View Single Post
Old 03-20-2011, 11:31 PM   #162
gmw
cacoethes scribendi
gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
gmw's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,818
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe View Post
Of course it carries it since the current state is the result of the creation, it is the creation. I am not talking about writing a book in the head.
A brain state is not the object created - or rarely. The process of creation changes both the result and the creator. Most complex and/or artistic creations are one-offs. If the same person attempted to do the same thing again they would most often produce something noticeably different. But that is not really why I object to the "state" theory here. My main objection was the inference that a person just puts their head on a photocopy glass and presses the button - very few acts of creation are like that. The creative process is usually an iterative feedback process, where the result affects the creator which affects the result. Even though Giggleton's inference may not have been intended this way, to me it did read as if there was no work or cost involved and that seemed very unfair.

Last edited by gmw; 03-20-2011 at 11:33 PM.
gmw is offline   Reply With Quote