The question is actually in some ways recursively self-referential.
The concept of creativity as developed inherently references self either as the possessor of the creativity, or as observer or as definer. Was creativity ever really meant to be mathematically defined. And does AGI ever need to possess references to self? The term creativity might be too biased of a concept loaded with ambiguous and fuzzy domains. It might be better to originate mathematical concepts that fulfill part of what creativity is in function instead of reverse-engineering something that is inherently and messily human. John From: Samantha Atkins [mailto:[email protected]] Subject: Re: [agi] Abstract Creativity Surely the question is poorly formulated. On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, John Rose <[email protected]> wrote: Should a mathematical definition of creativity include self? ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
