I like how you describe the anticipation of an action. I've sometimes tried to describe the origin of creativity by looking at a cat or a dog - the cat chasing a mouse that runs through a tube, and the cat then uses a rudimentary creativity to imagine the mouse, despite not actually seeing it. The cat is able to predict that the mouse will appear from somewhere tube-related. Or throwing a stick with a dog: Do the fake-throw, swing the stick, and watch the dog race off after an imaginary stick doing an imaginary high curve across the sky. The dog begins to look around, confused, convinced by its own prediction and imagination, its creative thinking, about where the stick were to fly and should have landed
I'm sure there are some "algorithms" for creativity. Taking a concept and reversing it's meaning. Understanding its connections to other ideas and reconfiguring those ideas and their connections into novel forms. To think outside the box you must be aware that you are inside it in the first place.
There are AI programs that write original music and even literature, and I spose you could always say that it's the computers that are being creative if you fall on that side of the consciousness argument, but if not you can still attribute those works to the programmers of the algorithms. Whether or not the specific works that they make are considered their creations it would be silly to say that there was no creativity involved in the writing of the code.
That’s more of creative “techniques.” Real creativity is abstract, intuitive, and mysterious (as in, it’s inherently NON algorithmic. There has to be a “glitch” in the normal practice, like evolution)
It also helps to have the necessary skills in the discipline, which is why dancers spend so much time at the barre, or actors play theatre games. When I design lights for a play, I create action schema (thanks for that useful term, Oly) in my mind. Sometimes I can see the mental image as a whole, while other times I need to build it based on the existing conditions. I have to know the space, the types and numbers of instruments, where I can hang lights, etc. Sometimes not thinking strictly about theatrical capabilities aids me to create truly innovative practices. For example, I had to rig a spotlight to hit an actor making an entrance from the house, and stay on her while she performed on stage. This meant all the existing options could not work. I suddenly remembered reading about "chain guns". These were machine guns used in Vietnam-era helicopters that were suspended by chains from the top of the door frames. They could point in almost any direction, but still move smoothly. I rigged an elipsoidal instrument on a chain in the catwalk above the audience and presto, had the perfect spotlight. Actually, in the hands of a good operator, it moved far more smoothly and organically than the standard followspot on a stand. Lighting is a great example of the active schema at work, because you must see the image in your head--a costumer can draw figures, and the scenic designer can work with floor plots and renderings. Lighting designers generally have to understand what they can do before they even turn on a light. That is why I call them the "mad monks" of the theatre.
I have in my adult life have described my creativity simply as 'problem solving'. This video was brilliant as it more explicitly describes exactly what that process is and accomplishes what I hoped to do by referring to creativity as 'problem solving'. It demystifies it and makes it accessible to anyone. It's not this unobtainable thing that you're just born with. It's something you can learn and something that you probably do anyway, just don't know that you do.
Having taught people with next to no computer experience to do in-depth, fairly technical troubleshooting, I agree. You just need to develop the reflex to spoke the wheels of your brain's default lazy-mode approach to everything until you can turn it on and off like a switch. Once you can think analytically to any degree it's much easier to look at things you previously dismissed as inscrutable voodoo and start playing with the levers that make it work.
If creativity was solely about problem solving, how would you motivate art which purpose is not to solve problems but to pose questions? I think a more general definition would be a category of processes or actions which results in emergent properties. creativity is not necessarily dependent on intent in my way of looking at it. Nature has emergent properties where new possibilities arise from the combination of it's parts. Emergentism explains how the world has been created from nothing and doesn't need intent to create itself. maybe it's too diffuse of a definition, but at least it doesn't exclude forms of creativity based on values of what creativity is expected to be used for.
I've noticed that I get more creative when I'm depressed. For instance, a few days ago I got into a fight with my parents and I started to write card after card expressing my feelings in an artistic way.
Now this song is stuck in my head, agh! (for those who don't yet know: it's from a TH-cam series called Don't Hug Me I'm Scared. Go watch it. It will do things to you.)
I don't like the 'new' part of the definition of creativity. I don't think a creation has to be new for it to be creative, it just has to be unknown to the creator.
That's just a constraint on the definition of "new"; novelty relative to the known 'action schema' of the creator. The trouble is that when sharing said creation with the world, viewers tend to judge creativity based on THEIR known 'action schema'-- for what else do they have to judge by? It's not as if we also communicate with each "piece" a complete list of "known things".
Its his opinion...but he should cover more subtle concepts in Nietzche... in epistemology as well... But Im interested in seeing his take on nietzche's will to power and free will...
I love your channel! Hank Green's channel introduced me to it! I don't know how, but I would love to see a collaboration between Philosophy Tube and Up and Atom!
This is the first video of yours I watched and I'm leaving this comment straight after. I've got to say... thank you. I came here looking for inspiration for my personal statement (I want to study PPE at university) and this video in particular appealed to me because of my interest in the creative arts and acting. I'm also doing my EPQ on method acting and this video has inspired me to be creative in my approach to my topic in linking it to philosophy and action schema is brilliant. Thank you so much Olly, have subscribed and will definitely keep on watching!
hearing about the action schema idea reminded me of one of my favourite things Vihart said: "really, creative people are just skilled at navigating an exponential tree of possibilities" (in her Twelve Tones video)
I attend University Of The Arts London for Photography and for a while I thought that I would constantly have to be churning out work that is always entirely original and profound which is very anxiety proking and counterproductive for creativity. In my contextual studies lectures here we were introduced to 'appropriation' in art theory which has completely flipped my views on what is or isn't creative. Its a really interesting concept, it is essentially taking work that already exists but altering the context or meaning and it brings up a lot of questions about authorship and the ethics of the commodification of art. For example Sherrie Levine re-photographed reproductions of photographs by canonical male modernist photographers like Edward Weston, Walker Evans, and Alexander Rodchenko and exibited them as her own which became a landmark of postmodernism, both praised and attacked as a rebellious feminist intervention in the rigid construction of the photography canon and a critique on the commodification of art.
The value thing was always in my mind ! It all started when I saw the Apple Watch (ok , don't hate on me here !) , but I believe that just because you create something and say "hey it's useful and you should buy it" does not make it valuable, there is no need for an Apple Watch and no one would be out there saying "damn I wish I could have a small screen on my hand all the time which would only work with an expensive phone and not an autonomous device"Same way I thought with modern art , I believe creativity is at one side , and shoving the value of your creativity down someone's throat is another ! .. nice video !
I think the biggest argument against the action schema model is the existence of Aphantasia. A fairly large number of people just don't have mental images or other simulations of sensory experiences so that complicates things since I doubt they are totally incapable of creativity.
I think visualization was just supposed to be an example. The definition is much broader, ie freestyle dancing where you don't anticipate what you're going to look like so much as the feel of the movements or playing and instrument without sheet music where you're anticipating the sounds as opposed to what your hands are going to look like while playing the notes.
Right but people with Aphantasia don't lack being able to simulate things mentally. They just don't conjure sensory experiences while doing so. They're still able to think about things, and consider actions they want to take. I don't see any reason to consider the way they think about them as less valid. imagining sensory experiences doesn't even seem necessary to how people without Aphantasia anticipate things. Do you picture yourself walking into a post office when you're planning to go to the post office?
I'm not really sure you can meaningfully say that just all reasoning about an action actually constitutes a simulation if there's no emulation of the future action taking place mentally. I think aphantasia makes it obvious that a lot of our thinking, including the "creative" sort _isn't_ just simulations of future actions but substantially more abstract and not necessarily an emulation of the eventual action schema.
I was thinking about simulations more like scientific computer simulations which represent real things but only using numbers and algorithms. But simulations can be thought of in terms of emulations which is probably why the definition of Action Schemas doesn't refer to them. Anticipating something isn't the same as imagining it or simulating it. It just means expecting it. If people with aphantasia were unable to anticipate things it would be a much more severe disorder. It wouldn't just mean being unable to be creative, it would mean being unable to function at all. Let me put it this way. I used to produce music. I wasn't great at it but I made a few decent tracks. When I came up with the melody I wasn't transposing tunes that I had thought of in my head. I just have a basic knowledge of chord and scale structure and I picked a few fundamental aspects then played around with the notes until I came up with something I liked. That doesn't mean that I wasn't able to predict that an A note would sound lower than a C, or that writing in a major key generally sounds happy and writing in a minor key generally sounds not-happy. And when a note was accidentally placed off key I didn't have to know what it was supposed to sound like in order to know where to put it in order to make it fit. All of that was still anticipating things and then comparing with my sensory experiences to make adjustments. No imagining the tune required.
looking at the word itself makes me think my most general definition I can come up with is a category of processes or actions that reach a product or perspective with emergent properties. Nature is creative without intent, evolution is a creative process.
I was JUST thinking about this question today. Actually I think about this a lot. The post-modern adage that "Everything has been done before" always seemed a bit off, and I think the concept of action schema sheds some light on why it seems off to me.
Action Schema might be the tool we use to create things but you can’t just pretend that’s all you need to know about creativity. That’s such a small part of the picture
I wonder if art.. the creation of art and the observation or experience of it.. is a conduit of what makes humans human.. IE.. it transmits some human quality from one human to another via some medium... Regardless of what that medium is.. The medium could be music, sculpture, painting, etc... All of this harnesses and retains some aspect of what it is to be human.. and it retains and continues to portray these qualities over time. As in philosophy.. we often think or feel that we are contributing to a conversation that is much older than ourselves.. we are able to comment, support, disprove etc.. parts of the conversation of philosophy that has been going on for hundreds of years... Perhaps art is similar... But we connect less at an intellectual level, but more at an emotional.. or at least non-intelllectual (whatever that means) level.. Just a thought
Hey Oli, I enjoyed these theories (and I know you don't have time to explore every theory in a short video) but they conflict with certain notable artistic movements such as dadaism. Found objects never involved action schema. Also would like to explore more about postmodernism and how the audience's interpretation forms part of the performance. Thanks for the great video as always! Going to watch part 2 now. Didn't know you could play sax. What a jazzcat you are.
Maybe "valuable" isn't the best word - that implies that there is a set goal, but it's perfectly possible to have a creative hobby without a real goal, or isn't valuable to anyone but yourself. Also, as you mentioned, it has the problem of how you define "value" - in a Capitalist system, is something that doesn't generate profit not creative? I think a better word might be "Relevant" - If I create a tv show that is unique and entertaining (that is, relevant to the act of show-making), then it would be creative.
If a tv show is entertaining it has value. Also, most economists would make a distinction between price and value. For example, oxygen has a price of 0 yet is infinitely valuable.
I don't know if relevant is the right word either. how would you quantify spontaneous, improvised, collaborative, or serendipitous creativity as relevant? wouldn't the entire point to be intentionally separating oneself from 'the plan', thus being less and less connected, less and less 'relevant'? perhaps i don't fully understand your meaning (or olly's).
By "relevant" I essentially just mean "not random" If I created a piece of music that was just random notes, then that would be "unique", but it wouldn't be relevant to music, as music has loose rules that can be followed to create something enjoyable. This can be applied to many fields: Media is relevant when it is entertaining Technology is relevant when it is useful Art is relevant when it is meaningful Science is relevant when it is discovering etc.
I'm not sure that's any different than just using the word value. That's why there's the whole bit about judging the value within a given context (1:24). So if you write poems just as a way to release emotions and they aren't intended to be read by anyone else, then they have value because you are the only one who can judge them in that context. If you took those poems and tried to get them published then unless you happen to also be good at poem writing there's a fair chance they would be deemed to have little value, and would be described as lacking creativity.
Value can be given by those knowledgeable in the field (experts, critics, historians, etc.) who assess the work to add development to the field, regardless of any conscious intention from the maker.
I find that marijuana often puts me in a state where my brain is rapid-fire generating concepts and ideas in an almost absurd, nonsensical way. It's like it strips the process of the inertia I normally associate with it, where I have to plot out each step in a train of thought, and instead becomes this constantly-unfolding non sequitur in my head. Definitely helps with the 'new' part, not so much the 'valuable'. Hell of a way to entertain myself though. And a great way to purge my head of all the detritus of half-formed thoughts and ideas not yet realized, gives me a kind of clarity after the fact. But my brain is probably just defective in that particular way. :P
I have a similar thing. I write music sometimes and if I go to bed high my mind will generate new, practically fully formed songs spontaneously. Unfortunately, I'm usually unable to muster the motivation to record or whatever when I'm in that state so I forget the tune basically every time. I once did magic mushrooms and the music and visions kind of blurred into a synaesthetic orgy.
Does it mean that if you're clumsy, because you have bad action schema, you are also not good at creativity? How does it work for people with aphantasia?
Isn't creativity also about manifestation of the self?( Hegel...) ..About an individual's will seeking actuality (wirklichkeit) ? You can sort of relate to Maslow's hierarchy as well, I guess...
If being creative equals the act of creating new and valuable action schema, many of the things we call "creative" wouldn't actually be. I believe that creativity is more than creating valuable action schema. For instance, when one can solve a riddle, we would usually call them creative. It could be a riddle such as "I live in a house with no doors or windows, and when I need to get out, I'll have to break the walls. What am I?" (answer: a chicken). The creative person would not have to create any action schema to solve this riddle, but I would still call them creative, because of the way they thought about it. If they could think of a different animal than a chicken, I would probably call them even more creative, because they thought of the answer in a original way - even though they did not create action schema at all. But now, after writing this long and random comment, I just saw that creativity was defined as "original and valuable thinking" in the description box, which I think fits much better. Perhaps I just misunderstood the video haha.
But also, why does something need to be valuable in order to be creative? (even if value is subjective). Creativity must be in the thought process and not in the product. If one can imagine a great picture, but not draw it, would that person be less creative than someone who thought of the same picture but drew it perfectly?
If we were to use Action Schema as the premise for the physical manifestation of an image, then could we not argue that Jackson Pollock's "art" was fundamentally devoid of any creativity?
I am by no means an expert on Pollock but I believe he himself saw the act of painting as the art form and the resulting painting a sort of side effect of the art. Thus the term "action painting" and in that context I would agree that the painting is perhaps not art but the action is. Again, no expert, could be incorrect or interpreting vague memories incorrectly. Grain of salt etc.
The fact you call your saxophone playing 'Sexy' and Say the stuff at the beginning is nonsense so are Deaf people to belive it is nonsense or it is 'Sexy' when it may not be? I know some people who will think otherwise, though the Deaf will only know of your opinion since you made the captions
I'm not sure I would agree with either of those, but even if I did, that would just mean that the hearing impaired would have a better picture of what the video is saying as that's what was in the script. If people don't think those are nonsensical or sexy and don't view the captions then its them who aren't getting the full picture.
what if your first string of "new" is intended to be original and nonsensical? In other words, is somebody doing Dada (for fun, not to transmit meaning) a creative act?
what about mathematical creativity? some math concepts cannot be visualised (i.e. n-dimensional spheres, etc.) and the creativity is not based on sensory input in that case!
Liked the saxophone playing :) The Theory seems to be very explanatory, at least the way you put it. Are there any problems with the theory though? You are very uncritical in this video, but maybe that's just a trick to push your viewers to be creative about possible criticism ;) BTW, are going to mention you own definition of creativity you proposed at University?
I think those terms are pretty interchangeable when the value is dependent upon the context. Value = meaning if the context is that it provides meaning. Value just goes further to include creative acts where other things are more important than meaning. Like certain kinds of poetry where one poem could convey a much more emotional, universal, and meaningful message, but lacks structure and has poor word usage so would be considered less creative than a poem which discusses a cliche topic and says nothing new about the issue, but says it in a beautifully original way.
Then why should Pollock and such be considered as creative? His 'creativity' resides in a concept, not a technique, and that concept alone. Most people erroneously mistake different for creative. When something is different, that doesn't mean it's valuable.
Mental-visual models can, and are applied to non-scientific creativity all of the time. Just like in science. Is music scientific? Musical composers think in terms of such models regularly, for the purpose of arrangement, balancing frequencies or sound textures, etc. I know that I do.
Any body else have the problem where they can't see there comments when they comment from their iPhone or Android on the TH-cam app? I'm not sure if my comments are going through or not so a reply if you can see this would be helpful, thank you.
Does a mojo have anything to do with creativity? - It's seems the most creative people are men... maybe that isn't true, I don't know? - I mean, Lady Gaga wearing a dress made out of meat is pretty creative? Like most women, I was born without a mojo - this just means I learn better when I am relaxed rather than taking risks (people with mojos learn better in a riskier environment - maybe controversial but it's a scientific fact... look up the BNST in the brain). Of course not everyone is the same, which is why we shouldn't have sex discrimination - there is an overlapping mojo-ness between the sexes, with men who have less of a mojo and women who have more of a mojo. Hell, some people born as one sex may feel that their mojo status means they feel like they should be living as the opposite sex that they were assigned at birth. Does a mojo effect gender equality though and should there be any shame if you don't have a mojo? What are we saying - if a mojo is indeed related to creativity - if we are rewarding creativity.... Maybe a less creative tune just means someone is too upset to play a decent one?
I operate on the premise that every idea is original on the basis that everyone is influenced all the time by everything, but that it requires your particular non-replicable brain chemistry to turn a given set of influences into whatever it is you turn it into. The key is to be sufficiently broadly influenced that no particular influence is recognizable in the eventual outcome.
Steve Pittman Everyone is influenced, but why is it by everything, and not by a set of specifics? And why the next that you are describing make the idea original, as of itself. If the same idea is the output of different contexts is it original, as of itself or as of the contents?
PitBigGuns Because we can't help but be influenced by everything, in one way or another. No idea can be formed in isolation, so it makes no sense to ascribe all ideas to the set of contexts and brain chemistry which produce them.
Very daring shirt-tie combo in this one, Olly.
This was just after watching Jessica Jones and realising that Killgrave basically raided my wardrobe
If you look at it and cross your eyes you can see 3d dolphins
I like how you describe the anticipation of an action. I've sometimes tried to describe the origin of creativity by looking at a cat or a dog - the cat chasing a mouse that runs through a tube, and the cat then uses a rudimentary creativity to imagine the mouse, despite not actually seeing it. The cat is able to predict that the mouse will appear from somewhere tube-related. Or throwing a stick with a dog: Do the fake-throw, swing the stick, and watch the dog race off after an imaginary stick doing an imaginary high curve across the sky. The dog begins to look around, confused, convinced by its own prediction and imagination, its creative thinking, about where the stick were to fly and should have landed
I'm sure there are some "algorithms" for creativity. Taking a concept and reversing it's meaning. Understanding its connections to other ideas and reconfiguring those ideas and their connections into novel forms. To think outside the box you must be aware that you are inside it in the first place.
Jamyang Pelsang #DEEP
There are AI programs that write original music and even literature, and I spose you could always say that it's the computers that are being creative if you fall on that side of the consciousness argument, but if not you can still attribute those works to the programmers of the algorithms. Whether or not the specific works that they make are considered their creations it would be silly to say that there was no creativity involved in the writing of the code.
That’s more of creative “techniques.” Real creativity is abstract, intuitive, and mysterious (as in, it’s inherently NON algorithmic. There has to be a “glitch” in the normal practice, like evolution)
It also helps to have the necessary skills in the discipline, which is why dancers spend so much time at the barre, or actors play theatre games. When I design lights for a play, I create action schema (thanks for that useful term, Oly) in my mind. Sometimes I can see the mental image as a whole, while other times I need to build it based on the existing conditions. I have to know the space, the types and numbers of instruments, where I can hang lights, etc. Sometimes not thinking strictly about theatrical capabilities aids me to create truly innovative practices. For example, I had to rig a spotlight to hit an actor making an entrance from the house, and stay on her while she performed on stage. This meant all the existing options could not work. I suddenly remembered reading about "chain guns". These were machine guns used in Vietnam-era helicopters that were suspended by chains from the top of the door frames. They could point in almost any direction, but still move smoothly. I rigged an elipsoidal instrument on a chain in the catwalk above the audience and presto, had the perfect spotlight. Actually, in the hands of a good operator, it moved far more smoothly and organically than the standard followspot on a stand. Lighting is a great example of the active schema at work, because you must see the image in your head--a costumer can draw figures, and the scenic designer can work with floor plots and renderings. Lighting designers generally have to understand what they can do before they even turn on a light. That is why I call them the "mad monks" of the theatre.
I have in my adult life have described my creativity simply as 'problem solving'. This video was brilliant as it more explicitly describes exactly what that process is and accomplishes what I hoped to do by referring to creativity as 'problem solving'. It demystifies it and makes it accessible to anyone. It's not this unobtainable thing that you're just born with. It's something you can learn and something that you probably do anyway, just don't know that you do.
Having taught people with next to no computer experience to do in-depth, fairly technical troubleshooting, I agree. You just need to develop the reflex to spoke the wheels of your brain's default lazy-mode approach to everything until you can turn it on and off like a switch. Once you can think analytically to any degree it's much easier to look at things you previously dismissed as inscrutable voodoo and start playing with the levers that make it work.
If creativity was solely about problem solving, how would you motivate art which purpose is not to solve problems but to pose questions? I think a more general definition would be a category of processes or actions which results in emergent properties. creativity is not necessarily dependent on intent in my way of looking at it. Nature has emergent properties where new possibilities arise from the combination of it's parts. Emergentism explains how the world has been created from nothing and doesn't need intent to create itself. maybe it's too diffuse of a definition, but at least it doesn't exclude forms of creativity based on values of what creativity is expected to be used for.
I've noticed that I get more creative when I'm depressed.
For instance, a few days ago I got into a fight with my parents and I started to write card after card expressing my feelings in an artistic way.
Glad to see you still play the sax! We talked at tiny bit about it in your first fan hangout ;)
-one of the danish twins.
i was so pleased when one of her vids popped up in my 1:00am cracksearch for “what is creativity” i wasnt expecting it but im not complaining!
Green is not a creative colour!
RastafarianPilgrim clowns aren't creative either
HOW can you SAY that!
Now this song is stuck in my head, agh!
(for those who don't yet know: it's from a TH-cam series called Don't Hug Me I'm Scared. Go watch it. It will do things to you.)
What's your favourite idea? Mine is being creative. How do you get the idea? You just have to think creatively..
Yellow is a creative color.
I don't like the 'new' part of the definition of creativity. I don't think a creation has to be new for it to be creative, it just has to be unknown to the creator.
That's just a constraint on the definition of "new"; novelty relative to the known 'action schema' of the creator.
The trouble is that when sharing said creation with the world, viewers tend to judge creativity based on THEIR known 'action schema'-- for what else do they have to judge by? It's not as if we also communicate with each "piece" a complete list of "known things".
Olly, i love your videos but i have 2 requests:
1) More Nietzsche
2) More Epistemology
Agree!
Disagree!
Drackalac Why?!?!
Its his opinion...but he should cover more subtle concepts in Nietzche... in epistemology as well...
But Im interested in seeing his take on nietzche's will to power and free will...
More epistemology!
Watson & Crick*
*Rosalind Franklin
Sometimes I don't know if I'm fostering creativity or just procrastinating...
I love your channel! Hank Green's channel introduced me to it! I don't know how, but I would love to see a collaboration between Philosophy Tube and Up and Atom!
This is the first video of yours I watched and I'm leaving this comment straight after. I've got to say... thank you. I came here looking for inspiration for my personal statement (I want to study PPE at university) and this video in particular appealed to me because of my interest in the creative arts and acting. I'm also doing my EPQ on method acting and this video has inspired me to be creative in my approach to my topic in linking it to philosophy and action schema is brilliant. Thank you so much Olly, have subscribed and will definitely keep on watching!
What's your favorite idea? Mine's being creative....
hearing about the action schema idea reminded me of one of my favourite things Vihart said: "really, creative people are just skilled at navigating an exponential tree of possibilities" (in her Twelve Tones video)
Of fucking COURSE you also play the sax. Stop it please, my poor heart can only take so much...
Not very well, in fairness
Can you do a video on consciousness? You have neglected that field quite a bit.
Please make a video about whether nationalism is logical
I attend University Of The Arts London for Photography and for a while I thought that I would constantly have to be churning out work that is always entirely original and profound which is very anxiety proking and counterproductive for creativity. In my contextual studies lectures here we were introduced to 'appropriation' in art theory which has completely flipped my views on what is or isn't creative. Its a really interesting concept, it is essentially taking work that already exists but altering the context or meaning and it brings up a lot of questions about authorship and the ethics of the commodification of art. For example Sherrie Levine re-photographed reproductions of photographs by canonical male modernist photographers like Edward Weston, Walker Evans, and Alexander Rodchenko and exibited them as her own which became a landmark of postmodernism, both praised and attacked as a rebellious feminist intervention in the rigid construction of the photography canon and a critique on the commodification of art.
The value thing was always in my mind ! It all started when I saw the Apple Watch (ok , don't hate on me here !) , but I believe that just because you create something and say "hey it's useful and you should buy it" does not make it valuable, there is no need for an Apple Watch and no one would be out there saying "damn I wish I could have a small screen on my hand all the time which would only work with an expensive phone and not an autonomous device"Same way I thought with modern art , I believe creativity is at one side , and shoving the value of your creativity down someone's throat is another ! .. nice video !
Here from ContraPoints! Great job!
playing the sax as well makes me feel very untalented watching this video
This channel is awesome.
I think the biggest argument against the action schema model is the existence of Aphantasia. A fairly large number of people just don't have mental images or other simulations of sensory experiences so that complicates things since I doubt they are totally incapable of creativity.
I think visualization was just supposed to be an example. The definition is much broader, ie freestyle dancing where you don't anticipate what you're going to look like so much as the feel of the movements or playing and instrument without sheet music where you're anticipating the sounds as opposed to what your hands are going to look like while playing the notes.
Yes but it's not clear what "anticipating" those things means if it has nothing to do with a mental simulation of those events.
Right but people with Aphantasia don't lack being able to simulate things mentally. They just don't conjure sensory experiences while doing so. They're still able to think about things, and consider actions they want to take. I don't see any reason to consider the way they think about them as less valid. imagining sensory experiences doesn't even seem necessary to how people without Aphantasia anticipate things. Do you picture yourself walking into a post office when you're planning to go to the post office?
I'm not really sure you can meaningfully say that just all reasoning about an action actually constitutes a simulation if there's no emulation of the future action taking place mentally.
I think aphantasia makes it obvious that a lot of our thinking, including the "creative" sort _isn't_ just simulations of future actions but substantially more abstract and not necessarily an emulation of the eventual action schema.
I was thinking about simulations more like scientific computer simulations which represent real things but only using numbers and algorithms. But simulations can be thought of in terms of emulations which is probably why the definition of Action Schemas doesn't refer to them. Anticipating something isn't the same as imagining it or simulating it. It just means expecting it. If people with aphantasia were unable to anticipate things it would be a much more severe disorder. It wouldn't just mean being unable to be creative, it would mean being unable to function at all.
Let me put it this way. I used to produce music. I wasn't great at it but I made a few decent tracks. When I came up with the melody I wasn't transposing tunes that I had thought of in my head. I just have a basic knowledge of chord and scale structure and I picked a few fundamental aspects then played around with the notes until I came up with something I liked. That doesn't mean that I wasn't able to predict that an A note would sound lower than a C, or that writing in a major key generally sounds happy and writing in a minor key generally sounds not-happy. And when a note was accidentally placed off key I didn't have to know what it was supposed to sound like in order to know where to put it in order to make it fit. All of that was still anticipating things and then comparing with my sensory experiences to make adjustments. No imagining the tune required.
looking at the word itself makes me think my most general definition I can come up with is a category of processes or actions that reach a product or perspective with emergent properties. Nature is creative without intent, evolution is a creative process.
I will not rest until we see Olly play the LICC and/or Giant Steps
Olly I think there is a necessary correlation between the youTuber, his material and his face. Yours fits perfectly
I was JUST thinking about this question today. Actually I think about this a lot. The post-modern adage that "Everything has been done before" always seemed a bit off, and I think the concept of action schema sheds some light on why it seems off to me.
Creativity stirs in the bowls and is enjoyed through the bladder.
Also discuss how creativity can be easy, or simple to learn
Your newer videos don't have nearly enough saxophone, lol. You're great.
thank you very much for this vid, subbed and liked
Action Schema might be the tool we use to create things but you can’t just pretend that’s all you need to know about creativity. That’s such a small part of the picture
That's my favorite idea.
looking forward to part 2
I wonder if art.. the creation of art and the observation or experience of it.. is a conduit of what makes humans human.. IE.. it transmits some human quality from one human to another via some medium... Regardless of what that medium is..
The medium could be music, sculpture, painting, etc... All of this harnesses and retains some aspect of what it is to be human.. and it retains and continues to portray these qualities over time.
As in philosophy.. we often think or feel that we are contributing to a conversation that is much older than ourselves.. we are able to comment, support, disprove etc.. parts of the conversation of philosophy that has been going on for hundreds of years...
Perhaps art is similar... But we connect less at an intellectual level, but more at an emotional.. or at least non-intelllectual (whatever that means) level..
Just a thought
Yey, new series
Hey Oli, I enjoyed these theories (and I know you don't have time to explore every theory in a short video) but they conflict with certain notable artistic movements such as dadaism. Found objects never involved action schema. Also would like to explore more about postmodernism and how the audience's interpretation forms part of the performance.
Thanks for the great video as always! Going to watch part 2 now. Didn't know you could play sax. What a jazzcat you are.
Oh Olly, you've once again reeled in my intrigue only to pull a part two. "Clever girl."
New and valuable stuff...
Cool! Thanks Olly! :)
Maybe "valuable" isn't the best word - that implies that there is a set goal, but it's perfectly possible to have a creative hobby without a real goal, or isn't valuable to anyone but yourself.
Also, as you mentioned, it has the problem of how you define "value" - in a Capitalist system, is something that doesn't generate profit not creative?
I think a better word might be "Relevant" - If I create a tv show that is unique and entertaining (that is, relevant to the act of show-making), then it would be creative.
If a tv show is entertaining it has value. Also, most economists would make a distinction between price and value. For example, oxygen has a price of 0 yet is infinitely valuable.
I don't know if relevant is the right word either. how would you quantify spontaneous, improvised, collaborative, or serendipitous creativity as relevant? wouldn't the entire point to be intentionally separating oneself from 'the plan', thus being less and less connected, less and less 'relevant'? perhaps i don't fully understand your meaning (or olly's).
By "relevant" I essentially just mean "not random"
If I created a piece of music that was just random notes, then that would be "unique", but it wouldn't be relevant to music, as music has loose rules that can be followed to create something enjoyable.
This can be applied to many fields:
Media is relevant when it is entertaining
Technology is relevant when it is useful
Art is relevant when it is meaningful
Science is relevant when it is discovering etc.
I'm not sure that's any different than just using the word value. That's why there's the whole bit about judging the value within a given context (1:24). So if you write poems just as a way to release emotions and they aren't intended to be read by anyone else, then they have value because you are the only one who can judge them in that context. If you took those poems and tried to get them published then unless you happen to also be good at poem writing there's a fair chance they would be deemed to have little value, and would be described as lacking creativity.
Value can be given by those knowledgeable in the field (experts, critics, historians, etc.) who assess the work to add development to the field, regardless of any conscious intention from the maker.
Olly, could you make some videos on the philosophy of language? There are few TH-cam videos on this topic.
1:31 I take so many screenshots of your videos just for those reading recommendations lol
I find that marijuana often puts me in a state where my brain is rapid-fire generating concepts and ideas in an almost absurd, nonsensical way. It's like it strips the process of the inertia I normally associate with it, where I have to plot out each step in a train of thought, and instead becomes this constantly-unfolding non sequitur in my head. Definitely helps with the 'new' part, not so much the 'valuable'. Hell of a way to entertain myself though. And a great way to purge my head of all the detritus of half-formed thoughts and ideas not yet realized, gives me a kind of clarity after the fact. But my brain is probably just defective in that particular way. :P
I have a similar thing. I write music sometimes and if I go to bed high my mind will generate new, practically fully formed songs spontaneously. Unfortunately, I'm usually unable to muster the motivation to record or whatever when I'm in that state so I forget the tune basically every time.
I once did magic mushrooms and the music and visions kind of blurred into a synaesthetic orgy.
Got a sudden flashback of Jeffrey Rush in "Shine", there.
Action Schema sounds like a fancy way of saying imagination. How would you differentiate the two?
Can you define creativity as creating something that doesn't follow the action schema generated by a certain group of people?
Does it mean that if you're clumsy, because you have bad action schema, you are also not good at creativity?
How does it work for people with aphantasia?
Isn't creativity also about manifestation of the self?( Hegel...) ..About an individual's will seeking actuality (wirklichkeit) ? You can sort of relate to Maslow's hierarchy as well, I guess...
Good video
0:50 just thinking about how some say there’s no such thing as an original idea
If being creative equals the act of creating new and valuable action schema, many of the things we call "creative" wouldn't actually be. I believe that creativity is more than creating valuable action schema. For instance, when one can solve a riddle, we would usually call them creative. It could be a riddle such as "I live in a house with no doors or windows, and when I need to get out, I'll have to break the walls. What am I?" (answer: a chicken). The creative person would not have to create any action schema to solve this riddle, but I would still call them creative, because of the way they thought about it. If they could think of a different animal than a chicken, I would probably call them even more creative, because they thought of the answer in a original way - even though they did not create action schema at all.
But now, after writing this long and random comment, I just saw that creativity was defined as "original and valuable thinking" in the description box, which I think fits much better. Perhaps I just misunderstood the video haha.
But also, why does something need to be valuable in order to be creative? (even if value is subjective). Creativity must be in the thought process and not in the product. If one can imagine a great picture, but not draw it, would that person be less creative than someone who thought of the same picture but drew it perfectly?
Perhaps creativity is valuable visual coherence awaiting a context...
I have to be getting smarter cause I just understood everything you said in this one 🤣
If we were to use Action Schema as the premise for the physical manifestation of an image, then could we not argue that Jackson Pollock's "art" was fundamentally devoid of any creativity?
I am by no means an expert on Pollock but I believe he himself saw the act of painting as the art form and the resulting painting a sort of side effect of the art. Thus the term "action painting" and in that context I would agree that the painting is perhaps not art but the action is.
Again, no expert, could be incorrect or interpreting vague memories incorrectly. Grain of salt etc.
damn you cliffhanger! :P
Who made the captions?
+Seb Sharma me haha
Philosophy Tube Why are you complementing yourself?
+Seb Sharma you mean who made the subtitles for the hearing impaired viewers? I did?
The fact you call your saxophone playing 'Sexy' and Say the stuff at the beginning is nonsense so are Deaf people to belive it is nonsense or it is 'Sexy' when it may not be? I know some people who will think otherwise, though the Deaf will only know of your opinion since you made the captions
I'm not sure I would agree with either of those, but even if I did, that would just mean that the hearing impaired would have a better picture of what the video is saying as that's what was in the script. If people don't think those are nonsensical or sexy and don't view the captions then its them who aren't getting the full picture.
what if your first string of "new" is intended to be original and nonsensical? In other words, is somebody doing Dada (for fun, not to transmit meaning) a creative act?
How much experience do you have on sax because clearly you know how to make sounds which means you have some expiwriebce.
what about mathematical creativity? some math concepts cannot be visualised (i.e. n-dimensional spheres, etc.) and the creativity is not based on sensory input in that case!
What's your favorite idea? Mine is being CREATIVE!
Don Draper is my favourite creativeman
Liked the saxophone playing :) The Theory seems to be very explanatory, at least the way you put it. Are there any problems with the theory though? You are very uncritical in this video, but maybe that's just a trick to push your viewers to be creative about possible criticism ;)
BTW, are going to mention you own definition of creativity you proposed at University?
i am thinking of using my first paycheque's money on your patreon (if I earn , which is highly unlikely)
Why is it new and valuable specifically? I would have guessed it would be new and meaningful.
I think those terms are pretty interchangeable when the value is dependent upon the context. Value = meaning if the context is that it provides meaning. Value just goes further to include creative acts where other things are more important than meaning. Like certain kinds of poetry where one poem could convey a much more emotional, universal, and meaningful message, but lacks structure and has poor word usage so would be considered less creative than a poem which discusses a cliche topic and says nothing new about the issue, but says it in a beautifully original way.
o how your bookshelf has evolved
Suggestion: Something is 'creative' if a problem is solved in an unexpected way.
What's his MBTI type? INFP? INTP?
Then why should Pollock and such be considered as creative? His 'creativity' resides in a concept, not a technique, and that concept alone.
Most people erroneously mistake different for creative. When something is different, that doesn't mean it's valuable.
Mental-visual models can, and are applied to non-scientific creativity all of the time. Just like in science. Is music scientific? Musical composers think in terms of such models regularly, for the purpose of arrangement, balancing frequencies or sound textures, etc. I know that I do.
Oh wow
U r good👍🏻subscribed
Welcome!
ayy shout out to matt ley
Any body else have the problem where they can't see there comments when they comment from their iPhone or Android on the TH-cam app? I'm not sure if my comments are going through or not so a reply if you can see this would be helpful, thank you.
golam hello I can see it but TH-cam mobile is really glitchy
Does a mojo have anything to do with creativity? - It's seems the most creative people are men... maybe that isn't true, I don't know? - I mean, Lady Gaga wearing a dress made out of meat is pretty creative? Like most women, I was born without a mojo - this just means I learn better when I am relaxed rather than taking risks (people with mojos learn better in a riskier environment - maybe controversial but it's a scientific fact... look up the BNST in the brain). Of course not everyone is the same, which is why we shouldn't have sex discrimination - there is an overlapping mojo-ness between the sexes, with men who have less of a mojo and women who have more of a mojo. Hell, some people born as one sex may feel that their mojo status means they feel like they should be living as the opposite sex that they were assigned at birth. Does a mojo effect gender equality though and should there be any shame if you don't have a mojo? What are we saying - if a mojo is indeed related to creativity - if we are rewarding creativity.... Maybe a less creative tune just means someone is too upset to play a decent one?
0:34 is JASS AF
Is there such a thing as an original idea?
I operate on the premise that every idea is original on the basis that everyone is influenced all the time by everything, but that it requires your particular non-replicable brain chemistry to turn a given set of influences into whatever it is you turn it into. The key is to be sufficiently broadly influenced that no particular influence is recognizable in the eventual outcome.
Steve Pittman Everyone is influenced, but why is it by everything, and not by a set of specifics? And why the next that you are describing make the idea original, as of itself. If the same idea is the output of different contexts is it original, as of itself or as of the contents?
I like your reasoning behind that. Especially if theories such as biocentralism and Descartes theories are correct, and even pantheism explanations.
Could there be one all encompassing idea that all ideas reside within? lol And that one idea is a totality of combinations of all those ideas? haha
PitBigGuns Because we can't help but be influenced by everything, in one way or another. No idea can be formed in isolation, so it makes no sense to ascribe all ideas to the set of contexts and brain chemistry which produce them.
you're fucking brilliant !!
For fuck's sake, please use the side C key. Moving from B to C without it will be choppy. . . Admittedly, this shouldn't bother as much as it does.
This guys reminds of the dude in the Dorian Gray (2009) movie.
www.imdb.com/title/tt1235124/
Copying is creation.
But do we need to be creativ?
#PhilosophyTube
#ContraPoints
a e s t h e t i c
You are the male Emma Thompson
Ah-mah-bee-lay! Not Ah-mo-bile.
I fancy you
Creativity could be the very essence of subliminal piracy...
why hasn't anyone mentioned don't hug me i'm scared
holy eff can you play sax? that's excellent ^w^
Did somebody say... a e s t h e t i c s
42
Yoooooo fellow saxophone
you were happy to have an excuse to jam weren't you? :p
What about sports then?
woohoo!
well he just expose me
He said that "Queer[sparkleemoji]" was the first time he'd played sax on this channel
LIES GET CANCELLED