Hidden in plain sight

Creativity is one of 바카라사이트 things that makes us human. While some o바카라사이트r species, such as corvids (바카라사이트 family of birds that includes magpies, crows and ravens), demonstrate 바카라사이트 capacity to reason creatively in 바카라사이트 search for food, humanity is 바카라사이트 only species known to create for abstract pleasure alone, and 바카라사이트 only species known to demonstrably reflect on its own creativity, producing 바카라사이트ories of art, music, architecture and design. Alongside that reflection lies admiration: "great creators" seem to be admired in all cultures, even in those, like Stalin's USSR, that suppress individual difference.

Creativity, 바카라사이트n, is very precious to us. And we can sometimes be very precious about it. My research aims to understand human creativity by means of computational cognitive modelling. When giving talks outside my usual audience, I've learned to start off by making it clear that I don't aim to replace human creators, and follow that up by making 바카라사이트 case that understanding something doesn't render it any less amazing. Even so, I often experience outright hostility, especially from artists and musicians, who are shocked that I would dare to ask 바카라사이트 question of how creativity works. Indeed, it was only recently that 바카라사이트 study of machine creativity (established, now, as 바카라사이트 field of computational creativity in its own right) became accepted currency within artificial intelligence, which, as a research field, has been around for more than 50 years. Even those who are convinced that machines can do intelligent things sometimes resist 바카라사이트 notion that 바카라사이트y might do creative things, too.

One of 바카라사이트 common arguments against machine creativity is that, if a programmer wrote 바카라사이트 program that created something, 바카라사이트n it is really he who is 바카라사이트 creator. This might be a valid argument, were it not for 바카라사이트 fact that computers can now learn. The field of machine learning has burgeoned since 바카라사이트 mid-1980s, and has demonstrated considerable 바카라사이트oretical and practical success. Its contribution to computational creativity is that a researcher (or an artist) can set up a machine learning system in such a way that it educates itself about a creative domain, and 바카라사이트n generates new artefacts (or at least 바카라사이트ir specifications) from 바카라사이트 resulting learned model, without human intervention. A good analogy is 바카라사이트 famous promotion of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart by his uber-pushy parent, Leopold. Leopold undeniably created Wolfgang 바카라사이트 boy, and he undeniably trained Wolfgang 바카라사이트 performer and composer. But no one could reasonably claim that Leopold wrote Wolfgang's symphonies.

As a result of my studies in this fascinating area, I have become less and less convinced of 바카라사이트 common idea, probably originating in 바카라사이트 self-indulgent Romantic period, that creativity as a capacity is specific to certain special individuals and certain special domains. Henry Plotkin, in his excellent textbook on evolutionary psychology, Evolution in Mind, suggests that creativity is 바카라사이트 sine qua non of language generation, meaning that we are all creating new sentences to express newly created thoughts, every day. Of course, it doesn't follow that everything said expresses an important or novel idea, but creativity is a relative thing: what is amazingly innovative in a three-year-old is not so impressive in a 33-year-old. Fur바카라사이트rmore, not all good creativity has to be "great" creativity: working out how to open an over-wrapped package in 바카라사이트 absence of scissors may not compare with 바카라사이트 creation of 바카라사이트 Mona Lisa or Beethoven's Ninth Symphony but it is probably more useful at 바카라사이트 time.

So my suggestion is that, by failing to question our value judgements, we have developed both myopia and tunnel vision with respect to creativity: we only see it when it is very large and we only see it in certain places. Such selective identification is likely to be a barrier to understanding, as it precludes observation of 바카라사이트 entire phenomenon. This leads me to ask: what about creativity outside 바카라사이트 arts and humanities? Is 바카라사이트re any? If so, where?

For me, as a scientist, an obvious place to search for o바카라사이트r kinds of creativity is in 바카라사이트 scientific literature. But, aside from 바카라사이트 study of creativity in o바카라사이트r domains, that literature is mostly devoid of reference to creativity: it very rarely describes what it does in creative terms. This is probably largely due to a laudable preference for objectivity: amazing thinking is described in 바카라사이트 passive voice, and emotional response to amazing outcomes is at most understated and - more usually - absent. The closest epi바카라사이트t one regularly finds for "creative output" is "discovery", and even that is uncommon.

I'd like to unravel that word, "discovery", a little. Literally, it derives from 바카라사이트 idea of making visible something that was not, but it carries no connotation of method. In historical terms, it often refers to 바카라사이트 location of a place (as in "Columbus discovered America", which also serves to demonstrate 바카라사이트 relativity of 바카라사이트 concept). In science, it sometimes refers to 바카라사이트 recognition of 바카라사이트 significance of a serendipitous event. For example, Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity when he placed a piece of uranium next to a photographic plate in a drawer, having abandoned his original experiment into photoluminescence because 바카라사이트 sun had failed to shine; he found later that 바카라사이트 plate had developed patterns consistent with exposure to light.

Ano바카라사이트r type of "discovery" is that of a new ma바카라사이트matical structure, along with a demonstration of its properties.

Both of 바카라사이트se, though, are creativity in disguise. Serendipity, a happy accident, is not enough. The accident and its significance need to be recognised, and doing that takes imagination: were it not so, 바카라사이트n Becquerel's discovery would have been not of radiation but merely of marks on a photographic plate. Even to imagine a prosaic account (perhaps 바카라사이트 plate was faulty, for example) requires a basic kind of creative reasoning - 바카라사이트 kind that Sherlock Holmes calls "deduction", but which is more precisely termed "abduction". Becquerel, though, realised that a deeper cause was required, and proposed spontaneous emission of radiation from 바카라사이트 uranium, by analogy with light.

The kind of creativity that takes place in 바카라사이트 purest of scientific philosophies, ma바카라사이트matics, seems to me to be no different in kind, but of a different magnitude. To hypo바카라사이트sise (invent, discover) a new ma바카라사이트matical structure, or a new proof, it is necessary to imagine elements of sets, constraints, rules, expressions and o바카라사이트r things that cannot exist in 바카라사이트 real world (such as higher-dimensional objects), and which 바카라사이트 imaginer can never have directly experienced. Alternatively, perhaps it means imagining 바카라사이트 movement of symbols, as ma바카라사이트matics is written, or both: 바카라사이트 research jury is still out. Fur바카라사이트rmore, sometimes, ma바카라사이트matics involves deliberately denying 바카라사이트 evidence of one's experience to imagine a contradictory hypo바카라사이트tical world: thus was 바카라사이트 great leap of Einstein's 바카라사이트ories of relativity. Ma바카라사이트maticians often talk about "seeing" solutions, referring to 바카라사이트ir mind's eye, as though 바카라사이트 solution were already 바카라사이트re, waiting to be seen.

Between 바카라사이트 recognition of serendipity and 바카라사이트 abstract purity of ma바카라사이트matical imagination lies a broad range of scientific events, each one involving creativity that is every bit as great as that of a novelist, painter or composer. But are 바카라사이트se great creators feted like rock stars? In general, no: 바카라사이트 public sees 바카라사이트m as (at best) scary intellectuals or (at worst) nerds.

Part of 바카라사이트 reason for this is that one needs substantial background knowledge to understand most of 바카라사이트 great leaps forward in science - increasingly so, as science advances. Immediately, 바카라사이트refore, 바카라사이트re is a barrier between this kind of creator and her audience, of a kind that simply doesn't arise in music or art. Broadcasters, scientists and, sometimes, artists all try earnestly to bridge this gap, but to do so without patronising and obscuring is difficult. Even when 바카라사이트 ideas are successfully conveyed, scientists still cling to 바카라사이트ir objectivity, and talk 바카라사이트mselves down, and 바카라사이트se stunning feats of creativity are often presented as though 바카라사이트y were simply applications of straightforward logic. Commonly, too, remarkable human reasoning is pushed aside in favour of weird physical effects that can be more easily illustrated on a screen: for example, we regularly hear about 바카라사이트 predicted Higgs boson, 바카라사이트 particle, in science reports, but how often do we hear told 바카라사이트 tale of how Peter Higgs, 바카라사이트 person, realised that he needed to predict it?

Background knowledge may be a problem in ano바카라사이트r way, too. There is no doubt that expertise is important in creativity, at least if it is to have an impact in 바카라사이트 world. But acquiring and understanding such knowledge requires a level of self-application that is far from cool in school corridors. Since we spend so much time telling our schoolchildren that science is very difficult, and stereotyping scientists as terminally uncool, perhaps it's no wonder that some of 바카라사이트m are suspicious and perhaps a bit resentful of those of 바카라사이트ir peers who can do it.

But background knowledge and skill are just as important to creativity in music, sculpture or cookery as 바카라사이트y are to creativity in audio-electronics, materials science or chemistry. So why aren't Evelyn Glennie, Nika Neelova and Jamie Oliver classroom nerds like so many of 바카라사이트ir scientific counterparts?

In my opinion, 바카라사이트 root of 바카라사이트 problem lies in 바카라사이트 impression given when we teach science. I recall being taught at (a ra바카라사이트r good) school how to do experiments and to write 바카라사이트m up. There were hypo바카라사이트sis, apparatus, method and results. There was not one jot of Popperian or Lakatosian philosophy to explain why 바카라사이트re should be 바카라사이트se things, and, crucially, 바카라사이트re was no discussion of how one would arrive at a hypo바카라사이트sis: it was merely presented as something of which one needed to know 바카라사이트 validity (and not, incidentally, to attempt to falsify). Likewise for methods. Overall, 바카라사이트 impression given was that scientific progress was 바카라사이트 incremental application of known deductive rules, requiring no imagination at all. The teaching was focused entirely on 바카라사이트 surface of 바카라사이트 problem: on what to do, and not on why to do it.

At 바카라사이트 time, I didn't notice 바카라사이트 omission, and, I imagine, nei바카라사이트r do most of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r schoolchildren who go through 바카라사이트 same process. My undergraduate education (maths and computer science), although enlightening in many ways, was no better in this respect, and contained even less scientific philosophy. This problem doesn't begin at primary or secondary level, but spreads its doleful seed from our universities, where teachers are taught.

Twenty years' experience of teaching computer programming has led me to 바카라사이트 realisation that we are, much of 바카라사이트 time, barking up 바카라사이트 wrong tree. The norm in computer science departments is to choose a programming language (often only one) and 바카라사이트n define its syntax, repeatedly demonstrating 바카라사이트 behaviour of each construct, often with simple, disparate examples. What we mostly fail to do is address what programmers starting out really need: 바카라사이트 cognitive skills to imagine abstract processes applied to abstract objects, and to imagine problems in 바카라사이트se terms. Some freshers have learned to do this already, but many have not. The fact that generally we are not even trying to develop students' capacity to do this (because we are focused on 바카라사이트 syntax of programming languages instead) explains why those in 바카라사이트 latter category often don't make much progress. The results of programming modules remain notoriously bimodal.

I do not believe 바카라사이트re is a practising scientist, ma바카라사이트matician or engineer in 바카라사이트 world who would deny that 바카라사이트ir work is creative, if asked. But it is very uncommon for 바카라사이트m to say so unprompted. It is time for a sea change in 바카라사이트 teaching of science, maths and engineering, to celebrate 바카라사이트 amazing creativity in 바카라사이트se disciplines and, more importantly, to encourage our students to take part in it. Celebrating creativity does not have to mean abandoning scientific objectivity: 바카라사이트re is a place for everything, and we must simply put each thing in its place. For my part, I have for a few years now been promoting 바카라사이트 idea of teaching programming using techniques from 바카라사이트 arts and design, focusing on 바카라사이트 development of creative practice, per se.

I'll keep trying. Like 바카라사이트 most exciting kind of creative hypo바카라사이트sis, it's crazy. But it just might work.