Simplistic explanations? The irony meter just pegged and broke again.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gapsI thought you would have learned by this late date that a god of the gaps argument is a fallacious argument. The supernatural is not the default position which is established sans a scientific explanation. You have to establish your position with evidence just like in science. Merely spewing a few meaningless sentences made up of undefined terms is not an explanation for anything.
Go back to before you had your first thought. Maybe into the womb. How did your brain come up with its very first thought? Would you recognize that thought now as a valid thought? Probably not. How did the mind do that? Maybe you should go have an in depth conversation with a 2 year old and see what thoughts lurk there. I wonder where those thoughts come from? Certainly not from an immortal (read mature) spirit housed within.
If you go back to my earlier post with the ant colony and how it made a decision as a colony you would realize that it is an explanation by analogy that explains how decisions/choices can be made in a determinate nature. So there is no dichotomy between determinism and choices being made to begin with. This is an unwarranted position held by creationists used to provide a false proof of their favored nonsensical position. Like all nonsense from creationists it is merely asserted. It follows the pattern that creationists favor. Make up a BS law and hope it won't be noticed as BS, then proceed to use it to "prove" something else.
So to proceed, I am not sure there are any "new" ideas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhdUp4JOHwghttps://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguso ... _the_remixThere is the theory of analogy as an explanation for "new" thoughts which makes the most sense to me. (Thoughts are not really new)
We tend to think of inventors as another species—geniuses—who have sudden flashes of insight. I can’t think of a single instance when a light bulb went off in my head, leading to some killer new idea. Is that because I’m an uncreative dud? Perhaps. Alternatively, it might be because Eureka moments are the stuff of legend. According to historians who specialize in the development of inventions and the thought processes of inventors, innovation is often a slow and iterative process.
And what, exactly, is involved in said process? One decades-old theory says that the crux of creativity lies in making analogies. Yes, just like those SAT questions: Crumb is to bread as…splinter is to wood. Medicine is to illness as… law is to anarchy. Creative people, the theory goes, are constantly connecting old knowledge and experiences to new situations. Edison’s kinetoscope, for instance, owes a lot to analogy.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... come-from/For example by way of analogy new information arises in deterministic nature via evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0You see the novel idea of General Relativity did not just jump into the mind of Einstein. It was an incremental process that led there. What's more this "new" thought by Einstein cannot be explained via revelation from god, at least in your case, because you reject the theory of GR. So where did it come from according to you? Perhaps the "dibil" made him think it?
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee