Hacker News Reader

Comment by galkk | Hacker News Reader

I will disagree. Creativity comes from applying acquired knowledge (that's where memorization comes into account) in new contexts.

View on HN

Appreciate you reading!

But how do you know how to apply this acquired knowledge in this new context?

It's some form of pattern matching right -- which imo is just a less obvious form of memorization

i.e. you've memorized the match between inherent traits of the context with a specific application of that knowledge

> It's some form of pattern matching right -- which imo is just a less obvious form of memorization

I don't think that meets the commonly accepted definition of memorization.

E.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/memoriza... Memorization: the act or process of learning something so that you will remember it exactly.

If you are transforming the knowledge, i dont think that is the same as memorizing it. In fact, i think most people would describe that as the opposite of memorization.

Using your definition, everything would be memorization. For example, you could describe picasso as simply pattern matching on other paintings to make something new, but i think it would be crazy to describe his work as an act of memorization (then again, the way AI generated art works... maybe its not so crazy)

> But how do you know how to apply this acquired knowledge in this new context?

That question has a false precondition baked in. If you know how, it's not creative.

> It's some form of pattern matching right -- which imo is just a less obvious form of memorization

No. Sensing and matching patterns does not imply memorization. Everything you're saying is completely loaded.

Did you just discover memorization? Because the pattern I see in your words is similar to anyone who's just learned a new tool or technique - they overapply it everywhere as they learn to use it.

But you must have knowledge of the basic units of your chosen art to apply that to the new situation right?

E.g. if you're an artist, at the very least you need the knowledge of how to draw a line

From other comments here it seems the definition of "memorization" seems to be where disagreements are

Maybe this is a better explanation: once I started trying to make whatI just learned is called "tacit knowledge" more explicit and then committing it to memory, I was able to cut learning times down significantly

I think the disagreements are largely from this weird cultural bias against any form of explicit "memorization". It's very, very strange.

> E.g. if you're an artist, at the very least you need the knowledge of how to draw a line

But no artist memorize how to draw a line. They learn how to draw a line, but learning isn't the same thing as memorizing.

To me, “memorization” implies an active process focused on learning a particular set of “matches” (to adopt the term you’re using here). But it seems to me that tacit knowledge (and other products of less concentrated/deliberate learning) often plays a substantial role in creativity.

That is, creativity fundamentally comes from internalized knowledge (as the article says) but internalized knowledge doesn’t necessarily come from memorization.

I think I see -- in your view "memorization" only refers to conscious learning

While internalized knowledge comes from "subconscious" (for lack of a better word) learning?

I guess I'm equating the two here and just using memorization as "committing to memory", with the belief being that you can construct the heuristic you'd normally acquire subconsciously and cut down time to mastery

I think memorization can play a role in internalizing knowledge, but it isn’t a “fundamental” as in necessary. Internalized knowledge can also come from other sources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com