Why shouldn't they? JM

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> Your model may explain why some drugs improve creativity.
> Richard
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >
> > The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
> > that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one
> of
> > the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
> > process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.
> >
> > Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
> > problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
> > be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
> > likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
> > information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
> > topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
> > open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
> > role, will come much further down the track.
> >
> > Cheers...
> > ------------------------
> > JM: Not that I want to produce such 'single moment of inspiration':
> > I gave some thought to the concept of creativity over the past 20 years.
> > At this moment I stand (and my stance is likely to undergo further
> changes)
> > with including Robert Rosen's "anticipation" concept as applied to my own
> > world-view (belief!) of agnosticism: there is an infinite complexity we
> > cannot know, not even approach and from it we get info-morsels from time
> to
> > time into OUR world. We are not up to consider those 'morsels' by their
> real
> > and full nature, only adjusted to our mental capabilities and the so far
> > circumscribed 'world' we live in(?).
> > This constitutes our 'image' of our "world" - indeed the model of it we
> can
> > muster in our actual mental inventory (including the application of
> > conventional sciences.).
> >
> > Our curiosity in topics MAY (or may not?) trigger topical info and it is
> up
> > to us whether we do, or don't pay attention and - maybe - consider them
> as
> > worthwhile pursuing - which is the way I figure "anticipation".
> > If we relate to such anticipation with a positive feedback, we may fail,
> or
> > succeed, the latter callable the 'creative approach".
> > It goes beyond our 'model', beyond what we could feed into our computers,
> > beyond the inventory (status quo ante?) of what we already knew (I say:
> > yesterday).
> > No consequences drawn.
> > John M
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to