| December 21st, 2005 01:03 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
C'mon, you can't invent electricity and stuff like that without being real smart. Cerebralism its called.
He was totally brilliant, no doubt about it. But like most highly creative people, he learned a lot from what others had done before him. |
| December 21st, 2005 01:04 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
the good wrote:
That's interesting about Edison. But I've done several case studies on him (his invention of the phonograph, the electric light, and the motion picture), and there is just no evidence that cocaine use influenced his creation of these devices. In fact, they were largely based on earlier technologies. Here is a great website on him:
http://edison.rutgers.edu/
i tend to agree with you the good
i don't belive that there is a real connection between creativitry and drug use i.e. that drug use actually "inspires" or contributes to the creative process
in my view 'tho (but you're the one with the psych degree)those people who are of the creative/inventive type also seem to be, quite often, the type prone to substance use/abuse
tho the reverse is not true - just because you get into the drink and the dope doesn't mean you are (or will become) the creative type
maybe it's some kind left hand/right hand side of the brain thing - they should have attached some electrical/neurological impulse readers to keith's cranium when he was recording exile - the results may have been interesting |
| December 21st, 2005 01:12 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
maybe it's some kind left hand/right hand side of the brain thing - they should have attached some electrical/neurological impulse readers to keith's cranium when he was recording exile - the results may have been interesting
Dude, now THAT would have been a study!!!  |
| December 21st, 2005 01:24 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
Drugs can help in the short term, in the long term drugs make things harder. Keith survived by true grit, and alot of luck.
The Stones were luck enough to be established and have money, plus alot of luck. Tougher people tried and failed to be like The Stones and none of them had the amount of talent, and alot of luck...
When you tap that well hard, you gotta know when all your pumping out is mud. Drugs or not, The Stones aren't young anymore... The best years are the hungry years or at least when their alot of turmoil and uncertaintity.
The Stones haven't had either of those for a long time. If they had drug busts, addiction or just some real chaos, the music would be much better, maybe? At their age, it might kill them.
So there's the rub, we get them still hitting the road, but thecreativity is pretty much dead. As opposed to them being just dead! |
| December 21st, 2005 04:15 AM |
|
|
| Voodoo Scrounge |
Well said pdog. I agree and that pretty much proves my point that the music isnt as good as when they were users |
| December 21st, 2005 04:42 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Voodoo Scrounge wrote:
Well said pdog. I agree and that pretty much proves my point that the music isnt as good as when they were users
ahh but only to a point VS - it wasn't the drugs per se that "ïmproved" the creative output - rather it was the chaotic and "edgy" environment that the drugs and the use of them created |
| December 21st, 2005 05:35 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
ahh but only to a point VS - it wasn't the drugs per se that "ïmproved" the creative output - rather it was the chaotic and "edgy" environment that the drugs and the use of them created
Good point here!!
try to play music while you re dead drunk or stoned...that sucks.
Sadly this drug abuse, 25 years later, has caused much damages in the $tone$. See the guitarists for example. |
| December 21st, 2005 06:54 AM |
|
|
| justforyou |
To Mr.Good:
First what is your definition of creativity ?
I hate to be pushing drugs on anyone, but have you tried using drugs ? Then you tell us how it affected your thinking...In my view drugs can enhance your senses and physical abilities. Duh...
Mathematicians used acid as an aid to visualising complex problems in their field.
Cannabis can allow you to 'feel' art in a more powerful way.
Speed will help you 'work' real hard all through the night with some task at hand - remember the pilots in WWII ?
Opium helped make the wonderful Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.
It seems drugs can help the mind focus on a subject matter, even though creativity might be unchanged.
|
| December 21st, 2005 08:03 AM |
|
|
| Voodoo Scrounge |
same thing the lack of drugs had affected the music |
| December 21st, 2005 11:31 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
To Mr.Good:
First what is your definition of creativity ?
I hate to be pushing drugs on anyone, but have you tried using drugs ? Then you tell us how it affected your thinking...In my view drugs can enhance your senses and physical abilities. Duh...
Mathematicians used acid as an aid to visualising complex problems in their field.
Cannabis can allow you to 'feel' art in a more powerful way.
Speed will help you 'work' real hard all through the night with some task at hand - remember the pilots in WWII ?
Opium helped make the wonderful Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.
It seems drugs can help the mind focus on a subject matter, even though creativity might be unchanged.
A simple definition of creativity is the production of goal directed novelty. There is simply no documented connection between creative output and drug use. There may be a weak correlation between the tendency to be creative and the tendency to use drugs, but correlations do not imply causality, and most creative geniuses did not use drugs at all.
Citing anecdotal evidence in support of the idea that drugs enhance creativity (i.e., that I used drugs and I was more creative) can provide some intersting discussion points, but it simply doesn't establish anything, because the person was not conducting a well controlled experiment at the time (i.e., we don't know what might have happened if they weren't using drugs. Maybe they still would have produced the creative response, without the use of drugs). Also, anecdotal reports are unreliable, for the simple reason that a person is usually unable to accurately recall what was happening in their mind when they had that moment of "inspiration." Therefore, any conclusion that a drug induced mental state was directly tied to their production of a new idea (or enhanced performance) is unwarranted.
Look, if you want to use drugs, then use them. I am not here to preach to anybody. But don't fool yourself into thinking that drugs are going to turn you into a songwriter like Keith Richards, because they won't. They won't even turn you into a songwriter like burt backarack. |
| December 21st, 2005 01:35 PM |
|
|
| justforyou |
You are not responding to my post, besides the short phrase "A simple definition of creativity is the production of goal directed novelty." The rest is preaching! Therefore it is rather senseless to quote my whole post. Anyway...
The point you are refusing to address is whether or not drugs can be used as tools to enhance the production of the novelty. Would a master of their field, with the help of drugs, reach even further in their domain ?
There's no doubt that abuse of drugs can easily degrade the process.
|
| December 21st, 2005 02:55 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
You are not responding to my post, besides the short phrase "A simple definition of creativity is the production of goal directed novelty." The rest is preaching! Therefore it is rather senseless to quote my whole post. Anyway...
The point you are refusing to address is whether or not drugs can be used as tools to enhance the production of the novelty. Would a master of their field, with the help of drugs, reach even further in their domain ?
There's no doubt that abuse of drugs can easily degrade the process.
You asked me about whether I have used drugs, and whether or not it had effected my thinking. In response to that, I talked about the danger of using anecdotes to prove a point. They are not good sources of data. And yes, I have used drugs.
In response to your question can an expert in their field become more creative if they use drugs, I think this is very unlikely. Would Newton have written a better principia mathematcia, and Michelangelo painted a better sistine chapel, if they had been stoned? Considering the caliber of these works, the idea strikes me as silly. (Please don't give me Einstein's quote about pipe smoking here.)
I'm not saying this is true in your case, but much of what motivates people to defend the idea that drugs enhance creativity is not any evidence that they actually do, but a desire rationalize and justify a habit that wastes a lot of their time and money. Keep telling yourself that doing drugs enhances your mental ability, instead of inhibiting it. I'm not going to wait for you to paint the sistine chapel. |
| December 21st, 2005 03:28 PM |
|
|
| justforyou |
quote:
the good wrote:
Would Newton have written a better principia mathematcia, and Michelangelo painted a better sistine chapel, if they had been stoned? Considering the caliber of these works, the idea strikes me as silly.
If Newton was on speed he might have finished before, and could have devoted more time to further research.
If Michelangelo had taken a tranquilizer, that morning when he was having a hangover, his brushing might have been smoother.
Being stoned would obviously not be a good option in these cases, don't know why bring that up... |
| December 21st, 2005 05:17 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
If Newton was on speed he might have finished before, and could have devoted more time to further research.
If Michelangelo had taken a tranquilizer, that morning when he was having a hangover, his brushing might have been smoother.
Being stoned would obviously not be a good option in these cases, don't know why bring that up...
Seems like you have some explaining to do in response to the Newton and Michelangelo examples, not me.
And you might have been kidding, but Newton might have devoted more time to research? Dude, the guy lived physics. It was his all consuming passion. He worked on his research for 16-20 hours a day. But if he were high, he may have worked 20 hours a day, right? And revolutionized physics twice in his lifetime, instead of just once! 
It sounds like you just want to believe the idea that drugs lead to greater creativity. You know what? Your right! Go light up a fatty and write the novel of the century. In fact, light up two and write the 2 greatest novels of the century. |
| December 21st, 2005 05:41 PM |
|
|
| justforyou |
You go ahead and believe that the human mind is fully optimised at every point in life and that no drugs will ever be of any assistance to it's functioning.
|
| December 21st, 2005 05:51 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
You go ahead and believe that the human mind is fully optimised at every point in life and that no drugs will ever be of any assistance to it's functioning.
Who said that? I didn't. The question is whether drugs enhance creativity. |
| December 21st, 2005 06:18 PM |
|
|
| justforyou |
Creativity is part of the mind's functions. So I gather you said it.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Newton.html
Isaac Newton was born in the manor house of Woolsthorpe, near Grantham in Lincolnshire. Although by the calendar in use at the time of his birth he was born on Christmas Day 1642, we give the date of 4 January 1643 in this biography which is the "corrected" Gregorian calendar date bringing it into line with our present calendar. (The Gregorian calendar was not adopted in England until 1752.) Isaac Newton came from a family of farmers but never knew his father, also named Isaac Newton, who died in October 1642, three months before his son was born. Although Isaac's father owned property and animals which made him quite a wealthy man, he was completely uneducated and could not sign his own name.
Newton's aim at Cambridge was a law degree. Instruction at Cambridge was dominated by the philosophy of Aristotle but some freedom of study was allowed in the third year of the course. Newton studied the philosophy of Descartes, Gassendi, Hobbes, and in particular Boyle. The mechanics of the Copernican astronomy of Galileo attracted him and he also studied Kepler's Optics. He recorded his thoughts in a book which he entitled Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae (Certain Philosophical Questions). It is a fascinating account of how Newton's ideas were already forming around 1664. He headed the text with a Latin statement meaning "Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth" showing himself a free thinker from an early stage.
After suffering a second nervous breakdown in 1693, Newton retired from research. The reasons for this breakdown have been discussed by his biographers and many theories have been proposed: chemical poisoning as a result of his alchemy experiments; frustration with his researches; the ending of a personal friendship with Fatio de Duillier, a Swiss-born mathematician resident in London; and problems resulting from his religious beliefs. Newton himself blamed lack of sleep but this was almost certainly a symptom of the illness rather than the cause of it. There seems little reason to suppose that the illness was anything other than depression, a mental illness he must have suffered from throughout most of his life, perhaps made worse by some of the events we have just listed. |
| December 21st, 2005 07:14 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
Creativity is part of the mind's functions. So I gather you said it.
The brain has many functions, and drugs have a variety of effects in the brain, so no, it doesn't mean that I said that. Not sure what the passage about Newton was supposed to establish. You seem like a nice guy, justforyou. We are just not going to see eye to eye on the issue of drugs and creativity. |
| December 21st, 2005 07:35 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
"Creativity" being undefined, in any case, its clear from the significant amount of anecdotal evidence from "creative" and "non-creative" people that mood and mind-altering substances are powerful forces in the "creative" process.
Its almost axiomatic of definitional that that is so.
And that is any intellectual pursuit - music, leadership, carpentry, rollerball, conglomeration.
If you don't believe that, its a religious issue you have. |
| December 21st, 2005 09:29 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
"Creativity" being undefined, in any case, its clear from the significant amount of anecdotal evidence from "creative" and "non-creative" people that mood and mind-altering substances are powerful forces in the "creative" process.
Its almost axiomatic of definitional that that is so.
And that is any intellectual pursuit - music, leadership, carpentry, rollerball, conglomeration.
If you don't believe that, its a religious issue you have.
Sirmoonie, your a smart guy, but I have to disagree here. Creativity is a term that is a bit more nebulous than scientists are usually comfortable with, but as I said above, a working definition is that it involves the production of goal directed novelty. This may not be a perfectly operational definition, but its good enough to get the ball rolling, and at least start talking about the subject.
I disagree that anecdotal evidence can be used to establish that drugs play an impotant role in the creative process. Anecdotal evidence simply cannot be used to establish anything from a scientific standpoint. It is too inaccurate.
Additionally, you can't cite axioms and then treat this as a logical question, which you seem to do. From a scientific standpoint, this kind of approach is not helpful. What matters is the empirical question - namely, what actually happens when people engage in creative work? Or in the context of this thread, do psychoactive substances aid in creative thinking? There is no evidence that they do.
Finally, are you telling me that if I don't believe in an unsubstantiated myth (that drugs aid in creative thinking), that I have a religious issue? The irony here is simply too rich.
[Edited by the good] |
| December 21st, 2005 09:54 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
ONE'S GOTTA BE FUCKED UP TO COME UP WITH A MASTERPIECE LIKE DANCIN WITH MR D...HEROIN CREATIVITY AT ITS FINEST |
| December 21st, 2005 11:40 PM |
|
|
| sammy davis jr. |
Doc Ellis pitched a no-hitter (in the World Series, I believe) in the 70's while tripping on acid.....now THAT would be interesting! |
| December 22nd, 2005 12:23 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
It was not in the World Series.
Ellis said he was never more zoned on the strike zone than when he pitched that no-hitter on acid.
John Candelaria of the Pirates pitched a complete game while high on heroin.
Cheers to both men. |
| December 22nd, 2005 07:45 AM |
|
|
| Voodoo Scrounge |
You guys are taking this far too far. I am merely talking about musicians creating music and not the guys who founded very basic laws of physics.
Dont go too deep.
Did the stones write better music when they were on the junk?
YES or No |
| December 22nd, 2005 07:56 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
As we are in the drug thread,if someone could send me a good quantity of marijuana for Xmas that would be nice, thanks in advance. |
| December 22nd, 2005 08:03 AM |
|
|
| Voodoo Scrounge |
on its way ju
|
| December 22nd, 2005 10:03 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Voodoo Scrounge wrote:
You guys are taking this far too far. I am merely talking about musicians creating music and not the guys who founded very basic laws of physics.
Dont go too deep.
Did the stones write better music when they were on the junk?
YES or No
They wrote their best music during the period of time they were on drugs, but I think this was a coincidence. |
| December 22nd, 2005 10:16 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
I think it was a coincidence too. I don't think you'll find many people writing great songs under the influence of heroin for instance. Most possibly they'll be too stoned to think, so much for writing.
So I don't think we have to merit drug use for their late sixties - 70's songs. Their specific personalities, talents and circumstances provided the blend that helped them produce their great work --> and the very same traits may have prompted them to use drugs. E.g. insecurities + sensitivity = Coming Down Again but also = drugs (not always, of course, but under the specific circumstances..).
That's a very simplistic way to see it of course, but the point I was trying to make is that being on smack (dozing off, having cravings, being stoned out of your mind) can't be all that helpful for creativity pursuits.
[Edited by FotiniD] |
| December 22nd, 2005 10:34 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Voodoo Scrounge wrote:
You guys are taking this far too far. I am merely talking about musicians creating music and not the guys who founded very basic laws of physics.
Dont go too deep.
Did the stones write better music when they were on the junk?
YES or No
I dont think Mick Jagger ever was 'on the junk' in the sense that he ever had an addiction problem
Keith's heroin addiction was at its worst AFTER Exile and up until around 1977 when he got busted in Toronto, so if youre looking for a straight yes or no answer, I'd say NO - only in the sense that the link isnt proven.
I dont think theres a definite link between the Stones being 'on' something when they produced their best work. Most major artists only have a short time when their fire burns at its brightest and theyre at their most inspired. In Mick and Keith's case, that was from 1968-71. The time they were living and working in plus the fact that they actually worked together more as a unit (something they havent really done in decades as they dont spend much time together when not on tour) has a lot to do with that.
The period since that where theyve been most inspired was 1977 when they made Some Girls. Primarily a collection of Jagger songs, but with some great musical input by Keith too. This was just after he'd finally gone for treatment to curb his heroin addiction (he still used hard drugs after that, but never again to the same extent)
You could also ask why Keith's creativity in the last decade has ground almost to a halt. Most people simply run short on inspiratiion after a while. In his case, his lifestyle may also have caught up with him and affected his creative side.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| December 25th, 2005 05:36 AM |
|
|
| no night together |
to be precise we should make clear which drugs we're talking about, anyway: in sport and music (the 2 worlds are often closer than we think) no doubt chemicals help performance and creativity in short terms, no chance to deny that, on the other hand you pay it through the years.
plus: one of my former team mates once asked "will we ever know how we would have played without that stuff?" good question also for the stones, but no answer. |
