This post was “inspired” after watching 60 minutes last night about child prodigy Alma Deutscher, truly a “paranormal” experience.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-12-year-old-prodigy-whose-first-language-is-mozart/

Where did such knowledge and raw creativity come from? It was not her virtuosity on two instruments that was the primary focus of the story, although that needs to be explained as well. It was her creativity! And this was a creativity that apparently required knowledge and skills that she was “born with.” Can all of this be explained by an appeal to the brain?

Here is quote from prominent AI theorist, Drew McDermott, and states the materialist position of nearly all neuroscientists:

“[P]eople have minds because they, or their brains, are biological computers. The biological variety of computer differs in many ways from the kinds of computers engineers build, but the differences are superficial. . . . [T]he same computations could have been performed using different materials, including silicon. It may sound odd to describe what brains do as computation, but . . . when one looks at the behavior of neurons in detail, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that their purpose is to compute things.”

(McDermott, Mind and Mechanism (2001) p. 2)

One of the well-established “mysteries” of this materialist thesis is in understanding human creativity in computational terms. This is not just a mystery to theists. Another well-established AI theorist, Margaret A. Boden, also called the phenomenon of human creativity a “mystery” stated the following:

“Even if the detailed neuronal circuits involved are known, what the circuits are doing may be obscure. The key questions concern what information is received and/or passed on by the cell or cell group, and how it’s computed by them. Put in another way, they concern ‘how electrical and chemical signals are used in the brain to represent and process information.’ The key point . . . then, is what we need to know what sort of information processing is involved in creativity.”

(Boden, “Creativity as a Neuroscientific Mystery,” in Vartanian et al (eds), Neuroscience of Creativity, Chapter 1)

In other words, you can program a computer to perform functions on a wide variety of data, including solving a wide variety of questions and problems associated with such data, but how to you program a computer to engage in creative “thinking” that goes beyond both the instantiated program and the data? You might recall, for example, that the computer “Watson” outperformed the best Jeopardy contestants by quickly analyzing a vast resource of data, and coming up with correct answers to questions (or questions for answers), but was anything creative accomplished? AI programs can be functionally much more sophisticated that Watson, but all in all, all they amount to are complex deterministic processes that analyze data and generate pre-programmed or random behavior.

If the brain is a computational machine, like a computer, it does not, and cannot, create raw data out of thin air; like Alma’s knowledge of music, and then use that knowledge (data) to create sophistical works of art, or complex scientific theories. If it could, we could program a computer with all of the “data” of music composition and style and generate any number of masterpieces. We could program a computer with all of the data of Newtonian physics and generate the equations of relativity. No further need for Alma Deutscher, or another Nobel prize winner.

Do you really think, "I can't explain this, so it must be paranormal!" is a good argument?

Hint: it's not.

I don't know where her "creativity" came from.
Neither do you.

So why claim to know that it's 'paranormal' when you don't know where it came from?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2017 12:59PM by ificouldhietokolob.

By definition "paranormal" is a phenomenon that is "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding." (Oxford American Dictionary)

As such, this qualifies--unless you have a substantive response to my post that explains this phenomenon.

Hint: You don't! (Because you never do!)

What you, or anyone else, needs is a hypothesis that explains human creativity by appeal to brain function. (See Boden quote) So, if this doesn't stump YOU, as it has others, have at it. Otherwise, it is paranormal by definition.

Just because something is currently not understood doesn't mean that it is "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding". Here is a whole list of unsolved problems in physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

No one who knows what they're talking about would describe these as "paranormal" phenomena.

A topic that is "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding" means that said topic cannot fundamentally be understood by normal scientific inquiry. Scientists do not believe in such things, and thus reject the paranormal world.

"Just because something is currently not understood doesn't mean that it is "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding".

COMMENT: Well, I *did" put "paranormal" in quotes. Certainly, the term suggests something more that an unresolved problem in physics. But, this phenomenon is indeed beyond the scope of science, in the sense that neuroscience assumes that all behavior is based upon computational and algorithmic brain processes. This sort of phenomenon cannot be explained in that way--in principle!
______________________________________

"No one who knows what they're talking about would describe these as "paranormal" phenomena."

COMMENT: Again, I described it that way to make a point. Obviously this is not the typical "paranormal" experiences of the literature on this subject.
________________________________________

A topic that is "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding" means that said topic cannot fundamentally be understood by normal scientific inquiry. Scientists do not believe in such things, and thus reject the paranormal world.

COMMENT: Exactly, and this phenomena *is* beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding, because science, and specifically neuroscience is all about computational brain processes, and this is definitely NOT that. If I am wrong, please be so kind as to provide a scientific explanation that might work even in principle to explain human creativity.

So you're making an argument from personal incredulity. Because you don't understand how this is happening or don't want to believe it, you're claiming that it can't be done by brain processes.

Heck, we can program computers to be creative and produce things that the programmers did not intend or conceive of.

Of course, that brings us to the definition of creativity. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that, by your definition, it cannot be a product of computational processes. That would make your argument circular too.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. And also let us know if you know anything about computers, machine learning, brain processes, psychology, etc.

So you're making an argument from personal incredulity. Because you don't understand how this is happening or don't want to believe it, you're claiming that it can't be done by brain processes.

COMMENT: No, it is not an argument from personal incredulity. It is an "argument" that says, essentially, "We know what brains do as biological computational networks, and we understand how such systems work as deterministic computational processes. Given that knowledge, how is it possible for brains to produce human creativity in all its forms.
_____________________________________

Heck, we can program computers to be creative and produce things that the programmers did not intend or conceive of.

COMMENT: It is one thing for computational systems to produce surprising results at times, but quite another for such systems to create unique, functional and/or insightful information that goes well beyond their data and programing.
______________________________________

Of course, that brings us to the definition of creativity. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that, by your definition, it cannot be a product of computational processes. That would make your argument circular too.

COMMENT: Well, yes. It is an argument that says that human creativity in all its forms cannot be explained solely by computational processes. If it can, then we should be able to program a computer (of whatever architecture) to produce such creative insights and information.

The brain is hardly deterministic (unless the universe is deterministic, but that's another discussion). Modern computers aren't even completely deterministic: people who think they are still have some notion that they're just complicated finite state machines, which hasn't been true in many years.

Look at this sentence: "It is one thing for computational systems to produce surprising results at times, but quite another for such systems to create unique, functional and/or insightful information that goes well beyond their data and programing."

What does any of that have to do with creativity? Since when is uniqueness or functionality a prerequisite for creativity? And what does it even mean for a computational system to do something "well beyond [its] data and programming"? Do you think creative humans are doing things beyond their equivalent of data and programming? I really don't think they are.

Look HB, you can believe what you want to, but you are basically preaching a personal prejudice and backing it up with ill-defined terms. It sounds like you don't understand much about brains, computation and maybe even creativity.

If you're going to use a definition of creativity which assumes that computational processes cannot achieve it, then it should come as no surprise that any arguments you make in that vein will reach that same conclusion. Might I suggest you apply a little more creativity to your argument?

The brain is hardly deterministic (unless the universe is deterministic, but that's another discussion). Modern computers aren't even completely deterministic: people who think they are still have some notion that they're just complicated finite state machines, which hasn't been true in many years.

COMMENT: Modern computers operate from completely deterministic processes, which include deterministic computer code performing deterministic functions based upon such code. Randomness can be programed into the computer, but again ultimately the computer only does what the programmer determines. The fact that surprising results occur, or even emergent results, for example complex patterns or associations, does not make the process anything by deterministic.
_________________________________________

Look at this sentence: "It is one thing for computational systems to produce surprising results at times, but quite another for such systems to create unique, functional and/or insightful information that goes well beyond their data and programing."

What does any of that have to do with creativity? Since when is uniqueness or functionality a prerequisite for creativity? And what does it even mean for a computational system to do something "well beyond [its] data and programming"? Do you think creative humans are doing things beyond their equivalent of data and programming? I really don't think they are.

COMMENT: Well, what is your definition of creativity? Yes. of course they are. For example, consider hypothetically a computer, or other dynamic system of a complexity matching the human brain. Now, download into this computer everything that is known about music and musical composition, so that there is no underlying data or information that Mozart's brain, say, had that this computer does not have. Now, find the "create" button and see if the computer generates a symphony in the style of Mozart. The supposition that it can't demonstrates, in my view, that humans have creative powers beyond their "programming." Now, maybe you will say, how do I know that such a computer would not create a symphony. I don't, but if it did it would be very difficult to explain in computational terms. It would involve random "self-organization" of the underlying data into very complex and specified emergent results.
__________________________________________

Look HB, you can believe what you want to, but you are basically preaching a personal prejudice and backing it up with ill-defined terms. It sounds like you don't understand much about brains, computation and maybe even creativity.

COMMENT: Well I will let the reader decide that. But for what it is worth, I have an extensive personal library that includes all of the subjects you noted in your original response, and am well-read on these subjects. Moreover, I would say the exact same thing about you. But, for a start provide a substantive response to my example above. Tell us how a computer might create a symphony, or generate a scientific theory.
___________________________________________

If you're going to use a definition of creativity which assumes that computational processes cannot achieve it, then it should come as no surprise that any arguments you make in that vein will reach that same conclusion. Might I suggest you apply a little more creativity to your argument?

COMMENT: My definition of "creativity" as modified below, does NOT assume computational processes cannot achieve it. It merely points out, as reflected in the literature I cited, that there is a difficulty in principle to achieve it; and that human creativity, as we know it empirically, has not been explained by computational analogies or models.

(Margaret Boden, "Creativity as a Neuroscientific Mystery," in Neuroscience of Creativity, (2013) The MIT Press)

Sometimes scientists and others are too busy looking for data and facts to bother simply labeling something "paranormal" and taking the easy way out. Or, the convenient way out for those who choose to believe in Gods.

The only way something is beyond the scope of scientific understanding is if scientists stop searching and exploring.

Additionally (not that anything more is needed), the Oxford American Dictionary is not "peer reviewed".

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By definition "paranormal" is a phenomenon that is
> "beyond the scope of normal scientific
> understanding." (Oxford American Dictionary)
> As such, this qualifies--unless you have a
> substantive response to my post that explains this
> phenomenon.

There is a difference between "beyond the scope" and "not currently explained." Something can be not currently explained for thousands of reasons that aren't "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding." The most obvious being that nobody has bothered to do any kind of scientific investigation.

Your fallacy lies in *assuming* something is "beyond the scope." Unknown does not mean unknowable.

> Hint: You don't! (Because you never do!)

There's no need to, since your argument is fallacious to begin with.
The demand "explain this or it's supernatural!" is unsound from the start.

> What you, or anyone else, needs is a hypothesis
> that explains human creativity by appeal to brain
> function. (See Boden quote) So, if this doesn't
> stump YOU, as it has others, have at it.
> Otherwise, it is paranormal by definition.

As I pointed out above...it's not.

Monkeys watch large humans pushing strollers containing small humans past their enclosures at the zoo and the rage builds that these ghawds who have captured them flaunt their majesty and power, but won't share them, so the monkeys impudently fling their feces at the ghawds. But at night, when they are alone, the monkeys lay half-awake, wondering how they, too, can rise to match their deities.


(Hint, this is a double metaphor!)

There are cases of brain injury creating musical prodigies such as Derek Amato. It's called musical savant syndrome. Derek cant read music. He never plays the same thing twice. He has no idea what's going to come out when he sits down to play.

His brain creates it. Just a non neurotypical set of brain connections.

IMO it's not just that there's no evidence one way or the other on paranormal neurophysiology. Because there IS evidence one way or the other.

I don't know why exceptional creativity and exceptional uptake of talent would be considered paranormal in the first place. "Genius" is only a relative term compared to other people. We're all geniuses compared to someone, somewhere...AND we're all halfwits compared to someone, somewhere. IMO human intelligence actually spans a narrow range given all the hypothetical levels of intelligence there are. We're just comparing ourselves to each other, I think, in small ways. It's kind of a truism in life, I think, that someone who has a talent I don't have SEEMS more intelligent to me than a measurement of global intelligence would show.

And, IMO the main "selection pressure" on humans since before the dawn of civilization has been other humans and the environment,,, not other (large) animals. This is why we see such a wide separation from other animals. Other animals are still a/the main selection pressure on other animals, but not us.

Thus, human evolution including neurophysiology is isolated enough that it's its own special case.

And I think you can argue that the spectrum from rigid thinking to creative thinking is all needed for humans to tolerate the pressures of other people and the environment.

But as for trying to "explain" creativity...I think it's a non-sequitur that it recruits any paranormal hypotheses. It doesn't. And, there's evidence that it's NOT paranormal.

For example, NDE's happen all the time and there's a practically automatic emotional codependency on them from those who've had them. They "swear by them". They can't distinguish them from reality. They seemed real, including SEEMING like the experience included "information", meaning something the subject didn't know or "couldn't" have known.

But when actually objectively checked, this experience NEVER holds up. In every case there was either a way the subject could have acquired the information, or there's ambiguity, or the information is wrong. There are simply are no cases where someone who had an NDE revealed novel objective information.

I think what it shows is the capacity of the brain to make things up. Remove everyday inhibitions and most of us will have seemingly paranormal experiences. Drugs do it. Religion does it. Rock concerts and other socially hysterical situations do it. Serenity and isolation does it. Pain and suffering does it. Euphoria does it. Fear does it. Hate does it. Love does it.

**********

As for AI. At least one limiting factor is that human brain synapses are electrochemical, NOT electronic. The speed of neuron action potentials is far slower than electrical power moving along a conductor, and neuron synapses are far slower than electricity acting on a semiconductor "switch". The difference is at least comparable to humans outrunning a bullet. The physical speed of electronic circuits gives AI, literally, power over biological intelligence. It isn't just matching the complexity of human brains 1:1.

Creativity is what nature does. I think it can be totally unconscious. All creativity is is trying something that might or might not work. The idea requires means to enact it, ie communicate it or do it. Then, there needs to be a response mechanism to the feedback it triggers.

In living things, communication and motor function preceded creativity. This is suggested in human evolution too, where bipedalism freeing the hands long preceded brain enlargement.

So AI is coming at it exactly backwards, basically analogous to intelligence with no hands and feet.

Unless you look at it in what I think is its true context, that "AI" is actually still "natural" intelligence after all. Even if AI develops into thinking, creative androids, they are still biological evolutionary beings.

To go all sci-fi,,,maybe this is the future of humans, to upload their minds to electronic host machines that reproduce their minds.

But then THIS represents an existential question. What if you copied your mind to multiple hosts? And, what if you copied your mind to a host while you're still conscious yourself? Here you have multiple conscious "selves" who are all YOU to themselves, and who then may split up and live different lives starting out as you.

Then, later, you meet up, and you are all still you but have different experience now since the upload.

IMO this possibility disproves the existence of a soul or spirit, or at least disproves that your consciousness is a soul or spirit apart from your brain.

Well said, meat bag! (the loving epithet bestowed by Bender E. Rodriguez, boy robot)

In the Bobverse sci/fi series, each iteration of the original 'brain scan' results in a slight variation of the original personality. But of course each iteration thinks itself to be exactly like the original.

A very fun series!

https://www.amazon.com/Are-Legion-Bob-Bobiverse-Book-ebook/dp/B01LWAESYQ

IMO it's not just that there's no evidence one way or the other on paranormal neurophysiology. Because there IS evidence one way or the other.

COMMENT: Evidence explaining human creativity? Please tell me.
____________________________________

I don't know why exceptional creativity and exceptional uptake of talent would be considered paranormal in the first place. "Genius" is only a relative term compared to other people.

COMMENT: It is not just about genius. It's about human creativity, including yours and mine.

______________________________________

And I think you can argue that the spectrum from rigid thinking to creative thinking is all needed for humans to tolerate the pressures of other people and the environment.

COMMENT: O.K. So there is a evolutionary benefit in creative thinking, but what is the neurological mechanism that instantiates it, or explains it? You cannot just appeal to evolution.
_________________________________________

But as for trying to "explain" creativity...I think it's a non-sequitur that it recruits any paranormal hypotheses. It doesn't. And, there's evidence that it's NOT paranormal.

COMMENTS: Again, show me the evidence for human creativity in all its forms. Not just platitudes, please.

__________________________________________

Creativity is what nature does. I think it can be totally unconscious. All creativity is is trying something that might or might not work. The idea requires means to enact it, ie communicate it or do it. Then, there needs to be a response mechanism to the feedback it triggers.

COMMENT: Again, and again, and again. NO EXPLANATION, OR REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED. I GIVE UP.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Again, and again, and again. NO
> EXPLANATION, OR REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED. I
> GIVE UP.

Giving up is something you should have done long ago. The continued arguments from ignorance don't add anything reasonable to the discussion.

Is it really so hard to just say, "I don't know"?
Must you, in the face of an actual "I don't know" continually say you DO know, and that what you know is that it's magic?

Henry, you might find this article interesting:

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/patience-worth-analysis

This back and forth reminds me of the movie, "Genius," starring Geoffrey Rush as Albert Einstein.

When Einstein died, one of the professors at Princeton University autopsied his brain (without the consent of Einstein before his death, or his family after he died.) He wanted to put it under a microscope to determine what it was that caused Einstein's genius.

Einstein's son told the professor at the time that trying to dissect his father's brain would never decipher his dad's genius, or be able to explain how he was able to connect his creative genius to science. His genius came from a life force beyond human understanding not found under a microscope. It may have been in part his Jewish upbringing. It may have been heredity. Any number of things. When someone asked Einstein what the most important thing his mother did for him as a child, he answered was she read him fairy tales.

It was fairy tales that helped to develop his creativity and imagination, which in turn helped to develop his genius for what were to be his achievements during his career.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2017 03:07PM by Amyjo.

I am no longer as well read on neuroscience as I once was, but can at least offer the following:

1. Anybody who characterizes the human brain as a 'computer' - implying that it is some kind of Von Neumann machine, is being silly.

2. Neuroscience isn't even in its infancy, it's gestational. Centuries, and probably millenia of research await. _Any_ current hypothesis will be limited, provisional, and subject to major upheaval in due course.

1. Anybody who characterizes the human brain as a 'computer' - implying that it is some kind of Von Neumann machine, is being silly.

COMMENT. Yes. I think neuroscience (and even AI) is past that. The brain is definitely not a digital computer. However, one can still insist that brain function is computational, which is a broader question. I think most neuroscientist would say that it is. The difference is that the "computations" of the brain are now thought to involve neural connectionist networks, which are not analogous to digital computers. (See P. Churchland, The Computational Brain)

The idea that the brain is computational is still essentially the dominant view; i.e. the brain takes information from the environment, as well as its own neural states and its encoded memory, and then processes that information through complex computational processes, which leads to literally all of the complexities of human behavior. There may be processes that are not strictly computational per se, but rather considered as just part of the causal stream of brain dynamics. In either case, all brain processes are deterministic ala classical physics. (Assuming no QM processes play a role, which would then add indeterminism to the mix)

My post is intended to call into question whether any of the above descriptions of brain processes are sufficient--in principle-- to explain creativity. Even if one adds, which some do, the idea of self-organization and emergence (which are themselves mostly observed phenomena and not scientifically explained) one is left with the feeling (at least I am) that something essential about human beings is being left out. (See e.g. Stuart Kaufmann, Reinventing the Sacred)
______________________________________

2. Neuroscience isn't even in its infancy, it's gestational. Centuries, and probably millenia of research await. _Any_ current hypothesis will be limited, provisional, and subject to major upheaval in due course.

COMMENT: No doubt this is true. What I would ask is whether the "upheaval" that is to come will leave neuroscience within its current materialist framework (as generally described above) or whether it will be forced at some point to think of human cognition under a new scientific paradigm involving broader umbrella of reality. I suppose time will tell.

>>I suppose time will tell

If we don't destroy ourselves beforehand.

Thank you. That line jumped out to me to in the original text. Clearly a person who knows nothing about both electronics and neuro-science this so called "scientist" must be. Somebody had to say it. The human brain, and any animal brain aswell for that matter, work in ways so utterly different to the ways computers work it's actually pretty much a sign of gross ignorance if anybody thinks they are the same.

A single electronic chip for all it's engineered glory cannot compete in sophistication with the neuron, who being a living cell ofcourse is mindboggingly complex and filled with all kinds of stuff and functions. Likewise the neuron is so slow compared to the chip they aren't even in the same race. But the huge, huge difference is that all the really cool intelligence, memory and creativity stuff in the brain has something to do with, although nobody knows how, with the individual neurons ability to physically grow new connections to other neurons, tapping into new networks. And I suspect also the neurons ability to regulate both it's 'recievers' and it's 'senders' to be more sensitive to some signals or less sensitive to others e.t.c.

I don't foresee microchips getting the ability to regulate their interaction with other microchips anytime soon.

Wait, are you telling me the world isn't full of musicians that have this type of talent?

Exactly! I'm no protege' but music comes very easy to me, always has. I play about 8 instruments pretty well, some much better than others, dabble on several more, write songs, perform, etc.

I have music going in my head all the time, especially at work for some reason. Melodies pop into my head, some become songs. Sometimes a song will do what I call a FIML....Fell In My Lap....just start strumming the guitar and out comes a song....chords, words, melody, everything just as quick as I can play it and write it down....and those are ALWAYS my best songs.

I look at it this way....I'm not really creating anything "new"....I'm taking existing notes and combining them in a pattern that is pleasing to me, hopefully to others too. The combination of notes I put together already exists on some level, I just bring it into the level I am on.

Nothing supernatural about it.

I look at it this way....I'm not really creating anything "new"....I'm taking existing notes and combining them in a pattern that is pleasing to me, hopefully to others too. The combination of notes I put together already exists on some level, I just bring it into the level I am on.

COMMENT: Unless the *combination" of notes and rhythms existed in your head as neural representations prior to this process; i.e. the melodies themselves were already there, you are creating something new. Moreover, who or what is the "you" that is doing all of this creative work? How are you represented in your brain? Do we have a system of neurons representing "you" that is creating something out of other neural representations representing musical notes and music theory? If so, there is a lot of explaining to do about how all of this comes together. Frankly, it sounds a bit supernatural to me (and I don't believe in the supernatural!)

To each their own. You can analyze the heck out of it and I will just let it happen and hope the songs are good :)

Whatever it is, it happens quite naturally for me, therefore I see no supernatural in it.

Hi Henry,

I'll take this discussion - and hopefully not lose sight of it like the last one.

First, we'd need to define what 'creativity' is.

I'm going to ask if you can describe one item that is made up of something or things that do not already exist.

For example, it can't be a round fish since fish and round already exist. It can't be an ice cooker since cookers and ice exist.

My point here is, there is no genuine creativity, only combining the obvious or less obvious into a new form and giving it a proper name.

We all do this fare more frequently than we like to admit. Name any act of creativity and there is an analysis that reveals it is nothing more than the combination of existing ideas and simply spotting the links that allow for a fit.

Whether in art, science, literature.

Because this is the case, it is far more reasonable to see this ability to fuse ideas and things as a biological evolutionary byproduct.

We see that a long stick can be used to knock down fruit in a high tree, or that a sharper stick can spear a fish. The development of human history is full of examples of this.

So, take 20 million things and multiply them against 20 million things in a machine, a computer asking it to find combinations and list possible synergies. Give it a ranking system based on some form of utility, it'll give you a long list.

The more you define the list the more precise the good ideas you get back.

As for 'child prodigies' and music, the Japanese did research on this blowing away the old idea of perfect pitch. They demonstrated that contrary to held belief, all children that were healthy could obtain perfect pitch simply through training over a shortish period of time (up to 18 months) allowing them to rival Mozart in that capability - long prior believed to be a gift or marvel.

How about that as a starter for ten.

Not Henry of course, but your post is interesting and, if I may, I’d like to know if I understand you correctly.

The assumption here (I think) is that the brain contains discrete units that are derived via various forms of perception, and that “creativity” is the combining of these discrete units into a variety of combinations, thus creating more discrete units.

Your illustration is “take 20 million things and multiply them against 20 million things”. Such a task can be done by a machine, therefore the brain is like a machine, seems to be the direction you go. Brains combine ideas, that is what creativity is. Machines can combine ideas, so machines can be creative.

Is this correct? If so, may I know if these are your ideas and/or where you got them from?



Okay, separately, about this act of noticing “possible synergies”, this act of noticing “utility”, this act of noticing “good” as in “good ideas”: what is that which does the noticing? What is it that says this is useful and that is not, for example? Please consider this:

https://thinkmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/cloisters-tapestry-room.jpg

These were extremely complicated and resource & labour intensive to create, and obviously go way beyond the utility of warmth or even “pleasing decoration”, for example. Also, the imagery is symbolic. The symbols stand in for things that only exist inwardly and are not referents for outward things.

Assuming the people who went to the effort of creating these tapestries had a reason or a purpose, what is it that felt the need for such incredible elaboration? Why? What possible evolutionary reason could these tapestries serve? A Pyramid, The Parthenon, A Cathedral: obviously far beyond anything like utility is indicated here. What is it that decided that these structures were needed?

I ask you for a definition for that which does the noticing, and I also ask for the proposed method that this act of noticing can be programmed into code for a computer to crunch.

Thank you,

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What possible
> evolutionary reason could these tapestries serve?
> A Pyramid, The Parthenon, A Cathedral: obviously
> far beyond anything like utility is indicated
> here. What is it that decided that these
> structures were needed?

not liliburne, but...

I can think of lots of reasons, none of which are "metaphysical" or anything of the sort.

The artisans were paid for making them. The more elaborate and 'symbolical,' the more they were paid. Because the ones paying for them wanted to show off -- these were peacock plumage. Ostentatious displays of wealth and power.

For making them, they received not just money, but peer approval, 'fame,' an increased chance of commissions in their community, and lots of other benefits.

They may have had great personal satisfaction in not just a competent job, but in something new and different and subjectively beautiful. Involving personal ego. A desire to present oneself in the best possible light.

Many more, but those (I hope) make my point...the motivations are all more than adequately explained by our evolution as a social species. Some birds build the most ostentatious nest to attract mates. Some animals put on public displays of strength to win mates and drive away competitors. That we do it with paint or tapestry instead of nests/horns doesn't really make a difference...:)

(Sex and power, I gotcha, ifi-Freud)

Hey ifi-

You lost me up top, where you ignore everything Henry put into a thoughtful post so as to quibble about a single word Henry put in quotes.

Love to read your thoughts on his actual post, if you would.

Cheers,

Human

I'd love to accommodate you, but I kinda got lost myself.
Not sure which one was Henry's "thoughtful post."
Though I did address several of them...?

I pretty much got lost in the straw-men, arguments from personal incredulity, and misrepresentations of "neuroscience."

"paranormal"

slight of hand

in the real world and on this post

an attempt to be "inspired"

to draw attention to a child savant

as an opportunity to argue both "paranormal" and "inspired."


Words are the tools of arguments. Using quote marks so that one may later deny common, accepted defintions is a slight of hand, now made famous.

"wire tapping"

The end.

Hi Henry,

Greetings Lilburne

_________________________________________________

First, we'd need to define what 'creativity' is.

COMMENT: According to Boden, it is "the ability to generate ideas/artifacts that are new, surprising, and valuable." I find this definition wanting. Here is how I would define it:

"The ability of human beings to generate unique ideas, information, knowledge, and/or art that in substance goes beyond the information they had acquired as resources prior to generating or obtaining such knowledge, information or art."
_______________________________________________________

I'm going to ask if you can describe one item that is made up of something or things that do not already exist.

COMMENT: You mean "items" that exist in the mind? Easy. A Mozart concerto; a scientific theory; for example Einstein's special and general theories of relativity, or the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The list is endless, and it is not limited to the works of genius. You and I have insights in our daily lives that are creative in the sense noted above.
_______________________________________________________

For example, it can't be a round fish since fish and round already exist. It can't be an ice cooker since cookers and ice exist.

COMMENT: What you are suggesting here is an associationist theory of creativity. I admit that the brain makes all sorts of associations as part of its dynamical processes, and that this might explain some "creativity" in a very narrow sense. Yea, I can think of a pink unicorn, because I have the idea of a horse and the idea of a horned animal (rhinoceros), and the idea of pink. And to some extent the idea of a unicorn, or something like it might be "creative." But such associational creativity does not explain more complicated associations, where the contributing ideas are disjointed. Moreover, it does not explain how the mind "decides" to put just the right complex set of associations together, which is really what the creative process is all about.

Boden notes that there are three types of creativity: Combinational (associationist), Exploratory, or Transformational. Here are her definitions:

"Combinational creativity--which is usually the only type recognized in studies/definitions of creativity--involves the generation of unfamiliar combinations of familiar ideas."

"In exploratory creativity, the existing stylistic rules or conventions are used to generate novel structures (ideas or artifacts), whose possibility my or may not have been realized before the exploration took place."

"Transformational creativity is the most arresting of the three. Indeed, it leads to impossible surprise, wherein the novel idea appears to be not merely new, not even merely strange, but impossible. Seemingly, it simply could not have arisen--and yet it did. In such cases, the shocking new idea arose because some defining dimension of the style, or conceptual space, was altered--so that structures can now be generated that could not be generated before."

Again, I will remind you that Margaret Boden is a leading AI theorist, who specializes in creativity and the brain. There are numerous examples of all three types of creativity. Even Boden admits that they are all difficult to explain, especially transformational creativity.
____________________________________________

My point here is, there is no genuine creativity, only combining the obvious or less obvious into a new form and giving it a proper name.

COMMENT: This is far too simplistic and dismissive. Moreover, as I said, it does not explain how and why complex combinations come together. Do random processes create the Mozart concerto, or the insight of a scientific theory? Such a suggestion is of itself "supernatural" in its implications given the associated probabilities.
______________________________________________

We all do this far more frequently than we like to admit. Name any act of creativity and there is an analysis that reveals it is nothing more than the combination of existing ideas and simply spotting the links that allow for a fit. Whether in art, science, literature.

COMMENT: Absurd comment. Really. And, again, who did the combining? The little man in the brain? Or did we just get lucky?
_______________________________________________

Because this is the case, it is far more reasonable to see this ability to fuse ideas and things as a biological evolutionary byproduct.

COMMENT: Nonsense. Fusing ideas for the sake of some survival function is one thing, and perhaps supportable, but that is a far cry from the extent and power of human creativity in science and the arts, which is manifestly different and enhanced.
_________________________________________

So, take 20 million things and multiply them against 20 million things in a machine, a computer asking it to find combinations and list possible synergies. Give it a ranking system based on some form of utility, it'll give you a long list.

COMMENT: Who is programing the computer to create the Mozart concerto? Or special relativity? Why can't we model this computer and do some artificial creativity that is on a par with what humans can do. Why can't we even create models "after" the human creative fact that "explains" what happened? Moreover, human creativity produces ideas and artifacts that simply were not there before. They emerged, like "magic." Both scientists and artists often explain their insights on a personal level, very much in these terms.
__________________________________________

How about that as a starter for ten.

Thanks for that. But, with all respect your views strike me as extremely narrow and poorly informed; and appear to me to be nothing more than a rather knee-jerk explanation that ignores the depth of these issues.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The ability of human beings to generate unique
> ideas, information, knowledge, and/or art that in
> substance goes beyond the information they had
> acquired as resources prior to generating or
> obtaining such knowledge, information or art."

So your definition intentionally denies "creativity" to anything but human beings...? Determining -- by fiat, not evidence -- that machines can never be creative?

Hmph.

Fair point.

You can change "human beings" to "a complex dynamical system." That should cover your objection. Thus, you have,

"The ability of a complex dynamical system to generate unique ideas, information, knowledge, and/or art that in substance goes beyond the information it had acquired as resources prior to generating or obtaining such knowledge, information or art."


Thanks for pointing this out.

Thanks.
Personally, I'd suggest leaving out any qualifier about *what* is producing the "creativity." If it meets the qualifications of the second part, it's "creativity." No matter where it comes from...

PART 1

Hi Henry,

This post is long and i'm going to attempt to be concise so will break it in to numbered smaller posts in an attempt to narrow areas of discussion (we'll see how i do).

***************

First, we'd need to define what 'creativity' is.

COMMENT: According to Boden, it is "the ability to generate ideas/artifacts that are new, surprising, and valuable." I find this definition wanting. Here is how I would define it:

"The ability of human beings to generate unique ideas, information, knowledge, and/or art that in substance goes beyond the information they had acquired as resources prior to generating or obtaining such knowledge, information or art."

***************

This is an unsubstantiated claim. There is no evidence that can argue a person has zero exposure to the parts of an idea. We know for certain that ideas emerge as either the junction between known things, or the extension of known things.

You cited both Mozart and Einstein and both of those are explained with ease. Mozarts father was a Musician, Mozart was exposed to an intense amount of musical training from his youth. He knows the notes and the instruments, he understands the structure of music. Thus what he does is order musical notes according to rules he has or he creates to achieve patterns of sounds that meet the criteria he is looking for.

Einstein visualised what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. By extension this process of imagining that experience (Phantasm) allows him to meet the unsolved issues along the way. What Einstein did fits very clearly with the combination by extension idea. What Mozart did is clearly combination. In fact there is nothing at all in this singled out as unique.

To posit more than this would require a breach of Ockham. Where is this hidden consciousness? Can you explain where this 'creativity' is coming from?

You may speculate that it exists outside of the brain, but isn't that the introduction of an unnecessary complication/variable and one reached without justification?

We know there is a brain, we know that thinking happens in the brain. We know that people who suffer mid life brain injuries exhibit numerous effects that either limit or expand abilities.

An external consciousness would simply add a whole new layer of complexity - why would mozart experience more 'creativity' than me for example?

PART 2

COMMENT: What you are suggesting here is an associationist theory of creativity. I admit that the brain makes all sorts of associations as part of its dynamical processes, and that this might explain some "creativity" in a very narrow sense. Yea, I can think of a pink unicorn, because I have the idea of a horse and the idea of a horned animal (rhinoceros), and the idea of pink. And to some extent the idea of a unicorn, or something like it might be "creative." But such associational creativity does not explain more complicated associations, where the contributing ideas are disjointed. Moreover, it does not explain how the mind "decides" to put just the right complex set of associations together, which is really what the creative process is all about.


****************

Hi Henry,

How does associational creativity not explain more complicated 'associations'?

I've highlighted how Einstein and Mozart are explained.

We have the capacity to think in 3 dimensions, for example, how does a person solve a rubics Cube?

When we see this we see we can do things like project what happens when the cube is turned and new colour formations are aligned. Is this from an external consciousness?

So again, whether music, scientific principles, shapes, all these things can be symbolised in the mind and visualised, they can be moved, twisted, mixed resulting in new formations.

Nothing you've cited thus far requires an appeal to any external body.

Why don't you respond to my comments and examples rather than just say you are not convinced? I responded to you in great detail, and specifically. You are making me repeat myself.

________________________________________

"How does associational creativity not explain more complicated 'associations'?"

COMMENT: Read Boden's paper! (And numerous other sources on this issue.) Again, who or what is making these associations? PLEASE ANSWER THAT QUESTION! Who or what is taking the representational details of music theory in a brain and creating a symphony? PLEASE ANSWER THAT QUESTION! Who or what is taking the representational facts of physics in a brain and creating a theory? YOU TELL ME!

What organizing principle does the brain operate under which dictates how the parts of music theory shall be shaped into symphony. What is the mechanism involved? Is it just a random brain process pulling all this together for mankind. THAT, AGAIN, IS APPEALING TO THE SUPERNATURAL, BECAUSE RANDOM PROCESSES DO NOT CREATE SYMPHONIES!

________________________________________

So again, whether music, scientific principles, shapes, all these things can be symbolised in the mind and visualised, they can be moved, twisted, mixed resulting in new formations.

COMMENT: HOW SO. GIVE ME THE MECHANISMS! EXPLAIN IT. I AM NOT IMPRESSED WITH REPEATED GENERAL STATEMENTS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. I explained why it can't be done by appealing to computational principles, examples, and citations, none of which have you responded to, other than to insist it can, without explanation beyond the mere statement that the brain can put ideas together.
_______________________________________

Nothing you've cited thus far requires an appeal to any external body.

COMMENT: Again, and again, and again. Empty statements of denial. What am I supposed to do with this. I cannot write a book. I gave you references. Please go read them. But more important than that, think about it. How in principle can a physical brain take all of its data, all its neural representations of notes, instrument ranges, harmonic properties, scales, etc., and put it all together and end up with a symphony; a complex, organized whole piece of novel music. If it is not a human being engaging in a creative process, but only a brain doing random computations of associations, HOW IS IT DONE! WHAT MAGIC IS TAKING PLACE WITHIN THE BRAIN?

Hi Henry,

I looked at Margret Bodens books today and your rendition of them is nothing like what i'm seeing, nor finding on review sites. Her work argues that creativity IS a product of the computational process within the brain. Nothing i'm seeing thus far implies that it links to any external source.

Oddly, we have here two options:

1. Creativity is a product of the brain.
2. Creativity is a product of something outside of the human body.


So far, all human capabilities that are understood are tracked to the brain - everything from sight, recognition, hearing, general thinking, memory etc.

There are no external sources of information known to man that the brain taps into unless you want to class discrete sensory absorbed systems like books or the internet, audio books, TV etc.

So to even posit that there is an external cause without having fully explored the brain options just seems hugely presumptive.

Yes i absolutely hold to the associative model. But it is not my job to persuade you that you're wrong, personally you can believe whatever you like, all i'll point out is you have zero proof that the human brain links to any external consciousness, all you have thus far is your own absence of conviction that the brain manages this process like it manages all other human functions. You posit an external link, demonstrate it.

Why might creativity be the only external input? What about sight, all thought? Maybe we're just shell systems, dumb terminals - i mean hey why not, except we do know many of the things the brain does do, and therefore since we know it does them and there is no cause now or historically to posit outside of the brain then any appeal to do so as a primary solution just seems unreasonable.

Since you can't evidence your position, and are only arguing from the absence of brain evidence and then concluding an external source it really seems a highly improbable stretch.

I did explain how mozart produced music, how Einstein came up with his theory and did so using standard evolutionary models.

It appears your argument boils down to 'I can't see how the brain does this, it sounds too complicated, therefore external consciousness' - does that about sum it up?

Boden's book on Creativity is called "The Creative Mind."

Here are some direct quotes:

“Shakespeare, Bach, Picasso, Newton, Darwin, Babbage; Chanel, the Saatchis, Groucho Marks, the Beatles . . . take your pick. From poets and scientists to advertisers and fashion designers, creativity abounds. . . . How it happens is a puzzle. This need not imply any fundamental difficulty about explaining creativity in scientific terms: scientists take puzzles in their stride. . . . Mysteries, however, are different. If a puzzle is an unanswered question, a mystery is a question that can barely be intelligently asked, never mind satisfactorily answered. Mysteries are beyond the reach of science. . . . Creativity itself is seemingly a mystery, for there is something paradoxical about it, something which makes it difficult to see how it is even possible. How it happens is indeed puzzling, but that it happens at all is deeply mysterious.”

(Boden, The Creative Mind, p. 1-2)

"Nor does the problem concern only material creation. To define creativity psychologically, as 'the production of new ideas' hardly helps. For how can novelty possibly be explained? Either what preceded it was similar, in which case there is no real novelty. Or it was not, in which case one cannot possibly understand how the novelty could arise from it. Again, we face either denial or magic."

(Ibid, at p.3)

I never said that Boden subscribed to any metaphysical theory about creativity. As I said she is an AI theorist, and as such is committed to the computational theory of mind. But, from the quotes above, she acknowledges that this is difficult. Here is what she says her goal of the book is:

“Computational ideas can help us to understand how human creativity is possible. As we shall see, this does not mean that creativity is predicable, nor even that an original idea can be explained in every detail after it has appeared. But we can draw on computational ideas in understanding in scientific terms how 'intuition' works.”

So, it is "magic" but nonetheless she thinks computational ideas can shed light on it. Now, if you read the whole book, you can judge for yourself if she is successful. I have read the whole book, and have determined for myself that she is not; which supports her original characterization of creativity, as difficult and magical.

SO, READ THE WHOLE BOOK! Now to your comments:

I looked at Margret Bodens books today and your rendition of them is nothing like what i'm seeing, nor finding on review sites. Her work argues that creativity IS a product of the computational process within the brain. Nothing i'm seeing thus far implies that it links to any external source.

COMMENT: See quotes and comments above. After all, she wrote her book, I didn't.

__________________________________________

Oddly, we have here two options:

1. Creativity is a product of the brain.
2. Creativity is a product of something outside of the human body.

COMMENT: My only argument was that creativity cannot be just computations in the brain, i.e. solely algorithmic, deterministic, brain function. I agree that does suggest the possibility of the contribution of some external influence. But, then again, maybe the brain is "magical." But that does not sound very scientific!

___________________________________________

So far, all human capabilities that are understood are tracked to the brain - everything from sight, recognition, hearing, general thinking, memory etc.

COMMENT: I would agree, with some exceptions. Consciousness, and subjective conscious experiences, although clearly associated with brain processes, are not explained by them, since the brain is a physical system, and consciousness and subjective experience is mental, not physical. I would also claim that mental events have physical effects, which is another post, but clearly supportable by scientific evidence. Finally, memory is closely associated with creativity, so I would deny that creative ideas are solely the products of brain encoded memory. Consider the link of the OP, how is Alma Deutscher's creative product, i.e. symphonies and operas, taken as whole artistic works, simply a product of the memories of a 10 year old. I find that rather incredulous.
______________________________________

There are no external sources of information known to man that the brain taps into unless you want to class discrete sensory absorbed systems like books or the internet, audio books, TV etc.

COMMENT: Agree, but the key is "known to man." Why should we assume that all of reality is known to man?

_______________________________________

So to even posit that there is an external cause without having fully explored the brain options just seems hugely presumptive.

COMMENT: Well, but when does our exploration of brain options tell us that we have a materialist problem? When does the "magic" of creativity, and the lack of a materialist explanation suggest we look elsewhere; or at least consider that there may be something else involved that we have not considered, or do not have access to.
________________________________________

Yes i absolutely hold to the associative model. But it is not my job to persuade you that you're wrong, personally you can believe whatever you like, all i'll point out is you have zero proof that the human brain links to any external consciousness, all you have thus far is your own absence of conviction that the brain manages this process like it manages all other human functions. You posit an external link, demonstrate it.

COMMENT: I do not have proof, and neither do you. And neither does anyone else. But, don't insist that the question is closed until neuroscience can offer a reasonable, scientifically supported, explanation, beyond "magic." I don't care about presumptions, it is dogmatism in the context of uncertainty that bothers me.
______________________________________________

Why might creativity be the only external input? What about sight, all thought? Maybe we're just shell systems, dumb terminals - i mean hey why not, except we do know many of the things the brain does do, and therefore since we know it does them and there is no cause now or historically to posit outside of the brain then any appeal to do so as a primary solution just seems unreasonable.

COMMENT: Well, for me, the materialist view of the brain and mind implies that we *are* just "shell systems, dumb terminals." which is my primary reason to reject it. But, maybe I am wrong, and that is all we are. But, where does that leave us and human beings?" Where does that leave us in our intuitive commitments to freewill and humanist morality? Are we prepared to abandon that too? Because if humans are just mechanistic, biological robots, all of what matters to us is lost.
__________________________________________

Since you can't evidence your position, and are only arguing from the absence of brain evidence and then concluding an external source it really seems a highly improbable stretch.

COMMENT: No. I am arguing from the evidence of creativity, which is abundant, and the evidence of the nature of brain function, which is deterministic. In my view these too suppositions are incompatible. When a neuron, or a complex series of neurons, fires in the brain, it does not stop at a synapse terminal and think about what should I do next because it wants to be creative. It just does what the laws of physics prescribe. And once the neurological event terminates, the explanation for what just happened from a neurological perspective is nothing more than rote physical processes that could in principle be traced back to some input. Creativity, in my view, goes beyond that. Something new is added, because however complex the brain process, it is still deterministic. There is no room in this explanation for some idea to emerge out of nowhere. And as I said, even with your associationist model, there must be some neural event that dictates whatever association is to take place. So, that too, has nothing to do with any genuine creative act, or creative product.
_______________________________________

I did explain how mozart produced music, how Einstein came up with his theory and did so using standard evolutionary models.

COMMENT: That is not an explanation. According to Boden:

"The key questions . . . concern how electrical and chemical signals are used in the brain to represent and process information. The key point, then is that we need to know what sort of information processing is involved in creativity."

(From Neuroscience of Creativity, Chapter 1, p. 5)

Boden would reject your combinatorial (associationist) model as an adequate explanation of creativity.
_________________________________________

It appears your argument boils down to 'I can't see how the brain does this, it sounds too complicated, therefore external consciousness' - does that about sum it up?

COMMENT: That is a copout and you know it. That does not sum up the substance of what I have said and argued in this post. A better summation would be. "Brain function alone cannot explain human creativity based upon what we know about human creativity and brain function. Therefore, maybe we need to be more open to alternative explanations."

Finally, let me be clear, I do not believe in any idea of "the supernatural." I think such a concept is incoherent. But, there can be, and for me most likely is, a part or parts of realty space that we do not have access to, maybe forever, or maybe just for now. Once we acknowledge that we open our scientific minds to potential explanations that involve "thinking out of the box" of materialism. Why is that bad? After all, Einstein's theories started as unsupported ideas of the imagination; i.e. what if space and time were related, a nonsensical view at the time. What is consciousness is somehow unique from brain function, and supports ideas of the self, freewill, and human creativity. Quantum mechanics has opened this door already.

Lilburne:

I discovered that the edition I have of The Creative Mind is the original 1991 edition, and that Boden came out with a new edition in 2003, where she updated the book, and perhaps modified her pessimism to some degree. I do not have a copy of the 2003 edition, and my quotations are from the original.

However, I also cited, The Neuroscience of Creativity, by Vartanian et al (eds) (2013), where Boden provides the introductory Chapter 1, called "Creativity as a Neuroscientific Mystery." The quotes for the OP are from this chapter. In this chapter Boden ends the discussion as follows:

"Nothing that's been said above suggests that there can never be a neuroscience of creativity. Indeed, a neuroscience of *combinational* creativity is arguably within sight--if not yet within reach. It's not yet in reach , partly because--as explained above--challenging problems remain concerning how we make judgments of *relevance* when engaging in, or approaching, combinational creativity. A neuroscientific explanation of that is not within sight. Moreover, given that this is a verbal/conceptual version of the notorious frame problem [citations omitted], a neuroscientific explanation is a tall order."

"Further reasons why a neuroscience of creativity is not within reach involve hierarchy, as we've seen. Clearly, it must be possible, somehow, for hierarchy--and all other aspects of symbol thinking--to be implemented in (broadly) connectionist systems [citation omitted]. After all, the human brain is such a system. However, we need to understand, much better than we do at present, how a basically connectionist system cam emulate a symbolic one (i.e., how connectionism can emulate a von Neumann machine.")

To unpack the above comments, read the chapter.

In sum, problems associated with symbolic reference, or representation, in a connectionist system (i.e. the brain) surface in the form of what Boden calls (1) relevance problem; (2) frame problem; and (3) hierarchy problem, make a neuroscience of creativity "not within reach" of computational neuroscience. I would say that they make the problem of creativity intractable to neuroscience. Note, that her rather restrained optimism seems more a product of her lifelong commitment to AI, and the computational theory of mind, than it is any realistic hope that creativity ultimately will have a neuroscientific explanation.

As I said before, if you have a suggested reading of a more optimistic assessment of the neuroscience of creativity, I would most certainly be interested in considering it.

PART 3

My point here is, there is no genuine creativity, only combining the obvious or less obvious into a new form and giving it a proper name.

COMMENT: This is far too simplistic and dismissive. Moreover, as I said, it does not explain how and why complex combinations come together. Do random processes create the Mozart concerto, or the insight of a scientific theory? Such a suggestion is of itself "supernatural" in its implications given the associated probabilities.
______________________________________________

We all do this far more frequently than we like to admit. Name any act of creativity and there is an analysis that reveals it is nothing more than the combination of existing ideas and simply spotting the links that allow for a fit. Whether in art, science, literature.

COMMENT: Absurd comment. Really. And, again, who did the combining? The little man in the brain? Or did we just get lucky?

****************

Hi Henry,

I've bundled these two.

On the former, i disagree, i've explained above how this is managed. To posit otherwise is to appeal to the metaphysical with what sounds like an agenda.

On the latter, not sure why you consider this to be absurd, since we can think, since we can project in 3D, since we can project by implication (we do this playing Tetris) then all we're talking about are degrees of complexity in doing this. If you accept we can do it at the lesser end then why not at the higher end?

PART 4

Because this is the case, it is far more reasonable to see this ability to fuse ideas and things as a biological evolutionary byproduct.

COMMENT: Nonsense. Fusing ideas for the sake of some survival function is one thing, and perhaps supportable, but that is a far cry from the extent and power of human creativity in science and the arts, which is manifestly different and enhanced.

**************

Saying it is nonsense isn't a refutation.

'perhaps supportable' - it is a known fact. Animal hears a sound behind it on the Savannah. Animal turns head in response as adrenaline builds in it's body, because it anticipates a threat.

Therefore we can project ahead, in 3d, in 2d, we can visualise, playback audio in the mind, even imagine feelings.

Arguing that 'creativity in a higher degree is of a different without proving it is merely a circular argument. You've not demonstrated that 'creativity' is anything more than complexity on a scale.

Animal hears a sound behind it on the Savannah. Animal turns head in response as adrenaline builds in it's body, because it anticipates a threat.

COMMENT: All of this can be explained by appealing to physical cause and effect relationships in the context of a complex organism. There is nothing creative here.

_____________________________________________

Therefore we can project ahead, in 3d, in 2d, we can visualise, playback audio in the mind, even imagine feelings.

COMMENT: Yes. We can do marvelous things without having to expand our view of the brain as a computational neural network.

________________________________________________

Arguing that 'creativity in a higher degree is of a different without proving it is merely a circular argument. You've not demonstrated that 'creativity' is anything more than complexity on a scale.

COMMENT: But creativity *is* something different. Unlike the above examples, in creativity, or insight, by definition (at least mine) the system does not simply draw upon rote, deterministic, computational structures. It is not just manipulating data in complex ways which data is already in the brain. The system is creating something new; something that is not just the sum of its parts. And the "you" of the system is significant. Someone is orchestrating this process. That is what makes it creative.
_____________________________________

PART 5

So, take 20 million things and multiply them against 20 million things in a machine, a computer asking it to find combinations and list possible synergies. Give it a ranking system based on some form of utility, it'll give you a long list.

COMMENT: Who is programing the computer to create the Mozart concerto? Or special relativity? Why can't we model this computer and do some artificial creativity that is on a par with what humans can do. Why can't we even create models "after" the human creative fact that "explains" what happened? Moreover, human creativity produces ideas and artifacts that simply were not there before. They emerged, like "magic." Both scientists and artists often explain their insights on a personal level, very much in these terms.

***************

Hi Henry,

First, if we did use a computer and applied purely randomness then we'd achieve the old infinite number of monkeys and typewriters as one possible scenario.

But since the human brain has evolved - something we can demonstrate. Then we see that it has developed the ability to handle complexity as discussed above.

We would programme the computers because we would simplify complex bio mechanical functions into code - just as we have done with walking, with speech, with speech recognition.

Once the process is sufficiently reduced and understood and given the right equipment and components we will have these things on hand.

That you are not seeing this surprises me. It seems an obvious association of the facts.

First, if we did use a computer and applied purely randomness then we'd achieve the old infinite number of monkeys and typewriters as one possible scenario.

But since the human brain has evolved - something we can demonstrate. Then we see that it has developed the ability to handle complexity as discussed above.

COMMENT: Yes it has evolved. But it is still a complex, computational dynamic system. Evolution has not changed that. In other words, the materialist assumption is that it still functions in rote, algorithmic, mechanical ways, however complex.
______________________________________

We would programme the computers because we would simplify complex bio mechanical functions into code - just as we have done with walking, with speech, with speech recognition.

COMMENT: O.K. That is my point. You could in principle encode complex bio mechanical functions into computer code, as you indicate. But, again, where is the button that you would press, that would take all of this coding and generate symphony. After all, the symphony is NOT encoded, it is new. And it is not just a hodgepodge of notes that happened to come together. Why has AI failed in every way to address creativity, except on the most superficial, associationist level?
____________________________________

Once the process is sufficiently reduced and understood and given the right equipment and components we will have these things on hand.

COMMENT: I won't hold my breathe. Because whatever comes around it will be a computational system and such systems are ultimately deterministic--not creative.
____________________________________

That you are not seeing this surprises me. It seems an obvious association of the facts.

COMMENT: I have the same frustration with respect to you, obviously. For me, it seems quite the opposite. Mere associations in the brain, without a principle that removes determinism and instantiates some principle of creativity, does not create symphonies. For me, it is that simple. And, again, I am not alone on this. Creativity has been a puzzle for AI for a long time.

Part 6

How about that as a starter for ten.

Thanks for that. But, with all respect your views strike me as extremely narrow and poorly informed; and appear to me to be nothing more than a rather knee-jerk explanation that ignores the depth of these issues.

*****************

My views reflect the body of evidence. I don't mind being on the defence since you've not laid out your position explicitly.

It very much sounds like you are saying that the thing we call creativity is not an activity performed in the human body but somehow tapping into some external mind - can you clarify please?

As for poorly informed - well, that remains to be seen. I think it is better you prove your position as opposed to being concerned about how well read i may or may not be.

What i can do is reason from the facts. All i'm seeing in your posts thus far is an appeal to external forces you cannot define, you're literally using a catch all that argues if not the brain then external. Well since the study of the brain is still ongoing then to assume outside of it, especially with the examples you've cited seems premature.

Thanks for the inputs.

At present i believe the scientific consensus fully supports the evolutionary model and ideas like creativity sit well within that framework. Nothing you've cited thus far challenges that based on the arguments present. But please feel free to offer more.

My views reflect the body of evidence. I don't mind being on the defence since you've not laid out your position explicitly.

COMMENT: O.K. please cite "the body of evidence." So far, I am the only one who has cited anything. I have laid out my position as clear as I can in this context.
_______________________________________________

It very much sounds like you are saying that the thing we call creativity is not an activity performed in the human body but somehow tapping into some external mind - can you clarify please?

COMMENT: Well, I don't know. I am reluctant to go into metaphysics because that leads nowhere. All I can say is that there is a problem in explaining the creativity of human beings solely from the materialist principles of neuroscience. But it is not just creativity. Consciousness cannot be explained either, or genuine freewill, which is an important part of creativity, not to mention morality. And, none of this is new. These are problems that have been with us for a long time.
______________________________________________

As for poorly informed - well, that remains to be seen. I think it is better you prove your position as opposed to being concerned about how well read i may or may not be.

COMMENT: Agreed, sorry. I get a bit testy at times.
_______________________________________________

What i can do is reason from the facts. All i'm seeing in your posts thus far is an appeal to external forces you cannot define, you're literally using a catch all that argues if not the brain then external. Well since the study of the brain is still ongoing then to assume outside of it, especially with the examples you've cited seems premature.

COMMENT: But I haven't appealed to any external forces. I just pointed out that our understanding of the brain cannot accommodate human creativity; just as it cannot accommodate consciousness. People want desperately to think everything in the universe has a materialist explanation, and that science will, sooner or later, provide it. But, there is no basis for such an assumption. Maybe it will, but maybe it won't. And maybe the answer requires a humble realization that human beings are not equipped to understand all there is to reality, including themselves. And, perhaps most importantly, we should stop pigeonholing every problem into an established scientific paradigm that simply does not appear to work in this context.

___________________________________________________

At present i believe the scientific consensus fully supports the evolutionary model and ideas like creativity sit well within that framework. Nothing you've cited thus far challenges that based on the arguments present. But please feel free to offer more.

COMMENT: I feel I am talking to someone who is entrenched in his views, enjoys a casual conversation, but is not really interested in changing such views, or in acquiring any depth on the issues being discussed. Several weeks ago when we were having a similar discussion, I cited some of the same resources I cited in this post, including an essay about the "mystery of creativity" by a prominent AI theorist and cognitive scientist. Have you bothered to read them, or follow up? I assure you that had YOU recommended something to me that would have answered my questions, I would have read it post haste. In fact, I probably would have already ready it, but maybe not.

Thanks for your comments and feedback.

Introduction to Poetry

BY BILLY COLLINS

I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide

or press an ear against its hive.

I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,

or walk inside the poem’s room
and feel the walls for a light switch.

I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author’s name on the shore.

But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46712/introduction-to-poetry

Thank you. Maybe the best poem ever. A deep need to explore can go a long way toward getting the clutter out of your life.

Perfect

Creativity is hardly exclusively human. The Cambrian Explosion was a tidal wave of biological creativity, with all manner of body forms and survival mechanisms were tried out by nature. Many died out. Many are the predecessors of modern life on the planet.

The Cambrian was a period of great creativity. No humans involved at all.

On a different front, nobody has demonstrated that brains are not deterministic. They are not totally predictable, but that is not the same thing. Lots of systems are deterministic but so complex as to not be predictable. Actually, all systems become unpredictable except in a statistical sense if the measurements become precise enough. So, how do we know brains are not deterministic? That seems to be the crux of Henry's argument that people are creative and computers are not. Computers are deterministic.

Computer networks have changed the world. Cell phones have changed the world. Google has changed the world. All are deterministic, but we were not able, even in principle, able to predict all the changes, and we predicted some changes that never happened. The creators of all these systems were not fully aware of what the outcomes would be. So what gets credit for the creativity?

And what gets credit for the Cambrian biologic creativity?

AI is what, 50 years old? Give it a few centuries. AI may prove quite adept at creativity. It took nature 4 billion years to come up with us. AI has done quite well considering how long it has been around.

Predictions that something is impossible are almost always wrong. The "but computers are deterministic" argument seems particularly unpersuasive to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2017 12:11PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Since some have discussed 'theories' and since 'supernatural' was mentioned, I will provide you a totally 'unsupported supernatural' explanation about the 'creativity' we see in human life. There is no supernatural writer I know of that has discussed this specific topic although some have discussed related things.

Major Points:

1. Planning for 'major' creative events (new good things and negative things) are planned in the spirit world, they are not an 'accident'. Also, in the spirit world, we are not handicapped by not remembering the knowledge we have accumulated for many, many years and our ability to use our brains is enhanced from what we experience here.

2. It is questionable 'who' and 'how' the creation is obtained. Since there are advanced societies where many 'creative things' have already been produced for thousands of years, I don't think they reinvent anything but transfer technology, etc. that is applicable to our species and evolution versus that planned based on where we as a 'society' are. They (higher level spirits) determine what new creation and 'who' will be the human that brings it to earth and help them plan how it will be accomplished.

3.In events where a 'creation' is needed for a specific planet, I think the 'higher level' people, who don't need to reincarnate again, are heavily involved in its creation. That is not to say lower level people may not be involved also. There appears to be 'higher level' people that have various jobs that seem to me require a whole lot more knowledge and spiritual inspiration than those reincarnating. How they get the information and knowledge they have and how much closer they get inspired from God, etc. ---- I don't know.

4. Once a decision is made for a new creation, a reincarnating human includes the development in his life plan and plans how that will be accomplished. Basically, I believe these people then are 'guided/inspired/told/aided' to do what they need to do to 'invent, create, etc.' the item according to the plan they made in the spirit world. I believe some music writers have stated they 'heard' the new song in their head. I will admit most people I see are 'asleep with their eyes wide open' and don't have any clue they are being helped and guided so many inventors, etc. really believe they 'created' something themselves.

5. Maybe minor 'creative' things are accomplished by us here using our brains. I believe that 100% of plans with significant creative events are accomplished. Maybe some (5%) not accomplished exactly as planned or on time.

6. In summary, our 'brain capabilities (including creativity)' are more associated with the 'spirit part/ us' it is doubtful a human body would survive long without the spirit part and the brain without spirit could only probably control the automatic body functions for only a short amount of time.

That's my 2 cents ----- just to cover my 'supernatural theory'. If psychic is around maybe he will provide his theory in this area.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2017 06:54PM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also,
> in the spirit world, we are not handicapped by not
> remembering the knowledge we have accumulated for
> many, many years and our ability to use our brains
> is enhanced from what we experience here.

Spirit brains?

Yea, good question, Hie.

In a nutshell, how does a disembodied "spirit" store and process information?

Of course, there is no easy answer to this question; and certainly no scientific answer.

However, *if* we allow for the existence of such entities, we can speculate, I suppose, that whatever "substance" a spirit is made of--perhaps some energy field with associated subatomic particles that are organized in some way, and by some mechanism--that somehow the information in the brain is encoded within such a field. But, of course, there is more "work" to be done. Such an organization must also somehow account for consciousness, self-consciousness, personality, etc. And we need an organizing mechanism.

In short, a spirit entity must be computational in some sense, like a brain. But then, how do we avoid the limitations of computational brains, as I have argued in this post and elsewhere. Haven't we just moved the problem down (or up) a step? In short, if a computational brain cannot accommodate what it means to be human (e.g. creativity) how can a spirit?

If I had to answer this question, the only thing I could say is that "spirit" or "consciousness" is somehow fundamental, involving properties of which we have no scientific conception. Of course, that is not very satisfying. The only reason I personally allow such wild speculation is because I believe that paranormal experiences suggesting such spirit entities are vast, to a high degree credible, and not explainable from neuroscience or psychology alone. For me, there is just too much of this kind of "evidence" (quotations for your benefit) out there to explain away.

Moreover, such a view is rather convenient to elevate and "explain" (through a "consciousness" place-holder) human values, genuine freewill, and human creativity, in a context where the brain in principle falls short, and where we need such values to make our lives meaningful.

(This probably needs to be another thread. I am too tired to address it here in any more detail.)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spiritist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also,
> > in the spirit world, we are not handicapped by
> not
> > remembering the knowledge we have accumulated
> for
> > many, many years and our ability to use our
> brains
> > is enhanced from what we experience here.
>
> Spirit brains?
=====================================================

I hate to interfere with a 'human' discussion, completely void of the 'truth about our eternal nature', but added this just as an FYI. I don't want to argue or disrupt your discussion. You are all free to totally ignore my comments because you know they are 'not supported' by any 'evidence' you would recognize just my 'experiences', reading of others, and theorizing when gaps appear.

Our 'eternal nature' is 'spirit' just like 'God' ----- I refer to it as eternal 'intelligent energy'. I haven't heard of any other 'paranormal' people refer to it as anything specific other than 'spirit'.

The human body is only like a 'suit of clothes' to wear out and 'totally dispose of' ---- we have had many bodies/clothes, so why would any old ones be 'special'?

There must have been some reason, more complex brains in humans, evolved ------ maybe to handle more of our 'eternal nature brainpower/thinking' to attain 'more enlightenment and knowledge from our experiences'. I really don't know, we don't have a lot of people theorizing about these type of things. However, some talk about our planet 'progressing' ---- knowledge, understanding, evolve, spirituality (nothing to do with religion), etc.???

However, when I astral projected (AP), I certainly didn't experience any loss of 'brainpower' and possibly experienced a 'gain' in thinking/understanding. Also, people in near death experiences (NDE) certainly do not experience any 'loss' of being without their earthly brain!

The 'most intelligent/ones that have greater abilities' in the 'spirit world' are 'more mature spirits' who 'don't' reincarnate anymore. They can help reincarnating spirits, evaluate their current life experience, choose future 'lives' that appear to make them 'happy' given 'few' choices, and help establish individual/group life plans, that don't interfere with any others plans as far as I can tell.

Those tasks to me seem to require much more than 'knowledge or skill'. It seems to me to require more 'spiritual knowing or inspiration from some all knowing source'. Can they see the 'future' that clearly for others? How do they know what a 'spirit' or 'civilization' needs to 'progress appropriately' and how are they able to 'evaluate' how some soul performed in life? etc. etc. etc.

So yes there is a lot I can't understand, even when I believe I have knowledge of the basics.

If you want additional 'theory' from me I will try to provide that but you need to understand the obvious issues (my shortcomings) discussed above. Also, I will be unavailable for a week starting Saturday.

But, 'spirits' definitely have 'intelligence' I have never heard that intelligence called a 'brain' but it seems to function similarly. However, I believe more is known and contained in 'spirit intelligence' and less in the 'subconscious' if one exists in 'spirit intelligence'. The abilities of a 'spirit' include 'telepathic communication' which some may have experienced and being able to discuss something with somebody else without 'going anywhere physically'. There are probably many other additional abilities I have not been exposed to. Remember, a 'spirit' does not normally take a 'human' shape (only to appear to humans so they will be recognized'. They are normally round colored balls of 'intelligent energy'. Therefore, where is the 'intelligence' located? Seems to me they/we are pure 'intelligent energy' in whatever form they chose to take.

Have a good day!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2017 06:29PM by spiritist.

Unrelated to the specific thread topic, but brain related:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/sports/aaron-hernandez-brain-cte.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/aaron-hernandez-suffered-from-most-severe-cte-ever-found-in-a-person-his-age/2017/11/09/fa7cd204-c57b-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html