Finding creative solutions in a group

There are times when we try find solution and thinking with a group is very helpful, and there are times when thinking on creative solution is better done alone. When is better to think alone, and when it is better to think with others ? To Answer that question, I'll suggest that we have to understand the mechanism of creativity of thinking alon and with a group. The understanding will help us develop methods to optimize creative thinking.

Creative thinking is based on human thinking. Although many years of research in reasoning, no final model for reasoning was devised. So to explain reason and creative thinking, We will use simplistic model that is based both neurobiology and philosophy of knowledge. This model lay in the domain of connectionism, and was developed on bio-epistemology, (Epistemology), and is called "mental-objects in a phenomenological cage".

According to this model, we use sensory input to get information from outside the brain into the brain. According to the neural mechanism of learning (LTP and STP), when ever two different inputs occur simultaneously, and this simultaneity repeat several times in a consecutive manner, somewhere along the neural networks the signals from this input will conjure and will create synaptic connection between two neurons.

Creation of sensory mental object

When several inputs arrive in close intervals, their signals run along the neural network and conjure somewhere along the neurons. The congruence is happening in a cluster of several neurons, and they become attached to each other by synaptic bonds. Without the the understanding that is coming from philosophical investigation, we assume that these inputs are inputs from real object. For example, an object we may call "apple" has specific smell, specific shape, specific feeling, specific taste and limited set of colors. All these inputs are reaching our brain in close temporal proximity, and we identify an apple. Yet due to our philosophical understanding that we have no direct connection with this "object", we can understand that what we perceive is not a real object but perceived object. To emphasis the understanding that this object is not real, I will call them mental objects. In the coming paragraphs I will show that there are object that we do not perceive from the senses, but from our imagination, and those I will call imaginary mental objects. The objects that are perceived from inputs from the senses will be called sensory mental object.

As sensory mental objects are aggregation of inputs from our senses, we can also use them to deduce and further inputs. For instance, if we smell an apple, the cluster of neurons that are connected to other sense will cause us to except to see an apple, to touch an apple, and if we see it, to eat it and get the taste of an apple. So mental objects are also a tool for predictions (or deduction in philosophy). We predict because the neuronal bond create induction. We believe that if a mental object has properties (or connection to specific inputs), then it will all ways occur. So if in the example given above, for some reason, all the apple we have seen until today were green, and we see today a red apple, we are baffled (or in a philosophical jargon, our induction were refuted).

The refutation of our inductions will cause us to two main logical reactions. One is to check if there was something wrong with our observation, and if we will think that our observation was reliable, we will suggest modification to our mental objects. If think our observation is reliable, we will follow and conjecture a new structure for our mental object. In the "red apple" we may say that apples can be both green and red. We may say that there are apple which are green and some new object that is red, and has all the other properties of apples. We may add some imaginary objects, which we have not observed by our senses, which can explain this divergent from prediction. For instance we may conjecture that someone has painted the green apple in red color. These unobserved objects that can "save" our misprediction are called imaginary mental objects (MOi).

We may use imaginary mental objects whenever our predictions fail, and this tendency was called by Popper auxiliary theories .Yet when we check the corroboration of these imaginary mental objects, if their proprtie can be checked directly by the senses, or they can influence sensory mental objects that we can check. For example, if we noticed that there is a hole in our apple we can conjecture that something ate it during the night, when we didn't observe the apple pile. By the size of the hole in my apple, I may conjecture that it was a small creature. I know that mice tend to go around in people houses, and thus I can estimate that the creature that made the hole was a mouse. So now I have explanation to the hole in the apple. I may leave it alone and have only ad-hoc imaginary mental objects that explain the hole, but if I want to consolidate my theory (or string of imaginary mental objects), I can further search for evidences. I may look for mouse droppings, which are indirect evidence (or sensory mental objects) that relate to mice, and are part of the properties of mice. I can also look for more direct evidences by setting mice traps, which will help find my alleged mouse.

But not all imaginary mental objects are observable, for instance God is an imaginary mental object that can explain many unexplained phenomena, and can let us avoid the need for critical thinking when our predictions fail. It can explain how life evolved, or why some people suffer and other thrive. Yet no one has ever been able to show it directly to other people. The same is true to the force of gravity. We have never seen the force of gravity. The difference between the imaginary mental object of God and that of force of gravity, is that the first is most unpredictable and therefore cannot be checked by other people or by ourselves (we can only believe God exists, but we cannot verify its existence), and the later can be checked by everyone, by checking its affect on sensory mental objects. We can all see if the stone which I'll drop in a minute will fall to the ground, according to the properties of the law of gravitation.

Networks of mental objects

Mental objects networks

Mental objects, whether sensory or imaginary are connected to each other by networks of inductive links (or neurons). Apple has its basic properties but it has also more connected properties. It is growing on trees and it has many properties of fruits so apples are considered as fruits. People eat apples, and so do monkeys and flies. Flies lay eggs, and have wings. Birds also have wings and so do airplanes (but they have constant wings and the flies have moving wings). All of the above has mass and therefore they are influenced by the force of gravity. Mental are connected to each other in many different links. And through these links we make deduction on the world that surround us, or even on our inner world. These networks of mental objects help us explain and predict and we rely on our networks to find our ways in the world. I will call these networks mental objects networks or MON. These MONs need to accurate enough to be able to help us make efficient decision on how to satisfy our needs and to be flexible enough to adjust to new unpredicted events.

Social Objects Network

Every one of us has different MON which makes different predictions about our surrounding. So if we want to work together with other people, we have to synchronize at least the domains in the network on which we want to work together. To be able to do that, we need to have references to other people's MON. Language was developed to help with this task. By pointing to specific object and calling their names, parents teach their babies to identify objects by their name. When babies grow and can response and call objects by their name, they also point objects and are getting non-linguistically conformation signs that they did all right. By this method people start to use language and discussion as a tool to create MONs that describes the surrounding in a similar fashion. When people can correspond in a fashion which helps them explain and predict events with a good proximity to each other, a social objects network is created (also abbreviated as SON).

Creativity and Social Object Networks

Non creative tendency or conservatism

Some of us have very solid networks that describe the ways to achieve our aims. We may have large experience in some domains and we have seen a lot and we are very sure that our network in that domain is well corroborated. In such instances, when …