RE: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human- level GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a thing. It's a cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any thing as a thing - and so bring together, associate and compare immensely diverse objects such as, say, an amoeba, a bus, a car, a squid, a poem, a skyscraper, a box, a pencil, a fir tree, the number 1... Our thingy capacity makes us supremely adaptive. It means I can set you a creative problem like go and get me some *thing* to block this doorway [or hole] and you can indeed go and get any of a vastly diverse range of appropriate objects. How are we able to conceive of all these forms as things? Not by any rational means, I suggest, but by the imaginative means of drawing them all mentally or actually as similar adjustable gloops or blobs. Arnheim provides brilliant evidence for this: a young child in his drawings uses circular shapes to represent almost any object at all: a human figure, a house, a car, a book, and even the teeth of a saw, as can be seen in Fig x, a drawing by a five year old. It would be a mistake to say that the child neglects or misrepresents the shape of these objects. Only to adult eyes is he picturing them as round. Actually, intended roundness does not exist before other shapes, such as straightness or angularity are available to the child. At the stage when he begins to draw circles, shape is not yet differentiated. The circle does not stand for roundness but for the more general quality of thingness - that is, for the compactness of a solid object as distinguished from the nondescript ground. [Art and Visual Perception] Even for things and objects the mathematics is inherent. There is plurality, partitioning, grouping, attributes.. interrelatedness. Is a wisp of smoke a thing, or a wave on the ocean, or a sound echoing through the mountains. Is everything one big thing? Perhaps creativity involves zeroing out from the precise definition of things in order to make their interrelatedness less restricting. Can't find a solution to those complex problems when you are stuck in all the details, you can't' rationalize your way out of the rules as there may be a non-local solution or connection that needs to be made. The young child is continuously exercising creativity as things are blobs or circles and creativity combined with trial and error rationalizes things into domains and rules... John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
Agree. As far as a system is not pure deductive, it can be creative. What usually called creative thinking often can be analyzed into a combination induction, abduction, analogy, etc, as well as deduction. When these inference are properly justified, they are rational. To treat creative and rational as opposite to each other is indeed based on a very narrow understanding of rationality and logic. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Kaj Sotala xue...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Ben, I radically disagree. Human intelligence involves both creativity and rationality, certainly. But rationality - and the rational systems of logic/maths and formal languages, [on which current AGI depends] - are fundamentally *opposed* to creativity and the generation of new ideas. What I intend to demonstrate in a while is that just about everything that is bad thinking from a rational POV is *good [or potentially good] thinking* from a creative POV (and vice versa). To take a small example, logical fallacies are indeed illogical and irrational - an example of rationally bad thinking. But they are potentially good thinking from a creative POV - useful skills, for example, in a political spinmeister's art. (And you and Pei use them a lot in arguing for your AGI's :)). I think this example is more about needing to apply different kinds of reasoning rules in different domains, rather than the underlying reasoning process itself being different. In the domain of classical logic, if you encounter a contradiction, you'll want to apply a reasoning rule saying that your premises are inconsistent, and at least one of them needs to be eliminated or at least modified. In the domain of politics, if you encounter a contradiction, you'll want to apply a reasoning rule saying that this may come useful as a rhetorical argument. Note that even then, you need to apply rationality in order to figure out what kinds of contradictions are effective on your intended audience, and what kinds of contradictions you'll want to avoid. You can't just go around proclaiming it is my birthday and it is not my birthday and expect people to take you seriously. It seems to me like Mike is committing the fallacy of interpreting rationality in a too narrow way, thinking it to be something like a slightly expanded version of classical formal logic. That's a common mistake (oh, what damage Gene Roddenberry did to humanity when he created the character of Spock), but a mistake nonetheless. Furthermore, this currently seems to be mostly a debate over semantics, and the appropriate meaning of labels... if both Ben and Mike took the approach advocated in http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/taboo-words.html and taboo'd both rationality and creativity, so that e.g. rationalityBen = [a process by which ideas are verified for internal consistency] creativityBen = [a process, currently not entirely understood, by which new ideas are generated] rationalityMike = [a set of techniques such as math and logic] creativityMike = well, not sure of what Mike's exact definition for creativity *would* be then, instead of sentences like the wider culture has always known that rationality and creativity are opposed (to quote Mike's earlier mail), we'd get sentences like the wider culture has always known that the set of techniques of math and logic are opposed to creativity, which would be much easier to debate. No need to keep guessing what, exactly, the other person *means* with rationality and logic... --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
P.S. To put the distinction in a really simple easy to visualise (though *not* formal) form: rationality and creativity can be seen as reasoning about how to put bricks together - (from the metaphorical bricks of an argument to the literal bricks of a building) with rationality, you reason according to predetermined blueprints (or programs) of buildings - you infer that if this is a building in such and such a style, then this brick will have to go here and that brick will have to go there - everything follows. The bricks have to go together in certain ways. The links in any chain or structure of logical reasoning are rigid. with creativity, you reason *without* precise blueprints - you can put bricks together in any way you like, subject to the constraints that they must connect with and support each other. - and you start with only a rough idea, at best, of the end result/ building you want. (Build me a skyscraper that's radically different from anything ever built), rationality in any given situation and with any given, rational problem, can have only one result.Convergent construction. creativity in any given situation and with any creative, non-rational problem, can have an infinity of results. Divergent construction. Spot the difference? Rationality says bricks build brick buildings. It follows. Creativity says puh-lease, how boring. It may be rational and necessary on one level, but it's not necessary at all on a deeper level With a possible infinity of ways to put bricks together, we can always build something radically different. http://www.cpluv.com/www/medias/Christophe/Christophe_4661b649bdc87.jpg (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). You can't arrive at brick art or any art or any creative work or even the simplest form of everyday creativity by rationality/logic/deduction, induction , abduction, transduction et al. (What's the logical solution to freeing up bank lending right now? Or seducing that woman over there? Think about it.) AGI is about creativity. Building without blueprints. (Or hidden structures). Just rough ideas and outlines. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
BillK, Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-( I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments, but in the way they are presented, as well as in the politeness/rudeness toward other people. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, BillK pha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he combines A) extremely strong intuitive opinions about AGI topics with B) almost utter ignorance of the details of AGI (or standard AI), or the background knowledge needed to appreciate these details when compactly communicated This means that discussions with Mike never seem to get anywhere... and, frankly, I usually regret getting into them I would find it more rewarding by far to engage in discussion with someone who had Mike's same philosophy and ideas (which I disagree strongly with), but had enough technical background to actually debate the details of AGI in a meaningful way For example, Selmer Bringjord (an AI expert, not on this list) seems to share a fair number of Mike's ideas, but discussions with him are less frustrating because rather than wasting time on misunderstandings, basics and terminology, one cuts VERY QUICKLY to the deep points of conceptual disagreement ben g On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: BillK, Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-( I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments, but in the way they are presented, as well as in the politeness/rudeness toward other people. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, BillK pha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he combines A) extremely strong intuitive opinions about AGI topics with B) almost utter ignorance of the details of AGI (or standard AI), or the background knowledge needed to appreciate these details when compactly communicated This means that discussions with Mike never seem to get anywhere... and, frankly, I usually regret getting into them I would find it more rewarding by far to engage in discussion with someone who had Mike's same philosophy and ideas (which I disagree strongly with), but had enough technical background to actually debate the details of AGI in a meaningful way For example, Selmer Bringjord (an AI expert, not on this list) seems to share a fair number of Mike's ideas, but discussions with him are less frustrating because rather than wasting time on misunderstandings, basics and terminology, one cuts VERY QUICKLY to the deep points of conceptual disagreement ben g On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: BillK, Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-( I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments, but in the way they are presented, as well as in the politeness/rudeness toward other people. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, BillK pha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of the American Way ;-p Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans more seriously... I think we had some mutual colleagues in the past who favored such a style of discourse ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he combines A) extremely strong intuitive opinions about AGI topics with B) almost utter ignorance of the details of AGI (or standard AI), or the background knowledge needed to appreciate these details when compactly communicated This means that discussions with Mike never seem to get anywhere... and, frankly, I usually regret getting into them I would find it more rewarding by far to engage in discussion with someone who had Mike's same philosophy and ideas (which I disagree strongly with), but had enough technical background to actually debate the details of AGI in a meaningful way For example, Selmer Bringjord (an AI expert, not on this list) seems to share a fair number of Mike's ideas, but discussions with him are less frustrating because rather than wasting time on misunderstandings, basics and terminology, one cuts VERY QUICKLY to the deep points of conceptual disagreement ben g On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: BillK, Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-( I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments, but in the way they are presented, as well as in the politeness/rudeness toward other people. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, BillK pha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed:
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he combines A) extremely strong intuitive opinions about AGI topics with B) almost utter ignorance of the details of AGI (or standard AI), or the background knowledge needed to appreciate these details when compactly communicated This means that discussions with Mike never seem to get anywhere... and, frankly, I usually regret getting into them In my opinion you are being too generous and your generosity is being taken advantage of. As well as trying to be nice to Mike, you have to bear list quality in mind and decide whether his ramblings are of some benefit to all the other list members. There are many types of trolls; some can be quite sophisticated. See: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1032102 The definitive guide to Trolls A classic troll tries to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, searching for the truth, flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. A troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them. The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
In my opinion you are being too generous and your generosity is being taken advantage of. That is quite possible; it's certainly happened before... As well as trying to be nice to Mike, you have to bear list quality in mind and decide whether his ramblings are of some benefit to all the other list members. Well I decided not to make this a moderated list, and to be extremely reluctant about banning people The only ban I've instituted so far was against someone who was persistently making personal anti-Semitic attacks against other list members, a couple years back... I have sniped off-topic threads a handful of times, but by and large I guess I've decided to leave this list a free for all ... Later this year I'll likely be involved with the launch of a forum site oriented toward more structured AGI discussions... ben --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
Top posted here: Using your bricks to construct something, you have to construct it within constraints. Constraints is the key word. Whatever bricks you are using they have their own limiting properties. You CANNOT build anything anyway you please. Just by defining bricks you are already applying rationalist hand tying due to the fact that even your abstract bricks have a limiting rationalist inducing structure... Maybe bricks are too rationalist, I want to use gloops to build creative things that are impossible to build with bricks. John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] P.S. To put the distinction in a really simple easy to visualise (though *not* formal) form: rationality and creativity can be seen as reasoning about how to put bricks together - (from the metaphorical bricks of an argument to the literal bricks of a building) with rationality, you reason according to predetermined blueprints (or programs) of buildings - you infer that if this is a building in such and such a style, then this brick will have to go here and that brick will have to go there - everything follows. The bricks have to go together in certain ways. The links in any chain or structure of logical reasoning are rigid. with creativity, you reason *without* precise blueprints - you can put bricks together in any way you like, subject to the constraints that they must connect with and support each other. - and you start with only a rough idea, at best, of the end result/ building you want. (Build me a skyscraper that's radically different from anything ever built), rationality in any given situation and with any given, rational problem, can have only one result.Convergent construction. creativity in any given situation and with any creative, non-rational problem, can have an infinity of results. Divergent construction. Spot the difference? Rationality says bricks build brick buildings. It follows. Creativity says puh-lease, how boring. It may be rational and necessary on one level, but it's not necessary at all on a deeper level With a possible infinity of ways to put bricks together, we can always build something radically different. http://www.cpluv.com/www/medias/Christophe/Christophe_4661b649bdc87.jpg (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). You can't arrive at brick art or any art or any creative work or even the simplest form of everyday creativity by rationality/logic/deduction, induction , abduction, transduction et al. (What's the logical solution to freeing up bank lending right now? Or seducing that woman over there? Think about it.) AGI is about creativity. Building without blueprints. (Or hidden structures). Just rough ideas and outlines. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Cross-Cultural Discussion using English [WAS Re: [agi] Creativity ...]
Ben Goertzel wrote: yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of the American Way ;-p Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans more seriously... Except that, in fact, Mike is not American but British. As a result of long experience talking to Americans, I have discovered that what British people intend as routine discussion, Americans interpret as serious, intentional obnoxiousness. And then, what Americans (as you say) intend as playful obnoxiousness, non-Americans interpret more seriously. Richard Loosemore I think we had some mutual colleagues in the past who favored such a style of discourse ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com mailto:mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org mailto:b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
John:Just by defining bricks you are already applying rationalist hand tying due to the fact that even your abstract bricks have a limiting rationalist inducing structure... Maybe bricks are too rationalist, I want to use gloops to build creative things that are impossible to build with bricks. John, Smart observation, and dead right. Bricks are indeed basically rationalist. Gloops - or I would say roughly circularish blobs, like a child's - are essential for AGI. Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human-level GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a thing. It's a cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any thing as a thing - and so bring together, associate and compare immensely diverse objects such as, say, an amoeba, a bus, a car, a squid, a poem, a skyscraper, a box, a pencil, a fir tree, the number 1... Our thingy capacity makes us supremely adaptive. It means I can set you a creative problem like go and get me some *thing* to block this doorway [or hole] and you can indeed go and get any of a vastly diverse range of appropriate objects. How are we able to conceive of all these forms as things? Not by any rational means, I suggest, but by the imaginative means of drawing them all mentally or actually as similar adjustable gloops or blobs. Arnheim provides brilliant evidence for this: a young child in his drawings uses circular shapes to represent almost any object at all: a human figure, a house, a car, a book, and even the teeth of a saw, as can be seen in Fig x, a drawing by a five year old. It would be a mistake to say that the child neglects or misrepresents the shape of these objects. Only to adult eyes is he picturing them as round. Actually, intended roundness does not exist before other shapes, such as straightness or angularity are available to the child. At the stage when he begins to draw circles, shape is not yet differentiated. The circle does not stand for roundness but for the more general quality of thingness - that is, for the compactness of a solid object as distinguished from the nondescript ground. [Art and Visual Perception] P.S. But to answer your criticism directly - had I not posited the bricks analogy first, one could not move on to develop a blobs/gloops analogy. The rational form is essential for defining the creative (or more creative) form. And similarly, I have realised that rationality is essential for *formally* defining creativity. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Cross-Cultural Discussion using English [WAS Re: [agi] Creativity ...]
And when a Chinese doesn't answer a question, it usually means No ;-) Relatedly, I am discussing with some US gov't people a potential project involving customizing an AI reasoning system to emulate the different inferential judgments of people from different cultures... ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.comwrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of the American Way ;-p Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans more seriously... Except that, in fact, Mike is not American but British. As a result of long experience talking to Americans, I have discovered that what British people intend as routine discussion, Americans interpret as serious, intentional obnoxiousness. And then, what Americans (as you say) intend as playful obnoxiousness, non-Americans interpret more seriously. Richard Loosemore I think we had some mutual colleagues in the past who favored such a style of discourse ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.commailto: mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org mailto:b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Cross-Cultural Discussion using English [WAS Re: [agi] Creativity ...]
Richard and Ben, If you think I, as a Chinese, have overreacted to Mike Tintner's writing style, and this is just a culture difference, please let me know. In that case I'll try my best to learn his way of communication, at least when talking to British and American people --- who knows, it may even improve my marketing ability. ;-) Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: And when a Chinese doesn't answer a question, it usually means No ;-) Relatedly, I am discussing with some US gov't people a potential project involving customizing an AI reasoning system to emulate the different inferential judgments of people from different cultures... ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.com wrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of the American Way ;-p Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans more seriously... Except that, in fact, Mike is not American but British. As a result of long experience talking to Americans, I have discovered that what British people intend as routine discussion, Americans interpret as serious, intentional obnoxiousness. And then, what Americans (as you say) intend as playful obnoxiousness, non-Americans interpret more seriously. Richard Loosemore I think we had some mutual colleagues in the past who favored such a style of discourse ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com mailto:mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org mailto:b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Cross-Cultural Discussion using English [WAS Re: [agi] Creativity ...]
Well, I think you might have overreacted to his writing style for cultural reasons However, I also think that -- to be Americanly blunt -- you're very unlikely to learn anything from conversing with Mike, nor to make much positive impact on his own understanding by conversing with him. So in this case, I reckon the cultural factors are kind of irrelevant ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: Richard and Ben, If you think I, as a Chinese, have overreacted to Mike Tintner's writing style, and this is just a culture difference, please let me know. In that case I'll try my best to learn his way of communication, at least when talking to British and American people --- who knows, it may even improve my marketing ability. ;-) Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: And when a Chinese doesn't answer a question, it usually means No ;-) Relatedly, I am discussing with some US gov't people a potential project involving customizing an AI reasoning system to emulate the different inferential judgments of people from different cultures... ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.com wrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of the American Way ;-p Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans more seriously... Except that, in fact, Mike is not American but British. As a result of long experience talking to Americans, I have discovered that what British people intend as routine discussion, Americans interpret as serious, intentional obnoxiousness. And then, what Americans (as you say) intend as playful obnoxiousness, non-Americans interpret more seriously. Richard Loosemore I think we had some mutual colleagues in the past who favored such a style of discourse ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com mailto:mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org mailto:b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Cross-Cultural Discussion using English [WAS Re: [agi] Creativity ...]
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Well, I think you might have overreacted to his writing style for cultural reasons However, I also think that -- to be Americanly blunt -- you're very unlikely to learn anything from conversing with Mike, On AGI-related topics, I meant. He may well have other areas of expertise where we could learn a lot from him, but they are not the focus of this list. nor to make much positive impact on his own understanding by conversing with him. So in this case, I reckon the cultural factors are kind of irrelevant ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: Richard and Ben, If you think I, as a Chinese, have overreacted to Mike Tintner's writing style, and this is just a culture difference, please let me know. In that case I'll try my best to learn his way of communication, at least when talking to British and American people --- who knows, it may even improve my marketing ability. ;-) Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: And when a Chinese doesn't answer a question, it usually means No ;-) Relatedly, I am discussing with some US gov't people a potential project involving customizing an AI reasoning system to emulate the different inferential judgments of people from different cultures... ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.com wrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of the American Way ;-p Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans more seriously... Except that, in fact, Mike is not American but British. As a result of long experience talking to Americans, I have discovered that what British people intend as routine discussion, Americans interpret as serious, intentional obnoxiousness. And then, what Americans (as you say) intend as playful obnoxiousness, non-Americans interpret more seriously. Richard Loosemore I think we had some mutual colleagues in the past who favored such a style of discourse ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com mailto:mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org mailto:b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Cross-Cultural Discussion using English [WAS Re: [agi] Creativity ...]
Pei Wang wrote: Richard and Ben, If you think I, as a Chinese, have overreacted to Mike Tintner's writing style, and this is just a culture difference, please let me know. In that case I'll try my best to learn his way of communication, at least when talking to British and American people --- who knows, it may even improve my marketing ability. ;-) Pei No, no: I seriously do not think you have overreacted at all. I meant my comment half in jest: Mike has some unique abilities to rub people up the wrong way on this list, quite separate from the fact that he is British. The latter is an exacerbating factor, is all. Richard Loosemore On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: And when a Chinese doesn't answer a question, it usually means No ;-) Relatedly, I am discussing with some US gov't people a potential project involving customizing an AI reasoning system to emulate the different inferential judgments of people from different cultures... ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.com wrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of the American Way ;-p Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans more seriously... Except that, in fact, Mike is not American but British. As a result of long experience talking to Americans, I have discovered that what British people intend as routine discussion, Americans interpret as serious, intentional obnoxiousness. And then, what Americans (as you say) intend as playful obnoxiousness, non-Americans interpret more seriously. Richard Loosemore I think we had some mutual colleagues in the past who favored such a style of discourse ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com mailto:mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org mailto:b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] creativity
Ben, I'm glad that you have decided to respond to, - or at least recognize - my criticisms/points re creativity, because they are extremely important and central to AGI - as I said, it isn't just you but everyone who is avoiding them - when it is in all your interests to confront them *now*/*urgently*. I think in fact my criticisms do hold - but obviously I will have to look at your book first. [I may have looked at it already - I've read quite a bit of you - but you've written a lot]. If you could link me, or send me a copy, I will reply in a more considered way. ... some loose ends in reply to a message from a few days back ... Mike Tintner wrote: *** Be honest - when and where have you ever addressed creative problems? [Just count how many problems I have raised).. *** In my 1997 book FROM COMPLEXITY TO CREATIVITY *** Just as it is obvious that I know next to nothing about programming, it is also obvious that you have v. little experience of discussing creative problemsolving - at, I stress, a *metacognitive* level. (And nor, AFAIK, do any AGI-ers - only partly excepting Minsky). *** The 1997 book I referenced above in fact contains a significant amount of metacognition about creativity. You seem to have the idea that it's supposed to be possible to explain an AGI's creative process in detail, in specific instances ... and I don't know why you think that, since it's not even the case for humans. *** All this stands in total, stark contrast to any discussion of logical or mathematical, problems, where you are always delighted to engage in detail, and v. helpful and constructive - and do not make excuses to cover up your inexperience. *** Aspects of the mind that are closer to the deliberative, intensely conscious level are easier to discuss explicitly and in detail. Aspects of the mind that are mainly unconscious and have to do mainly with the coordinated activity of a large number of different processes, are harder to describe in detail in specific instances. One can describe the underlying processes but this then becomes technical and lengthy!! -- Ben -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] creativity
Mike, A very messily formatted rough draft of From Complexity to Creativity is here http://www.goertzel.org/books/complex/contents.html Alas I long ago lost the wordperfect 5.1 file that was used to generate the final proofs way back when... The chapter that gives an overall theory of the psychology of creativity is here http://www.goertzel.org/books/complex/ch14.html however that chapter is very high level and to make it concrete you'd need to trace the foundations of the ideas there back into the prior chapters... Here is the intro text of that chapter ... some of it sounds like it could have come out of your own mouth ;-) * Creativity is the great mystery at the center of Western culture. We preach order, science, logic and reason. But none of the great accomplishments of science, logic and reason was actually achieved in a scientific, logical, reasonable manner. Every single one must, instead, be attributed to the strange, obscure and definitively irrational process of creative inspiration. Logic and reason are indispensible in the working out ideas, once they have arisen -- but the actual * conception* of bold, original ideas is something else entirely. No creative person completely understands what they do when they create. And no two individuals' incomplete accounts of creative process would be the same. But nevertheless, there are some common patterns spanning different people's creativity; and there is thus some basis for theory. In previous chapters, the phenomenon of creativity has lurked around the edges of the discussion. Here I will confront it head-on. Drawing on the ideas of most of the previous chapters, I will frame a comprehensive complexity-theoretic answer to the question: How do those most exquisitely complex systems, minds, go about creating forms? I will begin on the whole-mind, personality level, with the idea that certain individuals possess creatively-inspired, largely medium-dependent creative subselves. In conjunction with the Fundamental Principle of Personality Dynamics, this idea in itself gives new insight into the much-discussed relationship between inspired creativity and madness. A healthy creative person, it is argued, maintains I-You relationships between their creative subselves and their everyday subselves. In the mind of a mad creative person, on the other hand, the relationship is strained and competitive, in the I-It mold. The question of the * internal workings* of the creative subself is then addressed. Different complex systems models are viewed as capturing different * aspects* of the creative process. First, the analogy between creative thought and the genetic algorithm is pursued. It is argued that the creative process involves two main aspects: combination and mutation of ideas, in the spirit of the genetic algorithm; and analogical spreading of ideas, following the lines of the dynamically self-organizing associative memory network. The dual network model explains the interconnection of these two processes. While these processes are present throughout the mind, creative subselves provide an environment in which they are allowed to act with unusual liberty and flexibility. This flexibility is related to the action of the perceptual-cognitive loop, which, when coherentizing thought-systems within the creative subself, seems to have a particularly gentle hand, creating systems that can relatively easily be dissected and put back together in new ways. Other subselves create their own realities having to do with physical sense-perceptions and actions; creative subselves, on the other hand, create their own realities having to do with abstract forms and structures. Because the creative subself deals with a more flexible environment, with a more amenable fitness landscape, it can afford to be more flexible internally. In dynamical systems terms, the process of creative thought may be viewed as the simultaneous creation and exploration of autopoietic attractors. Ideas are explored, and allowed to lead to other ideas, in trajectories that evolve in parallel. Eventually this dynamic process leads to a kind of rough convergence on a strange attractor -- a basic sense for what kind of idea, what kind of product one is going to have. The various parts of this attractor are then explored in a basically chaotic way, until a particular * part* of the attractor is converged to. In formal language terms, we may express this by saingy that the act of creative inspiration *creates its own languages *, which it then narrows down into simpler and simpler languages, until it arrives at languages that the rest of the mind can understand. The hierarchical structure of the dual network plays a role here, in that attractors formed on higher levels progressively give rise to attractors dealing with lower levels. One thus has a kind of iterative substitution, similar to the L-system model of sentence production. Instead of
