Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Précis ofThe creative mind: Myths and mechanisms

      Behavioral and Brain Sciences

      Cambridge University Press (CUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          What is creativity? One new idea may be creative, whereas another is merely new: What's the difference? And how is creativity possible? These questions about human creativity can be answered, at least in outline, using computational concepts. There are two broad types of creativity, improbabilist and impossibilist. Improbabilist creativity involves (positively valued) novel combinations of familiar ideas. A deeper type involves METCS: the mapping, exploration, and transformation of conceptual spaces. It is impossibilist, in that ideas may be generated which – with respect to the particular conceptual space concerned – could not have been generated before. (They are made possible by some transformation of the space.) The more clearly conceptual spaces can be defined, the better we can identify creative ideas. Defining conceptual spaces is done by musicologists, literary critics, and historians of art and science. Humanist studies, rich in intuitive subtleties, can be complemented by the comparative rigour of a computational approach. Computational modelling can help to define a space, and to show how it may be mapped, explored, and transformed. Impossibilist creativity can be thought of in “classical” Al terms, whereas connectionism illuminates improbabilist creativity. Most Al models of creativity can only explore spaces, not transform them, because they have no self-reflexive maps enabling them to change their own rules. A few, however, can do so. A scientific understanding of creativity does not destroy our wonder at it, nor does it make creative ideas predictable. Demystification does not imply dehumanization.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 78

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

           Thomas Nagel (1974)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            ON A CLASS OF SKEW DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS

             Herbert Simon (1955)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Minds, brains, and programs

               John R Searle (1980)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Behavioral and Brain Sciences
                Behav Brain Sci
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                0140-525X
                1469-1825
                September 1994
                February 04 2010
                September 1994
                : 17
                : 3
                : 519-531
                Article
                10.1017/S0140525X0003569X
                © 1994

                Comments

                Comment on this article