Insight, spontaneous ordering?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the phenomenon of insight as experienced by prominent figures such as Richard Feynman and David Bohm, emphasizing that moments of insight occur when the brain is silent, leading to spontaneous ordering of thoughts. Feynman's quest for a mechanical process to replicate these insights revealed that such moments cannot be systematically engineered. The conversation raises questions about the nature of evolution and other deterministic processes in the cosmos, suggesting that spontaneous actions may also play a role in scientific creativity. Participants express concerns about the reluctance of scientists to acknowledge the role of spontaneous insight in their work, fearing it may undermine their originality and professional credibility.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cognitive psychology principles related to insight.
  • Familiarity with the works of Richard Feynman and David Bohm.
  • Knowledge of evolutionary theory and its implications in scientific discourse.
  • Awareness of the relationship between creativity and silence in the thought process.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore cognitive psychology theories on insight and creativity.
  • Research the implications of silence on cognitive processes in "The Creative Brain" by Nancy C. Andreasen.
  • Investigate the role of spontaneous ordering in evolutionary biology.
  • Examine the impact of societal expectations on scientific originality and idea generation.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for cognitive scientists, psychologists, philosophers of science, and anyone interested in the interplay between creativity and scientific discovery.

precisionart
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
It seems that many top scientist, mathematicians, composers etc speak of the moment of insight, including Feynman and Bohm, and it seems to come down to when the brain is silent. Being clever as Feynman was, he sought to figure out if there was some mechanical process, some pattern that could be followed to repeat that moment so that he could be significantly more efficient, but he realized that this could not work. So here lies my question/point: This moment of insight seems to occur when the brain is silent and then there is a spontaneous perception, which seems to be a kind of spontaneous ordering. If this occurs for the brain, then is it not possible that this action takes place in the movement of evolution and in other processes in the cosmos which appear to be strictly mechanical and deterministic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't really think that anyone would answer this:) It is ironic that this spontaneous action is operative in scientists' activity, yet it is the one thing that none of them will acknowledge. Any comments? P.S. I do acknowledge the movement of evolution, I just question the precise nature of the process.
 
Last edited:
Insight, at least the type scientists seek involves the generation of a new idea. This idea cannot have a name since it's the first time it has been thought. Therefore the normal stream of consciousness can't apply.

The brain seems to abhor this state and quickly finds words to fill the silence, thus choking off new ideas. Perhaps creative scientists are a little slower than others when it comes to this step?

Or perhaps the process is different for different people?

The reluctance to discuss this likely comes from people not wanting to expose ignorance. I suspect most top scientists feel a little guilty that they stole their ideas. Of course all new ideas are built on what came before, but there's always that nagging suspicion that they alone relied on the work of others while the other guy was truly original.

Besides, wild speculation lowers salary potential. Plus it lowers the signal to noise ratio.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 292 ·
10
Replies
292
Views
13K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K