Artwork for podcast Tracking Wisdom
Between Conformity and Creativity: Does Science Need More Imagination?
Episode 44 • 1st October 2026 • Tracking Wisdom • Ears That Hear Media Corporation
00:00:00 00:29:39

Share Episode

Transcripts

Peter:

You're listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast, exploring the universal

2

:

truths that we see woven through culture,

consciousness, and the human experience.

3

:

Ryan: Good morning everybody, and

welcome back to another episode

4

:

of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.

5

:

I'm Ryan,

6

:

Peter: I'm Peter.

7

:

Ryan: And today we are talking about

an interview by the Institute of Art

8

:

and Ideas discussing the concept of

imagination, and creativity, and whether

9

:

creativity/imagination can help us

reframe our understanding of reality.

10

:

The panel was with Roger Penrose,

the physicist and Nobel Laureate,

11

:

Iain McGilchrist, Oxford Scholar

and author of, Master and His

12

:

Emissary, and also the Divided Brain.

13

:

And with them was Esther Freud,

she's an award-winning writer and

14

:

novelist and representative from the

more artistic and creative realm.

15

:

Okay so the question being,

the idea of human creativity.

16

:

So I think we think of art, although

there's also the idea of innovation,

17

:

I think there's a nuance there

that we might want to touch on.

18

:

But thinking of the human

creativity versus cosmic

19

:

creation and material expression.

20

:

Right?

21

:

So there's human creativity within the

material experience, and then there's this

22

:

concept of creativity, imagination being a

direct influencer on material experience.

23

:

Peter: Yes.

24

:

And so , just to clarify, we're

riffing on the question that was

25

:

presented to the panel more than

reporting on what the panel said.

26

:

Ryan: Yes.

27

:

Peter: Because, you were just

defining human creativity as art.

28

:

But in fact, Penrose was

describing scientific creativity.

29

:

He went…

30

:

Ryan: yes

31

:

Peter: at length to describe the

nature of creativity in science or the

32

:

nature of science as requiring some

creativity, particularly at this point.

33

:

Ryan: Yes.

34

:

Which I do want to talk about.

35

:

but before we get to creativity

in science, I wanted to discuss a

36

:

little bit about what creativity

means in general, what we mean by

37

:

creativity, how we think of creativity.

38

:

And one element of that is this

idea that we see imagination

39

:

and creativity as central human

qualities, vital to technology and

40

:

innovation as well as the arts.

41

:

I don't dispute that, but I wonder

how much creativity is a human central

42

:

human quality versus creativity being

a component of consciousness itself.

43

:

Peter: So, I want to kind of

reorient 'cause you just went on a

44

:

direction I didn't expect you to go.

45

:

Human creativity versus

conscious creativity.

46

:

Is that right?

47

:

Creativity.

48

:

Creativity as a, as a

49

:

Ryan: quality of consciousness.

50

:

Peter: As a human quality versus,

51

:

Ryan: yes,

52

:

Peter: as an absolute quality.

53

:

And you know, for, for newcomers,

54

:

Ryan: oh, yes.

55

:

Peter: I think we have to say that

we've pretty much landed as staunch

56

:

idealists, in other words, that matter

arises from consciousness versus the

57

:

kind of status quo paradigm, which is

that consciousness arises from matter.

58

:

And so as such, we can talk about

qualities of consciousness, but if

59

:

you're a materialist, that might not be.

60

:

Ryan: Right.

61

:

So the assertion in the video was

creativity is a central human quality.

62

:

From an idealism paradigm, if the

creation of material experience emerges

63

:

from, or is somehow secondary to,

consciousness itself; then creation, that

64

:

would be a component of consciousness,

and if consciousness innervates

65

:

all things in the material form.

66

:

Peter: Yeah.

67

:

Ryan: Then it seems to me that

creativity or creation is a

68

:

fundamental essence of all things.

69

:

And I was curious what you thought?

70

:

Peter: Right.

71

:

And, I readily agree.

72

:

Because creativity is an inherent

aspect of consciousness, and because

73

:

everything that exists, each thing that

you could name arises as an element

74

:

of consciousness or as a consciousness

construct, then each thing inherently

75

:

carries an aspect of creativity to it.

76

:

And not meaning, not just

the mark of creativity

77

:

Ryan: right,

78

:

Peter: But what we're saying is that,

79

:

Ryan: the capacity for creativity.

80

:

Peter: Right.

81

:

The capacity for creativity.

82

:

But I don't know what that looks like.

83

:

Ryan: Mm, mm-hmm.

84

:

Peter: So I can pick up this rock

and- this rock I'm holding here that

85

:

you can't see 'cause I'm on mic-

And this rock has creativity in it.

86

:

Ryan: Mm.

87

:

Mm-hmm.

88

:

Peter: Now what does that mean?

89

:

Ryan: Mean?

90

:

Yeah.

91

:

Peter: I don't know what that means.

92

:

And I think the reason that that's

fair, to say both of those things,

93

:

Ryan: mm-hmm

94

:

Peter: is that the idealist

model isn't complete yet.

95

:

So we can imagine how this rock arises

from consciousness, but we don't have

96

:

a complete picture of the mechanisms by

which consciousness is expressed in this

97

:

rock, and therefore how we might see the

capacity for creativity in this rock.

98

:

Ryan: Right.

99

:

Peter: I'm trying to be precise

about what I'm saying because this

100

:

rock is a, it's a manifestation of

consciousness itself, but I'm not

101

:

saying this rock is a conscious being.

102

:

And so what's the difference

between those two things?

103

:

I guess what I have to say is that, the

rock is not a being whose consciousness

104

:

I can access, or I can appreciate.

105

:

And just as we can't access the

consciousness of the rock, we can't

106

:

access the creativity of the rock.

107

:

Ryan: Hmm.

108

:

Peter: So I think this goes back to

something, we've talked about before.

109

:

Depending on our level of-

oh, this is getting complex-

110

:

as we manifest in

physical existence, right?

111

:

So we are now participating in

this physical material world.

112

:

We have relative levels of

complexity as consciousness.

113

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

114

:

Peter: So you and I are relatively the

same level of conscious complexity.

115

:

We cannot directly access

each other's consciousness.

116

:

But we can, to some measure,

access each other's consciousness,

117

:

primarily by shared language.

118

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

119

:

Peter: But you can kind

of see how I'm thinking.

120

:

You, I can kind of see

how you're thinking.

121

:

It's not perfect, but we

have some access there.

122

:

Our dog or cat, we have less access.

123

:

Like we can interact with them, say,

"oh yeah, I can tell what they're…",

124

:

you know.

125

:

But there's much less access with

an animal than with another person.

126

:

And then still less with a rock.

127

:

So it's a matter, I think of our ability

to access consciousness, of other

128

:

conscious beings, of different levels.

129

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

130

:

Peter: And it's not an absolute

limitation, of humans, because

131

:

there are humans who have incredible

access to animal consciousness, and

132

:

presumably, to non-animal consciousness.

133

:

Which, you can kind of sense into stories

and myths about people with access

134

:

to non-human, not only non-human, but

non-animal, non animate, consciousness.

135

:

So, I went way down a rabbit hole,

but just to say that's how I can

136

:

be comfortable saying the rock

has creativity, even though its

137

:

creativity is even less accessible

to me than its consciousness.

138

:

Ryan: Yeah.

139

:

Peter: Which is not at all accessible.

140

:

It's just that I intuit that

there's creativity there.

141

:

But, this is all presuming

an idealist perspective.

142

:

Ryan: Of course.

143

:

Peter: So poor sir.

144

:

Roger Penrose is totally like, yeah,

you guys are cra uh, like, you know-

145

:

and we've seen him multiple times

talking to idealists- and he kind

146

:

of just like, yeah, I can't see it.

147

:

Ryan: Yeah.

148

:

Peter: Which is fine.

149

:

So if you, the listener, are a

staunch materialist, this is nonsense.

150

:

It just does not fit into that paradigm.

151

:

So, I kind of question, and what we

noticed from watching this panel,

152

:

I don't know how you can have this

conversation with a materialist.

153

:

And I think Sir Roger kind of was lost

in the, like, he was like, well, you need

154

:

creativity to come up with new theories.

155

:

Ryan: Right.

156

:

Peter: It's like, that

wasn't the question.

157

:

Ryan: Right.

158

:

Peter: You know, it's not like "how

does human creativity come up with

159

:

theories to understand physical reality?"

160

:

I think the question was more

about " how does creativity

161

:

relate to the nature of reality.

162

:

" Ryan: Yes.

163

:

Peter: And McGilchrist seemed

the most comfortable with it.

164

:

And then the novelist, she doesn't travel

in these circles, or she's not conversant

165

:

in this way, and so she's talking

purely from an artistic perspective.

166

:

Which was fine, and interesting,

and I think more accessible,

167

:

to more people, than either the

physicist or the the philosopher.

168

:

Ryan: Right.

169

:

Peter: So, but I'm, I'm like, as

we start to talk about this, I'm

170

:

really acutely aware of what I

believe is gonna sound like nonsense

171

:

depending on your personal framework,

172

:

Ryan: right?

173

:

Peter: Yeah.

174

:

Ryan: Yeah.

175

:

So one thing I wanted to note was we

were referring to consciousness as

176

:

separate beings, where at the most

foundational level we're talking about

177

:

creativity being the expression of

the one consciousness through all of

178

:

the emanations of said consciousness.

179

:

But when we're talking about creativity

in the material sense, so now coming out

180

:

of cosmic creation into, creative acts,

innovation within the material existence.

181

:

Um,

182

:

I think it's undoubtable that art

and innovation slash technology

183

:

are both using creativity.

184

:

I am kind of curious about a

distinction between art and innovation.

185

:

Different endpoints,

I guess is what it is.

186

:

Peter: Yeah, I thought that's

exactly what I was gonna say.

187

:

Ryan: And it's probably

a bit of semantics.

188

:

Esther Freud, she's a novelist so she

was talking about story, and her point

189

:

was stories in general aren't new.

190

:

Story archetypes, like the hero's

journey or whatever archetype you

191

:

want to take, they're all the same

stories told in a different way.

192

:

And that it's incumbent upon the author

slash artist slash whatever to find a

193

:

new and unique way of telling a story.

194

:

And for me, art all art is a story.

195

:

That's why we connect

to it, as human beings.

196

:

Peter: Okay.

197

:

So now I want to put some nuance on the

terminology of creativity and innovation.

198

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

199

:

Yes.

200

:

Peter: Because I think, in Western

culture, innovation implies technological.

201

:

But I think in an absolute, innovation

is just another word for creativity.

202

:

Ryan: Yeah.

203

:

Peter: Because you can

have an innovative novel.

204

:

Ryan: Absolutely.

205

:

Peter: Right?

206

:

You can innovate a way of storytelling.

207

:

A book I read a little while ago

had the character find a book in

208

:

library and started to read the book.

209

:

And the book was telling

the character's own story.

210

:

Ryan: Hmm.

211

:

Peter: And, and so, throughout the

book, characters are finding books

212

:

that are telling their own stories,

and then the characters in the

213

:

stories eventually come together.

214

:

And so for me, I was like, wow,

this is a really exciting novel.

215

:

'cause you couldn't tell from page

to page whether you were in this

216

:

story or whether you were in the

meta story of another character.

217

:

Ryan: Oh, that's cool.

218

:

Peter: So it was very cool.

219

:

And I was like, oh, this is quite great.

220

:

This is a very original,

novel form for, for me it was.

221

:

So, you know we, we say

creativity versus innovation.

222

:

Now, to me that was an innovative novel,

223

:

Ryan: right

224

:

Peter: that was an innovation in the

technology of novel storytelling.

225

:

Ryan: Yeah.

226

:

Peter: But I think the way you were

using innovation was in the common

227

:

sense of technological innovation,

which is the word we use for creativity

228

:

instead of creativity because

creativity, air quotes means art.

229

:

Ryan: Right.

230

:

Peter: And innovation, air quotes

means technology or STEM or some kind

231

:

of, you know, hard science thing.

232

:

Which is what Roger was talking about.

233

:

Well, we need innovation in our theory

because the theory's not working.

234

:

So we need to innovate something new.

235

:

So in a sense I was thinking,

well actually innovation is the

236

:

bigger umbrella for creativity.

237

:

But it really doesn't matter.

238

:

I mean, you could say either you-

239

:

Ryan: they're all kind of synonymous-

240

:

Peter: pick the one that you,

that resonates with you more.

241

:

Ryan: Yes.

242

:

Peter: Right?

243

:

So, but they mean the same

thing, we just mean to apply

244

:

them in different areas of focus.

245

:

And so that's what you said and, as

you were introducing the subject, I

246

:

immediately intuited this distinction

between innovation, creativity; which

247

:

you said, was art is communication.

248

:

And, so I would say, yeah, art

is creativity that's intended to

249

:

communicate to another person.

250

:

Innovation is creativity that's more

interacting with non-human consciousness.

251

:

Ryan: Hmm.

252

:

Peter: So in the sense

that a novel is a thing

253

:

Ryan: mm-hmm.

254

:

Peter: In our universe, which is

therefore a expression of consciousness

255

:

or a conscious construct, right?

256

:

Ryan: Yep.

257

:

Peter: Any technology that we use

is a physical manifestation of

258

:

consciousness in our universe, but we

don't talk to those manifestations.

259

:

Instead, we use our creativity in a more

direct way, which we call innovation, to

260

:

influence how we interact with that thing.

261

:

Does that make sense?

262

:

Ryan: Yeah, I think that makes sense.

263

:

I had utility,

264

:

but that's kind of where I was like

265

:

technology slash innovation, so I

had innovation, but you're absolutely

266

:

right as far as the term innovation

is not exclusive to STEM, but instead

267

:

of telling story, or communicating,

technology is used, has has usefulness.

268

:

Peter: I was gonna say, you know,

I was gonna say, and, and not that

269

:

we never talk to our technology.

270

:

Really.

271

:

Not that we don't yell at our cars.

272

:

Ryan: Yeah.

273

:

Peter: Um,

274

:

Ryan: it doesn't work though.

275

:

Peter: Well, I'm actually

very intrigued by this kind of

276

:

insight or way of looking at it.

277

:

Right?

278

:

Communication or art or

expression is how we interact

279

:

with other human consciousness,

280

:

right?

281

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm

282

:

Peter: and everything else is how we

interact with the non-human consciousness.

283

:

And, there's a way of interacting

with human consciousness that

284

:

is non-physical and nonverbal.

285

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

286

:

Peter: I mean, specifically in my

experience, I'm talking about GAE.

287

:

But of course what we're

talking about are, what?

288

:

Wisdom practices or spiritual

practices or these nonconventional

289

:

practices, which put us in touch with

each other in nonconventional ways?

290

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

291

:

Peter: And art, art is kind

of in the middle there.

292

:

Ryan: So I just had a thought, I

don't know how this will resonate with

293

:

you, but I was thinking art as being

sort of the higher self-consciousness

294

:

expression and technology being

the ego's version of expression.

295

:

Peter: Yes.

296

:

And so we could go to McGilchrist,

and take left brain and right brain.

297

:

Ryan: Right.

298

:

Peter: And I would put language,

like literal language in left brain.

299

:

Ryan: Right.

300

:

Peter: And technology.

301

:

Left brain.

302

:

Ryan: Yeah.

303

:

Peter: And poetry.

304

:

And this is where it gets,

this is where you kind of slide

305

:

down the continuum, right.

306

:

You can use language imprecisely.

307

:

Ryan: Yeah.

308

:

Peter: For poetry where it's pure

art and the poetry is communicating.

309

:

Not through language, literally.

310

:

Ryan: Right.

311

:

Peter: But through art.

312

:

Ryan: Yep.

313

:

Peter: And so you're in that

right brain area, even though

314

:

you're using language to do it.

315

:

Ryan: Yeah.

316

:

Peter: But yes, I,

317

:

Ryan: yeah.

318

:

Peter: Yeah.

319

:

Ryan: It's interesting.

320

:

Um, we've touched on this a little

bit before it came up again, sort of

321

:

indirectly, is, the relation of philosophy

and intuition on scientific thesis.

322

:

Historically there was a much stronger,

connection or, collaboration with,

323

:

philosophical thought practices and

scientific pursuits; and in more

324

:

modern time, there's been a fracture

or distancing of those two things.

325

:

And what Roger and Iain were saying was

that, now getting towards creativity and

326

:

science, we're at an impasse, sort of

in the scientific discovery where the

327

:

theories aren't working the way that they

should or or there's inconsistency or

328

:

contradiction that is yet to be explained.

329

:

So using creativity is necessary,

injecting creativity is necessary to

330

:

move us to the next phase of that.

331

:

Peter: Yeah.

332

:

So this idea of, you know, the,

the model being incomplete or

333

:

internally self inconsistent or wrong.

334

:

Ryan: Right?

335

:

Peter: Right?

336

:

And, um, all models are wrong.

337

:

Ryan: Yeah.

338

:

Right.

339

:

Peter: Right?

340

:

So, a model is not wrong, to the extent

which, we have not yet applied it, to

341

:

a situation where it no longer works.

342

:

Ryan: Right.

343

:

Peter: We haven't found the limits

of our model, and that's, I think,

344

:

where we are with quantum physics.

345

:

Although, no, I guess that's not fair to

say because it happened at the beginning.

346

:

Right?

347

:

Pretty much the founders very

quickly bumped up against

348

:

the limits of their model.

349

:

We know it's not complete, but the

part that we have, it does work.

350

:

It, it, it's extremely effective in

creating atomic bombs and iPhones.

351

:

So we can keep on doing that.

352

:

And Penrose is just expressing we

found the limits of this model,

353

:

that's our cue to use creativity to

go beyond and fix it, or make it more

354

:

complete, you know, not complete.

355

:

Mm-hmm.

356

:

No model is ever complete.

357

:

' Cause the map is not the territory.

358

:

Ryan: Right.

359

:

Peter: The model is just the model.

360

:

And, and so I think he has

been frustrated for some time.

361

:

Yeah.

362

:

I mean, I think it's pretty clear when

you hear him talk, that no one has

363

:

gone back to say, Hey, let's make this

model more complete, we can do it.

364

:

And I think the key is what

you, you referenced, the split

365

:

of philosophy and science.

366

:

Ryan: Yeah.

367

:

Peter: And now you and I are very

clearly seeing the, the rapprochement.

368

:

Right.

369

:

We keep on seeing, and hearing,

philosophers reengaging and scientists,

370

:

reengaging with philosophers.

371

:

I mean, I first became aware of it

a few decades ago, with the Dalai

372

:

Lama engaging with scientists, and

scientists like, yeah, we need this

373

:

guy in our conference because he's

giving us kind of breakthrough ideas,

374

:

because he's not coming from this

inherently materialistic world worldview.

375

:

Ryan: Yeah.

376

:

Peter: But I think, you know,

until recently it's been a few of

377

:

these notable figures that have

kind of crossed the aisle on that.

378

:

I think there was some popes

who were pretty pro-science.

379

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

380

:

Peter: But they're the standouts,

because it's so unusual.

381

:

Ryan: Yeah.

382

:

Peter: But I think now we're

seeing, more exchange between

383

:

philosophers and physicists.

384

:

Ryan: Yeah.

385

:

As they were talking about the need

for creativity, Iain McGilchrist

386

:

was talking about how creativity

as a function can't be an output

387

:

of a group, like a large group.

388

:

Peter: Oh yeah.

389

:

Ryan: He talked, he said

specifically of a committee, right?

390

:

Peter: Yes.

391

:

Ryan: You you can't

committee-ize, art or creativity.

392

:

But the point being that he was, he was

suggesting that, the days of Einstein and

393

:

Schrodinger and all of them, at the turn

of the last century, we were sort of at

394

:

a pinnacle of scientific progress because

there was this openness to creativity.

395

:

Peter: He was specifically saying, now

papers have hundreds of authors on them.

396

:

And therefore everyone is struggling

for acceptability or, or compatibility.

397

:

You know, and so you're kind of,

following the level of mediocrity.

398

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

399

:

Peter: Right?

400

:

In, in terms of a new paper,

with a hundred people on it.

401

:

Which is a product of the technology,

because the technology is so

402

:

resource intensive, that you have

to involve a hundred collaborators

403

:

in order to split the cost.

404

:

Ryan: Right.

405

:

And as a function of institution,

and conformism, because they have a

406

:

tendency for self-preservation once they

get to a certain size and influence.

407

:

And because funding for highly

detailed and complex studies, is

408

:

a necessary part of scientific

pursuit, people are incentivized to

409

:

sort of toe a line of common wisdom,

instead of pushing boundaries.

410

:

That being, the stifling of creativity,

due to this overarching committee-

411

:

ization of science through institution.

412

:

But you made a comment off mic that

I thought was interesting, which was

413

:

you mentioned ideas being synthesized.

414

:

There is some level of group

activity that benefits creativity.

415

:

When you can bounce ideas,

416

:

Peter: Yes

417

:

Ryan: and synthesize ideas, and come

up with even new things that the, one

418

:

person couldn't think of in their own.

419

:

But I, and I think there's a,

there's an element of scale here.

420

:

Peter: Yes.

421

:

Yes.

422

:

Ryan: Iain McGilchrist had

mentioned maybe two or three.

423

:

I think it can probably

go to like 10 or 20.

424

:

Peter: So this is an aspect of science

that's gone back and forth over time

425

:

of isolation versus collaboration.

426

:

Ryan: Right.

427

:

Peter: Right?

428

:

And then people realize if we started

collaborating or we changed the

429

:

structure of meetings or we change

the layout of the research building

430

:

so that people naturally run into each

other and you know, they sit down for

431

:

coffee, and you get more collaboration,

and then you get more breakthrough.

432

:

Ryan: Right?

433

:

Peter: So, there is this

tuning aspect to it, that you

434

:

don't just stick in one state.

435

:

You don't just stick in the lab

and become completely siloed,

436

:

and not get others' ideas.

437

:

But you also don't work

solely in committee and never

438

:

have independent thought.

439

:

Ryan: Right.

440

:

Peter: And, and so I think it

sounds like the, the status quo

441

:

now is way too far the other way

442

:

Ryan: Yeah.

443

:

Peter: Of group think.

444

:

Ryan: Yeah.

445

:

Peter: I've heard this

many times in physics.

446

:

Ryan: Yeah.

447

:

Peter: Particularly.

448

:

Ryan: Yeah.

449

:

Peter: I'm sure it's

true throughout science.

450

:

Yeah.

451

:

Ryan: As we were discussing off mic,

we mentioned that institution is

452

:

not inherently bad and that there

is valid and legitimate reasons,

453

:

benefits, that are the impetus to

institutionalization of something.

454

:

And, at least in the scientific realm,

this idea of validation or the peer

455

:

review verification of findings, right?

456

:

A scrutinization of the

scientific method or process.

457

:

And I, I am throwing out this question

of validation versus marketplace of ideas

458

:

and I think that, you know, is there more.

459

:

Democratic way for ideas to be

sussed out through community as

460

:

opposed to centralized institution.

461

:

And one comment that I got from

Vinay Prasad, scientist, oncologist,

462

:

researcher, was the value of preprint.

463

:

That there should be, more

emphasis on trying to engage

464

:

with these pre-print forums.

465

:

Making it available, sort of

really broad and having the whole

466

:

community really, invested in,

assessing and, and discussing.

467

:

I guess this kind of comes to that

communal, uh, committee approach

468

:

Peter: Yeah.

469

:

So, I was going a different direction

with institution in terms of,

470

:

scalability of material resources.

471

:

Ryan: Sure.

472

:

Yeah.

473

:

Peter: But obviously.

474

:

For science, peer review

is a central function.

475

:

I mean, it is, it is institution.

476

:

It's kind of decentralized institution.

477

:

Right?

478

:

Because peer review doesn't happen in

479

:

Ryan: Right

480

:

Peter: you know, in a fixed committee.

481

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

482

:

Peter: But it does happen

through publishers.

483

:

Ryan: Right.

484

:

Peter: Right?

485

:

It's not like the entire

community does a peer review.

486

:

A publisher selects a bunch of

reviewers, and it goes out that way.

487

:

And so I think part of the

problem is there's bias built

488

:

in and, and there's pressure.

489

:

And, and then that the grant process, and

choosing your research topic process, is

490

:

like "well, let me choose what everybody

else is doing 'cause this is hot right

491

:

now, so I'm gonna get funding for it."

492

:

Ryan: Right.

493

:

Peter: And I'm gonna get published

because people wanna publish this because

494

:

this is what people are interested in

versus where the work needs to be done.

495

:

Ryan: Right.

496

:

Peter: Right?

497

:

I think that the idea that you're talking

about of kind of break open the review

498

:

process and put the ideas out there.

499

:

Like here are some new ideas

that people are working on.

500

:

It's not peer reviewed.

501

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

502

:

Peter: It hasn't been granted the status

of publication, but it's pre-print.

503

:

And therefore, more

people can be inspired.

504

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

505

:

Peter: Or can catch the problem

that this review committee they're

506

:

not gonna see that because they're

incentivized not to see the problem.

507

:

They wanna, they wanna publish

it for whatever reason.

508

:

Science is messy.

509

:

Ryan: Yeah.

510

:

Peter: Um, as someone just told me.

511

:

Ryan: I like the way you

had called it technology.

512

:

Off mic, you had said institution, as

a tool, is kind of like a technology.

513

:

And we don't see it as that, right?

514

:

Peter: Yes.

515

:

Ryan: We pedestalize it as

the ultimate authoritative

516

:

Peter: or we demonize it

517

:

Ryan: or we demonize it should,

518

:

Peter: like, there's no good reason, like

"all institutions should be torn down!"

519

:

Ryan: We perhaps give it too much, well,

I guess authority, but whatever the

520

:

Peter: Right.

521

:

Ryan: The converse of it.

522

:

Peter: Right.

523

:

So much value.

524

:

Value, we overvalue it.

525

:

Ryan: Yes.

526

:

Peter: We say it's inherently good.

527

:

So anything it does is good

528

:

Ryan: or the converse,

529

:

Peter: or it inherently bad.

530

:

Yeah.

531

:

Ryan: And if we view it more like

a technology, we can assess it

532

:

for its limitations and trying to

fill in those gaps instead of just

533

:

putting all the eggs in that basket.

534

:

Peter: This, this calls

me back to this pendulum.

535

:

Like trying to fine tune, trying to

find balance and because you have

536

:

to have mastery of a tool, right?

537

:

You have to have people

who are masters of it.

538

:

And you can't have only masters.

539

:

A tool that is only useful to

a master, with 10,000 hours of

540

:

experience, is not a very useful tool.

541

:

Ryan: Right.

542

:

Peter: Right?

543

:

So you wanna have some masters,

you want to have wide application,

544

:

you wanna have discipline, but

you want to have innovation.

545

:

I guess that that's where I'm,

trying to point is this, this balance

546

:

between discipline and innovation.

547

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm

548

:

Peter: you don't want everything

becoming a nail because the

549

:

hammer's the most popular tool.

550

:

And yet you don't want people

saying, oh no, this is the

551

:

only way you can use a hammer.

552

:

So you need the discipline to

actually read the manual, and then

553

:

you need the innovation to not say,

"oh no, I can't do that because

554

:

the manual says I can't do that.

555

:

Oh, this tool is only designed for

this, so I can't do this other thing."

556

:

Ryan: Right.

557

:

Peter: These are traps that I, I

guess they're intrinsic human traps

558

:

Ryan: Yeah.

559

:

Peter: That we can fall into.

560

:

And so, I guess it's let's try to

engage with our institutions, in

561

:

ways that benefit from the upsides,

562

:

Ryan: Right

563

:

Peter: and mitigate the downsides.

564

:

Ryan: Yeah.

565

:

Peter: And don't just go

along without understanding.

566

:

Ryan: Yeah,

567

:

Peter: yeah.

568

:

Ryan: Yeah.

569

:

I agree.

570

:

Uh, so creativity, imagination can it help

us reframe our understanding of reality.

571

:

Nah.

572

:

Uh, I think it's obvious that, and even

Roger Penrose agreed, we've reached a

573

:

point where something needs to give.

574

:

We need to be reengaging the

philosophy and intuition to create

575

:

our thesis, and point the funding-

I guess that's a whole other…

576

:

because that, that's a big barrier, right?

577

:

People can have all kinds of ideas,

but if they don't get funded…

578

:

Peter: well, this is- and now

you're going to the whole capitalist

579

:

Ryan: right

580

:

Peter: model and

581

:

Ryan: Yeah

582

:

Peter: now you're talking about really

large scale institutions, right?

583

:

Right.

584

:

Like yeah, it got us really far.

585

:

Ryan: Yeah.

586

:

Peter: You know, it, it created a

lot of innovation and, and scale.

587

:

In a good way.

588

:

And in a bad way.

589

:

And now it's like preventing

us from moving forward.

590

:

Ryan: Yeah.

591

:

Peter: Uh, yeah.

592

:

Ryan: Okay.

593

:

Then

594

:

on that note, we will put the,

uh, link to the full debate for

595

:

you, for your listening pleasure.

596

:

And love to hear what

you guys think about it.

597

:

And I guess we'll see you guys next time.

598

:

Peter: See you next time.

599

:

Ryan: Bye

600

:

Peter: bye.

601

:

Thank you for listening to

the Tracking Wisdom podcast.

602

:

Join us next time as we

continue the discussion.

603

:

Don't forget to follow us on

Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube,

604

:

and visit www.eth-studio.com

605

:

for more information and content

Chapters

Video

More from YouTube