Each individual exhibited a form of creativity but sorry to dash your hopes but creativity is not some ethereal quality which science cannot explain.
I disagree with the meaning you are defining conscious experiences as. I don't think its about creativity. Thats a different aspect and one that can be linked to processes we can define redlating to form. It may be associated with consciousness.
But whatever is the conscious experience related to creativity it cannot be measured by science because the very nature of subjective experiences cannot be captured in material terms. So I think your conflating something thats not consciousness but a cognative intellectual process about defining the line between creative thinking and consciousness..
Einstein's brain was removed under the flimsy excuse it was part of the autopsy procedure of the hospital but turned into a full blown scientific investigation of how his brain varied from a typical brain, particularly Einstein's superior visual spatial reasoning which defined his creativity.
Still this is correlation and not accounting for the actual nature of conscious experiences. We can map out all the neural correlations of conscious experiences and know exactly what brain parts and wiring lights up. But none of this tells us anything about the nature of the experiences coming out of those firing mechanism. You cannot see the golden sunset in those brain activities. You have to ask the experiencer directly.
It is only the experiencer who is directly having that experience and gaining that knowledge from it. Like colorblind Mary. She could know everything about the brain activity but none of that gave her any experience or knowledge of colors. It was only when she could then see the color Red that she experienced it and gained new knowledge.
| Brain Feature | Typical Human Brain | Einstein’s Brain | Possible Cognitive Advantage |
|---|
| Inferior Parietal Lobule (IPL) | Normal size and folding; separated by a typical Sylvian fissure. | Unusually large, highly folded, Sylvian fissure partly absent, giving more cortical area. | Enhanced visual–spatial reasoning, mathematical intuition, and ability to mentally manipulate physical systems. |
| Parietal–Frontal Integration | Standard boundaries and separation between frontal and parietal regions. | More integrated parietal and frontal regions observed in images. | Improved ability to combine abstract ideas, form mental models, and think conceptually. |
| Glial-to-Neuron Ratio (especially in Area 39) | Average glial density; typical metabolic support. | Higher glial density in some regions responsible for complex thought. | Enhanced neural support for sustained reasoning, possibly enabling long periods of intense thought. |
| Corpus Callosum Thickness | Typical thickness and fiber density. | Thicker in several regions, especially mid-body and isthmus. | Better communication between hemispheres → integrative, cross-domain thinking. |
| Overall Cortical Complexity | Typical gyrification patterns. | More complex folding in certain cognitive areas, especially parietal regions. | Increased surface area for specialized processing → potentially greater cognitive capacity in specific domains. |
| Frontal Lobes (DLPFC areas) | Typical prefrontal organization. | Some evidence of unusually connected frontal-parietal networks. | Improved working memory, planning, and conceptual synthesis. |
| Language Areas (Broca/Wernicke) | Typical development. | No major anomalies observed. | Consistent with Einstein's own statements that he “thought in images, not words”—creativity rooted in visual reasoning rather than linguistic processing. |
| Overall Brain Size | ~1,350 g average adult male. | ~1,230 g (slightly smaller than average). | Shows that size is not related to intelligence; efficiency and structure matter more. |
All the above does is like mapping out the corelations of consciousness is tell us the technical data of what happens in the brain when we have a conscious experience. It tells us absolutely nothing about that experience or the knowledge that comes from it.
I want you to tell me the outcome of the ancient Egyptians transcendental ideas or experiences which according to you is manifested in the use of superior technology so where is it? I could just as easily state it is in the existing tools as confirmed by the archaeological evidence.
Thats silly. If I could tell you that then I would have cracked the Hard Problem of Consciousness and so far no one has come near to this.
All I can say is I have shown that there is an aspect of knowledge that material science cannot explain. So there is knowledge beyond the objective empiricle knowledge that tells us something about reality.
Lets throw a spanner into the works on the subject of Methological Naturalism which you mistakenly refer to as material science.
Methological naturalism deals with the naturalistic processes that are measurable through testing. That is matter, particles, chemicals, elements, forces and fields. So it is material or if you like physical in nature. Any non physical effect like consciousness is classed as an epiphenomena of the physical.
The Kahun Medical papyrus from the Middle Kingdom shows the Egyptians had developed a pregnancy test where women would urinate on barley and emmer-wheat seeds over several days. If the seeds sprouted indicated the women where pregnant.
Modern scientific studies indicate the test is up to 80% accurate and caused by increased levels of estrogen in the urine of pregnant women.
This is an example of the science of cause and effect, the ancient Egyptians only had the experience of observation which is the effect, they were not aware of Methological Naturalism and attributed the cause to magic.
Actually its now classed as science and not magic. But to the ancients this was like magic. For all we know it may well have been. If you consider that nature has a prenancy test available then it shows how much in nature are the solutions to almost anything. Thats like magic and especially to the ancients.
But none of this tells us anything about how they discovered such things. I am saying that because of their deep immersion in nature consciously that its no surprise they were discovering such things as they came to know how nature worked through an intimate relationship with in.
As opposed to material science when has to first collect a lot of data to work out how nature works in the first place by looking from the outside in. Then after centuries of information come to understand such things.
It highlights the fact the role of the supernatural in science is useless particularly when it is not falsifiable.
Yes I have been saying that for some time now. Science cannot tell us anything about the supernatural. Yet it is a reality and gives us knowledge that methological naturalism cannot tell us.
Science cannot falsify God or consciousness beyond the physical brain. That means it cannot claim it holds all the knowledge of nature and reality. That means as the ancients lived within this supernatural realm more often or completely they gained knowledge that we cannot get today from material sciences.
Well we can but its taken millenia. Even then we are still struggling with stuff like consciousness and phenomenal experiences like belief.
In some ways methological naturalism is hitting brick walls and is naturally looking at ideas that involve other dimensions that could almost be classed as supernatural. Like the idea that Mind or Consciousness or Information itself is fundemental reality that the material world eminates from.