October 1, 2026 • 29 mins
Tracking Wisdom
Episode 44
Between Conformity and Creativity: Does Science Need More Imagination?
Recorded - 03/16/26
DESCRIPTION
What role does creativity play in how we understand reality—and what happens when the institutions responsible for expanding human knowledge become increasingly structured around collaboration, specialization, and consensus?
In this episode, we reflect on a conversation about art, innovation, and the nature of creativity before turning to a broader question: does modern science leave enough room for genuinely original thinking?
We explore the distinction between art and innovation, and consider whether creativity might be more than a uniquely human act. From there, the conversation moves into the structure of modern science itself. Large institutions, collaborative research, peer review, and increasingly resource-intensive projects have made extraordinary scientific achievements possible—but those same structures can also create incentives toward conformity, specialization, and lower-risk research.
Drawing on ideas raised by Iain McGilchrist and others, we consider the tension between individual insight and collective knowledge. Committees may be effective at evaluating, refining, and combining ideas, but where do genuinely new ideas originate? And how do we preserve space for unconventional thinking without abandoning the empirical rigor that makes science valuable?
The question isn't whether science needs less structure or less collaboration. It is whether a mature scientific culture can preserve both: the discipline required to test ideas and the imagination required to generate new ones in the first place.
Takeaways:
- Creativity may be worth considering as more than artistic expression, particularly when examining innovation, discovery, and consciousness.
- Modern scientific collaboration enables work that individuals could rarely accomplish alone, while institutional incentives may also discourage unconventional or high-risk ideas.
- Original insight and collective evaluation serve different functions; scientific progress may depend on creating room for both.
- Philosophy, intuition, and imagination can contribute to generating hypotheses without replacing empirical testing.
- Preprints, broader critique, and more open exchange of developing ideas may provide ways to expose unconventional thinking to scrutiny without requiring immediate institutional consensus.
- Scientific institutions are tools for producing knowledge—not knowledge itself—and can be examined and improved like any other human system.
Episode Resources
- The Institute of Art and Ideas
- Esther Freud
- Roger Penrose
- Iain McGilchrist
- Is creativity essential to understanding the universe? | Roger Penrose and Iain McGilchrist - The Institute of Art and Ideas
- Imagining the universe Is creativity an illusion? - Institute of Art and Ideas
Consider showing your support to help make this content possible.
Review us on Podchaser
We are grateful for your gifts
Show Merchandise
Web & Social Media:
Tracking Wisdom Reflections (Substack)
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Peter (00:03):
You're listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast, exploring the universal
truths that we see woven through culture,consciousness, and the human experience.
Ryan (00:18):
Good morning everybody, and welcome back to another episode
of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
I'm Ryan,
Peter (00:22):
I'm Peter.
Ryan (00:23):
And today we are talking about an interview by the Institute of Art
and Ideas discussing the concept ofimagination, and creativity, and whether
creativity/imagination can help usreframe our understanding of reality.
The panel was with Roger Penrose,the physicist and Nobel Laureate,
(00:47):
Iain McGilchrist, Oxford Scholarand author of, Master and His
Emissary, and also the Divided Brain.
And with them was Esther Freud,she's an award-winning writer and
novelist and representative from themore artistic and creative realm.
Okay so the question being,the idea of human creativity.
(01:13):
So I think we think of art, althoughthere's also the idea of innovation,
I think there's a nuance therethat we might want to touch on.
But thinking of the humancreativity versus cosmic
creation and material expression.
Right?
So there's human creativity within thematerial experience, and then there's this
(01:33):
concept of creativity, imagination being adirect influencer on material experience.
Peter (01:41):
Yes.
And so , just to clarify, we'reriffing on the question that was
presented to the panel more thanreporting on what the panel said.
Ryan (01:51):
Yes.
Peter (01:51):
Because, you were just defining human creativity as art.
But in fact, Penrose wasdescribing scientific creativity.
He went…
Ryan (01:59):
yes
Peter (01:59):
at length to describe the nature of creativity in science or the
nature of science as requiring somecreativity, particularly at this point.
Ryan (02:10):
Yes.
Which I do want to talk about.
but before we get to creativityin science, I wanted to discuss a
little bit about what creativitymeans in general, what we mean by
creativity, how we think of creativity.
And one element of that is thisidea that we see imagination
(02:31):
and creativity as central humanqualities, vital to technology and
innovation as well as the arts.
I don't dispute that, but I wonderhow much creativity is a human central
human quality versus creativity beinga component of consciousness itself.
Peter (02:50):
So, I want to kind of reorient 'cause you just went on a
direction I didn't expect you to go.
Human creativity versusconscious creativity.
Is that right?
Creativity.
Creativity as a, as a
Ryan (03:03):
quality of consciousness.
Peter (03:04):
As a human quality versus,
Ryan (03:07):
yes,
Peter (03:07):
as an absolute quality.
And you know, for, for newcomers,
Ryan (03:11):
oh, yes.
Peter (03:11):
I think we have to say that we've pretty much landed as staunch
idealists, in other words, that matterarises from consciousness versus the
kind of status quo paradigm, which isthat consciousness arises from matter.
And so as such, we can talk aboutqualities of consciousness, but if
you're a materialist, that might not be.
Ryan (03:33):
Right.
So the assertion in the video wascreativity is a central human quality.
From an idealism paradigm, if thecreation of material experience emerges
from, or is somehow secondary to,consciousness itself; then creation, that
(03:55):
would be a component of consciousness,and if consciousness innervates
all things in the material form.
Peter (04:01):
Yeah.
Ryan (04:02):
Then it seems to me that creativity or creation is a
fundamental essence of all things.
And I was curious what you thought?
Peter (04:12):
Right.
And, I readily agree.
Because creativity is an inherentaspect of consciousness, and because
everything that exists, each thing thatyou could name arises as an element
of consciousness or as a consciousnessconstruct, then each thing inherently
carries an aspect of creativity to it.
(04:33):
And not meaning, not justthe mark of creativity
Ryan (04:36):
right,
Peter (04:36):
But what we're saying is that,
Ryan (04:38):
the capacity for creativity.
Peter (04:40):
Right.
The capacity for creativity.
But I don't know what that looks like.
Ryan (04:44):
Mm, mm-hmm.
Peter (04:45):
So I can pick up this rock and- this rock I'm holding here that
you can't see 'cause I'm on mic-And this rock has creativity in it.
Ryan (04:54):
Mm.
Mm-hmm.
Peter (04:55):
Now what does that mean?
Ryan (04:56):
Mean?
Yeah.
Peter (04:57):
I don't know what that means.
And I think the reason that that'sfair, to say both of those things,
Ryan (05:03):
mm-hmm
Peter (05:03):
is that the idealist model isn't complete yet.
So we can imagine how this rock arisesfrom consciousness, but we don't have
a complete picture of the mechanisms bywhich consciousness is expressed in this
rock, and therefore how we might see thecapacity for creativity in this rock.
Ryan (05:25):
Right.
Peter (05:25):
I'm trying to be precise about what I'm saying because this
rock is a, it's a manifestation ofconsciousness itself, but I'm not
saying this rock is a conscious being.
And so what's the differencebetween those two things?
I guess what I have to say is that, therock is not a being whose consciousness
I can access, or I can appreciate.
(05:46):
And just as we can't access theconsciousness of the rock, we can't
access the creativity of the rock.
Ryan (05:54):
Hmm.
Peter (05:54):
So I think this goes back to something, we've talked about before.
Depending on our level of-oh, this is getting complex-
as we manifest inphysical existence, right?
So we are now participating inthis physical material world.
(06:14):
We have relative levels ofcomplexity as consciousness.
Ryan (06:19):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (06:19):
So you and I are relatively the same level of conscious complexity.
We cannot directly accesseach other's consciousness.
But we can, to some measure,access each other's consciousness,
primarily by shared language.
Ryan (06:34):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (06:34):
But you can kind of see how I'm thinking.
You, I can kind of seehow you're thinking.
It's not perfect, but wehave some access there.
Our dog or cat, we have less access.
Like we can interact with them, say,"oh yeah, I can tell what they're…",
you know.
But there's much less access withan animal than with another person.
And then still less with a rock.
(06:55):
So it's a matter, I think of our abilityto access consciousness, of other
conscious beings, of different levels.
Ryan (07:06):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (07:06):
And it's not an absolute limitation, of humans, because
there are humans who have incredibleaccess to animal consciousness, and
presumably, to non-animal consciousness.
Which, you can kind of sense into storiesand myths about people with access
to non-human, not only non-human, butnon-animal, non animate, consciousness.
(07:29):
So, I went way down a rabbit hole,but just to say that's how I can
be comfortable saying the rockhas creativity, even though its
creativity is even less accessibleto me than its consciousness.
Ryan (07:43):
Yeah.
Peter (07:44):
Which is not at all accessible.
It's just that I intuit thatthere's creativity there.
But, this is all presumingan idealist perspective.
Ryan (07:53):
Of course.
Peter (07:54):
So poor sir.
Roger Penrose is totally like, yeah,you guys are cra uh, like, you know-
and we've seen him multiple timestalking to idealists- and he kind
of just like, yeah, I can't see it.
Ryan (08:07):
Yeah.
Peter (08:07):
Which is fine.
So if you, the listener, are astaunch materialist, this is nonsense.
It just does not fit into that paradigm.
So, I kind of question, and what wenoticed from watching this panel,
I don't know how you can have thisconversation with a materialist.
And I think Sir Roger kind of was lostin the, like, he was like, well, you need
(08:30):
creativity to come up with new theories.
Ryan (08:32):
Right.
Peter (08:32):
It's like, that wasn't the question.
Ryan (08:33):
Right.
Peter (08:34):
You know, it's not like "how does human creativity come up with
theories to understand physical reality?"
I think the question was moreabout " how does creativity
relate to the nature of reality.
" Ryan (08:46):
Yes.
Peter (08:46):
And McGilchrist seemed the most comfortable with it.
And then the novelist, she doesn't travelin these circles, or she's not conversant
in this way, and so she's talkingpurely from an artistic perspective.
Which was fine, and interesting,and I think more accessible,
to more people, than either thephysicist or the the philosopher.
Ryan (09:07):
Right.
Peter (09:08):
So, but I'm, I'm like, as we start to talk about this, I'm
really acutely aware of what Ibelieve is gonna sound like nonsense
depending on your personal framework,
Ryan (09:16):
right?
Peter (09:16):
Yeah.
Ryan (09:17):
Yeah.
So one thing I wanted to note was wewere referring to consciousness as
separate beings, where at the mostfoundational level we're talking about
creativity being the expression ofthe one consciousness through all of
the emanations of said consciousness.
(09:40):
But when we're talking about creativityin the material sense, so now coming out
of cosmic creation into, creative acts,innovation within the material existence.
Um,
I think it's undoubtable that artand innovation slash technology
(10:00):
are both using creativity.
I am kind of curious about adistinction between art and innovation.
Different endpoints,I guess is what it is.
Peter (10:11):
Yeah, I thought that's exactly what I was gonna say.
Ryan (10:13):
And it's probably a bit of semantics.
Esther Freud, she's a novelist so shewas talking about story, and her point
was stories in general aren't new.
Story archetypes, like the hero'sjourney or whatever archetype you
want to take, they're all the samestories told in a different way.
(10:34):
And that it's incumbent upon the authorslash artist slash whatever to find a
new and unique way of telling a story.
And for me, art all art is a story.
That's why we connectto it, as human beings.
Peter (10:51):
Okay.
So now I want to put some nuance on theterminology of creativity and innovation.
Ryan (10:57):
Mm-hmm.
Yes.
Peter (10:57):
Because I think, in Western culture, innovation implies technological.
But I think in an absolute, innovationis just another word for creativity.
Ryan (11:07):
Yeah.
Peter (11:07):
Because you can have an innovative novel.
Ryan (11:09):
Absolutely.
Peter (11:10):
Right?
You can innovate a way of storytelling.
A book I read a little while agohad the character find a book in
library and started to read the book.
And the book was tellingthe character's own story.
Ryan (11:23):
Hmm.
Peter (11:23):
And, and so, throughout the book, characters are finding books
that are telling their own stories,and then the characters in the
stories eventually come together.
And so for me, I was like, wow,this is a really exciting novel.
'cause you couldn't tell from pageto page whether you were in this
(11:43):
story or whether you were in themeta story of another character.
Ryan (11:46):
Oh, that's cool.
Peter (11:47):
So it was very cool.
And I was like, oh, this is quite great.
This is a very original,novel form for, for me it was.
So, you know we, we saycreativity versus innovation.
Now, to me that was an innovative novel,
Ryan (12:02):
right
Peter (12:02):
that was an innovation in the technology of novel storytelling.
Ryan (12:06):
Yeah.
Peter (12:07):
But I think the way you were using innovation was in the common
sense of technological innovation,which is the word we use for creativity
instead of creativity becausecreativity, air quotes means art.
Ryan (12:19):
Right.
Peter (12:20):
And innovation, air quotes means technology or STEM or some kind
of, you know, hard science thing.
Which is what Roger was talking about.
Well, we need innovation in our theorybecause the theory's not working.
So we need to innovate something new.
So in a sense I was thinking,well actually innovation is the
bigger umbrella for creativity.
(12:42):
But it really doesn't matter.
I mean, you could say either you-
Ryan (12:45):
they're all kind of synonymous-
Peter (12:46):
pick the one that you, that resonates with you more.
Ryan (12:49):
Yes.
Peter (12:49):
Right?
So, but they mean the samething, we just mean to apply
them in different areas of focus.
And so that's what you said and, asyou were introducing the subject, I
immediately intuited this distinctionbetween innovation, creativity; which
you said, was art is communication.
And, so I would say, yeah, artis creativity that's intended to
(13:12):
communicate to another person.
Innovation is creativity that's moreinteracting with non-human consciousness.
Ryan (13:21):
Hmm.
Peter (13:22):
So in the sense that a novel is a thing
Ryan (13:25):
mm-hmm.
Peter (13:26):
In our universe, which is therefore a expression of consciousness
or a conscious construct, right?
Ryan (13:32):
Yep.
Peter (13:33):
Any technology that we use is a physical manifestation of
consciousness in our universe, but wedon't talk to those manifestations.
Instead, we use our creativity in a moredirect way, which we call innovation, to
influence how we interact with that thing.
Does that make sense?
Ryan (13:53):
Yeah, I think that makes sense.
I had utility,
but that's kind of where I was like
technology slash innovation, so Ihad innovation, but you're absolutely
right as far as the term innovationis not exclusive to STEM, but instead
of telling story, or communicating,technology is used, has has usefulness.
Peter (14:19):
I was gonna say, you know, I was gonna say, and, and not that
we never talk to our technology.
Really.
Not that we don't yell at our cars.
Ryan (14:25):
Yeah.
Peter (14:25):
Um,
Ryan (14:26):
it doesn't work though.
Peter (14:27):
Well, I'm actually very intrigued by this kind of
insight or way of looking at it.
Right?
Communication or art orexpression is how we interact
with other human consciousness,
right?
Ryan (14:42):
Mm-hmm
Peter (14:42):
and everything else is how we interact with the non-human consciousness.
And, there's a way of interactingwith human consciousness that
is non-physical and nonverbal.
Ryan (14:55):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (14:56):
I mean, specifically in my experience, I'm talking about GAE.
But of course what we'retalking about are, what?
Wisdom practices or spiritualpractices or these nonconventional
practices, which put us in touch witheach other in nonconventional ways?
Ryan (15:13):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (15:13):
And art, art is kind of in the middle there.
Ryan (15:17):
So I just had a thought, I don't know how this will resonate with
you, but I was thinking art as beingsort of the higher self-consciousness
expression and technology beingthe ego's version of expression.
Peter (15:33):
Yes.
And so we could go to McGilchrist,and take left brain and right brain.
Ryan (15:39):
Right.
Peter (15:39):
And I would put language, like literal language in left brain.
Ryan (15:45):
Right.
Peter (15:45):
And technology.
Left brain.
Ryan (15:47):
Yeah.
Peter (15:48):
And poetry.
And this is where it gets,this is where you kind of slide
down the continuum, right.
You can use language imprecisely.
Ryan (15:57):
Yeah.
Peter (15:58):
For poetry where it's pure art and the poetry is communicating.
Not through language, literally.
Ryan (16:06):
Right.
Peter (16:06):
But through art.
Ryan (16:07):
Yep.
Peter (16:08):
And so you're in that right brain area, even though
you're using language to do it.
Ryan (16:12):
Yeah.
Peter (16:12):
But yes, I,
Ryan (16:13):
yeah.
Peter (16:14):
Yeah.
Ryan (16:14):
It's interesting.
Um, we've touched on this a littlebit before it came up again, sort of
indirectly, is, the relation of philosophyand intuition on scientific thesis.
Historically there was a much stronger,connection or, collaboration with,
(16:35):
philosophical thought practices andscientific pursuits; and in more
modern time, there's been a fractureor distancing of those two things.
And what Roger and Iain were saying wasthat, now getting towards creativity and
science, we're at an impasse, sort ofin the scientific discovery where the
(17:01):
theories aren't working the way that theyshould or or there's inconsistency or
contradiction that is yet to be explained.
So using creativity is necessary,injecting creativity is necessary to
move us to the next phase of that.
Peter (17:18):
Yeah.
So this idea of, you know, the,the model being incomplete or
internally self inconsistent or wrong.
Ryan (17:26):
Right?
Peter (17:26):
Right?
And, um, all models are wrong.
Ryan (17:30):
Yeah.
Right.
Peter (17:30):
Right?
So, a model is not wrong, to the extentwhich, we have not yet applied it, to
a situation where it no longer works.
Ryan (17:39):
Right.
Peter (17:39):
We haven't found the limits of our model, and that's, I think,
where we are with quantum physics.
Although, no, I guess that's not fair tosay because it happened at the beginning.
Right?
Pretty much the founders veryquickly bumped up against
the limits of their model.
We know it's not complete, but thepart that we have, it does work.
(18:00):
It, it, it's extremely effective increating atomic bombs and iPhones.
So we can keep on doing that.
And Penrose is just expressing wefound the limits of this model,
that's our cue to use creativity togo beyond and fix it, or make it more
complete, you know, not complete.
Mm-hmm.
No model is ever complete.
(18:20):
' Cause the map is not the territory.
Ryan (18:22):
Right.
Peter (18:22):
The model is just the model.
And, and so I think he hasbeen frustrated for some time.
Yeah.
I mean, I think it's pretty clear whenyou hear him talk, that no one has
gone back to say, Hey, let's make thismodel more complete, we can do it.
And I think the key is whatyou, you referenced, the split
(18:42):
of philosophy and science.
Ryan (18:45):
Yeah.
Peter (18:46):
And now you and I are very clearly seeing the, the rapprochement.
Right.
We keep on seeing, and hearing,philosophers reengaging and scientists,
reengaging with philosophers.
I mean, I first became aware of ita few decades ago, with the Dalai
Lama engaging with scientists, andscientists like, yeah, we need this
(19:07):
guy in our conference because he'sgiving us kind of breakthrough ideas,
because he's not coming from thisinherently materialistic world worldview.
Ryan (19:16):
Yeah.
Peter (19:16):
But I think, you know, until recently it's been a few of
these notable figures that havekind of crossed the aisle on that.
I think there was some popeswho were pretty pro-science.
Ryan (19:29):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (19:29):
But they're the standouts, because it's so unusual.
Ryan (19:33):
Yeah.
Peter (19:33):
But I think now we're seeing, more exchange between
philosophers and physicists.
Ryan (19:39):
Yeah.
As they were talking about the needfor creativity, Iain McGilchrist
was talking about how creativityas a function can't be an output
of a group, like a large group.
Peter (19:52):
Oh yeah.
Ryan (19:52):
He talked, he said specifically of a committee, right?
Peter (19:55):
Yes.
Ryan (19:55):
You you can't committee-ize, art or creativity.
But the point being that he was, he wassuggesting that, the days of Einstein and
Schrodinger and all of them, at the turnof the last century, we were sort of at
a pinnacle of scientific progress becausethere was this openness to creativity.
Peter (20:18):
He was specifically saying, now papers have hundreds of authors on them.
And therefore everyone is strugglingfor acceptability or, or compatibility.
You know, and so you're kind of,following the level of mediocrity.
Ryan (20:32):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (20:32):
Right?
In, in terms of a new paper,with a hundred people on it.
Which is a product of the technology,because the technology is so
resource intensive, that you haveto involve a hundred collaborators
in order to split the cost.
Ryan (20:46):
Right.
And as a function of institution,and conformism, because they have a
tendency for self-preservation once theyget to a certain size and influence.
And because funding for highlydetailed and complex studies, is
a necessary part of scientificpursuit, people are incentivized to
(21:10):
sort of toe a line of common wisdom,instead of pushing boundaries.
That being, the stifling of creativity,due to this overarching committee-
ization of science through institution.
But you made a comment off mic thatI thought was interesting, which was
(21:31):
you mentioned ideas being synthesized.
There is some level of groupactivity that benefits creativity.
When you can bounce ideas,
Peter (21:44):
Yes
Ryan (21:44):
and synthesize ideas, and come up with even new things that the, one
person couldn't think of in their own.
But I, and I think there's a,there's an element of scale here.
Peter (21:55):
Yes.
Yes.
Ryan (21:56):
Iain McGilchrist had mentioned maybe two or three.
I think it can probablygo to like 10 or 20.
Peter (22:03):
So this is an aspect of science that's gone back and forth over time
of isolation versus collaboration.
Ryan (22:11):
Right.
Peter (22:11):
Right?
And then people realize if we startedcollaborating or we changed the
structure of meetings or we changethe layout of the research building
so that people naturally run into eachother and you know, they sit down for
coffee, and you get more collaboration,and then you get more breakthrough.
Ryan (22:29):
Right?
Peter (22:29):
So, there is this tuning aspect to it, that you
don't just stick in one state.
You don't just stick in the laband become completely siloed,
and not get others' ideas.
But you also don't worksolely in committee and never
have independent thought.
Ryan (22:47):
Right.
Peter (22:48):
And, and so I think it sounds like the, the status quo
now is way too far the other way
Ryan (22:55):
Yeah.
Peter (22:55):
Of group think.
Ryan (22:56):
Yeah.
Peter (22:56):
I've heard this many times in physics.
Ryan (23:00):
Yeah.
Peter (23:00):
Particularly.
Ryan (23:00):
Yeah.
Peter (23:01):
I'm sure it's true throughout science.
Yeah.
Ryan (23:03):
As we were discussing off mic, we mentioned that institution is
not inherently bad and that thereis valid and legitimate reasons,
benefits, that are the impetus toinstitutionalization of something.
And, at least in the scientific realm,this idea of validation or the peer
(23:25):
review verification of findings, right?
A scrutinization of thescientific method or process.
And I, I am throwing out this questionof validation versus marketplace of ideas
and I think that, you know, is there more.
Democratic way for ideas to besussed out through community as
(23:51):
opposed to centralized institution.
And one comment that I got fromVinay Prasad, scientist, oncologist,
researcher, was the value of preprint.
That there should be, moreemphasis on trying to engage
with these pre-print forums.
Making it available, sort ofreally broad and having the whole
(24:13):
community really, invested in,assessing and, and discussing.
I guess this kind of comes to thatcommunal, uh, committee approach
Peter (24:22):
Yeah.
So, I was going a different directionwith institution in terms of,
scalability of material resources.
Ryan (24:29):
Sure.
Yeah.
Peter (24:30):
But obviously.
For science, peer reviewis a central function.
I mean, it is, it is institution.
It's kind of decentralized institution.
Right?
Because peer review doesn't happen in
Ryan (24:45):
Right
Peter (24:45):
you know, in a fixed committee.
Ryan (24:46):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (24:47):
But it does happen through publishers.
Ryan (24:51):
Right.
Peter (24:51):
Right?
It's not like the entirecommunity does a peer review.
A publisher selects a bunch ofreviewers, and it goes out that way.
And so I think part of theproblem is there's bias built
in and, and there's pressure.
And, and then that the grant process, andchoosing your research topic process, is
(25:14):
like "well, let me choose what everybodyelse is doing 'cause this is hot right
now, so I'm gonna get funding for it."
Ryan (25:18):
Right.
Peter (25:19):
And I'm gonna get published because people wanna publish this because
this is what people are interested inversus where the work needs to be done.
Ryan (25:26):
Right.
Peter (25:26):
Right?
I think that the idea that you're talkingabout of kind of break open the review
process and put the ideas out there.
Like here are some new ideasthat people are working on.
It's not peer reviewed.
Ryan (25:38):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (25:38):
It hasn't been granted the status of publication, but it's pre-print.
And therefore, morepeople can be inspired.
Ryan (25:47):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (25:47):
Or can catch the problem that this review committee they're
not gonna see that because they'reincentivized not to see the problem.
They wanna, they wanna publishit for whatever reason.
Science is messy.
Ryan (25:58):
Yeah.
Peter (25:58):
Um, as someone just told me.
Ryan (26:00):
I like the way you had called it technology.
Off mic, you had said institution, asa tool, is kind of like a technology.
And we don't see it as that, right?
Peter (26:12):
Yes.
Ryan (26:12):
We pedestalize it as the ultimate authoritative
Peter (26:15):
or we demonize it
Ryan (26:16):
or we demonize it should,
Peter (26:17):
like, there's no good reason, like "all institutions should be torn down!"
Ryan (26:21):
We perhaps give it too much, well, I guess authority, but whatever the
Peter (26:26):
Right.
Ryan (26:26):
The converse of it.
Peter (26:27):
Right.
So much value.
Value, we overvalue it.
Ryan (26:28):
Yes.
Peter (26:29):
We say it's inherently good.
So anything it does is good
Ryan (26:32):
or the converse,
Peter (26:32):
or it inherently bad.
Yeah.
Ryan (26:34):
And if we view it more like a technology, we can assess it
for its limitations and trying tofill in those gaps instead of just
putting all the eggs in that basket.
Peter (26:45):
This, this calls me back to this pendulum.
Like trying to fine tune, trying tofind balance and because you have
to have mastery of a tool, right?
You have to have peoplewho are masters of it.
And you can't have only masters.
A tool that is only useful toa master, with 10,000 hours of
(27:05):
experience, is not a very useful tool.
Ryan (27:07):
Right.
Peter (27:08):
Right?
So you wanna have some masters,you want to have wide application,
you wanna have discipline, butyou want to have innovation.
I guess that that's where I'm,trying to point is this, this balance
between discipline and innovation.
Ryan (27:21):
Mm-hmm
Peter (27:21):
you don't want everything becoming a nail because the
hammer's the most popular tool.
And yet you don't want peoplesaying, oh no, this is the
only way you can use a hammer.
So you need the discipline toactually read the manual, and then
you need the innovation to not say,"oh no, I can't do that because
the manual says I can't do that.
Oh, this tool is only designed forthis, so I can't do this other thing."
Ryan (27:43):
Right.
Peter (27:44):
These are traps that I, I guess they're intrinsic human traps
Ryan (27:48):
Yeah.
Peter (27:48):
That we can fall into.
And so, I guess it's let's try toengage with our institutions, in
ways that benefit from the upsides,
Ryan (27:58):
Right
Peter (27:58):
and mitigate the downsides.
Ryan (28:00):
Yeah.
Peter (28:01):
And don't just go along without understanding.
Ryan (28:04):
Yeah,
Peter (28:04):
yeah.
Ryan (28:04):
Yeah.
I agree.
Uh, so creativity, imagination can it helpus reframe our understanding of reality.
Nah.
Uh, I think it's obvious that, and evenRoger Penrose agreed, we've reached a
point where something needs to give.
(28:25):
We need to be reengaging thephilosophy and intuition to create
our thesis, and point the funding-I guess that's a whole other…
because that, that's a big barrier, right?
People can have all kinds of ideas,but if they don't get funded…
Peter (28:40):
well, this is- and now you're going to the whole capitalist
Ryan (28:44):
right
Peter (28:44):
model and
Ryan (28:45):
Yeah
Peter (28:45):
now you're talking about really large scale institutions, right?
Right.
Like yeah, it got us really far.
Ryan (28:51):
Yeah.
Peter (28:51):
You know, it, it created a lot of innovation and, and scale.
In a good way.
And in a bad way.
And now it's like preventingus from moving forward.
Ryan (29:00):
Yeah.
Peter (29:00):
Uh, yeah.
Ryan (29:02):
Okay.
Then
on that note, we will put the,uh, link to the full debate for
you, for your listening pleasure.
And love to hear whatyou guys think about it.
And I guess we'll see you guys next time.
Peter (29:17):
See you next time.
Ryan (29:17):
Bye
Peter (29:18):
bye.
Thank you for listening tothe Tracking Wisdom podcast.
Join us next time as wecontinue the discussion.
Don't forget to follow us onFacebook, Instagram, and YouTube,
and visit www.eth-studio.com
for more information and content
You're listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast, exploring the universal
truths that we see woven through culture,consciousness, and the human experience.
Ryan (00:18):
Good morning everybody, and welcome back to another episode
of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
I'm Ryan,
Peter (00:22):
I'm Peter.
Ryan (00:23):
And today we are talking about an interview by the Institute of Art
and Ideas discussing the concept ofimagination, and creativity, and whether
creativity/imagination can help usreframe our understanding of reality.
The panel was with Roger Penrose,the physicist and Nobel Laureate,
(00:47):
Iain McGilchrist, Oxford Scholarand author of, Master and His
Emissary, and also the Divided Brain.
And with them was Esther Freud,she's an award-winning writer and
novelist and representative from themore artistic and creative realm.
Okay so the question being,the idea of human creativity.
(01:13):
So I think we think of art, althoughthere's also the idea of innovation,
I think there's a nuance therethat we might want to touch on.
But thinking of the humancreativity versus cosmic
creation and material expression.
Right?
So there's human creativity within thematerial experience, and then there's this
(01:33):
concept of creativity, imagination being adirect influencer on material experience.
Peter (01:41):
Yes.
And so , just to clarify, we'reriffing on the question that was
presented to the panel more thanreporting on what the panel said.
Ryan (01:51):
Yes.
Peter (01:51):
Because, you were just defining human creativity as art.
But in fact, Penrose wasdescribing scientific creativity.
He went…
Ryan (01:59):
yes
Peter (01:59):
at length to describe the nature of creativity in science or the
nature of science as requiring somecreativity, particularly at this point.
Ryan (02:10):
Yes.
Which I do want to talk about.
but before we get to creativityin science, I wanted to discuss a
little bit about what creativitymeans in general, what we mean by
creativity, how we think of creativity.
And one element of that is thisidea that we see imagination
(02:31):
and creativity as central humanqualities, vital to technology and
innovation as well as the arts.
I don't dispute that, but I wonderhow much creativity is a human central
human quality versus creativity beinga component of consciousness itself.
Peter (02:50):
So, I want to kind of reorient 'cause you just went on a
direction I didn't expect you to go.
Human creativity versusconscious creativity.
Is that right?
Creativity.
Creativity as a, as a
Ryan (03:03):
quality of consciousness.
Peter (03:04):
As a human quality versus,
Ryan (03:07):
yes,
Peter (03:07):
as an absolute quality.
And you know, for, for newcomers,
Ryan (03:11):
oh, yes.
Peter (03:11):
I think we have to say that we've pretty much landed as staunch
idealists, in other words, that matterarises from consciousness versus the
kind of status quo paradigm, which isthat consciousness arises from matter.
And so as such, we can talk aboutqualities of consciousness, but if
you're a materialist, that might not be.
Ryan (03:33):
Right.
So the assertion in the video wascreativity is a central human quality.
From an idealism paradigm, if thecreation of material experience emerges
from, or is somehow secondary to,consciousness itself; then creation, that
(03:55):
would be a component of consciousness,and if consciousness innervates
all things in the material form.
Peter (04:01):
Yeah.
Ryan (04:02):
Then it seems to me that creativity or creation is a
fundamental essence of all things.
And I was curious what you thought?
Peter (04:12):
Right.
And, I readily agree.
Because creativity is an inherentaspect of consciousness, and because
everything that exists, each thing thatyou could name arises as an element
of consciousness or as a consciousnessconstruct, then each thing inherently
carries an aspect of creativity to it.
(04:33):
And not meaning, not justthe mark of creativity
Ryan (04:36):
right,
Peter (04:36):
But what we're saying is that,
Ryan (04:38):
the capacity for creativity.
Peter (04:40):
Right.
The capacity for creativity.
But I don't know what that looks like.
Ryan (04:44):
Mm, mm-hmm.
Peter (04:45):
So I can pick up this rock and- this rock I'm holding here that
you can't see 'cause I'm on mic-And this rock has creativity in it.
Ryan (04:54):
Mm.
Mm-hmm.
Peter (04:55):
Now what does that mean?
Ryan (04:56):
Mean?
Yeah.
Peter (04:57):
I don't know what that means.
And I think the reason that that'sfair, to say both of those things,
Ryan (05:03):
mm-hmm
Peter (05:03):
is that the idealist model isn't complete yet.
So we can imagine how this rock arisesfrom consciousness, but we don't have
a complete picture of the mechanisms bywhich consciousness is expressed in this
rock, and therefore how we might see thecapacity for creativity in this rock.
Ryan (05:25):
Right.
Peter (05:25):
I'm trying to be precise about what I'm saying because this
rock is a, it's a manifestation ofconsciousness itself, but I'm not
saying this rock is a conscious being.
And so what's the differencebetween those two things?
I guess what I have to say is that, therock is not a being whose consciousness
I can access, or I can appreciate.
(05:46):
And just as we can't access theconsciousness of the rock, we can't
access the creativity of the rock.
Ryan (05:54):
Hmm.
Peter (05:54):
So I think this goes back to something, we've talked about before.
Depending on our level of-oh, this is getting complex-
as we manifest inphysical existence, right?
So we are now participating inthis physical material world.
(06:14):
We have relative levels ofcomplexity as consciousness.
Ryan (06:19):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (06:19):
So you and I are relatively the same level of conscious complexity.
We cannot directly accesseach other's consciousness.
But we can, to some measure,access each other's consciousness,
primarily by shared language.
Ryan (06:34):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (06:34):
But you can kind of see how I'm thinking.
You, I can kind of seehow you're thinking.
It's not perfect, but wehave some access there.
Our dog or cat, we have less access.
Like we can interact with them, say,"oh yeah, I can tell what they're…",
you know.
But there's much less access withan animal than with another person.
And then still less with a rock.
(06:55):
So it's a matter, I think of our abilityto access consciousness, of other
conscious beings, of different levels.
Ryan (07:06):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (07:06):
And it's not an absolute limitation, of humans, because
there are humans who have incredibleaccess to animal consciousness, and
presumably, to non-animal consciousness.
Which, you can kind of sense into storiesand myths about people with access
to non-human, not only non-human, butnon-animal, non animate, consciousness.
(07:29):
So, I went way down a rabbit hole,but just to say that's how I can
be comfortable saying the rockhas creativity, even though its
creativity is even less accessibleto me than its consciousness.
Ryan (07:43):
Yeah.
Peter (07:44):
Which is not at all accessible.
It's just that I intuit thatthere's creativity there.
But, this is all presumingan idealist perspective.
Ryan (07:53):
Of course.
Peter (07:54):
So poor sir.
Roger Penrose is totally like, yeah,you guys are cra uh, like, you know-
and we've seen him multiple timestalking to idealists- and he kind
of just like, yeah, I can't see it.
Ryan (08:07):
Yeah.
Peter (08:07):
Which is fine.
So if you, the listener, are astaunch materialist, this is nonsense.
It just does not fit into that paradigm.
So, I kind of question, and what wenoticed from watching this panel,
I don't know how you can have thisconversation with a materialist.
And I think Sir Roger kind of was lostin the, like, he was like, well, you need
(08:30):
creativity to come up with new theories.
Ryan (08:32):
Right.
Peter (08:32):
It's like, that wasn't the question.
Ryan (08:33):
Right.
Peter (08:34):
You know, it's not like "how does human creativity come up with
theories to understand physical reality?"
I think the question was moreabout " how does creativity
relate to the nature of reality.
" Ryan (08:46):
Yes.
Peter (08:46):
And McGilchrist seemed the most comfortable with it.
And then the novelist, she doesn't travelin these circles, or she's not conversant
in this way, and so she's talkingpurely from an artistic perspective.
Which was fine, and interesting,and I think more accessible,
to more people, than either thephysicist or the the philosopher.
Ryan (09:07):
Right.
Peter (09:08):
So, but I'm, I'm like, as we start to talk about this, I'm
really acutely aware of what Ibelieve is gonna sound like nonsense
depending on your personal framework,
Ryan (09:16):
right?
Peter (09:16):
Yeah.
Ryan (09:17):
Yeah.
So one thing I wanted to note was wewere referring to consciousness as
separate beings, where at the mostfoundational level we're talking about
creativity being the expression ofthe one consciousness through all of
the emanations of said consciousness.
(09:40):
But when we're talking about creativityin the material sense, so now coming out
of cosmic creation into, creative acts,innovation within the material existence.
Um,
I think it's undoubtable that artand innovation slash technology
(10:00):
are both using creativity.
I am kind of curious about adistinction between art and innovation.
Different endpoints,I guess is what it is.
Peter (10:11):
Yeah, I thought that's exactly what I was gonna say.
Ryan (10:13):
And it's probably a bit of semantics.
Esther Freud, she's a novelist so shewas talking about story, and her point
was stories in general aren't new.
Story archetypes, like the hero'sjourney or whatever archetype you
want to take, they're all the samestories told in a different way.
(10:34):
And that it's incumbent upon the authorslash artist slash whatever to find a
new and unique way of telling a story.
And for me, art all art is a story.
That's why we connectto it, as human beings.
Peter (10:51):
Okay.
So now I want to put some nuance on theterminology of creativity and innovation.
Ryan (10:57):
Mm-hmm.
Yes.
Peter (10:57):
Because I think, in Western culture, innovation implies technological.
But I think in an absolute, innovationis just another word for creativity.
Ryan (11:07):
Yeah.
Peter (11:07):
Because you can have an innovative novel.
Ryan (11:09):
Absolutely.
Peter (11:10):
Right?
You can innovate a way of storytelling.
A book I read a little while agohad the character find a book in
library and started to read the book.
And the book was tellingthe character's own story.
Ryan (11:23):
Hmm.
Peter (11:23):
And, and so, throughout the book, characters are finding books
that are telling their own stories,and then the characters in the
stories eventually come together.
And so for me, I was like, wow,this is a really exciting novel.
'cause you couldn't tell from pageto page whether you were in this
(11:43):
story or whether you were in themeta story of another character.
Ryan (11:46):
Oh, that's cool.
Peter (11:47):
So it was very cool.
And I was like, oh, this is quite great.
This is a very original,novel form for, for me it was.
So, you know we, we saycreativity versus innovation.
Now, to me that was an innovative novel,
Ryan (12:02):
right
Peter (12:02):
that was an innovation in the technology of novel storytelling.
Ryan (12:06):
Yeah.
Peter (12:07):
But I think the way you were using innovation was in the common
sense of technological innovation,which is the word we use for creativity
instead of creativity becausecreativity, air quotes means art.
Ryan (12:19):
Right.
Peter (12:20):
And innovation, air quotes means technology or STEM or some kind
of, you know, hard science thing.
Which is what Roger was talking about.
Well, we need innovation in our theorybecause the theory's not working.
So we need to innovate something new.
So in a sense I was thinking,well actually innovation is the
bigger umbrella for creativity.
(12:42):
But it really doesn't matter.
I mean, you could say either you-
Ryan (12:45):
they're all kind of synonymous-
Peter (12:46):
pick the one that you, that resonates with you more.
Ryan (12:49):
Yes.
Peter (12:49):
Right?
So, but they mean the samething, we just mean to apply
them in different areas of focus.
And so that's what you said and, asyou were introducing the subject, I
immediately intuited this distinctionbetween innovation, creativity; which
you said, was art is communication.
And, so I would say, yeah, artis creativity that's intended to
(13:12):
communicate to another person.
Innovation is creativity that's moreinteracting with non-human consciousness.
Ryan (13:21):
Hmm.
Peter (13:22):
So in the sense that a novel is a thing
Ryan (13:25):
mm-hmm.
Peter (13:26):
In our universe, which is therefore a expression of consciousness
or a conscious construct, right?
Ryan (13:32):
Yep.
Peter (13:33):
Any technology that we use is a physical manifestation of
consciousness in our universe, but wedon't talk to those manifestations.
Instead, we use our creativity in a moredirect way, which we call innovation, to
influence how we interact with that thing.
Does that make sense?
Ryan (13:53):
Yeah, I think that makes sense.
I had utility,
but that's kind of where I was like
technology slash innovation, so Ihad innovation, but you're absolutely
right as far as the term innovationis not exclusive to STEM, but instead
of telling story, or communicating,technology is used, has has usefulness.
Peter (14:19):
I was gonna say, you know, I was gonna say, and, and not that
we never talk to our technology.
Really.
Not that we don't yell at our cars.
Ryan (14:25):
Yeah.
Peter (14:25):
Um,
Ryan (14:26):
it doesn't work though.
Peter (14:27):
Well, I'm actually very intrigued by this kind of
insight or way of looking at it.
Right?
Communication or art orexpression is how we interact
with other human consciousness,
right?
Ryan (14:42):
Mm-hmm
Peter (14:42):
and everything else is how we interact with the non-human consciousness.
And, there's a way of interactingwith human consciousness that
is non-physical and nonverbal.
Ryan (14:55):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (14:56):
I mean, specifically in my experience, I'm talking about GAE.
But of course what we'retalking about are, what?
Wisdom practices or spiritualpractices or these nonconventional
practices, which put us in touch witheach other in nonconventional ways?
Ryan (15:13):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (15:13):
And art, art is kind of in the middle there.
Ryan (15:17):
So I just had a thought, I don't know how this will resonate with
you, but I was thinking art as beingsort of the higher self-consciousness
expression and technology beingthe ego's version of expression.
Peter (15:33):
Yes.
And so we could go to McGilchrist,and take left brain and right brain.
Ryan (15:39):
Right.
Peter (15:39):
And I would put language, like literal language in left brain.
Ryan (15:45):
Right.
Peter (15:45):
And technology.
Left brain.
Ryan (15:47):
Yeah.
Peter (15:48):
And poetry.
And this is where it gets,this is where you kind of slide
down the continuum, right.
You can use language imprecisely.
Ryan (15:57):
Yeah.
Peter (15:58):
For poetry where it's pure art and the poetry is communicating.
Not through language, literally.
Ryan (16:06):
Right.
Peter (16:06):
But through art.
Ryan (16:07):
Yep.
Peter (16:08):
And so you're in that right brain area, even though
you're using language to do it.
Ryan (16:12):
Yeah.
Peter (16:12):
But yes, I,
Ryan (16:13):
yeah.
Peter (16:14):
Yeah.
Ryan (16:14):
It's interesting.
Um, we've touched on this a littlebit before it came up again, sort of
indirectly, is, the relation of philosophyand intuition on scientific thesis.
Historically there was a much stronger,connection or, collaboration with,
(16:35):
philosophical thought practices andscientific pursuits; and in more
modern time, there's been a fractureor distancing of those two things.
And what Roger and Iain were saying wasthat, now getting towards creativity and
science, we're at an impasse, sort ofin the scientific discovery where the
(17:01):
theories aren't working the way that theyshould or or there's inconsistency or
contradiction that is yet to be explained.
So using creativity is necessary,injecting creativity is necessary to
move us to the next phase of that.
Peter (17:18):
Yeah.
So this idea of, you know, the,the model being incomplete or
internally self inconsistent or wrong.
Ryan (17:26):
Right?
Peter (17:26):
Right?
And, um, all models are wrong.
Ryan (17:30):
Yeah.
Right.
Peter (17:30):
Right?
So, a model is not wrong, to the extentwhich, we have not yet applied it, to
a situation where it no longer works.
Ryan (17:39):
Right.
Peter (17:39):
We haven't found the limits of our model, and that's, I think,
where we are with quantum physics.
Although, no, I guess that's not fair tosay because it happened at the beginning.
Right?
Pretty much the founders veryquickly bumped up against
the limits of their model.
We know it's not complete, but thepart that we have, it does work.
(18:00):
It, it, it's extremely effective increating atomic bombs and iPhones.
So we can keep on doing that.
And Penrose is just expressing wefound the limits of this model,
that's our cue to use creativity togo beyond and fix it, or make it more
complete, you know, not complete.
Mm-hmm.
No model is ever complete.
(18:20):
' Cause the map is not the territory.
Ryan (18:22):
Right.
Peter (18:22):
The model is just the model.
And, and so I think he hasbeen frustrated for some time.
Yeah.
I mean, I think it's pretty clear whenyou hear him talk, that no one has
gone back to say, Hey, let's make thismodel more complete, we can do it.
And I think the key is whatyou, you referenced, the split
(18:42):
of philosophy and science.
Ryan (18:45):
Yeah.
Peter (18:46):
And now you and I are very clearly seeing the, the rapprochement.
Right.
We keep on seeing, and hearing,philosophers reengaging and scientists,
reengaging with philosophers.
I mean, I first became aware of ita few decades ago, with the Dalai
Lama engaging with scientists, andscientists like, yeah, we need this
(19:07):
guy in our conference because he'sgiving us kind of breakthrough ideas,
because he's not coming from thisinherently materialistic world worldview.
Ryan (19:16):
Yeah.
Peter (19:16):
But I think, you know, until recently it's been a few of
these notable figures that havekind of crossed the aisle on that.
I think there was some popeswho were pretty pro-science.
Ryan (19:29):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (19:29):
But they're the standouts, because it's so unusual.
Ryan (19:33):
Yeah.
Peter (19:33):
But I think now we're seeing, more exchange between
philosophers and physicists.
Ryan (19:39):
Yeah.
As they were talking about the needfor creativity, Iain McGilchrist
was talking about how creativityas a function can't be an output
of a group, like a large group.
Peter (19:52):
Oh yeah.
Ryan (19:52):
He talked, he said specifically of a committee, right?
Peter (19:55):
Yes.
Ryan (19:55):
You you can't committee-ize, art or creativity.
But the point being that he was, he wassuggesting that, the days of Einstein and
Schrodinger and all of them, at the turnof the last century, we were sort of at
a pinnacle of scientific progress becausethere was this openness to creativity.
Peter (20:18):
He was specifically saying, now papers have hundreds of authors on them.
And therefore everyone is strugglingfor acceptability or, or compatibility.
You know, and so you're kind of,following the level of mediocrity.
Ryan (20:32):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (20:32):
Right?
In, in terms of a new paper,with a hundred people on it.
Which is a product of the technology,because the technology is so
resource intensive, that you haveto involve a hundred collaborators
in order to split the cost.
Ryan (20:46):
Right.
And as a function of institution,and conformism, because they have a
tendency for self-preservation once theyget to a certain size and influence.
And because funding for highlydetailed and complex studies, is
a necessary part of scientificpursuit, people are incentivized to
(21:10):
sort of toe a line of common wisdom,instead of pushing boundaries.
That being, the stifling of creativity,due to this overarching committee-
ization of science through institution.
But you made a comment off mic thatI thought was interesting, which was
(21:31):
you mentioned ideas being synthesized.
There is some level of groupactivity that benefits creativity.
When you can bounce ideas,
Peter (21:44):
Yes
Ryan (21:44):
and synthesize ideas, and come up with even new things that the, one
person couldn't think of in their own.
But I, and I think there's a,there's an element of scale here.
Peter (21:55):
Yes.
Yes.
Ryan (21:56):
Iain McGilchrist had mentioned maybe two or three.
I think it can probablygo to like 10 or 20.
Peter (22:03):
So this is an aspect of science that's gone back and forth over time
of isolation versus collaboration.
Ryan (22:11):
Right.
Peter (22:11):
Right?
And then people realize if we startedcollaborating or we changed the
structure of meetings or we changethe layout of the research building
so that people naturally run into eachother and you know, they sit down for
coffee, and you get more collaboration,and then you get more breakthrough.
Ryan (22:29):
Right?
Peter (22:29):
So, there is this tuning aspect to it, that you
don't just stick in one state.
You don't just stick in the laband become completely siloed,
and not get others' ideas.
But you also don't worksolely in committee and never
have independent thought.
Ryan (22:47):
Right.
Peter (22:48):
And, and so I think it sounds like the, the status quo
now is way too far the other way
Ryan (22:55):
Yeah.
Peter (22:55):
Of group think.
Ryan (22:56):
Yeah.
Peter (22:56):
I've heard this many times in physics.
Ryan (23:00):
Yeah.
Peter (23:00):
Particularly.
Ryan (23:00):
Yeah.
Peter (23:01):
I'm sure it's true throughout science.
Yeah.
Ryan (23:03):
As we were discussing off mic, we mentioned that institution is
not inherently bad and that thereis valid and legitimate reasons,
benefits, that are the impetus toinstitutionalization of something.
And, at least in the scientific realm,this idea of validation or the peer
(23:25):
review verification of findings, right?
A scrutinization of thescientific method or process.
And I, I am throwing out this questionof validation versus marketplace of ideas
and I think that, you know, is there more.
Democratic way for ideas to besussed out through community as
(23:51):
opposed to centralized institution.
And one comment that I got fromVinay Prasad, scientist, oncologist,
researcher, was the value of preprint.
That there should be, moreemphasis on trying to engage
with these pre-print forums.
Making it available, sort ofreally broad and having the whole
(24:13):
community really, invested in,assessing and, and discussing.
I guess this kind of comes to thatcommunal, uh, committee approach
Peter (24:22):
Yeah.
So, I was going a different directionwith institution in terms of,
scalability of material resources.
Ryan (24:29):
Sure.
Yeah.
Peter (24:30):
But obviously.
For science, peer reviewis a central function.
I mean, it is, it is institution.
It's kind of decentralized institution.
Right?
Because peer review doesn't happen in
Ryan (24:45):
Right
Peter (24:45):
you know, in a fixed committee.
Ryan (24:46):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (24:47):
But it does happen through publishers.
Ryan (24:51):
Right.
Peter (24:51):
Right?
It's not like the entirecommunity does a peer review.
A publisher selects a bunch ofreviewers, and it goes out that way.
And so I think part of theproblem is there's bias built
in and, and there's pressure.
And, and then that the grant process, andchoosing your research topic process, is
(25:14):
like "well, let me choose what everybodyelse is doing 'cause this is hot right
now, so I'm gonna get funding for it."
Ryan (25:18):
Right.
Peter (25:19):
And I'm gonna get published because people wanna publish this because
this is what people are interested inversus where the work needs to be done.
Ryan (25:26):
Right.
Peter (25:26):
Right?
I think that the idea that you're talkingabout of kind of break open the review
process and put the ideas out there.
Like here are some new ideasthat people are working on.
It's not peer reviewed.
Ryan (25:38):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (25:38):
It hasn't been granted the status of publication, but it's pre-print.
And therefore, morepeople can be inspired.
Ryan (25:47):
Mm-hmm.
Peter (25:47):
Or can catch the problem that this review committee they're
not gonna see that because they'reincentivized not to see the problem.
They wanna, they wanna publishit for whatever reason.
Science is messy.
Ryan (25:58):
Yeah.
Peter (25:58):
Um, as someone just told me.
Ryan (26:00):
I like the way you had called it technology.
Off mic, you had said institution, asa tool, is kind of like a technology.
And we don't see it as that, right?
Peter (26:12):
Yes.
Ryan (26:12):
We pedestalize it as the ultimate authoritative
Peter (26:15):
or we demonize it
Ryan (26:16):
or we demonize it should,
Peter (26:17):
like, there's no good reason, like "all institutions should be torn down!"
Ryan (26:21):
We perhaps give it too much, well, I guess authority, but whatever the
Peter (26:26):
Right.
Ryan (26:26):
The converse of it.
Peter (26:27):
Right.
So much value.
Value, we overvalue it.
Ryan (26:28):
Yes.
Peter (26:29):
We say it's inherently good.
So anything it does is good
Ryan (26:32):
or the converse,
Peter (26:32):
or it inherently bad.
Yeah.
Ryan (26:34):
And if we view it more like a technology, we can assess it
for its limitations and trying tofill in those gaps instead of just
putting all the eggs in that basket.
Peter (26:45):
This, this calls me back to this pendulum.
Like trying to fine tune, trying tofind balance and because you have
to have mastery of a tool, right?
You have to have peoplewho are masters of it.
And you can't have only masters.
A tool that is only useful toa master, with 10,000 hours of
(27:05):
experience, is not a very useful tool.
Ryan (27:07):
Right.
Peter (27:08):
Right?
So you wanna have some masters,you want to have wide application,
you wanna have discipline, butyou want to have innovation.
I guess that that's where I'm,trying to point is this, this balance
between discipline and innovation.
Ryan (27:21):
Mm-hmm
Peter (27:21):
you don't want everything becoming a nail because the
hammer's the most popular tool.
And yet you don't want peoplesaying, oh no, this is the
only way you can use a hammer.
So you need the discipline toactually read the manual, and then
you need the innovation to not say,"oh no, I can't do that because
the manual says I can't do that.
Oh, this tool is only designed forthis, so I can't do this other thing."
Ryan (27:43):
Right.
Peter (27:44):
These are traps that I, I guess they're intrinsic human traps
Ryan (27:48):
Yeah.
Peter (27:48):
That we can fall into.
And so, I guess it's let's try toengage with our institutions, in
ways that benefit from the upsides,
Ryan (27:58):
Right
Peter (27:58):
and mitigate the downsides.
Ryan (28:00):
Yeah.
Peter (28:01):
And don't just go along without understanding.
Ryan (28:04):
Yeah,
Peter (28:04):
yeah.
Ryan (28:04):
Yeah.
I agree.
Uh, so creativity, imagination can it helpus reframe our understanding of reality.
Nah.
Uh, I think it's obvious that, and evenRoger Penrose agreed, we've reached a
point where something needs to give.
(28:25):
We need to be reengaging thephilosophy and intuition to create
our thesis, and point the funding-I guess that's a whole other…
because that, that's a big barrier, right?
People can have all kinds of ideas,but if they don't get funded…
Peter (28:40):
well, this is- and now you're going to the whole capitalist
Ryan (28:44):
right
Peter (28:44):
model and
Ryan (28:45):
Yeah
Peter (28:45):
now you're talking about really large scale institutions, right?
Right.
Like yeah, it got us really far.
Ryan (28:51):
Yeah.
Peter (28:51):
You know, it, it created a lot of innovation and, and scale.
In a good way.
And in a bad way.
And now it's like preventingus from moving forward.
Ryan (29:00):
Yeah.
Peter (29:00):
Uh, yeah.
Ryan (29:02):
Okay.
Then
on that note, we will put the,uh, link to the full debate for
you, for your listening pleasure.
And love to hear whatyou guys think about it.
And I guess we'll see you guys next time.
Peter (29:17):
See you next time.
Ryan (29:17):
Bye
Peter (29:18):
bye.
Thank you for listening tothe Tracking Wisdom podcast.
Join us next time as wecontinue the discussion.
Don't forget to follow us onFacebook, Instagram, and YouTube,
and visit www.eth-studio.com
for more information and content
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.