but outcomes are always unpredictable. I've should try to change but it would be to much to expect control over outcomes. It just isn't possible.

I disagree; it's natural to want to share art. — Noble Dust

No problem sharing if one wishes (I don't feel the urge), but then do you try to please? If you need validation for your art, I am afraid all may be lost. It is no longer yours, it becomes theirs. Pressure?

It always leaves me feeling empty and unfulfilled.

But if the other person/people enjoyed​ the exchange and it helped us connect then it was a good thing. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

To learn and create something new takes lots of patience. I am still practicing drawing ovals as I learn how to draw. It is only frustrating or empty if I've expects too much in one lifetime. Small steps are fine and require a lot less energy.

But I'm arguing that the social and psychological pressures of a globalized world do affect our ability to be creative. — Noble Dust

There are always pressures, no matter what. One can minimize pressures as best they can and get on with their art. Pressures to avoid may be to please, to make money, to emulate, to do better, etc.

The art world is still run by old money. Everyone can share their art, but a lot of it sucks. Which is worse, a democratized internet of art, mired with a lot of mediocre art, or a gate-keeping artistic intelligensia? — Noble Dust

Art is not to please others but to express oneself. Express and if there is something interesting to share, then share. If one is able to create just one new thought through expression then that is quite a bit. Sometimes we ask too much of ourselves in one lifetime.

What is the underlying method of light transmission that relativity ultimately describes? — FreeEmotion

The fundamental issue that you are inquiring into is whether STR should be elevated to an ontology. The answer is no, though some science fiction writers wish to do so. STR is simply a mathematical transformation between two frames of references. That is all.

At the superficial level, how can STR explain anything, e.g. time dilation and contraction between two frames if references, when all frames if references are reciprocal. It can't.

Now, GTR tried to address these issues, but the meaning of time is not the same in both theories (looking at the equations) and for sure there is no reciprocity since one frame of reference under GTR is considered to be accelerating! (They both can't be accelerating). Bergson and Robbins do the best at addressing these issues head on.

STR and GTR are best left as tools for scientific calculations and measurements and discarded as a means for arriving at any ontological meaning, which is why it cannot and should not be brought into any philosophical questions. To do so creates a mess.

Once we understand that we can control how we feel by changing our perceptions we can make the assertion that how we think is how we will feel. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Have you actually experimented with this idea? From what I've observed it doesn't work, but the idea is somewhat in vogue.

Changing perspective does affect how one might react, but results are always unpredictable as are all things in life. There just isn't such a thing as being able to control how one reacts, only change. Emotions just happen, and are more likely guides rather than objectives.

If art is the act of creative self-expression, then globalization has no impact, it remains the same. What does change is curation. Whereas in the past, those with money decided what was art and what would be displayed in their museums (as a form of propaganda and marketing), now pretty much anyone can share their art and have it viewed. Personally, I love visiting sites and observing what art others have created, whether it be music, dance, painting/drawing, singing, etc.

Philosophy as an endeavor has always been an aspect of the human psyche to understand, whether it be the nature of the seasons or the nature of nature. The word itself can be translated as "love of wisdom" and since we live in the West, there are Western academia biases as to what is wisdom. Be that as it may, one who is involved with the endeavor might still wish to source knowledge outside of academic textbooks since there is much interesting thoughts that can be found in such an exploration.

But redirecting energy, attention, focus, etc. outward because it is how "normal people" act has always felt fake to me. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Introvert/extrovert are just different things to do in life. It was interesting for me to try out being an extrovert, but it was always me. I was funny and enjoyed the laughter. Just an experiment.

Extroversion and introversion are not skills.

They are personal preferences.

And, yeah, if one prefers to relate to the world one way but is forced to relate to the world another way, it can be exhausting. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

There are many ways to describe it I guess. One way might be that it is more comfortable being introverted or extraverted. And it does take a lot of effort to act otherwise. The soul runs deep like a lake, and only so much on the surface can probably change in one lifetime. It's just something sometime may try to change if one wishes. I was quite introverted until college when I decided I would try to change a bit.

highest quality of randomness — Johannes Weg

Providing the highest quality does not mean random. If indeed it was random, one can toss Schrodinger's equation out the window. All technology depends upon probabilistic behavior. A question one may ask oneself is why, given that quantum theory is entirely developed on probabilistic behavior, is one insisting on randomness? Is it coming from experience? Does life or the universe appear to be random? What is the impetus of such an idea? Something learned in school or from a book?

I discuss all the empistemological problems associated with induction and came to the conclusion that even science is inevitably based on beliefs. — Johannes Weg

Yes, I agree. Science is constantly changing and it too is in flux.

I had to think a lot about wrong decisions in my life hitherto. — Johannes Weg

Wrong decisions, right decisions. Who knows? It is the Daoist story of the Farmer and his Son. Everything is in flux. Bad today good tomorrow.

Should we consider an advanced robot in future as "FREE" — Johannes Weg

Robots follow specific instructions created by a mind(s). Robots are as much alive as possible a nucleus throwing off quanta energy. There is novelty, but then we have to discuss the qualitative difference. It is actually quite thin and turns on the question of the differences between life and matter.

Do you feel that you are acting randomly in life? Random presupposes no influences. This probably doesn't exist in the universe we live in. Quanta behaves probabilistically, not randomly.

The mind learns (doesn't leave a hand in a fire) but then creates novelty or new solutions (putting a marshmallow on a stick). If one studies a child, one might notice how the baby learns and develops creative solutions to problems that are being encountered. Everyone is different but at the same time everyone is creating and learning.

Probability is the result of an interaction of "chance and necessity". — Johannes Weg

In terms of life as we experience it, probability is a result of habitual behavior (which is approximately repetitive) and an impulse (novelty) from the creative mind acted on by will.

Then the soul can never be self-aware on it's own? — Harry Hindu

More of my speculation. Self-awareness without external awareness is what we might feel in a dream state. Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy is about this analogy of death and dreaming. It is an interesting idea to muse over.

So much for the "after-life". It wouldn't be much of a life if you aren't aware of anything. — Harry Hindu

Why are you in such a hurry? Are you simply interested in making a point and winning some argument? Unfortunately, that is all that academia philosophy teaches.

As I explained, the mind does wake itself up from the sleep state. It is a period of rest. Of quiet. A place for renewal. To begin a new day. To begin a new life. When one begins a new chess game game, one does not lose memory of the prior chess game, but a new game provides a new beginning.

Dancing (Latin and Ballroom), pencil drawing, water color, piano playing, some singing, and Tai Chi.

I also played lots of sports when I was younger. Golf was there toughest. Very Zen.

66. Haven't been to a doctor in 36 years. I practice my philosophy in a very practical manner. I don't make a computer of myself because that would not only be silly, I would have wasted my life. Instead, I practice creative arts. I add new creative things to my life every day of my life. Life is not life without life.

Go ahead.

Can I ask how old are you?

Then I need a brain to be conscious? — Harry Hindu

You need a brain to reveal. The mind/memory might still be there without awareness.

So, the question is what might it feel like when someone is brain-dead? This is an interesting philosophical question. For me, it is that point in that sleep state, when there is nothing. Quiet. What in Taiji is called Wuji state. And then POP!, one is awake. So memory/mind persists through the sleep state and somehow reawakens itself, only to go back into it.

There's no evidence backing that, but if it were true, It could also be the location of Angels, God, or demons. — John Harris

There is evidence in every day life. There is mind and it is directing movement - making choices. And memories of this creative learning process persist and affect future actions. That this is so, is everyone's everyday experience. This is life. The only question is how does memory of these actions persist, in one life and over many lives.

No one is possessed by some mysterious outside forces (so called natural laws or natural selection) that are determining their lives (an ancient superstition). They are directing and navigating their own lives and possibly the memories of one life persist over many lives, most substantially demonstrated by child prodigies and idiot savants, but similar for all people who are born with certain innate characteristics and traits.

In quantum field theory, matter is a vibrating quantum energy field that is spread out in all space and particles are localized energy excitations of this field. — litewave

The quantum stuff (I hesitate to call if anything, though Bohm named it the Quantum Potential) leaves open the possibility that at the deepest level of the universe, there is mind/consciousness that transitions out morph's into stuff that feels substantial. This is the nexus point that philosophers might want to ponder and discuss since it can be quite significant particularly in the way we view our lives and the health of our lives.

One can argue that perhaps one must reach the point where the whole distinction between subjective and objective is erased... — Beebert

This is the basis of this article and accompanying video. Ultimately no distinction or boundary can be found. It is implied by quantum physics. The article suggests (and I agree) that the mind parses out for utility value but at the end there is not and cannot be distinctions.

http://www.philosopher.eu/texts/interpreting-altered-states-of-mind-through-bergson-schopenhauer/

https://youtu.be/LYcIrwBoVP4

My favorite answer so far — Anonymys

Interesting.

Yes. First we all view from a particular perspective, based upon position and experience. Then we are viewing through different kinds. What we are experiencing, sensing or feeling internally may be nothing like what others may be experiencing, sensing or feeling internally, but we compare notes (the purpose of education and conversation) and reach some consensus on what to name it. But symbolic naming is always necessarily approximate, incomplete, and subject to change.

Where does qualia emanate from? It seems to be fundamental. Objectivity is impossible. What we have is consensus.