This requires a definition of self. If it refers to an autopoietic unity, as in the generalization of what a "person", or "organism" is, i.e. self-organizing systems of causal sensorimotor relations to environments, then I suspect yes.
After all, what is a percept, or a concept, or a purposeful behavior, if not something solely comprehensible as the experience of a situated agent directing its behavior in relation to an environment. If on the other hand "self" means something trivial like a feedback of a system recognizing its own behavior, I think that is not a fundamental property of intelligence at all. On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > This doesn't make any sense. The concept of creativity may refer to > different kinds of abilities (or effects) but that does not mean that the > term is too biased and too ambiguous and fuzzy. (I don't understand what > you are saying.) And why is it self-referential and why wouldn't AGI need > to posses references to itself - if the self includes methods and > properties of cognition (which is presumably what creativity is.) > > 1. Many terms have different meanings in different contexts. > 2. Many concepts are fuzzy and ambiguous. > 3. An ability to refer to what the (artificial) mind does is absolutely > necessary for AGI. > > I guess I have almost no idea what you are saying. > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:12 AM, John Rose <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Jim Bromer > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18769370-bddcdfdc> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
