Tim Scarfe: evaluation

Transcript context

…I think you I think you actually are, and that it's you it's not sufficient to just be creative in this case. You need to be creative, and you need to be knowledgeable. Otherwise, you're creative. Right? You you can't build the tree. I think your editors can't build the the tree because they don't have the deductive footing. That that would be my that would be my best guess, but that's an interesting perspective. I wanna think about that. I mean, fundamentally, right, creativity is knowing which axioms to include in the next branch of the tree. Right? So you're at level 5 of the tree. How do you get to level 6? It's knowing which assumptions to pile in to get to level 6. Right? It's it's so beautiful. We're writing an article about creativity at the moment. And I believe that in order to be creative, the the depth of understanding of the tree is very important. And, you know, just percholet, you know, intelligence is is the efficiency of how much of the history you can acquire. So like a university professor understands the tree very deeply. And that actually makes them unintelligible to a normal person. Like when Stephen Wolfram talks about the Rulliad all the time, people have got no idea what he's talking about. He's actually being very expressive. He's talking about things at a level of abstraction which, you know, can refer to anything, but it's beyond most people's cognitive horizon. But there is something to be said for that when when you can respect the history deep down into the epistemic tree, the creative stepping stones you take, because they respect the history, they actually have more evolvability. Right? Because you're you're you're you're still grounded to the real world. You're not becoming incoherent. So there's there's something there about really knowing things deeply that is important. Yes. Yes. I I'm for the record, I would define understanding as being able to I mean, I think understanding the spectrum, I think on 1 end, it's memorization, and then which is 0, understanding. And then on the other end, it's ability to deduce and, and also to deduce correctly. I agree with what you said. It's not enough to just, you know, have the right proof. It's you actually have to have, got you know, understood the tree. And that is like that this is understanding, and then intelligence is just how many things you understand. And so it's really just how how how wide and and high is your garden of trees.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.