System thinking

Introduction:

In a world where remarkable ideas seem to emerge independently in different minds and cultures, we are faced with the intriguing question of whether creativity is a mere coincidence or a product of systematic forces at play. To illustrate this conundrum, let me share a personal experience. Back in 2015, I stumbled upon an invitation poster for an event called Ideabazaar, where participants were invited to present their startup ideas in the realm of cosmetics and beauty products. I decided to participate and thought to combine my AI skills with the competition context, which was cosmetics and beauty; I conceived the idea of a “Beauty Mirror” app, utilizing computer vision technology to test cosmetics on users’ faces virtually. Surprisingly, I later discovered that a company in Canada and other locations was already working on the same idea independently. This recurring phenomenon of simultaneous idea generation raises the question: Is there a systematic process guiding creativity, or is it solely driven by individual minds?

 

The Recurring Phenomenon:

The example of the Beauty Mirror app is not an isolated incident; throughout history, numerous instances demonstrate the simultaneous emergence of identical or similar ideas in diverse geographical regions without any apparent interaction. This recurring phenomenon might appear coincidental, but it challenges us to consider the possibility of a systematic process underlying creativity.

Examining ancient myths and legends offers another intriguing perspective on this matter. For instance, the stories of the Simurgh in Eastern cultures and the Phoenix in Western cultures share astonishingly similar structures and functionalities. How could these distinct civilizations independently create such similar mythical creatures? This leads us to question whether these ideas were products of the collective societal consciousness rather than individual minds.

Society as the Arbiter of Creativity:

In this view, society and civilization play pivotal roles in shaping ideas and creative outputs. Individuals, in turn, act as conduits for these occurrences, translating societal influences into tangible creations. We can consider a computer as a society generating and processing information, and individuals become the outlets and ports for the forces and directions set forth.

If we entertain this hypothesis, it poses thought-provoking implications for our worldview. One significant consideration is that society, in its current state, influences individuals to create ideas and innovations according to their own needs and directions. Consequently, society determines the course of progress and invention, while individuals become the vessels through which these developments manifest.

By embracing this perspective, we might conclude that even if humanity were to start afresh numerous times, our collective progress would likely converge toward similar outcomes. Technological advancements, cultural nuances, knowledge dissemination, religious beliefs, and political structures would, to a large extent, remain consistent. Furthermore, this perspective invites us to reconsider the role of celebrated historical figures often deemed the initiators of significant ideas and inventions. Without these individuals, it is conceivable that other capable minds would have brought forth these innovations, and history would recognize them as the originators. Not even the brilliant ideas, even the horrible criminals, may be repeated. Names like Edison, Einstein, Khayam, Hitler, etc., wouldn’t appear, but some other names with the same idea may be introduced.

In pondering the interplay between systematic determinism and individual creativity, I unveil a complex relationship that challenges traditional notions of inspiration and innovation. While this hypothesis cannot be unequivocally proven, it prompts us to reassess the interconnected nature of society and individuality. Understanding this dynamic may pave the way for a fresh perspective on creativity, its origins, and its ultimate impact on the course of human history.

In the end, let’s consider an interesting scenario. Suppose in a society where humans are replaced by robots and AI, what happens to interplay between determinism and creativity? Let’s see what chatGPT answers:

In a society where humans are replaced by robots and AI, the interplay between determinism and creativity might undergo significant changes, leading to a redefined trade-off between these two aspects:

1. Increased Determinism: With AI and robots assuming key roles in decision-making and problem-solving, the deterministic nature of these systems could become more pronounced. AI algorithms are designed to follow specific rules and logical processes, which could lead to a society with a higher degree of predictability and efficiency.
2. Predictive Innovation: AI’s data-driven nature enables it to analyze vast amounts of information and patterns, making it proficient at predicting future trends and potential innovations. This predictive capability might lead to systematic innovation, as AI can anticipate societal needs and develop solutions proactively.
3. Loss of Serendipity: Human creativity often thrives on serendipity, the accidental discovery of unexpected ideas. In a society dominated by AI, the element of chance and spontaneous creativity may diminish, as AI operates within defined parameters and logical rules.
4. Reduced Individual Creativity: In a world where AI plays a central role in generating ideas and problem-solving, individual human creativity might take a backseat. With AI systems handling complex tasks, there could be less incentive for individuals to actively engage in creative pursuits