Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hello everybody. Today I am going to discuss on human creativity and machine creativity
whether machine creativity is possible, whether a human creativity is equivalence with machine
creativity.
These are the problems I am going to discuss in this lectures. This section deals with
the problem of creativity and consciousness also, because creativity and a consciousness
are two of the most possibling features of the human mind. Both the concepts, creativity
and consciousness are logically linked, because a conscious human being
alone has the power of creativity. Creativity is one of the least understood aspect of intelligent
and is often created as intuitive and as not suspectable to rational incur. How a recently
there has been a reappearance of interest in these area, principle in artificial intelligence
and cognitive science? This section address a range of issues: The first section of this
lectures, the question of what is creativity. In the second, my intense is to explore the
features of creativity and how creativity related to different cognitive faculties of
the human mind and the second sections explores dimensions of creativity especially in the
psychological dimensions of creativity, and historical dimensions of creativity. The psychological
dimensions of creativity because the creativity is also related to human psychology. The third
sections critical examine in the questions, are their creative machines. The fourth sections
deals with consciousness and creativity. The fifth sections will become concerned about
all either that this machine-consciousness and machine creativity is derivative or not.
The question first is: what is creativity? The creativity is one of the most important
aspect of intelligence and is the most important features of the human mind.
It is creativity, in the very specific sense of the term used here, which distinguishes
humans from machines. Now the question is: Under what conditions can we say that a human
act is creative? We can identify two aspects in any act.
One is the product of the act and the other is the process. By product, we mean that which
is produced by the act. The process stands for the way the product is produced. The process,
being psychological, is something subjectivity. Therefore, in order to judge
whether an act is creative. It is not possible to depend only upon the features of the psychological
process in order and act can be judge to be creative, on the basis of some of the objective
features than the product processes such as artistic creations, OAT compositions and etcetera.
Therefore, the question is: what is creativity comes down to, what are the characteristic
features of the of a creative product in terms of which the act that produced is to be creative?
Features of creativity, now we have to see some of the important
features of the creativity. One of the most important features of creativity is novelty.
By the term novelty, we mean that the product did not come in to a distance before the act
in questions performed. The novelty of the creativity of the product lies in the fact
that it is different from other products already existing in the same domain. We come to know
this only after the object is produced, nor prior knowledge of the processes, or the circumstances
that laid to production of object can help us to know in advance, what features the product
rule we have? It has been defined by many philosophers and they say that persons creativity
to produce new or original idea in sight, in mentions or artistic product, which are
accepted by expert has being of scientific, aesthetic, social or technical value.
Therefore, the creativity is which one of the most important things in the human society,
because is that aesthetic, social, technical and scientific values. If it has no values,
it is not a creativity. In a similar manner, Boden points out that if we takes seriously,
Dixon definition of the creativity to get something from out of nothing and to get something
out of something and it is a hardly surprise that the some people have explained it in
terms of divine inspirations that is creativity out of nothing and many other in terms of
some romantic intuitions or insights. What Boden is trying to show is that if the creation
is out of nothing then it is God’s creation, because God alone can creates something out
of nothing.
But we are concerned with human creativity has this is because human creativity arises
out of intuition or out of those combination of whole ideas. Once the product has come
in to existence, we may enumerate or list the features it possesses. For this features,
cannot be showed under a law or a rules. That is statement describing the features of the
object cannot be deduce from the rules or laws along with certain ancient conscious.
Thus creativity is, according to the Boden, “the creativity is a puzzle, a paradox,
some as a mystery. Inventors, scientists, and artists rarely know how their original
ideas arise. They mention intuition, but cannot say how it works. Most psychologists cannot
tell us much about it and important assumption is there will never be scientific theory of
creativity- for how could science possibly explain fundamental novelties? As if all this
were not daunting enough, the apparent unpredictability of creativity seems to outlaw any systematic
explanation, whether scientific or historical”. Thus Boden’s definition of creativity begins
out the features such as novelty, uniqueness and originality, which are essential to any
creative at
if a creative product has no value, no originality and no uniqueness, then it is not new in its
creation because there is nothing new in its creation, whether a creation is out of something
or out of nothing. These minimum features are essential to any creative act. Now the
question is: why should we be creative? We are creative because we have to solve our
day-to-day problem; that is to say, we are creative in most of day-to-day activities
of problem solving. Hence creativity is manifested in problem solving.
Now, we have to see that
whether creativity as problem solving. We may understand creativity as problem solving,
thus a novel communication of ideas he said to be creative, if it constitutes a solution
to a problem. Problem solving is associated with many human activities; however, many
questions arises such as, are all problems well defined, do we always know what the problem
is, or goals always clearly established. In many cases, the answer is known. So, problem
solving is not a mechanical affair, it is a creative react and thus creative problem
solving is different from the routine or mechanical one.
According to Dodd and White, “problem solving, a frequent human activity, occurs when a goal
cannot be achieved directly and a plan must be devised which will permit a goal attainment”.
On the other hand, Mayer defined it as, “problem solving is a cognitive processing that is
directed toward solving problems”.
Here, the definition of problem solving consists of three components. Firstly, problem solving
is cognitive act that occurs internally in the mind. Secondly, problem solving is a process
having a definite directions and goal. That is why when a human being solves problem,
he or she does a creative, insightful and the intuitive act. Moreover thirdly, when
human beings solve problems, they identify the mental operations, representations, and
strategies that they use when they solve problems. Problem solving consists of search in a problem
space, which has initial state, a goal state, and set of operations that can be applied
in order to reach the goal. But everyone needs flexible, critical and creative thinking skills
to cope with these problems and find solutions that can improve the physical and social environment.
For creative problems solving, intelligence is necessary and intelligent mind is a good
think or besides a sense of humour helps in creative thinking, because it relays, trace,
intentions, and monotony. It is switches the mind into unexpected task. In order to solve
problems, human beings should be creative, intelligent and conscious. A conscious human
being can solve the problem easily. Though creativity is more likely to be observed among
those who are more intellectual capable, such capabilities not a guarantee of creativity.
The ability assisted by IQ test is not a slowly responsive for creative problem solving.
Now, the question is: what abilities distinguish creative from routine problem solving? Before
attempting to identify the abilities responsible for creative problem solving, we must examine
a model of intellectual function and distinguishes between forms of thought and the abilities
underlying in those forms and there are different models, different scientist, they have said.
But in the case of human abilities,
we will generally find there are two kinds of thinking. One is divergent thinking and
the second one is convergent thinking. Divergent and convergent productions, a person conducted
on memory. The convergent thinking might say, what I do to solve this problem? The divergent
thinker might say, what are the ways of looking at this problem? Therefore, these convergent
and divergent a thinking plays a vital role in the case of human mind and this kind of
thinking you is always we have been a practicing and we have been using in our day-to-day affairs.
Now, we have to see the dimensions of creativity. There are various aspects or dimensions of
creativity. The dimensions are psychological and historical or social. A product or criterion,
for example, may be new in a psychological sense in the product is new to the creative
agent. A product has special significance, a with the object tracks as new to the concedes
community of experts. A product is new from an objective point of view. If the product
did not exist in the domain before its production, it was not possible to bring the product into
existence by following the available rules and practices, prevails in the domain.
What is new objectively or socially must be new, psychological as well. From the point
of view of the agent, whose auctions brought the product into existence. But the converse
is not true, what is psychological new may not be socially or historically, because the
object considered as new by the agent may already be present in the domain. Therefore,
we have two sense of creativity: psychological and the social, or historical. The psychological
sense is not the most from the social sense of creativity, because as explained above
what is social is also psychological. By creativity in the social sense, we mean
primary the evaluation of the product as creative by a community of experts as already noted.
Such evaluation as subjective to social, culture, real factors and thus depends on many accidental
factors. Since, we cannot have a theory that deals with accidental factors, responsible
for the productions and positive evaluation of the creative product. It is not possible
to have a systematic explanation of creativity in the social sense, but we can think of psychological
factors and processes involved in creativity and underline the historical aspect of creativity.
First of all, we have to see the psychological dimensions of creativity. As we have discussed
above, there are two sense of creativity, firstly psychological and historical. Boden
characterize them as P-creativity and H-creativity respectively. He has quote, “A valuable
idea is P-creative if the person in whose mind it arises could not have had it before;
it does not matter how many times the other people have already had the same idea. By
contrast, a valuable idea is H-creative if it is P-creative and no one else, in all human
history, has ever had it before” on quote. According to this definition, it is not possible
to have a theory that explains all and only H-creativity or historical creativity. What
in principles a psychological explanation of P- creativity idea is possible? Now, he
examines psychological sense of creativity with the frame work of cognitive science.
Cognitive science is a systematic study of human cognitive capacities like thinking,
perceptions, memory and many other cognitive acts. The processes responsible for the instance
of these capacities are said to be internal to the system in questions. The impacts of
the social, cultural and physical environment on these processes are not denied, but it
is assumed that the internal processes may react such impacts.
Therefore cognitive science, consider on a systematic study of the internal processes
involved. The internal processes themselves are said to be sort of computations and computation
is understood as ruled govern symbol manipulations and these things we have already explained
what is symbol governs in manipulations. Accordingly, if we are able to identify the symbols, systems
and the rules that govern the transpiration of the symbols, we may be in a position to
account for the internal processes involved in cognitions. In the psychological sense,
creative processes may be considered as internal cognitive processes that are varies in nature
and may be understood as rule governed symbol manipulations. So, the key to cognitive modeling
of creativity consisting in identifying the symbol system involved and the rules that
governs them. Since, we are concerned with creativity in the psychological sense, we
shall understand symbols as a system of ideas. Our main attempt would be to understand how
new ideas arise in the mind of the creative agent. One way to understanding, it would
be to conceive of new ideas as a result of the permutation and combinations of old ideas,
though this process of permutations and combinations entirely unexpected. New and non existence
combination of ideas are emergence. Therefore, creativity is, this shows that is one of the
important aspects of the human mind. However, this permutations and combination of ideas
are not random processes, rather they are rule governed processes. All this combination
of ideas must result in the generation of new ideas, which we are not already there,
then only exist and these only can be called as the creative idea. All the novel ideas
are thoughts by themselves would not mean that they are creative.
We would consider the new combination of ideas to be somehow improbable and yet relevant.
Boden suggest that there must be novelty in the creative ideas in the sense that the combinations
did not occur before. A creative idea for hour is one, that did not and could not have
occur before. Such ideas, according to Boden are identically novel, where as ideas that
did not, but could have occur before and nearly novelties in a relative sense.
In Boden’s words, Boden say that many creative ideas a surprising in a deeper way. The concern
novel ideas that not only did not happens, but that in a sense of clarified things and
that could not happened before. The key understanding radical novelties like in getting to know
the meaning of could not in this context. But Boden says that before we considering
the just what is this could not means we must distinguishes two sense of creativity. One
is psychological creativity, he calls it as P-creativity and the other is historical creativity
and Boden calls it H-creativity. A valuable idea is P-creativity of the person in whose
mind it arises could not have had it before. It does not matter how many times others to
pull have already the same idea. By contrast, a valuable idea is H- creativity if it is
P creativity and no one else in all humanity had it to be before.
Boden clarifies with the help of some examples. Suppose a person’s comes with an entirely
new English sentence. Yes, suppose which has not been by anyone in the history of mankind.
These sentence could have occurred before to a person who has interise the grammar of
English language and is familiar with its vocabulary. That is the same sentence could
have been produced by the same set of genitive rules that produce other English sentences.
In the same way, a new idea that could have been produced by the same set of genitive
rules that produce other familiar ideas is nearly a first time novel ideas. On the other
hand, if you see a radical novel idea or a creative idea is one that could not have been
produced by the same system of genetic rules that produced other familiar ideas. The above
sentence statement shows that there are two kinds of creative thinking, one is divergent
and convergent thinking which we have already explained.
The productions generally original idea suggested that a specific and a new generative system
is available to the creative thinker. The generative system is not the production of
random thinking, but it is a response to certain constraints on the kind of ideas that could
be produced by the application of the generative systems, available to the creative agent before
he came off with new generative rule. This shows that creativity is possible because
of the constraints improves by the availability of genitive system of ideas, the instance
of constant demand that the creative agent comes off with specific systems of genitive
rules and primitive radical novel and combination of ideas. This shows that the convergent creative
thinking is a supplement to the divergent creative thinking because in the case of divergent
creative thinking, it oppose many aspect to have a creative ideas. Therefore, the divergent
thinking opposed to the convergent thinking and diverse thinking is involved usually association
of the ideas changing prospective under novel approaches to permission constant to problems
in constant to convergent thinking which involves linear logical step.
Now we have to see
historical dimensions of creativity or historical creativity. As we have already seen, Boden
has made a distinction between P-creativity and H-creativity. The historical dimension
of creativity is oppose to psychological creativity because historical creativity is new to the
human history. As Boden says that a valuable idea is H- creativity if it is P-creativity
is no more, no one else in all human history have has had it before. That is H-creativity
is typically associated with the creativity in relation to the entire history of mankind.
This type of creativity is not merely psychological but also social in character. Again Boden
says that there cannot be no systematic explanation of historical creativity, no theory that explains
all and only historical creativity ideas. What Boden is trying to show that
P-creativity or psychological creativity depends on a historical creativity because by definitions
all H-creativity is P-creative ideas, but not all P-creative ideas are H-creative. The
psychological creativity or P-creativity is concerned with the individual psychology of
the person concerned, where as historical creativity is a matter of social evaluation
and collective judgment.
Following this Brannigan writes, “Such values judgments are to some extent culturally relative,
since what is valued by one person or social group may or may not be valued- praised, preserved,
promoted by another”. As we have seen in the beginning of this section, historical
creativity is offer to psychological creativity in this sense, any historical creativity is
more relative than any merely P-creativity ideas in the strict sense, we may not regard
P-creativity as creative at all. Any case, P-creativity cannot be on far with H-creative
because the later alone guarantees novelty in all the P-creative actions. Therefore,
this is about the historical creative value. Therefore, there is a strong distinction between
P-creativity and historical creativity even the historical creativity is P-creativity
because there is a particular psychology is concerned in that creativity.
Now you have to come to see, the another sections on, are there creative in machines? This section
is concerned with two ideas. The first is about the concept of humans as machines, and
concerns cognitive science. The second is about the possibility of machines, being intelligent,
and which concerned in artificial intelligence. Cognitive science try to provide the computational
model of mind that is computational stimulation of human cognitive processes. If creativity
is now take computational processes, it might still be possible to simulate it computational
just as it is possible to stimulate or he can or digestive process without the stimulation
it is being digestive process respectively. It might be possible to have machines, models
of human creativity processes even if machines themselves cannot be creative.
The main point is that simulation is not duplications nevertheless if machines cannot be creative.
The divine post behind cognitive science will be lost. Cognitive science is driven by the
field that it is cognitive processes that matter that these can be performed by silicon
computer as well as by carbon brains. It is not clear of whether cognitive science could
survive, the loss of its central metaphor of the mind as a computational device which
we have seen already.
Now, the question is: Can a machine be creative? When a machine is creating something, the
credit is not given to the analytical engine or computer, but to the engineer. This is
because the engineer already predetermines the result and here the conscious being is
there and engineer is a conscious being, but in the case of engineer is an automata. This
kind of a huge and gap as well as separate kind of explanations are there. Boden says
that the analytical engine has no pretentions, whatever to originates, anything I can do
only whatever we know how to order to perform. For example, if a program manages to play
a modern judge then the musical structure in that program must be capable of producing
those musical expressions. It does not follow that the machine playing much is creative.
The human musician create new forms of music which machine cannot, the machine providing
music according to design tool the job of mechanical.
Boden addresses the following questions regarding whether machines such as computers are creative.
These questions are: Can computers help us to understand human creativity? Could computers
do things which at least appear to be creative? Could computers appear to recognize creativity?
Can computers really be creative? According to Boden, the first question focuses on the
creativity of human beings. The next two questions are psychological. The fourth question is
a philosophical. Here Boden is concerned with the first questions to which our answer is
yes, because computers concepts and theories can help us to specify the conceptual structure
and processes in peoples mind. In response to the above four questions, she
says that computers can do things that appear to be creative, but whether we regard them
as actual creative will depend on, whether we are prepare to allow them a moral or a
intellectual respect comparable with the irrespective, we feel for all human beings. It is debatable
whether machine can be ascribed those that as of moral being at all. Boden still remains
negative. While Boden is concerned more with the way in which computers can help us to
understand human creativity, but in the case of Terry Dartnall is concerned with the fourth
questions more straight forward.
Dartnall writes, “If machines cannot be creative then I doubt there is any significant
sense in which they can be intelligent, for they will never ‘have minds of their own’.
I do mean this in the weak sense that they will always slavishly do what we tell them,
but in the strong sense that they will never be able to generate their own ideas. And I
take it as axiomatic that if they cannot generate their own ideas they cannot be intelligent”.
Therefore, creativity is related to skills and abilities and also to ideas, which are
novel and original. The ability to generate ideas and believes effectively xneil either
core of creativity. The most common reason would for us to support the claim that computers
cannot originate any thing is that linearly follow in instructions.
The first argument is like this. If X is merely following instructions, X is not being creative.
Computers only follow instruction. Therefore, computers are not being creative. In this
argument, the first frame is seems to be false. For we sometimes instruct people to be creative,
for example, teacher advises the student to be creative and not mechanical. Therefore
it is possible to be creative and still be following instruction. But the fact is that
computers are not like the students in this example. Computer merely follows instruction
and cannot make a move on their own. Everything that a computer does is something that it
was told to do. Hence, it cannot be said to be creative. The argument can be revised as
follows:
If everything that X does is something that it was told to do, then X is not creative.
Everything that a computer does is something that it was told to do. Therefore, computers
are not creative. In this argument the second premises is false, if we do not instruct the
computer in every action it they performs. If this premise were true, then we are required
to give instruction at every step. But this may not the case always. What Dartnall mean
is that the machines do not literally follow the instructions, but that the computers is
build a design to respond in a predictable way to its instructions. So, the argument
can be further reformulate as follows:
If X is designed to respond in predictable way to its instructions, then X is not creative.
Computers are designed to respond in a predictable way to their instructions. Therefore, computers
are not creative. Still, this is not a strong argument, in view of the fact that creativity
of computer cannot be denied just because respond to the instructions of the designer.
In this connection, one may appeal to Boden’s distinction between P-creativity and H-creativity.
Something is P- creative, if it is fundamental novel for the individual and it is H-creativity,
if it is fundamental novel with the respective to the whole of human history. The computer
can be claimed to be P-creativity, if they can creates something novel because they are
not H-creativity at all. But yet Dartnall’s argue that there is there no obvious reason,
why they cannot have minds of their own. The final argument that creativity is not predictable
is little more than a trick of the light. Dartnall’s argument cannot prove that computers
have creativity like human beings. Since, machine creativity is a secondary phenomena
in comparison to human creativity.
The human creativity is a fundamental fact of the intelligence. The P-creativity of the
human being is supported and strengthen by a H-creativity. Therefore, H-creativity plays
vital role in the case of human mind. In the next lectures, we will see how the human creativity
and human mind plays vital role than the machine creativity and mechanical mind. Thank you.