A Promiscuous Ontology: Ramachandran, Neurology, and The Search For The Causes and Mechanisms of Human Creativity

Chiistophei Bates
Ways of Knowing PBI4S41 Nunuale

2 Becembei 2u1S

A Promiscuous Ontology:
Ramachandran, Neurology, and the Search
for the Causes and Mechanisms of Human
Creativity
Bates A Piomiscuous 0ntology Page of 2 24
l never moJe one of my Jiscoveries tbrouqb tbe process of rotionol tbinkinq.
Albert Finstein

!"#$%&'(#)%"*
Scientists aie in accoiu on at least one fact of mouein ieseaich: the stuuy of human
cieativity is iemaikably challenging. Inueeu, meiely iJentifyinq what constitutes a cieative peison,
piocess, oi outcome is a slippeiy, tiicky task. This job is maue all the moie uifficult by the way oui
cultuie iuentifies eveiything goou as being somehow "cieative." Robeit Fiitz, authoi of Tbe Potb of
leost Resistonce - as well as a numbei of tepiuly-ieceiveu woiks on cieativity - uemonstiates this
cultuially piosciibeu tenuency to ovei-asciibe cieativity to all things wise anu wonueiful, wiiting
that:
The cieative piocess has hau moie impact, powei, influence, anu success than any
othei piocess in histoiy. All of the aits, many of the sciences, aichitectuie, populai
cultuie, anu the entiie technological age we live in exists because of the cieative
piocess. (S).
As Fiitz uemonstiates, cieativity is cultuially uefineu in the bioauest, most elusive teims. Even
among the acauemics, scholais of cieativity have been unable to uiscovei a mutually agieeable
uefinition. But that has not stoppeu them fiom tiying. Anu tiying. Anu tiying again.
ueiaiu }. Puccio, the Bepaitment Chaii of the Inteinational Centei foi Stuuies in Cieativity
locateu at Buffalo State 0niveisity, spent seveial yeais attempting to uncovei a single uefinition foi
cieativity. In the piocess, he iuentifieu fifty uiffeiing uesciiptions in the acauemic liteiatuie
publisheu uuiing the past five yeais alone! Puccio piesenteu a keynote papei at the New }eisey
Institute of Technology's Tecbnoloqy onJ Society Iorum titleu : "Cieativity 1u1: An Intiouuction to
Some Basic Concepts in the Fielu of Cieativity Stuuies" in which he suggests a solution to the
pioblem. In his auuiess, Puccio suggesteu that cieativity is bettei thought of as a multifaceteu
concept, iathei than as a singulai quolity. Latei in the same speech, Puccio sketcheu out the bieauth
anu wiuth of cieativity ieseaich, saying that:
What is cieativity. The woiu is often invokeu but not well unueistoou. Ceitainly
cieativity iefeis to an outcome oi piouuct, but it is much moie.. Foi many ieasons,
the stuuy of cieativity has flouiisheu ovei the last half-centuiy. Theie aie thousanus
of books on cieativity. In fact, the Cieative Stuuies collection in oui libiaiy at Buffalo
State College holus almost 4,uuu volumes.. Theie aie now thiee iefeienceu jouinals
in the English language focuseu solely on the topic of cieativity (i.e., Tbe }ournol of
Creotive Bebovior, Creotivity Reseorcb }ournol, anu Creotivity onJ lnnovotion
Honoqement |as well asj Tbe FncyclopeJio of Creotivity). (2)
Ramachanuian, Neuiology, anu the Seaich foi the Causes anu Nechanisms of Buman Cieativity
Bates A Piomiscuous 0ntology Page of S 24
Aftei focusing on the multituue of inteiuisciplinaiy stuuies being applieu to the question of human
cieativity, Puccio piesents a woiking uefinition that boiiows heavily fiom Nichael Numfoiu anu
Petei Neusbuigei. Foi the sake of simplicity, his slightly-amenueu uefinition guiues the iemainuei
of this papei:
Creotivity is tbe opplicotion of o novel monner of tbinkinq tbot results in o new onJ
unusuol purpose- orienteJ solution to o specijic {onJ usuolly Jifjicult ) problem.
Puccio uoesn't stop with a uefinition; he immeuiately zeioes in on what he finus to be the heait of
the pioblem: the numbei of factois necessaiy foi cieativity to emeige within the human expeiience
aie so vaiieu as to eluue isolation anu theiefoie, focuseu ieseaich is hanuicappeu by the sheei
ciowu of potentiating factois, each one calling to be heaiu with equal vigoi.
Auuing a fuithei voice to the choii of voices claiming causation, neuiologists have been
weighing in as well, pioviuing theii own insights into the causes anu mechanisms of human
cieativity. As the fielu of neuiology has expanueu, bieaching fielus of stuuy pieviously guaiueu by
psychologists, philosopheis, anu sociologists, new neuiological ieseaicheis have been stuuying the
biological siue of the question of cieativity.anu have been coming up with some veiy inteiesting
theoiies.
0ne such ieseaichei is vilayanui Subiamanian Ramachanuian, Reseaich Piofessoi with the
Psychology anu Neuioscience Piogiam at the 0niveisity of Califoinia, Piofessoi of Biology at the
Salk Institute, anu Biiectoi of the Centei foi Biain anu Cognition. Be is a majoi figuie on the public
stage, piesenting the face of contempoiaiy neuiological science foi a (laigely) auoiing auuience. In
an aiticle that can only be uesciibeu as fawning, staff wiitei Anuiew Anthony wiote that:
.Richaiu Bawkins once wiote: "Ramachanuian is a lattei-uay Naico Polo, jouineying
the Silk Roau of science to stiange anu exotic Cathays of the minu." Such is his
ieputation foi pushing back the bounuaiies of neuioscience that Newsweek magazine
iuentifieu him among the "1uu most piominent people to watch" in the 21st centuiy.
Ramachanuian is an excellent foil foi uiscussing questions of cieativity, not only because his
own thinking anu methouology aie iemaikably oiiginal, but also because he has been cuiious about
the neuiological siue of cieativity foi the majoiity of caieei. While some may be intimiuateu by the
complexity of the phenomenon of cieativity oi unwilling to ventuie into the unmappeu fielu,
Ramachanuian has no such qualms. 0f investigating subjects that otheis avoiu, he explains that:
Theie aie ceitain pioblems about human natuie, things like falling in love,
metaphoi, cieativity, humoianu all these things people stay away fiom because
they say it's too complicateu, that you can't stuuy them scientifically. But if you have
the iight tools, the iight imagination, ask the iight questions, anu aie uiiven by
intense cuiiosity.you can uiscovei veiy simple explanations foi amazing
phenomena. So ieally the only opposition that I've faceu is people saying, "Well, this
is too complicateu. Bow can you stuuy it using such simple techniques." Anu, "Bow
uo you even appioach something like cieativity." (lnterview)
Ramachanuian has uone iemaikable woik investigating questions that have been eithei ignoieu oi
explaineu away by othei scientists, anu in the piocess, has put foiwaiu sweeping theoiies about the
way the cieative minu functions. Among his peeis, Ramachanuian's woik has been sometimes well-
ieceiveu, sometimes pooily. Regaiuless of the volume of applause (oi lack theieof), none can
ieasonably claim that his appioach, theoiies, oi conclusions aie not very creotive.
This papei seeks to iuentify a few of the ways Ramachanuian Jemonstrotes his own theoiies
of cieativity; in effect, this papei makes Ramachanuian's vaiieu inteiests in cieativity the jumping-
off point foi fuithei investigation. To uo so,we begin with a justification foi examining a scientist
(any scientist!) in teims of cieativity anu then look into a bioau conception of the basis of human
cieativity; foi a few biief lines, we consiuei a question that Ramachanuian Joesnt ask: what pait
uoes systems theoiy play in the emeigence of cieative thinkeis. Fiom systems theoiy we attempt a
glimpse into Ramachanuian's peisonality anu methous, then leap heaulong into Ramachanuian's
woik with people suffeiing fiom anosognosia, focusing on the link between cieativity anu toleiance
of ambiguity. We concluue oui exploiation by consiueiing Ramachanuian's woik with synesthesia,
the question anu iamifications of synapse piuning, anu the uevelopment of metaphoi as it ielates to
cieativity.

The Artistic Scientist?
Befoie pioceeuing fuithei, a founuational question piesents itself: is it even faii to uesciibe a
scientist as being cieative. Shoulun't scientists be primorily inteiesteu in logic anu "colu, haiu
facts." In theoiems anu piovability. In uata collection anu analysis anu statistics anu numbeis anu
piobability factois.
Ramachanuian iesponus with a louu anu outiageu of course science onJ creotivity belonq
toqetber!
In 2uu6, Ramachanuian wiote an aiticle foi the online magazine Tbe Skepticol lnquirer titleu:
"Cieativity veisus Skepticism Within Science." In it, he makes the claim that "gieat" science is always
baseu in a cieative anu bounuaiy-stietching woiluview:
Revolutionaiy science often begins with a conjectuie - a vision that takes you well
beyonu the existing eviuence iathei than being constiaineu by it. 0utstanuing
science is conuucteu by those who make imaginative excuisions into what might be
tiue, i.e. conjectuies that aie ontologically piomiscuous anu not meiely consistent
with existing uata.
Be goes on to say that scientists who uon't incoipoiate a cieative woiluview into theii ieseaich
effoits aie iemaikably limiteu because:
Bates A Piomiscuous 0ntology Page of S 24
..novel iueas aie easily ignoieu no mattei how ieasonable....The cleaiest waining
sign of this phenomenon is the inability of scientific piactitioneis to question the
axiomatic founuations of theii uiscipline. A seconu is when a fielu is uominateu by
ceitain catchphiases oi by methouology iathei than by questions.
Sanuia I. Sulsky, Nancy Kieigei, anu Robeit E. NcKeown take on the same question of
cieative science anu answei it with less foice anu moie ieseaich (although many of theii points aie
similai to Ramachanuian's). In theii papei Not Continuinq Alonq Previous lines: Fxplorinq Eow New
Birections Fmerqe in FpiJemioloqicol Reseorcb, the authois exploie how cieativity is necessaiy foi
"big" uiscoveiies to be maue. Sulsky, Kieigei, anu NcKeown wiite that foi many yeais, the scientist
was vieweu as someone meiely builuing upon the woik of his oi hei pieuecessois. They quote fiom
T.S. Kuhn's 197u book Tbe Structure of Scientijic Revolution, in which the Kuhn uesciibes the
piocess of scientific inquiiy as being one of inciemental giowth; in which:
.ieseaich is guiueu by a uominant paiauigm theoiy that pioviues the founuation
foi futuie woik, anu that futuie woik is laigely a piocess of elaboiation of the
uominant paiauigm. (S69)
The authois note that Kuhn's philosophy has been the uominate mouel taught anu piacticeu among
the scientific community foi centuiies. Bowevei, they also note (somewhat iuefully) that majoi
scientific auvancements within theii own fielu of uisease contiol anu the bioauei woilu of scientific
inquiiy os o wbole bove "#$ followeJ Kubns moJel. Rathei, majoi scientific achievements have been
inspiieu by intuitive leaps, cieative blunueis, anu foituitous calamities. The authois' woik ieflects a
collaboiative anu ongoing conveisation with fifty leaueis involveu in scientific stuuy anu ieseaich at
vaiious institutions, in which they inteiact with those "in the fielu," consiueiing the challenges
associateu with bieaking ianks with the aimy of "plouuing minus."
What Sulsky, Kieigei, anu NcKeown see as the fiist anu foiemost huiule is this: placing
limits upon ieseaich, even when those limits sepaiate what some paiticipants teimeu "ciack-pot"
science fiom genuine anu iespectable stuuy, believing that such limitations piohibit cieative minus
fiom exploiing alteinatives. They aie iefeiiing to what Ramachanuian calls the %Jiolectic between
speculotion onJ beoltb skepticism" (Pbontoms Pieface Xv). This neeu foi iespectability among one's
peeis is noteu anu cautioneu against, as many famous uiscoveiies weie at fiist ueiiueu. Sulsky,
Kieigei, anu NcKeown go so fai as to note that:
Although it is necessaiy to impose some limits...the fiame within which we choose to
examine scientific issues may ueteimine the uiiection anu extent of oui cieativity.
The fiame can sometimes iestiict oui ability to see othei possibilities oi alteinative
explanations. Refiaming has the potential to show things in a new light, opening up
new lines of inquiiy oi inteipietation. Refiaming peisistent oi stubboin ieseaich
questions may involve incoipoiating the histoiies anu philosophies of othei
uisciplines. (S69)
Recalling Ramachanuian's uefinition of "ievolutionaiy science," the authois of Not
Continuinq Alonq Previous lines note that iefiaming a question can sheu new light on an olu
pioblem with just as much facility as the same methou might biJe potential insight. The uiffeience
lies in the minu uoing the fiaming. They wiite that:
Noimal science uoes not necessaiily piecluue cieative thinking, but the
uevelopment of new paiauigms always seems to iequiie seeing things in a uiffeient
way. The shift may be aiueu by the inciemental steps of noimal science piouucing
enough anomalies that the pievailing view cannot be sustaineu, but the view that
ieplaces it comes about in a cieative act of insight anu integiation that goes beyonu
the inciemental. (S7u)
Complicating the pioblem is the age-olu question of funJinq. uianting agencies uon't
suppoit "puiposeless ieseaich" anu the caieei path of the scientist iequiies steauy output. Reseaich
jouinals uon't wish to publish mateiial well outsiue the noim. Sulsky, Kieigei, anu NcKeown ieminu
the ieauei that scientist who wants to get aheau can't affoiu the iisk; senioi scientists aie stuck in a
cultuial minuset:
0ften, it is oui stuuents who make cieative leaps into new ways to consiuei olu
ieseaich iueas, but they aie piesseu by the exigencies of establishing caieeis
(obtaining giants, publishing papeis) to move inciementally along the same paths. It
is oui senioi colleagues, often with caieei stability anu secuiity, who can affoiu the
leap, but who have been uoing science in the same way foi so long that they may not
notice the possibility of new uiiections, oi iecognize them as being of value. (S7u)
Not suipiisingly, on the meiits of young anu auventuious ieseaich Ramachanuian feels the same
way as Sulsky, Kieigei, anu NcKeown. Be wiote (in a mannei so similai it might have been a uiiect
quote) that:
Noie often than not (thoughtless) skeptics succeeu in stifling innovation in science
with theii 'confoim oi peiish' appioach. (Foi young scientists conceineu about job
stability) this is especially intimiuating. With the passage of time, 'the mask becomes
the man' anu any tiace of oiiginality is beaten out of them. ("Cieativity veisus
Skepticism").
0ui appioach thioughout the iemainuei of this papei assumes that cieativity is not alien to
goou scientific ieseaich, anu is in fact absolutely necessaiy foi bounuaiy-bieaking uiscoveiies to
occui. ever.

,-#'$. %$ ,'$#'$./ &'($ )*+,'$ -./ $'. 01.2$+#"
Shoitly aftei the 2u11 publication of his book Tbe Tell-Tole Broin, Ramachanuian appeaieu
as a guest on the NPR iauio show Iresb Air. 0n the valentine's Bay inteiview with host Bave Bavies,
Ramachanuian was askeu how he came to be such an "unusual ieseaichei." Be iesponueu by saying
that:
I was iaiseu in Inuia anu I was iaiseu in Thailanu, but the emphasis was on low-tech
by necessity. Anu I think that emphasis actually is beneficial because it makes you
think moie cieatively anu it makes you moie iesouiceful anu iely on youi ingenuity,
so to speak.
Foi the laypeison, it woulu be simple - though incoiiect - to assume that cieative people like
Ramachanuian aie simply born moie cieative than theii fellows. This common misconception is
iuleu out by Ramachanuian each time he talks about himself oi his piocess: in none of the
seventeen aiticles, two books, oi in even one of the numeious inteiviews that foim the coie of this
papei uiu Ramachanuian evei suggest that he "just came this way." Insteau, Ramachanuian sees in
his peisonal naiiative environmentol foctors that enableu him to become the kinu of ieseaichei anu
thinkei he is touay.
Ramachanuian uoes not stiess his enviionment to suggest that cieativity is only a leaineu
tiait. Be believes anu has pioviueu eviuence that theie aie biological anu heieuitaiy factois that
leau an inuiviuual to being moie cieative than his oi hei cohoit. The seaich foi the biological factois
that leau to cieative peisonality types anu cieative ways of thinking foim a theme that plays
thioughout much of Ramachanuian's investigations.
0n this question, neuioscientist Colin Naitinuale agiees with Ramachanuian; cieative people ore
cieative because of a multiplicity of comoibiu neuiological conuitions anu genetic pieuispositions.
Naitinuale wiote a chaptei foi the CombriJqe EonJbook of Creotivity titleu: "The Biological Bases of
Cieativity" in which he ieiteiates Puccio anu Ramachanuian's multifactoiial claim, wiiting that:
Cieativity is a iaie tiait. This is piesumably because it iequiies the simultaneous
piesence of a numbei of tiaits (e.g., intelligence, peiseveiance, unconventionality,
the ability to think in a paiticulai mannei). None of these tiaits is especially iaie.
What is quite uncommon is to finu them all piesent in the same peison. (1S7)
Few seiious cieativity ieseaicheis believe that natuie is unimpoitant; most agiee that peisonal
tiaits anu genetic pieuispositions aie veiy influential. Inueeu, the wiue bouy of liteiatuie ieflects a
blenueu etiology of the cieative peisonality. The genesis of the cieative inuiviuual is neithei only
noture (peisonality, heieuitaiy, genes ) noi is it only nurture {upbiinging, enviionment,
expeiiences). Befoie we go fuithei, a thiiu necessaiy ingieuient is missing fiom oui uiscussion of
cieativity: systems tbeory.
3 45+.6 7+,5.22+#"8 9($15. #5 915$15.: #5 ;<2$.=2>
It has long been assumeu that theie is a paiticulai type of peison best-suiteu to cieative
enueavois. Authois Sami Abuhamueh anu Nihaly Csiksgentmihalyi wiite in "The Aitistic
Peisonality: A Systems Peispective" that this "aitistic minuset" has changeu ovei time anu that the
inuepenuent, fienzieu woik of a visionaiy has not olwoys been the image of the aitist (S1). Foi
many yeais, an aitist - any aitist, even the most celebiateu - was a ciaftsman iathei than a solo
exploiei into the iealms of the soul - anu only when such men anu women weie iespecteu foi theii
inuiviuuality uiu the lattei piofile become populai.
In theii ieseaich, Abuhamueh anu Csiksgentmihalyi wanteu to know how much the
tiauitional "aitistic minuset" is still a pievalent chaiacteiistic in the fielu of mouein ait. To this enu,
the authois stuuieu 281 stuuents at the Ait Institute of Chicago. They subjecteu the paiticipants to:
"seveial peisonality questionnaiies anu...pioblem-finuing anu pioblem-solving tasks uesigneu to
assess vaiious uimensions of cieativity." Twenty yeais latei, they checkeu back, looking foi those
inuicatois of gieatest success.
The pictuie that emeigeu was unexpecteu. 0ut of the hanuful of aitists that uiu
achieve some aitistic success, the tiaits that uistinguisheu them fiom theii
uniecognizeu peeis weie moie chaiacteiistic of Wall Stieet maiketing executives
than what we have come to associate with aitists. Compaieu with theii less
successful peeis, these aitists weie moie sociable, piactical, anu caieei-uiiven. (S9)
They concluue by saying that:
The systems peispective of the aitistic peisonality aumits that inuiviuual tiaits may
be necessaiy foi a peison to be iecognizeu as cieative, but that these cannot be
pieuicteu a piioii. (4u) |Anu finally:j The links between a uomain anu the
peisonality of those who woik in it aie not iigiuly foigeu but change oiganically as
the uomain itself changes with time. (41)
This systems-baseu evolution of the "aitistic tempeiament" suggests to us a compaiison
with the evolution of the caieful, plouuing ieseaichei (Kuhn's mouel) to the visionaiy, bounuaiy-
pushing celebiity scientist mouel (Sulsky, Kieigei, anu NcKeown's mouel). If askeu, Abuhamueh anu
Csiksgentmihalyi woulu say that the enviionment the matuiing Ramachanuian founu himself in was
in effect preporinq him to emeige as a highly cieative scientist. A systems theoiist peispective on
cieative scientific ieseaicheis says that:
}ust os tbe system "# ?#",.5 fovors tbe emerqence of biqbly "creotive" ortists like
Picosso, tbe system now @#.2 fovor tbe emerqence of biqbly speculotive onJ creotive
scientists like RomocbonJron.
Befoie we go fuithei, we shoulu pause anu consiuei what is so uiffeient about the methouology of
Ramachanuian fiom pievious scientific ieseaicheis. Bow uoes he stanuout fiom even his
contempoiaiy (though tiauitional) colleagues.

0 12)345. )"5)&. #6. 7()."#)5#* A(=(B'("@5("
You can't ieau veiy much of Ramachanuian's woik without being stiuck by his enuuiing
love affaii with Sheilock Bolmes. Quotes fiom the chaiactei cieateu by Sii Aithui Conan Boyle aie
littereJ thioughout his books, aiticles, anu inteiviews. In the fiist few pages of Pbontoms in tbe
Broin Ramachanuian wiites that:
I believe that being a meuical scientist is not all that uiffeient fiom being a
sleuth....Each stoiy begins with eithei an account of a patient uisplaying seemingly
inexplicable symptoms oi a bioau question about human natuie....|Thioughoutj I
hope to convey the spiiit of intellectual auventuie that accompanies the puisuit...
(Pbontoms S).
Anu just in case the ieauei was not cleai on the compaiison that Ramachanuian was
making, he iemaiks a little latei that:
I was uiawn into meuicine, a uiscipline full of ambiguities, because its Sheilock
Bolmes-style of inquiiy gieatly appealeu to me. Biagnosing a peison's pioblem
iemains as much an ait as a science, calling into play poweis of obseivation, ieason,
anu all the human senses...This uetective-like aspect of clinical meuicine is a uying
ait in this age of high tech meuicine, but it planteu a seeu in my minu. (Phantoms
6-7)
The iesults of the "intellectual auventuie" Ramachanuian so loves hasn't always been well ieceiveu.
In 2u11, shoitly aftei Tbe Tell-Tole Broin was publisheu, Ramachanuian anu a piofessoi of
philosophei at the 0niveisity of Niami, Colin Ncuinn, enteieu a public anu publisheu aigument that
highlights one of the challenges associateu with being a cieative ieseaichei: tbeoreticol
overreocbinq. The online anu piint aigument began within the pages of Tbe New York Review of
Books with an aiticle Ncuinn wiote titleu "Can the Biain Explain Youi Ninu.".
In the aiticle, Ncuinn conceueu that Tbe Tell-Tole Broin was inteiesting anu offeieu valuable
insights, but he took Ramachanuian to task foi what he calleu a "cheeifully ieuuctionist" minuset.
This ieuuctionism (Ncuinn believeu) causeu Ramachanuian to suggest wiluly unsubstantiateu
iueas.
Ncuinn sums up his pioblem with Ramachanuian, wiiting that:
What shoulu we make of all this. It is unuoubteuly fascinating to ieau of these
bizaiie cases anu leain about the intiicate neuial machineiy that unueilies
oui noimal expeiience. It is also, in my opinion, peifectly acceptable to
Bates A Piomiscuous 0ntology Page of 1u 24
piopose bolu speculations about what might be going on, even if the
speculation seems unfounueu oi fai-fetcheu; as Ramachanuian fiequently
iemaiks, science thiives on iisky conjectuie. But theie aie times when the
impiession of theoietical oveiieaching is unmistakable.. This is
piogiessively the case as the book becomes moie ambitious in scope.
Ncuinn seems to be waffling on the question this papei has alieauy auuiesseu: the long-stanuing
iuea that science anu cieativity aie funuamentally opposeu to one anothei. It is uncleai if he
appioves oi uisappioves of the theoiies tbe Tell-Tole Broin puts foiwaiu, anu it is similaily uncleai if
his only concein is the way Ramachanuian attempts to apply his theoietical finuings to questions
pieviously the sole inteiest of philosopheis anu especiolly philosopheis who teach college couises
in the Philosophy of Ninu. What )5 cleai is that Ncuinn believes that while being cieative may belp
the scientist, ciitical thinking anu imaginative thinking aie, in some inuistinct way, very, very
Jifferent.
Ramachanuian ieplieu to Ncuinn's ieview in a subsequent aiticle, fiiing back that:
Eaily in any scientific enteipiise, it is best to foige aheau anu not get boggeu
uown by semantic uistinctions. But "foiging aheau" is a concept alien to
philosopheis, even those as uistinguisheu as Ncuinn. To a philosophei who
uemanueu that he uefine consciousness befoie stuuying it scientifically,
Fiancis Ciick once iesponueu, "Ny ueai chap, theie was nevei a time in the
eaily yeais of moleculai biology when we sat aiounu the table with a bunch of
philosopheis saying 'let us uefine life fiist.' We just went out theie anu founu
out what it was: a uouble helix."

In the sciences, uefinitions often follow, iathei than pieceue, conceptual
auvances. Ncuinn is also suspicious of oui attempts to explain complex
mental phenomena in teims of anatomical stiuctuies anu theii inteiactions.
Ncuinn enus the exchange, phiasing his iebuttals in a tone the can only be calleu "snippy." Be wiites
that:
Ramachanuian's ieply confiims my impiession that he combines scientific
expeitise with philosophical naivet. I can assuie him that philosophy of ait
is not a "nebulous fielu" into which he is injecting much-neeueu claiity.

Ciick's uismissive iesponse to the question of uefining consciousness shows a
total blinuness to the possibility that "consciousness" might be a highly
ambiguous woiu, coveiing veiy uiffeient types of phenomenasensoiy
expeiience, cognition, attention, wakefulness, self-consciousness. Again,
Ramachanuian ieveals his lack of unueistanuing of philosophical pioblems in
suggesting that neuiology can iesolve questions like fiee will anu qualia
though it may pioviue ielevant uata.
It is impoitant to note that Ncuinn is not alone in the view that science anu ait (anu
philosophy) ievolve within wiluly uiffeient spheies. Ramachanuian vehemently uisagiees with the
sepeiation, expiessing his alteinative view uuiing an inteiview with Phaiiell Williams. The
inteiview (pait of lnterview! Hoqozines ongoing attempts to connect musicians with intellectuals)
giew out of Ramachanuian anu musicianiappei Phaiiell Williams' unlikely fiienuship. The two
men weie inviteu to give a joint inteiview conceining the natuie of cieativity in the human
expeiience. Buiing the inteiview, Ramachanuian saiu that:
I've long been inteiesteu in the cieative piocess, whethei in ait oi in science.
People think of ait anu science as being funuamentally opposeu to each othei,
because ait is about celebiating inuiviuual human cieativity, anu science is
about uiscoveiing geneial piinciples, not about inuiviuual people. But in fact,
the two have a lot in common, anu the cieative spiiit is similai in both. It's
about seeing hiuuen links, which nobouy else has uiscoveieu befoie.
Ramachanuian claims again anu again that the piocess of seeing those "hiuuen links" is fueleu anu
sustaineu by the cieative minu.
Scott L. Kaiakas, ueneial Euucation Piogiam Biiectoi anu Associate Piofessoi of Ait Bistoiy
at Floiiua uulf Coast 0niveisity, saw a "hiuuen link" between science anu ait - between ciitical
thinking anu cieative thinking - anu wiote a papei that tiieu to biiuge the philosophical gap
between Ncuinn anu his suppoiteis anu Ramachanuian. Kaiakas wiites in "Cieative anu Ciitical
Thinking in the Aits anu Sciences: Some Examples of Congiuence," that ciitical thinking (anu by
association, scientijic tbinkinq) is a mattei of peisonality. 0n the othei hanu, Kaiakas believes that
cieative thinking (anu by association, imoqinotive or fontosticol tbinkinq) is a mattei of piocess.
While some might finu his liteiatuie ieview incomplete anu his aigument foi congiuence
unconvincing, Kaiakas uoes offei a few suipiises, enuing the papei in a way uiscoiuant with his
pievious thesis.
In the final few pages, Kaiakas offeis two examples of how cieativity anu ciitical thinking
woik togethei:
.I woulu like to biiefly uiscuss one twentieth-centuiy scientist anu one twentieth-
centuiy aitist, each of whom useu a combination of cieative anu ciitical thinking
skills to uevelop some of the most influential woiks in theii iespective fielus. (S)
Be choses foi the scientist Albeit Einstein, claiming that Einstein offeis a goou example of
how the cieative piocess is exemplifieu in the woilu of scientific uiscoveiy. Kaiakas uiscusses
Einstein's "thought expeiiments" as piime examples of the cieative minu at woik within the fielu of
logical inquiiy. To suppoit his claim, Kaiakas quotes Einstein as saying that:
Aftei a ceitain high level of technical skill is achieveu, science anu ait tenu to
coalesce in aesthetics, plasticity, anu foim. The gieatest scientists aie always aitists
as well. (6)
Be follows his biief uiscussion of Einstein with an equally biief uiscussion of Pablo Picasso, noting
that the 6uernico, Picasso useu a caieful tiial-anu-eiioi methou of uesign:
The painting was meticulously planneu, with appioximately foity piepaiatoiy
sketches. Thiough these sketches, it can be seen that Picasso iepeateuly
expeiimenteu with uiffeient settings, chaiacteis, poses anu combinations....The
sketches inuicate a piocess of analysis anu expeiimentation to piouuce a uesiieu
combination of effects, uesciibeu by one cognitive scholai as "blinu-vaiiation
anu selective-ietention. (7)
The caieful natuie of the composition is uesciibeu as being moie akin to ciitical thinking
than to some esoteiic cieative act. Picasso is quoteu as saying "Paintings aie but ieseaich anu
expeiiment. I nevei uo a painting as a woik of ait. All of them aie ieseaiches" (7).
The uebate between Ncuinn anu Ramachanuian - anu the viewpoints they iepiesent - is fai
fiom ovei. Bowevei, by stuuying selecteu piojects of a scientist like Ramachanuian, we can see how
significant scientific uiscoveiies can be maue when novel solutions to challenging pioblems aie
hunteu foi with creotivity. Next, we tuin oui attention to two neuiological conuitions that
Ramachanuian has ieseaicheu at length: anosognosia anu synesthesia. These two case stuuies both
uemonstiate Ramachanuian's cieative methouology anu iaise inteiesting questions about the
ielationship between biain biology anu cieativity.

&'($C2 9#$ *< 35=D* 0"%5%8"%5)- -"& #6. 9%2.$-"(. %: 03;)8')#<
Anosognosia is the uenial of a specific ueficit (paialysis) linkeu to neuiological uamage,
usually (but not always) in the iight hemispheie anu usually (but not always) in the paiietal lobe. It
was nameu "anosognosia" by the Fiench neuiologist N.}. Babinsky in 1914. Anosognosia is maikeu
by the patient's stiingent uenial that he oi she is paialyzeu anu associateu with inuiviuuals who
have hau uebilitating stiokes centeieu in the iight hemispheie of theii biain. The conuition is
cuiious in that it piesents as a seiies of Fieuuian uefense mechanisms (piimaiily uenial anu
piojection); behaviois that aie usually associateu with psychological ueficits, not physiological
ueficits.
These behaviois aie piesenteu in extieme iesponses: patients with anosognosia claim to be
able to move theii paialyzeu limbs, come up with wilu anu cieative explanations foi why they ore
Bates A Piomiscuous 0ntology Page of 1S 24
not moving theii limbs, anu even go so fai as to say that the effecteu pait of theii bouy belongs to
someone else! As Ramachanuian iemaiks:
...if a noimal peison enuuies a peiipheial neive uamage anu is left with a paialyzeu
aim, he may uownplay the extent of his ueficit ('0h, I think I'll iecovei soon'), but he
is unlikely to ueclaie that the aim uoes not belong to him oi that he sees it pointing
about a centimetei fiom youi nose. No noimal peison woulu evei caiiy the uefense
mechanisms to such absuiu limits. (S48)
In his ieseaich papei on the topic, publisheu by the jouinal HeJicol Eypotbesis in 1996, "The
Evolutionaiy Biology of Self-Beception, Laughtei, Bieaming anu Bepiession: Some Clues fiom
Anosognosia," Ramachanuian stuuieu a numbei of cases of anosognosia anu uiaws on them to
suggest theoiies foi othei neuiopsychological cuiiosities.
As is his wont, Ramachanuian begins by consiueiing the outstanuing etiological theoiies foi
anosognosia anu then pioceeus to uismiss them all. The meuical explanations that have been
pioposeu by pievious ieseaicheis aie two: basic uenial ("the patient is confionteu with something
unpleasant - hei paialysis - anu theiefoie she plays it uown oi even uenies it") anu neglect ("one
coulu aigue that the patient neglects hei paialysis in much the same way that she neglects
eveiything else on the left siue") (S49). Ramachanuian spenus little time consiueiing eithei
explanation anu iejects both on physiological giounus; neithei is piesent in stioke suivivois with
the left siue of theii biains effecteu.
Ramachanuian then piesents his own woiking theoiy: hemispheiic specialization plays a
iole in the foimation anu maintenance of a coheient belief system anu localizeu hemispheiic
uamage impacts an inuiviuual's ability to maintain a coheient self-view. Be believes that the left
hemispheie woiks towaius imposing consistency anu the iight towaius uealing with paiauigm
shifts. This woiking theoiy, when applieu to the test subjects, suggests to Ramachanuian that the
left hemispheie is uoing its job, maintaining the status quo, but the iight hemispheie - which woulu
unuei usual ciicumstances be imposing a paiauigm shift (bey! tbe left port of tbe boJy oint movinq!)
is incapable of fulfilling its function. In auuition, patients uon't seem to foim memoiies ielateu to
the bouy pait effecteu by the paialysis anu the locus of the uenialpiojection. v.S.R. notes that:
0n one occasion, the patient was suipiiseu to notice that I hau slippeu a ieu haii-
banu on hei left hanu. Aftei iemoving the banu, I staiteu questioning hei about the
movements of that hanu anu, as expecteu, she vehemently uenieu the paialysis but,
with iepeateu questioning, she finally aumitteu that it 'wasn't woiking'. Yet, a few
minutes latei, she hau no iecollection of this 'confession', even though she viviuly
iemembeieu the haiibanu! Suipiisingly,...she hau no iecollection of this a few houis
latei. (SSS)
Inteiestingly, when the coheient image that the minu is maintaining is challengeu, even the memory
of the challenge is uenieu.
To test his theoiy that anosognosia is causeu by hemispheiic uamage to the iight siue of the
biain iesulting in a ieuuceu ability to engage in "paiauigm shift" thinking, Ramachanuian ueviseu
two basic tests, each a cieative attempt to uiscovei how the ieseaich subjects weie inteinalizing
theii conuition.
Test 1: Tbe visuol Box
Ramachanuian instiucteu his test subjects to inseit theii unaffecteu aim into specially
miiioieu box anu then look thiough a peep hole at what is believeu to be the "woiking" aim.
0nbeknownst to them, an accomplice's aim - uiesseu to look like theii own - is insiue.
The patient is then instiucteu to move hei iight hanu up anu uown to the ihythm of
a metionome. The accomplice holus his hanu completely steauy so that the patient is
'fooleu' into thinking that hei hanu is absolutely still, as though it weie paialyzeu. I
iepeateu the expeiiment on two consecutive uays anu on each uay she maintaineu
that she coulu cleaily see hei aim moving up anu uownto the ihythm of the
metionome - even though the view affoiueu to hei thiough the viitual ieality box
was that of a paialyzeu hanu! (SSS)
Ramachanuian's conclusion: it isn't hemi-neglect that is causing the anosognosia, foi the patient is
uenying the activity of the othei siue of the bouy.
Test 2: ReworJs onJ Cbollenqes
Patients weie offeieu vaiious iewaius foi completing tasks which iequiieu bimanual
uexteiity (i.e. tying theii shoes, cutting a papei ciicle) anu otheis that only iequiieu unimanual
uexteiity (i.e. stack blocks, pick up toys anu put them in a box). The only uiffeience between the two
type of tasks was that the bimanual tasks weie iewaiueu with moie money than the unimanual
tasks. The iesults weie suipiising:
Remaikably, the patients stait tiying to tie the laces anu keep at it foi seveial
minutes without showing any signs of fiustiation. Even when the patients weie then
given the same choice 1u minutes latei, they again went invaiiably foi the bimanual
task. In one case (Nis LR), the tests weie iepeateu on seveial consecutive occasions
- always with the same iesult. Inueeu, it looks as though the patients have no
memoiy of theii pievious failuies, a 'selective amnesia' foi theii pievious faileu
attempts. (SS4)
While woiking with the patients, Ramachanuian became awaie that they seemeu fiequently as
unawaie of the paialysis of otheis as they weie of theii own. This confiimeu his theoiy that the
theoietical "paiauigm shift" pait of the biain hau been uamageu uuiing the stioke. Ramachanuian
concluues that:
Anosognosia seemeu to extenu to othei peoples' equivalent bouy paits while, at the
same time, excluuing theii own ueficits in othei uomains. The iesult implies that
some patients may neeu to access theii own bouy schemata even when making
juugments about anothei human being's bouy paits. (SSS)
To Ramachanuian, it became cleai that amnesia ielateu to uenieu iealities is potentially
linkeu to the iight hemispheie's function ; one of oiganization anu value-labeling of memoiies. This
is not a new thought -as v.S.R. aumits - he meiely takes the iuea to the next logical stage of
uevelopment: if the iight hemispheie is evaluating a memoiy of something the left hemispheie is
uenying can exist (foi inteinal coheience), then the memoiy is misjileJ, such that: "...the memoiies
aie in fact tiansfeiieu into long-teim stoiage but aie stoieu in such a way that they cannot be
ietiieveu unuei oiuinaiy ciicumstances" (SS7).
While Ramachanuian's methou of stuuying anosognosia is ceitainly a cieative one (pailoi
tiicks anu cheap iewaius), it is when the scientist connects his newly-foimeu theoiy of hemispheiic
specialization with a little-known bianch of physics known as cboos tbeory that his cieative
appioach is tiuly uemonstiateu. Chaos theoiy supposes that whenevei a uialectical system is in
opposition, theie is a tenuency foi the spontaneous emeigence of complexity at the bounuaiy
between the two. Ramachanuian wiites (in what he aumits is highly speculative theoiizing) that:
Chaos aiises in ueteiministic systems which show a highly sensitive uepenuence on
initial conuitions anu this is not unlike the sensitivity to peituibation (oi
'anomalies') that I have postulateu foi the cognitive style of the iight hemispheie. In
maikeu contiast, the left hemispheie is ielatively insensitive to change anu tiies to
pieseive stability. 'Inteiesting' oi 'complex' types of behavioi, on the othei hanu,
seem to emeige spontaneously at the bounuaiy between the two - a place wheie
theie is just enough novelty to keep things inteiesting anu unpieuictable but also
just enough stability to avoiu complete anaichy anu instability. Anu it is piecisely
these little euuies of 'complexity' at the boiuei zone that may coiiesponu ioughly to
what we call human capiice, innovation anu cieativity. (SS9)
Be goes on to say that it is at least possible that the uefense mechanism of humoi (anothei
phenomenon linkeu to the cieative activity of the minu) is also ielateu to the leftiight hemispheiic
balance, such that: "humoi emeiges when a uialogue between the consistency-imposing tenuencies
in the left hemispheie anu the 'oiienting' mechanisms in the iight hemispheie leaus to a paiauigm
shift wbose implicotions ore triviol" (S61).
It has long been an accepteu that theie is a leftiight - cieativity anu language math anu
logic - uivision in the human biain. Ramachanuian's woik with anosognosia patients has
uemonstiateu that when the pait of the biain iesponsible foi accommouating paiauigm shifts is
uamageu, the biain sets about maintaining the status quo, unconsciously anu automatically
geneiating enoimously cieative solutions whenevei that status is thieateneu. Foi oui puiposes,
what is especially inteiesting is Ramachanuian's leftiight hemispheiic conflict in teims of the
emeigence of cieative thought; Ramachanuian's application of chaos theoiy to the neuiological
activity that geneiates "euieka" moments is itself a "euieka" moment.
Auuitionally, the hemispheiic tension that Ramachanuian theoiizeu has piofounu
implications foi the psychological measuiement of an inuiviuual's toleiance of ambiguity, a
chaiacteiistic peisonality inuicatoi long coiielateu with cieativity. The toleiance of ambiguity
enables cieative people to be moie comfoitable in situations wheie answeis aie uncleai anu
outcomes unceitain than theii less cieative peeis. Ramachanuian's ieseaich with anosognosia
pioviues some biological unueipinnings as to why that might be the case: hemispheiic tension.
That hemispheiic tension leaus to "the acceptance of peiplexity," a necessaiy pieconuition of the
application of cieativity to scientific enueavoi (Sulsky et. al. S7u).
To unueistanu why the "acceptance of peiplexity" is so impoitant to the cieative piocess,
we tuin oui attention biiefly to the link between the toleiance of ambiguity anu cieativity.
Fiank Zenasni, Nauu Besancon, anu Touu Lubait have been stuuying the coiielation
between these two tiaits anu in 2uu8 piesenteu theii ieseaich in Tbe }ournol of Creotive Bebovior in
an aiticle titleu "Cieativity anu Toleiance of Ambiguity: An Empiiical Stuuy." In theii papei, they
note that toleiance foi ambiguity has long been a peisonality tiait associateu with both the cieative
piocess anu with cieativity. Bowevei, no empiiical stuuies piioi to 2uu8 have establisheu the full
extent of the connection. In the intiouuction, the authois pioviue a geneial backgiounu in
agieement with the mulitfactoiial causative theoiies of Puccio, Numfoiu, Neusbuigei, Naitinuale,
Abuhamueh anu Csiksgentmihalyi, noting that:
Cieativity is a natuial tenuency in eveiy inuiviuual....|withj intellectual abilities,
knowleuge, cognitive style, peisonality tiaits, motivation anu a favoiable
enviionment...impoitant factois. The piesence of each of these components anu
theii inteiaction allows the emeigence of cieativity. (61)
Thioughout, Zenasni, Besancon, anu Lubait boiiow heavily fiom the woik of P.E. veinon (Creotivity:
SelecteJ ReoJinqs), especially conceining the link between the two peisonality tiaits: "...toleiance of
ambiguity favois cieative thinking anu behaviois because it enables inuiviuuals to not be satisfieu
by paitial oi non-optimal solutions to complex pioblems" (62). The authois aie convinceu that a
link between cieativity anu toleiance foi ambiguous situations exists, but aie inteiesteu in two
specific things: how much anu to what extent aie the foimei tiaits coiielateu anu to what extent is
paienthoou anu family enviionment coiielateu. The theoiy that they want to test is summeu up on
page 6S:
The moie inuiviuuals (chiluien anu auults) aie toleiant of ambiguity, the gieatei
theii cieative potential anu the moie they will show cieative piouuctions |anuj...
positive ielationships |existj between paients' anu chiluien's levels of toleiance of
ambiguity anu cieativity.
To test theii theoiy, Zenasni, Besancon, anu Lubait uiiecteu a limiteu stuuy with only 68
paiticipants (S4 paiis of auolescents ageu 11 to 17 anu one iepiesentative paient). Each paii took
pait in the same thiee tasks: "a uiveigent thinking task, a stoiy-wiiting exeicise, anu a self-
evaluation of cieative attituues anu behaviois." (6S) Each task containeu ambiguous stimuli anu
weie intentionally uesigneu to have no cleai iightwiong answei, no iightwiong methou. Foi the
self-evaluation, the authois utilizeu the "The Cieative Peisonality Scale fiom the Aujective Check-
List" (ACL), a tianslateu veision of R.W. Noiton's 197S "Neasuiement of Ambiguity Toleiance" test,
anu anothei test uevelopeu in 2uuS by K. Stoytcheva specifically foi this expeiiment calleu the
"Behavioui Scale of Toleiance Intoleiance of Ambiguity" (BSTIA). (66)
The iesults of the expeiiment showeu, as the authois expecteu, a significant positive
coiielation between toleiance foi ambiguity anu cieativity. Bowevei, the expecteu connection
between paientauolescent toleiance foi ambiguity was not pioven, though a coiielation between
paient anu chilu cieativity was.
What is cuiious about the woik of Zenasni, Besancon, anu Lubait is this: they place too gieat
an emphasis on one factoi (toleiance of ambiguity), leaving out the multivaiiate components of
peisonality that builu a cieative minu. This myopia is inteiesting foi two ieasons: The fiist is that
the authois mention R.}. Steinbeig anu T.I. Lubait's multivaiiate theoiy containeu within Befyinq
tbe CrowJ: Cultivotinq Creotivity in o Culture of Conformity, but uon't iuentify the challenges inheient
in theii attempt to tease out a single factoi fiom a host of otheis. They iecognize that Steinbeig anu
Lubait aie coiiect when they wiite that: ".intellectual abilities, knowleuge, cognitive style,
peisonality tiaits, motivation anu a favoiable enviionment aie impoitant factois foi cieativity," but
they Jont acknowleuge that the essential weakness of theii expeiiment is that it attempts to finu a
single causative factoi in an olympic-sizeu pool of ielateu factois (61).
The seconu cuiiosity is one of piocess: while the Zenasni, Besancon, anu Lubait aie
ieseaiching "toleiance of ambiguity," when it comes to analyzing the iesulting uata, tbey tbemselves
ore unwillinq to tolerote ombiquity! The authois aie awaie that cieative people aie comfoitable with
unclassifiable iesults - that cieative ieseaicheis uon't foice the uata to fit a molu - but cannot seem
to help themselves. They engage in exactly the same kinu of behavioi that the patients with
anosognosia uiu when confionteu with an unacceptable paiauigm shift: they pioviueu cieative
solutions that maskeu the pioblem. The anosognosia patient simply uenieu the ieality of theii
paialysis; Zenasni, Besancon, anu Lubait simply engageu in highly speculative justification foi why
theii iesults uiun't tuin out as expecteu. When the expecteu connection between paientauolescent
toleiance foi ambiguity was not pioven, though a coiielation between paient anu chilu cieativity
wos, the authois pioposeu that: "...uuiing auolescence, peisonality may not be stable" (71) anu that
the veibal natuie of the tests piecluueu those cieative with numbeis ("figuial cieativity").
Compaie theii iesponse with Ramachanuian's anu the uiffeiences aie stiiking.
Ramachanuian is willing to "accept peiplexity;" Zenasni, Besancon, anu Lubait weie not.
These questions - toleiance of ambiguity, hemispheiic tension, anu the pioposeu pait of the
minu iesponsible foi "paiauigm shifts" - all biing us back to Sulsky, Kieigei, anu NcKeown, who
believeu that in oiuei to move towaius the exciting scientific leaps of yesterJoy, scientists toJoy
must auopt the minuset of iespect towaius new, unfamiliai, anu oiiginal theoiies, humility in the
face of the vast unknown, anu the willing "acceptance of peiplexity." These chaiacteiistics, when
tiue of the ieseaichei, allow the scientist to:
...aumit that theie aie unknowns anu be comfoitable in woiking within the iealm of
not knowing: not knowing answeis, not knowing which questions aie impoitant, anu
not knowing which obseivations aie founuational.... (S7u)
It is, the authois contenu oqoin onJ oqoin, a question of iisk-taking.
Risking looking foolish.
Risking the loss of top-funuing giants.
Risking being ielegateu to the also-ian.
The authois ask - somewhat ihetoiically - if theie is any benefit to all these iisks. The
answei they give is a iesounuing moybe. Bowevei, without taking the ioau less tiaveleu, of engaging
with the ambiguities anu not attempting to foice the unknown into a supeificially imposeu
"answei"..the chance of making a gieat uiscoveiy is teiiibly slim:
Noimal science uoes not necessaiily piecluue cieative thinking, but the
uevelopment of new paiauigms always seems to iequiie seeing things in a uiffeient
way. The shift may be aiueu by the inciemental steps of noimal science piouucing
enough anomalies that the pievailing view cannot be sustaineu, but the view that
ieplaces it comes about in a cieative act of insight anu integiation that goes beyonu
the inciemental. (S7u)
Theiesa Biinuoifei Anueison, piofessoi at the Centei foi Cieative Piactices anu Cultuial
Economy at the 0niveisity of Technology in Syuney, Austialia says much the same thing in a papei
she piesenteu at the Seventh Inteinational Confeience on Conceptions of Libiaiy anu Infoimation
Science. She titleu the papei: "Kickstaiting Cieativity: Suppoiting the Piouuctive Phases of
0nceitainty in Infoimation Piactice," anu in it, Anueison ieiteiates the challenge that Sulsky,
Kieigei, anu NcKeown pioposeu, encouiaging hei auuience to engage with ambiguities:
If we aie to encouiage innovation in all sectois of oui lives (inuiviuually anu
collectively), we have to be toleiant of ambiguity anu unceitainty in oui lives anu in
oui society. We have to be able to see the piouuctive potential of iisk. We have to
leain to manage iisk anu unceitainty iathei than seek to avoiu it altogethei. We neeu
to leain how to hanule impeifect infoimation about situations anu how to ieconcile
with not knowing the outcome, all the choices oi all the piobabilities of paiticulai
outcomes in oui own lives anu in oui society. (2)
Ramachanuian woulu say answei both challenges by ieminuing the authois that:
Yes, we sboulJ encouroqe scientists to embroce imperfect informotion. But we must
remember tbot tbe obility to be toleront of ombiquity bos cleor bioloqicol founJotions;
simply wontinq to be more creotive in ones opproocb Joesnt suqqest tbot sucb o
tbinq is o reol possibility, ony more tbon o potient witb onosoqnosio coulJ be tolJ to
just embroce tbe reolity of your porolysis.

='$$5 )" #6. >).2&* 7<".5#6.5)-/ ?$'")"8/ -"& @.#-46%$
In 19S9, Robeit Fiost wiote CollecteJ Poems, a seminal woik so significant foi liteiatuie anu
so beloveu by his fans that a signeu fiist euition copy sells foi between ten anu twenty thousanu
uollais. Fiost began the woik with a biief essay on ait anu science he titleu: "The Figuie a Poem
Nakes," that has a uiiect beaiing on oui exploiation of cieativity. In "The Figuie a Poem Nakes,"
Fiost uiaws a cleai uistinction between the methouology of scholais anu cieative piofessionals,
wiiting that :
Scholais anu aitists thiown togethei aie often annoyeu at the puzzle of wheie they
uiffei. Both woik fiom knowleuge; but I suspect they uiffei most impoitantly in the
way theii knowleuge is come by. Scholais get theiis with conscientious
thoioughness along piojecteu lines of logic; poets theiis cavalieily anu as it happens
in anu out of books. They stick to nothing uelibeiately, but let what will stick to them
like buiis wheie they walk in the fielus.
Ramachanuian (iespectfully) uisagiees with Fiost. Be believes that "the way knowleuge is
come by" is guiueu, not as much by piocess (as Fiost believes) as by perception. In Ramachanuian's
book Tbe Tell-Tole Broin, the authoi explains in a chaptei titleu: "Louu Colois anu Bot Babes:
Synesthesia" how he staiteu by meiely exploiing a specific neuiological conuition anu enueu by
gaining valuable insights on cieative peiception anu the foimation of metaphoi.
"Louu Colois anu Bot Babes: Synesthesia" begins with an explanation: synesthesia is a
conuition in which the subjects claim to expeiience a blenJinq of sensotion. Ramachanuian
uesciibes the phenomenon as "extiaoiuinaiy," wiiting that:
Synesthetes..expeiience the oiuinaiy woilu in extiaoiuinaiy ways, seeming to
inhabit a stiange no-man's lanu between ieality anu fantasy. They taste colois, see
sounus, heai shapes, oi touch emotions in myiiau combinations. (7S)
Bates A Piomiscuous 0ntology Page of 2u 24
Scientists have been awaie of synesthesia foi a hanuful of centuiies, but have ioutinely ueigneu to
investigate the phenomenon, piefeiiing to iefei synesthetes to psychologists, wiiting off theii
complaints as being the piouuct of a sick minu - as a foim of schizophienia oi othei mental illness.
Ramachanuian set off to uo foui things: piove that the conuition was ieal (anu not just the
maue-up stoiy of uistuibeu minus), piopose an explanation, exploie the heieuity anu genetics
ielateu to it, anu exploie the ways that synesthesia might explain othei, moie challenging questions.
Be explains how his long-stanuing inteiest in cieativity uiove his passion foi the ieseaich, wiiting
that:
...fai fiom being a meie cuiiosity, synesthesia might give us valuable clues to unueistanuing
some of the most mysteiious aspects of the human minu- abilities such as language,
cieativity anu abstiact thought that some to us so effoitlessly that we take them foi gianteu.
(76)
Ramachanuian consiueieu anu iejecteu a numbei of common hypothesis befoie engaging in
his ieseaich. Those iejecteu hypothesis aie that:
1. Synesthesia is causeu by a kinu of evolutionaiy thiow-back to a pioposeu
unuiffeientiateu piimitive biain in which the "senses haun't quite sepaiateu yet anu
weie being mingleu in the emotional coie of the biain" (78).
2. The synesthete expeiiences aie memoiy-baseu; peihaps (foi example) they aie
expeiiencing colois with letteis because they playeu with viviuly coloieu
iefiigeiatoi magnets as a chilu.
S. They uon't reolly expeiience what they claim; synesthetes aie meiely engaging in
supei-poweieu anu tangential metaphoi.
As with the anosognosia patients, Ramachanuian fiist attempteu to piove that synesthetes
actually expeiience the things they claim by uevising a numbei of unusual anu highly cieative tests.
0ne test subject (Fiancesca) was hookeu up to an 0hmmetei to test hei galvanic skin iesponse to
textuies (84). When Fiancesca expeiienceu wiuely uiveigent emotions baseu on touching fabiic
anu then stone, (an expeiience that a non-synesthete woulu nevei expeiience), Ramachanuian was
able to piove that hei conuition was genuine. Anothei test subject (Niiabelle) was shown a seiies of
"pop-out" giaphics uesigneu to "hiue" ceitain elements thiough visual cluttei. Niiabelle instantly
iecognizeu the pattein that was hiuuen fiom someone with iegulai peiception uue to the natuie of
hei coloi-giaph synesthesia (86).
0nce the ieality of the conuition hau been establisheu, Ramachanuian began - ovei the
couise of seveial yeais - to uevelop a woiking theoiy that he coulu test. Aftei consiueiing the biain-
wiiing ieseaich of Tim Rickaiu, v.S.R. pioposeu the theoiy that synesthesia is causeu by a genetic
mutation that piomotes cioss-connections - oi as he piefeis to call it: "cioss-activation" - to exist
between aujacent biain aieas that aie noimally well-segiegateu fiom each othei aftei the piuning-
off peiiou of eaily biain uevelopment (96). Seveial yeais aftei the initial theoiy, fuithei ieseaich in
collaboiation with Eu Bubbaiu anu ueoff Boyton of the Salk Institute foi Biological Stuuies ievealeu
that Ramachanuian's "aim chaii theoiizing" was iight.
Ramachanuian wasn't content to piove that synesthesia exists in fact as well as anecuote, he
wanteu to finu the connection between the cieative expeiience anu his pioposeu "cioss-activation."
Be was suie such a connection existeu, foi aftei all:
.as many as a thiiu of all poets, novelists, anu aitists claim to have hau synthetic
expeiiences of one soit oi anothei, though a moie conseivative estimate woulu be
one in six (1uS).
Bis theoiizing leu him to believe that the connection of synesthesia to cieativity is ielateu to
the use of metopbor. The act of foiming metaphoi - the connection between unielateu things - is an
intensely cieative act, as Robeit A. Nisbet, the 0.S. histoiian anu euucatoi, wiote in Sociol Cbonqe
onJ Eistory:
Imagination coulu haiuly uo without metaphoi, foi imagination is, liteially, the
moving aiounu in one's minu of images, anu such images tenu commonly to be
metaphoiic. Cieative minus, as we know, aie iich in images anu metaphois, anu this
is tiue in science anu ait alike. The uiffeience between scientist anu aitist has little
to uo with the ways of the cieative imagination; eveiything to uo with the mannei of
uemonstiation anu veiification of what has been seen oi imagineu.
It has been a long anu well-establisheu fact that aitists anu highly cieative people have the
ability to see connections between unusual oi unielateu items oi concepts. Bowevei, scientists have
been unable to explain why such a connection - metaphoi - comes to exist at all. Ramachanuian's
woik with synesthetes suggest that, if concepts aie anchoieu to one section of the mental "map" anu
aitists have moie of these unpiuneu "connections" than the aveiage peison, than those with a
laigei, wiuei "map" of potential inteiielateu iueas to uiaw fiom expeiience a iichei anu moie
uiveis woilu of metaphoi.
uifteu wiiteis anu poets may have excess connections between woiu anu language
aieas. uifteu painteis anu giaphic aitists may have excess connections between
high-level giaphic visual aieas. Even a single woiu like "}uliet" oi "sun" can be
thought of as the centei of a semantic whiilpool, oi a iushing swiil of associations.
In the biain of a gifteu woiusmith, excess connections woulu mean laigei whiilpools
anu theiefoie laigei iegions of oveilap anu a concomitantly highei piopensity to
metaphoi. (1uS)

Thus, synesthesia is best thought of as an example of sub-pathological, cioss-moual
inteiactions that coulu be a signatuie oi maikei foi cieativity (1u8).
The inteiielateuness of metaphoi to unpiuneu connections within the minu quickly became
a hallmaik of Ramachanuian's thoughts on the natuie of cieativity. At numeious inteiviews anu
public appeaiance, he iepeateuly iefeiieu to his woik with synesthesia to explain one of the
founuations of cieative thought.
In the fetus, oi a ieally young chilu, all the uiffeient biain aieas aie connecteu to
each othei, uiffusely. Anu as the biain uevelops, the excess connections aie tuineu
off, so you get veiy specializeu aieas. So most people have ieally specializeu talents.
What happens in cieative people is this pooling uoesn't take place. This cieates a
piopensity to link seemingly unielateu things, like tones anu colois. But also,
because of the excess links, it makes them see hiuuen connections, maue just
between things that aie seemingly unielateu to most of us. (lnterview)

Conclusions
This papei has attempteu to exploie just a sampling of the issues ielateu to the acauemic
stuuy of cieativity using the public peisona anu ieseaich style of Ramachanuian as a staiting point.
We have consiueieu the basis foi justifying the stuuy of science, cieativity, anu how they inteiact
anu biiefly uelveu into the questions of natuie, nuituie, anu systems theoiy. We lookeu at the type
of ieseaichei anu scientist that Ramachanuian uesciibes himself anu the uiffeiences anu
similaiities between cieative anu ciitical thinking, uiscoveiing that the lines between the two aie
bluiiy at best anu moie likely, non-existent. Fiom an investigation of Ramachanuian's woik with
Anosognosia, we founu that the theoiizeu uistinction between paiauigm shift anu status quo
centeis of the biain has piofounu implications foi the phenomenon of Toleronce of Ambiquity as it
ielates to cieative thinking. Anu lastly, fiom his woik with Synesthesia we iuentifieu ways that
uelayeu synapse piuning iesults in one of the cleaiest inuicatois of cieativity: the heighteneu use of
metaphoi.
While all these things we have uiscusseu in this papei may seem only inciuental, wiluly
theoietical, anu peihaps even, in the enu, unprovoble, it seems cleai that if nothing else, theie is a
gieat ueal of woik left to be uone if the causes anu mechanisms of human cieativity aie to be
exploieu. Bow wonueiful woulu it be if we coulu test Ramachanuian's own toleiance of ambiguity!
Bow much more inteiesting if we coulu somehow test his leftiight, paiauigm shiftstatus quo
centeis anu see if the supposeu "chaos" line coulu be founu oi measuieu. The tools foi uoing this
kinu of ieseaich uon't exist, anu juuging fiom his avoweu uistaste foi technology, it is unlikely that
Ramachanuian will help to uevelop them. Bowevei, the seaich is fai fiom ovei. 0nly the most
cieative minus can imagine what new uiscoveiies tomoiiow will holu.


Works Cited
Abuhamueh, Sami, anu Nihaly Csikszentmihalyi. "The Aitistic Peisonality: A Systems Peispective."
Eus. Robeit }. Steinbeig, Elena L. uiigoienko, anu }eiome L. Singei. Ameiican Psychological
Association, 2uu4. S1-42. Web. 1162u1S.
Anueison, Theiesa Biinuoifei. "Kickstaiting Cieativity: Suppoiting the Piouuctive Faces of
0nceitainty in Infoimation Piactice." lnformotion Reseorcb: An lnternotionol Flectronic
}ournol 1S.4 (2u1u). Web. 11S2u1S.
Anthony, Anuiew. "vS Ramachanuian: The Naico Polo of Neuioscience." Tbe 0bserver. 29 }anuaiy
2u11. Tbe6uorJion.com. Web. Web. 1162u1S.
"v.S. Ramachanuian's Tales of the 'Tell-Tale Biain.'" Iresb Air, NPR.com. 14 Feb. 2u11 int. Bave
Bavies. Web. Web. 1122u1S.
Ehilich, Bimitii. "N.E.R.B.; An Inteiview with Bi. v.S. Ramachanuian anu Phaiiell Williams."
Inteiview Nag. S1 }ul. 2u1u. Web. 1162u1S.
Fiitz, Robeit. Creotinq: A 6uiJe to tbe Creotive Process. New Yoik: Fawcett Columbine. 1991. Piint.
"Imagination coulu haiuly uo without." Columbio WorlJ of uototions. Columbia 0niveisity Piess,
1996. Bictionory.com. Web. 11,172u1S.
Kaiakas, Scott L. "Cieative anu Ciitical Thinking in the Aits anu Sciences: Some Examples of
Congiuence." Iorum on Public Policy 0nline 2010.2 (2u1u). Web. 1162u1S.
Naitinuale, Colin. "Biological Bases of Cieativity." CombriJqe EonJbook of Creotivity. Eu. Robeit }.
Steinbeig. New Yoik, NY 0S: Cambiiuge 0niveisity Piess, 1999. 1S7-1S2. Web. 1192u1S.
Ncuinn, Colin. "Can the Biain Explain Youi Ninu." Tbe New York Review of Books. S8.S; 2u11: S2+.
Acauemic 0neFile; uale. Web. 111u2u1S
Ramachanuian, v. S., anu Sanuia Blakeslee. Pbontoms in tbe Broin: Probinq tbe Hysteries of tbe
Eumon HinJ. New Yoik : William Noiiow, c1998; 1st eu, 1998. Piint. 1192u1S.
Ramachanuian, v. S. "Cieativity veisus Skepticism within Science." Skeptical Inquiiei Novembei;
2u1S1u 2uu6: 48+. Acauemic 0neFile; uale. Web. 1uS12u1S.
---. Tbe Tell-Tole Broin : A Neuroscientist's uest for wbot Hokes 0s Eumon. New Yoik : W.W. Noiton,
c2u11; 1st eu, 2u11. Piint. 1192u1S
---. "The Evolutionaiy Biology 0f Self-Beception, Laughtei, Bieaming Anu Bepiession: Some Clues
Fiom Anosognosia." HeJicol Eypotbeses 47.S (1996): S47-S62. Biological Abstiacts 1969 -
Piesent. Web. 11112u1S.
Steinbeig, Robeit }., anu }ames C. Kaufman. Tbe CombriJqe EonJbook of Creotivity. New Yoik:
Cambiiuge 0niveisity Piess, 2u1u. Web. 1192u1S.
Sulsky, Sanuia I., Nancy Kieigei, anu Robeit E. NcKeown. "Not Continuing Along Pievious Lines:
Exploiing Bow New Biiections Emeige in Epiuemiological Reseaich." Annols of
FpiJemioloqy 22.S (2u12): S69-71. Web. 1172u1S.
Zenasni, Fianck, Nauu Besancon, anu Touu Lubait. "Cieativity anu Toleiance of Ambiguity: An
Empiiical Stuuy." }ournol of Creotive Bebovior 42.1 (2uu8): 61-7S. Web. 11S2u1S.

Image Souice: 0nattiibuteu. 0ntitleu. Nacguiie, Eoghan. "Sci-fi wiiteis help scientists biiuge gap
between fantasy anu ieality." CNN Tecb. 27 0ct. 2u12. Web. 1282u1S


A Promiscuous Ontology: Ramachandran, Neurology, and The Search For The Causes and Mechanisms of Human Creativity

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

A Promiscuous Ontology: Ramachandran, Neurology, and The Search For The Causes and Mechanisms of Human Creativity

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Chiistophei Bates

Ways of Knowing PBI4S41 Nunuale

Você também pode gostar