That's interesting, and I think I agree mostly, at least abstractly. So this is really just a high-level comment on how to approach creativity, correct? I guess the title "Mathematics of Creativity" is what confused me. None of this suggests any real mathematical or computational perspective that will tell us something new or useful (or creative?) about creativity, right? Or am I missing something?
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > I wasn't trying for a detailed model of creative thinking with > explanatory power - merely one dimension (and indeed a foundation) of it. > > In contrast to rational, deterministically programmed computers and robots > wh. can only operate in closed spaces externally, (artificial environments) > and only think in closed spaces internally, human (real AGI) agents are > designed to operate in the open world externally, (real world environments) > and to think in open worlds internally. > > IOW when you think about any creative problem, like "what am I going to do > tonight?" or "let me write a post in reply to MT" - you *don't* have a nice > neat space/frame of options lined up as per a computer program, which your > brain systematically checks through. You have an open world of associations > - associated with varying degrees of power - wh. you have to search, or > since AI has corrupted that word, perhaps we should say "quest" through in > haphazard, nonsystematic fashion. You have to *explore* your brain for ideas > - and it is a risky business, wh. (with more difficult problems) may "draw a > blank". > > (Nor BTW does your brain "set up a space" for solving creative problems - > as was vaguely mooted in a recent discussion with Ben. Closed spaces are > strictly for rational problems). > > IMO though this contrast of narrow AI/rationality as "thinking in closed > spaces" vs AGI/creativity as "thinking in open worlds" is a very powerful > one. > > Re your examples, I don't think Koestler or Fauconnier are talking of > "defined" or "closed" spaces. The latter is v. vague about the nature of > his spaces. I think they're rather like the "formulae" for creativity that > our folk culture often talks about. V. loosely. They aren't used in the > strict senses the terms have in rationality - logic/maths/programming. > > Note that Calvin's/Piaget's idea of consciousness as designed for "when you > don't know what to do" accords with my idea of creative thinking as > effectively starting from a "blank page" rather than than a ready space of > options, and going on to explore a world of associations for ideas. > > P.S. I should have stressed that the "open world" of the brain is > **multidomain**, indeed **open-domain" by contrast with the spaces of > programs wh. are closed, uni-domain. When you search for "what am I going to > do..?" your brain can go through an endless world of domains - movies,call > a friend, watch TV, browse the net, meal, go for walk, play a sport, ask > s.o. for novel ideas, spend time with my kid ... and on and on. > > The "space thinking" of rationality is superefficient but rigid and useless > for AGI. The "open world" of the human, creative mind is highly inefficient > by comparison but superflexible and the only way to do AGI. > > > > > *From:* rob levy <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 1:06 AM > *To:* agi <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] The Math Behind Creativity > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I think it's v. useful - although I was really extending his idea. >> >> Correct me - but almost no matter what you guys do, (or anyone in AI does) >> , you think in terms of spaces, or frames. Spaces of options. Whether you're >> doing logic, maths, or programs, spaces in one form or other are >> fundamental. >> >> But you won't find anyone - or show me to the contrary - applying spaces >> to creative problems (or AGI problems). T >> > > > I guess we may somehow be familiar with different and non-overlapping > literature, but it seems to me that most or at least many approaches to > modeling creativity involve a notion of spaces of some kind. I won't make a > case to back that up but I will list a few examples: Koestler's bisociation > is spacial, D. T. Campbell, the Fogels, Finke et al, and William Calvin's > evolutionary notion of creativity involve a behavioral or conceptual fitness > landscape, Gilles Fauconnier & Mark Turner's theory of conceptual blending > on mental space, etc. etc. > > The idea of the website you posted is very lacking in any kind of > explanatory power in my opinion. To me any theory of creativity should be > able to show how a system is able to generate "novel and good" results. > Creativity is more than just outside what is known, created, or working. > That is a description of novelty, and with no suggestions for the why or > how of generating novelty. Creativity also requires the semantic potential > to reflect on and direct the focusing in on the stream of playful novelty to > that which is desired or considered good. > > I would disagree that creativity is outside the established/known. A > better characterization would be that it resides on the complex boundary of > the novel and the established, which is what make it interesting instead > just a copy, or just total gobbledygook randomness. > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > 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/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
