Does insomnia facilitate creativity?

>>7719660
Sometimes, but I haven't really found it to be so.

Sleep deprivation facilitates deep and blunt honesty, and introspection. Though sometimes I suppose it can provide the means for inspiration, but lack the ability to really do much with it.

Sleep deprivation seems to shorten the mind's general processing chain, and the width of that chain as well.

>>7719662
What evidence is there for you to assert that sleep deprivation simulates "deep and blunt honesty and introspection?" Is this just personal experience? What do you mean by the minds "general processing chain?"

>>7719685
>What evidence is there for you to assert that sleep deprivation simulates "deep and blunt honesty and introspection?"
It's an anecdote.

I'm sure I could dig up some literature on fMRI studies showing a shift in what brain regions are most active during certain tasks, and as a general baseline, then extrapolate that to memory and reasoning, etc. Or observational studies, changes in brain chemistry / hormone secretion. All that. But it's just an anecdote for now. As I type this, I've been awake for ~26 hours. Done this frequently throughout my life.

>What do you mean by the minds "general processing chain?"
Can't really describe it. Means a lot of things at once.

Imagine a stimulus. Then it ripples and branches out. Eventually the reactions to that initial action are such a departure that they can be said to no longer directly relate. The mind is full of feedback loops and multiple systems working on various tasks.

When I say processing chain it tries to describe the whole of any given instant. You see something. You interpret it. You think what you think about it. You do what you do about it. Between the source and any arbitrary point afterwards, there is a chain of processing and changes in the mind that have accumulated. Width refers to how many branches, and how much evaluation and split offs and spillover occurred. Thoughts you might have suppressed, or diverted. Length means actual time, or amount between points you might see as distinct or meaningful.

A bit metacognitive, but that's as best as I can put it.

>>7719660
Let the experiment decide.
If you can't sleep, get up and do something useful.

>>7719696
You don't really know what you're talking about do you?

>>7719713
I do. But if I don't have a means to know or suspect that I don't know, then I won't know that I don't know.

If you think you can make me know that I don't know, you can choose to do so.

File: 220px-Sabaoth_icon_(Russia,_19_c.)_2.jpg (22KB, 220x280px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 220x280px

>>7719717
I know God exists, but I don't have the means to know or suspect that I don't know, so I can't know that I don't know.

The burden off proof lies on you Atheist to refute my claim that God is real.

You are henceforth banished from /sci/.

>>7719735
That doesn't parallel what I said.

>>7719740
Haha. I'm sorry but it does. This above all is central to science: If you don't have a means to know, then you should always suspect that you don't know.

>>7719744
No. I'm sorry, but reality simply doesn't work that way. You don't have direct and unfettered access to objective and absolute truth. All supposed truths are reliant on another truth, this makes knowledge more of a framework. To claim you truly know something is an epistemologically undefensible position, it just isn't how logic functions.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you're saying. But the fact remains. Even if you adopt a position of inherent uncertainty and only weight every element of your framework of knowledge by probability and degree of confidence you're going to place in it being correct (more base aspects often being close to certain, barring measurement device errors etc, which is part of your intuitive calculation when controlling for potential error), you still cannot know what you don't know. You require a means, a trigger, a basis, to derive knowing that there is something you don't know. Etc. In science this should be obvious and I'm probably telling you what you already know.

You suggested I didn't know what I talking about. I told you as far as I know, I do, and don't have anything to allow to know that I don't. If you believed you could afford me this realization, you should provide information. Burden of proof is irrelevant, you've just made an unbacked claim yourself. If you're going to go all "dude prove it man" on what I explicitly tagged as an anecdote, then we have nothing to talk about because I'm not going to play along.

>>7719754
Please don't respond to shitposters who don't know what burden of proof is.

Actually, please don't respond to shitposters period, friend.

>>7719735
this is pure comedic gold.

no
but aliens do

youtube.com/watch?v=MvacG_nhD34

File: Professor-Farnsworth-futurama-3295264-1024-768.jpg (49KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1024x768px

>>7719754
>you still cannot know what you don't know. You require a means, a trigger, a basis, to derive knowing that there is something you don't know. Etc. In science this should be obvious and I'm probably telling you what you already know.

Actually you can know what you don't know. It's that you can't know unkown uknowns, although, because of this you know that there is a degree of uncertainty to everything. For example, you may observe that a particle travels from point a to point b. You know that the particle traveled from point a to point b, but you may not know how and you may lack the ability to have predicted the particle's travel.

Now I'll admit to some uncertainty myself. Maybe you really do know what you are talking about. There seems to be some truth in your argument about whether or not insomnia facilitates creativity. A response to a stimulus "rippling and branching out" sounds like synaptic activity, for example.

But you should be able to understand how ill defined and vague it was as far as the "general processing chain" is concerned, not to mention the "anecdote." Anyone in this thread should note that you didn't define or provide any evidence for a "general" processing chain, but instead referenced behavior as a function of some stimuli, as if that relationship wasn't obvious.

It seems that you are trying to state that creativity is a function of processing time, and you provided no evidence for it at all.

And I'll say as a rational human being, that if you cannot provide any objective evidence for claims about the mind that isn't pure introspection, then I'll say you have no idea what you're talking about.

Good day, sir!

>>7719660
I think so, historically some of my most creative ideas have come from being too tired to think straight. Like my designs to build a turbine engine out of jet fuel that runs on molten metal.

>>7719754
stop

>>7719660
It facilitates I can't fucking pay attention to lecture because I'm tired.

>>7719660
Ruminate upon Dali, the Spoon, and the Platter.

>>7719696
>Is able to write with eloquence and poetic insight
>>7719713
>STEM faggots cant into basic conversation and intuitive knowledge
Empiricists really are good for nothing

>>7719660
Is has in my life, but I think its more just the fact that bearing great burdens and acting as a child stirs the creative will into dancing joy.
In less hippy dippy Nietzsche talk, being tired from hard work is uplifting and leads to insights not seen before.

>>7720806
Stop replying to you own posts...

>>7719660
I'm not insomniac but my body lacks the capability to produce melatonin so I can stay awake for as long as I don't take my medication. That being said I can see no benefits other than experiencing hallucinations and general fear.